Burr Ridge board remands FAR variance request for 602 Ambrian Drive to planning commission

The Village of Burr Ridge board voted 3–2 on March 23 to remand a zoning petition from homeowner Ravinder Sethi to the planning commission for further consideration. The petition seeks a variance to raise the allowable floor-area-ratio (FAR) for 602 Ambrian Drive from 0.20 to 0.25; staff said the proposed home would total about 6,216 square feet, exceeding the permitted square footage by roughly 1,216.

The petitioner's attorney, Sarah Rusche of Lavelle Law, told trustees the firm was retained after the plan commission hearing and that additional evidence — including topographic analysis, slope and setback calculations, and survey details — was not presented at the earlier hearing. "We reviewed everything, and we have found that there are certainly valid arguments and facts to present related to the hardship that this property would face from strict application of the FAR," Rusche said, asking the board to remand the application so those materials can be considered.

Janine, the planning staff member, told the board the plan commission held a public hearing March 2 and recommended denial by a 5–2 vote because the commission concluded the petitioner had not demonstrated a hardship tied to the land. She said some of the topography and walkout-basement issues were only briefly mentioned at the planning commission meeting.

Architect Sean Purnell, who described the requested increase as "approximately 1,200 square feet," said the design was intended to provide an intergenerational bedroom suite without dramatically changing the massing. The petitioner's representative, Andrew Roberts, said foundation work was performed to repair a water leak and that stop-work orders were related to those repairs; he said the concrete pour occurred while crews were addressing imminent heavy rain.

Trustees debated two central concerns: the risk of creating a village-wide precedent by approving a 25% FAR increase and the fact that work on the property proceeded without an approved building permit and resulted in two stop-work orders. One trustee opposed remanding the petition, saying, "when I see that we have residents doing work on their property without permanent work, not 1, but 2 stop work orders, I have no interest in pushing this back to the planning commission." Another trustee said the petitioner had a right to a full hearing and that the additional evidence ought to be considered.

After discussion, Trustee (speaker 11) moved to remand the petition to the planning commission; Commissioner Broline seconded the motion. On roll call the motion carried 3–2. The board told the petitioner that another stop-work order in the interim would draw heightened scrutiny, and staff requested detailed documentation of the foundation repair and a clear timeline if the petition returns to the planning commission.

What happens next: The case will return to the planning commission for a new hearing at which the petitioner and counsel may present the additional evidence. The board did not reverse the plan commission's decision; it authorized remand so the planning commission can reconsider the matter with the new materials.