Pulaski County approves ordinance requiring conditional-use permit for firing ranges after heated debate over Sherwood range

The Pulaski County Quorum Court on May 27 adopted ordinance 25I39 as amended, requiring a conditional‑use permit before construction or operation of a firing range or other shooting facility in the county’s unincorporated area. The measure passed by roll call, 13 ayes, 1 no and 1 abstention.

The ordinance, introduced by Justice Young Baker and amended on the floor, will require anyone building or operating an outdoor firing range in unincorporated Pulaski County to seek a conditional‑use permit from the county planning body and accept conditions the court or planning board imposes before the facility may operate.

Supporters, including Sherwood Police Chief Jeff Hager, told the court the facility was intended for department training. “This is not something that’s gonna be open to the public. This is going to be for police department use only,” Chief Jeff Hager said, describing annual qualifications and limited weekly hours for Sheriff’s Office and partner training.

Opponents, including residents from the nearby Brushy Island neighborhood and speakers identifying themselves as representing more than 280 households, urged the court to block or delay the project while studies and outreach occur. “If your kids had to hear gunfire every week … you’d feel angry, frustrated, and scared,” said Christina Gully, a Brushy Island resident who addressed the court during public comment.

The ordinance debate focused on two tensions: public‑safety training needs asserted by Sherwood officials and health, noise and environmental concerns raised by neighbors. Arguments for controls referenced the county planning process and the desire to set operating conditions (hours, notice, sound mitigation) through the conditional‑use process. Opponents cited the lack of a sound‑attenuation study, concerns about standing water and wetlands on the site, and potential effects on residents with PTSD and on property values.

Court members also considered process questions. Justice Stowers moved to send the item back to the court’s agenda committee to allow more review; that referral motion failed, 5 ayes to 10 nays. The court earlier adopted the amendment to 25I39 by roll call, 13 ayes, 1 nay and 1 present. After public comment and additional discussion by justices, the court called the question and adopted 25I39 as amended, 13 ayes, 1 no, 1 abstention.

Participants described planning and mitigation measures that have been incorporated or proposed: the range’s firing berm has been constructed to about 30–35 feet tall (described by project representatives as larger than berms used in other municipal ranges), the range is oriented away from the nearest houses toward a former dump, and Sherwood officials said they plan limited weekly day hours for normal use and a single annual night qualification (they described night qualification as typically ending by about 8–9 p.m.). Project representatives said the city purchased the property “a couple of years ago” and that the facility was included in permit plans submitted earlier in the process.

The court’s action does not, by its text, retroactively alter existing building permits; instead, it requires a conditional‑use review before operation of new firing ranges or shooting facilities in the unincorporated county. County counsel confirmed on the record that construction already underway would not be automatically halted by the ordinance; rather, the conditional‑use process will govern operation and operating conditions going forward.

Next steps: the ordinance takes effect according to the county’s normal ordinance rules; it will require affected parties to pursue a conditional‑use permit and any associated planning board process before an outdoor firing range may operate in unincorporated Pulaski County.