Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance Suppressors topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies variance to allow manufacture of firearm suppressors in residential outbuilding
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals voted 4–1 to deny a variance that would have allowed a petitioner to manufacture firearm suppressors in an outbuilding at 1532 Morningside Drive; the planning commission had earlier recommended approval 6–4 with stipulations.
The Board of Zoning Appeals denied a land‑use variance that would have allowed manufacturing of firearm suppressors in an outbuilding at 1532 Morningside Drive, voting 4–1 to reject the petition.
Petitioner Jesse Bob, owner of Exit Strategies Industry LLC, told the board he has applied for a federal firearms license and sought the variance so he can "use my outbuilding to manufacture firearm... suppressors." He described a small operation using "a manual lathe, a manual mill, and welders" and said the shop is insulated and that production would be small-scale, "five or 10 a week." He also said the ATF requires secure storage for inventory.
The city fire marshal, who identified himself during the discussion, raised life‑safety and fire concerns and pressed for safety measures where welding and other hot work would occur. Board members also questioned whether the proposed activity was appropriate in a residential R‑1 zone and noted that a variance would apply only to this owner and would not permanently change the zoning designation.
Members reviewed the planning commission record and noted the commission recommended approval 6–4 with stipulations. Those planning‑commission considerations included limits on noise and odors, requirements to avoid outside storage and signage, and containment of any waste or runoff. Board members pressed the petitioner to explain solvents, coolants and containment; the petitioner said the work would be dry machining and that oils would be contained inside machine pans.
Board members offered differing views on precedent and neighborhood impacts. One member said it did not appear to be a major manufacturing operation, comparing it to other home hobbies; another urged the petitioner to invest in a commercially zoned site rather than expand an industrial use in a residential area. Board member Dave Eggers said he had voted against the request at the planning commission and repeated his opposition during the meeting, saying he did not favor operating a business outside of a home in a high‑residential area.
After debate, Eggers moved to deny the variance; the motion was seconded. The board approved the motion to deny the petition by a 4–1 vote, and the variance request was rejected.
