Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Text Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council sends proposed repeal of nightclub distance rule back to planning amid school-safety questions
Summary
Oak Ridge councilors asked staff to send a zoning text amendment—removing a 250-foot distance requirement for nightclubs, taverns and similar uses—back to the planning commission after members raised concerns about potential impacts on schools, the Boys & Girls Club and mixed-use downtown development.
A proposed change to Oak Ridge’s zoning code that would remove a 250-foot distance requirement between nightclubs (including dance clubs, taverns and similar uses) and sensitive uses such as schools and places of worship was sent back to the planning commission for further review after council members pressed staff for more detail.
The amendment, presented by city planning staff, would allow outdoor activities for those uses in the D-1 zoning district and eliminate a specific distance requirement that currently applies across the city. "It would eliminate the distance requirement from schools for these uses, which currently, I believe, is 250 feet," Miss Williams said while explaining the text amendment and its rationale, including facilitating mixed-use development in the recently adopted D-1 zone.
Council members said they supported the objective of enabling downtown-style mixed uses but asked for clearer protections where youth-serving facilities or other sensitive uses are nearby. "I'm concerned about the impact this has on the Boys and Girls Club," Council member Dodson said, asking staff to clarify whether the change could allow a use next to that facility. Other members asked whether the BZA's review authority would still enable the city to deny locations that present noise, lighting or safety concerns.
Staff told council that in B-2 and UB-2 districts the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) would still review and could deny an application on the basis of impacts to adjacent properties, but that the explicit distance clause would be removed in the D-1 district where such uses would be permissible by right. "The board of zoning appeals would still have to review the use, and it is the code still asks them to consider whether or not the proposed establishment is detrimental to adjacent properties," Miss Williams said.
After discussion, the council considered a motion to defer the first reading for 30 days but the maker withdrew it. The council then approved a motion asking staff to return the amendment to the planning commission for further study of the issues raised, including mapping specific D-1 parcels and assessing proximity to schools and youth facilities.
The referral was approved by voice vote with no recorded opposition. The planning commission is expected to revisit the amendment and provide additional analysis and recommendations before the council considers a second reading.
What happens next: Staff will bring the amendment and requested analysis back to the planning commission; any changes recommended by that body will return to council for second-reading and public hearing as required by state law.
