Hinsdale ZBA votes to continue hearing on 5804 S. Garfield sports‑court setback after notification concerns

On June 18, 2025, the Hinsdale Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously voted to continue a public hearing on variance V‑01‑25 for 5804 South Garfield Street until the board's July meeting after learning some neighbors had not been notified of the application.

The continuance was proposed by the presiding chair, who said the board wanted to “make sure everyone has an opportunity to be aware of the public hearing and to have an opportunity to attend.” The motion to continue was moved and seconded and carried on a roll‑call vote with all members present voting yes.

The variance request concerns relief from the required setback to allow construction of an on‑lot sports court. Board members and staff clarified that the variance is about the court’s location on the lot, not whether a sports court may be built at all. As the chair summarized, property owners may construct a sports court but must meet setback rules or seek a variance for a different location.

During discussion, board members and staff said some neighbor objections received by email arrived after packet deadlines and had not been included in the meeting packet. The board noted that the emails are public records and discussed options for making them available to the applicant; staff said they would check whether the applicants need to file a Freedom of Information Act request and would help get the material to them if necessary.

Board members also noted site impacts that could follow if the court is sited in a code‑compliant location, including removal of at least one tree and elimination of an existing fire pit, and requested a drawing or rendering showing the proposed court on a lot plat. The board and staff said that information should be available before the continued hearing.

Members discussed other neighbor concerns raised in the email record, including nighttime lighting; the board observed that the application under discussion did not propose lighting and suggested the applicant clarify whether lights are planned at the resumed hearing. A board member advised the applicant to contact neighbors who submitted comments before the next meeting to try to resolve misunderstandings.

The roll call on the motion to continue recorded votes of yes from Member Moberly, Member O'Brien, Member Nieman, Member Murphy, Member Lee, Member Padliska and the presiding chair. The board scheduled the continued public hearing for the third Wednesday in July.

The board also asked staff to ensure distribution lists and public‑notice processes are working and encouraged applicants to provide the requested site drawing ahead of the continued hearing so the public record includes the diagram.