Ada County commissioners overturn Planning & Zoning approval for proposed outdoor shooting range

The Ada County Board of Commissioners on April 7, 2026 voted to overturn the Planning & Zoning Commission’s approval of a conditional-use and master-site plan for a proposed outdoor shooting range, the matter recorded in the transcript as application 202501185-A and initially named in the record as Steven Oroda.

Planning staff summarized the procedural history: an initial Planning & Zoning hearing on Sept. 11, 2024 resulted in a tabling for additional information; a subsequent November 13 hearing produced a majority recommendation of approval by that commission; neighbors filed an appeal that the record shows was accepted Dec. 18, 2025. Richard, identified in the record as a county staff member, told the board the application “resulted from a code enforcement case” and that the board could either sustain the Planning & Zoning approval, overturn it, or add conditions.

During deliberations commissioners said their review concentrated on three principal areas: the scope of the application, whether the project complied with the county’s wildlife overlay in the comprehensive plan, and fire risk. Commissioners also described noise complaints from neighbors as a material concern; several members suggested the applicant could pursue additional, more practical sound testing if the board had chosen to remand for further study. One commissioner framed the decision as ultimately constrained by the wildlife overlay and applicable land-use ordinance.

A motion to approve the neighbors’ appeal — effectively overturning the Planning & Zoning approval — was made and seconded. The board voted by voice; the chair recorded the motion as carried and the board’s action overturned the prior approval in the record before the county commissioners.

The transcript shows the applicant’s name appears inconsistently in the record: the matter is introduced as “Steven Oroda” (first reference in the record) but later in the same hearing the transcription shows the name as “Steven Arruda.” The board record presented at the meeting did not include a roll-call tally attached to the voice vote; the chair recorded that those present signified in favor and that the motion carried.

Next steps mentioned in the meeting record: no additional conditions were adopted at that sitting and the board moved on to other agenda items. The board noted the decision centers on land‑use standards in the county’s comprehensive plan and the underlying findings of fact and conclusions of law in the appeal record.