Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Text Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Matthews staff open hearing on allowing indoor racket-sports uses in light industrial zones
Summary
Town staff opened a public hearing on a text amendment to allow tennis and other racket-sports facilities in the I1 (light industrial) zoning district; planning staff and the applicant said the change would add indoor recreation uses, while commissioners asked staff to limit approvals to indoor courts and to carry over buffering and nighttime-activity protections used elsewhere in the UDO.
Matthews planning staff opened a public hearing June 8 on a proposed text amendment (2026-818) to the town’s Unified Development Ordinance to add tennis and racket clubs, commercial indoor tennis/racket courts and "indoor commercial recreation not otherwise listed" as permitted uses in the I1 (light industrial) district.
Planner Rob Will told the board the requested uses mirror defined recreation categories already in the UDO and noted that the Planning Board unanimously recommended approval. Mr. Will said environmental review recommended separation between indoor recreation and hazardous-chemical storage, although staff noted hazardous chemical storage is not a permitted use in I1.
Applicant counsel Aaron Hal told the board the request simply would add those defined uses to the I1 table of uses and said, "the applicant doesn't care about the outdoor uses." He added the applicant would comply with existing parking and site requirements if the text amendment is approved.
Commissioners asked questions about potential noise and adjacency to residential neighborhoods. Commissioner John Urban said outdoor racket facilities raised a particular concern, noting, "pickle ball is very noisy as well," and asked staff to show residential zoning next to I1 parcels on the map. Commissioner Carrie Lamson urged that any I1 allowance carry over the same safeguards that apply to other recreational uses — including 100-foot setbacks, significant buffering and limits on nighttime activity — and suggested staff link those provisions into any new use.
Staff said it could draft an indoor-only variant if the board preferred to remove outdoor courts from the request and would return revised language when the item comes back for decision. The public hearing was closed with direction that the board will receive a decision at a future meeting (item will return July 13).
