Commission opts out of "nuisance" decision

The county commissioners heard public comment on an alleged shooting nuisance in the Sundance Canyon Ranch subdivision on Tuesday. Attendees were invited to share their thoughts during a hearing that had been postponed from November to make sure all interested parties had received notice of the complaint.

Ultimately, the commission determined that the subdivision’s own improvement and service district would be a more appropriate avenue through which to find a solution.

The landowner who brought the issue to the county once again presented the documentation he had put together, including his own research and a report from the Crook County Sheriff’s Office. His allegations center around a private shooting range within the residential development from which, he claims, two ricochet events on his own land originated.

During one of the ricochet events, the landowner claims three rounds passed over his head; one hit a tree around 20 feet from where he was standing. Two years later, in June, 2019, the second event allegedly occurred when the landowner was removing blades from his riding mower.

Between June and August of this year, the accused is said to have shot on at least 17 days for at least two to three hours each time, and sometimes two or three times a day. The complaint calls this a “significant noise nuisance” as well as a “substantial safety hazard” because he says the private shooting range does not have an NRA-approved/certified backstop.

The complainant argued that a shooting range goes against the covenants of the subdivision, which he said trumps the state statute that allows such a construction on private land. He also questioned the standards to which the shooting range and its backstop have been built and told the commission that he spoke to a potential buyer who turned down the opportunity to purchase land near the shooting range due to safety concerns for his grandchildren, which he said suggests the shooting range is having an adverse effect on property values.

“I am a big supporter of the Second Amendment…but there is a point where we have a nuisance here,” he said.

The owner of the shooting range stated he took corrective action as soon as the landowner informed him of the first ricochet event. However, he said, he was never notified of the second event in June.

“If I don’t know about something, I can’t do anything about it,” he said, telling the commission that he has tried to be conscientious and has future plans to build a baffle system.

“I’ve been receptive to complaints that I knew about,” he said, adding, “My backstop is well beyond what the NRA calls for” for a personal range.

The shooting range owner also noted that the construction does not need to meet NRA standards as it is not a commercial venture. He did, however, try to follow those guidelines to the best of his ability.

“I call it a range, but it’s just my private property,” he said.

The owner of the shooting range told the commission that he competes in five competitions annually, has a concealed carry permit and hunts. For these reasons, he said, he feels it is important to maintain his proficiency; this was also the reason he bought a 40-acre property on which to construct a range.

A second neighbor of the shooting range owner commented that he can also hear the shooting but said, “That’s one man’s dream of retirement”. For that reason, he told the commission, he can put up with the noise.

He also advised the commission to look at the shooting range before making any decisions as he cannot see why it would be considered a danger.

A third neighbor described the shooting range owner as conscientious and willing to take every safety measure possible. He also warned against the commission taking action regarding shooting on private property.

“If you’re going to regulate shooting, how are you going to do that?” he asked. As the shooting range in question is not a commercial venture, it would be a case of regulating individuals.

A fourth neighbor stated his belief that a solution is needed which is good for all involved. “Not everybody’s dream is shooting,” he said; while he can understand passion for an activity, where do the shooting range owner’s rights stop and his neighbor’s begin?

The neighbor commented that this is a case of “splitting hairs on who’s going to have their dream and who is not” and suggested there are good ranges in the local areas to make use of and suppressors to limit noise. The shooting range owner should be allowed to enjoy his dream, he said, but so should the complainant.

Commissioner Jeanne Whalen asked a representative from the subdivision’s improvement district to comment on what would be needed to change the covenants. The answer was that the new covenant would need to be voted on by the landowners.

Whalen and Commissioner Fred Devish both felt that “a lot of this is governed by their covenants”. Whalen explained that the commission will think long and hard about the issue because it’s the commission’s job to look at the big picture and whatever decisions are made will affect the whole county, not just individual citizens.

Following the hearing, the commission moved to deny the request to consider whether the shooting range should be considered a nuisance on the basis that the board has never adopted a process to declare activity on private land as a nuisance. The board felt that the landowners have a more appropriate avenue available to them to solve the problem through the subdivision’s covenants and service and improvement district.

In an accompanying letter, the board thanked the landowners for their input and for the respectful nature of the conversation, but pointed to the covenants and improvement and service district as the better remedy.

“We felt that it would be a more appropriate way than through setting a precedence that may affect the entire county,” said the letter.