Board seeks AG opinion on SB 180 and freezes permitting for pickleball courts near homes

Hillsborough County commissioners asked the Florida Attorney General for a formal opinion on Sept. 17 about whether Senate Bill 180 constrains local regulation of pickleball courts, and they invoked a pending‑ordinance doctrine to pause processing of new pickleball court permit applications within 250 feet of residential development while the county drafts potential land‑development code amendments.

Two actions: First, the board voted unanimously to request an Attorney General’s opinion on SB 180’s applicability to regulation of pickleball courts near residences. Second, the board invoked the pending‑ordinance doctrine (also described as a zoning‑in‑progress) to direct staff not to accept or process new applications for pickleball courts or conversions of existing facilities into pickleball courts within 250 feet of residential development while staff prepares proposed code amendments. The board set public hearings on proposed LDC amendments for Oct. 16 and Nov. 13, both at 6 p.m.

Background and rationale: Commissioners cited growing complaints and a small but increasing number of lawsuits involving noise and impacts from pickleball courts adjacent to homes. Commissioner Joshua Wostel and others said temporary controls are intended to prevent a wave of new courts while the county evaluates distance separation and noise‑mitigation rules. The motion specified a 250‑foot separation from residential development; during discussion commissioners clarified that the separation is measured from dwelling structures.

Dissent and legal caution: The motion to implement zoning in progress passed 5–2; Commissioners Cohen and Myers voted no. Commissioners had earlier voted unanimously to seek an AG opinion to clarify whether SB 180 — state legislation that limits some local regulations of recreational facilities — preempts local action.

Implementation and next steps: Staff will draft LDC language that could include distance separations and noise mitigation standards and will present proposed amendments at the Oct. 16 and Nov. 13 hearings. The AG opinion is expected to inform the scope of permissible local regulation; if a lawsuit is filed, commissioners said the board could revisit code changes to address legal exposure.

Ending note: The board characterized the zoning in progress as a temporary protective measure to allow thoughtful public engagement and avoid reactive permitting decisions prior to completion of code amendments and receipt of legal guidance.