SANFORD — The town council’s public safety subcommittee will take another look at a proposed amendment to the firearms discharge ordinance, after complaints were issued by residents at a public hearing Tuesday night.

A representative of the local fish and game club said the proposed amendment would prohibit members from using the outdoor shooting range in south Sanford, and an orchard owner told councilors that the proposed amendment doesn’t take into consideration disposing of nuisance animals that plague his farm.

Others pointed out that the proposed amendment exceeds what is spelled out in state law, and that they felt the state’s take on the issue is the correct one.

Jack McAdam, who owns McDougal Orchards with his wife Ellen, told the council that he’s not a hunter, but he wants to protect hunters’ rights. He said his orchard is plagued by turkeys and deer, and he asked the council to consider an exemption for disposal of nuisance animals, as is provided in state law.

“If we didn’t want hunters, we’d post our property,” said McAdam.

The proposed amendment came about as the public safety subcommittee was examining the ordinance to make way for an indoor firing range. They dealt with that issue, and then proposed other changes. The council heard public comments regarding the proposed amendment earlier this month and then again on Tuesday.

In its original form, the ordinance banned the discharge of firearms within three-quarters of a mile of each side of Route 109, from Deering Neighborhood Road in Springvale to the intersection of routes 4 and 109. But it allowed for a firearm to be discharged within the zone, provided it took place at least 100 yards from the nearest residence.

The amendment set forth by the council would extend the three-quarter-mile zone from town line to town line, and double the distance from the nearest residence required to discharge a firearm to at least 200 yards.

Councilors said they wanted to make sure people could continue to hunt in traditional areas, but those who took exception to the proposed amendment said it is more restrictive than the current ordinance. And, they said, existing noise and nuisance laws should apply to those who fire guns for hours on end.

Arthur Lamontagne of the Springvale Fish and Game Club said that in the 1990s, the club entered into an agreement to use a firing range adjacent to the police firing range in south Sanford, off of Route 109, after neighbors complained about hearing people shooting on the club property on Route 4. As currently proposed, the amendment would exclude the club’s outdoor range, he said.

Councilor Joseph Hanslip said most people didn’t know the three-quarter-mile ordinance existed before the council approved the earlier amendment that made provisions for an indoor firing range.

“I’ve hunted within that zone,” he said, adding that the proposal discussed Tuesday is not a finished product.

“Town line to town line is very restrictive,” said former councilor Brad Littlefield.

Mayor Tom Cote said the proposal was designed to protect hunters.

“This ordinance needs to be looked at a little further,” said Lamontagne.

Dennis Theriault said the three-quarter-mile limit extends all the way to Deering Pond. He also said the state’s 100-yard requirement is sufficient for hunters.

“Most hunters are responsible; not all shooters are,” he said.

Councilors voted to send the proposal back to the committee to review the concerns outlined by those who spoke at the hearing.

Councilor Alan Walsh asked the committee to also consider leaving the ordinance in its current form, without any proposed

amendments.

— Senior Staff Writer Tammy Wells can be contacted at 324-4444 (local call in Sanford) or 282-1535, ext. 327 or twells@journaltribune.com.