The Ocean Grove neighborhood was designated a no-shooting area by Jefferson County commissioners in a unanimous vote May 22 after a public hearing that drew two voices of dissent.

County Administrator Philip Morley offered a history of the progress that was made toward this decision, starting with the petition that residents of Ocean Grove submitted on April 10, 2015 to have Ocean Grove Estates, Ocean Grove 2 and Ocean Grove 3 designated as no-shooting areas.

Morley explained that the petition met the minimum requirement of 20 valid signatures from electors in the Ocean Grove Estates and Ocean Grove 2 areas, but noted that they initially had insufficient numbers of such signatures from Ocean Grove 3.

Then, Morley said, on April 3 of this year, commissioners passed a motion allowing them to consider Ocean Grove 3 as part of the petition as well.

While the county can restrict the discharge of firearms to prevent potential harm to humans, domestic animals and property, Morley said that the right to designate a no-shooting area for the purposes of noise control is “explicitly reserved for the state,” and not the county.

SIX INCIDENTS

At Morley’s request, the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office compiled three years of incident reports on shooting in the Ocean Grove area, and found six different incidents reported.

Dan Nasman, manager of the Ocean Grove Association, recalled that the area was sparsely populated in 1996, when he first moved in, but now, according to him, 75 percent of the available parcels have been built out, adding as many as 80 homes in the neighborhood.

“Especially with a gun range in this county, there is no reason to allow shooting in a residential area,” said Nasman, who pointed out that firearms can still be used to protect one’s life and property.

Fellow resident Alice Lane voiced concerns that would be echoed by several other attendees, describing herself as “extremely alarmed” by the sounds of gunshots whose origins are difficult to trace.

“The gunshots sound so close, but there’s a lot of trees between me and whichever lot the shooting is coming from, so I’m not sure which lot it’s coming from,” Lane said.

Patricia Swain has lived in the area for nine years, but it’s only been in the past couple of years that she’s noticed the shooting. Likewise, Jim Sundeen is a 23-year resident of Ocean Grove, but he echoed Nasman’s assessment that the increasing number of neighbors has helped make this a bigger issue.

“I never had a problem the first 10 or 15 years,” Sundeen said. “What’s changed is the number of people who live there.”

While Sundeen considers it “hyperbole” when other residents express their fears of gunfire, he nonetheless harbors qualms with the idea that gun owners in the neighborhood are allowed to discharge their firearms “just for the fun of it,” rather than because they’re hunting.

‘NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN’

Resident Howard Andreasen again asked the county to deny the petition, dismissing the shooting reports as incidents that have “ceased happening” and “would never happen again.”

Andreasen then raised the issue of the 147 acres of state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) lands bordering Ocean Grove to the north.

“People hunt in there, as I’ve done in the past,” Andreasen said. “Their weapons would only be discharged during hunting season.”

Morley responded that the DNR lands would not be included in the no-shooting areas, and cited the position of the Point No Point Treaty Council.

“They have no position on developed parcels, but they ask that no-shooting areas not include public lands,” Morley said.

Rick Nelson, the second attendee to disagree with the petition, has maintained property south of Ocean Grove since 1987, and reported that “not one person” from Ocean Grove or the sheriff’s department has spoken to him about his shooting range.

When commission chair Kathleen Kler asked Nelson to elaborate on how he conducts his shooting, he said that he engages in such shooting on his property perhaps six times a year, in sustained bursts of no more than 30 minutes, all aiming away from “the green belt.”

“I am an ex-Marine, and I have never had one misfire or had one round leave my property,” Nelson said, noting protective measures such as half-inch metal plates and 8-inch concrete fences to ensure the bullets he fires stay within his property. “I bought that property so I could shoot out there.”

While residents such as Janice Layman reported hearing gunfire while they were out walking their pets, making them anxious for their animals’ safety, Nelson objected to the amount of noise he’s heard from barking dogs in the area.

INAPPROPRIATE SITE

After Commissioner David Sullivan confirmed that no further comments had been submitted on the matter via email during the public hearing, he acknowledged that enforcing a no-shooting area would not entirely eliminate gunfire noises, due to the adjacent areas of permitted shooting.

At the same time, Sullivan and fellow Commissioner Kate Dean agreed that the density of Ocean Grove’s residential neighborhoods made them an inappropriate site for unregulated shooting.

“The benefit of a public hearing is not only to engage citizens, but to allow them to be heard by their neighbors,” Kler said. “There’s an educational component to it, so that you can understand each other’s rights and needs. County ordinances can resolve some of these issues, but you also need to speak to your neighbors.”

Kler nonetheless voted with Dean and Sullivan to approve the no-shooting area.