Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Noise topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and shotgun team clash in public comments over noise, safety and land use at Chriswell Road range
Summary
Supporters of a private 4‑H shotgun team and nearby residents traded claims during public comment about noise, safety and the county’s role after Walton County made land available at a site near Chriswell Road; presenters gave differing accounts of how often the range is used, distances to homes and whether the facility is public.
A packed public comment period at a Walton County Board of Commissioners meeting featured competing statements from supporters of a shotgun team and nearby residents over noise, safety and the county’s ownership and use of a shooting site near Chriswell Road.
Speakers who support the shooting teams told commissioners the site was purchased by Walton County to provide a safe location for 4‑H shotgun, archery, BB and small-bore rifle teams displaced when Walnut Grove Park was built. A supporter said the shooting teams practice only on Sunday afternoons from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m., that the range is private (not open to the public), and that shooting uses only shotguns and not high‑powered rifles. The speaker also said the nearest homes are about 700 to 800 yards away and the baseball field is roughly 1,000 yards away, and that the county vetted the site before purchase to ensure safety.
Charles Wood, a nearby property owner, told the board his property lies about 900 feet from the shooting area’s border and that noise travels from the hilltop site into nearby subdivisions and churches. Wood and other residents said the Sunday practices create “horrendous” noise, disturb children and call for the county to find a different location; he told commissioners he has received complaints from neighboring community members and asked the county to move the activity.
Supporters in the room stood to show their numbers and several asked the board to consider the shooting program’s history in the county; one participant said the team has existed in various locations since 1997 and that the county provided the current site after prior displacement. Petitioners opposing the range were referenced in the meeting record; supporters disputed the petition’s facts.
No formal action on the site or any regulation of the range was recorded during the meeting; the discussion occurred in the public‑comment period. Commissioners paused business briefly to allow crowded public participation and later resumed the agenda.
Ending: The board heard both sides during public comment; commissioners did not take immediate regulatory action on the site during the meeting. Residents on both sides said they hoped the county would consider next steps.
