Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Weaverville police describe firing‑range operations, lead reclamation and training needs amid neighbor complaints
Summary
Chief and range master briefed council on June 22 about the town firing range's history, lead reclamation, restricted hours, partnerships for training and the high cost of building indoor alternatives; they described mitigation steps including 180 planted trees and adherence to EPA best practices.
Weaverville police briefed the council June 22 on the town firing range — its history, safety and environmental controls, training obligations and neighborhood complaints about noise. The presentation aimed to clarify why the range operates, what mitigations are in place, and why alternative arrangements are costly or infeasible.
Chief Summer (police) said the site is a former landfill that has been used as a firing range since about 1964 and that the town follows EPA best practices for lead management, including recent lead reclamation work that yielded substantial recovered lead. Detective Sergeant Brandon Paris, the range master and firearms instructor, supported the technical explanations and supplied drone photos and operational detail.
The presentation emphasized training requirements that exceed state minimums: Weaverville uses a five‑stage qualification that includes low‑light exercises (state minimum sometimes requires a smaller course). The chief noted that the state recently updated standards to require decision‑making scenarios in addition to simple marksmanship drills; the department seeks to maintain higher training hours to ensure safe, real‑world performance.
On environmental safeguards, staff described a contractor‑led lead mining process that removes lead from berm soils using specialized screening equipment and secondary processing; the department said outdoor ranges generally have lower airborne lead exposure for shooters than indoor ranges and that the range has an established lead management and soil testing schedule.
Chiefs also explained operational mitigations intended to reduce neighborhood impacts: limited hours (no live fire Sundays), planting about 180 perimeter trees (green giants expected to grow 3–4 feet per year to create a sound buffer), a perimeter fence, and a flag/calendar system showing scheduled range use. The town relies on interagency cooperation (APD, ATF, US Marshals and others) and also uses the site for evidence storage and narcotics destruction.
Council members raised concerns about encroaching development near the site and whether the town can protect a buffer as subdivisions and new projects are built; staff acknowledged there is no guaranteed, permanent buffer but said design strategies (trail alignment, gates, signage, and scheduled range‑use notices) are being considered to reduce conflict.
The department explained alternatives were limited: AB Tech’s range is booked a year in advance and building an indoor municipal range was cost‑prohibitive (department cited rough estimates of $15–20 million for a modern indoor facility). The range is protected from nuisance claims under the NC Sport Shooting Range Protection Act, but staff said they continue to work on outreach and education to neighbors and offer transparency (a live booking calendar) and suggested citizens academy site visits to improve public understanding.
Council thanked the department for the briefing and asked staff to share more information with residents who had complained, to consider a citizens‑academy stop at the range, and to report back on options for buffer management and public outreach.
