A dispute over noise from a skeet shooting range led to a legal battle between local residents and a country club, with the Ohio Court of Appeals ultimately ruling that the club is protected by statutory immunity and did not violate state noise regulations. The decision affects both residents concerned about quality of life and organizations operating recreational facilities under conditional permits.
Sandy and Kevin Donovan filed an appeal in the Eleventh Appellate District Court of Ohio, Lake County, challenging an earlier judgment from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas that granted summary judgment in favor of Kirtland Country Club (KCC). The Donovans’ original complaint, filed on November 1, 2023, alleged that KCC’s operation of its skeet shooting range since 2015 created harmful noise levels that negatively impacted them and their neighbors. The complaint raised claims for public nuisance, private nuisance, nuisance per se, qualified nuisance, and negligence. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to halt operations until noise safeguards were implemented to comply with Ohio law.
According to court documents, KCC began offering skeet shooting after receiving approval for a conditional use permit from the Willoughby Planning Commission in 2015. General Manager Mark Petzing testified that sound studies were conducted before opening and mitigation measures—including lowering the range and constructing a larger berm—were introduced in response to complaints. Petzing stated that subsequent sound testing showed these changes were effective. Sandy Donovan reported being disturbed by the noise for more than five years, noting it affected her health and family life: “the inconsistent noise on Saturdays and Sundays bothered them.” She also said she waited to file suit because she believed the problem would be remedied over time.
Expert testimony presented by William Thornton of Thornton Acoustics indicated peak gunfire levels at 88-104 decibels but average levels between 51-58 decibels A-weighted (dBA). Thornton concluded that while peak noises were loud enough to interfere with residential enjoyment, they did not exceed limits set by Ohio Administrative Code 1501:31-29-03. He opined that “the gun noise does not exceed the OH Code limits… this NRA guideline as adopted by Ohio is essentially impossible to violate by design.” The trial court struck portions of his report regarding the effectiveness of state code standards.
KCC argued it was immune from liability under Revised Code section 1533.85(A)(1), which protects owners or operators who substantially comply with official noise rules for shooting ranges. The appellate court agreed there was no factual dispute regarding compliance: “The Donovans’ expert witness report concluded that ‘the gun noise does not exceed the OH Code limits.'” The Donovans challenged whether these standards adequately addressed short bursts typical of gunfire but conceded there was no violation under current law.
On April 15, 2025, the trial court granted summary judgment for KCC on several grounds: claims were barred by statute of limitations as any alleged nuisance was permanent; there was no private nuisance since harms were common to all; KCC had complied with its permit; and there was no evidence supporting negligence or qualified nuisance due to compliance with applicable laws.
The appellate panel reviewed whether statutory immunity should apply if standards are vague or flawed but determined existing rules provide clear requirements for operators seeking immunity. It stated: “While it would have been useful to explain how to measure the one-hour timeframe, Adm.Code 1501:31-29-03 sufficiently alerts parties of what requirements must be met for immunity.” The court also found no evidence suggesting KCC breached its duty of care or acted negligently given its adherence to regulatory standards.
The Donovans raised four assignments of error on appeal—challenging findings related to statute of limitations, insulation from private nuisance actions due to permitting, dismissal of negligence claims, and applicability of statutory immunity—but each was found without merit or rendered moot based on prior conclusions about compliance and immunity.
Ultimately, the Eleventh Appellate District affirmed summary judgment in favor of Kirtland Country Club. Attorneys Eric W. Henry and Timothy P. Misny represented Sandy and Kevin Donovan; James M. Williams and Matthew S. Fennell represented Kirtland Country Club. Judges Scott Lynch, Matt Lynch, and Eugene A. Lucci concurred in case number 2025-L-049.
Source: 2026Ohio1327_Donovan_v_Kirtland_Country_Club_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
