Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/04/2016

Home

Zoning Bulletin December 25, 2015 I Volume 9 I Issue 24 The Background/Facts: Aaron Byrd and Eric Coombs (the "Landown- ers") owned a tract of land in Franklin County (the "County"). The Landown- ers sought to operate a shooting range on their property and sought a determi- nation from County officials as to whether the County's Unified Development Ordinance ("UDO") regulated their proposed shooting range. The UDO contained a Table of Permitted Uses (the "Table") and identified in which zoning districts each use set out in the list would be allowed. For each use listed, the Table provided: (1) in which zoning districts said use was allowed as a matter of right, without any further approval by the County; (2) in which zoning districts said use was a "conditional" use, requiring approval by the County Board of Adjustment; (3) in which zoning districts said use was a "special" use, requiring approval by the County Board of Commission- ers; and (4) in which zoning districts said use was not allowed at all. The UDO further provided that any "[u]ses not specifically listed in the Table [ are prohibited." The Table did not specifically list shooting ranges or gun ranges. The County Planning Director first told the Landowners that the UDO did not allow a shooting range to operate in the County because such use was not listed in the UDO Table. Later, the Planning Director determined that the proposed shooting range fell within a use category listed in the UDO Table: "Grounds and Facilities for Open Air Games and Sporting Events" (hereinaf- ter "Games and Events"). The Planning Director told the Landowners that Games and Events required a special use permit. The Landowners applied for a special use peiniit, which the County Board of Commissioners denied. The Landowners received two letters (the "December Letters") from the County Code Enforcement Officer related to the denial: One letter informed the Landowners that a special permit was need to conduct the proposed shooting club and ordezed the Landowners to cease and desist any and all activity associated with a shooting range on the Landowners' property. The second letter, dated two days later, was a "Final Notice of Violation," ordering the Landowners to halt all activities of the proposed shooting range immediately. • The Landowners appealed from the December Letters to the County Board of Adjustment (the "Board"). The Board upheld the Code Enforcement Of- ficer's decision in the December Letters and ordered the Landowners to cease and desist all activities regarding the shooting range. The Landowners again appealed and the Board's order was affirmed by the County superior court. The Landowners again appealed. Among other things, on appeal, the Land- owners contended that the Board and the superior court erred in their inter- pretation of the UDO. Specifically, the Landowners argued that the UDO did not regulate shooting ranges and, therefore, the Landowners did not need any approval from the County to operate a shooting range on their property. They also argued that the superior court erred by concluding that shooting ranges were regulated by the UDO as a Games and Events. The appellate court agreed with the Landowners that shooting ranges were not regulated under the UDO as a Games and Events. However, the appellate © 2015 Thomson Reuters 5