By NEAL RENTZ After several minutes of criticisms at the Nov. 21 planning board meeting from residents and members, an attorney for the Pound Ridge Tennis Club said his client is considering coming back with a revised plan.
The club, located at 2 Major Lockwood Lane, was seeking site plan approval for the construction of four new pickleball courts, one new paddle ball court and deck, expansion of the two existing parking lots and approval for the club’s plan to build an addition to the existing clubhouse. But after no planning board member spoke in favor of the proposals following the public hearing, Keith Betensky, an attorney representing the club, said his client would consider coming back to the board with a revised application at the December meeting.
“We’ve heard the board’s comments and comments from the public,” Betensky said. “We’d like to take another look at the plan and consider submitting a revised plan for the next meeting.”
Following residents’ comments, none of the planning board members spoke in favor of the project.
“This is an extremely intensive use already in a residential zone,” board Chairwoman Rebecca Wing said. “It’s a single applicant on 6.97 acres. We see residential applications by single individuals on properties of that size in almost every meeting here, and we wouldn’t dream of granting them this level of coverage.”
Wing said the board scrutinizes applications which call for 100 to 200 percent of the coverage of the applicants’ properties. The coverage being sought by the club is about 24,169 square feet, which is twice the 9,000-square-foot threshold for the area, she said.
“We have asked for additional information and tried to give the applicant an opportunity to show us that this works because coverage isn’t just a number,” Wing said. “However, from my perspective, the coverage here really is an indicator of the amount of development that’s on a fairly small site and because of that it pushes a lot of that development into the increased minimum setbacks, meaning the neighbors’ backyards.”
Wing said the proposal “forces a wonky parking layout that is not orthodox, not like anything I’ve ever seen and definitely questionable, whether or not you buy into the traffic study or not.”
As proposed, the project would need to include parking lot retaining walls and would force the planning board to consider a parking variance of 75 percent of what the town code requires, which is 200 parking spaces, one for each permitted club member, whether the applicant is seeking 40 or 60 spaces, Wing said.
“I am really troubled by the fact that this is a private application, not a public good,” Wing said. “These are benefits only to the members.” Wing said she was troubled that the overwhelming majority of town residents who have addressed the project are opposed to it and nearly all of those who have spoken in favor of the project are club members.
Those who are against the plan have valid concerns, including noise, traffic, effects on the environment and the development coverage and “pushing up all of that development up against the neighbors,” Wise said.
“I am not able to support this application in its current form,” Wise said. “There’s really no precedent for it and it just really flies in the face of our site plan review and the things we normally look for and the criteria that we normally use.”
Wise said she would favor an application that included the renovation of the clubhouse, the addition of a paddleball court that would be located in the area of existing paddleball courts and not requiring additional lighting. Those elements would have minimal impacts for the neighboring residents, she said. “I cannot say the same” for the proposed additional pickleball courts and parking, Wise said.
Wise said she would support a revised application without the request for additional pickleball courts.
Wise’s colleagues on the planning board also did not speak in favor of the club’s application.
“I think I’d want to see a revised application,” board member Kelly MacMillian said. “It’s very hard to sit here and not review this application in a fair and equitable way when we go out to other applicants and tell them they can’t have a 100-foot patio because of coverage off their back porches but then we’re allowing for this level of expansion. So, it’s about fairness and equity in applying town law.”
Prior to the comments from the public and the planning board, Betensky said, “The club is well within the maximum permitted building coverage.” The club submitted a petition signed by 103 people, most of whom live in Pound Ridge, supporting the plan, he said.
Nearly all of the residents who spoke during the public hearing opposed the club’s project. Susie Saperstein said she sees the lights and hears the noise from the club. “Any additional courts would be distressing,” she said.
Another resident, Peter D’Agastino, said for about three decades there has been “a pollution of tennis balls” coming from the club and going into a local pond. If the plan is approved the entrance and exit for the club would remain, he said.
“It’s a steep driveway and when you come out you really can’t see,” D’Agastino said.
There is a short distance for drivers coming out of the club and if the plan is approved, traffic would be increased in the area, he said. “They’re impacting our property.”
There was one member of the public who supported the club’s plan, Bedford resident Bill Mitchell, who is a club member and a member of the club’s board. The pond behind the tennis courts is lower than the other pond in the area, Mitchell said. No tennis balls from the pond behind the courts have gone into the other pond, because it is lower in height, he added.
The proposed new pickleball courts would not have lights, Mitchell said.
The board voted unanimously to close the verbal portion of the public hearing, but agreed to accept written comments on the project through Thursday, Dec. 5.