Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise And Recreation Courts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Melbourne Beach planning board seeks more data on private pickleball courts and noise
Summary
At its April 8 meeting the Melbourne Beach Planning and Zoning Board discussed a neighbor complaint about noise from private pickleball play, reviewed a 2016 denial of a tennis-court proposal, noted a 65-decibel enforcement threshold and directed staff to gather further information and contact a neighboring town planner.
The Planning and Zoning Board of the Town of Melbourne Beach on April 8 asked staff to gather background information about private pickleball and other backyard courts after hearing from members who described a resident complaint about noise.
Board members discussed the history of a 2016 denial of a private tennis court, town noise limits and enforcement tools, and possible next steps including neighbor outreach and sound measurements. The board voted to have the town manager contact an outside planner for background on how other communities have handled similar requests and to pursue additional fact‑finding.
Board members said the complaint presented a narrow data point and several urged staff to solicit broader input from neighbors rather than having an individual board member contact households. Members also noted that the town recently codified a noise ordinance and that the police department now has equipment and training to measure sound levels under the local threshold.
Board discussion stressed three factual items the board wanted clarified before any ordinance change: (1) the legal and zoning history from the 2016 denial; (2) how the town’s newly codified noise ordinance (65 decibels was cited as the enforcement threshold) would apply to private courts; and (3) community sentiment beyond the single complainant. Members also raised the technical difference between permanent, dedicated courts and portable play in driveways and noted that permanently built courts would affect impervious-surface calculations.
Planning staff read language from the 2016 zoning review, saying that the prior tennis-court proposal had been denied because it would create zoning nonconformities, would not comply with accessory‑use provisions and — as a separate parcel — would be a principal use not allowed in the district; the review also referenced the town’s comprehensive plan aim to preserve the character of residential neighborhoods.
No change to the code was adopted. The board’s formal action was a motion — seconded and approved by voice vote — directing the town manager to reach out to a referenced town planner for background and to pursue additional information and community input so the board can assess options.
Next steps the board identified were: staff outreach to neighbors for comment, use of police sound‑metering when complaints are active, and compilation of precedent and zoning history for a future discussion or public hearing.
