Greensville supervisors decline special-use permit for private outdoor shooting range after hours, safety and environmental concerns

The Greensville County Board of Supervisors heard testimony Aug. 4 on a special-use permit application from the Virginia Tactical Shooting Academy to establish a private outdoor shooting range on two parcels (tax map Parcels 382D and 382E). The board considered a motion to approve the permit with modified hours and safety conditions, but after extended public comment the motion did not receive board approval. The issue generated multiple public-safety, noise and environmental concerns from nearby residents and a staff report that flagged wetlands and state permit requirements.

The proposed range would use roughly 2 acres of one parcel for a firing area approximately 150 feet wide by 300 feet deep. Planning staff told the board that the property is zoned A‑1 (agricultural) and that outdoor shooting ranges are allowed in that district only with a special-use permit. The staff report said soil and water contamination from lead deposition and range noise were the primary concerns and that the site lies near wetlands identified on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory.

“By implementing appropriate lead management practices and outdoor shooting range, range owners and range operators can reduce the environmental and health risk associated with lead deposition,” the staff report said, and added that the applicant would need erosion-and-sediment control and stormwater permits because the project would disturb more than one acre of land.

Applicant Sean Banks, identified in the hearing as owner and CEO of Practical Shooting Academy, described revisions he said he had made after public comment, including limiting operating days to Thursdays through Saturdays, 11 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., and increasing earthen berm heights to 15 feet. “We wanted to go above and beyond…we’ll do 15‑foot berms just to have an extra level of safety and sound mitigation,” Banks said. He also said certified range safety officers would be on site and that shooting would be limited to members and enrolled students, not the general public.

Several residents said they had experienced or feared stray bullets, chronic noise and possible lead contamination. Curtis Gillum, who gave a street address, described an incident he said occurred elsewhere in which a bullet entered a nearby house and “barely missed my wife.” Keisha Peebles told the board that gunfire had awakened her family and frightened her children, saying, “I love this again, but I feel in our residence where we came to find a home to settle in and retire… I wouldn't have moved here knowing a range was here.”

Other speakers described hearing sustained rounds, events with large numbers of visitors and concerns about impacts on well water and local timber. A resident who said he monitors the applicant’s website disputed the applicant’s claim of a small membership number and described instances when large groups and food trucks were present.

Planning staff noted the county comprehensive plan designates the property outside the urban development area as rural, where agricultural and forestal uses predominate and are generally protected. The staff memo recommended conditions to mitigate impacts if the board were to approve the permit; it also noted that the planning commission had recommended denial by a 7‑to‑1 vote.

A motion was put forward on the floor to approve the application with written reasons and to amend the staff report to reflect the applicant’s revised hours and to add baffle language to the permit conditions. Supervisor Kane (Greensville County Board of Supervisors) was recorded as the mover. The motion did not carry; the board did not adopt the motion and took no further action on the application at the meeting.

The record presented multiple outstanding requirements that would apply to any approved project, including engineered erosion-and-sediment control plans, stormwater plans, and potential third‑party review. The staff report also recommended lead-management practices and indicated the county could impose conditions intended to address noise, visual screening and environmental protections.

No formal permit was issued at the August 4 meeting; the planning commission’s denial and the public hearing record remain part of the administrative record for any future consideration.

Because speakers raised concerns about wetlands and potential contamination, any future iteration of this application would need to include the engineering and environmental permits staff identified and demonstrate compliance with state and federal requirements before construction could proceed.