PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, December 17, 2003
All Commissioners present
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT/ORION SPORTING GROUP, LLC – The
applicants are requesting two permits – one to operate a Corporate Training
Center and another for a Shotgun Sports Center on property purchased at 11801
Norwood Road in Wingina. The property
is approximately 465 acres and zoned Agricultural (A-1) with part of the
frontage along the James River in the Floodplain Overlay District.
Mr. Steve Rainer, representing Orion, said that the group had noted the
questions raised and compromises suggested at the last meeting and had looked
at ways to move the project along. Mr.
Morris Peterson, also representing Orion, introduced Mr. Raymond Foreman of
Clay Sport International who presented his company’s new design for the
property. The new plan moves the lodge
further down the hill and locates the game fields lower with the topography
mitigating some of the noise.
Dr. Walker pointed out that relocating some of the shooting fields had actually
moved them closer to some property boundaries than the old plan. Mr. Foreman pointed out that the shooting
would be done closer to the boundary lines but toward the interior of the
property. Dr. Walker, noting that some
of the property fronts on the James River, asked in what direction shooting
would be in on that part of the property.
Mr. James Slaughter, representing Orion, said that hunting in that area
would be by right and was not a part of the requested permit. Dr. Walker then asked about an area reserved
for “other activities”. Mr. Foreman
said that those would be ATV’s, 3-D Archery, etc. Mr. Slaughter said that those were future plans and would have to
come back before the county for approval.
Dr. Walker said that she would like to have a good idea what the county
might be opening the neighborhood up for in the future. Mr. Rainer said that the group is only
asking for permits for the Corporate Training Center and Shotgun Sports Center
at this time and that they are not arguing that approval of those permits would
imply approval of any future permits.
Mr. Brush asked for more information on lead removal. Mr. Ranier said that the company would fully
comply with the law and with EPA’s Best Management Practices. Mr. Brush asked what those practices would
be. Mr. Foreman said that the design
plan would concentrate lead in small areas.
A machine would remove the top layer of topsoil, sift out the lead,
which would be reused. He said that the
soil Ph range would be tested. Ms.
Proulx asked whether their former site at Oak Ridge had been monitored in that
way. Mr. Peterson said that there had
been no formal testing of the site. He
said that the group had looked at the parameters over the two years there and
determined that testing was not needed due to the low number of people and
shooting at the site. Ms. Russell asked
about what treatment the soil would receive after the removal of the lead. Mr. Ranier said that if the sifted soil were
not contaminated, it would be replaced.
If it were contaminated, it would be removed and replaced with new
soil. Ms. Russell asked whether the EPA
requires documentation of testing and firings.
Mr. Foreman said that it is not required. He said that the EPA has Best Management Practices, but not regulations. Dr. Walker asked about the river and natural
runoff leaching into the James and asked whether the river would also be tested
or just the land. Mr. Peterson said
that Orion is: 1) environmentally responsible; 2) aware that the natural
environment is their business; and 3) willing to do anything to mitigate
problems. Dr. Walker asked who would be
responsible for testing the river and what protections would be in place. Mr. Boger said that Orion would have to
develop an Erosion & Sediment Control Plan and could be required to handle
stormwater on site. Mr. Bruguiere said
that since the creek there flows into a pond, if the applicant could test the
water in the pond to alleviate concern about leaching. Mr. Peterson agreed that they could. Mr. Slaughter pointed out that the company
has incurred costs to move the facilities and develop a new plan to accommodate
the county and the neighbors. He said
that the costs are considerable but that the owner had agreed to spend the
money.
Because of an error in advertising the meeting as a Public Hearing,
Commissioners did open the meeting to public comment. Mr. Mike Bowles said that he is a hunter and outdoor enthusiast
living on Norwood Road, but that he opposes approval of the permits for two
reasons. First, he said that the county
does not have a clear definition of a corporate training facility. He said that it could be almost anything and
asked that Commissioners get a clear understanding of the term before moving
forward. Second, Mr. Bowles noted that
the NRA states that the biggest problem in establishing a shooting facility is
containment and abatement of lead. He
pointed out that the cumulative effects should be considered. He said that the applicant has said that the
county should look at the previous site to see what they did there, but noted
that the EPA has no containment or abatement plan on file for that property for
the applicants.
Mr. Doug Coleman, a biologist in the county for 30 years, noted that
the issues are many and that the noise of shooting would not be enough to deny
the permit. He said that he was
encouraged though by the questions about the lead, noting that it is difficult
to contain lead when firing into the air at clay pigeons. Mr. Coleman said that it would be significantly
more lead than a layer of lead paint and that you could not determine the lead
contamination in soil by simply doing Ph testing. He encouraged the Commissioners to do their homework on a serious
issue.
Mr. Sam Eggleston, III noted that the county ordinance says that “The
use shall be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the zoning district
and shall not affect adversely the use of neighboring property.” He also said that while the noise ordinance
was not intended to apply to shooting ranges (as the noise is not mechanically
generated), the Special Use Permit language links to the noise ordinance so
would be interpreted as applying. Mr.
Eggleston also pointed out that the applicant plans to use a machine to remove
soil for sifting but noted that that machine could not be used on slopes or
taken through trees. He asked whether
the county should simply trust the applicant to take care of the lead or
require them to have a plan in place before approval. He noted that part of the property is in the flood plain and said
that there should be a plan in place for that consideration. Finally, Mr. Eggleston pointed out that the
county needed a better procedure for handling these types of applications,
noting that the public is being asked to respond to a new plan just submitted
on Friday. He said that that defeats
the purpose of a Public Hearing to allow citizens to make informed comment.
Mr. Jim Raup said that the Wingina property does not fit Orion’s own
description from 2001 of an appropriate parcel of land for a shooting
range. He said that the business would
indeed change the character of the neighborhood and that if denied on the basis
of that section of the ordinance (12-3-6), the courts would uphold the county’s
decision.
Following the Public Hearing, Mr. Ranier said that Orion’s goal is to
institute a lead management plan that would not allow the soil to become toxic,
noting that Mr. Peterson plans to make his living off that land and did not
want it polluted. He said that there
are fewer houses near this property and that it is a better location than Oak
Ridge. Mr. Ranier said that Orion is
not a brand new business and has a history in the county is 2001. He noted no complaints or problems with the
business since that time and that they had been operating in a smaller area at
Oak Ridge while Oak Ridge conducted their other businesses without
complaint. He noted that the county’s
Comp Plan includes creation of a diverse and vibrant local economy as one of
its goals. He said that the county’s
job is to weigh the price of business.
He said that the business also fits the goals under promoting tourism
and recreation. He said that the
business would not change the character of the community, noting that people
would still be hunting, shooting and living in homes. Mr. Ranier said that the property is not zoned Residential but
rather is zoned Agricultural. He said
that the ordinance clearly considered outdoor firing ranges as they are listed
under Special Use Permits. He said that
in making their decision, the Commissioners could not be arbitrary. He said that there was no reason to grant
the permits 3 years ago but not now. He
said that the only condition on the permit then was that it was
non-transferable.
Ms. Heather Goodwin of Oak Ridge clarified that Oak Ridge staff set
“ceasefire” times prior to each event at the estate. She noted that there was no shooting during other events by prior
arrangement.
Ms. Proulx asked how much shooting there would be each day if the
company reached their optimum business.
Mr. Slaughter said that his goal was to acquire 15 clients (individuals)
per week so they could expect 1,500 shots per week. Dr. Walker asked about the hours of operation. Mr. Ranier said that they would like to have
no limitations on the hours and that they are not asking for exterior lighting
so the shooting would be limited by nature.
Ms. Proulx, addressing Mr. Ranier’s comments about arbitrary decisions,
noted that Conditional Use Permits are very site-specific and that the previous
location was leased. She said that now
approval could be for a very long term and growing business. She noted her disagreement with the comment
that the Commission could only apply the same conditions to this permit as
applied to the previous. Dr. Walker,
noting that the county must consider the public health, safety, morals and
general welfare under the ordinance, asked Mr. Boger whether permission granted
on the previous application had any bearing on consideration of this
application. Mr. Boger said that the
consideration must be applied to the specific site.
Ms. Proulx asked, at 1,500 shots per week calculated under the lead
management plan, when the amount of lead would become an issue at a shooting
site. Mr. Foreman said typically in
18-20 years but that it would depend on the condition of the individual
site. Ms. Russell asked whether it was
reasonable to ask for site-specific lead reclamation reports to the county with
annual testing of the soil and water.
Mr. Peterson said that that was reasonable.
Mr. Bruguiere made the motion (Ms. Proulx seconded) to recommend
approval of #2003-007 for the Corporate Training Facility with two conditions:
1.
The Corporate Training
Facility can only be used for management training of corporate executives as
stated in the materials submitted with the application; and
2.
This conditional use
permit cannot be transferred to a new owner without approval from the Nelson
County Board of Supervisors.
Dr. Walker noted that although separate permits, the county must
consider the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. She said that that consideration is part of
the governmental responsibility.
Commissioners voted 3-3 on the motion.
Mr. Bruguiere, Ms. Proulx and Ms. Russell voted to recommend
approval. Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Brush and
Dr. Walker voted no.
Ms. Russell then made the motion (Mr. Bruguiere seconded) to recommend
approval of the Shotgun Facility with the following conditions:
1.
The final site plan
must be submitted for review and approval.
This plan must show in detail the shooting areas and their design along
with other site improvements;
2.
With the final site
plan, the applicant must provide a site-specific Best Management Practices
proposal for lead management including, but not limited to soil
characteristics, ground and surface water, runoff, lead volumes, shooting
patterns, records to be kept, inspections, etc. Applicant agrees to reimburse the county for costs of hiring a
consultant, selected jointly by the applicant and the county, to evaluate the
BMP proposal;
3.
Hours of operation to
be Monday-Friday 9am-5pm; Saturday 9am-sundown and Sunday 1pm-5pm;
4.
No outdoor lighting;
5.
Helicopter pad to be
used for transportation and emergency only;
6.
Facility limited to
shotguns, trap, skeet, sporting clays and helice;
7.
No gun sales;
8.
Permit is
non-transferable;
9.
Permit is valid until
December 31, 2014. The applicant must
reapply to renew the permit prior to this date;
10.
Must comply with
Section 8-31, Maximum nighttime sound levels, paragraph (a) and (b) of the Code
of the County of Nelson as amended.
Dr. Walker said that the hours in the motion would only accommodate the
applicant and do nothing to accommodate the neighborhood. She pointed out that the residents are not
living in a business area but that the county is forcing a business on
them. Ms. Proulx said that although she
did not view the Corporate Training Facility as a change to the community, she
does feel the shooting range would change the neighborhood. She also said that if approved, it would be
important to get conditions in place.
Commissioners voted 2-4 on the motion.
Mr. Bruguiere and Ms. Russell voted yes to recommend approval. Mr. Hoffman, Ms. Proulx, Mr. Brush and Dr.
Walker voted no.
The Board of Supervisors will hear the issue at Public Hearing on
Tuesday, January 13 at 7:30pm.
Ms. Proulx noted that the county is currently working to revise the
Zoning Ordinance and suggested that all who are concerned about planning for
future projects and development consider attending the Work Sessions.
ZONING WORK SESSION – Commissioners scheduled a Work Session for
Wednesday, January 14 at 7:00pm at the Courthouse. In addition, Commissioners agreed to work on the Zoning Ordinance
draft following their regular meeting on January 28 at 7:30pm.
Meeting adjourned.