Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Noise topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council defers vote on Live Oak event‑center alcohol expansion after nearby resident cites loud music
Summary
Council voted to defer consideration of a request to expand the alcohol‑service area at The Venue at Live Oak after a neighbor testified that amplified music was audible at his house after midnight; staff had recommended approval but two objections were on file.
The City Council deferred action on a specific‑use designation request to expand the area where alcohol may be sold at The Venue at Live Oak (3201 Elkins Road) after a nearby resident told council that live music from the venue had been audible at his home late at night.
Planning staff had presented the application as an expansion of an existing SUD for the event center; proposed alcohol‑service hours were Sunday–Thursday, 10 a.m.–midnight, and Friday–Saturday, 10 a.m.–2 a.m. Elizabeth Triggs, planning and development officer, said staff supported approval and noted two written objections had been filed by property owners near the site. Triggs described the objectors’ concerns as primarily noise related.
During public comment, Joseph Castillo, who lives at 3012 Todd Drive and said his property line is within about 100 yards of the venue, told council the venue’s amplified music had been heard at his home with the windows closed and that music continued “until after midnight” on some nights. Castillo said the venue originally operated as a family facility but has moved toward hosting live music and later‑night events; he asked council to deny the application.
Council members expressed concern about noise impacts, the absence of sound‑attenuation measures around the venue’s newly built stage and the lack of a record of complaints (the resident said he had not previously called police). Given those concerns, Councilman Jack Ladd moved to defer the item so staff could work with the applicant and neighbors to address noise mitigation; the motion was seconded by Councilmember Brian Stubbs and carried (vote count not specified in the record).
Ending: The council deferred action to allow staff, the applicant and nearby residents to pursue possible mitigation (for example, limits on outdoor amplified sound, schedule or layout changes, or physical attenuation). Staff had noted the request met state distance requirements for on‑premises alcohol sales but agreed the noise issue merited additional discussion before council decides.
