Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission defers decision on appeal of Lagor Country Club paddle courts, asks parties to negotiate
Summary
The commission heard competing legal arguments over the DRB's approval of four new paddle courts at Lagor Country Club near a historic home; commissioners sent the case back for mediation and deferred action to May 20 after neighbors argued setbacks, lighting and noise had not been analyzed adequately.
A contested design‑review appeal over four proposed paddle courts at the Lagor Country Club dominated the afternoon session, ending in a month‑long deferral so the club and its neighbor can seek a mediated resolution.
Appellant attorney Ralph Brooks argued the DRB's approval violated the code because paddle courts are not listed as an allowed accessory use in the GC (golf course) zone, the new courts would sit as close as 20 feet from an adjacent historic home and the board lacked competent evidence on noise, lighting and buffering. "A paddle court is a structure — you play off the walls — it27s not a tennis court," Brooks told commissioners, arguing the code requires larger setbacks and greater review.
Respondents and DRB counsel urged the commission to affirm the DRB decision. City briefing said the planning director had already determined the accessory recreational use is consistent with the golf‑course zoning and the DRB applied the city's design criteria, attaching conditions requiring screening, specified hours and a lighting plan at building permit stage. Assistant city attorney Justin Alexander also said required public notice (mailed, posted and published) complied with the resiliency code.
Why the commission deferred: Commissioners and counsel debated the standard of review for appeals — whether the DRB had followed procedural requirements, applied correct law, and relied on competent substantial evidence. Because the DRB addressed siting and buffering but the neighbor disputes whether the record had sufficient noise/lighting data, commissioners voted to defer to May 20 and invited the parties to attempt mediation. If no mediated outcome is reached, the commission will again consider whether to uphold, modify or remand the DRB order.
Quote: "The DRB applied design criteria, but neighbors say they did not have enough concrete evidence about light and noise levels to inform a fair decision," one commissioner said as the panel voted to delay.
Next step: The commission put the item on the May 20 agenda to report whether the neighbor and the country club have reached an agreement; if not, the commission may vote on the merits then.
