Hearing examines grandfather‑rights claim for Fox Shooting Range; staff finds Bays 1–3 likely grandfathered, Bay 4 disputed

The Fairbanks North Star Borough took testimony Aug. 21 on GR2026‑006, a grandfather‑rights request for the Fox Shooting Range at 2435 Steese Highway. Applicant David R. Dwyer Jr. asked the borough to recognize legal nonconforming status for an outdoor shooting range that has shooting lanes within a quarter mile of dwelling units. The planning department will issue a written determination within 15 days.

Staff member Miss Bingham told the hearing that aerial imagery and user letters show a shooting range in evidence as early as 2012, and that two letters from patrons supported continuous use through 2016 and beyond. "We agree that a portion of the shooting range does have grandfather rights," she said, referencing Bays 1–3. But she said the record shows later construction of a fourth bay on a different tax lot and the addition of rifle shooting and higher berms that "appear to have expanded the quality and character of the shooting range," and staff therefore recommended denial for Bay 4.

Neighbors who testified said Bay 4 has substantially increased noise and comes closer to their back yards than earlier lanes. Miguel Tapia, who said his children play in the property’s backyard, told the hearing: "Having it right on my back door... it's a great difference on how loud it is ... Do I need to require my kids to go out with a pair of earplugs when they wanna go playing?" Another nearby resident said Bay 4 was not present when they moved in and that its construction removed tree cover that had helped reduce noise.

A string of witnesses, including members of local shooting clubs and law‑enforcement trainers, urged grandfathering. Keith Berrien of Fairbanks Alaska Shooters testified the club has used the property for matches and said the range has hosted rifle, pistol and shotgun activities since about 2014; Tony Del Rosario, an airport police officer, said multiple law‑enforcement agencies rely on the Fox Range for mandated qualifications and advanced training. Supporters emphasized safety improvements — side berms, backstops, a safety class and range rules — and contrasted the managed Fox Range with uncontrolled public ranges.

Applicant Dwyer and several witnesses disputed the timing of the first complaints and said prior owners and documents disclosed a shooting range. Dwyer submitted a residential‑property transfer disclosure he said shows the buyer in 2021 initialed an acknowledgment that a neighboring shooting range existed.

Hearing Officer Kellen Spielman reminded attendees that the borough does not have noise regulations and that this proceeding is limited to whether the use predates the 2016 supplementary regulations that require a quarter‑mile separation between shooting lanes and nonconsenting dwellings. "This is not a noise related issue," he said.

The hearing record includes photographs, multiple aerial images, letters from patrons and two formal complaints about noise. Staff said activity is documented in 2012 imagery, additional lanes are visible by 2017 imagery, the applicant purchased the property in 2019 and constructed Bay 4 starting around 2020–2021. Two formal complaints were filed in 2020 and a recent complaint was submitted with a letter this week.

Because grandfather‑rights determinations may be made up to 15 days after the hearing, the borough will mail a written determination to the parties. Any decision can be appealed by filing a notice with the borough clerk per the borough’s appeal rules.