Cities Turn to Zoning to Stop Pickleball Noise Controversies

Charles Leahy – charles.leahy@sbcglobal.net

Pickleball Noise Consultant, 151 E Summit St, Harbor Springs, MI, 49740-1124, United States

Popular version of 1pNSc3 – Using municipal zoning ordinances to manage pickleball noise near homes.
Presented at the 189th ASA Meeting
Read the abstract at https://eppro02.ativ.me//web/index.php?page=Session&project=ASAASJ25&id=3986245

–The research described in this Acoustics Lay Language Paper may not have yet been peer reviewed–

Pickleball has exploded in popularity, becoming the fastest-growing sport in the United States. Cities are racing to build new courts, and parks departments often convert one tennis court to 4 pickleball courts to keep up with demand. But something unexpected happens when those courts open: nearby residents start reporting a sharp, repetitive “pop-pop-pop” sound that quickly becomes difficult to live with. Many people wonder why this problem keeps appearing and why traditional noise rules don’t seem to help.

Click here to hear audio of pickleball on four courts.

The answer begins with the sound itself. A pickleball hit is a very fast impact between a hard paddle and a hard plastic ball. Each hit has a quick, bright impulsive “pop” that the human ear is especially sensitive to. Each court generates an average of 900 popping noises each hour, with many courts used 12 hours a day. A steady stream of sharp, unpredictable impacts. Our bodies are wired to pay attention to sudden noises, so it’s difficult to “tune out” these sounds even when the sound levels, measured in decibels, don’t seem extreme.

Cities are increasingly finding themselves pulled into public controversies, petitions, tense council meetings, and even lawsuits. Headlines report suffering neighbors and angry players as communities react by shuttering courts that were built too close to homes, wasting public money and straining recreation budgets.

The irony is that cities already have the right tools: zoning ordinances and trained planning staff whose daily job is to prevent land-use incompatibility. What was missing was simply recognizing that pickleball noise behaves differently than other park activities — and therefore needs to be managed through zoning, not after-the-fact noise enforcement.

In response, leading cities have begun to rethink how and where pickleball courts should be located. Places like Park City, Utah; Torrance, California; and several East Coast towns have amended their zoning codes to create predictable rules that shield residents from controversy while protecting recreation departments or private developers from costly mistakes. The common strategy is a three- tier framework. First is setting a minimum setback distance between courts and homes, a “no pickleball zone” of 250, 350 or 500 feet.

Then for the court proposals just beyond that setback, the planning department can establish requirements for noise mitigation – some combination of noise barriers, limited playing hours and the mandatory hiring of staff to enforce the use of quieter paddles and balls. This intermediate distance is called the “conditional use zone”. Courts at a further distance of 800 to 1000 feet are approved “by right” without conditions as the noise has lost much of its energy by traveling over that distance.

The lesson from early adopters is clear: pickleball can thrive without generating noise controversy if cities treat it as a land-use planning question for the professionals in the zoning department rather than a noise-meter question. The communities that plan wisely avoid conflict, avoid bad publicity, protect public funds, and preserve the joy of the sport.