Holmes County OKs outdoor-event ordinance after heated public hearing over landowner liability and noise

The Holmes County Board of County Commissioners adopted a final version of a proposed outdoor-event ordinance (24-06) following a lengthy public hearing in which landowners, attorneys and event promoters urged revisions to liability and noise provisions.

Supporters and opponents said they back safety and public‑health goals but disagreed about who should be held responsible when an outdoor event causes injury or property harm. Lonzo Hornsby, a resident who addressed the board during the hearing, said the draft “penalizes the private landowner” and argued that the promoter — not the landowner — should be held liable for problems arising from an event on leased property.

Brooke Ferencak, speaking on behalf of Eastland Holdings, told commissioners the draft is inconsistent and overreaches in parts: “It says the owner of the property on which the outdoor event is being held shall be liable for persons promoting or conducting the outdoor event,” she said, calling that wording “a huge concern” because it can limit landowner rights and prevent contracting liability away.

County staff and the ordinance’s sponsor told the board they deliberately kept the ordinance concise and modeled it on language used in other counties. Staff said the primary goal is the safety of residents and event attendees and that department heads — including planning, sheriff, building and emergency services — would review applications and make recommendations to a project director responsible for sign‑offs.

John Feeney, county planner, explained how the review would work: if the sheriff reviews an application and identifies a history of problems, “then he can increase his requirements for that specific event,” Feeney said. If applicants cannot meet heightened requirements, staff said, the board would effectively be able to deny the permit on that basis.

Several business owners and landholders urged clearer language on noise limits, camping and the review committee. One event promoter who operates recurring events said he supports the ordinance because it creates a predictable permitting process and places responsibilities on promoters as well as landowners. Other residents said noise from large festivals had disturbed sleep and raised moral concerns for their families.

Commissioners discussed the possibility of a separate ordinance to address decibel limits and confirm that midnight would be a reasonable wind‑down time for performances. The staff said they planned to draft a companion noise ordinance and expected to bring it back for further consideration in a subsequent meeting.

After discussion, a commissioner moved “to sign the ordinance and move forward” and the motion carried. The record of the roll call did not list a formal tally in the minutes; multiple commissioners verbally recorded “yes.”

The ordinance as adopted applies to unincorporated areas of Holmes County; staff noted home‑rule limits prevent the county from imposing the rule on municipalities, though the municipalities remain free to adopt similar language if they choose. The board also agreed to keep the ordinance a ‘living document’ and to accept edits as issues arise in implementation.

Next steps: staff will circulate the final ordinance language and follow up with affected department heads on application review roles; the county plans to bring a separate noise ordinance back for consideration at a future meeting.