Board continues West side sports‑court dispute as neighbors seek solution

The Maricopa County Board of Adjustment on a 3–0 vote continued a variance hearing for a private sports court at APN 30487056B after neighbors raised noise, safety and line‑drive concerns and the board requested additional discussions between the parties before deciding.

Staff presented that the unpermitted court, built without a permit, encroaches into the required 20‑foot setback: the applicant requested a 4‑foot side setback where 20 feet is required and a 3‑foot front setback where 20 feet is required. Staff said there was an active code violation and that a neighbor to the west submitted a written objection after the staff report was published.

Applicant David Wylie said he and his wife bought the home with the sports court already in place and removed light fixtures that were troubling a neighbor. He said the court and attached netting were part of the property when they purchased and that their family uses it for gatherings. Neighbor Anteray (Terry) Beebe, who lives immediately to the west, told the board she had filed the code complaint in February and described repeated balls entering her yard and pool, safety concerns for children and pets, and continuing disturbance. She said some concrete bases and hardware for the prior light poles remain on site and questioned whether height and other accessories were covered by the variance request.

Board members and staff discussed technical requirements: sports courts require greater setbacks because of fencing and associated structures; lighting and fences for sports courts can be permitted up to 20 feet. Members pressed the applicant to consider containment options (fencing or a higher containment system), equipment relocation and time‑of‑use limits. The applicant offered to remove basketball equipment or the netting and said he would be cooperative.

Chairman Loper and members urged the parties to attempt neighborly solutions and asked staff to work with both sides on containment options and operating hours before the next hearing. Member Clapp moved to continue the case to the next Board of Adjustment meeting in August; Member Ward seconded and the board voted 3–0 for a continuance to allow the neighbors to pursue mitigation and report back.

The continuance leaves the code violation and permit review open while giving both sides time to seek practical containment and scheduling arrangements that may reduce or eliminate the need for a variance.