BA250033 Handout Memo 2

DATE:
August 14, 2025
TO:
Board of Adjustment   
From:
Nick Schlimm, Planner
SUBJECT:
BA250033 – Wiley Property   
Agenda Item: #2
Since the publication of the staff report for the referenced case, staff received an additional notice 
of opposition from the owner of the property adjacent to the west of the subject property. The 
author of this notice had previously submitted opposition prior to the first hearing of this case on 
July 17, 2025.
The author remains opposed to this request and attests that the owner of the subject property 
did not disclose with her any plan to shift court markings slightly to the east (to negate the need 
for a setback variance from the shared property line), having only learned of this plan from County 
staff. She also expresses doubt that shifting the location of the court would either be practical or 
resolve her ongoing concerns regarding noise, safety, and potential for further property damage.
Attachments:
Letter of Opposition (1 page)

Variance Case BA250033 – Written Opposition 
Date: 8/13/2025 
 
Members of the Board, 
 
 We remain firmly opposed to granting a variance for the Wiley property sport court. Less than 24 hours 
before this hearing, and only from the County Planner, I learned the Wiley’s now claim they will move the 
court markings east to eliminate the west-side setback variance request. This plan was never 
communicated to us, despite the Board’s prior direction to work together toward a solution. 
 
Even setting aside the lack of communication, the plan appears impractical. There is little to no room on 
the east side for expansion, and removing 15 feet from the west side would create a miniature court of 
questionable usability. We are also quite concerned about enforcement. Even if markings were moved, 
nothing would prevent use of the full court in practice. Would neighbors be expected to monitor play and 
repeatedly involve the County? 
 
Our skepticism is reinforced by recent actions: the neighbors just installed new net posts a couple of feet 
from the fence line, along with what appears to be flags and new netting. This was not disclosed to us, but 
is plainly visible over the fence. These actions seem inconsistent with an intention to move the court and 
instead suggest continued use of the current layout. With respect, their credibility is also in question. At 
the last hearing, they told the Board they were unaware of the need for a variance beyond the lights. Yet we 
have a voicemail from their realtor stating they knew they would require a variance for both the lighting and 
the court prior to purchase. (We have voicemail saved and can share it at the hearing.) 
 
For reference, this situation parallels BA2024012 (Schnell Property) from July 18, 2024, in which the Board 
unanimously denied a variance for unpermitted patio covers, a far less nuisance and safety risk than a sport 
court. As Member Cardon remarked in that case, “This is a blatant disregard for the county zoning, and by 
approving this would be rewarding negligent and bad behavior.” 
 
In addition to these new developments, my original concerns remain unchanged: 
• 
Safety hazards – High-speed pickleballs easily escape the court, posing a serious risk to my family, 
guests, and pets. 
• 
Property damage – Stray balls have struck windows, damaged landscaping, and interfered with our 
pool system. 
• 
Nuisance – Pickleball noise is widely documented as disruptive, and daytime play is particularly 
problematic as I work from home, and my son attends online college classes. 
• 
Precedent – Approving this variance encourages disregard for zoning rules and undermines the 
purpose of setbacks designed to protect safety and neighborhood peace. 
 
Even if this new proposal were genuine, it fails to address the primary issues of safety, noise, and property 
impact, and offers no assurance of compliance. Given their prior conduct and the lack of enforceability, we 
respectfully urge the Board to deny the variance request in its entirety. 
 
Approving it would not only harm my family’s quality of life and property value, but would also send a clear 
message that zoning violations can be retroactively excused, to the detriment of every resident who follows 
the rules. 
 
Sincerely, 
Anterre Beebe and Anthony Miele