Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
7 <br /> <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 staff’s 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 />4. A Board member asked if the regulations would address the types of <br />weapons that could be discharged. <br /> 22