At its Jan. 22 special meeting the Planning Board opened discussion on a zoning‑bylaw article that would restrict or prohibit pickleball courts. The article was introduced by planning staff as a starting point for community discussion; staff said the version in the warrant is intentionally restrictive so Town Meeting and the board can consider less‑restrictive alternatives.

Why it matters: neighbors have raised frequent complaints about the sound profile and frequency of play for pickleball courts. Multiple commenters told the board the characteristic high‑frequency paddle hits (several public commenters and an acoustical consultant cited roughly 1.2 kHz) have an outsized nuisance effect compared with other court sports.

Presentations and applicant concerns: staff explained that existing zoning treats “game courts” as accessory uses and that there are currently no district‑specific prohibitions or required noise‑mitigation measures for private courts. Historic District Commission (HDC) reviewers have received contested applications for courts; neighbors have turned to HDC when external design/visibility issues arise but HDC does not regulate all noise impacts.

Public input: dozens of residents and several board members described neighborhood examples. Speakers included neighbors who reported a proposed court sited within 50 feet of an abutting house on a long narrow lot; HDC members and residents urged mitigation rather than an outright ban. Comments called for options including: (a) a flat prohibition in high‑density residential districts; (b) a special‑permit path with mandatory buffering, acoustical mitigation (panels, landscaping, enclosures), and time limits; (c) defining sport courts generically so applicants cannot label a court a “tennis court” while using it primarily for pickleball.

Board direction: after wide public comment the board concluded the January discussion but did not adopt an approach. Members generally favored further study and outreach and suggested staff draft alternatives: a district‑based prohibition, special‑permit standards, model mitigation measures (sound‑deadening barriers or enclosures, setback minimums), and suggested referral paths (HDC review plus ZBA/special permit). The board voted to continue the discussion to the Feb. 6 meeting to allow staff time to craft options for public consideration.

What was not decided: the board made no recommendation to Town Meeting on Jan. 22. Staff will return with draft language and recommended findings and conditions for the board to review in February.

Technical notes: commenters and board members referenced an acoustical study and national guidance; mechanisms under consideration include decibel limits, frequency analysis, setback distances, landscaping, and enclosures; staff also noted enforcement could fall to public‑safety noise enforcement if a court is built without zoning approval.