Oak Ridge council sends proposal to add “event centers” back to staff after public debate

Oak Ridge — The Town Council opened a public hearing on a proposed text amendment to add “event centers” as a permitted or special-use category in multiple zoning districts and voted to send the draft back to staff for revision after residents, Planning & Zoning and the applicant debated its scope and process.

The amendment would add event centers as a use in commercial districts and as a special-use permit in agricultural (AG) and RS-40 residential-agricultural districts. The council’s action sends the proposal back to staff and Planning & Zoning for more detail on district placement, buffers and minimum lot-size or other safeguards before the council takes a final vote.

Why it matters: Supporters said the change would allow property owners and entrepreneurs to pursue a formal, regulated pathway for venues such as wedding sites, corporate retreats or small conference spaces. Opponents said the RS-40 designation — which includes large-lot residential and semi-rural parcels that back to neighborhoods — is the wrong place for uses that can produce traffic, noise and late-hour activity.

Developer and land-use consultant Bill Rico, speaking for Land Solutions, told the council the town presently hosts informal events but lacks a defined event-center use. “Event center is a stand alone use currently [that] does not exist in the town of Oak Ridge,” Rico said, arguing that a special-use permit (SUP) process would allow neighborhood input and conditions such as hours and decibel limits.

Jason Strack, who represented the Planning & Zoning Board’s discussion, said the board unanimously opposed the amendment as written because of the RS-40 inclusion and concerns about the timing and availability of public input on future SUP applications. “Our primary concerns are lack of ability for public comment regarding these special use permits being issued,” Strack said in outlining the board’s objections.

Residents at the hearing disputed one another on whether a special-use permit runs with the land or the owner and on whether the amendment was drafted for a specific parcel. Planning staff clarified that under current ordinance a granted SUP becomes an overlay on the parcel and remains attached to the property unless conditions, nonuse or revocation end it; staff also said applicants may propose conditions limiting transfer as part of their permit application, though that is a negotiated condition rather than a default.

Council members raised similar tradeoffs: some said the SUP process allows site-specific conditions and enforcement; others said rezoning processes allow broader public comment and are harder to change once approved. Several council members asked staff to study minimum acreage, setback and parking requirements and to clarify standing and participation rights for neighbors during SUP proceedings.

The council moved to refer the text amendment back to staff and Planning & Zoning for revisions that would (at a minimum) re-examine inclusion of RS-40 and consider specific development standards such as minimum acreage, buffers and hours. The motion passed by council majority.

What’s next: The amendment will return to Planning & Zoning and staff with instructions to refine district definitions, consider minimum lot sizes and clarify public-notice and hearing procedures for SUPs before the council schedules a new public hearing.