Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Zoning Appeals denies special exception for proposed outdoor shooting range
Summary
The Decatur City Board of Zoning Appeals denied a request from Dan Mayor on behalf of the Adams County Sheriff's Department to establish an outdoor shooting range in an agricultural zone, citing neighbor proximity and safety concerns after multiple required findings failed to reach a majority.
The Decatur City Board of Zoning Appeals on Nov. 18 denied a petition from Dan Mayor on behalf of the Adams County Sheriff's Department to establish an outdoor shooting range in an agricultural-zoned area near residences.
The board reviewed six required "findings of fact" for special exceptions and reported that several findings failed to receive a majority. On the key public-safety finding — whether the proposed use "will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare" — the board recorded one yes and four no votes. Similar majorities opposed findings concerning injury to neighboring property use and potential impacts on property values.
Board members said the location's proximity to homes and the range's intended long-range rifle use raised safety and community-welfare concerns. "I don't know what I would do personally if I lived out there; if I started hearing gunshots, I've got to bring my kids in," one board member said, summarizing concerns raised by neighbors who had not attended the hearing. Another member noted that other training ranges already exist in the county and questioned the need for an additional range within city limits.
Staff and the chair explained that because at least one of the required findings lacked a majority, the application must be denied under the board's review procedure. The board clarified that some technical elements — such as utilities and site conformance — had met code requirements, but those positive findings did not override the failed safety and neighborhood-impact findings.
The applicant asked whether he could reapply; the chair and staff said reapplication is permitted but not within the next two meetings and recommended the applicant work with planning staff (including Kurt) to revise the design and mitigation measures before returning.
The board's denial is administrative; it was based on the record of the findings votes and the majority's assessment of safety and neighborhood impact. No formal conditions or remedies were adopted as part of the denial. The decision ends consideration of this petition unless and until the applicant chooses to submit a substantially revised proposal and meet with staff and the board again.
