Grafton Shooting Range Under Fire

by Kieron Kramer
It’s not surprising that the Grafton Planning Board public hearing at 6:45 pm on Monday was well attended since it concerned Les McDermott’s proposal for a shooting range and gun store on his property at 303 Old Siek Road. There were seven people who spoke in opposition to the use of the McDermott property as a shooting range. They spoke often and repetitively, both in the hearing and in the regular meeting that followed. Generally they raised very important issues – public safety, noise and the subsequent depression of property values. They made the case that the safety and property value issues will impact residents who live as far away as the intersection of Stuffle Street and Route 2.
[private]What was surprising, though, was how overwrought most of the speakers were. Nadia Ferran, who owns 300 acres of woodland abutting the McDermott property and who described herself as an 80 year old grandmother and a US Air Force veteran from the Korean War, said, “I’m against it; I’m against it; I’m against it.” She showed the Board a newspaper clipping that reported that more than 27 wildfires in Utah were started by sparks from bullets hitting rocks. “I don’t want a fire in the Town of Grafton,” she said and added, “I have grandchildren; we walk in the woods there but we can’t with bullets flying in all directions. I will go to court if I have to – all the neighbors are against it.” And Bonnie Bielas, who lives on Route 2, teared up when she said, “I’m afraid to go out of the house now; I’m concerned about who is shooting.” No one asked her about the story that might be behind the tears, and she didn’t tell.
Doug Roether, who owns a large woodlot at 147 Old Siek Road, abutting the McDermott property, had written a letter to Planning Board Chairman Tom Withcuskey relating an incident during which, he claims, a young boy and girl fired at him. McDermott said later that the young man was a Troy Police officer. He did not explain why the girl was there or why a Troy Policeman was shooting on the property before the site plan was approved. Roether said, “The big thing is safety and my proper use of my land.”
Mark Ferran, Nadia’s son, who owns property nearby and in the line of sight of the range and who characterized himself as a hunter who has taken hunter safety courses, gave a primer on physics and the trajectory of bullets. His conclusion was that bullets, depending on their trajectory, can be lethal as far as two to three miles away. Route 2 intersects with Stuffle Street about 1½ miles from the proposed shooting range so bullets will still be lethal there, he said. He is worried that inexperienced shooters may flinch when they shoot, may fire high or may accidently discharge their weapon and “humans within one or two miles will be at risk.” His worry comes from an ad he discovered on the internet on Craig’s List which, he said, “Invited the general public to come use guns.” Ferran said it would only be safe if McDermott’s range was located on 10,000 acres. Ferran’s residence is 357 Stuffle Street.
Two of the calmer voices were heard from Joe Shufelt, who lives at 300 Old Siek Road right across from the gun range, and Lewis Bedford, who lives “near Stuffle Street.” As might be expected, to Shufelt the main issue is safety. He then discussed his property value. “What value would my house have; I wouldn’t buy a house next to a shooting range,” he said. Bedford said, “I wouldn’t want a rifle range there either.” He also made the point that the noise would adversely affect the development of property on Stuffle Street. He said that the development of Stuffle Street has been happening for about 10 years. “Today it’s a highly developed area and still developing; the Board should consider that,” he said. Bedford had sent a letter to Withcuskey suggesting limiting the hours the range will be open and erecting sound abatement structures.
Jeff Lapham owns a lot at 304 Old Siek Road. He said it is “directly situated not 50 yards from where Les wants to have the gun range.” Lapham was quite exercised in his presentation. He described himself as a former Marine and added that he has a permit to carry a concealed weapon. No one asked to see his gun. He said he had a building permit that shows the home he will build and that it would be within the 500 yard restriction on using a gun or bow. What will the Town do about that he asked. Maybe if he builds his dwelling, the gun range will have to move or users not fire the weapons. When asked after the meeting Planning Board Member Jim Goyer and Planning Board Chairman Tom Withcuskey said they thought Lapham’s building permit had expired. Most of the speakers stated that they believed in the right to bear arms but, apparently, not in the right to discharge them.
During the regular meeting Withcuskey gave McDermott a chance to address these issues. McDermott denied placing any ads on Craig’s List and didn’t know how they got there. According to Mark Ferran, Craig’s List keeps a record of who submitted ads. McDermott reiterated that no one will be allowed to shoot a gun without proper training. The facility will not be open to the public. People who come to the gun shop to buy a gun will have to be trained before they can shoot it. He said if anyone who comes to the range trespasses on other peoples’ property he will call law enforcement. He added that he would like to enclose the facility, maybe within a year. Lapham replied, “Why not wait a year and come back?” And someone asked, “Why not reimburse your neighbors for their property loss.” And another said, “Why not buy their properties?” McDermott replied, “Why not buy mine?”
Much of the outrage expressed came from the notion that the Planning Board was going to rubber stamp the project. Almost all the abutters said they hadn’t been notified of the public hearing. Somehow they had miraculously appeared. Withcuskey had placed the required legal notices in the two official papers of Grafton, the Troy Record and the Eastwick Press. McDermott’s site plan was also covered in detail in the June 22 issue of the Eastwick Press. Withcuskey seemed pretty sure that he had notified the abutters by letter as required with the exception of Lapham, to whom he apologized, saying it was a mistake that was his fault.
Withcuskey expected this to be a contentious issue which is why he requested a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from the applicant and a report from the Town Engineer Russ Reeves. Filling out the EIS is a lengthy and complicated process; most of the time applicants fill out the short Environmental Assessment Form. Withcuskey, Reeves and Highway Superintendent Herb Hasbrouck walked through the property. McDermott also submitted the rules of conduct for the range which Withcuskey read when he read the engineer’s report to the meeting. Curiously, these rules referred to “junior members,” saying they could not be younger than 12 years old. When he presented his application to the Board last month McDermott said that the main purpose of the facility was to provide training by certified instructors to retired police officers. In response to the rules of conduct Lapham said that he didn’t know that retired police officers could be 12 years old.
Engineer Reeves recommended in his written report that the shooting range be approved. The project proposal, he wrote, is to operate a 50 and 100 yard shooting range for retired police officer training and recertification. In order to evaluate the site, a field reconnaissance was made Thursday, July 12. The site was substantially remote with the nearest residence being that of the owners of the proposed facility. There are no adjacent homes within several thousand feet of the project location. The 50 and 100 yard ranges face in an easterly direction towards mountainous terrain, having an elevation change of approximately 200 vertical feet and contained wholly on the owner’s property.
The NYS DEC regulations for loaded guns and discharge distances prohibits discharging a firearm or bow within 500 feet of any school, playground, occupied factory or church or within 500 feet of a dwelling, farm building or structure unless you own it, lease it or are an immediate member of the family, an employee or have the owner’s consent. One of the documents Reeves listed in his reference materials, besides the DEC regulations, was the US Marine Corps Guidelines for Range Safety.
Reeves concluded, “The site is suitable for application as a shooting range with the provision that [the] owner and operator complies with the applicable codes and standards for a shooting range facility and monitors the safety of the range on a continuous basis. An instructor or safety officer shall be present on site at all times when the shooting range is in use. I am recommending that the Town Planning Board approve of this Project with the stipulations provided within this letter.”
Perhaps ironically, Jeff Lapham asked if “the zoning regulations up there would change” due to the establishment of this facility. He was told that there are no zoning regulations in Grafton. Most residents went ballistic the last time zoning (aka land use regulations) were proposed in Grafton about 15 years ago. If there were zoning, the landowners on Old Siek Road would have a legal recourse to stop the shooting range project, a commercial developer would know where he could place a business and a residential developer would know where to build without risking property devaluation later. Board Member Scott Newell said, “That’s one of the problems with Grafton not having zoning.”
The Board decided to table the decision on the application until the next meeting on August 20. Withcuskey said he wanted to give it a lot more thought, consider the input of the neighbors and consult with the Town Attorney. “We will go up to the project again; we have no problem looking over everything again.” Planning Board Member Arthur Surprise said, “I have concerns with safety; these are serious, legitimate concerns.” Because of the engineer’s report Withcuskey seems most worried about the noise, and he hopes that a compromise can be reached on restricted hours for the facility. He promised that the people opposing the project will have a chance to speak at the next meeting even though it is not a public hearing.
An Easy One
Edward Grogan presented an application for a simple subdivision on Taconic Lake Road. His nephew, Joseph Grogan, wants to build a lake front camp on his parcel where previously a house had existed and burned down. The County Health Department would not approve the septic system on that lot so Joseph Grogan acquired an approximately ½ acre lot across the road for that purpose. The Health Department wouldn’t approve a septic on that lot either. This subdivision application would separate a .644 acre lot, abutting Grogan’s ½ acre lot, from property owned by the Taconic Lake Association, which has agreed to sell it to Joseph Grogan for a negligible amount. Presumably a septic system on this lot has already been approved.
The Board accepted the application, although five copies of the survey map still need to be submitted, and scheduled a public hearing on the subdivision for 6:45 pm on August 20, before he next regular Board meeting.[/private]