Gun range proposal shot down

By Jake Cantrell & Jennifer Ramsay / The Nugget

After a month of consideration between an August public hearing and last Tuesday’s special called meeting, the Lumpkin County Board of Commissioners voted against the proposed gun range off Porter Springs Road in a meeting that spanned around five minutes.
“As the commissioner representing District 4, the area in which the application property is located, I would like to make a motion along with my reasoning,” Commissioner Jeff Moran told the board during the meeting. “...I cannot, in good conscience, vote in any way other than against this application. Therefore I make a motion to disapprove the proposed land use application.”
The motion was quickly seconded by Commissioner Bobby Mayfield and voted on by the board with a 3-0 result. Once the proposal was denied, much of the packed meeting room burst into applause. However the decision still seemed to leave some in the community divided.
Brian Hill, owner of The Complete Combatant self defense school, said he was shocked when he heard the decision to deny his Special Land Use Application.
“We did everything they asked,” Hill told The Nugget. “...We had a presentation, we sent them packets of information of everything we’d done. We’ve been in contact with zoning and planning, so I don’t know what happened.”
During the original public hearing on the gun range, the board listened to the complaints of neighbors against the gun range being commercially operated, as well as those who supported Hill and his business, and formed a list of conditions to be met by the applicants. Hill says he’s worked with the planning department since the meeting and felt like they were on the way to approval at the meeting.
“We had received a letter of proposed conditions for the special land use agreement for the meeting,” Hill said. “We had been told by zoning and planning that we met six of the seven criteria. We had raised $35,000 to put up a sound absorbance system and model the whole valley so that the sound would be absorbed and we could put up insulation and walls to do that.”
As a result, Hill said he expected more from the meeting.
“Since we got a letter of proposed conditions and we replied to it, we were rather surprised to get to the meeting and find out it wasn’t a hearing at all, but it was a decision,” he said. "They instituted a moratorium on any new businesses for six months and then they also said they were going to rewrite the charter for the agricultural reserve in the regular meeting. Then they just voted and we were flabbergasted because we had no idea this was coming. We’ve spent the last five weeks working our tails off to meet all their conditions and it was a very one-sided event and we couldn’t defend ourselves against anything that was said. So it was pretty tough on us.”

RANGE OF ISSUES

Hill said they did not spend any money making the changes requested by the county as they were waiting for official approval, but that they had put plans in place to begin as soon as the SLUA was approved. Now he’s glad he didn’t.
“We raised, through a GoFundMe account and through our national contacts, $35,000 to do the soundproofing to get us started and our sponsors said they would fill in more if it needed more,” Hill said. “So we had held off until we got some sort of permission because it didn’t make sense to spend money on this yet. Which, we’re really glad we didn’t now.”
While Hill claims he had communication from the planning department saying they were in compliance of six of the seven conditions and were working to clear up the seventh, regarding a mandatory 12-foot fence surrounding the range, Hill said Moran’s remarks at the meeting put the company in a different light.
“He went through the list of conditions and said we didn’t meet them,” Hill said. “Zoning and planning said we did meet them, so that’s how he turned it. Mr. Moran spoke and then they voted with him...It kind of defamed us in front of everyone that we didn’t meet [the criteria], so we were very surprised by all that.”
Moran’s remarks were made in reference to the Board of Commissioners rules regarding all SLUA applications, instead of the specific conditions put forth to Hill. According to Moran, Hill’s application did not meet five of the six standards for special land use applications in Lumpkin County.
“Since it has come before the board as a special land use, we, the board of commissioners, have to make decisions tonight in accordance with Section 27-73, paragraph 3,” Moran said during the meeting. “...Of the six standards that we as the board are to apply, I feel the application fails to meet five of the six standards.”
The five areas where Moran says the gun range does not comply with the standards are regarding the set-back requirements of that character area, the compatibility of the range with surrounding properties, the noise produced, the hours of operation and public safety.

‘OFF THE TABLE’

Hill says he still doesn’t know what he should’ve done differently.
“We have the letter. They ask us to do these things. We were working on conditions to make a compromise,” he said. “We’ve been very respectful of not-shooting. It’s only one weekend a month and then we held everything down. No personal practice. We didn’t have anybody come out and zero hunting rifles for deer season. We didn’t make any noise, trying to keep this down to a minimum and we felt we were negotiating for something. Then we were just told when we got there that we were not allowed to speak and they would decide. And then as soon as they decided they left...It’s just odd to make us work so hard and then send us letters and then suddenly it’s just off the table. We were pretty shocked to tell you the truth.”
Despite the decision, Hill plans to continue his business at the same location, practicing and giving the same non-firearm-involving classes he has since he was originally ordered to stop. However he says there will still be some gunfire at the range.
“The worst part is, we’re still going to practice and people in the neighborhood come down and zero their rifles so I think at the end of the day, the neighbors really lost because they punted on the problem itself,” he said.
Hill said he’s still trying to process what to do next, following the disapproval.
“We’re seeking legal counsel right now because this is above my paygrade,” he said. “...We’re going to be speaking to somebody, we’ve set up an appointment this week.”
But one thing is for sure, as Hill says he’s not going anywhere.
“We’re building a house right down the street. We own property there,” he said. “I think some sort of resolution would be in everybody's best interest at the end of the day. It’s been very difficult to be building a house and then to lose something that we’ve had for seven or eight years already.”
Hill said he thinks this sets a bad precedent regarding the county’s land use policies.
“If I have a business in Lumpkin County that makes noise in an agricultural preserve then I’d be really concerned right about now,” he said.
Attempts to reach Planning Department director Bruce Georgia were unanswered as of press time.