A citizens petition to establish a noise bylaw for new pickleball courts was defeated under Article 33. The petitioner, Hillary Tutco, argued for specific distance requirements and noise mitigation to protect residents' quality of life. However, the Advisory Committee recommended against the measure, describing the proposed bylaw as subjective and difficult to enforce.

Voters ultimately sided with the town boards, rejecting the proposed amendment to the noise bylaw. A subsequent motion for No Action passed, leaving the regulation of pickleball noise to existing town ordinances and special permit processes.

Motion: To adopt the pickleball noise bylaw amendment.

Vote: Failed