On Monday, the Chilmark Planning Board held the first public hearing for its proposed bylaw amendment to prohibit the construction of a pickleball court.
There were many comments for and against the ban, with almost all speakers receptive to the construction of a public court that could address noise level concerns.
The hearing follows months of public meetings on the subject, with much of the focus on noise pollution in residential areas.
Commentators against the ban have praised the health and social benefits of the sport, particularly for older residents. Supporters of the proposal cited experiences with disruptive noise, as well as lawsuits and related real estate impacts in other communities.
Before public comment, board member Peter Cook said the board had so far received more than a dozen letters requesting consideration of a ban and had only received one or two in favor of pickleball.
Board Chairman Richard Osnoss also shared that the board has been familiar with the topic so far. “We studied the issue and read a lot of history about the many court cases that have taken place around the country regarding the sound issue, and this was new to us.”
Osnoss also explained why the ban was maintained instead of a moratorium. “Anyone between now and the potential town meeting time where a pickleball ban could be voted on – these candidates, if approved, would be building their pickleball court at their own risk. And if the city, by a two-thirds majority, decided to ban pickleball courts, those pickleball courts would have to be dismantled. This is why we chose this path rather than a moratorium.”
John Diamond was the first to comment and opposed the ban. Diamond cited social opportunities for older residents, among other reasons. “(That) doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be regulations to make things reasonable and accommodations for others,” he said.
Diamond later compared a building ban to the events of the film Free from all ties. “(The film’s protagonist) argued that rock and roll music and dancing, despite the noise, offers joy, exercise and celebration. And I’m going to steal this and claim that pickleball does it too.
Diamond added that regulations could be complicated by the commercial availability of relatively inexpensive portable pickleball courts, and suggested that the city find space for community pickleball courts.
Osnoss responded to Diamond’s arguments regarding the health benefits of sport. “Initially, the planning committee was very hesitant to ban pickleball courts just for that reason,” Osnoss said. “But by just doing due diligence and doing research regarding communities across the country that are divided on this and have been subject to multiple lawsuits as a result, we were trying to find a way to avoid this .”
Osnoss recognized the importance of considering the city’s options for providing community pickleball spaces.
Jeff Kaye, who is not a Chilmark resident, spoke out against pickleball based on his personal experiences in West Tisbury. “I had a pickleball court 300 feet from my house in West Tisbury, in my association, and the noise was intolerable,” he said. “And most members of the association said it was intolerable in all phases of their lives. Other people away from the noise said it was still very intrusive. Pickleball is (in) a different category than tennis…different noise, different pitch. Pickleball can be heard at least 750 feet – maybe 1,500 feet in my association – from the court.
“It’s not about whether it’s a good match or not. It’s a problem for the neighbors,” admitted Leslie Prosterman.
Scott Darling, who doesn’t live in Chilmark but considers it his home away from home, also spoke of a friend who had difficulty selling his house because of pickleball courts three properties away. “They had a lot of potential buyers who weren’t interested in their house because of the noise.”
Although speakers were divided on the amendment, almost all supported or were interested in the city building a public courthouse in Chilmark, if it were located in a remote enough location so as not to disturb residents.
“I wonder if the Peaked Hill properties that the city owns could serve (pickleball) in the same way that the tennis courts at the (Chilmark) community center serve the general public,” Joan Malkin said. “There appears to be some space…quite a distance from a residential structure.”
Kaitlyn Kurth, a tennis player and mother of two, was also interested in public courts. “I don’t want any outdoor sports to be banned in the Town of Chilmark, as far as the use of the courts. I think our city can come together…to build a place for (pickleball) that works for everyone. I won’t put one in our neighborhood, but my kids love sports, and they are so young, and I hope we can develop oneDo not hesitate to ask.
Kurth also noted that his family had the opportunity to play pickleball at Vineyard Family Tennis in Oak Bluffs at a cost of $60 an hour for four players.
Kurth, Darling and Prosterman also wondered whether a sound barrier might be a solution. “I don’t know if there’s a soundproof bubble, not for residential areas, but for a public court,” Prosterman said.
Darling expressed interest in the community center’s soundproof courts.
Some speakers also raised the possibility of equipment-based solutions.
Board member Cook first mentioned the potential effect of the pickleball industry’s efforts to mitigate noise levels. The “green zone”, or silent pickleball rackets, has attracted many players and is mymanufactured by various companies.
Kaye took issue with the fact that pickleball players would generally accept paddles or soft balls. “They want that sound, they want pop, and that’s how it’s going to continue…It’s a professional sport now.”
Osnoss was receptive to regulations reflecting the possibility of quieter equipment. “It makes I’m thinking about the fact that banning pickleball courts outright would eliminate the possibility of having pickleball courts if a new ball and racket came into play in the sport…maybe along the way we Let’s address the issue of sound – perhaps pickleball courts would be allowed if they meet the same decibel level and height as a tennis court.
Osnoss also noted that the council knows of companies selling padded and noise-attenuating fencing.
The Planning Board will review and evaluate the items from this hearing and hear further public comments at its next meeting. The board of directors meets on the second and fourth Monday of each month.
