Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pickleball Accessory Structure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board closes hearing on private enclosed pickleball court at 270 Canton Street; applicants to seek zoning variances
Summary
Architects and the property owners presented plans for a private enclosed 2,750 sq ft pickleball building set back from neighbors with mitigation measures (enclosed lighting, downcast fixtures, heavy insulation, and solar roof). The board closed the public hearing and referred the applicants to the Zoning Board for three variances.
The Bedford Planning Board closed the public hearing for a proposed enclosed pickleball building at 270 Canton Street after the applicant described site plans and neighbors offered no opposition in person or on Zoom.
Architect Bill Spade of Sasaki Spade Architects told the board the footprint would be roughly 2,750 square feet and the structure’s peak roof heights are about 21 feet (main gable) and up to about 27 feet on a shed roof element depending on grade. Spade said the main floor would align with the adjacent garage level, the building would require excavation at the rear and fill at the front to balance grades, and about 14 trees inside the disturbance area would be removed but the team intends to retain mature perimeter vegetation.
Spade emphasized energy performance: “the exterior walls would be generally about 12 inches thick with close to an r 50 insulation value…even triple pane windows,” and said the south roof pitch was designed for solar panels. He also confirmed there would be no bathrooms and that the structure is intended for the owners and their guests, not for public commercial use.
Board members asked about noise and lighting mitigation. Spade said enclosing the court and placing lights as downlighting in the ceiling would contain sound and avoid significant light spill: “the lights are gonna be up in the ceiling, pointing down.” The applicant also committed to downcast exterior fixtures by doors and to follow town night‑sky requirements.
Because the proposed footprint and height exceed accessory‑building thresholds and exceed allowable development coverage, Spade said the project will require three zoning variances (two side‑yard setbacks and building/development coverage) and that the team hopes to appear before the Zoning Board on September 3. The planning board closed the hearing and referred the applicant to the Zoning Board; the board indicated it will review the site‑plan and stormwater details once those materials are complete.
The hearing was closed by motion and voice vote with no recorded oppositions. The applicant will return with site‑plan engineering, completed stormwater design and the result of the Zoning Board’s variance decisions before the planning board considers final approvals.
