The proposal, submitted by Clint Gishi on behalf of Press Landing, LLC, aimed to establish an outdoor recreational facility within a homeowners association property. Gishi argued that the court would offer a valuable recreational outlet akin to basketball courts common in residential areas. However, staff findings presented by Caleb McCarty, a certified planner and planning manager, highlighted significant compatibility issues. McCarty emphasized the potential noise generated by the court, which he deemed incompatible with the residential nature of the area. He noted that while mitigation measures like sound-reducing walls could be implemented, the fundamental concerns remained.

Staff’s analysis underscored the limitations of the commercial zoning district, which typically confines operations to buildings to prevent disturbances to neighboring properties. The concerns extended to the proximity of the proposed court to single-family homes, with the northern edge of the court sitting approximately two feet from property lines. This closeness was described by one board member as “almost like in somebody’s backyard,” illustrating the unease among board members and staff over the court’s placement.

Public comment further amplified these concerns, with numerous residents voicing opposition to the court. Brian Nelson, a Warrington resident, acknowledged the court’s attractiveness but questioned its necessity given existing recreational opportunities in the area. Cheryl Poock doubted the efficacy of proposed sound barriers, citing concerns about sound reflection off nearby structures. Other residents like Lorie Cooper and Kimberly Keeler expressed apprehensions about noise and disturbances, with Keeler emphasizing the court’s proximity to her property.

The discussion also touched on safety issues related to the court’s location next to an alleyway. Concerns were raised about potential safety threats, including assaults or other activities occurring unnoticed. The proposal to vacate the alleyway was briefly mentioned but not seriously considered.

The board’s deliberations culminated in a motion to deny the request, aligning with staff recommendations and community sentiment. One board member remarked on the importance of providing positive activities for children but ultimately agreed that the proposed location was unsuitable. The motion to deny was carried unanimously, with board members expressing a consensus regarding the incompatibility of the pickleball court with the existing neighborhood environment.