The most notable discussion centered around the 1631 West 28th Street property, where the applicant sought to reduce the rear yard setback from 24 feet to 7 feet 6 inches to accommodate a paddle court. The property, which spans 20,800 square feet, is larger than neighboring lots, presenting unique challenges for construction. Despite the staff not opposing the variance, they raised concerns about potential noise and lighting disturbances to nearby residents. Conditions were attached to the approval to mitigate these impacts, including requirements for acoustic barriers, a solid perimeter wall, and specific lighting regulations to prevent light pollution. Usage of the paddle court was restricted to operating hours between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., with all lighting to be turned off outside these hours.

Tracy Slavvens, representing property owner Jamie Elias, presented the design, emphasizing its intention to maintain mature landscaping and ensure the court’s minimal visibility from the street. Slavvens detailed extensive communication with neighbors, resulting in 18 letters of support, though three neighbors remained uncontacted due to being out of town. The proposal included sound-mitigating materials and a lighting plan modeled after Indian Creek Country Club to minimize disturbances. Public comments reflected support from some neighbors, though concerns about noise and lighting persisted.

Board members discussed the importance of establishing consistent regulations for paddle courts, noting discrepancies in proposed operating hours across applications. The board highlighted the need for case-by-case evaluations while adhering to overarching regulatory frameworks, emphasizing that future requests might cite prior approvals as precedents. A board member stressed, “Each case has to go on its own merit,” acknowledging the potential influence of neighbor support on outcomes.

The meeting also addressed a variance request for a two-story home on Lucorin Avenue, highlighting issues of proportionality and residential focus. The property, characterized by its irregular shape and a history of illegal activities, prompted the applicant to propose a modern home with a paddle court. Staff expressed concerns that the paddle court’s larger footprint could overshadow the home. The applicant’s spokesperson detailed efforts to engage neighbors, resulting in 13 letters of endorsement. The board deliberated on the necessity of variances and the balance between recreational and residential uses, ultimately deciding to continue the discussion to allow further consultation between staff and the applicant.