The Nantucket County Planning Board voted to give a positive recommendation to send a warrant article about pickleball courts to town meeting, after a lengthy discussion focused on noise, setbacks and whether the use should be handled by special permit or broader zoning limits.

The draft article on the warrant would add the term “pickleball” to the zoning use chart with a prohibition in all districts as drafted; board members were told that the wording could be amended during the public hearing process or at town meeting to allow the use in certain districts or by special permit. "The intent of being so prohibitive is because that allows, through the public hearing process and town meeting, to put other guardrails in place," said Megan (town staff), who briefed the board on the article's scope.

Board members framed the issue as primarily a noise and neighborhood-compatibility problem rather than a question about the sport itself. Several members urged that setbacks, containment (for example, glass or other sound-mitigating barriers) and review by the Historic/Architectural review body be part of any long-term solution. "I think the solution is in setbacks," said John (Planning Board member). "I would be in favor of doing some more work on it." Joe (Planning Board member) and Barry (Planning Board member) stressed containment systems and construction details to reduce sound transmission; Abby (Planning Board member) said the core complaint is noise and suggested the town consider whether noise controls by area are the proper focus rather than a blanket ban: "Is the issue more with how we handle noise as opposed to the actual whether or not we allow the court?" she said.

Board members discussed two main paths: leave the draft as a district-wide prohibition to preserve the Select Board's and town meeting's ability to add restrictions through the public hearing and motion process, or withdraw the article and return later with a more detailed package addressing setbacks, special-permit criteria, and explicit noise or operating-time limits. Some members warned a special-permit approach could invite legal challenges if not carefully drafted; Howard (Planning Board member) said a more global, defensible approach would be preferable to ad hoc, case-by-case exceptions.

Town staff advised the board that, under Massachusetts law, the advertisement of the warrant has immediate effect on permitting: once the article is advertised, the change effectively takes effect for permitting purposes until town meeting acts. That procedural point prompted members to weigh moving forward now versus delaying to craft detailed standards.

In a straw poll during the meeting, one member (Nat) indicated support for tabling the article for a subsequent town meeting; the majority favored keeping the article on the warrant and proceeding to public hearing so the board and the public could vet options and potential amendments. The board then voted to give a positive recommendation to send the article to town meeting. The motion to recommend forwarding the article was made by Barry and seconded by Joe; the board recorded the motion as carried by voice vote.

The board directed staff to proceed with the public hearing schedule and the Select Board's warrant adoption process, recognizing that the draft could be amended district-by-district (prohibited, allowed by right, or allowed by special permit) during the public hearing and through motions at town meeting. Board members said additional work will focus on whether setbacks, containment/mitigation standards, operating hours, or a broader noise bylaw are the appropriate regulatory tools.