Maricopa County Board of Adjustment denies variance for private pickleball court in Gilbert

The Maricopa County Board of Adjustment voted 3-0 to deny a variance request for a private pickleball court at 16832 East Hazeltine Way in the Gilbert area, rejecting the owner's request to reduce required setbacks from lot lines.

The decision affects case BA250033, continued from a prior meeting. Staff described the request as two court-specific setback variances in the R-4 zoning district: a 12-foot setback from the north lot line (where 20 feet is required) and a separate request to allow a 3-foot front setback from the north property line. The board heard testimony from the property owner, David Wiley, and an adjacent neighbor, Anturey Beebe, before moving to deny the case.

The variance request would have formally established a 12-foot court setback from the north lot line for parcel APM30487056B and a 3-foot front setback along the north property line. Planning staff told the board that measuring setbacks from pickleball court baselines (the white court markings) is their interpretation of the ordinance; the zoning code does not expressly define how to measure setbacks for pickleball. Staff also said the owner removed a west-side basketball hoop after the prior hearing, and that the owner told staff he could shift the court about 5 feet east to avoid a west-side variance.

Owner David Wiley, who identified himself during the public hearing, described steps he said he had taken to reduce impacts, including removing lights and basketball equipment and installing collapsible poles to hold a tightly woven golf net. “I am concerned about safety for all of us in the neighborhood,” Wiley said. He told the board he could move the court markings or otherwise comply if necessary.

Neighbor Anturey Beebe opposed the variance, saying the homeowners did not meaningfully coordinate with adjacent residents after the prior hearing and that previous activity already had produced a ball landed in the neighbor's yard. “All we're trying to do is request that you please just hold uphold the zoning ordinance the way it's written,” Beebe said, urging the board to deny the request and leave enforcement of play and equipment to private remedies if problems continued.

Board members discussed technical alternatives and limits to county enforcement. Planning staff and board members explained that a vehicular nonaccess easement (VNAE) applied to one frontage of a through lot can change which yard is treated as a front or rear yard under the ordinance; a VNAE on the north frontage could change required setbacks. Staff clarified, however, that county authority extends only to the location of the court itself and any permitted setbacks, not where players stand or where a ball may land during play.

Vice Chair Persson moved to deny case BA250033; Member Ward seconded. The roll-call vote was Member Ward — yes; Vice Chair Persson — yes; Chairman Loper — yes. The motion to deny carried 3-0 and the board closed the item without granting the requested variances.

The board and speakers noted the possibility the owner could reconfigure the court to meet ordinance setbacks without a variance. Planning staff also included in the record a neighbor opposition letter received after the prior hearing. The board encouraged the parties to resolve outstanding neighbor concerns outside of formal enforcement proceedings.

The denial means the county did not authorize the reduced setbacks described in the application. Any future changes to the court layout that comply with the zoning ordinance would not require the variance denied today; enforcement of play behavior or equipment beyond location of the court remains a private civil matter or subject to other authorities, not county setback enforcement.