ORDER SHUTS DOWN BERRIEN COUNTY GUN RANGE

By DEBRA HAIGHT

COLOMA – Fighting City Hall or in this case the Berrien County Sheriff’s Department isn’t easy, but the persistence of a group of Coloma area residents paid off earlier this month as the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in their favor in their lawsuit against the sheriff’s department.
It’s been a long battle for the Coloma area merchants as they fought to preserve the peace and quiet of the area around their tourist-related businesses and residences. The first court proceedings occurred nearly a decade ago with the case going up to the Michigan Supreme Court and back again.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the owners of Karma Vista Winery, Jollay Orchards, Contessa Wine Cellars, Bjorge Farms, Kreitner Farms and the Chocolate Garden, all based in Coloma.
Their concerns in having the sheriff’s department use the Coloma Township Shooting Facility for firearms training covered a variety of issues including the range’s proximity to sports fields, schools and homes as well as the sheer number of rounds fired at the range. People were also concerned about property values falling around the site.
The legal skirmishes have gone back and forth over the years with the plaintiffs winning at some points and losing at other points. The most recent decision by the Court of Appeals came on Sept. 6 and ordered the county to cease using the shooting range.
Berrien County Sheriff Paul Bailey has had little comment about the decision except to say he was suspending any further shooting at the Berrien County Training Facility. He and other county officials have not said whether they will appeal the decision to the Michigan Supreme Court.
The county has claimed in the past that the training facility was necessary to have in order for deputies and other law enforcement officers to be able to qualify for firearms use. The county entered into a 20 year lease for the Angling Road property in Coloma Township in 2005.
The Michigan Court of Appeals ruling earlier this month came as a 2-1 decision with Judge Jane Markey in the minority. Ruling in the majority for the plaintiffs and against the county were Judges Christopher Murray and Peter O’Connell.
Judges Murray and O’Connell stated that the Berrien County Trial Court erred when it modified an earlier injunction and allowed the county the right to erect and use an ancillary building at the shooting range although it violated township ordinances.
“The problem with the building constructed in front of the existing shooting range is that it is ancillary to the use of the shooting range, as opposed to the shooting range being ancillary to the normal use of the building,” the judges ruled. “Indeed, the shooting range existed long
before the building, and was utilized (until the courts stopped its use) without the existence of the building.”
“The evidence shows that the shooting range was and is the main feature of this activity, making the building subordinate to, or ancillary to, the shooting range. The county’s argument has the tail (a small structure) wagging the dog (the previously constructed and utilized range).”
“Or, stated differently, the county used an after the fact building in an attempt to statutorily shield its non-conforming land use, something the Herman Court stated was impermissible under the CCA. No matter the intentions of the county in seeking to comply with Herman, the facts reveal a belated attempt to protect a land use by siting an adjacent building. This it cannot do.”
They went on to note that shooting ranges are “not a normal or indispensable use of a county building” as outlined in the County Commissioners Act. State law does allow normal and indispensable uses of a county building to supercede township zoning ordinances.
“The purpose of the CCA is to allow counties priority over the TZA to build buildings and ancillary items to those buildings such as parking lots, shrubs, and lighting, which are specifically adapted to support the use of the building. We find no support in the CCA that the Legislature contemplated shooting ranges as normal uses of county buildings.”
Markey disagreed with their conclusions, saying she felt the trial court ruled correctly that the ancillary building the county erected at the shooting range qualified as a county building. As such, it would supercede any township ordinances.
Murray and O’Connell concluded their opinion by ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor regarding attorney fees.