The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About029 Richardson  Tom Richardson jtomrichardson@outlook.com Cell: 206 954-9732 Begin forwarded message: From: Tom Richardson <jtomrichardson@outlook.com> 2018 at 8:15:28 PM PSTNovember 8, Date: To: "PlannCom@co.jefferson.wa.us" <PlannCom@co.jefferson.wa.us>, "jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us"< jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us>, Philip Hunsucker <PHunsucker@co.jefferson.wa.us>, Mark McCauley <MMcCauley@co.jefferson.wa.us>, Michelle Farfan <MFarfan@co.jefferson.wa.us> 00036 Proposed Amendments to the UDC, Title 18 -18ZON Subject: FacilitiesRelating to Shooting Fwd: ZON 18-00036 Proposed Amendments to the UDC, Title 18 Relating to Shooting Facilities mark as unread To: Tom Richardson <jtomrichardson@outlook.com> Fri 11/9/2018 8:52 AM Planning Commission Desk; To help protect your privacy, some content in this message has been blocked. To re-enable the blocked features,click here. To always show content from this sender,click here. 2 attachments  DELETE REPLY REPLY ALL FORWARD RE Shooting~.docx ATT00001.htm Page 1 of 1Fwd: ZON 18-00036 Proposed Amendments to the UDC, Title 18 Relating to Shooting F... 11/9/2018https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ RE: ZON 18-00036 Proposed Amendments to the UDC, Title 18 Relating to Shooting Facilities To: Members of the Jefferson County Planning Commission, Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, Philip Hunsucker, Esq., Mark McCauley, Michelle Farfan From: Tom Richardson I live in Port Townsend and was the District #1 representative on the Commercial Shooting Facilities Review Committee authorized by the Moratorium Ordinance adopted by the BoCC on December 18, 2017 (hereinafter the ”Review Committee). As a member of that committee, I was very familiar with the discussions and drafting that resulted in the new commercial shooting facilities ordinance (hereinafter, the “New Ordinance”), JCC 8.50.210-320. I submit these comments based on my knowledge of the Review Committee’s intentions in drafting the New Ordinance and as a private citizen. Executive Summary of Recommendations:  Addition of a “Non-Commercial Shooting Facility” category to Title 18 is inconsistent with the New Ordinance and the Review Committee’s discussions and intentions. Non-Commercial Shooting Facilities should not be part of Title 18.  Outdoor Commercial Shooting Facilities as provided for in the New Ordinance should simply replace the category “outdoor shooting range” in JCC 18.20.350(8) as a small-scale recreation and tourist use.  The JCC 18.20.350(8) standards for “Outdoor Shooting Ranges” should be made consistent with the New Ordinance, which includes extensive requirements for the design and operation of Commercial Shooting Facilities. Non-Commercial Shooting Facilities—Not Contemplated by the New Ordinance The definition of Commercial Shooting Facilities in the New Ordinance appears in JCC 8.50. 220(15) and in an identical definition is proposed for Title 18 in JCC 18.10.030. Such facilities may be “open to the public, open only to private membership, open to organizational training for law enforcement officers or organizational training for members of the armed forces, or any combination of the above that for the use of the commercial shooting facility requires a contract, charges a fee or other compensation, or requires membership.” Essentially any organized shooting facility that requires a contract, charges a fee or other compensation, or requires a membership is by definition a Commercial Shooting Facility. Except for shooting facilities owned by federal or state government, there is only one other type of shooting range defined in subparagraph 15: “privately owned property used for lawful shooting practice solely by its owner or the owner’s guests without payment of any compensation . . . .” This exception recognizes the right of private individuals to set up a target on their own property and shoot firearms, alone or with guests. The New Ordinance does not regulate private shooting on private land owned by the shooter or her guests. Under-Sheriff Art Frank noted in our discussions that the only regulation of private shooting ranges in someone’s backyard is the reckless endangerment ordinance. In our Review Committee discussions I believe all members of the committee thought the Commercial Shooting Facility definition encompasses ALL forms of organized shooting facilities, whether requiring a contract, payment of a fee or compensation, or membership. The only non-government exception is for the private shooting range. I never imagined that there would be legal recognition for some sort of shooting range called a “Non-Commercial Shooting Facility,” as the proposed amendments to Title 18 envisions. And I believe no one on the Review Committee thought otherwise. And as a matter of common sense, what would a non-commercial shooting facility be? If a YMCA camp had a shooting range, it would be a Commercial Shooting Facility because the YMCA is a membership organization. If a tourist camp offered shooting along with cabins and spaces for motor homes, it would be a Commercial Shooting Facility because the guests would pay fees. The Jefferson County Sportsmen’s Club is a Commercial Shooting Facility because it has members and charges fees, and consequently, it is subject to the New Ordinance. If unknown to all of us on the Review Committee there already exists some shooting range in a remote corner of Jefferson County that has members, requires a contract or charges fees, it may have been subject to the standards of existing JCC 18.20.350(8)(e.g., standard (h) “All shooting areas must be completely fenced”); but now it would be considered a Commercial Shooting Facility subject to the New Ordinance (which does not require complete fencing). I submit that under the broad definition of a Commercial Shooting Facility there is no imaginable organized shooting facility that could be considered a “Non-Commercial Shooting Facility.” The only non- government exception to the broad definition of the Commercial Shooting Facility is private shooting in your own backyard. Why does this matter? Having a land use category in Title 18 for something called a “Non- Commercial Shooting Facility” with a different set of standards [proposed JCC 18.20.350(8)(a) through (i)] invites efforts to evade the more comprehensive standards of the New Ordinance. For that matter, even if there were some animal that looks like a “Non-Commercial Shooting Facility” why would the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners want it to be governed by standards different and weaker than those laboriously drafted by the Review Committee, revised by the County Staff, and approved by the BoCC following extensive public hearings and written submissions? Including “Non-Commercial Shooting Facilities” in revisions to Title 18 invites litigation because there would be inconsistent standards for organized shooting ranges. The proposed amendments to Title 18 related to “Non-Commercial Shooting Facilities” should be eliminated. Outdoor Commercial Shooting Facilities should not be a separate use in Table 3-1, and instead should replace Outdoor Shooting Ranges in Table 3-1 and should be subject to all applicable requirements in JCC 18.20.350(8) as a small-scale recreation and tourist use. The requirements of the New Ordinance for Outdoor Commercial Shooting Facilities relate to safety, not land use. The New Ordinance establishes an application process that requires applicants to specify safe facility design criteria and operational requirements. The New Ordinance does not address where it is appropriate to locate new Commercial Shooting Facilities, how far they should be from neighbors, or whether they can be alongside a public recreation lake. These are all land use issues. When Title 18 was enacted, the BoCC made the policy decision to classify Outdoor Shooting Ranges as a small-scale recreation and tourist use. In doing so, it explicitly sought to ensure that the siting and character of a proposed shooting facility “[d]oes not disrupt the character of any surrounding permitted uses” and would not be “incompatible with or injurious to the rural character of the area.” JCC 18.20.350(3)(j)(ii) and (v). These and the other detailed requirements of JCC 18.20.350 should continue to guide the land use decision-making for an outdoor Commercial Shooting Facility application. The JCC 18.20.350(8) standards for “Outdoor Shooting Ranges” should be made consistent with the New Ordinance, which includes extensive requirements for the design and operation of Commercial Shooting Facilities. Most of the standards included in JCC 18.20.350(8)(a) through (i) actually are safety related requirements: standard (a) relates to projectile containment; (b) specifies that the NRA Range Manual/Source Book provides minimum guidelines for design, construction and operation of shooting ranges; (c) relates to boundary warnings for the perimeter of ranges; (d) relates to noise barriers; (e) specifies minimum lot size; (f) specifies how close structures may be to the lot lines; (g)specifies the distance a range must be from a dwelling; (h) specifies a fencing requirement; (i) requires consideration of safety and noise factors. All of these requirements except (e) lot size, are addressed in the New Ordinance. They should be eliminated from the proposed JCC 18.20.350(8) standards for Outdoor Commercial Shooting Facilities as potentially inconsistent. If other land use requirements for Commercial Shooting Facilities are proposed by the public, by County Staff and Counsel, by the Planning Commission members, or by the BoCC, they could be included as JCC 18.20.350(8) standards. For example, some have suggested that allowing helicopters to land at shooting facilities is inconsistent with their rural character because helicopters are noisy and distracting for shooters. A provision could be added to limit helicopter landings only for medical evacuation for injuries suffered at a shooting range. Similarly, proximity of a Commercial Shooting Facility to a public recreation lake could be addressed as a land use requirement. Respectively submitted, Tom Richardson Submitted by email, November 8, 2018