WILLIAMSBURG — A long-simmering dispute over gunfire activity on a Village Hill Road property continued this week in a hearing room in Town Hall.
The Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday re-heard a 2015 appeal regarding gunfire at the property of Robert Hodgkins and Thomas C. Hodgkins, 74 Village Hill Road, and accepted additional information and testimony from the public, including the attorneys representing the appellant, Keith Harmon Snow, and the property owners.
At times the room was tense, with some advocating for the Hodgkins family speaking loudly about gun rights, and Snow saying that he has been the victim of retaliatory actions, one of which included a noose that he said was left on his property.
Acting ZBA Chairman Gerald Mann made it clear that the board would not hear any testimony related to personal character or other incidents, or issues unrelated to the specific use of the Village Hill property.
“This is not a forum for gun control or gun rights,” Mann said at the opening of the meeting, noting that the purpose of the hearing was not to “re-litigate” the board’s 2015 decision, but to specifically re-examine the special conditions that were imposed by the ruling.
The original appeal, filed by Snow and his family members James A. Snow and Dawn L. White, requested that the Hodgkinses be issued a cease-and-desist order for allowing loud, excessive and prolonged shooting on their property in violation of the town’s zoning bylaws.
The ZBA unanimously granted Snow’s appeal in November of 2015 and included specific conditions for shooting activities at the property.
These allowed shooting between the hours of 9 a.m. and 6 p.m.; limiting the activity to four hours total on any given day; requiring the property owner to be present during shooting activities; requiring the use of flags to indicate when shooting was taking place as well as signs to be posted at all entrances indicating that shooting may be taking place on the property.
The conditions further prohibited the use of military-style weapons, semi-automatic weapons, or assault weapons capable of rapid firing unless they were manufactured before 1953.
After that 2015 ruling, the Hodgkins family filed a civil action in Hampshire Superior Court, appealing the ZBA’s decision. The case was never heard and was sent back to the town because of a procedural mistake made by Hodgkins attorney Nathan Lynch of Walpole, New Hampshire.
On Tuesday, the ZBA reiterated its ruling that the land on Village Hill Road does not qualify as a legitimate shooting range as is it not properly operated, equipped or maintained as one. It therefore does not benefit from any protections afforded to a shooting range.
At the meeting, Mann characterized the property as “open land” near walking paths, stating that, based on previous testimony, people are casually allowed on the property to shoot without supervision or control by the property owner.
Mann said that Tuesday’s hearing was an opportunity to come up with revised or improved conditions that would satisfy both the property owners and their rights to shoot on their property, and the residents who have endured what they characterized as explosions and frequent loud rapid gunfire for long periods time and into the evenings.
A compromise, however, seemed illusive as lawyers for both sides spoke for their clients.
Other than suggesting that the town consider purchasing the land from the Hodgkins family, Lynch said he had no other suggestions relating to conditions limiting shooting activities, saying that he has advised his clients to continue to shoot on their property.
“My recommendations is to leave the family alone and let them shoot their guns,” Lynch said, adding that it is their right to do so.
“I would just ask them to be reasonable,” a statement that drew an audible exclamation of strong disagreement from many at the hearing.
Lynch also said that it was “disingenuous” to say the property is not a shooting range.
“It is a gun range,” he said. “What else can you call it when you get your guns and your bullets and set up a table and shoot at targets down range?”
Snow’s attorney, Richard M. Evans of Northampton and Boston, said that despite the 2015 ZBA ruling “the violations have continued unabated to this day and there are a lot of details in there that will support that,” he added, presenting the board with a folder of documentation.
The paperwork contained suggested conditions from Keith Snow.
These included: the installation of a locked gate system at the three main entrances to restrict vehicle access; the installment of permanent signs at all entrances indicating that shooting may be taking place on the property including trails; the use of a red flag warning system while shooting is occurring; limiting shooting parties to three people or less; limiting shooting to a three-hour period on the weekend and one, three-hour period during the week; and notifying the Williamsburg zoning officer and the chief of police 24 hours in advance of any shooting.
Some residents also commented on loud and prolonged shooting at various hours, offering their own documents and letters to the board. Many said that they did not want to take away people’s right to shoot, but wanted reasonable conditions for shooting activity so that they too could enjoy their property and feel safe in the area.
“The goal should be development of a new, clear set of standards and conditions by which compliance with your order can easily be determined,” Evans said.
He then added that the town might consider requiring the property owner to install surveillance cameras so that violations could be more easily documented.
That suggestion was met with shock and laughter from many of the Hodgkinses’ friends and supporters, one loudly insisting that the board’s nonreaction to the suggestion was “disgusting.”
ZBA member Marcianna Caplis reminded those gathered that the hearing was specifically to hear from the public, not to comment or render any decision.
“We are here to listen tonight,” Caplis said. “Please don’t assume what we are thinking or feeling. We haven’t agreed or disagreed with anybody.”
The ZBA will meet again Wednesday at 7 p.m. to render its decision on whether or not to amend the conditions of its 2015 ruling, and if so, to finalize those amendments.
That meeting will be open to the public to attend, though no public comment will be heard at that time.
Lynch has said that if the ZBA’s conditions are unacceptable to his clients, he will proceed with the civil suit.
Editor’s note: This story was updated at noon on Oct. 5 to correct the date of the next ZBA meeting.