HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-16-2016 1
APPROVED 3/22/2106
MINUTES
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
February 16, 2016
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, February
16, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, in Chapel Hill, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy Manager Travis
Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
appropriately below)
Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
Chair McKee noted the following item at the Commissioners' places:
-Yellow sheet for Item-4b: adopted facility-naming policy
1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
defer item-4a: Re-naming of the Orange County Farmers' Market Pavilion to the Orange
County David Price Pavilion.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
defer item-6b: Sole Source Bid Award: Software Purchase for Emergency Medical Services.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
PUBLIC CHARGE
Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
2. Public Comments
a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
Chris and Carol Brewer said they live on Morrow Mill Road, where they are
renovating a 19th century barn and building a farm to grow chestnuts, flowers, and
honey. Chris Brewer said they are here this evening to introduce themselves, noting
they have been working with Orange County for two years on this project, and are
available to meet with anyone who may have questions.
Joe Phelps said he has attended Commissioner meetings over the past 40 years
and noted there is a great meeting facility in the old Hillsborough High School that could
2
serve as an effective meeting place, the Whitted Building. He said he would like to see
all BOCC meetings occur in one location, as it would be helpful to the public to know one
location as opposed to two locations.
b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
(These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
below.)
3. Petitions by Board Members
Commissioner Pelissier had no petitions.
Commissioner Jacobs said based on some of the emails the Board has received, he
sees citizens may misunderstand what is written on agendas in reference to the public
hearings. He said public comment is available at all public meetings, not just quarterly public
hearings. He asked the Manager if she could amend the abstract face sheets to avoid this
confusion.
Commissioner Jacobs asked the Board to prepare a resolution to honor former
Commissioner Norm Gustaveson, who passed away last week, at a time that is convenient to
his family. He said he would like to invite all living past Commissioners.
Chair McKee asked if the Manager could please move forward with both of
Commissioner Jacobs' petitions.
Commissioner Rich echoed Commissioner Jacobs' comments about former
Commissioner Gustaveson, noting a memorial service to be held on February 28 at 2:00 p.m.
at Carol Woods.
Commissioner Dorosin said the Board had been talking about Economic Development
District zones, and he petitioned the Manager, or the Economic Development office, for a
report about the area on highway 54 west of Carrboro regarding zoning and infrastructure to
maximize the property.
Commissioner Price had no petitions.
Commissioner Burroughs had no petitions.
Chair McKee had no petitions.
4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
a. Re-naming of the Orange County Farmers' Market Pavilion to the Orange County
David Price Pavilion
The Board will consider approving the resolution re-naming the Orange County
Farmers' Market Pavilion to the Orange County David Price Pavilion, and if approved,
authorize the Chair to sign the resolution.
DEFERRED
b. Re-naming of the Central Orange Senior Center to the Jerry M. Passmore Center
The Board considered approving the resolution re-naming the Central Orange Senior
Center to the Jerry M. Passmore Center, and authorized the Chair to sign the resolution.
Chair McKee said Jerry Passmore has been instrumental in the successful creation of
the two senior centers in Orange County, and the BOCC has responded to requests by the
Friends of the Orange County Senior Center for a renaming in Mr. Passmore's honor.
3
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to
approve the resolution re-naming the Central Orange Senior Center to the Jerry M. Passmore
Center, and authorized the Chair to sign the resolution.
Commissioner Pelissier said she is not going to vote for this resolution for several
reasons. She said she talked with Jerry Passmore before the meeting and her decision has
nothing to do with him. She said she has a few philosophical issues, with the first being the
naming of a facility after a living person and the second being the re-naming of an already
named facility.
Commissioner Pelissier said the Board had been working to engage the public at a
greater level than in the past and if a facility is going be renamed, the public should be
engaged in a greater way. She said it is the prerogative of the BOCC to name facilities but
notes her own feelings about this are too strong to vote in favor of this motion.
Commissioner Burroughs said when they discussed this issue last fall, she expressed
her feelings that she does not believe in naming buildings after a living person. She also
noted that her decision has nothing to do with Jerry Passmore because he has contributed so
much to the senior population.
Chair McKee said there is no question that the Board admired the work of Jerry
Passmore, but some Commissioners have strong convictions on the re-naming issue.
VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair McKee, Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner
Price, Commissioner Rich); Nays, 2 (Commissioner Burroughs and Commissioner Pelissier)
Commissioner Dorosin read the resolution:
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION RE-NAMING THE CENTRAL ORANGE SENIOR CENTER FOR JERRY M.
PASSMORE
WHEREAS, Jerry Passmore provided executive oversight of the merger of the Chapel Hill
Council on Aging with the Orange County Council on Aging into a unified county-
wide system; and,
WHEREAS, Mr. Passmore proposed, in coordination with the County Council on Aging, the
Orange County ordinance establishing the first County Department on Aging; and,
WHEREAS, Mr. Passmore promoted the development of public-private partnerships in serving
older adults, by involving the entire community; and,
WHEREAS, Jerry Passmore provided executive oversight to the BOCC appointed senior
planning committees that led to the construction and opening of the Robert and
Pearl Seymour Center and the Central Orange Senior Center;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Orange County Board of Commissioners does
hereby recognize Jerry M. Passmore for his visionary planning and
establishing and coordinating needed senior services in Orange County
by re-naming the Central Orange Senior Center to the Jerry M.
Passmore Center.
4
This, the sixteenth day of February 2016.
Jerry Passmore said over the 35 years he has been involved in Orange County, there
have been citizens with many different opinions, which is wonderful. He thanked the BOCC for
this honor. He recalled former Commissioner Norm Gustayson and the BOCC, who in 1980
were involved in establishing the Department of Aging, by official ordinance, which was a first
in the State. He said the most important thing to note is that the people, staff and volunteers
are who make the senior centers what they are today, rather than the name of the facility.
Jerry Passmore thanked the Board of County Commissioners for its efforts in regards
to the future challenges in the area of aging.
Leo Allison said this is joyous time for the seniors, the members of the Friends Board,
Jerry Passmore, and the Department of Social Services (DSS) for making this center the best
in North Carolina. He said Jerry Passmore was a visionary for the Orange County senior
centers, and thanked the Board of County Commissioners for making this re-naming possible.
He said they are proud of the senior centers, and the senior population, and noted none of it
would be possible without the leadership of the current director Janice Tyler and the Board of
County Commissioners.
Commissioner Jacobs said he worked with Jerry Passmore for most of his time in office
until Mr. Passmore retired. He echoed the sentiments regarding Mr. Passmore's visionary
leadership and highlighted his passionate advocacy and practical efforts in regards to seniors
and the area of aging in Orange County.
c. Resolution Recognizing Indigenous Peoples' Day
The Board considered approving the resolution recognizing the second Monday in
October as Indigenous Peoples' Day in Orange County and, if approved, authorize the Chair to
sign the resolution.
Chair McKee said Commissioners Price and Rich have been instrumental in bringing
this resolution forward.
Commissioner Price said the person who helped to get this resolution rolling was
Stephen Dear in 2014, along with members of other municipalities. She said the goal was to
get a five government agreement to honor Indigenous Peoples' Day
Commissioner Rich thanked Commissioner Price for all of her work and all of the other
elected officials. She also thanked Danny Bell, who took several hours to explain to her the
importance of this honoring this day.
Commissioner Price said present this evening are Tony Hayes, who is the Tribal Chief
of the Occaneechi Band of Saponi Nation, and Commissioners Jenn Weaver and Mark Bell, as
this is a unified effort.
Commissioner Price read the resolution:
RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE SECOND MONDAY OF OCTOBER AS INDIGENOUS
PEOPLES' DAY
WHEREAS, the people of Orange County of the State of North Carolina, inclusive of the
incorporated and unincorporated areas, recognize that nations of Indigenous Peoples have
lived upon this land now known as the Americas since time immemorial; and
5
WHEREAS, Orange County acknowledges that the annexation of the homelands of
Indigenous Peoples occurred over the centuries for the establishment and development of
Orange County; and
WHEREAS, Orange County values the contributions made to the progress of society
accomplished through the knowledge, labor, technology, philosophy, arts and culture of
Indigenous Peoples; and
WHEREAS, Orange County recognizes its responsibility to promote the human and civil rights
of all people inclusive of Indigenous People of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the people of Orange County understand that, to help close the equity gap,
governments, agencies and institutions must change policies and practices to reflect the
experiences of the Indigenous Peoples of this land, and uplift the Indigenous Peoples of this
nation; and
WHEREAS, the idea of Indigenous Peoples' Day was proposed first in 1977 by a delegation of
Indigenous Nations who came before the International Conference on Discrimination Against
Indigenous Populations in the Americas, sponsored by the United Nations; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2002, the Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation, located in
Orange, Caswell and Alamance Counties, became the eighth state-recognized Indian tribe in
North Carolina, and is one of 567 Indigenous Nations in the United States; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of County
Commissioners henceforth shall recognize the second Monday in October as Indigenous
Peoples' Day to celebrate and honor the history, legacy, heritage and activism of Indigenous
Peoples that have existed here since pre-European colonialism; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Orange County, in concert with the Towns of Carrboro,
Chapel Hill and Hillsborough, encourages elected bodies, educational institutions, businesses
and organizations throughout the United States likewise to adopt and recognize Indigenous
Peoples' Day; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Orange County, inclusive of the Towns of Carrboro,
Chapel Hill and Hillsborough, joins the Tribal Council of the Occaneechi Band of the Saponi
Nation in declaring that Indigenous Peoples' Day shall be an opportunity to celebrate the
thriving cultures and values of Indigenous Peoples; and
BE IT MOREOVER RESOLVED, that Indigenous Peoples' Day shall be used to reflect upon
the struggles of all Indigenous People in this land including, those whose ancestors lived in the
area now known as Orange County, and to reaffirm a commitment toward reconciliation among
all Peoples, and thereby to promote the progress and advancement of civilization.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
approve the resolution recognizing the second Monday in October as Indigenous Peoples' Day
in Orange County and authorized the Chair to sign the resolution.
6
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner Rich presented the resolution to Tony Hayes.
Tony Hayes said he sees recognition, acknowledgement and declaration as an act of
courage. He said the indigenous (American Indians) of Orange County are pleased this step
has been taken and would like to be more interactive with Orange County in the future. He
said they are looking forward to better relationships with Orange County. He works with the
seven other tribes within the State, and North Carolina is the most populous Indian state east
of the Mississippi. He said all the tribes want to be a part of the discussion to make North
Carolina better, and the Occaneechi are the only tribe in the central part of the State. He said
the tribe seeks to make Orange County the most progressive county in the State. He said they
are pleased to have the opportunity to get the resolution and look forward to working with
Orange County.
d. OWASA Annual Update Presentation
The Board considered receiving the presentation and information from the Orange
Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) on recent activities, and providing any feedback as
necessary.
BOCC appointees: Terri Buckner and Barbara Middleton-Foushee
Barbara Middleton-Foushee is here with Terri Buckner, Mary Darr, OWASA Director of
Engineering and Planning, and Ed Kerwin, OWASA Executive Director. She said Chair John
Young was unable to attend.
Barbara Middleton-Foushee reviewed the following information:
Sewer system design for the Historic Rogers Road Area
Design and the process of getting construction permits are on schedule for completion in the
fall of 2016. Surveying, checking for underground rock and other information gathering in the
neighborhood are 95% complete. Design work to establish the basic sewer route was
completed in December 2015. The Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA), the
Marian Cheek Jackson Center, Orange County, the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and
OWASA met with residents on July 28, 2015 to discuss the design process and on December
8, 2015 to discuss the County's acquisition of easements for the sewer lines.
Once there is a decision to proceed with construction, they estimate it will take about 19
months for bidding, award of the contact and completion of construction. The estimated total
cost of design and construction is about $5.7 million, excluding costs for easement acquisition,
sewer connection fees, the private sewer connection pipes and related plumbing work.
Advanced Meter Infrastructure (AMI)
AMI is a meter reading system including fixed antennae for remotely reading water meters with
batteries for data transmission. Vehicles would not be necessary for readings, with resulting
savings in energy and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. AMI would enable faster
detection of leaks, customers could monitor their daily water use on line and AMI would not
require a rate increase. They completed a detailed feasibility study on AMI in January 2016.
On January 21, 2016, they approved a plan for community engagement including receiving
citizens' comments in our February 25, March 10 and March 24, 2016 Board meetings. They
7
may make a decision on whether to proceed with AMI at our March 24, 2016 Board meeting.
They will send additional information soon and invited questions and feedback.
Terri Buckner reviewed the following information:
Affordability Outreach
On October 22, 2015 we approved a plan to implement affordability outreach on a permanent
basis in 2016. The program is designed to increase awareness of options it reduce OWASA
bills and empower low-income customers and local agencies with information and tools for bill
reduction.
The program will draw on experience with our pilot program, which included work with 14
community agencies including Orange County, the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and
social services and affordable housing agencies; and a water conservation pilot project with six
low-income customers. Key upcoming items will include expanding our partnership to involve
rental property owners and managers, continuing to work with partners, helping customers in
need and proactive water conservation outreach.
Mountains-to-Sea Trail (MST)
OWASA staff is working with Orange County staff on this issue, and the Board looks forward
to learning more about the MST soon. The 2009 OWASA Board of Directors voted to support
the MST on OWASA lands.
Financial management/rates
Fiscal Year 2016 is the fourth consecutive year with no increase in monthly water and sewer
rates. They continue to meet their financial performance objectives including our bond rating of
AA+. They are considering potential changes to our rate structure to help ensure that service
affordability, conservation, and equity across customer classes continue to be addressed and
that we have the financial capacity to sustain our infrastructure and services. If changes are
proposed, there will be a public engagement process.
Biosolids
On October 8, 2015 they decided to move toward recycling about 75% of our biosolids in
"liquid" form on approved farms (when practical), and recycling about 25% in dewatered form
at a composting facility in Chatham County. Our past practice was to apply about 50% of our
biosolids on farmland and dewater 50% for composting. Our Class A biosolids continue to
meet Federal standards for Exceptional Quality.
This approach will continue their partnership with local farmers and maintain flexibility for
alternative biosolids management strategies in the future.
Care to Share Customer Assistance Program (formerly Taste of Hope)
About 5% of our customers donate monthly with bill payments. We received about $4,600 in
2015. We also encourage citizens to give directly to the Inter-Faith Council (IFC). In response
to an appeal by Executive Director Ed Kerwin to various businesses in July 2015, the IFC
received about $1,500 for the Care to Share program. Marketing included information in our
newsletter, bills, on the OWASA and IFC websites, and asking new customers to sign up as
donors.
8
Commissioner Dorosin asked if the Care to Share Customer Assistance program is
funded by private contributions only.
Terri Buckner said yes, adding OWASA is not allowed to contribute to this fund in any
way.
Commissioner Jacobs said several BOCC members have asked if OWASA could re-
visit the purchase and sale agreement. He said there is no one at the University of North
Carolina who was present for the sale of the system to OWASA. He said it would be worth
approaching a new chancellor to discuss getting beyond the full cost-of-service model as it so
limits OWASA.
Commissioner Pelissier encouraged the OWASA Board to relay any questions
regarding the MST to the Board of County Commissioners directly.
Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Rich thanked them all for their continued
hard work.
5. Public Hearings
NONE
6. Consent Agenda
• Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
- 6b-DEFERRED: Sole Source Bid Award: Software purchase for emergency medical
services.
- 6g by Commissioner Price
• Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
• Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
6g-Amendment to the Orange County Code of Ordinances — Display of Pyrotechnics
Ordinance
Commissioner Price asked if there was public discussion on the final draft of this
ordinance.
John Roberts said the BOCC asked for a way to address this issue, as did the Fire
Marshal. He said rather than putting this forward as part of a larger ordinance, a specific
ordinance is being put forward on its own. He said there was not a public hearing.
Commissioner Price said she is concerned that there has been no public comment on
the ordinance.
Commissioner Jacobs said he would like this item added to an agenda for discussion
and to allow for public comment.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
table this item for later consideration.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
9
a. Minutes
The Board approved the minutes for December 7, 2015, Regular Meeting Minutes (Correction
Sheet); January 21, 2016, BOCC Regular Meeting; and January 29, 2016, BOCC Annual
Retreat, as submitted by the Clerk to the Board.
b. Sole Source Bid Award: Software Purchase for Emergency Medical Services-
The Board will consider: 1) awarding the sole source bid to Bradshaw Consulting Services in
the amount of$179,540 for the purchase and installation of the "MARVLIS" software that will
be located at Orange County Emergency Services at 510 Meadowlands Drive in Hillsborough;
and 2) authorize the Manager to sign the vendor contract upon final review and approval of the
County Attorney.
DEFERRED
c. Fiscal Year 2015-16 Budget Amendment#6
The Board approved budget and grant project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2015-16
for the Department of Social Services; Community Relations; Library Services; and
Planning/Inspections and Orange Public Transportation
d. Application for North Carolina Education Lottery Proceeds for Chapel Hill — Carrboro
City Schools (CHCCS) and Contingent Approval of Budget Amendment#6-A Related to
CHCCS Capital Project Ordinances
The Board approved, and authorized the Chair to sign, the application for North Carolina
Education Lottery Proceeds; and approved Budget Amendment#6-A receiving the Lottery
Proceeds and the amended CHCCS Capital Project Ordinances, contingent on NCDPI's
approval of the application.
e. 2015 Update to County Sheriff's Office: Records Retention and Disposition Schedule
The Board approved the updated County Sheriff's Office Records Retention and Disposition
Schedule dated November 15, 2015, and authorized the Chair to sign the Schedule.
f. Resolution Acknowledging February 23, 2016 as Spay Neuter Day in Orange County,
North Carolina
The Board adopted the resolution, which is incorporated by reference, acknowledging
February 23, 2016 as Spay Neuter Day in Orange County, and authorized the Chair to sign the
resolution.
g. Amendment to the Orange County Code of Ordinances — Display of Pyrotechnics
Ordinance-
The Board will consider: 1) Deliberating as necessary on proposed amendments to the Orange
County Code of Ordinances, and 2) Adopting the pyrotechnics display provisions into the
Orange County Code of Ordinances, authorize the Chair to sign the Resolution of Adoption,
and authorize the County Attorney to make any minor non-substantive changes or corrections
that may be necessary prior to submission of the amendment to Municode.
TABLED FOR FUTURE MEETING AGENDA
h. Boards and Commissions-Commissioner Assignments
The Board approved the list of boards and commissions on which members of the Board of
County Commissioners have chosen to serve on as agreed upon at the February 9, 2016
BOCC Work Session.
7. Regular Agenda
a. Amendment to the Orange County Code of Ordinances — Regulating the Discharge
of Firearms
10
The Board considered: 1. Deliberating as necessary on the proposed amendments to
the Orange County Code of Technical Ordinances (UDO); and 2. Adopting the firearms
discharge provisions into the Orange County Code of Ordinances, authorize the Chair to sign
the Resolution of Adoption, and authorize the County Attorney to make any minor non-
substantive changes or corrections that may be necessary prior to submission of the
amendment to Municode.
BACKGROUND: This item was presented in similar form at the January 21, 2016 meeting by
Orange County Planning Staff as an amendment to the Orange County Code of Technical
Ordinances ("UDO") recommended by the Planning Board.
The proposed amendments establish new regulations governing the discharge of firearms on
private property. At the January 21, 2016 meeting the Board of County Commissioners
determined the regulation of the discharge of firearms was more appropriately regulated
through Orange County's police power and its General Ordinances rather than through the
UDO. The Board of County Commissioners, after receiving the Planning Board's
recommendation and discussing the item, instructed the County Attorney to bring the Planning
Board's recommended language back for consideration at the February 16, 2016 regular
meeting.
Among other things the recommended ordinance restricts the discharge of firearms to 10:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily, prohibits the discharge of firearms within designated distances of
property lines and dwelling structures, requires discharged projectiles to remain on the
property upon which they are discharged, and requires most firearms discharges to be directed
into a projectile-proof backstop. The ordinance will not impact or regulate hunting activities.
Chair McKee said regardless of the emails from Grassroots NC, there has never been a
closed meeting regarding this ordinance, and it has twice been on the Board of County
Commissioners' agendas and twice at quarterly Public Hearings. He agreed this item should
have gone through more of a public process. He said there had never been any intent to have
a closed session or meeting about this issue, or to hide anything.
John Roberts said the language in front of the BOCC tonight is mostly from the
Planning Department's recommended changes to the UDO. He said when the item came
before the BOCC in January 2016, he had concerns about the language as the statutory
authority to regulate this issue does not come from any land use related authority; but rather is
separate and specific under the County's police power. He said he is uncomfortable with
intermingling those two lines of authority, as it leads to enforcement issues, and thus court
issues. He said the current language, with a few exceptions, is exactly as the Planning
Department wrote it, with a few grammatical changes and some insertions from Sheriff
Blackwood from a Lenoir County ordinance.
John Roberts said the Sheriff noted that the backstop requirement in section C-4 is
probably excessive, and noted that the National Sport Shooting Foundation recommends 15
feet in height, but makes no depth recommendation. He said the Sheriff recommended
changes to section C-6, suggesting changing the hours from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. to 7:00
a.m. and 11:00 p.m. He said the Sheriff's recommended changes to subsections E and F, due
to the extreme cost and effort involved in complying with them.
John Roberts said he recommended changing the initial sentence in subsection G, to
be clear that all those items would not be impacted by this ordinance. He said these items
include lawful defense of property, hunting, pursuant to directions of law enforcement officers,
actions by law enforcement officers, firearms instruction, and engaging in target shooting. He
11
said the Planning Board recommended that target shooting occur two or fewer days per
month, which may also be overly restrictive for rural areas.
John Roberts said the County does not have the authority to regulate hunting and this
ordinance does not regulate hunting activities.
Chair McKee referred to the potential cost of signage and noted he has 168 acres and
he would have to put up 400-600 signs.
Commissioner Dorosin asked if this same ordinance has been adopted in Lenoir
County.
John Roberts said no, only some portions of this ordinance were adopted in Lenoir
County. He said the Sheriff offered the Lenoir ordinance as a reasonable model and portions
of it were combined with the Planning Board's recommendations to create the document
before the BOCC this evening.
Commissioner Jacobs suggested returning to a model similar to the Orange County
Hunting Committee, which last met in 2001. He said such a committee could bring together all
stakeholders to discuss issues and proposed resolutions.
Commissioner Jacobs said anyone in attendance this evening interested in
participating in such a committee should contact the Clerk's office.
Commissioner Rich commented to the audience that it is certainly permissible to record
the meeting, but noted all meetings are filmed and can be streamed from the County website,
or downloaded at any time.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Joshua Summey said he is a sixth generation of Orange County and his entire family
enjoys shooting sports. He said is he surprised by this proposed ordinance, as it is onerous,
intrusive and unnecessary. He said the buffer requirements are totally unreasonable. He is
against the proposed ordinance.
Harry Sumner said he agreed with first speaker and this ordinance should not be
passed. He said he liked Commissioner Jacobs' suggestion of a hunting committee. He said
he is disappointed that he only learned about this issue yesterday by happenstance, noting he
does not have the Internet. He said to please notify people that are not in the digital age. He
asked if this ordinance is intended to regulate noise or firearms, and, if it is the former, then
firecrackers should also be listed. He said this ordinance should be dead in the water right
now, until further input is offered.
Heather Florio said she and her husband are new to northern Orange County and they
left their home in Colorado because of such regulations, bringing their multimillion-dollar
business to Orange County.
Phillip Florio said they have many employees who hunt and though the proposed
ordinance does not address hunting, it may end up doing just that. He said some people need
to hunt their land in order to have food to eat. He said there is a lot more work to be done on
this issue.
Scott Jens said he is a retired police officer and he is here to talk about safety and the
buffer zone. He said citizens are their own first line of defense. He referred to the buffer zone,
saying he owns 8 acres, and has a berm. He said building a berm, which would comply with
the proposed ordinance, would cost him $4,500 alone for the dirt and another $2,000 for the
labor. He said the proposed ordinance is discrimination based on lack of income, and he does
not have $6,500. He asked the BOCC to take this into account.
Thomas Warren asked if there is a reason for the proposed ordinance and where he
lives this is not a problem. He said the ordinance seems to be written for a commercial
shooting range. He said the ordinance uses the word "or" between the items in section C, thus
12
if he meets one of ten items, one meets the ordinance. He said this is a difficult ordinance to
read and understand. He agreed that the backstop issue is excessive. He said he has 50
acres and would require 100 signs. He said he wonders how signage will be enforced, and the
purpose of it on portions of land where shooting does not occur. He said he finds the signs to
be an unfunded mandate; and if the County desires signs, the County should provide them.
He said there are many inconsistencies in this ordinance. He said if some people did
complain, how are the rights of one side balanced with the rights of the other side. He does
not agree with a hunting committee but rather asks the BOCC to vote the ordinance down.
Dan Axson said he is an avid hunter and shooter. He said to a lot of people target
practice means training, and one needs to train for the type of environment in which one might
find oneself. He said if problems do arise, the Sheriff's office will typically show up, and thus
he sees no reason for an ordinance. He said there are many turkey shoots in the county that
serve as fundraisers and believes this ordinance will take away these positive community
events. He also noted children involved with Future Farmers of America may be adversely
affected by this ordinance. He referred to the required signage and said he does not want to
advertise that he has firearms. He said if the ordinance goes through, he is greatly concerned
what else may be taken away from the citizens.
Darin Knapp read the following email:
Chairman McKee and members of the Board,
Thank you all for the opportunity to be present tonight and for the opportunity to speak. My
wife and I are here in support of tabling the proposed gun ordinance and to suggest that the
Board re-evaluates the motivations behind this initiative and uses that re-evaluation to guide
the course of any follow-on initiative. Having read the documents surrounding this issue, and
having long considered the customs and traditions of our rural neighbors and farmers, some of
whom are gun enthusiasts, it appears clear to me that this discussion is being led from a
narrow place despite having over-reaching implications that would unfairly restrict the private
use of land by a large constituency of our County. Nowhere in the documentation on this
proposed ordinance could I find meaningful reference to the healthy traditions that surround
shooting sports or about how regular target shooting makes for a hunter who has solid
command of guns and is thus safer to him or herself or others. One doesn't have to be a gun
enthusiast to respect those who are.
Perceptions and reality need parsed out here, particularly with regard to the safety concerns
and discomfort of some that have apparently arisen as a consequence of others enjoying their
hobbies and honing their skills on their private land. What exactly are the perceived threats
that seem to motivate discussions here? What evidence is there? Will perceived threats,
instead of actual threats, rule the day? How many bullet holes have we counted? How many
citizens have been killed or injured by a gun hobbyist target practicing on their own nearby
land? Compare that number to all the other well-documented threats that citizens face and put
the issue in perspective. I think it's helpful to remember that the term "gun enthusiast" does not
translate into "criminal."
There can be little doubt that the motivation behind this proposal arises in part from a fear of
the sound of a gunshot, regardless of how far away it is or how unjustified this fear is. Of all
the sounds that one may hear out in the county, a gunshot is not typically top of the decibel
list. These are not the things we want Sheriff Blackwood and his deputies focusing their time,
energy, and tax dollars on.
13
Without a meaningful and proven risk due to gun hobbyists exercising their rights on their own
lands, why does this proposed ordinance exist? I can only conclude that the ordinance lacks a
sound rationale and was proposed without full consideration of its negative impact on our
community. I hope that future efforts, if any, on this issue will be solidly grounded in real data
and inclusive input. As it stands, it is my opinion and that of many others that this proposal
needs major overhaul, if not scrapped altogether.
Again, thank you for your time.
Darin Knapp
5407 spring House Lane
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
darin @ramblerillfarm.com
Charlie Brown said he felt the proposed ordinance brings a lot of bad optics to Orange
County. He said this is crazy and the BOCC is so disconnected from northern Orange County.
He said it is shameful they are here today and every deputy will be in danger, if this ordinance
passes.
Keith Kirkland said he is a life-long native of Orange County. He said he cannot
support this ordinance because there are too many loose ends in it. He said he is a firm
believer in the second amendment. He said the BOCC needs to understand the rights of all of
the residents in Orange County. He said as a gun owner, he ensures the safety of those
around him, and those who are fearful of firearms should be educated. He asked the Board to
vote no on this item and to hold a public hearing on this issue. He said he knows Orange
County is changing and even a compromise would be better, with all opinions being included.
Chad Resnik said this proposed ordinance stems from a complaint. He said he has a
berm and in order to build a new berm, he would have to divert an easement that is watershed
protected. He said he is a Department of Defense Instructor, and heavily involved with
multiple areas of firearm training. He said this is not a positive or safe thing to propose. He
said the basis of responsible gun ownership is that every shooter is liable for every round that
comes out of their gun. He said he does not want people to have to listen to gunfire and to
focus on the individual responsibility that all have when firing weapons.
Lauren Resnik said she and her family live on 18 acres and live in northern Orange
County. She said they are highly trained and use their land for shooting. She said shooting
should be done both smartly and safely; do not shoot close to your neighbors. She disagreed
with the Board on the time limitations in the proposed ordinance. She said the BOCC works
for the American people. She said she and her husband teach night classes to Special Forces
and the military on their property and the BOCC is seeking to restrict their training. She said
the County needs to back off of their second amendment rights, as this proposed ordinance is
illegal. She said she will make this a bigger issue if necessary and the BOCC does not
supersede the constitution.
Missy Foy said she agreed with a lot of what the previous speaker said. She said she
is an experienced shooter. She said a very important issue for her, that a lot of those in
attendance this evening are not facing, is the reality she faces daily from a very dangerous
neighbor. She said she sees dead animals being shot, she has shots in her house, and she
has been harassed. She said owning a gun does not make someone a responsible person,
and there is no law in Orange County that addresses this issue of her neighbor shooting over
and through her property. She agrees that this proposed ordinance is over the top but she is
14
in fear for her life at times because of irresponsible gun owners and asked the BOCC to do
something to help her. She said she wanted protection.
Bob Foy said she said it all.
Chris Weaver said not to table this item for later but rather make a decision this
evening. He said there has been single party rule in this County for over a hundred years and
if the BOCC wants to pass the ordinance, it should do so and see what happens. He said this
is not about hunting but rather it is about recreational shooting. He said a work group is
unnecessary, just vote on it or kill it. He said the Lenoir County ordinance is a good example
and would help people like Ms. Foy. He asked if the Planning Board is using common core
math standards.
Dallas Taylor said he is concerned about this ordinance, as it curtails the rights of those
that do not own big properties, or are not rich. He said he is opposed to the ordinance. He
said if this ordinance is passed, the range where he, and many others practice would have to
move or be shut down. He said he understands and is willing to be considerate, but at the
same time he wants to be able to exercise his rights. He said law enforcement needs areas to
train, and to be able to train their own kids. He said turkey shoots would be cut off if the time
limitations were imposed.
David Brown said he has been in Orange County for 33 years and his children were
trained to shoot. He reviewed all the elements of the ordinance which he found to be
unacceptable. He said one of the things that makes rural Orange County the way it is are the
people and their customs. He would prefer they do away with the ordinance entirely. He has
forwarded the proposed ordinance to the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Institute for
Legislative Action.
Don O'Leary said the proposed ordinance is not constitutional and should be thrown
out. He said the second amendment was put in the constitution in case of a tyrannical
government, so that the citizens could protect themselves.
Jack Hunnell said he farms 25 acres and he likes to hunt and fish on this property. He
said his neighbor has 155 acres, and the State regulates a lot of these. He said Chair McKee
should have gathered more input from broader areas to involve them in this discussion. He
asked the BOCC to table the issue until further discussion can occur.
Larry Roberts said the BOCC needs to decide what it is trying to accomplish. He said
he too reviewed the abstract information and he did not find a situation or complication, but
rather he only found resolution. He asked if the goal is safety, noise or firearms regulations.
He said he shoots for several reasons, including shooting varmints, such as copperhead
snakes, in his barn in order to protect his grandchildren when they visit, as well as his
neighbors. He said the ordinance is confusing as to what is restrictive and what is not
restrictive. He asked if the BOCC has considered the funds it will take to enforce this
ordinance, both for additional law enforcement, as well as litigation. He said do not dismiss
these concerned citizens as northern Orange gun owners but rather consider them to be
concerned citizens that can help keep this county safe.
Brad Burton said most of his points have been addressed. He is a life-long resident of
Orange County and was taught to be a responsible gun owner on three acres of land. He said
these skills, and the opportunity to practice them, helped to shape his life. He said he wants to
teach his son the same life lessons on the three acres that his family now lives on. He said
this proposal imposes on his rights as a gun owner as well as his second and ninth
amendment rights.
Rick Perry said BOCC meetings do not start before 7:00 p.m. in order to allow working
citizens the opportunity to attend. He said this same common sense should apply to this
ordinance. He said if one has a job and does not get home till 6:00 pm, one cannot practice
shooting with this proposal. He said he has a berm, and the proposed regulations are
15
excessive and unreasonable. He said if the proposed signage is put in place, the properties
will look ridiculous. He said areas available for shooting are decreasing rapidly and asked if
Orange County has a place for law enforcement to practice shoot.
Steve Hopper said he is from Efland and intended to ask if any harmful incidents had
preceded this proposed ordinance. He said the earlier speaker enlightened him of issues that
are problematic. He said he greatly empathizes with her situation and believed it should be
addressed, but this ordinance is no help to her in his opinion. He said the concepts in the
proposed ordinance are excessive. He said he does not hunt but he grows crops and he has
authority from the State to kill animals that attack his crops. He said he finds enforcement of
this ordinance is another issue. He said he is in favor of rejecting this.
Jerry Snipes passed on the opportunity to speak.
Neal Galloway said he bought his property so he could practice target shooting and he
said his neighbors shoot with him. He said they do not shoot on Sundays, and he built a berm
without being told to do so. He said he teaches children responsible marksmanship and in
order to do so, one must have a place to teach. He said responsible ownership is possible and
those who are responsible need to be encouraged to pass this education along to others. He
said this discussion is happening because of the minority of people in the County that abuse
their gun privileges. He said his policy is to shoot for 1.5 hours which seems reasonable. He
said the ordinance is not necessary, is burdensome and should be rejected.
Roger Moore said he is a 33 year Orange County resident and a retired Durham police
officer. He said he has to qualify once a year for his concealed to carry. He said he only
learned about this meeting this afternoon and the County should be more effective in its
communication. He said this ordinance is more of a government overreach into the property
rights of its residents. He said the lady that spoke earlier about her dangerous neighbor does
not have an issue of target practice. He said there are certain traditions and heritages and he
moved to Orange County for these attributes; but now Orange County has surpassed Durham
County in overreaching. He said the issue about using one meeting location is a good one,
with which he agrees. He suggested the new slogan for the County: "Orange County, where
you'll be taxed for life".
Joe Phelps said Hillsborough is the County seat and in other counties most meetings
would occur in that location. He said he does not like the proposed ordinance. He said he has
been in real estate for 30 years and no one has asked him to sell a home because of target
shooting occurring nearby. He said rather people seek to buy properties because they will be
able to shoot. He said on the January 21st BOCC meeting agenda, there was a place for
public hearings, but noted the phrase "no additional comments accepted". He said the entire
process, and exactly what is being decided upon, is confusing. He said the public is not being
clearly informed.
Catherine Taylor said when she looked at the proposed ordinance, she wondered if the
North Carolina Wildlife Commission had been consulted, especially where it conflicts with their
policies. She said if this is about regulating noise or commercial sites, then the ordinance
should be rewritten to reflect this. She said this should be reflective of other noise ordinances.
She noted as trees continue to be cut down, more noise will be heard. She said she does not
support the ordinance.
Polly Dornette said she is a shooter and she suggested that training opportunities
would be taken away with this ordinance. She said she is a concealed carry permit holder,
and she needs to train. She said they bought property in Orange County in order to have land
on which to practice. She said Wake County has a great indoor practice range, and perhaps
Orange County should provide that same amenity. She said the issue with the unruly neighbor
is not a practice range issue.
16
Riley Ruske said he a Vietnam veteran and a resident of Orange County. He and his
family understand firearms and feel they are obliged to defend the constitution. He said this
issue was poorly publicized and is an assault on the property and constitutional rights of
Orange County citizens. He said if the BOCC adopts this ordinance a lot of law-abiding
citizens will be turned into criminals. He said if this is done, the BOCC will have failed at
upholding the constitution.
Alan Mauer asked if there was a reason that prompted the creation of this ordinance.
Chair McKee said he will speak to this question after public comment.
Alan Mauer said he has lived here his entire life. He said this is not about hunting but
rather about the right to defend himself and to train to defend himself. He said the BOCC does
not get to pick what rights are upheld. He said this issue is about a lack of understanding of
firearms. He suggested the community may wish to provide more training and education, so
that firearms are better understood. He encouraged the Board to vote no tonight.
William Heard said he is a doctor. He said this is a matter of culture, and in Orange
County there are many different cultures. He said people have strong feelings about this issue
in one-way or another. He said personal feelings must be put aside, and to recognize
indigenous groups, as well as these gun owners. He said there are some technological
solutions that could address noise complaints.
Craig Lloyd said he is a life-long resident of Orange County, and the Director of the
North Carolina National Guard Association. He said he is unsure if the Planning Department
did enough research on this item. He said House bill 562, state law 14-409.46, says that if one
has shot on one's property for sport, prior to any new regulation or ordinance, one is
grandfathered in.
Lindy Galloway referred to the former speaker who had a bad neighbor and said the
countryside does have problems of drug and alcohol abuse as well. She said she has a
shooting range on her property, which she regularly utilizes as she wants to be well trained.
She said crack heads have been on her property making threats but run when the Sheriff's
department arrives; however, the threats resume once the Sheriff's department leaves. She
said now that everyone knows she can shoot, those previously harassing her now stay away.
She said she wished the Board would vote no or throw the ordinance out entirely.
Cheryl Allison said for the Board to look at the packed room and hallway as well as to
consider all the people who could not be here tonight. She said these people are law-abiding
citizens asking the Board to vote this down.
Public comments via email:
To the Orange County Commissioners' Board,
As an 18 year resident of Orange County, NC I want to go on record stating that I am against
the restrictions that are being proposed concerning shooting firearms. In my opinion it's not a
fair proposal and has not been publicized enough for accurate consideration.
Thank you for your service and consideration and please contact me at any time.
Tony Holleman
530 Jericho Rd.
Hillsbourough, NC 27278
919-644-0868
17
A law will never give me the right to do what is wrong. So you mean to tell me if someone
breaks in my house between the hours of 6 PM and 10 AM I cannot pull the trigger to protect
my family because I might disturb someone else down the road picking flowers in her garden.
My Second Amendment protects me from any of the Unlawful discriminating laws Orange
County might be trying to write and pass. People have bled and died in order to protect this
right that you selfishly and cowardly here are trying to take away. I pay taxes. Stay the hell off
my land and stay out of my personal business ...this should not be hard for you to do nor
understand which you protect and stand for the killing of 4000 innocent children each and
every day in their mothers womb while screaming stay out of their vagina.
I paid for this land you didn't. I pay taxes to help you pay for yours.
Rodney Davis
Efland, NC
Proud law-abiding tax payer and gun owner
Another unenforceable, unneeded regulation to stifle the rights of the people. I never cease to
be amazed at the worthless drivel that springs forth from those who believe their election gives
them God like powers to dictate how others should conduct their daily activities.
Orange County was once a good place to live but now it has become an over regulated and
over taxed suburb of Chapel Hill.
The time has come to say enough is enough. I am vehemently opposed to this proposed
intrusion on my rights as a property owner. I do not need you to tell me how to conduct myself
responsibly on my property regarding the discharge of firearms.
Harold Dorsett
Dear Orange County Commissioners,
I am writing in regard to a current proposed Amendment, "Regulating the Discharge of
Firearms." Foremost and frankly, as a property owner and taxpayer in Orange County, I
strongly oppose this amendment on virtually all aspects, and for good reasoning. As an avid
shooter and sportsman I see this amendment as unnecessary, over reaching, and
unwarranted in many ways.
First, let me say that I am all for firearm safety and the practices of safe shooting. Any person
who pick-ups a firearm, in my opinion, has immediately signed a binding contract that requires
them to protect the safety of everyone and everything around them.
To address this amendment, again I repeat, that I am strongly opposed, and for good
reasoning. The requirements of this amendment will burden a large majority of shooters with its
extremely cumbersome conditions. The amount of land required, under the approval of this
amendment, will automatically prevent many from being able to shoot regularly on their own
property, again their own property. Property that a person has worked hard for, paid taxes on,
and incurred many types of expenses to maintain. That, to me, is overly restrictive.
18
19
Now, I see the insertion of the backstop rule is intended to address this by providing options to
landowners, yet again, this is quite a burden for the average person. To install such a backstop
is not only very expensive, but restrictive. You now have created a situation where a person
will definitely incur significant expenses as well as the requirement of at least one permit to
erect such a structure, regardless of the type of material selected to construct said backstop.
Current county permitting and site plan ordinances affect the erection of such a structure. In
turn, surely at some point in time in the future, there will be a "need" for a new inspection
process to now come and inspect shooting backstops to ensure proper construction and
maintenance, again at a cost to the private landowner and tax payers alike. Not to mention, the
requirement of such a structure affects an owners rights of enjoyment of use and perceived
property value, not only the property on which the structure resides, but the surrounding
properties as well (who wants to look at a big mound of something whether on their own
property or their neighbors?). Addressing the "allowed shooting hours;" again burdensome, for
several reasons. Being fully aware that the amount of shooters who engage in shooting after
sunlight hours is limited, there are those of us that do just that. Current State and State WRC
regulations allowing for the hunting of Coyotes at night. To the best of my knowledge, Orange
County does not have an ordinance preventing this. To be able to effectively hunt at night, one
must have the right equipment and said equipment must be calibrated in the conditions in
which it will be used (i.e. after daylight hours). This would effectively give me, and those like
me, approximately less than 60 minutes, for only several months out of the year to calibrate
our night hunting equipment properly, with the hope that it remains calibrated throughout the
remainder of the year. Let me add that, the coyote problem in Orange County, and the State,
is an ongoing issue and by the accounts of many sportsman and land owners alike, is
continually worsening. It has been show in other states, and likely one of the main reasons the
hunting of coyotes at night has been allowed in North Carolina, that night hunting of coyotes is
a very effective tool in controlling the population of such a nuisance predator. I do not see how
this amendment will not directly affect those of us who participate in the hunting coyotes (and
other game) at night. While I am aware that there is a clause in this amendment that explicitly
states that it is does not impact or regulate hunting activities, it does not permit me to calibrate
my hunting equipment as needed for said activities. In essence, my neighbor calls law
enforcement, because I am calibrating my equipment at night, I am fined because I am not
technically involved in a hunting activity at the time.
Now, I do see the inserted clause allowing for land owners to target shoot two or fewer days
per month simply not enough. Although, again, I am likely in the minority of shooters, I
enjoy target shooting quite regularly, much more often than two days of the month which this
amendment would restrict me to. Avid shooters and sportsmen such as myself are regularly
calibrating our equipment and shoot regularly to better our skills as enjoyment shooters and
sportsmen. A large reason for the ownership of my property is so that I can shoot, at distance,
on a regular basis. In addition, while I have never owned, shot, or even know where to acquire
"explosive shells," I do occasionally shoot, what may be referred to as an "explosive target."
Tannerite is a completely legal, two part compound, commonly sold at sporting goods stores
throughout the state and country. I see no reason why I should not be able to shoot at these
sorts of targets on my own property, provided that I am not endangering anyone around me.
These types of targets do not expel fireballs, harmful/hazardous substances, secondary
projectiles, and are not designed to be destructive. They simple "go `bang- when struck with
any standard centerfire rifle bullet. Again, I do not see any reason why I would not be allowed
to do this on my own private property, given that no one and nothing is being put in danger— a
hard thing to do with something that does nothing more than make a noise when hit.
20
Section "e," referring to the erectment of signs indicating that the discharge of firearms is
occurring raises several concerns as well. While at first glance this seems like a good idea and
common sense, let's back up and take another look at this. While at first glance this seems
like a good idea and common sense, let's back up and take another look at this. Erecting a
sign every 100ft seems reasonable, again at first glance. Aside, on my allowed two days of
target shooting does this still have to be done? Why would any reasonable gun safety
advocate have an issue with this you may ask? For one, expense. I own a large parcel in
Orange County. Having to erect a sign every 100ft around the perimeter of my property,
calculates out to approximately 100 signs. A few minutes of internet searching yields some
pricing results. The cost for durable (40 mil aluminum) signs, even in bulk, is over $11.00 per
sign (plus tax!) over $1100.00 just for signs.... Honestly, these signs should be reflective
aluminum since night shooting may occur, increasing that cost to over $18.50 per sign (now
$1850+ not including tax!). Then I have to purchase materials to mount the signs, at least
another $100.00 (and that's being really conservative about it). After that, I have to maintain
each sign, ensure its upright, not missing, legible, etc. at all times. Wow. Not to mention, that
this alone is an advertisement that firearms are kept on this the property, a great piece of
knowledge for anyone interested in stealing something. Here's the other concern I have with
this requirement. It is well known that "No Trespassing," laws are limited in their reach. My
understanding is that even if a property is labeled, "No Trespassing," to a reasonable extent, a
trespasser can simply state that they didn't see the sign and almost alleviate themselves of
incrimination. My understanding is that this is one of the reasons why I, as a property owner,
must maintain a large insurance policy on my property, in the event that I am sued for
damages because someone was hurt or otherwise on my property— even if it was clearly and
reasonably marked with "No Trespassing" signs. Which is the reason that it is not posted
currently, it does me no good to do so.
21
Where I'm going with this is, if the county is going to require that I erect and maintain said
signs, of a certain type, in a certain manner, for the protection of others, then will the county
step in and protect me from civil and criminal lawsuits in the event of an injury or death? In
other words, since the county is requiring me as a land owner and shooter to do this, then it
seems only logical that the county has removed my responsibility and liability for injury or death
(criminal and civil) due to firearm activity. Since the property is clearly marked (by county
regulation) then the argument of"I didn't see it," by a Trespasser should thereby be null and
void, as the county has recommended, required, and concluded that this is more than
adequate to prevent wrongful injury or death to those unknowing of the discharge of firearms
on said property. That in turn, puts a tremendous legal burden on the county if something like
this should occur.
In addition, this amendment could potentially and inadvertently pave the way for further
amendments that incorporate even more cumbersome restrictions. As I stated earlier, for me
and many others, it is very foreseeable the installment of an inspection process for backstops
or properties where private landowners shoot on a regular basis (see previous paragraph and
apply accordingly). Could this amendment lead into further restrictions on shooting times and
dates? No shooting on certain holidays? Noise ordinance restrictions? Excessive calls to law
enforcement for perceived violations? In many ways, this amendment seems to burden the
average land owner and shooter with requirements that aren't even as strict as they are for
currently operated for-profit shooting ranges, according to the existing regulations.
With those things said, let me attempt to reason through the perceived need for such a
restrictive amendment. In my mind I can foresee where the perceived need for this amendment
came from. Likely a "backyard shooter" or shooters who are constantly and recklessly
engaging in the unsafe discharging of firearms, likely, in an area of higher population density.
No shock there, I've seen it myself and was simply left to shake my head at the complete
ignorance and stupidity of such actions. With the proposal of this amendment, and this sort of
situation, my thoughts take off into how the county could deal with this type of situation without
restricting the rights of so many others. We have all seen too many times in the history of
legislation, where good intentions with a law often restrict many that it was never intended to
affect. Why let the actions of a few "bad apples spoil it for the rest of us," one could ask. So I
question the county about such a situation with the laws and tools that is already has available
to it. If someone were constantly shooting, in close proximity, to others at "all hours of the
night", wouldn't that constitute as a noise violation? Could someone who engaged in this sort
of behavior, for valueless reasons, be considered to be disturbing the peace? Especially if it is
something that happens in a regular manner and easily definable as a deliberately harassing
gesture. If someone is shooting in an unsafe manner (firing on to someone else's property or
discharging a firearm without means for ensuring the safety of others), wouldn't that be
considered reckless endangerment or better yet criminal negligence? Surely both carry a
higher penalty and fine than a simple misdemeanor, which I would much rather see someone
charged with for this type of behavior. As I repeat, any person who pick-ups a firearm, in my
opinion, has immediately signed a binding contract that requires them to protect the safety of
everyone and everything around them. I mean that in a literal sense. Any responsible shooter
knows several things right off the bat; treat every firearm as if it were loaded, keep
22
the firearm pointed in a safe direction at all times, know your target and what is beyond it,
understand the all function of the firearm before you pick it up, just to name a few. To
disregard these basic fundamentals of firearm safety, in my opinion is reckless endangerment
and negligence, extremely dangerous negligence. I fail to believe that the county, its law
enforcement, and its court system are incapable of dealing with negligent, reckless, and
endangering shooters without this new amendment. If called to a scene, without this new
amendment, is a law enforcement officer incapable of making an arrest for a crime for the type
of actions being discussed, without the newly proposed amendments? Is our court system
incapable of preparing and presenting a case that will bypass reasonable doubt for these
types of actions, without the newly proposed amendment? I fail to believe that to be true. Our
municipal and county law enforcement agents are trained, skilled and experienced enough to
handle situations in which the reckless discharge of firearms occurs. Our court system,
prosecution attorneys, judges, and citizen selected juries are fully capable making sound
indictments, cases, rulings, and verdicts if and when a person or persons is/are accused of the
reckless discharging of firearms within the county under our current laws and regulations.
In closing, would like to thank all of you who have taken the time to read this at length and, in
your requirement as a public official, done your due diligence in attempting to understand my
reasoning for my stance on this issue. While I am in complete support of safe firearm
practices, I cannot, in good conscience, support this amendment or legislation of a similar
manner. I find the proposals in this amendment to be overly restrictive, undue, and
unwarranted. There is no doubt that, if this legislation were passed, that it would greatly restrict
the freedoms and personal property usage rights of citizens such as myself and others. While I
am sure this legislation is being proposed for good intentions and, more than likely, that events
have occurred which have compelled this legislation to be written, it is in fact, unnecessary.
Those who do not practice safe shooting can surely be dealt with using current county laws
and ordinances, without restricting the rights of those who regularly exhibit safety,
responsibility, and consideration when it comes to the discharging of firearms on their own
property. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or simply wish to
discuss this issue with me further; I am always available and willing to support my community.
Sincerely,
Charles Davis
919-697-1725
LRFARMS27572 @gmail.com
Dear Orange County Commissioners,
I am writing to you concerning item 7a on the agenda for the meeting scheduled on 2/16/2016,
Amendment to the Orange County Code of Ordinances-Regulating the Discharge of Firearms.
As a newcomer to Orange County, I do not know the history of this amendment, and as I only
became aware of it yesterday, I have not had time to fully explore the ramifications of the
amendment.
However, after reading it over, I am concerned that this amendment is unclear in its purpose,
and should be carefully revised with the input of all concerned parties, preferably following a
period of notification and public input.
Specifically, I am unclear if the purpose of this legislation is to enhance safety, reduce noise
pollution, prevent the operation of businesses (i.e., shooting ranges) in residential areas, or
23
merely to limit the rights of people like myself to safely enjoy an occasional round of target
shooting with my family/friends on my own private property.
The regulations are in many cases excessive. I will provide three examples, although I think
the entire amendment needs to be rewritten and clarified. First, the construction of a backstop
15 feet high and 30 feet deep is not necessary except for even the most powerful centerfire
rifles, (not to mention it may not be a good idea to use steel); the cost of such a backstop
would allow only the relatively wealthy to meet the requirement. Second, the posting of signs
every 100 feet is not necessary, as trespassing on private property is already prohibited; thus it
is unclear what the purpose of this part of the amendment would serve except to be a burden
on anyone trying to fulfill the requirements. Posting of signs on any property large enough to
qualify for shooting would not only be expensive, but in my neighborhood, would be unsightly,
as almost everyone shoots occasionally. And posting signs in the middle of farmland bordered
by other farmland is just a waste of time and money. I should also point out that I think this and
many other pieces of this amendment are essentially unenforceable. Finally, the blanket
restriction of shooting between 10:00 am and 6:00 pm, and the restriction of shooting to 2
days/month have no logical or legal justification. We do not restrict golfers to only enjoy their
hobby two days a month, nor do we prohibit motorcycles, dirt bikes, and other noisy, equally
dangerous activities to certain hours. I work full time during the week, and according to this
amendment, if I was to practice a few rounds of target shooting with my .22 caliber rifle on 3 or
4 Sat. mornings, I could be sentenced to 30 days in prison. Really? I do not think this was the
initial intent of this amendment, but it is the way the amendment currently reads.
In conclusion, I think there are many issues raised by this amendment. Instead of rushing to
pass a hastily designed piece of legislation that will be subjected to many challenges, I suggest
the board address each issue separately and carefully. In my reading of the amendment, those
issues would be the operation of a business in a residential area, reasonable safety
issues/concerns, and perhaps a noise restriction.
Based on the above, and many other issues I am sure others will raise, I respectfully urge you
to NOT approve this amendment until sufficient time has been allowed for the amendment to
be publicized, discussed in public forums, and studied carefully by legal experts.
While I would appreciate a written response outlining your thoughts on this matter, I also plan
on being in attendance at the meeting tonight to see how my concerns about this amendment
are addressed.
Sincerely,
Lawrence E. Ostrowski
Hurdle Mills, NC
All members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, might I suggest an alternative
from what appears a punitive approach, e.g., forbidding, to an economic approach!
Using the material from the NRA's Shooting Range Services
(http://range.nra.org/sourcebook.aspx) or similar guidance from the National Shooting Sports
Foundation, to ensure your new ordinance guidelines meet some semblance of
standardization, thus assuring those wishing to engage in firearm range activities do so
following established proven standards - citizens/corp failure to do so are then sanctioned and
subject to punitive activities, as warranted.
24
Further, ask your staff to do a search for a archery range anywhere within the NC area or even
near. Hint: (USAArchery site assistance: http://www.teamusa.org/usa-archery/archers/junior-
olympic-archery-development/find-a-joad-club)
Now, please take a look at what the town of Newberry Fl. did after negotiating grants for their
community, http://eastonnewberrysportscomplex.com/
This is the thrust of my message ladies and gentlemen...have your staff do their homework
and see if you can take this complex issue and instead of a hodgepodge of legalese, change
your philosophy and work to put a plan to gather $$$ together in an all encompassing shooting
sport facility (Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, and Archery) and earn revenue from the facets of shooting
sports training, possible small equipment sales, and more to the point, tournament activity
revenue, both from participants to $$$ spent nearby in lodging, food, etc.
I ask a wee bit of trust, but wish to state I am qualified to discuss these aspects and am willing
to drive over from Eastern NC to privately meet with you and your staff as an interested party if
you believe such a meeting would be germane to your decision making process. Go well,
and good luck tonight as your meeting has been misrepresented by a myriad of disinterested
parties. signed: an interested party to development of shooting sports activities within NC
Jack Coyle
To Whom it May Concern,
I am unable to attend the meeting tonight regarding changes to regulations concerning the
discharge of firearms on private property. I moved to Orange County in April 2012 from
Durham city and live off of Pleasant Green Road. One of the main reasons that I moved to my
8.6 acre property was because I enjoy recreational shooting and the previous owners had
constructed a shooting range on the back corner of the property. I always shoot safely and let
my neighbors know before a shooting session. I hear other people shooting nearby from time
to time and consider it part of living in the rural part of the county. If the proposed changes are
passed, I will no longer be able to shoot on my property. 8 acres of land is more than enough
land to allow safe shooting. Please feel free to read my comments at tonights meeting.
Sincerely,
Dr. Steadman Willis
5479 Sunfish lane
Durham, NC 27705
Orange County Commissioners,
Briefly about me, I have been a resident of Orange County for 61 years. I've owned a home
since 1978. I'm 61 years old and a firearms owner. I've lived at my current address since 1984
located in northern Orange County off Guess Rd. I have 5.5 acres of land, with a backstop for
target practice. It was expensive to build this backstop, but doesn't come close to your
proposed requirements.
25
Now I would like to make a few comments about the proposed ordnance regarding the
discharge of firearms in Orange County. I realize, and agree that adequate measures should
be taken to prevent an injury or worse from a stray bullet, but the amount of land and the
requirements of the backstop you propose for this ordnance are absurd. This alone displays a
total lack of knowledge of firearms and the ballistics of common rifle and handgun cartridges
and the requirements needed for an adequate backstop. I would hope the Commissioners
would educate themselves on both before implementing this ordnance. No one will go to the
expense to construct the proposed backstop, on a piece of land the size that will be required
for this, just to sight a scope in a few times a year, or target practice with a new firearm or to
stay proficient with a weapon for self defense. I think you already know that. That brings me to
my next point. I as well as you Commissioners know there are both pro and anti gun residents
in Orange County. Everyone has a right to feel as they wish regarding gun ownership. I
sincerely hope there is a justification for this extreme proposal other than anti gun ideology
and I'd like to know what that is. I would also ask the Commissioners to rethink this proposal as
is, and if we must have an ordinance one that looks at the entire county not just the Chapel
Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough areas. This is a large county, with a lot of gun
and property owners living in rural areas. I'm sure a consensus can be reached to satisfy all
concerned.
Thank you for your time.
Regards:
William Overman
7711 Quail Hollow Dr.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
WWOVER atAOL.COM
Good afternoon-
I do not support the county's proposed firearm discharge regulations.
Take Care,
Tricia Prinzo
Dear Commissions,
I wish to register my opposition to the proposed Amendment to Orange County Code Of
Ordinance - Regulating Discharge of Firearms. This proposal would, in effect, prevent virtually
any Orange County resident from firing a firearm on their property. I own 10.6 acres in a rural
setting but could still not comply with the rules. I appreciate the need for safety in urban
settings, but this denies the rights of law-abiding citizens to safely and responsibly shoot in
almost all situations. It appears to be a back-door attempt to ban recreational shooting through
excessive regulation without going through due process and giving the public the chance to
vote on the matter.
Yours sincerely,
Julian Abery
1101 Walnut Hill Drive
26
Hillsborough
Dear BOCC,
All BOCC members should vote "No" on the proposed firearms ordinance at tonight's meeting.
The ordinance is far too restrictive and intrusive, and as Commissioner Renee Price said of the
proposal yesterday on the Facebook group Orange County Local, "We can do better."
I've perused the emails that others have sent (via the BOCC Google Group) to voice their
opposition to the ordinance, and I would like to second the many good points fellow Orange
County residents have already made:
1. The backstop requirements are overkill. I'm not aware of any ammunition that could
penetrate dirt to a depth of 30 feet.
2. The hours are too limited.
3. The property requirements are regressive. As I understand it, a recreational shooter would
need to own at least 8.5 acres (best case) and 90 acres (worst case) to comply with the
distance requirements. That has a disparate effect on those who live in a perfectly safe area to
shoot but can't afford that much property. I should think that this would be plainly stated in the
"Social Justice Impact."
4. The ordinance infringes on the livelihoods of those who are firearms instructors.
4. Most importantly: the ordinance has not received adequate public input.
I only saw one email that supported the ordinance, and that email was written by someone
who hadn't even bothered to read it.
Regarding the rumor about the meeting being closed session - I think that was initiated by
someone on Facebook with good intentions who misunderstood the notes on the first page of
the ordinance. I don't believe a "lie" was concocted to be maliciously spread. Although I
understand Chairman McKee's need to set the record straight on Orange County Local this
morning, it is our job as citizens to hold you accountable. Sometimes we make mistakes.
Also, please keep the name of the Farmers Market Pavilion the way it is. I concur with Lisa
Pope's reasoning.
Sincerely,
Ashley DeSena
West Hillsborough
Hi folks,
I'm sure you're receiving quite a few of these -just my two cents:
The signage requirement is a good measure, and the idea of set times is a good one, but
should not be a fixed time. Instead, tie it to sunrise/sunset as the hunting rules do. What is a
fine shooting time in July might not make sense in January.
27
The backstop requirements are a good start, but leave a *lot* to be interpreted later. As it
reads it sounds ridiculously restrictive, but its all in the interpretation. Surely there are industry
standards for shooting ranges you could reference?
The 300-foot rule is reasonable. The 1000-foot rule is asinine. In a worst case scenario, with
"structures" at every property line, a person would have to be shooting in the dead center of a
90 acre square parcel to meet the guidelines. That makes no sense. Why require 1000
*behind*where the person is shooting? If its all about noise, thats addressed in the time of
day restrictions above. If its about bullet safely, 1000 feet behind the shooter makes no
sense. 1000 feet in front of the shooter makes sense if they do not have an adequate
backstop. If they have a backstop as described in the proposed ordinance, 1000 is overkill.
Have fun tonight!
Bob Johnson
Owner, Madurobob's Luthiery
madurobob.com
facebook.com/MadurobobsLuthiery
I am completely in agreement with the proposed firearms ordinance. Every year I have to sit by
while our neighbors fire at birds and bird shot rains down on the roof of our house. I don't care
if he does it on his own property but I shouldn't have to tolerate it on mine.
Robin Royster
Commissioners:
Please allow me to comment on the agenda item regarding discharge of firearms. I feel that
this amendment as proposed is a heavy-handed answer to a local problem. As a landowner
and a part-time shooter, my normal target range is into a natural steep hill. This provides
a more than adequate backstop and a partial noise buffer. In my situation, and I suspect in
other persons as well, this section of property is close to one property line. If this amendment
is adopted as proposed, the fifty or so shots that I fire annually will become a criminal offense
while not causing any harm or disturbance. I urge you to table this proposal until you have
more information and citizen input.
Sincerely,
David Lewis
801 Arthur Minnis Rd
Hillsborough, N. C. 27278
919-929-8230
My name is Roy Coe. I was raised here in Orange County, but moved away after high school.
I spent 23 years in the military (17 years overseas and I'm Viet Nam Combat Veteran) and then
26 years working in the Space Agency, NASA. For the last 19 years, I had to work in the State
28
of California because of my NASA job and endure some of the toughest gun laws in the
country. I also spent 13 years in the Kern County Sheriff's Office as an unpaid volunteer. I
recently retired and decided to move back "home" because I miss my roots. Returning to NC
to get away from California seem to be the right choice. Now I find myself regretting my return
to Orange County.
My comments regarding this proposed ordinance: You are going to require the land owners to
have signs placed every 100 feet around the property and 300 feet inside the property line.
First, most of us property owners don't know the exact location of our property line, so how do
you propose to enforce this requirement? Are you going to survey our property for us to
provide the exact lines and then measure each of the many signs to ensure they are 300 feet
inside the line? Is the county going to supply the warning signs? Also, very few land owners
have enough property to comply with your requirements which makes this ordinance appear to
be an attack on lawful gun owners.
I agree that safety is paramount when discharging a firearm and an ordinance will provide
some guidelines to ensure that safety measures are in effect during those times that gun
owners like to target practice or "sight in" a hunting rifle...but I believe your proposal is much to
extreme. I have read some alternate proposals that you have been provided to you. I urge
you to consider these proposals and not make this so difficult on us land and legal gun
owners.
Thank you for your time.
Roy Coe
Dear Commissioners,
It has been brought to my attention, as an Orange county resident, that there is a proposed
ordinance to be discussed in regards to firearms discharge in the county today. As a taxpayer I
feel the right to be heard. I am very opposed to any such ordinance and consider it an
infringement of my rights. This issue needs to be tabled until further research can be done. If
this nonsense passes today, you better believe our voice will be heard during the next election.
Best Regards,
Brian Call
Orange County Resident
I am a concerned citizen of Orange County. I will start by saying I have been in Orange County
all of my life (40 years). I have learned about the amendment to the code of Ordinances in
reference to using Fire Arms on PRIVATE property. From what I'm reading an individual will
basically have to own 8 acres of land with no structures on the land in order to use firearms for
recreational purposes. This is absolutely ridiculous! The liberal democrats of Chapel Hill are
slowly but surely ruining Orange County. We already have the highest property taxes in the
state and now you're going to to start telling owners of private property what they can and can't
do on THEIR land. People move out into the county for a reason, it's called freedom! My wife
and I will be entering the housing market in a few months. I can promise you if this passes I will
not be looking in Orange County, for the first time in my life I will moving out of Orange County.
29
I also understand that this a knee jerk reaction to a problem with a particular land owner in
Orange County. If that's the case there has to be some other way to deal with someone using
private land as a commercial firing range without infringing on the rights of EVERYONE. I
surely hope you will take this response into consideration. Thank you, Mike Hogan
Mike Hogan
I oppose the ordinance as it now stands. Please table this until more conversation with the
public (again) can be entertained.
Rachel Phelps Hawkins
Landowner in Orange County
This is my personal opinion — not indicative of any email reference address or my employer.
To: Orange County Commissioners,
My name is Michael Miles. I am a resident of Orange County and I want to clearly express my
opposition to the proposed amendment 7-a to Orange County Code of Ordinances —
Regulating the Discharge of Firearms.
I am opposed to this amendment or any amendment with similar intent to restrict or regulate
the use of firearms at the county level. We have adequate regulation of firearms at the State
and Federal levels and do not need more regulation in this area from the county.
Thank you.
Michael Miles
6721 Union Grove Church Rd.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
I will not be able to attend the meeting tonight, but I OBJECT to the majority of this proposed
ordinance.
A couple main objections:
1. If the distances regulating the design of the berm are followed, the required distance of
1000 ft from an occupied structure is unnecessary.
2. The requirement for signage ever 100 ft along the property line is RIDICULOUS. If I have
firearms, I am NOT going to put up a sign that advertises such! Nobody driving by needs to
know that! I will inform my neighbors, but I am not putting up a ridiculous sign every 100'.
Steve Vanderlinden
4206 Hope Valley Dr
Hillsborough, NC
Dear Commissioners,
Thank you for your time, I will be unable to attend the Feb 16th meeting on the new ordinance
that is being brought forward. I have been an Orange County resident since birth and an
30
active sportsman since a very young age in my life. I live on 1.4 acres in rural Orange County,
if I read this correctly I cannot shoot my guns, both used for personal protection and for
hunting, because I have houses within 1000' of my house. I don't shoot a lot but when I do I
have always used the skills taught during hunter education class and common sense. As long
as I am shooting into a low area on my own property (no chance for the bullet to travel further
than I want) what is the problem. I am one of the few public service members that can afford to
still live in Orange Co and if you run us out who will provide public safety? I am living in the
house my grand parents built when they came to Orange County and I love serving the
citizens of Orange County just as you do. I ask that you take some time to review this matter
and understand that one bad resident (shooter) does not represent all the citizens of Orange
County and we the people elect you to serve all of Orange County.
Thank you for your time and consideration to do what is right.
Scott Hackler
Resident of the Efland Community
To: Orange County Board of County Commissioners
From: Mary Darlene Yates
Robert Terry Woods
This email is in response to the scheduled meeting of February 16th, 2016 regarding
amendment to the Code of Ordinances regarding Discharge of Firearms. As an owner of
property in Orange County, I strongly disagree with any amendments to the Code of
Ordinances which limits or prohibits the use of firearms on private property. My property is not
within city limits and was bought because I do not wish to live in or near a town or city and be
subjected to all the restrictions which are placed upon my freedoms. I have been a resident of
Orange County for many years and my father's family has owned land here since the early
1900s. One of the parcels I own is part of that land and is very precious to me. There are
already too many restrictions in this county and I most certainly am against any more being
added.
I lived on Palmer's Grove Road, when my land was going to be made part of Eno State Park
and had property owners not banded together, the land would have gone to the park. I also
remember when Orange County was going to place a dump close to my home in northern
Orange County on Guess Road, Rougemont (Orange County) NC. Once again landowners
banded together and fought it. There is now a park where the dump was going to be. I
remember that when asked where the construction trash would primarily be coming from; the
answer was Chapel Hill. Chapel Hill seems to run this county, but there are those who would
love for them to form their own county and leave the rest of us alone. If you want to live
where you will not hear gunfire or be near an area where firearms are discharged, move
to town, preferably the town of Chapel Hill. In both of the above incidences, the county of
Orange tried quietly to slip these past the citizens it would affect.
Once again, I find myself looking at the same scenario, just a different subject. I have my
conceal/carry permit and target practice on my land. There are "No Trespassing" signs
posted and that should be sufficient. I strongly suggest that you withdraw your proposal to the
above amendment.
31
Sincerely,
Mary Darlene Yates
mdarlene317 @yahoo.com
Owner:
3127 Yates Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
&
6421 New Sharon Church Road
Rougemont, NC 27572
Robert Terry Woods
rterrywoods34607 @yahoo.com
Owner:
3806 Stoneycreek Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Good morning
I'm sure you know what this is about, I feel like we have way too many regulations on us now,
don't tell me what and when I can do certain things on my property.
I'm sure there has been some complaints in the last few years because of the increase in
firearms purchases, caused by the fear of the increased government control and restrictions.
So, please take into consideration my complaint and many other private landowners in the
county. No new government restrictions.
Thank you
Brad Walker
919-730-9327
Hello Commissioners,
My two cents:
I am one of the planning representatives for Bingham. I agree that people should have more
time to digest the proposal and weigh in on it if they want to.
Comparing the Proposed Orange County Ordinance to the Lenoir Ordinance they are very
similar with Orange County's addition of some key points;
1) The setback buffers which are common sense safety measures, but are made
redundant by criminal and civil penalties
2) Regulations for indoor ranges which are also made redundant by criminal and civil
penalties
3) Time of day restrictions
32
4) The exclusion of"explosive targets". These targets are unregulated by the BATF and
likely magnify the number of noise complaints. Their effects should be covered by the
noise ordinance, but it's sometimes hard to locate and enforce..
5) Sign posting regulations which are about the same as posting "no hunting" signs, as I
recall the discussion.
The issue boils down to people being considerate of their neighbors and reasonable when
exercising their rights. I do not think that an ordinance will be successful regulating this
behavior, nor do I think zoning enforcement will be responding to complaints.
To me, this issue is probably best left to the Sheriff's department who are familiar with firearms
safety and are well trained to judge a situation. Sheriff Blackwood may want additional time
restrictions or the exclusion of binary explosive targets in his deputies nuisance toolkit, but if he
does I am confident that he will say so.
-Tony
Dear Chairman McKee,
As I am sure you already know. The proposed restrictions to the safe discharge of firearms are
making quite a stink amongst the county, at least the longtime resident rural folks.
As I see it, as proposed, this ordinance is just another way to limit the law abiding safe target
shooter from using his land as he sees fit. I agree there needs to be some boundaries and
rules set in place, but for the majority of shooters this is not a problem and is being done
currently. I understand there have been issues, and those not accustomed to country living
are bothered by the noise and the guns.
I ask you cordially, to consider the Sheriff's recommendations to the Board and vote with
common sense as you approach this issue.
Orange County Commissioners,
I am a resident of Orange County and would like to express my strong opposition to the
proposed firearms discharge ordinance to be discussed at the February 16 meeting. The
only proposed regulations that I would find to be of practical benefit to the citizens of Orange
County are the ones regarding safety practices, including c) 7,8,9, & 10 and d) 3,4, & 5....but
these are all basic common sense items that should not need an ordinance to be practiced by
any responsible individual. All other proposed regulations I find to be extremely and unfairly
excessive and in fact unnecessary to ensuring the safety of the citizens of Orange County.
I am not aware of the background regarding this proposal and what prompted it to be written,
but I suspect it was perhaps prompted due to a small number of isolated incidents which I do
not believe should warrant over-regulating the overwhelming majority of Orange County
citizens that already voluntarily engage in safe shooting practices. I cannot support penalizing
the majority for the actions of a few.
Please vote to disapprove this proposed ordinance. Thank you for taking the time to hear
and consider my thoughts about this matter.
33
Sincerely,
Kenneth Snyder
109 South Lloyd's Dairy Rd
Efland, NC 27243
Scott Tutor
Orange Grove Community
Bingham Township
Earl I heard this weekend that the county has had the county Attorney start working on a new
law that will not let anyone in the county that owns land fire there guns on there own property
more than once a month and only between the hours of like 10: 00 am and 3:00 pm is there
any truth to this. Please Reply Thanks Jerry
Jerry Baity
To: Earl McKee, Chairman, Orange County Board of Commissioners
From: F. Paul Valone, president, Grass Roots North Carolina
Re: Amendment to Orange County Code Of Ordinances Regulating Discharge Of Firearms
Dear Commissioner McKee:
We have been advised by several members that Orange County intends to change its
ordinance regarding discharge of firearms. They have also advised us that the board of
commissioners intends to do so in a meeting closed to the public.
In fact, one member forwarded the attached image of the Action Agenda Item Abstract which
appears to show it as item 7—a, for action on February 16, 2016. I also note that the public
hearing block contains an "N", presumably indicating no public hearing on the issue.
As you are no doubt aware, NCGS § 143-318.9 (our "open meetings" law) stipulates:
"Whereas the public bodies that administer the legislative, policy-making, quasi-judicial,
administrative, and advisory functions of North Carolina and its political subdivisions
exist solely to conduct the people's business, it is the public policy of North Carolina
that the hearings, deliberations, and actions of these bodies be conducted openly."
In fact, public bodies may go into closed session only for the purposes enumerated in § 143-
318.11, which also says:
"A public body may hold a closed session only upon a motion duly made and adopted
at an open meeting. Every motion to close a meeting shall cite one or more of the
permissible purposes listed in subsection (a) of this section."
I would also urge you to become familiar with another modification of North Carolina statutes
which became effective on December 1, 2015 when N.C.G.S. § 14-415.23 was modified
34
under Section 15 of Session Law 2015-195 (formerly H.B. 562) to include a new subsection
(e), to wit:
"A person adversely affected by any ordinance, rule, or regulation promulgated or
caused to be enforced by any unit of local government in violation of this section may
bring an action for declaratory and injunctive relief and for actual damages arising
from the violation. The court shall award the prevailing party in an action brought
under this subsection reasonable attorneys'fees and court costs as authorized by
law."
Please advise us if we are in error. Otherwise, I would strongly suggest you convene an open
session at which a motion could be made to go into closed session only for statutorily
permissible reasons. I can be reached at the email above or at 704-907-9206. I eagerly await
your reply.
My name is Satina Bass, resident of 109 Drake Dr. Mebane, NC 27302 Orange County. I am in
support of the Amendment to regulate the discharge of firearms in a residential neighborhood.
My husband and I have been in our home for 11 years. We have 2 little children that enjoy
playing in their yard. We are very uncomfortable letting our children play in their own yard due
to neighbors shooting firearms on a regular basis. I would ask that you really consider the
elimination of discharging firearms in communities where the properties are so close in
proximity. Thank you in advance for your consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
Curtis and Satina Bass
My family is very much in favor of an amendment to regulate the discharge of firearms on
private property.
We are out in the county but we are in a development. Even though we have acre lots, when
neighbors fire guns in their yard, it sounds like they are in our front yard. It's very dangerous
also. You can't relax at all with the "boom, boom, boom" and it scares my dog. It's very
unsettling.
They feel that they have the right to fire the guns since they are out in the county and on their
own property, but noise is an invasion of privacy. When the noise is loud or repetitive, it can
wear on your nerves. At certain decibels, the noise can be hazardous to health.
So, I do appreciate the possibility of an amendment to regulate the activity.
Sincerely,
Jackie Spivey
104 Drake Drive
Mebane, NC 27302
35
Hello.
I have seen a lot of discussions around a gun ordinance in Orange County that would limit the
use of firearms (target practice) on private property. I fully support the idea of removing the
right to target practice, especially when those doing so live in subdivisions or in close proximity
of other homes. Though I struggle to locate the full proposal online, I am sure it was created to
protect other residents who have been forced to listen to constant gunfire and cannot enjoy the
peace and quiet of their own home. Shooting ranges were created for this purpose. Please let
me know how I may further express my support. Those against the ordinance clearly are more
concerned with their rights to shoot cans than the rights of others to enjoy peace and quiet.
Thank you-
Katherine Walker
Hello,
We are very much for the amendment to regulate the discharge of firearms. Can I attend this
meeting? I am having a hard time finding out where this meeting is located. I saw something
that noted the time as 7pm, 02.16.2016.
We live in a residential neighborhood consisting of 1 acre lots. We have lived here for more
than 10 years and have lived Orange County for almost 20 years. About a year ago we had
new neighbors move in. These new neighbors decided to start rifle firing on their property.
With the acre lots we are less than 500 feet away from them. In neighborhoods like these it is
not safe for them to be allowed to do this.
We have been outside playing in our yard and have had to go back inside and shut all
windows and doors due to the noise. We also have resorted to calling the sheriff on occasion
as well. (before the firing started we had never needed to call the sheriff's department) We
have neighbors that have had to move cook outs or birthday parties inside due to the intrusive
noise.
My husband is a Chapel Hill Police officer and has been for 17 years, it has never occurred to
him in our more than 10 years of living here to practice firing in our yard. He always goes to a
range.
Some of our other neighbors have had it worse than us, on Tanya road there are people that
fire day and night and also fire into tannerite.
It would be very appropriate and long needed for this amendment to pass. At least some
restriction for residential areas. Currently the attitude is "we're out in the county" or "there's no
ordinance preventing me from doing it". I wish that all people would address the situation with
common sense but it will take a change in governance to get change for this issue.
Thank you,
Tracy Shinn
105 Drake Drive
Mebane, NC 27302
36
Dear Commissioners:
You may be following the social medial debate on the proposed gun ordinance. I find
the ordinance confusing and it is unclear if/how the ordinance actually addresses the issue of
nuisance from constant target shooting.
In my opinion, it would help if you slow this down and give people a chance to have a
meaningful conversation about noise and other nuisances. Most of us accept
occasional target shooting, hunting, or sport shooting in the community, and agree that
constant target shooting near homes is a nuisance and needs to be addressed.
Please delay approval of the ordinance, and instead create a process to get more input and
evaluate options. Please include the county sheriff, gun safety leaders, hunt clubs and
members of the community who have been adversely impacted by noise and other impacts of
target practice.
Thank you for considering my view.
nni
Bonnie Hauser
919 732-9316
919 619-4354 (cell)
www.BonnieHauser.com
Mr. Newsome,
Thank you for your email and be assured that your comments will be considered by our board.
You make a good point about the time issue and one that has been mentioned before.
Earl McKee
Chair
Mr. McKee
Mr. Dorosin
Ms. Burroughs
Mr. Jacobs
Ms. Pelvis sure
Ms. Price
Ms. Rich
I'm sure that you have not considered the 4-H Shooting Team when setting the 6:00 pm limit
on shooting at ranges. These kids are neither criminals nor careless shooters. They have
been taught to respect guns and what they can do as well as the rights of others. There are a
couple of young people who have qualified for the National's. They need to practice. Since
they go to school, and believe it or not some have jobs, it's hard for them to get everything
done by 6:00 pm. Being a former state employee, I'm disappointed that you haven't
investigated this matter more thoroughly. I trust that you will consider this decision and rethink
37
your current position. While I can't be there on Tuesday night for your meeting because of a
home bound 95 year old mother whom I have to visit and caregive for the next 2 days, I would
be happy to offer my thoughts afterwards. Thank you for reading and taking the appropriate
action.
Tom Newsome
Retired Chief Deputy State Controller
919-662-6941
Thomasnewsome @earthlink.net
Dear Board of Commissioners,
We would like to let you know of our opposition to the proposed ordinance regarding the
discharge of firearms on private property. We feel that this ordinance has not received
adequate public input, including a well advertised public hearing, and in fact appears to have
been handled in such a way as to prevent widespread public knowledge of it in advance.
We understand that the ordinance was developed in response to a citizen operating a shooting
range every day and all day on his property, thereby creating a nuisance for his surrounding
neighbors. If this one citizen is behaving inappropriately then the more logical response should
be to address that specific situation, rather than casting a broad net that impacts so many
people who behave with respect and consideration for their neighbors.
We urge you to vote against this unnecessary ordinance that only further divides rural and
urban Orange County.
Sincerely,
Steve and Susan Halkiotis
Greetings,
I am a resident of southwest Orange county and have been for over 60 years. Today I spoke
to several of you to register my opposition to any legislation which would restrict my right to
discharge firearms on my property. Unfortunately, I can not attend tomorrows meeting to tell
you in person.
I have lived, voted and paid taxes here a long time but this is beginning to go to far. Please kill
this or at least consider a re-write which is less onerous.
James Allen
To the committee:
I am absolutely against this order.
38
I am a landowner and tax payer in Northern Orange County. I have numerous reasons that you
should vote against this ordinance.
First and foremost the land and property is mine. What I do on my property is my business. If
you start telling me what I can and cannot do on my own land what is on your agenda to
control next; my barking dog? I will not be treated by my own government like an HOA.
Second, exactly how do you expect our already taxed Sheriff's department to govern such an
ordinance? My only thought is with more taxes. Wrong!
Third, how exactly are you to determine if it's a hunter or just target practice? You cant! and
you won't be able to.
Fourth, be reasonable on the requirements! How are the landowners supposed to comply due
to the strict guidelines on other structures?
Fifth, can you say that our target shooting has caused any incidents? No, you cannot. Why?
Because we are responsible adults!
My wife and I are both are target shooters and we only shoot during reasonable hours and we
have safety measures in place to ensure no bullets stray from our range area. We govern
ourselves so you are not welcome to offer your big brother oversite on to us!
Respectfully,
Mr. and Mrs. Harold F Wagner Jr.
I have strong concerns as to limiting my constitutional right to shoot safely On my property and
see it as an over reach of local government to step in and tell a land owner that he may not
safely discharge a firearm on their property. I feel that this is back door gun regulation.
Steve Summey
We do not agree with the proposed gun law in motion. We support residents rights on their
private land within reasonable daytime hours. Please advise if this should be redirected
somewhere else or if there is a meeting we may attend to speak against this.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Jopson
Orange County resident and voter
336-263-2548
To whom it may concern,
I am against the proposed firearm ordinance being presented February 16, 2016 board
meeting. I should be able to target practice under safe conditions when ever I want to on my
own property. The board is trying to slide this through without the public input it deserves. I
also work and there should not be a time frame which limits my rights. 10 am to 6 am is
39
unreasonable. The board needs to table this motion until further input is received from the
public.
Sincerely,
Allison Herndon
Dear Commissioners,
My name is James Depew. I am a Concealed Carry Handgun instructor, NRA Pistol instructor,
and NRA Range Safety Officer. My wife and I hold small classes and use family land in
Orange County for target practice and instruction. Our class makeup is about 80% female
(usually 4 to 5 students at a time, one of which on average is male) and many of our pupils are
senior citizens. The fastest growing demographic for Concealed Carry Handgun permittees is
women and our classes focus on empowerment nearly as much as on safety and
marksmanship. We diligently work with our students one-on-one and focus extremely heavily
on gun safety. No one is allowed to shoot on the property without myself and/or my wife (who
is also a Concealed Carry Handgun instructor, NRA Pistol instructor, and NRA Range Safety
Officer) present.
I am extremely concerned that this legislation has made it to this point in the process with no
open hearings and further, that the only input received from the public was from a single
complainant. It is my belief that it would behoove the board to consult not only with a broader
spectrum of constituents but with constituents who have some level of experience and
expertise in these matters.
This legislation as it is currently written will greatly impede the ability of instructors in Orange
County to train students in the safe and responsible utilization of firearms. If safety concerns
prompted this legislation, then I feel that this should be taken into account. Marksmanship and
safety fundamentals must be learned, and the most effective way to become versed in these
fundamentals is through practice - the hands-on practice that this legislation would make
nearly impossible to administer.
The burden placed upon our already taxed law enforcement officials seems untenable; this
statute would be nearly impossible to enforce even with a much larger law enforcement
presence.
The signage portion alone is patently ridiculous in my opinion, and is not even the worst
portion of the proposed legislation. A sign every 100 feet around the perimeter of the property?
If we take a 5-acre square lot as an example (and lots are never square), the perimeter would
be roughly 1,867 feet. That means posting 187 signs around the perimeter of the property. To
say that this is unreasonable would be farcical at best.
I ask that the Board not sign this legislation. It is not enforceable, it is intrusive, and it has been
written without any input from constituents who are actually familiar with the subject matter
involved. At the very least, please allow a public discourse on the subject so that more than
one point of view can be expressed.
Kind regards,
James Depew
Cedar Grove, NC
40
Dear Chairman McKee and Orange County Board of Commissioners:
I am writing to urge you to vote against the proposed amendment regarding regulating the
discharge of firearms.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Matt Heinze
Hillsborough, NC
matt.heinze @gmail.com
Dear sirs/madams
As a responsible gun owner I feel that the proposed gun ordinance for Orange county goes
against my Second Amendment rights. Why punish the whole county due to the neglect of one
person. I wound how ever be in favor of supporting the recommendations of the county sheriff
if you feel that something must be done.
Best regards
Robert Hulse
Efland, Nc
Please reject all proposals outright. The right to fire arms on private property is a free will given
to us as American Orange County land owners and shot NOT be taken away!
Stephanie Patterson
Dear Sirs,
As a responsible gun owner and member of Buckhorn Gun Club in Orange County, I oppose
any ordinance that that could impact my freedom of gun ownership and shooting of guns in a
responsible manner on private land. I ask that you work in a manner to deal with the problems
that have resulted in this proposal on an individual basis and not at the expense of the law
abiding citizens. Please feel free to contact me if needed regarding this matter.
Sincerely, Ronald H. Kearns
Ronald Kearns
5905 Jameson Road
Rougemont, NC 27572
Ph 919-732-7910 Email: rhkearns @yahoo.com
Dear Commissioners,
Please know that if this meeting was open to the public, I would be there. My name Is Jennifer
Merritt Depew and my Husband and the majority of my Merritt, Woods, Cook and Yates family
41
live in Orange County. We have been shooting on our 5 acres of land for years as my great-
grandmother and great uncles did for 80 years or so before me. I am a Concealed Carry
Handgun instructor, NRA Basic Pistol Instructor and a NRA trained Range Safety officer, but
my main goal is empowering the disempowered. While teaching the laws regarding the uses of
deadly force that were taught to me by the North Carolina Department of Justice, we have
instructed many about the safety and fundamentals of marksmanship and safety on our
property. I take no more than 10 students (at the most) a few times a month (at the most) to
target practice. I am an NRA Range Safety Officer and do everything within my training and
power to ensure the safety of my shooters and any surrounding property. I "instruct" one
person at a time. There is no "wild" firing. I have my hands on my students at all times while
they are firing. I teach the elderly and infirm. Therefore it takes a little while, as it should, to
ensure thoroughness and proper training.
I shoot in a valley on my land with a natural earth berm that would more than stop any
projectile, unless someone shot into the air which does not happen with my instruction and
under my supervision. Our shooting may last 30 minutes to not likely more than 2 hours. I have
one neighbor that had "concerns" last year and he walked onto my clearly posted private
property, past the no trespassing signs to ask what I was doing, I advised him to never do that
again, but if it would make him feel better, I would let him know when I'd be shooting, on my
land, at a safe distance, into a safe berm and I have since then called him each time, while I
am not required to. No one shoots on my property without me knowing them nor without me or
my husband (who is also a NRA RSO present).
I am very disturbed that this piece of legislation made it this far with input only from the board
and the single complainant who showed for the hearing. In a time where the largest growing
segment of the population striving to protect themselves, buying guns and seeking training are
women, women who are frightened or unaware of their abilities, single mothers and single
young women. We should encourage training, not discourage it. If a woman gets her CCH
permit with minimal training, she's still likely to be a victim. I teach them how to carry, how to
draw, safe ways to carry, how to hit what you are aiming at. I empower them and I find it
abhorrent that the commissioners would take a handful of complaints and none but one who
cared enough to show up, and target people training women, helping the weak of any gender
to help themselves so that they are no longer victims or feel like victims.
Addressing the signage requirement is mind-boggling for me. There are already clearly marked
property lines, but we do not prosecute trespassers? There are so many ordinances and laws
that do not/can not get enforced at this point, how will our already stretched law enforcement
possibly deal with the complaints from this too?
I/We ask that the Board NOT sign this piece of legislation, revisit it for more inclusivity of your
true constituents, ask us questions, seek viable answers. This amendment/ordinance is
intrusive, offensive and will be a nightmare for the county to enforce.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Merritt Depew
Cedar Grove, NC
Commissioners
42
Please consider this amendment carefully. Individuals should be held accountable for their
own actions without the shotgun approach to governing. Do not let the actions of a few guide
you to impose regulations on the majority. This amendment would make it nearly impossible to
shoot even a handgun on nearly one hundred acres. We do not need more regulation on what
we can do on our own property. I can not believe this is a wide spread problem in our county. I
am sure their are a few bad seeds with feuds going on with neighbors that has caused this to
come to light. Common sense should prevail but some do not have it.
This issue should, at least, be tabled until public opinion from county residents, not the cities or
the towns, can be heard.
Thank you
Bill Kendrick
Dear Orange County Board of Commissioners,
I am writing to urge you to vote against the proposed amendment regarding regulating the
discharge of firearms.
A review of the agenda abstract for your February 16th meeting has left me shocked and
dismayed that such an unfair amendment would even make it to a vote! The restriction
regarding the hours during which one can discharge a firearm alone is tantamount to gun
control, not to mention the back stop requirements or the space requirements. You are in
effect making legal gun owners criminals for discharging firearms on their own property, even if
said discharge is done in a completely safe and controlled manner.
Surely, our elected officials on the Board of Commissioners will see the unfairness and
ridiculous nature of this amendment and make the right decision and reject it outright. The
average property owner has neither the square footage/acreage nor the means (financial or
otherwise) to construct a 15 foot high barrier as stipulated in the amendment. Our own Sheriff
Blackwood also took objection with the nature of these examples I pointed our as evidenced
by the email attached to the agenda and I trust that the Board will follow suit and vote "No" on
Tuesday night.
Thanks very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Alan Forrest
Hillsborough, NC
Dear Orange County Commissioners,
I hope everyone is doing well and making it through the wintry weather without incident.
It is with great concern that I come to you regarding the proposed ordinance and above
amendment regulating the discharge of firearms that is scheduled to be voted on during the
above meeting.
43
I am a landowner of almost 14 acres and occasionally discharge guns for the fun of it, target
practice for my kids and/or practice for my wife. With the proposed ordinance, I am certain
that I would be in violation, considering it's an every other weekend occurrence for my family
this time of year, and even more often when the weather is nice. Especially when considering
the proposed guidelines about x feet from here and x feet from there.
I have not had one complaint from any of my neighbors. Not one. Nor have there been ANY
negative impacts, injuries or mishaps.
The idea that the ENTIRE county of tax paying, land/home owners should be "punished" due
to one individuals irresponsibility is not a practical, or reasonable approach.
The very fact that this proposal is just making it's way to the citizens of Orange County is also
very concerning and, as a result, I feel should it be tabled until rational thought can be applied
— at the least, and then, ultimately, rejected.
Sincerely,
Greg Moore
NC Lawn Solutions, LLC
NC Pesticide Applicators Lic# 026-32149
www.nclawnsolutions.com
919-485-9338
Dear Commissioners,
My name is Linda Galloway and my Husband is Neal Galloway we live in Orange County. We
have been shooting on our Paid for 3 acres of land for 30 years. We have taught many about
the safety and fundamentals of marksmanship on our range.
We have a safe range with large berm and targets in front. Our secessions may last 30
minutes to no longer than 2 hours. If we have any neighbors that complain about noise
because they are sick or trying to sleep or their kids sleep we always postpone our shooting.
WE RESENT ANY UNDO RESTRICTIONS ON OUR LONG FAMILY TRADITION!
We ask that the Commissioners preserve our American Liberties in Orange County.
Sincerely,
Neal and Linda Galloway
Hillsborough, NC
I have been a citizen of and a property owner in Orange County for approximately 23 years. I
am a law abiding citizen. I am against the proposed amendment to regulate the discharge of
firearms. This amendment is a hardship on the average citizen. I am not wealthy enough to
own a large piece of land. From my property I cannot even see another structure other than
mine. Even so with your proposed regulations I cannot discharge my weapon because of the
number of feet required to the property line. I think an overwhelming majority of the citizenry is
the same as me.
44
I certainly hope that you will table this proposal and seek further input from Orange County
citizens. Thank you.
Walter M. Mills
Dear Orange County Commissioners,
It has come to the attention of a number of citizens, concerned land and gun owners of
Orange County that the above amendment regulating the discharge of firearms will be voted
on during the above meeting.
This proposed ordinance is a result of a landowner in the county using their property as a
shooting range all day long, every day and creating a nuisance. The complaints of this
nuisance resulted in the Orange County Planning Department creating and proposing this
ordinance to the Commissioners. This proposed ordinance is a knee jerk reaction by the
Orange County Planning Department without consideration of the result on property owners
and gun owner's rights. Alternative resolutions were presented to the Planning Department for
consideration, all of which were rejected and the present ordinance resubmitted to the
Commissioners for a vote without landowner or gun owner's input. The only choice we as
citizens have is to convince you to table this amendment and reconsider it after public input.
It is very concerning that there has been very little public notification and discussion of this
proposed ordinance. There are many items in this amendment that we as citizens and gun
owners would like to see removed or better yet consider the Lenoir County Ordinance
Regulating The Discharge of Firearms for public input.
Thank you,
Mac & Phyllis McDade
Concerned Orange County Citizens
Dear OCBOCC,
I am one of many Orange County citizens who are opposed to the proposed Orange County
Gun Ordinance. Please don't pass it. Thanks.
Mark Prokop
Chapel Hill, NC
Have a blessed day!!!
Why do you people think you get to tell folk what they can and can't do on their own land. You
might think that you have enough liberals in the city and you don't need rural votes but you're
wrong. People are going to shoot on their land no matter what you do. You just want another
way to put your fascist boot on their neck. See you Tuesday.
Michael A Philpott
Commissioners:
45
The proposed new firearms discharge regulations are onerous, unreasonable and completely
unnecessary. They would greatly change the way of life of the citizens of rural Orange County.
Likely, making most of our lifestyles and ways of life illegal, without demonstrating any
justification for such an infringement. I would ask you to reject all of these proposals outright.
Joshua Summey
Commissioners,
Last night I saw on Facebook someone posting the Agenda for your February 16 meeting and
specifically the proposed additions to the Firearms Ordinance.
I have suggested they share with you their opposition as complaining on Facebook is not a
way to get their opinion through.
I do wish to express my opinion about the proposed ordinance. Full disclosure I am a gun
owner and I enjoy shooting. I do agree with the premise of some of the proposal, I do think
some of it is excessive.
I agree to the following points under 24-3 (c) 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10.
While I can agree to the premise of the following sections of 24-3 (c) I think that possibly it can
be misconstrued since the wording is vague those sections are 7 and 8.
Under 24-3 (c) section 5. I can see that this shouldn't be an issue if it happens on an large
parcel of property, but if the property is smaller I can definitely support. What size should be
the limit? I'm not totally sure. Maybe putting a distance requirement on this provision.
I do believe that under 24-3 (c) sections 4 and 6 are a bit excessive. I do think the
recommendations that were made by Sheriff Blackwood makes more sense. Lengthening
hours to 7 am to 11 pm and as well changing the language of point 6 to the Sheriff's
recommendation.
Lastly I think 24-3 (e) the signs at 100 foot intervals on the property lines seems also
excessive. I can imagine someone that wants to lawfully shoot and having to put up signs
every 100 feet on private property is costly and excessive. Firstly if it is private property others
should not be on said property.
In the end what I'm thinking is if someone wants to come home from work or during the day
and enjoys to target shoot on their property and now has to go to the extent of this is many
loop holes to jump through. I do not think the sign provision or the excessive backstop
specification or the hours will provide any more safety.
I also worry that if this passes the county will be mired in litigation from lawsuits that stem from
groups that challenge the legality of this.
Thank you for sharing my 2 cents.
46
Respectfully,
Justin Tillett
Chair McKee said typically the BOCC remains silent during public comment, but this
evening it is likely appropriate for the Board to speak. He said he would address the question
of from where this ordinance came. He said there have been many complaints over the years
related to irresponsible shooting, and Orange County has no ordinances to address the
complaints. He said the procedure began with a public hearing in September 2015, and then
returned to the Board in January, as a part of a recreational land use text amendment. He
said the Board and the Attorney agreed to pull it out of that text amendment. He said if the
Board was seeking to pass this in secret, it could have done so that evening, but rather it was
pulled out and made into a general ordinance for review this evening.
Chair McKee said he takes responsibility for his role in the lack of sufficient
communication to the public about the issue. He said the Board must air the arguments for
both sides of the debate. He said one complainant has a store in the northern part of Orange
County, but lives in the southern part of the County. He said this citizen has a neighbor that
shoots until somewhere between 10:00 p.m. and midnight. He said the shooting keeps him
awake.
Chair McKee said he has a neighbor that has some type of weapon that either is, or
sounds like, an automatic weapon. He said this does not bother him, as he is used to hearing
gunfire.
Chair McKee said this is how the issue came before the BOCC, and while it may not be
perfect, this is what they have to work with now.
Commissioner Rich said she is interested in hearing ways to communicate more
effectively with the public about these meetings and notifications, especially those without
Internet access. She said she is the Commission liaison to the communications team, and it is
important to her.
Roger Moore said to put posters up on phone poles or in local stores, notices in
newspapers, or on television or radio stations.
Commissioner Rich said the original notice always goes in the newspaper. She asked if
those with email would be willing to share their email, to sign up on the County subscription
services.
Roger Moore said he could do this, but many people simply cannot afford the expense
of the Internet.
Jack Hunnell asked if citizens could sign up for specific "target words" and only receive
notices about those meetings. He asked if this issue was primarily a noise issue, how did all
the other elements of the ordinance come to pass.
Chair McKee said the original complaint involved gunfire.
Commissioner Jacobs said communicating with residents in rural Orange County has
been a chronic problem. He said Rockingham County won an award for addressing the issue
by doing the very thing that Mr. Moore suggested of taking posters to prominent community
locations. He said the BOCC often focuses on doing things efficiently and in a cost effective
manner, and using manpower to go around the County and post signs is not the cheapest
method. He added that the community is not being informed, and that is unacceptable.
Sheriff Blackwood said the Sheriff's deputies would be glad to take posters and notices
around to all areas of the County.
Don O'Leary said notification could be sent in tax bills or vehicle registration mailings.
Alan Mauer said he appreciated the Board's desire to improve communication, but that
is not the topic of tonight's discussion.
47
Steve Hopper said the News of Northern Orange is free to everyone. He asked if the
Sheriff could comment on the proposed ordinance.
Sheriff Blackwood said all too often there are polarized sections and a plan needs to be
made as how to address this issue together. He said regarding notification, it is incumbent
upon citizens to be interested and involved in local government. He said the BOCC and the
Sheriff are available to speak with the residents at all times. He said to come at the eleventh
hour, when this has been discussed for two years, is not right. He said an ordinance is not
needed to address lawful, responsible, firing of a weapon on one's property. He said property
damaged by errant rounds can be addressed by existing laws. He said the Lenoir County
ordinance strikes him as reasonable and responsible and he encouraged all to read it. He said
he is going to enforce any adopted ordinances. He said he respects the BOCC and the
diligence with which it works on every decision it makes. He said he does not want to take
anyone's rights away. He enjoys shooting and does so responsibly. He said there was a need
for an ordinance, one was drafted that was imperfect, and now all must come together to reach
a solution.
Commissioner Dorosin said he appreciated this discussion and the goal was to start
this conversation to gather feedback. He said this evening is a good beginning and he
suggested following up with Commissioner Jacobs' suggestion in order to find some common
ground, and achieve the desired balance.
Commissioner Pelissier said the public should not make assumptions that all members
of the Board live in cities. She said she lives in rural Orange County where she hears target
shooting on occasion, which does not bother her at all. She said the role of the BOCC is to
protect the health and safety for all residents in Orange County and if an ordinance is needed,
it should be reasonable and practical. She said the BOCC should work with the Sheriff to see
how many complaints there have been, and then have the Sheriff speak with the County
Manager to kick-start this conversation. She expressed thanks to all who spoke this evening,
noting the BOCC now has a good understanding of firearms use in rural Orange County.
Commissioner Price said she has no intention of taking away anyone's rights, and just
because the item is on the agenda, does not mean that she supports it. She said she finds the
ordinance to be excessive, and she looks forward to a more reasonable proposal.
Commissioner Burroughs said she is a city girl and has learned so much tonight. She
said she feels better equipped to evaluate the issue and is very grateful that everyone came to
speak this evening.
Chair McKee said the Lenoir ordinance has been referred to several times, and he read
parts of it. He said he can support an ordinance like this, but not the ordinance that is before
the BOCC tonight. He reviewed some of the highlights to which he is opposed. He said he
has no sympathy for the irresponsible gun owner. He said he has taken heat on social media
for not staking out a position earlier, but he will do so now. He will not support the proposed
ordinance, and he would like to see it rejected tonight. He said he agrees with Commissioner
Jacobs' suggestion of the proposed work group made up of different stakeholders.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
reconstitute what once was the Orange County Hunting Ordinance work group and call it the
Orange County Firearms Safety Committee and stakeholders would include the Orange
County Sheriff, a representative from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Department, the County
Attorney, the County Manager, and members of the firearms community, as well as individuals
who have contacted the Board of County Commissioners who supported this ordinance and
those who felt unsafe due to firearms. The group's charge would include, but not necessarily
be limited to, the purpose of having an additional County firearms, noise, lot size, cost, posting
48
property, safety concerns, and to look at other similar county ordinances, and what this
proposed ordinance did or did not accomplish.
The second part of the motion was to reject this proposed firearms ordinance
amendment.
Commissioner Jacobs said this committee would meet for as long as it took to reach a
resolution. He suggested the Clerk's office advertise for those residents that may want to
participate.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Roger Moore said another county has already passed a good, simple ordinance, and
the County may be wasting time in reviewing the issue.
Chair McKee said the BOCC seeks public engagement.
8. Reports
a. Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan Annual Report
The Board will consider receiving Go Triangle's annual report on the Orange County
Bus and Rail Investment Plan (OCBRIP), and provide feedback as appropriate.
DEFERRED
b. Update from GoTriangle - Park and Ride Lot and Bus Transfer Facility
The Board will consider receiving a report and providing feedback on staff's work
planning for a park and ride lot and bus transfer facility in the Hillsborough area, including
options to: 1) locate a park and ride lot on US 70 at New Hope Church, with a transfer facility
at US 70 and Faucette Mill Road; or 2) locate a park and ride lot on US 70 at Faucette Mill
Road, with a transfer facility; or 3) conduct a more extensive site selection process.
DEFERRED
c. FY2015-16 Second Quarter General Fund and Enterprise Funds Financial Report
The Board will consider receiving the Quarter General Fund and Enterprise Funds
summary Financial Report for the period of July 1, 2015 — December 31, 2015, and provide
staff with feedback.
DEFERRED
9. County Manager's Report
Bonnie Hammersley said the next meeting will be the Quarterly Public Hearing, as well
as a work session.
Bonnie Hammersley said the Pauli Murray Awards will be held on February 28, from
3:00-4:30 p.m. at the Whitted Building.
Bonnie Hammersley said the agricultural summit will be held on February 29, from 9:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, followed by a new networking, social event in the
same location.
10. County Attorney's Report
NONE
49
11. Appointments
a. Chapel Hill Orange County Visitors Bureau —Appointments
The Board considered making appointments to the Chapel Hill Orange County Visitors
Bureau.
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to
appoint the following to the Chapel Hill Orange County Visitors Bureau:
• Appointment to a first full term (Position #1) At-Large Chapel Hill Town Council position
for George Cianciolo expiring 12/31/2018.
• Appointment to a partial term (Position #7) Town of Hillsborough Board of
Commissioners for Mark Bell expiring 12/31/2016.
• Appointment to a first full term (Position #8) OC Lodging Association for Andrew
Strickland expiring 12/31/2018.
• Appointment to a partial term (Position #10) Alliance for Historic Hillsborough for Jeff
Strickler expiring 12/31/2017.
• Appointment to a one year term (Position #13) Ex-Officio Economic Development Staff-
Town of Chapel Hill for Lee Storrow expiring 12/31/2016.
• Request to move member Mark Sherburne from (Position #5) Economic Development
Advisory Board — Orange County to (Position #11) OC Lodging Association expiring
12/31/2018.
• Request to move member Nitin Khanna from (Position #11) OC Lodging Association to
(Position #5) Economic Development Advisory Board — Orange County expiring
12/31/2017.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Hillsborough Planning Board —Appointment
The Board considered making an appointment to the Hillsborough Planning Board.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
appoint the following to the Hillsborough Planning Board:
• Appointment of Lisa Frazier to a first full term (Position #2) Hillsborough ETJ position
expiring 10/31/2018.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
c. Historic Preservation Commission —Appointment
The Board considered making an appointment to the Historic Preservation
Commission.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
appoint the following to the Historic Preservation Commission:
• Appointment of Alexandria Mead to a first full term (Position #3) At-Large expiring
03/31/2018.
50
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
d. Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee —Appointment
The Board considered making an appointment to the Nursing Home Community
Advisory Committee.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
appoint the following to the Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee:
• Appointment of Maria Hardin to a partial term (Position #11) At-Large Nursing Home
Administration position expiring 12/31/2016.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
12. Board Comments
Commissioner Burroughs asked the Sheriff if his deputies have a practice location.
Sheriff Blackwood said they have used places in Alamance County, the Durham
County range extensively, and Wake County's indoor range, which is quite a distance away.
He said the possibility of an indoor range in Orange County is being considered.
Commissioner Price had no comments.
Commissioner Dorosin said the effort must be made to hold meetings that are apt to
draw a large crowd, at the Whitted Building.
Commissioner Rich had no comments.
Commissioner Jacobs referred to a firing range in Orange County, and asked the
Sheriff if he thinks one for both public and law enforcement use is feasible.
Sheriff Blackwood said yes, and it would be profitable and useful.
Commissioner Jacobs thanked Bonnie Hammersley for sending an electronic copy of
the rural character study out to the full board.
Commissioner Pelissier said she attended a two-day workshop on racial equity which
was transformative for her. She said she will talk to the Manager, and possibly the Sheriff,
about having this training for staff.
Commissioner Pelissier said a major decision was made when the Federal
Transportation Administration (FTA) accepted the environmental impact statement for the
proposed light rail. She said the submission to the FTA included the statement, back up plans
and all public comment; and the FTA accepting the statement means the plan meets adequate
criteria, and everything that the plan promises must be done. She said this allows Go Triangle
to apply to the FTA for the next step in the process, which is preliminary engineering.
Chair McKee said a lot of tonight's comments can be taken to heart, particularly the
notion of having larger meetings at the Whitted Building.
Chair McKee said there is a very good, affordable housing provider, Eno Haven in
Hillsborough, but noted they have been non-responsive to communication. He said he plans
to follow up on this issue somehow. He said he had been trying to reach them for days,
including putting a note on the manager's door.
13. Information Items
• February 2, 2016 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
51
• Memorandum - Hollow Rock Nature Park Update
• BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from February 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
14. Closed Session
None
15. Adjournment
A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
adjourn the meeting at 10:46 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Earl McKee, Chair
Donna Baker,
Clerk to the Board