by Kieron Kramer
Even before the public hearings that were to precede the Grafton Planning Board on Thursday, the Town’s hired guns, Engineer Russ Reeves and attorney for the Town Sal Ferlazzo, did a complete about face on the issue of the site plan application for Les McDermott’s shooting range at the end of Old Siek Road. With complete certainty and full vigor, both professionals recommended to the Planning Board that McDermott’s application be denied.
Before the hearings Reeves summarized his latest letter, which was received by the Planning Board just before the meeting. [private]In July Engineer Reeves had recommended in his written report to the Board that the shooting range be approved. “The project proposal,” he wrote, “is to operate a 50 and 100 yard shooting range for retired police officer training and recertification…The site was substantially remote with the nearest residence being that of the owners of the proposed facility. There are no adjacent homes within several thousand feet of the project location. The 50 and 100 yard ranges face in an easterly direction towards mountainous terrain, having an elevation change of approximately 200 vertical feet and contained wholly on the owner’s property.” He included in his July letter the NYS DEC regulations for loaded guns and discharge distances which prohibits discharging a firearm or bow within 500 feet of any school, playground, occupied factory or church or within 500 feet of a dwelling, farm building or structure unless you own it, lease it or are an immediate member of the family, an employee or have the owner’s consent. One of the documents Reeves listed in his reference materials, besides the DEC regulations, was the U.S. Marine Corps Guidelines for Range Safety.
Now, in what he referred to as a “revised letter,” Reeves writes, “The Town has received an application to construct a house, well and septic system from Mr. Lampham (sic) and has subsequently issued a building permit…The location of the proposed Lampham (sic) residence will be placed less than 500 ft. of the proposed shooting range which has been recently constructed. In addition, the presence of this adjacent residence and SEQR issues raised by the public during the last planning board meeting with respect to quality of life, have altered the appropriateness of a commercial shooting range of this remote setting, which is now becoming a more residential environment…There have been environmental issues raised with respect to significant noise generated as a result of the proposed action. The SEQR (State Environmental Quality Review) process allows for consideration of neighbor’s concerns as it relates to a commercial project within what is now becoming a more residential setting. Even though the Town of Grafton does not have zoning laws in place, the SEQR process permits approval or denial of a project based on its suitability with respect to the needs and quality of life of the general public…issues have been raised by the public, which is difficult to mitigate with the discharge of firearms. The proposed adjacent residence now becomes a public issue…The original proposal was a certification for law enforcement officers for specific designated days and times. I understand…that this has been expanded and that the applicant has advertised on a website a far more extensive schedule, which may not be limited to law enforcement officers only…I am recommending that the board deny this application.”
Reeves met with Lapham’s engineer, Carl Aiken, who made a convincing case, engineer to engineer, for his client. Lapham gave the most reliable reporting of the distances between the gun range and the dwellings or dwellings to be. He said that the distance from his foundation to the shooting platforms on the McDermott range was 154 feet. There is a large dwelling, owned by his brother-in-law Joe Shufelt, that is closer to the range than “thousands of feet.” Lapham said that the distance to Shufelt’s house was 650 feet. This distance makes the discharge of weapons allowable and makes moot the point that in July Reeves had misstated the distance to the nearest dwelling.
Lapham’s building permit, and the assertions about distances, some of which were wrong, caused Ferlazzo to weigh in at the beginning of the gun range public hearing at 6:30. “It is important to note Mr. Reeves’ conclusion,” he said. “I am recommending that the Board deny the application. When it was originally brought there were no residences within 500 feet. I do not see how any application can be granted subsequent to these events. I agree with Russ. I recommend that you listen to the public in this hearing, but this application, in this form, cannot be legally granted. The Board has the ultimate decision,” he added.
They Were For It Before They Were Against It
Since at this point the Board’s “ultimate decision” would be to deny McDermott’s application the Public Hearing which gave residents the chance to express themselves was in every other respect superfluous and almost disastrous. The first public hearing in July was highly emotional and argumentative and caused McDermott to withdraw his application before the August meeting in which the Board would have voted on it. After meeting with McDermott’s lawyer in August, Ferlazzo had recommended that the application be resubmitted, which was done at the September meeting with a new public hearing scheduled for this meeting.
Jeff and Tracy Lapham were present Monday night, and they were hot, hot, hot. They ranted at the Board, Reeves and Ferlazzo. Jeff Lapham said to Ferlazzo, “I have brought it to your attention long before tonight that the first Reeves report was flawed. How could you have missed the $350,000 colonial 650 feet away from the range?” He was also upset that McDermott advertised the range even before it was approved because “no less than six people have come up to use the rifle range.” His wife Tracy said, “I want to thank the Board for allowing this disgusting, disrespectful thing to go on. You’ve ruined our joy.” Then she pointed to each of the four Board members, Board Member Arthur Surprise was absent, and said, “You and you and you and you wouldn’t want a gun range in your back yard.” The Laphams had a point, but why rant and rave when it was a slam dunk at that point that the application would be denied.
Les McDermott had the great good sense to not attend the public hearing, but several surrogates did. Carlos Correa, a resident of Troy who said he was a member of the Taconic Valley Rod and Gun Club in Eagle Mills, spoke about McDermott’s consideration and good intentions. Jeff Perry, who said he was a friend of Les’, said, “I have been on the property shooting; we were shooting 180 degrees away from Lapham’s.” Then he asked which came first Les’ application or the building permit. Bob Nuttall, former Senior Firearms Instructor with the Troy Police Department, said, “At the time of the [original] proposal I was going to do the training for HR 218, the law that allows retired police officers to carry weapons with qualified training. This was being set up as a very safe range with range officers in attendance at all times. We weren’t going to have people shooting wildly; it was going to be training. It’s not like the old days; people have to have a place to shoot. I just wanted to clear that up,” he said. And he added, “If I wanted to shoot there tomorrow I am perfectly within my rights [because at present there are no dwellings within 500 feet].”
Part of the problem is that McDermott’s proposed use of the range changed in the second application. And his internet advertising did not win any converts to his cause either. Doug Roether and Joe Shufelt spoke in opposition as they did in July. Shufelt, who lives in the house that he said was “there all along,” even brought a petition signed by “everyone on the road except Les.” Unfortunately, there were confrontations between the factions, particularly about the distances that were so crucial to Reeves’ first and second recommendations. Planning Board Chairman Tom Withcuskey had to loudly gavel the meeting back to order on two occasions.
During the hearing it was clear that the gun range neighbors did not trust the Planning Board. Jeff Lapham questioned their procedures, and his wife Tracy asked accusatorily why they hadn’t received the notice for the original hearing in June. Lapham and Doug Roether had FOILed the Planning Board for the documents on the matter. Lapham, who FOILed the first application and Reeves’ first report, said he had received “nothing.” Roether said he did not receive the survey map in the documents he FOILed. Withcuskey had receipts for everything mailed in this case and had in front of him the 97 page document that Roether, and also Lapham later, had FOILed. Page 87 was the survey map. Roether apologized. Withcuskey also said that he had the wrong address for the Laphams which accounts for their not receiving the notices in June. The Board followed the proper procedures. As Board Member Scott Newell asked, “How could we have stopped him?” meaning that a proper application has to be accepted and the process followed. The Board is in a tough spot; they rely on the recommendations and guidance from the “experts.” But Ferlazzo was right when he said that the process worked. He maintained that the information discovered in the SEQR review and the public hearings resulted in a change of judgment and a proper result.
In the regular meeting that followed the Board voted unanimously to deny the application. Attorney Ferlazzo led the Board through this vote. “The application before us is denied in all respects,” he told them to say. Ferlazzo left immediately after the vote, but on his way out he said he would contact McDermott about removing his internet ad.
The bottom line, after all the storminess, is that Town government, in the form of the Planning Board, protected the rights of the citizens who live near the shooting range even while sacrificing the rights of Les McDermott.
Trickle Up Government
The public hearing on a lot line adjustment applied for by Planning Board Member Scott Newell scheduled for 6:15 started at 6:22 after Reeves’ announcement on the gun range. Newell left the podium for the hearing and for the vote later. A lot line adjustment on his property on Pondview Road was approved in March. In the September 23 meeting he applied to return the parcel to the old boundary lines. No comment was made during the hearing. Later the Board voted unanimously to approve the lot line adjustment.
Newell must want to single-handedly help with the Town budget. In March he paid $150 to adjust the lot lines, and now in October he paid another $150 to return to the original lot lines. This is not an example of trickle down government; is it trickle up government? “It’s good revenue,” said Planning Board Chairman Withcuskey.
Things To Come
In the informal discussion, Surveyor Brian Holbritter, representing Lawrence Meracle, Jr., discussed the subdivision of the old Harbinger estate on Edelmann Lane which is near Tamarac Road. Two of the new lots would be in Grafton, four in Pittstown.
John McIntyre, representing the State Line Trailriders Club, a motorcycle and ATV club, said that his club had bought about 44 acres off of Babcock Lake Road in order to gain access to their landlocked parcel off of Brock Road in Petersburgh. The club will need to file an application with the Planning Board to put in a driveway and parking lot on the 44 acre parcel. This will be problematic because there is a wetland that lies completely across the property which will prevent access to the larger lot in Petersburgh.
The next Planning Board meeting is on November 19 at 7 pm.[/private]