Public commenters at the Tampa City Council meeting used the general public comment period to press the city to address growing neighborhood conflicts over private and club pickleball courts, citing high-impact noise, stormwater-runoff risks and what they described as permitting gaps.

Why it matters: Pickleball’s sharp, repetitive impact sound and the small footprint of standard courts have produced complaints in multiple neighborhoods. Speakers and attorneys argued the city’s existing noise and land-use rules do not effectively address the kind of impact sound pickleball produces or the stormwater and development-review issues that can follow when courts are added to residential lots.

Noise and neighborhood quality
Nancy Stevens, who spoke during general public comment on item 69 (a pickleball-related staff report), asked the council to “adopt measures that maintain neighborhood peace and quality of life.” Stevens said a standard pickleball court is 44 by 20 feet, “so they fit many residential lots,” and cited measurements recorded elsewhere showing pickleball impacts as high as 85 dB. “A noise study conducted at the Tampa Yacht Club found that pickleball courts regularly exceed the spirit of the noise ordinance even as for homes across the street,” she said, and urged the council to modify the noise code to better capture impact sounds, consider cushioning or surface changes, limit lights and hours, and restrict commercial rentals or lessons in residential lots.

Stormwater and runoff concerns
Several speakers raised stormwater concerns tied to adding impervious surface for courts. Gladney Darrow of Ballast Point said the club or private-court applications can increase impervious area and produce drainage and flooding impacts for adjoining homeowners; Darrow provided a calculation showing a proposed neighboring property’s impervious area and said he believed the storage calculation submitted with that project was incorrect. He urged the city to ensure stormwater review is performed for any permit that increases impervious area.

Permitting and appeals: the Tampa Yacht Club case
Eric Page, an attorney representing several residents who live adjacent to the Tampa Yacht & Country Club, told council the club obtained a permit that the residents say misstated the existing site conditions. Page said the club’s building permit application stated it would “demo an old pickleball court and replace it with two new courts larger,” even though, he asserted, no pickleball courts existed on the site before the permit. Because the application described replacement rather than a new use, Page said the application went only to the building department and not to zoning for a ‘‘substantial change’’ review that would have required notice to neighbors and an appeal path. Page said that attestation on the building-permit application—“the information in its application is true, accurate and complete”—means that false or misleading representations could render the permit null and void, and he asked the city to investigate the permit and consider revocation.

Legal and procedural questions
Attorney Elise Batsell told council she had been retained by the property owners and explained the city’s land-development code requires any change to an approved PD (planned development) site plan to go through a substantial-change determination process; she said the change at the yacht club should have required notice, review and an appeal right. Batsell asked council to use its authority to investigate and, if necessary, require the club to submit the site change through the correct process.

Council response and staff notes
Council members and staff signaled they would follow up on enforcement and process questions. Councilwoman Hertek asked city staff to receive the materials and to ensure filing and notice procedures are followed going forward. Staff did not present a change to the noise ordinance at the meeting; speakers asked staff and council to explore code amendments that would explicitly cover impact noise such as pickleball and to consider buffer/placement rules, restricted hours, limits on illumination and possible permitting conditions for private courts in residential zones.

Ending
No legislative change was approved at this meeting. Speakers asked council to direct staff to study noise-code amendments and to clarify permitting and stormwater-review pathways for private courts; council members requested follow-up information and, in some cases, wider community outreach on possible code updates.