Orange County NC Website
U17 <br /> �i. <br /> Ms. Verla Insko: Representing the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board <br /> of Education. Ms. Insko said the Board of Education took no position <br /> on Midway Airport, however, concerns about Horace Williams Airport <br /> and the question of safety for students and staff dated back to <br /> 1963 or late 150s. Ms. Insko read a resolution which the Board <br /> of Education passed and sent to the Chapel Hill Town Council on <br /> September 22, 1980, regarding Horace .Williams Airport. (A copy of that <br /> resolution..is on page •. of this book) -. Ms. Insko said-this - - <br /> documented the concerns about the airport and she asked the Boards <br /> i <br /> { to consider.those concerns. <br /> Mr. H. Stanley Bennett: a resident of Chapel Hill Township, <br /> i <br /> Mr. Bennett said he did not stand when Mr. Johnson asked those <br /> opposed to Midway to stand because he assumed that applied only <br /> i <br /> to Bingham Township residents; however, he is opposed to the air- <br /> port in Bingham Township too. He said this airport is a threat to <br /> the value of our property and to the County. He suggested the Boards <br /> examine the Airport Study done by the Planning Staff for alternative . <br /> to this location. He suggested sites along I--85 closer to Durham. <br /> He said that he was unconvinced by Mr. Mahler's assurances and <br /> he didn't know the Buck Mountain Development company and anything <br /> of its ability to deliver what it promised. He did say that wi_n <br /> the questions of safety, approaches and fire protection for the <br /> development that this is a "hazardous proposal." <br /> Mr. Gordon Rutherford: Representing UNC, said UNC planned <br /> to phase. out Horace Williams by 1989 if an acceptable alternative <br /> is provided. Mr. Rutherford enumerated several items which UNC <br /> considered essential for an alternative totHorace Williams: 1)ade- <br /> quate facilities, including maintenance, service, runway of same length; <br /> 2) adequate safety, runway lights; 3) proximity to UNC; 4) assurai <br /> of continued operation and financial stability. Mr. Rutherford <br /> said UNC asks that the Boards give careful consideration to the pro- <br /> posal. He added that the University had no interest in the proposed <br /> adjacent airpark and that the alternative airport must have instrument <br /> approach caphbility. (see page for this letter) <br />