Minutes - 19820719 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mr. Matthews: Said that his office did not modify requirements but would look at "where the obstructions take place." He said the FAA looked at trees (obstructions) in two different ways: 1) by definition, if something penetrated the approach zone, it is an obstruction, however, it may not be a hazard to air navigation; 2) the FAA would conduct a study to determine if the obstruction was hazardous to air navigation (the study would be conducted by the FAA General Aviation District Office out of Raleigh/Durham Airport). Ms. Crawford: Asked if the owner or developer would then be required to take appropriate action if an obstruction were determined to be hazardous. Mr. Matthews: Replied that with regard to a Federal Aid Airport the owner would have to either remove the obstruction or "displace the landing threshold." Mr. Irvin: Said that'in this particular instance Buck Mountain Development could not move the runway too much because they only controlled 800' on the North. He continued, asking Mr. Matthews how he would control the heights of trees beyond the 1200' clear zone which penetrated into that zone; Mr. Irvin added that Mr. Matthews' letter suggested that the owners of the contiguous property would be responsible for such removal of obstructions rather than requiring the developers to remove the obstructions. Mr. Matthews: Replied: The typical method by which the trees would be trimmed, and I will say this, I am not aware of any County in the State which has a zoning ordinance oriented toward a private airport. I would also say I am not aware of any County in the State that is proposing such a stringent private airport oi•d,- inance as Orange County is. Typically where a zoning ordinance exists, it gives the airport owner, the city or the county typically, the right, at its expense to remove or trim trees as it deems necessary. The landowner simply must allow the airport owner to trim the tree if that's appropriate, or if they decide that it would be best, to remove it completely. And he would bear no expense under that ordinance. Mr. Irvin: Said. that would be "virtually a seizure of land" and one could not use the land for forestry. He continued that the only use of the land would be to fell the trees and use it for agriculture (soybeans for example). Mr. Matthews: Responded that if the land owner felt that use of his land were !,;duly restricted, assuming the passage of such a zoning ordinance, that ll . it would be a matter for the courts to decide.11 He added that he was not aware of any airports located in areas of tree farming, most were located in i agricultural centers and the understanding he has is that most of the property in the area of the proposed Midway Airport is agricultural. He did agree that if a landowner were a tree farmer and wished to grow a tree 100' he might have a d . problem; but if he were growing a smaller tree, he may not have a problem.