Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City draft would ban outdoor pickleball courts within 300 feet of homes, set hours and require noise mitigation
Summary
City staff proposed a zoning ordinance amendment to define outdoor pickleball courts as a distinct use, ban courts within 300 feet of residential properties, require noise studies for courts 301–600 feet away, limit hours of operation (generally 7 a.m.–10 p.m.), and exempt parks, schools and city facilities.
City planning staff presented a draft zoning ordinance amendment that would add a definition for outdoor pickleball courts, treat courts as a distinct use in the zoning chart, and create endnotes establishing separation, hours and noise thresholds.
Under the draft, outdoor pickleball courts would be prohibited within 300 feet of property zoned or used for residential purposes. Courts located between 301 and 600 feet from residential property would be permitted with a qualified noise impact assessment and required mitigation. Courts 600 feet or less from residential property would generally be allowed to operate only between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.; courts farther than 600 feet would not be subject to those hour limits. The draft also sets a sound level limit of 47 dB at the nearest residential property line and requires site plan review for all outdoor courts under section 7 of the zoning ordinance. Parks, public and private schools and publicly owned recreation facilities would be exempt from the distance and hour limits.
Staff said the ordinance arose after complaints about a commercial court built at the River Rock development that is sited roughly 40–50 feet from residences and has generated repeated neighbor complaints. A planner summarized technical research and enforcement constraints, saying that pickleball produces short, high‑frequency impulsive sounds that can be particularly audible to human ears but are harder to capture with police noise meters; for that reason staff recommended distance‑based regulation as the most effective tool rather than relying solely on noise‑meter enforcement.
Council members raised several policy questions: whether existing courts should be grandfathered (staff said courts in place before adoption would operate as legally nonconforming grandfathered uses), whether the ordinance should be broadened to cover similar racket sports rather than naming "pickleball" specifically, and how enforcement would be applied (staff noted the noise ordinance penalties and discussed that each continuing offense can be assessed per 30‑minute increments under existing code; the transcript referenced limits under the Tennessee Constitution on per‑offense fines). Staff said city‑run courts and park facilities are easier for the city to police and that planned developments could allow courts through project‑specific amendments.
No vote occurred; staff asked for feedback and indicated they will refine the draft language, including whether to craft a broader "racket sports" definition rather than singling out pickleball.
