Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Playing Courts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
East Hampton ZBA hears appeal over whether mini instruction courts qualify as ‘playing courts’
Summary
At a June 2 Zoning Board of Appeals hearing, the owner of Hampton Racket appealed a January 2026 building inspector determination that mini camp, pickleball and padel courts meet the town code definition of “playing courts,” a classification that could increase the site’s counted courts and trigger additional review. The board left the record open for more documents through June 23.
A hearing on June 2 before the East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals focused on whether small instructional courts at Hampton Racket should be counted as formal “playing courts” under the town zoning code, a designation that affects allowable court density, parking and required approvals.
Attorney Tiffany Scarado, representing Green Hollow Real Estate (Hampton Racket), told the board the dispute is “narrow” and procedural: the question is whether a planning‑department staff request for a building‑inspector interpretation improperly reopens approvals that the town issued, defended in litigation and that the owner relied upon. Scarado said the small courts—described in past filings as “mini camp courts”—were built for youth instruction and predate the rise of pickleball. “This appeal is not about whether pickle ball courts are playing courts,” she said; rather, she argued the building inspector’s determination was not properly authorized and is being used to relitigate settled matters.
Several community speakers backed the applicant. Loretta Davis, community outreach director for Project Most, described decades of free and reduced‑cost lessons and scholarships run in partnership with Hampton Racket. Local resident Chris Carney recounted the club’s charitable work and support for youth programs. Former camper Merritt Bishamage testified that the smaller courts were essential instructional tools for very young children.
Richard Normmo, the town’s principal building inspector, said he issued the January 24, 2026 determination after a planning‑department request and a review of the zoning definition of “playing courts.” Reading the code, Normmo said the town’s definition covers sports structures with playing surfaces of 375 square feet or more and specifically lists tennis and similar courts; the building department concluded mini camp courts, padel and pickleball courts meet that threshold and “have the same intended purpose and intent as other playing courts.”
Sarah Lewis of the planning department told the board that each mini court is roughly 1,000 square feet and that applying the interpretation yields an aerial‑based count of about 18 courts on the property. Lewis argued the interpretation lets the town evaluate parking, circulation and neighborhood impacts under established special‑permit and density rules; she said the 2018 approval did not explicitly show the current mini court configuration on the site plans and therefore the planning department asked the building inspector for clarification.
Opponents and neighbor counsel argued the planning department’s review was appropriate and that a staff request for clarification was a normal practice when site conditions or revised plans raise questions. Attorney Deborah Churron, representing neighbor Gregory Gordon, pointed to prior litigation and to aerial images that the office has previously submitted showing court configurations that exceed what the certificate of occupancy authorized.
After questioning and requests for additional documents by the board, members voted to leave the record open to June 23 so the applicant and other parties could submit further portions of the litigation and planning files and any additional evidence. The hearing will reconvene after the additional materials are filed.
