Planning commission denies use permit for proposed Kahala Road gun range after neighbors raise safety concerns

The Bradley County Regional Planning Commission voted to deny a permitted‑on‑review application for a proposed gun range at 242 Kahala Road, following public testimony and staff review that the proposed outdoor range did not meet distance and siting requirements and drew strong concerns from nearby residents.

Bentley, planning staff, summarized site requirements and identified the county’s standards for outdoor ranges, telling commissioners that “one of the requirements of an outdoor shooting range is the point of discharge of any firearm shall be a minimum of a thousand foot from any occupied structure and a minimum of 250 feet from any property lines,” and that the way the range was drawn did not meet those distances.

The applicant’s representative, Eric Helston, said the project’s intent was training and safety: “So we're looking to create a gun range in a safe and, well, fun environment to train people to use gun safety,” he said. Several neighbors and nearby property owners testified in opposition, raising safety, noise, livestock and health concerns. Steven Mathis said the proposal included a ministry emphasis and described intended fellowship and training opportunities for men; Tony Smith said his mother and a sister who is a veteran with PTSD would be adversely affected by continuous gunfire. Mike Watson cited livestock, children, and a pending criminal case he said involved the applicant, and Nicole (last name not given) said prior nearby shooting had made her feel unsafe: “I moved out because I like it quiet. I like the country.”

Commission discussion noted prior local experience with a previously approved range that led to repeated neighbor complaints. One commissioner said the commission had “realized we made a mistake” on a prior approval and therefore could not support another. A commissioner also recused themself from the vote because of a business relationship with the applicant; that recusal was noted on the record.

A motion to deny the permitted‑on‑review application passed on a roll call: the record shows eight members voting “no” on the use and one recusal. The commission’s staff conclusion that the proposed layout did not meet minimum separation distances was a key factor in the outcome. The denial on this administrative permitting step means the applicant may revise the proposal or pursue other venues, but no approval or conditions were adopted by the commission at this meeting.