Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Setback topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Hinsdale ZBA approves setback variance for three homes at 501–507 South County Line

6401082 · September 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Hinsdale Zoning Board of Appeals approved a variance to reduce the front-yard setback to 100 feet for parcels at 501, 505 and 507 South County Line, allowing three single-family homes to be built with front yards consistent with neighboring properties.

The Hinsdale Zoning Board of Appeals on Sept. 17 approved a variance (B-02-2025) allowing a 100-foot front-yard setback for proposed homes at 501, 505 and 507 South County Line, deviating from a larger existing setback established by a prior estate home.

The variance will permit three homes to be built on the subject parcels with front yards aligned more closely to the streetscape north of Woodside Avenue, rather than the deeper setback left by the recently demolished estate home, the applicant's representative said.

John Green, a civil engineer and president of Engineering Resource Associates, told the board the property is unique because a single large estate home historically occupied the footprint of multiple platted lots and therefore skewed the block-average setback. "The village of Hinsdale has an ordinance that averages all of the homes on the block to establish the front yard setback," Green said. He said applying that averaging here produces a setback that does not reflect the intended streetscape once the parcel is developed as three homes.

Green said the applicants asked for a 100-foot setback so the three new houses would have balanced front and rear yards comparable to surrounding properties. He presented exhibits showing an approximate 103-foot average setback on homes north of Woodside Avenue, an approximately 68-foot average to the south, and an overall three-block average near 92 feet. He said the existing estate home had been oriented such that, if rebuilt today, it would have to be shifted about 30 to 35 feet closer to County Line Road.

A representative for the applicants addressed the board's concern that the condition might be self-created by the current owner. "We're not subdividing the property. The lots exist," the representative said, explaining that the applicant acquired the property with the existing physical condition and seeks the variation to permit development consistent with neighboring yards.

Board members asked whether the condition was self-created by the current owner’s plan to develop three lots. One member said the division into three buildable lots was a reason for skepticism, saying, "To my mind that is self created. But for your dividing it up into 3 lots, we wouldn't be here." The applicant's representative replied that the zoning lots of record already exist and that the unusually deep setback predated the applicant.

Several members said the application met the standards for a variance, including that the variance would provide usable rear yards and balanced lot layouts. One member cited the application materials and said the requested relief would allow the house footprints to provide "consistent usable backyard areas and front yards consistent with those in the vicinity." Another member noted that the board's decision in this unique situation would not set a binding precedent for other properties.

After discussion, a motion to approve the variance was made, seconded and approved by roll call. The board voted unanimously in favor.

Votes at a glance: Motion to approve variance B-02-2025 for 501, 505 and 507 South County Line — approved (roll call: Member Moberly, Member O'Brien, Member Neiman, Member Murphy, Member Lee, Member Padliska, Chairman Geltner — all "Yes").

The board closed the public hearing after the applicant's presentation and a brief round of questions; no other members of the public spoke on the item. The board moved on to routine business after the vote.