Mayor & Commission Meetings

LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE Thursday, February 5, 2026 City Hall Conference Room 301B Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent: Commissioner Carol Myers, Chair Commissioner Ovita Thornton Commissioner John Culpepper Commissioner Stephanie Johnson 1 Commissioner Allison Wright Staff: Ilka McConnell, Interim Assistant Manager Will Fleenor, Solicitor Austin Jackson, Deputy Chief Attorney Doug Hansford, Building Permits & Inspections Courtney Davis, Senior Attorney Sarah George, Recorder Deputy Chief Harrison Daniel, Police Department Commissioner Myers called the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. A. Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Wright made a motion to approve the December 4, 2025 minutes. Commissioner Culpepper seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. B. Public Input: None Commission Identified Items of Interest: C. Review the existing noise ordinance and discuss prospective updates, particularly in the Agricultural Residential zone, related to non-agricultural sounds, as well as in the Commercial Downtown district relative to amplified noise. The Committee may wish to seek a different measure of noise (using objective measures of volume, for example). Interim Assistant Manager Ilka McConnell introduced the topic of discussion. Senior Attorney Courtney Davis shared potential approaches based on prior Committee direction, including consideration of commercial noise emanating into residential areas that are not classified as single-family zoning districts. Courtney Davis reviewed the current noise ordinance language and recent amendments, explaining that existing provisions primarily address commercial entities adjacent to single-family residential zones. She noted that one potential modification would be to expand applicability to include mixed-density residential (RM) zoning districts. Commissioner Allison Wright noted that this approach was consistent with prior Committee discussions and inquired about how such changes would function in practice, particularly in downtown areas where mixed-use development combines commercial and residential uses. Commissioner John Culpepper inquired about whether expanding restrictions to RM districts could create unintended impacts for existing businesses, particularly where residential development has been introduced near long-standing commercial establishments. The Committee discussed considerations related to protecting residents from noise impacts and 1 Arrived at 1:09 p.m. and left at 1:45 p.m.  maintaining reasonable expectations for businesses that predate nearby residential uses. Courtney Davis explained that any change would apply based on zoning classification and would not distinguish between existing and newly introduced uses. The Committee reviewed zoning classifications on the zoning map to better understand the distribution of RM and RS districts near downtown. The Committee noted that zoning designations do not always reflect the existing character of an area, including locations where RM zoning includes single-family homes. Staff noted the complexity of applying ordinance standards within these areas. The Committee reviewed the importance of ensuring that any revisions are practical and enforceable given existing zoning patterns. The Committee then reviewed enforcement data related to noise ordinance citations. Solicitor Will Fleenor reviewed citation data from 2024 through early 2026, noting that a limited number of citations had been issued during that period. He explained that first offenses carry a $250 fine and subsequent offenses issued to the same individual carry a $350 fine. Solicitor Fleenor further explained that enforcement is tied to the individual cited rather than the property, which limits the effectiveness of escalating penalties in situations involving multiple occupants or turnover. Solicitor Will Fleenor noted that several properties, particularly on Milledge Avenue and Kentucky Circle, appeared multiple times in the data, though citations were presumably issued to different individuals at those locations. He shared that the Clerk would only look at the name of the individual and would not penalize an individual for prior citations at a location if it had not been previously issued to them. Commissioner Wright inquired about whether or not this structure may reduce the deterrent effect of the ordinance and if short-term rentals and turnover of occupants were contributing factors. Staff explained that the current framework does not allow escalation based on location alone. In reviewing the citation data, Ilka McConnell noted the absence of citations within the downtown area. David Lynn, Director of Planning and Outreach for the Athens Downtown Development Authority, explained that this likely reflects limitations within the current ordinance, as officers may determine that certain noise conditions downtown do not meet the threshold for enforcement under existing standards. David Lynn provided an example based on a recent experience involving amplified sound from a downtown business, describing the noise as disruptive to nearby hotel guests and surrounding properties. He noted that responding officers indicated the activity fell within the “normal course of business” exemption and therefore did not constitute a violation under the current ordinance. The Committee discussed this example in the context of current enforcement limitations. The Committee reviewed the evolving nature of the downtown area as both a commercial and residential environment, including the increasing residential population and potential economic and quality-of-life impacts associated with excessive noise. The Committee also reviewed the increasing use of outdoor amplified sound, including businesses placing speakers in public- facing areas to attract patrons, and the potential for conflicts between commercial uses. Staff noted these considerations. Commissioner Wright inquired about whether amplified sound in the public right-of-way could be more directly regulated. Deputy Chief Attorney Austin Jackson explained that an outright prohibition on amplified sound in public spaces would raise constitutional concerns under the First Amendment and corresponding provisions of state law. He further explained that public rights-of-way are considered traditional public forums and that any restrictions must be content- neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and allow for alternative Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 2 020526  means of expression. He also noted the importance of grounding any proposed changes in data and clearly articulated impacts. Deputy Chief Harrison Daniel inquired about whether distance and audibility standards could be applied more consistently across zoning districts rather than continuing to expand zone-specific provisions. Deputy Chief Attorney Austin Jackson explained that such an approach could be considered but would require further legal analysis to ensure consistency with applicable standards and prior case law. Senior Attorney Courtney Davis explained that the challenge with enforcement downtown is the ambient noise. She further explained that the Grady case, which was a case in which the constitutionality of the current ACCGov noise ordinance was reviewed and found to be constitutional, noted that the “plainly audible” standard helps with the challenge of the ambient noise, as if the noise is plainly audible in a sound-rich environment, it is clearly a problem. The Committee then discussed the potential use of decibel-based standards as a supplement to the existing “plainly audible” standard. Senior Attorney Courtney Davis presented examples from other jurisdictions, including a hybrid model that maintains a plainly audible standard while also establishing a maximum decibel threshold tied to public health considerations. She explained that such thresholds are typically based on levels associated with potential hearing damage. Members expressed interest in this approach. Commissioner Stephanie Johnson inquired about the reliability of the tool to measure decibels should the noise ordinance be modified to include decibels. Solicitor Will Fleenor explained that it could be a challenge in proving the case in court given the meters could also pick up noise from other sources, and we would also need to ensure the devices are certified to be admitted into court. He noted that keeping the existing “plainly audible” standard but also including a clearly defined decibel-based limit could provide a more objective and consistent enforcement mechanism, particularly in situations involving excessive sound regardless of time or location. Solicitor Will Fleenor explained that such an approach could assist in addressing extreme cases but also noted potential challenges, including isolating sound sources in dense environments, ensuring reliability of measurement tools, and meeting evidentiary standards in court. Staff noted these considerations. The Committee reviewed the potential complexity of implementing decibel-based standards, including variations based on duration and context, and the practical challenges associated with enforcement. The Committee inquired about whether thresholds based on hearing damage would fully address nuisance-level concerns such as sleep disruption or ongoing quality-of-life impacts. The Committee acknowledged the need to balance simplicity, enforceability, and effectiveness in any proposed revisions. Commissioner Myers noted interest in further exploring a hybrid approach that would retain the existing framework while incorporating a clearly defined upper limit for excessive sound levels. Staff explained that additional research would be necessary to identify appropriate thresholds and evaluate how such an approach would function in practice. The Committee emphasized the importance of ensuring that any proposed changes meaningfully address the issues identified, particularly in the downtown context, while remaining legally defensible and operationally feasible for enforcement personnel. The Committee requested that staff provide additional analysis, including potential decibel thresholds and examples from comparable jurisdictions, for further consideration at a future meeting. Schedule/Agenda Changes Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 3 020526  The next LRC meeting is scheduled for April 2, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. Commissioner Culpepper made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Wright seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 2:28 p.m. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 4 020526