Shooting Range Forced to Close in SW Michigan

[CZShooter]

It makes me angry when a group of whiney liberals finds a loop-hole to force a range to close. What makes it worse, it wasn't even a public range...but a law enforcement training facility.

Here's the abbreviated story (sorry, they want money for the full story...I'll try to find the full story on line):

http://www.heraldpalladium.com/index.php?pSetup=heraldpalladium&curDate=20080619&pageToLoad=showPaperArticle.php&section=A:%20MAIN&filename=A1_06-19.PDF.0&artId=2

[twyacht]

Inch by painful inch, the pillars are being eroded away. God-forbid the police have to practice they're shooting

Unreal.

[Hazcat]

Well, in a way I understand this.

It seems that the county just tried to shove it down the township's throat.  It seems that the township is willing to work with them they just needed to be asked to join the decision making party.

[CZShooter]

Well, in a way I understand this.

It seems that the county just tried to shove it down the township's throat.  It seems that the township is willing to work with them they just needed to be asked to join the decision making party.

I agree with your statement...however, from what I read in the paper, it was not the township who pursued the lawsuit. It was a group of residents that was opposed to the "noise" and figured out the loop-hole to force the closing. Its the plan for the range to request a variance to the ordinance to continue to use the facility.

[CZShooter]

I might be mis-interpreting this...but here's the full story:

COLOMA TWP.
Ruling shuts down firing ranges
State Supreme Court says Berrien County’s ranges are subject to local zoning ordinances; Bailey says he’ll ask Coloma Township for variances

By SCOTT AIKEN
H-P Staff Writer
LANSING — Shooting is expected to stop at Berrien County’s firearms training fa­cility in Coloma Township af­ter the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that ranges at the center are subject to local zon­ing ordinances.
In a unanimous opinion re­leased Wednesday, the court said the county’s power under state law to construct a build­ing without township approval does not extend to the five ranges.
The ruling was a legal vic­tory for a group of township residents who filed suit to block shooting. The court held that the ranges must comply with local ordinances because they are not an “indispens­able” part of the building.
In light of the ruling, county officials plan to approach the township for permission to use the ranges, a step they did not believe was necessary when the $1 million facility was be­ing planned in 2005.
“We will have to look at the township ordinances to see what they accommodate,” said county Corporate Counsel R. McKinley Elliott.
Sheriff Paul Bailey said zoning variances would be sought. The training facility and ranges opened in late 2007.
Joe Herman, one of 11 plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the county, said a compromise could have been reached to al­low police to have a place to shoot. But most county offi­cials were not interested, he said, and a lawsuit was the group’s only recourse.
“It’s a great civic lesson,” he said. “We felt the county had vastly usurped its power.”
Before the county board in November 2005 approved construction of the controver­sial training facility and rang­es, several people presented alternatives, including using existing gun clubs.
The alternatives were deemed wrong for law en­forcement because they are not protected by earthen berms and hundreds of officers would be shooting each year.
“We spent all our efforts trying to point out alterna­tives,” Herman said. “It was not the system they wanted, but there were alternatives.” Sarah Jollay, also a plaintiff, said the legal proceedings were difficult and costly. The group spent $100,000, a sum the township government could not afford, she said.
“We were the little guy and we were going to be taken ad­vantage of,” Jollay said. “Peo­ple do have a voice.” The county planned the range for the sheriff’s depart­ment to provide a place for deputies and police from other departments to conduct fire­arms training. Many officers had no place to shoot after a range closed in St. Joseph years ago, and Bailey said the limits on training created pub­lic safety and liability risks.
After months of planning, public hearings and help from a consulting firm, the county board in November 2005 vot­ed 9-4 to proceed with the training facility on 14 acres of leased land off Angling Road. A month earlier, the Coloma Township Board had voted not to support the facility.
The plaintiffs filed a declar­atory judgment action aimed at stopping the operation of the county training facility. They claimed it was prohibit­ed by the township zoning and anti-noise ordinances.
Berrien County Trial Court Chief Judge Paul Maloney in March 2006 dismissed one count of the suit. He ruled that the state County Commission­ers Act allowed the county to build without meeting town­ship zoning requirements.
Maloney, now a U.S. Dis­trict Court judge, dismissed the second and final count of the suit in August 2006, hold­ing that the county was not bound to follow the anti-noise regulation.
The Michigan Court of Ap­peals in a 2-1 decision upheld Maloney’s decision. The dis­senting judge said in a sepa­rate opinion that the majority’s decision wrongly allows county commissioners to dis­regard local zoning regula­tions for any county purpose.
In reversing the appeals court decision, the Supreme Court said shooting ranges are not a permitted land use under the township zoning ordi­nance. The property is zoned for agricultural use.
Also, gun clubs need a spe­cial use permit, which the county had not obtained, and the county facility would cre­ate noise exceeding limits in the township anti-noise ordi­nance.
The Supreme Court said the case involves a conflict be­tween the powers given to counties and local govern­ments.
Following earlier rulings, the court said it aimed to de­termine the Legislature’s in­tent regarding any priority the County Commissioners Act gave to counties.
The law allows counties to buy or lease for no more than 20 years real estate necessary for a courthouse, jail or other building. A county may also determine the site of, remove or designate a new site for a county building.
In a prior case, Pittsfield Charter Township v. Washt­enaw County, the court held that the county’s power to site and build a homeless shelter superseded the township’s au­thority under its zoning ordi­nance.
But the case did not exam­ine the scope of the authority, the court said in its opinion in the Berrien County training facility case.
The two sides agreed that the county had the authority to put up a building, but the dis­pute arose over whether the power extended to the shoot­ing ranges.
The court held that the ranges, because they are not the building or indispensable to its normal use, such as parking lots, lighting or side­walks, are subject to local or­dinances.
The building, parking lot, driveway and lighting have priority over the local regula­tions, the court said.

[Sponsor]

[Hazcat]

CZ,

I didn't see the thing about the noise (may have read to fast).  Can a township sue the county??  In any case it seems that the county dropped the ball here.

From the picture it looks like the facility is located away from any neighborhoods and should not cause any noise problems.  But the county could (probably) have avoided this by simply including all parties in the decision process.

Update--

I see it in the full article.  Stills sounds like the county just wasn't listening to the township.  They voted no but the county thought they could get away with it.  It doeas say that other places were proposed as well as public ranges.  The public ranges did not have the needed burms but what about the other sites?

We will never have the answers to those and other questions but I still see it as county screwing up. (Gee, the gov't getting it wrong and wasting money!  Who'd a thunk it?  )

[TAB]

Any bets that the people sueing to close down the shooting range just bought a high dallor house in a sub devision with in ear shot of the shooting range?

Its not just shooting ranges, its dumps, junk yards, farms, and pretty much any other industry you can think of that is effected by this crap.   "oh I didn't know I bought a house across the street from the local train yard..."

[CZShooter]

Haz;

I agree the county didn't go about it the right way, and I might be reading more into it than what there is (probably because I live in the area). But I remember this whole mess from a couple years back. Its located in a fairly secluded area, but the surrounding neighbors didn't want it in their backyard. It still irritates me that they can manipulate the system to close ranges like that. My fear is someone will use this as a precident to begin attacks on other ranges in the area.

Maybe I'm just paranoid.

Thanks for letting me whine.

[ts81096]

Since many of the individuals commenting on this are not directly connected to this topic, I can fill you in on some of the information in regards to this issue. As I live in the community and have direct information on the case I feel I may be able to enlighten you a bit on the case.

1) This lawsuit could have been avoided if a few county commissioners would have been willing to compromise. The TWP. was not opposed to an indoor facility at the location. They voted no to an outdoor facililty which would impact local buisnesses. A project that was supposedly going to cost only $250,000 cost over $800,000 - then the commission was so confident that the community & land owners would back down that they built the facility while it was still in litigation. Did I mention they spent close to a million dolllars on leased land? Would you build an $800,000 house on leased land? I didn't think so, but Berrien county chose to build a gun range on land they don't even own! The supreme court jusitices were shocked to find out that the county decided to build even though the lawsuit was still active and pending. So with the lawsuit costs, Berrien County tax payers have paid over a million dollars for a facility that they will not be able to use. Sounds like good county government to me.

2) Berrien County had already received no votes from two other communites before deciding to move ahead after Coloma Twp. also voted no. Based upon the court case they used to justify the building of it, they should have returned to Community #1 and built there since they thought they had control of the twp.

2) Photo editting is an incredible tool isn't it? That is why when you see the "picture" of the gun range, it is cropped so you can not see the migrant camp on the south side of it and as for the house that is less than 100 yards away from the range...hmmm not included in the picture.  The people who own the house directly next door have complained since it opened that it knocks photos off the wall. I know of one farmer who had to move his horses from his farm because when they were training at the gun range, his horses were beating themselves into the electric fence trying to escape from the noise. That may not sound like a big deal to you, but if a horse farm is what feeds your family it is a very big deal.

3) Sorry TAB, you are wrong...The lawsuit was filed by local agri-business owners that were concerned that they would lose value in their buisnesses if the gun range were buillt and operated. It wasn't filed by people just worried about a "little noise" affecting their homes. In fact...no local homeowners were involved in the suit. All people listed are owners of businesses directly impacted by this facility. These people have worked for years to build businesses and had their concerns disregarded by County Commissioners who didn't want it in their communities. They (the plaintiffs) did not find a "loop hole" to close it. The County hung themselves by misinterpreting the court documents that they felt gave them the ok to build.

4) The twp. also requested information on how the county planned to clean up the lead from the site. Considering this is a rural area, all home owners have wells. Now there is a long term concern of lead contamination from the site. Last I understood, there is still no plan to clean up the site.

5)The community members in the surrounding twps do want quality trained law enforcement, but they also have a voice. If the way you support your family was in jeopardy because of the government overstepping their boundaries, you would want it taken care of too. This is not an anti-gun range community. There are two private sports clubs with in close range to the County gun range.

6) I find it very interesting that this group is being labeled as whiny liberals. Opposing government control of your community does not make you a liberal.  In fact, those I know directly involved in this case are actually quite conservative, that is why they attempted to work with the County before hiring lawyers and taking this through the judicial system.

[twyacht]

ts81096, that was a very impressive first post, welcome to this forum. The devil in the details is very important for making a rational decision about a thread topic.

It appears you have as Paul Harvey said; "The rest of the story",,, thank you.