Johns Creek zoning board affirms director’s finding that Queensbury court conversion remains an allowed recreational use amid noise complaints

The Johns Creek Board of Zoning Appeals voted to affirm the community development director’s ruling that the Queensbury subdivision’s conversion of one tennis court into two pickleball courts remains an accessory private recreational court and therefore did not change the property’s land use under Section 4.3.1.B of the zoning ordinance.

At the outset of the public hearing the board accepted all supporting documents into the record, including filings submitted after the usual deadline. Several nearby residents told the board they are “aggrieved” by what they described as intrusive pickleball noise that reaches inside homes and past typical quiet hours; speakers said they routinely hear play as late as 10–11:30 p.m. and described impacts on sleep and daily living. “This harm is different in kind and degree from the general public,” said Doug Coxworth, a resident who said play at night disturbs his wife’s sleep.

The appellant (identified in the record as the presenting party) offered technical noise measurements and argued the courts exceed the Johns Creek noise performance standard (a 75‑dB limit cited in the hearing). The appellant said the city’s measurements did not follow recognized ANSI/NIST procedures, that the city’s meter settings failed to capture peak pickleball spikes, and that correct measurements and established acoustic models show levels at roughly 28 feet from the courts would exceed the ordinance. “I have ironclad…proof that at 28 feet, those neighbors are experiencing a violation,” the appellant said.

City staff responded that the director’s decision addressed land use, not noise enforcement. A city representative told the board the conversion involved resurfacing and striping within the existing footprint and did not enlarge, relocate, or discontinue the recreational use as defined in Section 4.3.1.B. Staff noted the 1993 variance affecting setbacks allowed private recreational courts at reduced setbacks and said the variance language and the zoning definition of “private recreational court” are not limited only to tennis. The city also said any noise or performance standard complaints are administrative enforcement matters to be handled separately.

Bob Harold, a volunteer on the Queensbury HOA board, told the board the HOA resurfaced existing courts and that the change was intended to serve residents; he told the board the courts have been a long‑standing amenity. Several residents pressed the city to pursue administrative enforcement based on sound measurements; board members agreed that noise complaints could be investigated through the city’s enforcement processes regardless of the board’s land‑use ruling.

After questions about the 1993 variance, the court footprint and whether homes were present when the variance was granted, a board member moved to affirm the director’s ruling. The motion was seconded and carried by voice vote; the board affirmed the director’s interpretation that the recreational court land use remains consistent with the zoning ordinance. The board did not decide any noise enforcement action; staff noted any noise standard investigations would be handled administratively.