New Franklin council hears hours- and noise-focused opposition to Tudor House conditional use; hearing continued

New Franklin City Council on Jan. 2 held a public hearing on a conditional use permit application filed by Mason's Cove LLC and the city for the Tudor House lakefront property, an events venue at 655 Latham Lane. Planning and Zoning had unanimously recommended approval with standard conditions plus three additional requirements addressing a future event center site plan, a security/privacy barrier, and limits on sound amplification at the lakefront patio.

The hearing drew multiple neighbors who said outdoor events have produced sustained noise that they say prevents ordinary use of their yards and patios. Opponents asked council to require objective, enforceable limits — specifically a 65-decibel cap measured at the property line (with an earlier-curfew standard: 9 p.m. weeknights, 10 p.m. Friday–Saturday) — and clearer language about how on‑site sound monitoring and a sound limiter would be enforced.

Why it matters: The applicant said the conditional use is necessary to allow planned investment at the Tudor House, including a proposed $2 million event center whose capital depends on revenues from the lakefront events. Neighbors said the venue’s recent changes (a large tent, a concrete pad and relocations closer to the water) changed how sound travels and have increased nuisance complaints. Council must weigh the city’s economic goals and the unanimous Planning & Zoning recommendation against residents’ requests for measurable protections and clarity on enforcement before final action.

What Planning & Zoning recommended: According to the record read into the hearing notice, the commission unanimously recommended conditional-use approval with a standard set of seven general conditions (consistent with prior permits such as Soaring Farms) plus three additional conditions tied to neighborhood concerns. The additional items recorded in the planning recommendation are: (1) a major site plan review specifically for the proposed event center; (2) a barrier or fence to address security and privacy that must be worked out between parties and conform to zoning (the commission noted some existing fences and tree buffers); and (3) limiting sound amplification in the lakefront patio to Mason's Cove LLC’s sound system and requiring monitoring with a sound limiter and sound compressor.

Neighbors’ requests and evidence: Several residents and counsel for adjacent property owners presented written data and multi-night noise monitoring collected at two houses near the Tudor House. Counsel for neighbors asked council to adopt a 65-decibel property-line limit and to require the applicant to keep lakefront activity inside the event center once it is constructed. The neighbors’ attorney said the monitoring his clients collected showed multiple nights with peaks into the 70s and 80s decibels at their measurement points and urged the council to require an objective property-line standard because, he said, the planning condition that the applicant “monitor with a sound limiter and sound compressor” lacks an enforceable numeric threshold on its face.

Applicant and supporter positions: The mayor and the city’s counsel noted the Tudor House’s entertainment use is longstanding and that the Planning & Zoning Commission had vetted testimony and documentary evidence over two hearings. The applicant’s representative said the venue’s contracts already forbid entertainers from bringing their own loudspeaker systems, that Mason’s Cove uses a single house system with a limiter and compressor, and that the venue’s written performer contract limits speakers/music to a maximum of 90 decibels at the source; the applicant suggested adding an explicit “not to exceed 90 decibels” line for the tent system as a measurable internal cap. Supporters of the venue told council the Tudor House has generated community events and capital improvements (the applicant’s counsel said about $1 million in improvements are complete with roughly $1 million more planned) and that the venue provides broader community economic activity.

Enforcement and evidence disputes: Neighbors argued the applicant’s own sound report documented readings mostly in the low 50s to low 60s on a single monitored weekend, but their longer-term monitoring showed higher peaks and sustained elevated levels. Council members and participants noted sound readings vary by location and direction (sound reflects off water, varies with crowds and with device placement) and that decibel spikes can be caused by crowd noise or intermittent events. Several council members asked for clearer visualized data (time-series graphs) of the neighbor monitoring so the body can see trends rather than single peak values.

Council action: After public comment and council discussion on possible measurable requirements (property-line measurement, a cap at the source, requirement for a recording/record‑keeping system and a specific fence/barrier and planting plan), Council continued the matter to its next meeting to allow staff and the parties to pursue clarifying language and for council to review additional documentation. The council chair announced the item will be continued to the Jan. 16 council meeting for further consideration.

What remains unresolved: The hearing record shows disagreement about (a) whether an internal cap (for example, 90 dB at the tent) or a property-line cap (neighbors ask for 65 dB) is the appropriate enforcement point; (b) how “sound limiter and compressor” should be defined in a permit condition so that enforcement officers, the applicant and neighbors share a common, measurable standard; and (c) where any protective barrier or fence should be placed so it provides privacy/security without creating new sight-line or enforcement problems. Council directed staff to gather additional material (detailed monitoring graphs, sample fence/barrier plans, and potential permit language that would create recordkeeping and measurable thresholds) for the continued hearing.

Larger takeaway: Planning & Zoning recommended approval with conditions, but the council postponed final action to allow time to reconcile enforcement language and to review longer-term monitoring data and proposed barrier options. Residents pressing for a 65-decibel property-line limit and an inside-only requirement for events after the event center opens will have another opportunity to present data and suggested permit language at the continuation.