Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident presses Fort Thomas over noise enforcement and mixed‑use zoning
Summary
A Fort Thomas resident told the council his March noise complaint about a dance studio was not investigated in a way that captured typical activity; staff said measurements were taken but noted the property's mixed‑use zoning complicates application of certain UDO performance standards. Staff agreed to re-measure and explore mitigation options such as soundproofing.
A Fort Thomas resident urged the council on June 15 to revisit how the city enforces noise rules in mixed‑use areas after a series of complaints about a nearby dance studio.
Aaron Prince told the council he filed a noise complaint on March 16, 2026, and that staff later told him an investigation had occurred on May 27. Prince said the department's approach'contacting the business in advance and relying on the owner to demonstrate typical conditions'did not capture normal operations and so could not validate recurring disturbances. He provided staff with multiple recordings and said the noise comes from both loud music and an exterior AC/compressor unit that switches on when temperatures rise.
City staff (Kevin Barbaron and other representatives) said they measured sound levels, met with the business owner and asked the business to play music so staff could record typical levels; they also measured the AC unit itself. Staff advised that the property is within the central business district and is classified as mixed‑use, which affects which UDO performance standards apply. Staff suggested mitigation options, including voluntary soundproofing, because enforcement thresholds differ by zoning classification.
Council members said they would remeasure the noise with the resident present and explore whether adjustments to the unified development ordinance are needed to address gaps for certain businesses. The mayor and staff discussed technical details (decibel standards, intermittent frequency standards cited in the UDO) and the practical limits of enforcement where a property is legally mixed‑use.
Prince said he would provide the footage and asked for timely follow-up; staff invited him to be present for the next measurement to confirm conditions. The council did not enact an ordinance change at the meeting but discussed a possible future refinement of the UDO and the role of sound‑mitigation measures.
The immediate action item recorded was staff agreement to coordinate a site re‑measurement with Prince present and to return to council with any recommended code or administrative changes if measurements and zoning review indicate the current standards fail to protect nearby residents.
