Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
11 <br /> 4. A Board member asked if the regulations would address the types of <br /> weapons that could be discharged. <br /> STAFF COMMENT: The County does not have the legal authority to <br /> restrict the type of weapon that can be discharged from private property <br /> from a land use standpoint. <br /> It needs to be remembered the adoption of land use regulations governing <br /> the discharge of a firearm does not impact the enforceability of other local, <br /> State, or Federal regulations concerning the discharge of firearms. <br /> If, for example, it would be illegal to discharge a specific class of firearm on <br /> private property under State law this amendment does not preempt <br /> enforcement of same by the appropriate law enforcement agency. <br /> 5. There was general concern over proposed standards detailing the number <br /> of times per month incidental shooting could occur on a parcel without <br /> being considered a regulated shooting activity requiring the development <br /> of a backstop. <br /> STAFF COMMENT: Staff understands the concern and has reduced the <br /> number of times incidental shooting activities can occur per month from 3 <br /> to 2. There needs to be some allowances made for a property owner who <br /> inadvertently engages in shooting activities to not be faced with a notice of <br /> violation from the County. <br /> Staff will also reiterate the adoption of land use regulations governing the <br /> discharge of a firearm does not impact the enforceability of other local, <br /> State, or Federal regulations concerning same. <br /> If a property owner is discharging a weapon in such a manner creating a <br /> threat to public safety (i.e. a property owner shooting at a neighbor's <br /> house) action can be taken to address the problem. <br /> This enforcement action can occur today with or without the adoption of <br /> proposed standards. <br /> November 4, 2015— The Planning Board reviewed this item at its November 4, <br /> 2015 meeting where the following comments were made: <br /> 1. The Board wanted more information on the County Attorney's thought(s) on <br /> removing setback and projectile-proof backstop standards from the UDO and <br /> placing them within the County Code of Ordinances before making a <br /> recommendation. <br /> 2. A Board member indicated there ought to be regulations requiring a property <br /> owner to collect all the brass and residue of shots on a parcel of property to <br /> ensure there are no environmental issues. <br /> STAFF COMMENT: This issue was discussed at the public hearing and <br /> previous Planning Board meetings where staff indicted such a regulation <br /> would be difficult to enforce. <br /> December 2, 2015 — The Planning Board reviewed this item and voted <br /> unanimously to recommend approval. <br /> 8 <br />