Poquoson council postpones vote on Rochambeau driveway pickleball court after heated neighborhood debate

Poquoson City Council postponed a decision on a conditional use permit for a private pickleball court after neighbors, the planning commission and the applicant presented sharply different views about noise, zoning and property impacts.

“Allow us to pour a slab of concrete in an obscure spot to the side of our driveway to play pickleball with family and friends,” said Greg Shaw, the applicant, identifying the request in the simplest terms. Shaw told the council he believed his property’s layout — obscured from the public street and neighboring lots — merited treatment like a private backyard rather than a front-yard use.

Several adjacent neighbors, including Robert Small speaking on behalf of his mother and another neighbor, urged the council to deny the permit. “The pickleball court at the end of Rochambeau Drive will ruin that quietness,” Small said, describing the dead-end residential street as “extremely quiet” and arguing that a regulation-size, lighted court would be a dissimilar use in the RS single-family district.

Small told the council the planning commission had reviewed the application twice and voted unanimously not to approve it. He also cited evidence he said showed potential property-value impacts and warned that court noise would be a persistent nuisance even if sound-dampening measures were attempted.

The council’s public discussion acknowledged the planning commission’s work and the complexity of weighing recreational demand against neighborhood character. Councilman Southall moved to postpone the vote and schedule an open work session in July with a follow-up council vote in August; the motion carried unanimously.

“We feel like we need some more time to address these concerns,” Mayor Hux said when explaining the council’s decision to seek more public discussion rather than vote at the meeting.

Council members asked for additional materials ahead of the work session, including comparative information on noise measurements, property-value studies and other jurisdictions’ approaches to private, front-yard courts. Mr. Small said he would provide documentation he cited about property-value impacts; Shaw urged fair treatment of his parcel given its unusual layout.

The planning commission’s recommendation and two unanimous votes against approval were cited repeatedly during public comment. The council did not take final action and instead set a public work session in July to consider the issues together before returning to a vote at a later meeting.

No ordinance or permit was approved at the meeting.