Hinsdale Zoning Board schedules hearing on variance for backyard sports court at 5804 S. Garfield

A Petrona family representative (resident and applicant) asked the Hinsdale Zoning Board of Appeals on May 21, 2025, to schedule a public hearing on a variance to build a half-court sports court at 5804 South Garfield that would also convert for pickleball and tennis use.

The Petrona family representative said they had “discovered that we have some setback requirements” that prompted the request and described the project as a children’s recreational court, adding, “Aiden's dream to be an NBA basketball player. So we gotta help him, see that that dream comes true.” The board set the application for a public hearing next month and asked the applicants to supply additional information before that hearing.

Board members and staff focused on neighbour notification, screening and site layout. Gary (speaker) noted the mailing radius requirement, saying, “you're supposed to notify people within 250 linear feet.” Tim (staff member) described the notice and review process: after the meeting the office will run a 250-foot radius, the applicant will mail the certification packets and return receipts to the village, and notices to properties within that radius will go out so neighbors can comment at the public hearing or by phone or email.

Members also flagged the scale of the requested setback reduction. One member observed that “the '25 foot reduction is, at least in percentage terms, a 71% reduction,” and said the applicants should be prepared at the public hearing to explain why such a large reduction meets the standards for a variance.

Site constraints the board asked the applicants to document include an existing row of large trees and a nearby fire pit. The applicants said two approximately 70-year-old trees sit near the proposed location and that moving the court east to reduce the variance would likely require removing those trees. The board requested photos and a survey showing tree locations, the proposed court footprint and its distance from the fire pit.

Board members and staff discussed screening and fencing. Tim (staff member) said an existing 6-foot association fence on the Woodmere side would be counted as screening and that the village’s fence rules constrain what the applicant may add: “with the Garfield being the front yard and Windmere being the secondary front, under the fence ordinance, you're only allowed a 4 foot tall 1/3 open fence,” he said, and added the agreed approach would be to use plantings (Arborvitae) on two sides plus the existing association fence to meet screening needs.

Questions about lighting and nuisance standards came up as well. Tim explained village limits for residential recreational lighting: “for residential recreational facilities, there's a 15 foot maximum height restriction to the top of the light fixture itself. And then the light fixture has to meet the setback requirements of the sport court. So it's 10 foot from the side property line and from the rear property line. And then there's also the caveat in regards to you cannot have more than 1 half a foot candle measured at the property line through a light meter.” Board members noted that if the family later sought to add lighting, they would need electrical permits and the fixtures would have to comply with those requirements.

The board and staff also discussed whether the fence along the adjoining street is owned by the Woodmere Homeowners Association; Tim said the fence appears to be association-owned and that the association previously installed it as a privacy screen. The applicants confirmed the association fence runs along part of their lot and that they do not currently plan to add lighting or otherwise extend hours of use. The applicants said they had not yet contacted neighbors across the association road informally; the board suggested door-to-door outreach in addition to the mailed notices to help defuse potential concerns.

Next steps the board set for the applicants included supplying photos showing the trees, a measured distance between the proposed court and the fire pit, a marked plat or survey showing tree locations and the proposed footprint, and evidence of mailing the required notices. The board scheduled the formal public hearing for the variance application at its next meeting; no formal vote on the variance was taken at the May 21 meeting.

The board emphasized applicants should be prepared at the public hearing to address the variance standards and neighborhood impacts, including noise, lighting, screening and alternatives that would reduce the magnitude of the setback reduction.