Community Meeting - December 9, 2025 (Bandit's Ridge)

Compared to the first community meeting, the December 9th meeting began with more sobriety and less exultant celebration of the sports park, perhaps due to the attendance being composed primarily of neighbors opposed to VSP's proposed location as seen with the prevalence of "No Public Gun Range next to Family Homes" stickers compared to the yellow VSP stickers. Icy roads and cold temperatures prevented many from attending, especially beyond the immediate sound-radius of the range, but approximately 50 people were in attendance. 

(View or listen to the community meeting here. Minutes noted below generally correspond to the audio recording, not the video recording.)

After brief remarks from Goochland Planner Ben Ellis regarding Goochland County's role at this point of the application and the overall workflow of the CUP process, Adnan Hamidi opened the meeting with a brief overview of VSP, reiterating some of the same claims from the first meeting along the lines of "recreation, education, and conservation":

• desire to attract and develop youth programs, including firearm and archery education

• a 501(c)(3) non-profit open for the public with any revenue to be used for self-sufficiency of the development, not for profit of its officers

• jobs generated during construction and some employees for facility operations

• development of trails and pollinator gardens

• hosting archery and clay shooting tournaments for youth and adults

• generating economic benefit to the county 

Mr. Hamidi began to address concerns raised at the first community meeting, beginning with noise. 

"VSP intends to take measures to mitigate the noise....Due to concerns raised, we have added berms and moved some of our shooting stations, even though we are in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations....VSP intends to create a sporting clay course further into the 75-acre parcel, locating it further away from property borders. The shooting area is in a basin, which has an elevation drop of approximately 40 feet from the property boundary. This naturally creates noise mitigation. The placement of the buildings shall also create [a] noise buffer. We also plan to incorporate the following options: heavy evergreen planting, vegetation, trees, berms, and direction of shot to help with noise reduction. As previously mentioned, we will maintain a buffer around the property. The majority of shots will face away from nearby properties." (Audio transcript, Minutes 1-4*)

At this point, Mr. Hamidi introduced and turned the presentation over to JT Frazier, of Frazier Consulting, to address the community's concern about lead pollution. Mr. Frazier made the following statements: (Minutes 4-10)

• Licensed professional soil scientist in Virginia, allegedly unpaid by VSP but there upon their request

• Asserted that the acidity of Virginia soil results in near-immediate oxidation of the lead shot

• Stated that the VSP property will be limed to further mitigate lead issues

• Stated VSP plans to conduct regular lead testing (unclear if only of their own property or adjoining properties)

• "The natural composition of the soil will bind up the lead to prevent contamination."

• Stated that reclamation and remediation of the soil would be part of the mitigation plan, to occur when deemed necessary

• Asserted that at the Bull Run Shooting Center, there has "never been any documented evidence of [lead pollution]." 

Mr. Hamidi addressed their lighting plan, stating that there would be no night shooting and therefore no flood lights at any of the shooting stations. There will be security lighting at the clubhouse, pavilion, and parking lot that "intends to comply with dark sky ordinance."

In relation to traffic concerns raised at the first meeting, Mr. Hamidi introduced the gentleman to his left, who had attended the first community meeting and had indicated at that time that he's a resident of Chesterfield. The audio isn't particularly clear, but his name appears to be Mr. Spright (Sprite). (Minutes 11-15)

• As known from previously submitted documents, the traffic engineering firm only studied the intersections of Walton/Ange and Walton/Three Chopt. While it quantified 40% of traffic as utilizing the stretch of Three Chopt heading east/southeast to D'amores, it did not specifically study Three Chopt nor its intersection with Broad Street at D'amores. VSP noted that they spent ten thousand dollars on this study. VSP noted that the traffic engineering firm utilized was selected from a list of Goochland County approved engineers.

• VSP reiterated that the traffic study did not indicate any improvements were needed to the road.

VSP stated that they had evaluated the properties around Central Virginia Sporting Clays (Fluvanna), Bull Run Shooting Center (Fairfax), and Rasawek Hunting Preserve (Goochland) and "found no evidence of devaluation." They did not state by what metrics or mechanism they studied these properties, how many properties and of what type were studied, nor was any data given showing before/after property evaluations, either by county tax assessment record or private real estate appraisals. (Minutes 15-16)

At this point, VSP opened the meeting up for public comment.

• Mary Roynesdol, Royal Virginia Parkway: raised concerns about the intersection of Three Chopt with Broad Street at D'amores store and how the intersection is inadequate and dangerous for current traffic. (16:05)

  • VSP thanked Ms. Roynesdol for her comment but didn't speak further.

• Jenifer Strozier, Oilville: clarification on non-profit status and that it will not be generating revenue for the county, clarification that VSP seeks to attract youth engagement but will be open during the school year and school hours, asked if VSP had audio of what the range will sound like when in full operation, and asked how neighboring residents with children, especially napping babies/toddlers, will be able to live their normal lives with the excessive noise.  (18:06)

  • VSP confirmed that they want to attract youth engagement but for the purposes of generating revenue for self-supporting, they need public-use patrons. VSP encouraged attendees to visit a clay shooting range to hear the noise for themselves and reiterated that they will be adding vegetation, berms, and shooting away from homes to direct noise away from residents. However, they didn't specifically comment on how their specific range will disrupt the lives of Walton Road residents.

  • VSP referenced their informal noise study in which they had shot an unknown amount of firearms, with unknown ammunition, in an unknown direction, and measured by unknown metrics, and even stated that they had sat "to each of the driveways of neighboring people down Walton Road" to measure the decibels. No neighbors were consulted prior, during, or after the test. It is unknown how the decibels were measured or if the equipment was correctly calibrated. No sound engineer was involved. For the purposes of impartiality, their sound test is not admissible. They compared the ambient noise of I-64 at an average of 61 decibels and mentioned an average 53 decibel measurement at "driveways of neighboring people" when they were discharging firearms at the VSP property. Again, no verifiable data was provided in regard to their amateur sound "test."

• Sarah Lindemann, Geri Lane: made multiple comments and raised several concerns:

  • Clarified that the VSP pre-application is now a full CUP application as of December 8, 2025. (Confirmed)

  • Wanted to review the traffic study conducted. 

  • Asked if a formal noise study was conducted. (Ms. Lindemann had to repeat her question because Mr. Frazier and Mr. Hamidi were speaking to one another and not listening.)

    • Mr. Hamidi said a formal noise study was not required by the county, so they had not engaged a sound engineer to conduct a study.

  • Asked if VSP would consider limiting their hours of operation to accommodate neighbors on night-shift sleeping during the day, etc.

  • Wants to see a more robust alternative analysis of other properties considered but not selected for this development or if they even considered other sites.

  • Wants to see the lead management plan.

  • Wants to see coordination with Louisa County due to it affecting many Louisa County residents.

  • Requested clarification on revenue generation if VSP is a non-profit

    • VSP confirmed revenue for self-support of facility.

  • Pointed out that county noise ordinance states that residents ought to be able to enjoy their properties free from repetitive noise and asked how this proposed development can possibly comply with this existing ordinance, especially without a formal noise study.

    • VSP thanked for comments but did not further address.

• Sonny Williams, Walton Road (250 yards from VSP site): stated that despite VSP's claims, the noise absolutely will affect the neighbors. Mentioned that the noise from neighbor's recreational use of firearms is a disruption to life but accepted as part of country living because it lasts an hour or two, once a week at most. A public-use range will attract more use than a neighbor's occasional use. States that he works nights and will be unable to sleep. Asked the VSP representatives if they would want a public-use range next to their house while trying to sleep. (26:05)

  • Mr. Hamidi and Mr. Frazier both asserted enthusiastically that they "would love to have a shooting range next to my house."

  • Mr. Sprite asked if Mr. Williams heard any shots when they conducted their so-called noise study, which likely was not of a duration or intensity as what would be experienced during weekend business hours or a tournament weekend. Mr. Williams replied that neighbors hear occasional recreational shooting and it is not a problem when neighbors exercise their firearm rights, but personal use is of a different nature than a commercial venue.

  • At this point, Mr. Sprite began to visibly laugh at Mr. Williams, and his behavior was called out as unacceptable by the audience. Mr. Sprite lives in Chesterfield and will not have to endure any of the negatives of this proposed range, nor will any other VSP board member or supporter. (28:00)

  • Mr. Williams reiterated that noise is the biggest concern and that he is not against the range in theory, just due to the proposed location because of its lack of acreage/distance buffering.

• Kara Larson, Walton Road (2000ft from VSP site): raised concerns about increase of litter along an already heavily-littered road. (29:10)

  • VSP stated that clay shooters are unlikely to litter. Thanked for comments.

• Lindsay Steele, Ange Road: addressed VSP's claims that the development will bring economic benefit to county businesses, pointing out that proximity to I-64 means that patrons will be utilizing Zions Crossroads or Short Pump for ammunition, food, accommodation, etc. Pointed out that traffic will also come from Shannon Hill to Broad Street to Three Chopt to Walton and that the traffic study did not evaluate that side whatsoever. (31:08)

  • VSP thanked for comments.

• Kent Cantwell, Gum Spring, formerly of Walton Road: commented that the sporting ranges he visited as a youth were set back from the road considerably, oftentimes up to a mile, and asked how VSP compares to other sporting centers in terms of proximity to neighbors. (33:05)

  • Mr. Frazier responded that it depends on the other ranges, some with more buffering and some with comparable buffering.

  • Heather Cantwell clarified that the comparison with Northern Virginia locations is not tenable due to differences in sound, population density, etc.

• Linda Morris, Smith Morris Estates: reiterated that comparison with Northern Virginia sites is not appropriate due to various disparities. Emphasized that no one wants lead anywhere near their water sources. Stated again that the non-profit status of VSP does not bring an economic benefit to the county, other than a tax write-off for the owner of the leased land. Reiterated that personal use of firearms is not a problem for her or most neighbors in attendance, but a commercial gun range where there's no possible control over mitigation of the noise is the issue. (36:00)

• Daniel Dalton, Walton Road (1500ft from VSP site): commented on VSP's previous statement that inclement weather would mean less noise because clay shooters prefer not to shoot in adverse weather conditions and pointed out that his six children, who are home all day due to home education, will not be able to enjoy their backyard during good weather and that reduced noise during rain or snow is no consolation prize. Pointed out that the vegetation has already been removed from the VSP parcel due to logging in previous years and that the ambient interstate noise will be compounded with the range noise. (39:08)

• Kevin Larson, Walton Road (2000ft from VSP site): pointed out that the first community meeting should've been like this one, where neighbors actually had an opportunity to voice their concern. Stated that adding vegetation and berms is helpful but won't mitigate the noise, citing a 1980s study (Cambridge and RDP) that shows how prolonged noise kills vegetation, especially trees, over time and that vegetation alone does not mitigate noise, and that even berms will be insufficient to stop. Pointed out that good neighbors will stop shooting to accommodate neighbors who need sleep, but VSP would not. Points out that if a property owner wants to implement something that will negatively affect a neighbor, it should rightfully not be permitted. In a similar manner, what VSP is proposing will negatively affect neighbors and should not be permitted. Asked what guarantees there are that VSP won't apply for an amended CUP in the future to allow for night shooting. Pointed out that he needs to see the evidence in terms of the lead statements made by Mr. Frazier. Stated that he needs to see the evidence of the traffic study that was conducted.

  • VSP stated that the first meeting was simply to invite feedback via comment cards, not actually have a dialogue, despite their mailed October letter stating that the meeting would "answer your questions, and listen to your feedback about the Conditional Use Permit request" and discuss "how this project can benefit our community." (40:45)

• Maddie Todd, Waltons Store Road: clarified that lights will actually exist at the parking lot and asked what surveillance and security would be at the site. (47:25)

  • VSP clarified that the lights are for security at the parking lot and facilities, but that the lighting will comply with the dark light ordinances, so the lights would be angled in a certain direction per county governance. VSP stated they would have "measures in place" of some sort to deter trespassing after hours.

• Sonny Williams, Walton Road: asked how many people would be attending during clay tournaments or archery tournaments. (49:10)

  • VSP stated that roughly 75-100 people for clay tournaments and perhaps the same for archery.

• David Sison, Ange Road: asked about the premise of the traffic study, whether it was based on routine days or if it considered tournament traffic. Stated that his reading of the report did not reveal an assumption of traffic impact from tournament days. Stated that the details of the lead mitigation plan and commitment to lead testing were helpful but wanted to see more data. Asked if VSP would commit to a formal noise study to determine based on the decibel level just how high the noise pollution will be on adjoining properties. (50:00)

  • VSP deflected on a verbal commitment to noise study. (52:30-54:40)

  • Mr. Frazier provided a brief explanation of archery tournament rotation.

• Lindsay Steele, Ange Road: expressed concern that the lead specialist has an obvious bias for VSP and firearm shooting. Asked for clarification as to whether Mr. Frazier was hired by VSP but stated that his obvious bias towards VSP rendered his statements regarding lead as questionable, warranting independent consulting. (54:40)

  • Mr. Frazier stated that he was not paid by VSP to review or provide an opinion on the lead mitigation plan and that despite his personal bias for shooting sports, his personal integrity and desire to maintain a good reputation would preclude false statements regarding the impact of lead at the VSP site.

• Sarah Lindemann, Ange Road: clarification question about the tournaments.

• Sharon Valencia, Three Chopt at Walton: expressed her frustration and anger that this is being considered among rural family homes, where all residents have moved here for the peace and quiet of the country. Stated that the increased traffic at both the intersection of Walton/Three Chopt and Three Chopt in general would compound the already dangerous road conditions. Stated that the gunshots would negatively affect her livestock, especially her horses. Commented on devaluation of property. Commented on this being pushed in the most rural district and not anywhere near Mr. Winfree's district or the eastern districts (57:20)

During Ms. Valencia's comments, the power elapsed for a few minutes. Upon its return and upon the conclusion of Ms. Valencia's comments, Ben Ellis and Ray Cash closed public comment and the meeting, citing concerns about the weather and driving conditions. There were still many neighbors in attendance who had prepared comments and were unable to speak.

Rebuttals:

• Due to its non-profit status, VSP will not provide tax revenue to the county, and its location in the far western end of Goochland close to the interstate also renders their claims of being an economic benefit to local businesses as over exaggerated. 

• As no data was provided by VSP's lead consultant, we cannot verify or compare his statements to publicly-available information from the EPA, DEQ, or other research entities as to whether the lead pollution concern is "minimal" as stated by VSP. Documents from the Environmental Working Group suggest that neighbors' concerns about lead pollution, by wind and water, are not as overblown as VSP stated (Lead Pollution at Outdoor Firing Ranges | Environmental Working Group). It also does not address the concern that outdoor gun ranges are a leading cause for lead poisoning in North American birds, who mistake the lead shot for grit and subsequently succumb to lead poisoning.

• VSP also mentioned installing a pollinator garden, but exposing bees to lead-contaminated vegetation is also a concern both for their population and for the honey which would be consumed. A commercial apiary, Newcastle Bee & Berry Farm, exists less than half a mile from the VSP site.

• VSP's implementation of earthen berms and vegetation will only reduce the noise by 5-10dba. Additionally, their relocation of shooting stations appears to have only been a difference of ~100ft, which renders the closest shooting station, the five stand, as being only ~282 feet from the property line shared with Jose Leandro and only ~670 feet from his home. At this distance, even with the addition of berms and vegetation, Mr. Leandro could be subjected to hearing-damaging decibel levels. The addition of vegetation and berms combined with negligible increase of distance of the shooting stations distracts more than it resolves.

• If VSP does not agree to a formal noise study, the noise impact cannot be definitively understood, rebutted, or eliminated.

• VSP's comments that direction of shot mitigates noise is not completely true as noise is not one-directional but radial in dispersion. 

• The traffic study only focused on the intersections of Walton/Ange and Walton/Three Chopt. It did not study the stretch of Three Chopt between Damores and Walton, nor did it study the "wild west intersection" at Three Chopt with Broad Street where traffic from Broad, Three Chopt (both north and south), Damores Store, and Dollar General converge. Additionally, it does not appear that the study substantively examined the effect of tournament traffic, rendering the study incomplete.

• VSP did not provide any data on their property evaluation/devaluation comparisons. With no way to examine their methods, we cannot accept their assurances that properties will not experience devaluation, especially when a real estate appraiser and a simple Google search confirm that devaluations can occur anywhere between 4 and 10% depending on proximity and that outside of extreme real estate situations (such as northern Virginia where real estate is already heavily sought-after), it is more difficult to sell property near a gun range and it is typically done below market value.

• Goochland County does not currently have Use Standards for the construction of a gun range, yet any approved development must submit a Plan of Development and comply with it. How can VSP comply with standards that do not currently exist?

VSP Attendees:

• Adnan Hamidi

• JT Frazier, Frazier Consultants Inc (soil consultant)

• Mr. Sprite (?) of Chesterfield (I did not catch his full name, but he attended the first meeting as a non-speaker.)

• Unknown red vest gentleman (He did not identify himself and spoke only briefly.)

• Tom Winfree (in audience)

Goochland County Officials/Admin Attendees:

• Dr. Jeremy Raley, County Administrator

• Martin Dean, Planning Commissioner for District 5

• Ray Cash, Assistant Director of Community Development / Zoning Administrator

• Ben Ellis, Planner II

Neither Jonathan Christy (Goochland BoS 1) nor Tommy Barlow (Louisa BoS, Mountain Road District) attended as promised. It is unclear if that was due to weather and road conditions.

*Time stamps are approximate.

Audio of the meeting can be accessed here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1a89wyVmW1oVBzUZqcyfbCJRVKn_Wum6M?usp=sharing