Board tells T-bird Farms residents to work out a safe shooting solution

County Board Chair Tony Carter, left, told Thunderbird Farms residents to hash out a solution of their own to subdivision shooting issues, or face a return to county scrutiny in the not too distant future. Photos/Roger Bianchini

In our mid-May review of the points raised on both sides of the proposal to add Thunderbird Farms to the list of county subdivisions where recreational shooting is prohibited, this reporter suggested interested parties “bring the popcorn” to the scheduled June 19 public hearing – it was good advice, in fact you should have brought two boxes.

After four public hearings at which no one spoke, Board Chairman Tony Carter joked about adjournment, gaining some laughter, before adding, “No, here’s the main event.”

After over an hour of public comment from 29 citizens, many from the subdivision, but some not, the Warren County Board of Supervisors unanimously rejected a request from the subdivision Property Owners Association to add Thunderbird Farms to the list of neighborhoods where recreational shooting is prohibited by county law.  It was a request supported by a majority of respondents to a recent survey on the issue distributed by the POA board.

Following the vote, Carter suggested representatives from both sides of the issue appoint a few representatives to try and iron out a compromise solution. Or he observed, the board of supervisors might be back in this same place with a different perspective within a year or so.

The basic points made at the public hearing are familiar to those following the story over the past seven weeks – on the opposed to any legal county ban on shooting for fun in the subdivision side: a low number of past, documented complaints to the sheriff’s office; or citations from the property owners association for failing to observe the existing subdivision covenant ban on shooting for any reason other than self defense; adding T-bird Farms to the list of neighborhoods where recreational shooting is prohibited by County Code 177-3 as a public safety matter would criminalize what is essentially a subdivision covenant issue for which there are existing remedies including fines and civil complaints being filed; the shooting problem doesn’t really exist within the subdivision, most, if not all of that gunfire is coming from the across the river or perhaps on it; portions of the subdivision have much larger lots where homes are not clustered and shooting is safe; and of course that looming backdrop that got the state pro-gun advocacy group the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) into the fray – the second amendment U.S. Constitutional right to own and bear arms, and apparently be able to use them as one sees fit.

Military vet and retired law officer Bob Richardson has been the leading spokesperson for instituting the county ban on recreational shooting for public safety reasons in Thunderbird Farms subdivision.

However, several pro-ban speakers countered that no one’s second amendment right to own or bear arms was at stake – that gun ownership and shooting is allowed in self defense of one’s self and property.

Also on the pro-adding county teeth to neighborhood rules shooting ban side: recreational shooting is unsafe in the T-bird Farms subdivision because despite the five-acre minimum lot size, many properties are long and narrow leading to tight groupings of homes in many areas; many shooting in the subdivision are not residents, but friends of vacant lot owners given permission to visit and target shoot in a neighborhood they are not familiar with, sometimes mixing that recreational shooting with alcohol consumption; enforcement of the existing subdivision covenant against shooting other than for self defense by property owners association officers is a problematic and potentially dangerous undertaking.

Of the 29 speakers addressing the supervisors for an hour-and-five minutes, eight spoke for the addition of a county legal prohibition on recreational shooting, while 21 opposed the designation.

However, those numbers conflicted with a recent survey of residents and property owners, indicating a shift in perspective since the last move from 2013 to 2016, to add a county law enforcement aspect to the neighborhood covenant prohibition.

At the public hearing, as he had at an earlier work session, Code proponent Robert Richardson said the 2018 survey of support and opposition to inclusion in County Code 177-3 circulated by the POA totaled 170 lot-owner responses of 245 lots in the subdivision.  Of those respondents by lots owned, it was a 99-71 margin (58% to 42%) to be added to County Code 177-3; by individual respondent the margin decreased but remained in favor of the county code by a 77-65 count.

Robert Utley has been the counterpoint to instituting the county code ban in the rural subdivision.

Of that 69-percent response rate, Richardson noted it was somewhat better than typical voter turnouts for county elections.

However, for some speaking against the prohibition those numbers were irrelevant, seemingly tantamount to “fake news”.

“I have had to come here three times to protect my rights,” Andrew Yates told the supervisors of speaking against adding county authority to the subdivision’s recreational shooting prohibition.  “This is pushed by a small number of very vocal individuals, some of whom don’t even live in Warren County.  If you take our rights, where does it go next,” Yates asked of the potential subdivision domino effect of public safety claims being utilized to carry recreational shooting prohibitions into more rural areas of the county.

During a brief background summary power point presentation prior to the public hearing, County Administrator Doug Stanley noted that contrary to the claim of some opponents of adding T-bird Farms to places where a county legal prohibition on recreational shooting is in place, there are currently two Agriculturally-zoned neighborhoods where County Code 177-3 is in place.

As for the “rights” debate, Chesterfield County resident, Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) pro-gun lobbying group decried the loss of legal places across the commonwealth where legal recreational shooting can occur.  He warned against this inroad, if not on the second amendment right to keep and bear arms, at least on where you can enjoy practicing with your weapons in rural settings.

“The POA should enforce the covenants,” Van Cleave told the county supervisors in speaking against expanded county governmental legal authority in neighborhoods.

However, several pro-Code 177-3 speakers said if there was a “right” involved, it was the right to be safe in your home and on your property, rather than a right to shoot guns where you please.  Another supporter of the county code suggested that in addition to public safety, it was a “common courtesy” issue – Chuck Way pointed to the obtrusive noise of continued shooting “echoing through you home” over extended periods of time.

Virginia Citizens Defense League President Philip Van Cleave, a Chesterfield County resident, appeared on behalf of his statewide organization’s opposition to the Warren County government becoming involved in what he sees as a neighborhood dispute.

“The lots are too thin – it’s just not safe – some of the weapons and ammunition being used have shooting ranges of up to three miles,” retired law enforcement officer, military veteran, gun owner and subdivision resident Richardson told the supervisors.

Richardson pointed to county GIS mapping showing that of 158 total houses in Thunderbird Farms, 141 are less than 400 feet apart and 71 are less than 200 feet apart.

He told the story of a woman named Jean Shoemaker, not from Thunderbird Farms, but Shenandoah County, killed several years ago in her kitchen by shots fired at distance by a father and daughter who were recreational shooting.

“Through the woods, 936 feet away her house was not even visible from the point where they were firing,” Richardson noted, adding, “There was no malice, they weren’t being particularly careless – it was somebody shooting on a vacant lot that was treed and they couldn’t see the consequences of their actions.

“Now some of the people say they hear shooting and they’re not concerned, that it might be in another neighborhood. But concerned or terrified or unaware doesn’t change one notch of whether you’re actually at risk.  People shooting with military-style assault weapons and high-powered rifles in an area where there are people is somewhat unsafe.  I walk through my woods year round, I love the woods.  And someone is not going to be able to see me through the underbrush and the trees.”

However, one opponent of the county code designation against shooting disputed the characterization of the type of military or assault rifle Richardson said he has heard being fired near his property.

“Those are not assault weapons,” Lyle Henschell said of the AR-15 which is often referenced as a military-grade, semi-automatic weapon available to the general public – “It’s not an assault weapon or an automatic weapon, it’s a misnomer,” Henshell added, tho no one had alleged they have heard weapons being fired in a full automatic setting. It may be noted that semi-automatic weapons can be illegally adjusted to fire fully automatic like a machine gun.

“This isn’t really a question of safety; this is a question of politics and people who just don’t like firearms,” Henshell asserted.

Shooting ban opponent Rick Burkhart asked the board not “to Fairfax Warren County” – “If we get this you might as well shut down the whole county (to recreational shooting),” Burkhart said.

Scott Fletcher apologized for having to appear in opposition of the shooting ban.  He blamed a small clique within the property owners’ association board of moving the request to be included in County Code 177-3.

Following the vote and board chair admonition to work together toward a solution, Richardson, left, Utley, right, and others appeared to begin efforts in that direction.

“Our association has gone through this numerous times at our meetings … claiming they should have the right because they all agree,” Fletcher said, adding of an earlier remark about the POA board function, “There is so much stuff going on now from the board, from these special groups – we have this neighborhood secret society sending letters to people – nobody knows what to believe; they’re confused.”

Of the 2013-16 effort to enact County Code 177-3 in the subdivision that the POA board abandoned after a survey indicated a majority – 39-28 of respondents – opposed the subdivision’s addition to the legal prohibition.

“The TFPOA Board concluded there was insufficient member interest to proceed with a 177-3 inclusion request,” county staff has summarized of that earlier effort.

“We voted on this, and like I said we shouldn’t even be here.  Our association, the board hasn’t gotten the answers they want. So, they try to force it on us,” Fletcher told the supervisors near the public hearing’s conclusion.

However, as noted above proponents of enacting the county code prohibition on recreational shooting in 2018 say the pendulum of opinion in the subdivision has shifted over the past two years – by a 99-71 margin by lot owner and 77-65 margin per individual responses.  Following the vote, Richardson expressed disappointment that a polled majority of property owners had been ignored by the board – “Is that the way it’s supposed to work?” he asked.

But for Fletcher and some other opponents of county interference in neighborhood politics those 2018 numbers apparently reflect either confusion or “secret society” subterfuge from within the Thunderbird Farms POA Board.

And now the two opposing sides have been instructed to sit down and iron out a solution without county government interference – at least for now.