Planning commission advises town planner that backyard turf field meets 'tennis and other game courts' definition

The Planning and Zoning Commission on June 24 reviewed a planner request for an interpretive ruling and advised the town planner that a privately installed artificial‑turf playing area on a residential lot meets the zoning definition of “tennis and other game courts” and therefore should be treated as a structure subject to yard setbacks.

Town planning staff brought the question after field work showed a previously permitted hard court had been replaced by an artificial‑turf surface that extended into required setback areas and over septic leach fields. The planner asked the commission to interpret whether that turf installation should be classified as a customary yard use, a multiuse field, or a tennis/other game court that is defined in the regulations as “a specially prepared level playing surface for tennis, basketball, paddleball, platform tennis, racquetball, or similar games.”

Attorney Michael Sweeney and property owner Luke Nickas told the commission they had relied on advice from design consultants and on a telephone discussion with planning staff before building the turf field. Sweeney asked commissioners to weigh equitable considerations given the owner’s asserted reliance on staff guidance and the expense of the work performed. “We were told it was not a structure and proceeded cautiously with professionals and a call to town hall,” Sweeney said.

Town planning staff noted the regulations’ plain language and the way courts are defined; commissioners debated whether “similar games” should be read broadly to include field sports. After discussion, the majority of commissioners indicated they would read the definition to include a specially prepared artificial‑turf surface for organized ball sports and therefore treat it as a “tennis and other game court,” which makes it a structure and subject to setback and permit rules.

Commissioners also discussed enforcement equity and whether any prior telephone guidance from staff would bind the town; staff said telephone guidance is not normally a formal waiver and that enforcement issues and any claimed estoppel would properly be reviewed if the property owner sought judicial relief or the Zoning Board of Appeals. The town planner noted the commission’s interpretation is advisory to staff; the planner will decide whether to issue a notice of violation and, if issued, the property owner could appeal to the ZBA.

The commission’s advisory finding means the turf installation is not a customary incidental yard use and that setbacks applicable to courts/structures will apply. Commissioners recommended the planner pursue a clear enforcement path and reminded staff the town is updating ambiguous definitions in the zoning regulations.