Subdivision residents divided over POA request for county shooting ban

FRONT ROYAL – After some hemming and hawing about why they should become involved in a property owners dispute over recreational shooting in the Thunderbird Farms Subdivision – maybe because county codes allow them to as a matter of public safety – the Warren County Board of Supervisors reached a May 1 work session consensus to proceed toward a public hearing on the matter.

The board directed staff to advertise for the public hearing at its next meeting of May 15, with the public hearing scheduled for June 19. At the Tuesday morning work session residents on both sides of the issue addressed the supervisors.

Proponents of adding the Thunderbird Farms to the list of county subdivisions where discharging a firearm recreationally is prohibited by code cited a public safety issue despite the average 5-acre size of subdivision lots.

Opponents of a county ban on shooting in the subdivision cited a “right” (Constitutional) they did not want give up; and dismissed the notion that shooting was a problem in the sprawling Fork District subdivision near the Shenandoah River. The subdivision is navigated off of Panhandle Road and by way of Thunderbird Drive, McCoys Ford Road and Downing Farm Road, among others.

Representing those supporting the addition of Thunderbird Farms to the list of subdivisions with a shooting ban by County Code 177-3, Bob Richardson cited the shape of many lots like his own as long and thin leading to a closer proximity of homes than might be expected among 5-acre lots. Richardson noted that while his lot is 1,200-feet long, it is only 96-feet wide.

With modern weapons, including semi-automatic rifles he indicated he has heard being fired in the vicinity of his property, having a killing range of two miles the issue is indeed public safety, Richardson told the supervisors.

“We are not a bunch of fanatics” seeking to strip anyone of their right to own weapons, Richardson said, observing his own background in the military and law enforcement. “I have shot and killed people,” Richardson observed of his own past line of duty actions – “But it is simply not safe,” he added of recreational shooting in Thunderbird Farms.

Richardson also observed that property owners’ protective covenants already ban shooting in Thunderbird Farms other than in self defense. Those covenants are signed off on when subdivision property is purchased, Richardson and fellow resident Skip Sims observed. However, Sims noted that enforcement of such covenants by the volunteer Thunderbird Farms Property Owners Association (TFPOA) board is difficult at best, dangerous at worst.

Sims said he was “reluctant” to call POA board members to intervene when he hears shooting occurring in violation of the subdivision covenants because it isn’t necessarily safe to walk up on armed people. He pointed to a past confrontation of that kind as evolving into “a white knuckle” situation – which he said is why a majority of polled residents and lot owners now support being added to the county list of neighborhoods in which such shooting is legally prohibited.

Three residents spoke against legally codifying the subdivision prohibition on recreational shooting.

Jim Morris said he believed the shooting heard in the subdivision most likely came from across the river and areas where hunting was being engaged in.
“I don’t hunt and I don’t shoot; but I don’t like to give up any rights either,” Morris said. Rick Burkhart agreed.

“It’s a right I don’t want to give up,” Burkhart said.

“But it’s in the covenants,” South River Supervisor Linda Glavis reminded those speakers of the prohibition against shooting other than for self defense they signed when purchasing property in the subdivision.

Robert Utley, red shirt, counters that T-bird Farms doesn’t really have an illegal shooting problem worthy of added legal teeth.

Robert Utley returned to the theme that the shooting heard in the subdivision did not originate in the subdivision.
“There is no problem with shooting in our neighborhood from my observation and Sheriff’ Office information,” Utley told the supervisors. He said the sound of shooting came “from all around – you can’t tell where from.” He also said that the Thunderbird Farms POA board had never filed a complaint about a covenant violation.

Glavis observed that it could be difficult to file a complaint when it was hard to pin down a source location for the violation.

Sims added that the lack of an official record of covenant violations went down to the “dynamics of the POA board function” and “the ability and willingness” of volunteer officials to enforce the covenants on such a volatile issue – more reason to bolster the legal grounds for professional law enforcement intervention, he believes.

The referenced Warren County Sheriff’s Office information is a record of 19 shooting-related calls to Thunderbird Farms over the past three years, beginning in March 2015. Of those 11 were listed as “Handled by Officer”; 3 handled by Dispatch; 2 Logged for the Record; and 3 listed as Unfounded.
The opponents of the proposal to legally ban shooting in the neighborhood wondered if the sparse numbers and lack action didn’t indicate little impact were the sheriff’s office to be legally brought into the equation by county code.

Glavis concurred and wondered if county noise ordinances couldn’t be used as an enforcement tool.

“This is not a noise issue,” shooting ban proponent Richardson responded pointedly. He also said he believed much of the subdivision shooting wasn’t actually being done by residents, but rather by friends of absentee lot owners who gave permission for their friends to go to the property and shoot, resulting in a double-edged danger of mixing recreational drinking and recreational shooting.

This is not the first time the issue of adding the subdivision to the county list of prohibited shooting neighborhoods has been raised. A county staff summary noted an initial effort forwarded by the TFPOA in 2012-13. That effort was abandoned when the county supervisors tabled action pending a survey being circulated by the POA to property owners to ascertain their willingness to be added to the subdivisions in which shooting was legally prohibited by County Code 177-3.

A survey was finally undertaken in 2016. The result was 28 for the county ban and 39 opposing the subdivision’s addition to it. “The TFPOA Board concluded there was insufficient member interest to proceed with a 177-3 inclusion request,” the work session agenda summarized.

In this corner for the POA initiative – Bob Richardson …

However, Richardson presented numbers indicating the pendulum has swung decidedly in favor of adding Thunderbird Farms to County Code 177-3. Those numbers included a 99-71 margin by lot owners for inclusion in the county prohibition on shooting. Richardson noted that was a total of 170 lot owners responding of 245 lots in the subdivision, or about a 70-percent response rate. Of those respondents, it is a 58-percent to 42-percent margin to be added to County Code 177-3. It was also noted that per POA tradition multiple lot owners were allowed a vote for each subdivision lot owned. So, per individuals voting the margin was reduced from 99-71 (plus 28 for) to 77-65, or plus 12 for inclusion in the county ban.

… and in this corner against the initiative, Rick Burkhart, left, and Jim Morris – the opposing sides were both very civil in presenting their perspectives.

And on June 19 we will see how many of those respondents turn out to make their case for or against the 2018 TFPOA initiative to strengthen the existing covenant prohibition on recreational shooting, with county legal enforcement teeth.
And of course then we’ll see how many supervisors will vote for or against the request based on the strength of arguments and numbers for what proponents insist is a public safety initiative; and which opponents have indicated is unnecessary, as well as an infringement on their Second Amendment Constitutional rights.

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Maybe a Constitutional lawyer or two will turn up for that June 19 public hearing.