Butler County commissioners voted 5-0 to remand an application by Michael Page to operate an event venue on a 19.5‑acre parcel known as Hurricane Hill back to the planning commission for further review, after neighbors and county staff raised questions about traffic flow, late‑night noise and fire‑safety infrastructure.

The application sought a conditional use to rent the property and its pool house for events with an estimated building occupancy of 240 to 275 people, hours of operation from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. seven days a week, and alcohol served by licensed bartenders for some events. Toby Stewart, community development staff, told the commission the planning commission had denied the request by a vote of 5‑0 with one abstention.

The decision to remand followed testimony from the applicant and nearby residents. Colt Page, speaking for his father, said the family had measured distances to neighboring houses and that “I’d rather just operate on what the truth is of the matter,” arguing visual buffers of trees and distance reduced likely impacts. Barbara Ferguson, a neighbor, told commissioners she and others were “going to be affected” and pleaded: “Please consider Mister Page’s actions when you make a decision for the Butler County residents that live in that area.”

County staff recommended a set of limiting conditions intended to reduce impacts on neighbors. The conditions discussed included: prohibiting loud music after 10 p.m.; positioning security and event lighting to minimize spillover onto adjacent properties; requiring traffic‑management plans for large events; widening the entrance on Southwest Santa Fe Lake Road to allow simultaneous ingress and egress; prohibiting use of the entrance on Southwest 60 Fourth Street for event traffic; confirming the site lagoon can handle increased wastewater or requiring its enlargement; and requiring the event building to meet applicable commercial and fire codes.

Commissioners and staff also discussed whether a fire‑suppression system would be required, noting that requirement generally depends on final occupancy calculations and local code application. Stewart advised that the county’s building‑permit and code process would determine whether sprinklers or other retrofits are required. Commissioners urged the applicant to work with the fire inspector and county engineer on driveway and emergency‑access specifications.

Stewart said he had checked with the county clerk’s office and that no formal protest petition had been filed as of the hearing; under state notice rules and county procedure, the planning commission’s denial of the request meant a board decision to overturn would require a supermajority (four of five commissioners).

After discussion, Commissioner Murphy moved to remand the application to the planning commission with the enumerated concerns; the motion was seconded and passed 5‑0. The remand sends the application back to the planning commission with a request for additional findings and, if appropriate, revised conditions to address traffic, noise and fire‑safety concerns.

The applicant declined to ask the board to approve the venue without additional review; he said he and his family were “flexible” on conditions and willing to widen the driveway and work with county staff on mitigation measures.

The remand does not grant the venue permit—rather, it asks the planning commission to reconsider in light of additional information and recommended conditions. If the planning commission again denies the application, a future County Commission action to approve the venue would require four votes because of the planning commission’s denial.

The county staff record for the item lists the case as Resolution 25‑32.

Looking ahead, the planning commission will reconsider the application and the county’s building and fire officials will inspect the site and advise on occupancy and suppression requirements. Neighbors and the applicant were told they can provide further materials and meet with staff before the planning commission reconvenes.

Why it matters: The county’s decision affects neighborhood character, emergency‑response planning and the county’s approach to approving private event venues in rural residential areas. Commissioners explicitly framed the remand as a step to get more specific engineering and code recommendations before any final permit is granted.