Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning Board of Appeals continues hearing on variance for sports court at 5804 S. Garfield
Summary
The Hinsdale Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously June 18 to continue a public hearing on a variance request for a sports court at 5804 South Garfield Street after board members and staff raised concerns about neighbor notifications and requested additional drawings and information.
The Hinsdale Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously on June 18 to continue the public hearing on a variance request for a sports court at 5804 South Garfield Street until the board's third Wednesday meeting in July to allow more time for neighbor notification and additional materials to be provided.
The continuation was prompted by concerns that some neighbors had not received notices and by recent email comments that arrived after the meeting packet was finalized. Chairman Gilpin said the delay would let the applicants and staff ensure all interested parties have notice and an opportunity to attend and review any new submissions.
Board members and staff discussed the narrow focus of the variance: the request is for relief from the required setback to permit the proposed location of the sports court on the lot, not for permission to install a court in general. A board member clarified that property owners retain the right to install a sports court but that the variance addresses how close the court could be placed to fences and neighboring property lines. The board noted that a code-compliant location could require removal of a fire pit, and possibly one tree on the right side of the lot, depending on the final siting.
Staff said recent emails commenting on the proposal were not included in the original packet because they arrived too late, and the applicants had not yet been copied on two specific emails. The board said it would provide applicants access to those communications before the continued hearing; staff offered to assist with any formal records requests if needed. Several members recommended that applicants contact neighbors who submitted comments to try to resolve misunderstandings ahead of the next hearing.
Board members also raised questions about lighting and nighttime use; an applicant representative (not named in the transcript) indicated the proposal is for a single hoop rather than a lit, full court. The board asked for a drawing or rendering showing the proposed court location on a plat so members and the public can see the relationship to trees, the house, and fences at the continued hearing.
The motion to continue the public hearing passed on roll call with all members present voting yes. The board did not take any additional action on the variance at the June 18 meeting.
