Residents fight shooting range

WASILLA — Sides exchanged jabs at yesterday’s appeal hearing for a conditional-use permit allowing the city to build a shooting range off Mack Road.

After a public hearing on May 12, the Wasilla Planning Commission granted the city permission to build an outdoor shooting range on the west side of the Curtis D. Menard Memorial Sports Complex. Fifteen days later, Bradley Laybourn filed an appeal.

Of his objections in his statement yesterday, Laybourn listed subjecting Wasilla residents to 18 hours of shooting everyday. Appeal hearing officer Eric Jensen interrupted, saying he was under the impression shooting was limited to 10 hours a day. Laybourn said even that was too long.

Also, he said, there were the safety concerns. There is no requirement for firearms certification at a range in such close proximity to families and children. Again, Jensen interjected where are people supposed to get training if not at a range like this. Laybourn responded they should start earlier, perhaps in school training with wooden guns.

“I’m not against shooting ranges. I’ve been a shooter all my life. But this is the wrong place,” Laybourn said.

He is concerned about the lack of a staging area included in the preliminary plans. This will force shooters to assemble and take down their guns in the trunk of their cars, making the parking lot a potential hazard, he said. There are also no restroom facilities called for, so all the shooters would share the bathrooms with the sports complex.

But Laybourn’s main complaint was about the lack of public process involved in granting the application. City code only requires notification of properties within a 1,200 square foot radius of the property where the conditional-use permit applies. This meant only seven property owners were notified of the public hearing on May 12. Of those seven, only one was in support of the range, and the commission still approved the permit. He said he felt like there was nothing he could do to stop it.

“I was told it’s been through the process,” Laybourn said. “I went home and cried.”

Jensen was sympathetic with Laybourn on that point, agreeing the 1,200-foot notification rule was probably insufficient. However, Jensen said, he has to make his determination based on what the city code is, not what he thinks it should be. He also said the commission did take safety into consideration, adopting the National Rifle Association’s recommendations on range construction. The initial design does attempt to mitigate noise, Jensen said, but the commission could have been more thorough addressing the noise outside of the range.

Laybourn then spoke on behalf of his business partnership that owns the property next to the sports complex. In 2003, he entered into an agreement to allow the city to run water and sewer across his property to the complex. In return, the city was to build him an access road to his property and sewer and water hookups. He is still waiting for his road to be built.

“What does this have to do with the gun range?” Jensen asked.

“I haven’t developed my property because I don’t have access,” Laybourn said.

The city can file for the permit saying the surrounding area is undeveloped, he said, adding that he had plans to build a sports complex motel, RV park and fishing pond.

“What can you build next to a shooting range?” Laybourn said. “You could build a condominium complex for the deaf.”

Richard Payne, the Denali Law Group attorney representing the city, responded to the hearing by presenting a copy of the ballot measure the voters approved for the construction of the sports complex. It is essentially a blank check and does not mandate what size, type or location of buildings the city is limited to on the property.

While the planning commission has approved the conditional-use permit, the city council still has to vote on approving the funding for the shooting range. People on both sides, pro and con, will have more say going forward, Payne said.

“There is still ample time to derail this,” he said.

As to the noise concerns, there will be a 20-foot tall berm and overhead baffling to mitigate 80 percent of the noise on discharge, Payne said. The sound released by the range would be about 32 decibels, half of the sound given off by a lawnmo wer or small generator, he said.

Jensen said he understands the planning commission reviewed the city comprehensive use plan, but they are required to review all plans the city has. Anytime the city is making a decision about their own project, it deserves extra attention, he said.

“I understand the open suspicion — the government ruling on the government’s plan — but I can’t find anything to suggest that (suspicion),” Payne responded.

Dan Kennedy — the one notified property owner who submitted a comment in support of the shooting range — said he felt like he was included in the process all along. But more importantly, he asked the residents to “pick their noise”. As the airport expands, there is a plan to mitigate the noise at the range but not of the 737s that could soon be landing in Wasilla, Kennedy said.

Two more residents spoke in opposition, followed by Laybourn again. They cited the lack of due deference for the property owners’ input, the noise complaints and concerns about lead toxicity levels. The city council will not have to approve this permit if the city does not use public funds to build it, Taffina Katkus said.

“There is a grant application for $200,000 already filled out by the city,” Katkus said. “I don’t think this is in the preliminary stage.”

Payne had a chance to respond. He said the committee was mindful of lead recovery, and no grant application has been submitted. Even if the project is funded by grant money, the use of that money will still have to go in front of the council. The design of the range has not been finalized, it could include restrooms and a staging area, and the council will have to approve the finial design as well, he said. Payne said there is no real way to test the sound levels until the range is built, but the laws of physics are set on noise issues like this.

“Due deference doesn’t mean majority rule, loudest rule or not-in-my-backyard rule. The comments are not supposed to run the commission. That’s not the majority rule location” Payne said. “Just because they didn’t get their way doesn’t mean they were ignored.”

In closing, Jensen said the commission was lacking for an expert opinion on the sound levels. The testimony heard about decibels and physics was, in his term, anecdotal.

From here, Jensen said he has three options. He can remand it back to the planning commission, overturn their decision all together, or approve the commission’s ruling.

He adjourned the hearing, saying he would not make his ruling for at least a week.

Contact Todd L. Disher at todd.disher@frontiersman.com or 352-2252.