Caswell commissioners raise permitted noise level at sheriff’s shooting range to 75 decibels

Caswell County commissioners voted 5-2 on July 21 to change the maximum permitted noise level at the county’s sheriff’s office shooting range from 65 decibels to 75 decibels and to record that change in the facility’s memorandum of understanding (MOU) and operating procedures. The board also reiterated an existing requirement that the sheriff’s office notify the county manager at least 24 hours before using the site.

The change matters to residents near the range because commissioners had previously included the 65-decibel standard in the range policy and several residents and elected officials said the shift could materially affect noise and local quality of life. County staff and the county attorney told the board it has authority to set rules for county property that differ from the county’s general noise ordinance, which the manager said allows up to 90 decibels.

County Manager Scott Whitaker reminded the board that the policy item under discussion — paragraph f of the training-facility policy and procedure — originally said "noise levels measured at the nearest occupied dwellings shall not exceed 65 decibels," and that staff had proposed retaining that standard. Commissioner Joe Ingram moved to increase the limit to 75 decibels and Commissioner Rose seconded the motion. After discussion the board approved the change 5-2.

The county attorney told the board the commissioners can set property-specific terms on county-owned land. "Since the board of commissioners controls county property, you have the authority and the freedom to dictate the terms of the county property," the county attorney said during the discussion.

Public commenters at the meeting urged stronger monitoring and clearer restrictions. Chip Atwater, a resident who has repeatedly spoken at recent meetings, asked, "Who's gonna monitor this sound level, the 65 decibels that have been quoted by the commissioners? Who's gonna monitor that?" Whitaker and other commissioners discussed using planning staff to take periodic readings; one commissioner suggested quarterly or semiannual checks but did not set a fixed schedule during the meeting.

The board also reviewed related MOU language limiting live-fire training. The MOU’s section 3 (paragraph g) states that "training that requires live fire scenarios will be conducted no more than twice a month," a restriction board members cited as a control on how often noise-generating events would occur. Commissioners asked staff to memorialize monitoring and notification responsibilities as the MOU and facility policy are updated.

Residents raised other concerns that were not resolved at the meeting. Linda Galvin, who lives near a landfill referenced by several speakers, said she was worried about a proposed gas pipeline running near her property and asked how leak and spark risks would be managed. Laura Picciardo, who lives at the end of the pipeline corridor, asked how well water would be protected because many residents in Pelham rely on private wells.

Commissioners also discussed the design of the range backstop. Staff described the earthen backstop as a three-sided structure with "wings" at roughly 45-degree angles; commissioners debated whether planting foliage on the berm could reduce noise while also obscuring the top of the berm and potentially creating safety concerns. No change to the berm design was approved at the meeting.

Action summary: the board approved a motion to amend the training-facility policy and MOU to set the decibel limit at 75 decibels, with the motion by Commissioner Ingram and a second by Commissioner Rose; the vote was 5 in favor, 2 opposed. The board directed staff to incorporate the change into the MOU and facility policy and to clarify monitoring responsibilities. The motion and resulting policy change are recorded as an amendment to the facility policy/procedure (paragraph f) and the MOU (section 3, paragraph g).

The county did not identify which commissioners voted for or against the motion in the public record during the meeting, and a number of operational questions — who beyond the sheriff’s office might be allowed to use the facility, how often staff will measure sound levels, and the precise enforcement steps if limits are exceeded — were left to be defined when staff returns with revised policy language.