08/25/2026
"Good evening, Chairman Kemmerly and members of the Commission,
My name is Katrina Dalton, and I reside on Walton Road. I live approximately one mile from the revised parcel boundary of CU-2025-00012, Virginia Sports Park and Training Center at Goochland.
I want to echo the sentiment of previous speakers in thanking you for your time and attention to what has already been a lengthy process, both in the preceding months and tonight. What is to many just a proposal on paper would be a life-changing reality for our neighborhood if it is permitted to proceed.
From the onset, we have made it clear that our opposition is on the basis of property rights, not gun rights. There are those who have tried to turn this into political theater, casting our opposition as “gun-grabbing” or an infringement of the second amendment. As we have expressed and is known to each of you Commissioners, I myself am a staunch constitutional conservative, and my husband is a combat veteran. I say to you, and to the public who are listening, this is a land-use decision, with property rights at play.
I am not going to use my remaining time tonight to argue about the substantive problems with this proposed shooting facility on this particular piece of land as my neighbors have already pointed out those issues.
My concern tonight is regarding the integrity and impartiality of the land-use process and whether that has been applied to this specific proposal.
County records obtained through two FOIA requests raise serious questions regarding relationships between VSP and Goochland County officials, County staff, County Parks and Recreation, and even a member of this Commission.
These questions need to be addressed on the public record before this application proceeds. It is important for the integrity of this proceeding and for public confidence in the decision.
First, VSP’s President is a sitting Board of Supervisors Member.
This fact has been disclosed to the public at the October 30, 2025, community meeting and that member recused himself from voting.
But in February 2024, the County Attorney issued an opinion specifically addressing this situation, including the distinction between his role as a private advocate and his role as a Board member and advising that he should not engage in activities concerning this application, including access to County officials and staff in the pre-application phase and preliminary discussions.
What safeguards were put in place to ensure that VSP's access to County officials and staff was not affected by the VSP president's position as a sitting member of the Board? Were those safeguards applied consistently throughout the entire process by every Staff Member, Commissioner, and Supervisor Member? Did he participate in the pre-application process and discussions?
Second, County records appear to indicate multiple instances of Goochland County Parks and Recreation’s involvement in the development and discussion of this proposal.
Those records include:
-specific references to the possibility of the VSP facility becoming an asset operated by Goochland County Parks and Recreation;
-discussions between the County Planning Department and the Parks and Recreation Department about what would need to be done during the pre-application process to make a future turnover to Parks and Recreation possible;
-meeting minutes and timesheet records showing a Parks and Recreation director attending at least three VSP Board of Director meetings; and
emails documenting a Parks and Recreation director participating on at least three VSP Committees, including Media and Marketing, Youth Engagement, and Archery, and assisting in the writing of the Community Letter sent to neighboring landowners in October 2025, among other documented involvement.
Has the County been acting solely as the regulator of this private CUP application, or has it also been assisting in developing a project that County Staff and officials understood might eventually become a County facility?
Has the level of assistance provided to VSP by County Staff and Parks and Recreation personnel been consistent with the assistance that would ordinarily be provided to other private applicants?
Has the County evaluated whether the relationships and the potential future County interest in this facility create any conflict, appearance of conflict, or the need for additional safeguards between the County’s role as regulator and any potential future role as owner or operator?
Third, FOIA-obtained documents indicate that there is a Planning Commissioner who has had an ongoing volunteer relationship with VSP at least up until December 2025, if not currently.
Has that relationship been disclosed and evaluated before the Commissioner participates in this application? Why has that not been disclosed to the public?
Have all Commissioners disclosed any relationships with the applicant, its officers, directors, committees, or representatives that are required to be disclosed before participating in this matter?
Fourth, County records indicate that in February 2026, a current Planning Department employee made a Code of Ethics complaint alleging that this application received “special treatment” because the applicant’s president is a member of the Board of Supervisors. Records indicated that the County was seeking an independent investigation of the allegation.
Was that investigation conducted and completed, and is there anything about its outcome that can legally be disclosed before this Commission makes its recommendation?
Finally, I would ask one overarching question:
Has the County reviewed the entire process for CU-2025-00012 to determine whether VSP received any access, assistance, accommodation, procedural treatment, or other consideration that would not ordinarily have been provided to a similarly situated applicant?
If the answer is no, that a review has not occurred, I believe that question should be addressed before a recommendation is made by the Planning Commission.
If the answer is yes, I would ask that the public be told, to the extent legally permissible, what safeguards were used and whether any concerns were identified and resolved.
I'm asking you to make sure that the process is and has been sufficiently transparent and impartial, that the public can have confidence in whatever decision you ultimately make.
If these questions have not already been reviewed, I respectfully ask the Commission to defer the public hearing and its action on this application until that review can occur and the Commission can determine whether the process has been sufficiently impartial.
Thank you."
