Greensville planning commission recommends denying outdoor shooting range permit after hours-long public hearing

The Greensville County Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of a special use permit for a proposed private outdoor shooting range operated by Virginia Tactical Shooting Academy, after residents raised recurring concerns about noise, safety and environmental impacts during a lengthy public hearing.

The commission voted 7-1 with one abstention on a motion “to deny the project because it will adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use,” and added that noise would be a nuisance to nearby properties. The recommendation now goes to the Greensville County Board of Supervisors for final action at its July meeting.

Why it matters: The proposed range would be on two adjoining parcels on Goose Pond Road (tax parcels described in the staff report as 382 D, 33 acres, and 382 E, 16.5 acres) in the county’s A-1 Agricultural District. Neighbors said regular weekend firing would interrupt family life and church services, potentially affect property values and could pose risks to wetlands and groundwater if lead is not managed. The commission framed its decision under the county’s zoning rules, which allow outdoor shooting ranges only by special use permit and only when the use “would not be detrimental to the community.”

In staff’s presentation, planning staff summarized the applicant’s proposal and the permit-related requirements. The applicant, identified at the hearing as Sean Banks, founder and CEO of Virginia Tactical Shooting Academy, told the commission the range would be private and limited to academy members and students, would operate during daylight hours on Fridays (noon–4 p.m.), Saturdays (11 a.m.–4 p.m.) and Sundays (11 a.m.–3 p.m.), and would include 10-foot earthen berms, shooting sheds and a certified range safety officer on site.

Banks said the proposal emphasizes training and safety: “My name is Sean Banks, and I’m the founder and CEO of Virginia Tactical Shooting Academy,” and “There will be no unsupervised activities at my range.” He described plans to recycle shell casings, follow EPA best-management practices for lead mitigation, and to reshape berms periodically.

Opponents said those safeguards would not address the routine disruptions they already say they experience and could worsen. Susan Gillum, a nearby land co-owner, said, “I’ve already had an incident with bullets coming through our house,” and said gunfire is distressing for family members with dementia. Elizabeth Brown, who is building a house across from the proposed site, said, “This will very much disrupt our time outdoors.” Patrick Brown, another nearby resident, told the commission, “The sound alone is enough to run anybody off.”

Several speakers raised environmental concerns. The staff report cited proximity to wetlands mapped in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetland Inventory and warned that lead can migrate via stormwater and soil; it noted that because the project would disturb more than 10,000 square feet it requires a county erosion- and sediment-control plan prepared by a Virginia-licensed engineer and, because it would disturb more than two acres, DEQ stormwater permit coverage as well.

Supporters said the range would emphasize certified instruction and could bring modest economic activity to the county. Marcus Simmons, who identified himself as having trained with Banks, said, “He’s above and beyond anybody that I’ve ever met as far as shooting is concerned,” and James Denny, who said he was on-site during the incident that prompted the hearing and is a certified range safety officer, said the proposed rules and training could correct prior problems.

Commission members debated noise metrics, location and precedent. Planning staff recited conditions that would typically accompany a special use permit: site plans, erosion- and stormwater-control plans, building-code compliance, access review by VDOT, a requirement that a range safety officer be present at all times, insurance requirements, inspection access for county staff and law enforcement, and a two-year expiration if the use is not established.

After public comment the commission made and carried a motion to recommend denial. The planning commission’s recommendation is advisory; the Board of Supervisors will conduct a separate review and vote at its July meeting.

Votes at a glance: The planning commission’s vote on the motion to recommend denial carried with a tally of 7 yes, 1 no and 1 abstain. The motion’s text, as read into the record, said the use would “adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood” and that noise would be a nuisance. The recommendation now advances to the Board of Supervisors for a final decision at its July meeting.

What’s next: The Planning Commission’s action is a recommendation only. The Board of Supervisors will take final action at its next meeting (noted at the hearing as the first Monday in July). If the Board approves a special use permit it may impose conditions such as limits on hours, types of firearms or calibers allowed, additional berming or monitoring, or other mitigation; if denied, the applicant may revise and reapply or appeal according to county procedures.

Sources: Planning commission public hearing transcript; staff report and attachments referenced at the hearing (zoning and comprehensive plan maps, National Wetland Inventory attachment).