Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
9 <br />rounds?” The facilitatorsaid that under the proposal two complainants would be needed to <br />enforce paragraph (h) against the neighbor AND the complaint of a law enforcement officer. The <br />vote was 7-1 in favor of the proposed revision, with Mr. Hunnell voting no. <br />Ms. Conti proposedthat “of such character, intensity, and duration” from (h) (3) be brought into <br />the definition of “disturbing” at (h) (2). Firearms noise that is sustainedis an important aspect of <br />whether it is disturbing, and so something along the lines of this phrase is needed to represent <br />that in the definition, she said. Mr. Kirkland said that Ms. Conti’s proposal would help to better <br />define “disturbing.” It would add substance in this context, he said. Dr. Arviksuggested that <br />since the definition of “Unnecessary” is no longer needed, because it was removed from <br />paragraph (h), then (h) (3) could be merged into (h)(2).Mr. Tilley said there might be some <br />redundancies in doing that. Mr. Roberts said that the definition of “Unnecessary” simply could <br />be used to define “Disturbing.” <br />Mr. Hunnell said that he did not want to contradict the County’s existing fireworks ordinance. <br />Dr. Arvik, reading from the draft, said that the paragraphs being worked on now would apply <br />only to “noise related to the discharging a firearm.” It has nothing to do with fireworks, he said. <br />Commissioner McKee said that fireworks and firearms are two different subjects, and do not <br />necessarily need the same wording. In reply to a question from Mr. Hunnell, Commissioner <br />McKee said that in both cases the ordinances are dealing with noise, but in each case the <br />respective ordinances are addressing specific and different activities. <br />Dr. Arvik suggested that the first sentence of (h) (2) be retained so that the perception of “a <br />person of ordinary sensibilities’ would continue to be included in the standard for determining <br />what is disturbing. Ms. Barksdale and Mr. Kirkland agreed. Mr. Roberts offered to revise the <br />draft this evening while the group discusses its plan for completing the Committee’s work. <br />Mr. Webster said that the definition of “disturbing” that is emerging from the conversation <br />would cover churches and schools. If we’re saying that the normal peace and calm of the area is <br />not to be interrupted, then the areas around those kinds of buildings would be protected from <br />excessive firearms noise. <br />Mr. Hunnell said that the phrase “without unduly restricting his conduct” makes the definition <br />frivolous. If you impose this definition then you are unduly restricting the conduct of the shooter, <br />he said. Dr. Arvik said that if the shooter were able to change his behavior in order to comply <br />with the ordinance, so as not to be disturbing, then the ordinance would not unduly restrict the <br />shooter’s conduct; he could do it somewhere else or at another time. <br />Mr. Tesoro said that paragraph (i) voids everything in the ordinance that comes before it. He read <br />the lead sentence, “Nothing in this Section shall be construed as prohibiting the discharge of a