No Range On Walton

10/18/2026

"Hey, did you get a notice about a sh***un facility being built next door???"

One year ago today, a neighbor's text message changed everything. A public-use shooting facility? Right next door? Surely, there must be some mistake!

Sadly, there was no mistake. VSP is proposing to place a public-use sporting clay facility ("sh***un range") within earshot of nearly 500 homes in a two-mile radius.

While the proposal has been deferred to the February 2, 2027, Board of Supervisors meeting, our opposition continues. VSP has not provided a shooting demonstration that reflects a moderately attended event, let alone a heavily attended one. In the absence of proof that their proposal will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of the 500+ properties within earshot, their proposal should be denied.

10/07/2026

“I think if this range was to be approved and get built so close to my house I think it would seriously hurt the resell value, not to mention the peace and quiet,” Baucom said.

Virginia Sports Park is aiming to build a s***t shooting range and archery facility off Old Fredricksburg Road, totaling around 125 acres.

10/07/2026

The Board granted VSP's request to defer until February 2, 2027.

Thank you to all who attended and spoke tonight!

10/06/2026

VSP's request to defer their application until February 2027 will be considered tonight.

See you there.

VSP has requested that their application be deferred until the February 2, 2027, Board of Supervisors Meeting.

The Board typically grants an applicant's request to defer, but the deferral request will not be officially granted or denied until October 6th.

Still plan to attend on October 6th. Wear red, bring a friend.

09/25/2026

VSP has requested that their application be deferred until the February 2, 2027, Board of Supervisors Meeting.

The Board typically grants an applicant's request to defer, but the deferral request will not be officially granted or denied until October 6th.

Still plan to attend on October 6th. Wear red, bring a friend.

09/21/2026

Did Mr. McLaughlin disclose his involvement on a VSP committee to the County? If yes, when did that occur? Why did public disclosure and/or recusal not occur?

The County stated there was no "undue influence over Planning Commissioners" but does not address the influence over Mr. McLaughlin's own vote.

Current or prior volunteer involvement with the organization to which he later votes twice in favor of a recommendation does not boost public confidence in the integrity of the process.

09/20/2026

There have been at least two ethics complaints: one by a Goochland employee in February 2026 and our complaint on September 9th.

The County hired a third-party investigator for the February complaint. Details about the complaint, what was examined, and specifics of the finding are unknown, other than the County's statement that there was supposedly no finding of wrongdoing.

Our September complaint was evaluated only by the County Attorney. Our concerns have not been investigated independently.

We have many outstanding questions and remain concerned about the appearance of impropriety that has colored this entire CUP process.

- What exactly were the safeguards put in place to protect the integrity of the CUP process? What protections were given County Staff, who are being expected to view Mr. Winfree as a private citizen on this application but as an elected official on every other matter? What guidelines were enforced to ensure that this CUP received no special treatment and how was that independently verified?

- The County stated that "[t]he individuals named in these allegations will not be voting on this application and have no authority to determine the status of the current application."

However, Mr. McLaughlin did in fact vote at the January 2026 and August 2026 hearings, and Mr. Winfree was aware of Mr. McLaughlin's role both on a VSP committee and as a Planning Commissioner. Were those facts considered in their analysis?

- The County stated that "Mr. Winfree, as a member of the Board of Supervisors, did not participate or receive information about the application. Mr. Winfree was permitted to – and did – communicate with county staff and others as a representative of VSP and as a private citizen."

What safeguards, guidelines, or other measures were outlined and implemented to ensure that Mr. Winfree could somehow be seen only as a private citizen and not as an elected Board Member? What protections were given to Staff to guide their efforts as they performed their duties?

- The County stated that "[t]here is no basis to the allegations that county policymakers, including Tom Cocke and Jess McLaughlin, have given inappropriate consideration to the possibility that the VSP facility could potentially become a facility operated by Goochland County at some point in the future."

We noted that this statement does not deny that there is a possibility of the VSP facility becoming operated or owned by Goochland County or that conversations occured to that effect. How does the County define "inappropriate consideration"? If public business is to be conducted publicly, why was it not proactively disclosed to the public by the County? What other disclosures have not been made regarding this application?

- The County stated that "[t]hese gentlemen did not personally benefit from their limited involvement with VSP, nor did they attempt to exert any undue influence over Planning Commissioners or Board members voting on the application."

The County has not addressed the fact that Mr. Cocke, as Director of Parks & Recreation, would have the VSP facility under his purview if it were to become County owned or operated. Additionally, the County did not address the fact that Mr. McLaughlin's role as VSP committee volunteer had "undue influence" on his role as Planning Commissioner, and that his participation in discussions at both the January and August 2026 hearing was with other Planning Commissioners

09/19/2026

Goochland County, September 17, 2026:
"The individuals named in these allegations [Tom Winfree, Jess McLaughlin, and Tom Cocke] will not be voting on this application and have no authority to determine the status of the current application."

"These gentlemen [McLaughlin and Cocke] did not personally benefit from their limited involvement with VSP, nor did they attempt to exert any undue influence over Planning Commissioners..."

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from August 20, 2026:
"Mr. McLaughlin voted against the motion to recommend denial with amended conditions. ...Mr. McLaughlin voted against the recommendation for denial with amended conditions."

If Mr. McLaughlin was involved on a VSP committee and serving on the Planning Commission within the same timeframe, did he not exert undue influence over his own vote?

09/19/2026

“Public trust is eroded when there is any appearance of conflict of interest..."