Applicant withdraws proposed sporting‑clays range after strong public opposition; Planning commission denies CUP 25‑01

The Saline County Planning and Zoning Commission denied a conditional use permit application (CUP 25‑01) on May 27 after the applicant signaled a verbal withdrawal amid strong public opposition. The application was for an outdoor commercial sporting‑clays facility on a roughly 98‑acre parcel at the northeast corner of East North Street and Holmes Road; the commission’s recorded vote to deny was unanimous.

County planning staff recommended denial of the outdoor range at that location, citing the site’s placement largely in an agricultural and rural development area, proximity to residences, inclusion in the regulatory floodplain and concerns over noise and safety impacts on surrounding residential and agricultural uses. Staff told the commission the closest residence to the proposed use is about 1,000 feet away and that portions of the parcel are within the floodway. Staff said an indoor facility would be more appropriate for the area given the density of nearby residences but listed conditions that would be strongly advised if the commission nonetheless approved an outdoor facility (permanent restroom and parking on site, commercial permit review, septic meeting county standards, finished floor elevations 2 feet above base flood, no development in floodway, on‑site parking and site drainage plan, and an 8‑foot privacy fence with additional vegetative buffering for sound dampening).

Nathaniel Berg, who identified himself as general counsel for JRI Hospitality (Dream Team is part of JRI Hospitality), told the commission the project was intended as a clay‑shooting facility only — "There will not be rifle shooting there" — and said the facility was primarily for organized events, company groups and guests at lodging the owner is developing rather than being open to the general public. Berg said standard industry safe ranges cite 300 meters for clay shooting and that the applicant planned trained range hosts and on‑site parking and facilities.

More than a dozen nearby residents and landowners spoke in opposition during the public comment period. Speakers cited noise intrusion (several participants referenced measured decibel differentials and the persistence of shotgun blast noise), threats to livestock and horses, risks to wildlife including bald eagles along the Smoky Hill River, concerns about lead and clay target fragment contamination in a floodplain, potential traffic and road‑condition impacts on narrow rural roads, emergency access problems when roads flood or trains block crossings, and anticipated declines in property values. Commenters who spoke on the record included Dan Murray, Tom Maxwell, Rick Hanson, Penny White, Tyler Somerville, Don Madison, Dr. Richard Yaple and Kirk Cusick; several urged denial and urged the applicant to seek a different location, such as an industrial zoned site.

After the public comment period, Berg told the commission that the applicant could simply withdraw the application and pursue another site; he said the owner indicated he would "just go somewhere else." The chair then asked procedural questions about withdrawal and staff confirmed that the applicant’s verbal withdrawal had been stated and commissioners then moved to deny the application "in light of the intended withdrawal." The motion to deny was seconded and carried unanimously. Staff noted that denials typically carry a 12‑month waiting period before the same application can be refiled at the same location.

Votes at a glance: CUP 25‑01 — denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission (unanimous vote). The motion on the record was to deny CUP 25‑01 "in light of the intended withdrawal." No individual commissioner names were recorded on the vote in the meeting transcript.