Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
10 <br /> specifically? <br /> STAFF COMMENT: The amendment seeks to make it easier to identify <br /> instances where a recreational land use is a private or a public amenity. <br /> The text amendment also proposes the adoption of new development <br /> standards for recreational activities, including standards for shooting <br /> ranges/facilities. <br /> The proposed amendment is not solely geared to address the regulation, <br /> or establishment, of gun ranges. <br /> • Could a local homeowners association develop a recreational land use on <br /> HOA owned property for local residents to take advantage of? <br /> STAFF COMMENT: This text amendment will not preclude that. The <br /> homeowners association would, however, have to amend the previously <br /> approved subdivision final plat to incorporate the new recreation amenity <br /> in accordance with the UDO. <br /> • Will this proposed amendment impact County parks? <br /> STAFF COMMENT: No. <br /> October 7, 2015 —The Planning Board reviewed this item at its October 7, 2015 <br /> meeting where the following comments/questions were made: <br /> 1. Board members were concerned the required backstop included materials <br /> which could cause bullets to ricochet (i.e. steel). <br /> STAFF COMMENT: Staff has modified Section 5.7.1 (A) (2) eliminating <br /> references to specific materials for a backstop and, instead, require the <br /> backstop to be `projectile proof'. <br /> 2. A suggestion was made that proposed language be modified to require <br /> shooting activities to occur in a low lying area of the property as a means <br /> of further keeping projectiles on the property. <br /> STAFF COMMENT: As indicated during the meeting relying on <br /> topography can be problematic. <br /> On one end of the spectrum you may have a property owner whose land <br /> may not have sufficient slope to allow for shooting activities thereby <br /> requiring excavation to create same. On the other end of the spectrum <br /> topography can be altered after the fact creating a potential Ordinance <br /> violation. <br /> From staffs standpoint it would be more prudent to rely on a projectile <br /> proof backstop and strongly urge existing topography be taken into <br /> consideration with respect to its location rather than to mandate same as a <br /> development standard. <br /> 3. A comment was made the proposed text amendment did not adequately <br /> address skeet shooting. <br /> STAFF COMMENT: Staff has modified the proposal to include language <br /> concerning skeet shooting activities. <br /> 7 <br />