Residents ask council to review Park Avenue firearms operation licensed as minor home occupation

Dozens of Park Avenue neighbors told the Galena City Council on May 12 that a firearms business operating from a Park Avenue residence has left them feeling “disregarded, disrespected, and very unsafe.” Several speakers said they were not notified before the city issued the license and called for the council to re-evaluate whether firearm sales belong in a residential zone.

The complaints centered on a business identified in public comments as Lead My Boomstick, which residents said is operating across the street from several family homes. “Our family has lived in the same home on Park Avenue since 1980,” said Kathy Tamish, who gave her address to the council. “Recently, there's been a major change to the neighborhood resulting in our family and many of our neighbors feeling disregarded, disrespected, and very unsafe.”

Neighbors described specific concerns including customers examining firearms on tailgates in the street, traffic from deliveries and buyers, a shared driveway used by multiple households (several speakers said five children use it, one child with special needs), and online listings the speakers said advertised high-capacity magazines and a flamethrower. Eric Pilati, who said he and his wife confronted the owner, told the council, “He's selling routes for AR fifteens. You can't even own an AR 15 in this state.” Several speakers asked why the city had not required more review before licensing.

At the meeting Mayor Jerry Renner said the city has treated the activity as a “minor home occupation,” and that the council and staff would revisit the matter. “The city has deemed it a minor home occupation. And that's what we're working under,” the mayor said during general comments. Council members and staff also noted that the licensing language had been changed during a prior meeting and that there had been discussion, during a November meeting, about whether a grandfathering clause applied. Some residents said they had raised concerns with council members and staff before the meeting and felt they had been ignored.

One person who identified himself as Matthew Blum said he is not affiliated with the business but that his brother — the owner, he said — is highly regulated because of prior government work and other businesses he runs. The council stopped short of taking any formal action on the spot; several members told residents the council would further review licensing language and the consent and notice processes that applied to minor home occupations.

The session included back-and-forth about what the February–November licensing process had covered; several residents asked the council to publish any records of communications and the license application for public review. No motion or vote related to changing the license or revoking the permit took place during the meeting.

Council members asked staff to follow up and said they would clarify whether the business was properly licensed under the city’s minor-home-occupation rules and whether any grandfathering or licensing errors occurred. Residents asked the council to consider additional restrictions on location and on retail-style sales conducted from a residence.

Council, staff and residents agreed that more information and transparent follow-up documents are needed before the council considers formal changes to the license or ordinance language. The council did not set a deadline at the meeting for the follow-up report.