Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Event Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sedgwick County staff propose new rules for rural event centers, including a 'plainly audible' noise standard
Summary
Planning staff outlined options to regulate rural event centers — guest caps (299), minimum parcel sizes (20–40 acres), expanded setbacks from residential dwellings, hours limits, and a 'plainly audible at the property line' enforcement test; commissioners urged caution about overregulation and enforcement practicality.
Sedgwick County planning staff presented a package of proposed changes on Nov. 18 aimed at regulating event centers in unincorporated areas, responding to complaints about noise, trash and signage. The packet includes zoning amendments, potential comprehensive-plan language, and the possibility of a permit system for larger events.
Scott Whittle of the planning department said the code change under review would keep event centers as a conditional use in rural residential zones but could allow them by right in certain commercial/industrial districts regardless of parcel size. Staff proposed capping gatherings at 299 guests unless a separate permit process is created, and suggested hours and noise limits that would distinguish weekdays from weekends.
On proposed hours, staff suggested outdoors amplification be limited to roughly 10 a.m. to 9 p.m., with indoor amplification following longer operating hours. For parcel size and setbacks, staff presented tradeoffs between 20‑acre and 40‑acre minimums and illustrated how increased setbacks (100, 200, 300 or 400 feet from property lines or dwellings) reduce usable land area on event parcels.
Noise enforcement proved a focal point. After consulting the county counselor’s office, staff replaced a numeric decibel limit with a "plainly audible at the property line" standard. Assistant County Counselor Samantha Singh told commissioners the plainly‑audible test uses a reasonable‑person standard — "determined without using a hearing aid" — and noted that an objective decibel requirement would demand calibrated equipment, training, and a chain of custody in order to be reliably enforced in court.
"Plainly audible would be, determined with not using a hearing aid... and it uses a person of reasonable sensibilities test," Samantha Singh said, explaining the legal trade-offs.
Commissioners raised enforcement and equity concerns: some warned that a subjective audible test could be applied inconsistently in rural settings where ambient sounds vary, while others urged the board to prioritize setbacks from residential dwellings and reasonable hours rather than imposing burdensome measurement regimes. Staff said the sheriff’s office has remedies outside zoning (including going to properties during incidents to stop noise‑generating equipment) but that zoning remains the vehicle for setting community standards.
Scott Whittle said staff will pare back options based on this feedback and return refined proposals to Advanced Plans and MAPC for further review.
No regulatory changes were adopted at the staff meeting; the item was returned to staff for refinement.
