A West Hills Road property owner has withdrawn an application to build a tennis court on the 2.13-acre property after neighbors complained that it would be located in a bad spot, bothersome to nearby residents, unsightly and unsafe.
222 West Hills Road in New Canaan.
The 110-by-50-foot tennis court was planned for the west side of the corner lot at 222 West Hills Road, a property owned by Sil-Wel 7 LLC—a company whose principals include two New Canaan residents, according to the Connecticut Secretary of the State—and which includes an 8,662-square-foot, 2013-built house.
In a letter to the town, West Hills Road resident Lisa Vasquez cited “safety for families” as one reason for objecting to the project.
“Errant tennis balls could end up on a windshield of any car with this minor proposed setback,” Vasquez wrote in her letter, on file at the Planning & Zoning Department. “We have many teenaged drivers in this family neighborhood … the proposed tennis court site at 222 West Hills Road is located on a very dangerous blind curve. This could present additional peril to drivers and pedestrians as a result.”
The tennis court was to have been tucked behind the pine trees at 222 West Hills Road.
The applicant had applied to P&Z to build the tennis court, because a variance was needed: As an accessory structure to be located within 150 feet of the street, the court required a special permit (see page 53 of the Zoning Regulations here).
According to the application, the lot is unique in that it contains two front yards on the corner and the western side of the property “functions as a side yard, where accessory structures are typically permitted.” The court could not be placed on the other side of the house because of wetlands, according to the application, and the southern side of the property has a pipe and planned pool.
“The proposed tennis court will not adversely impact the neighboring area,” the applicants said. “It will not contain lights or speakers. It is intended for private, single-family use and will be well screened by an existing pine grove.”
Vasquez noted in her letter that the home is on the market for $5,125,000 and that the original site plans included a pool only. She added that the east side of the property, beside a vacant home, would have been a better plan, and that the abutting parcel could have been purchased.
The variance requested “is excessive,” Vasquez wrote.
“This is not a minor variance, she said. “It is significant. Not only could it be dangerous, but the lighting they will eventually request will be bothersome to neighbors. P&Z should require and maintain compliance in a 2-acre neighborhood. No other properties in our neighborhood maintain tennis court and pool on 2 acres. This will change the feel of our neighborhood.”
Much of what she said was echoed by several other neighbors who wrote into the town objecting to the project, including:
- “Having a tennis court with its solid surface and high fencing around it is not how the neighborhood looks and feels today.”
- “We believe the congestion will only serve to turn a beautiful pristine piece of property into the feel of an amusement park, and act as a detriment to our neighborhood frankly.”
- “We believe that it will alter greatly the appearance from the road and thus the views for the entire neighborhood.”
P&Z Commission Chairman John Goodwin said at the group’s Aug. 25 meeting that the application for the tennis court had been withdrawn. Here’s a map showing 222 West Hills Road:
Thanks for a morning laugh. Amusement park? Teen drivers distracted by a tennis court? Dangerous flying tennis balls? It is all gold.