Commonwealth Court denies East Union gun range
ONEIDA – A state appeals court ruled against a property owner looking to open a gun range near this East Union Township village last month.
A three judge panel of the Commonwealth Court heard arguments on May 7 from Cogan Properties, LLC and its principal, Dan Cogan. The company sought East Union Township zoner approval in 2022 to open a gun range on a 526-acre property west of Oneida.
The property is in a conservation residential district and would be a private recreational facility, which is allowable by special exception.
Township zoners unanimously denied the request in November 2022, and the Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas upheld the denial last May.
East Union Township said in a Facebook post this week that the zoning hearing board determined the gun range would be “incompatible with the character of the zoning district in the neighborhood” regarding the proximity to Cove Village, Eagle Rock, and the villages of Sheppton and Oneida.
According to the Commonwealth Court opinion, drafted by Judge Christine Fizzano Cannon on June 12, Cogan Properties argued that the board abused its discretion in making said determination.
They argued that neighbors who objected “failed to carry their heavy burden to rebut the presumption that the proposed use is consistent with the health, safety, and welfare of the community.”
Cogan told the court that he had been trying for more than two years to purchase a property for himself and his family “for the purpose of general vacationing and recreation, including hiking, camping, and use as a private gun range.”
He said it would not be used as a commercial firing range, but would be used by family and friends for long-range firearms trainings and Precision Rifle Series matches. The PRS, a footnote in the opinion says, is an organization that hosts shooting competitions.
The court referred to a case Cogan cited, in which the Commonwealth Court reversed a zoning hearing board’s denial of a new subdivision, calling the reliance thereof “misplaced.”
“Simply put, having new neighbors firing thousands of gunshots is fundamentally different in terms of compatibility with the adjoining area than simply having more neighbors,” the court wrote.
The court wrote that testimony regarding the annoyance of gunfire sounds in the area and expected gunfire from the gun range was sufficient to allow the denial and affirmed the denial.
Read the full opinion here.
About Author
