Oak Ridge council pauses decision on proposed Donell Honeycutt event center after lengthy evidentiary hearing

The Town of Oak Ridge council on Feb. 5 continued its review of Special Use Permit SUP2501, which seeks authorization to operate an event center at the Donell Honeycutt House, 2524 Oak Ridge Road, after hearing several hours of sworn testimony from the applicant, expert witnesses and neighbors.

Marsh Prouse, attorney for the applicant, introduced witnesses including Joshua Fogle, an ownership representative for the applicant LLCs, and Bill Grieco of Land Solutions, a land‑use consultant who testified as an expert on development standards. Prouse and the applicant’s witnesses described a roughly 3.16‑acre parcel in the RS‑40 zoning district, the property’s listing as a historic structure eligible for the National Register, and a site plan showing an on‑site parking area and a maximum attendance figure of 150 people.

“We have made the site plan in accordance with the ordinance and are not requesting waivers,” consultant Bill Grieco testified, saying the site plan “meets or exceeds” Article 9 development standards for signage, parking, landscaping, fences and lighting and that county and state agencies would review septic, well and driveway permits as required.

Opponents, represented at the hearing by neighbors with standing, pressed multiple technical and safety concerns. Phaedra Loftus, speaking for a group of adjoining homeowners, said the applicant has proceeded with work under residential permits and that no commercial wastewater or acoustic studies were presented. “You cannot operate a 150‑person commercial event center on a residential septic,” Loftus asserted, urging the council to deny the permit without competent technical data on septic capacity, well setbacks and noise mitigation.

Town counsel and staff repeatedly cautioned parties about the limited scope of evidence the council may consider in a quasi‑judicial hearing; objections were raised and ruled on at several points when opponents cited matters staff said were outside the statutory criteria.

Council members deliberated against a checklist of statutory findings required by the town’s development ordinance. Council found the application complete and accepted evidence that public‑health and safety matters would be addressed by appropriate permitting agencies. However, after debate the council determined it did not have sufficient evidence to make two required findings: whether the use would substantially injure adjoining property values and whether the location and character of the proposed use would be in harmony with the surrounding RS‑40 neighborhood.

Because those two findings were not supported by the evidentiary record, the council voted to continue the hearing to a date certain — April 9 — and invited the applicant to present additional, fact‑based material addressing impacts (for example, septic/well permits, traffic or acoustic modeling, and binding operational conditions) if they wish the council to revisit the application. If the applicant declines, the council may treat the record as concluded.

The council’s action preserved the council’s ability to impose necessary conditions — such as limits on amplified outdoor music, hours of operation, or enforceable overflow parking plans — but did not grant the permit. The applicant and opponents will be notified of the April 9 continuation and told which specific evidentiary items the council expects to consider.

What’s next: The council set April 9 as the next date to re‑open the hearing on SUP2501 to receive additional evidence limited to the outstanding statutory findings. If the applicant does not present new evidence at that time, the council may deny the application based on the current record.