Neighbor opposition, safety concerns prompt continuation of Wylie pickleball/basketball court case

The Board of Adjustment continued a contested variance request for a private sports court (BA250033) after pointed public comment from the adjacent homeowner and a lengthy staff presentation. The panel voted 3-0 to continue the case to the next Board meeting in August to allow the applicant, the neighboring property owner and staff to explore containment and mitigation options.

Planner Nick (staff) told the board the court was constructed without permits and is the subject of an active code violation opened after a citizen complaint in February. Staff noted the R4 zoning district requires a minimum 20-foot setback for sports courts; the existing construction sits as close as 4 feet from a property line in one direction and 3 feet at a front-yard location because the lot has legal access on two sides. Staff also said it had received a written notice of opposition from the neighbor to the west.

The adjacent neighbor, Ancheray Beebe, told the board she and her family have experienced "numerous pickle balls and basketballs flying into our yard" and said the proximity posed "inherent safety risks" to her household and pets. Beebe said the previous owner knew of the problems and that the new owners had been told of them; she said the board's staff report understated the degree of neighborhood impact. She also told the board that although pole-mounted lights were removed, concrete footings and some hardware remained and that a net attached beneath a backboard was hanging and ineffective.

Property owner David Wylie said he and his wife recently purchased the home and the court was a principal reason they bought the property. Wylie said the lights had been removed after discussions with neighbors and that the new owners had not been aware of the extent of the neighbor's issues. "I'll be happy to take the net down if that is displeasing to you," Wylie told the board.

Board members questioned whether partial measures such as taller or more robust perimeter screening, netting designed for pickleball, reorientation of the court, moving basketball standards and limiting times of use could reduce disruption. Chairman Loper and other members noted that fences and nets can keep balls contained but will not eliminate noise; members suggested the applicant and neighbor try to negotiate an interim agreement on hours of use, containment (for example higher or denser netting) and the location of basketball equipment before the next hearing.

Member Clapp moved to continue the case to the next available August date; Member Ward seconded. The board unanimously approved the continuance and asked staff to work with the applicant and the neighbor to develop mitigation measures for the August hearing. The staff summary included the staff recommendation that, if the board found the applicant met the statutory test, a variance would memorialize a 4-foot setback on one side and a 3-foot frontage setback on another side for APN 30487056B; staff also emphasized that those dimensions resulted from the existing, unpermitted construction.

The continued hearing gives staff time to analyze containment options, fence or screen designs, lighting mitigation and possible scheduling restrictions that could be proposed to the board when the item returns.