Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
8 <br />Tesoro; that’s my problem with (h).Mr. Kirkland said he would see a problem if it were only the <br />neighbors whose perceptions factored into whether the noise was unreasonably loud or <br />disturbing, but if the deputy’s expertise also were factored in then he could accept (h). <br />Mr. Roberts explained the “reasonable person” standard:A judge tries, and a jury is instructed,to <br />view situations as if theywere a reasonable person in the community, to put themselves into the <br />position of such a person when making a decision. <br />Mr. Hunnell, noting that Mr. Roberts had said at an earlier meeting that the Board of <br />Commissioners would be considering amendments tothe County noise ordinance in the near <br />future, proposed that the Committee put paragraph (h) in abeyance until that time. Some of the <br />proponents of noise control for firearms should be selected for that committee, he said. It is a <br />concern and has been debated in this Committee extensively, he added. The County should <br />accelerate its review of the noise ordinance in order to take a look at firearms noise. <br />Commissioner McKee said that he would be OK with that, but could not provide a timeframe for <br />when the Board would be reconsidering the County noise ordinance; it could be at our next <br />meeting or it could be next year, he said. <br />Dr. Arviksaid the only issues related to firearms noise are where it occurs and when. That’s <br />exactly how the draft under consideration tonight approaches the problem. Mr. Hunnnell said <br />that he agrees “where” and “when” should be the foci of the noise discussion. Dr. Arvik then <br />cited (h) (1) to demonstrate that the draft does focus on “where” and “when.” He read, “…find <br />substantially incompatible with the time and location where created…” Mr. Hunnell then <br />suggested that the Committee set a limit on “where” and “when.” Dr. Arvik, reading again from <br />(h) (1) said that the limit would be noise “which a reasonably prudent person would consider or <br />find substantially incompatible” with the time or location. <br />Mr. Tilley posited a situation where one neighbor approaches another who shoots and informs <br />him of times when the shooting would be disturbing. A reasonable shooter is not going to shoot <br />when he knows that his neighbor is trying to sleep. I would pick another time, he said. Mr. <br />Hunnell said that the problem is with the neighbor who doesn’t want to hear shooting at any <br />time. Dr. Arvik said that in the first case the neighbors are “reasonably prudent” persons and in <br />the second case they are not. <br />The facilitator –noting explicitly that the group was not generatingunanimity after an extensive <br />discussion and that Mr. Tesoro would be leaving imminently --called for a vote at this time on <br />revising paragraph (h) to read, “…unreasonably loud and disturbing” (deleting “and <br />unnecessary”) in two places,and on changing “or” to “and” in the prima facie clause. Mr. <br />Hunnell asked if under the proposal he would be able to stop his neighbor from shooting a .30-06 <br />because it is considerably louder than the .22 he shoots, “even if I am shooting off 10,000