Minutes - 19820823 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

i 41 12. A fee as set by the Orange County Board of•Commissioncrs. Staff indicated that this was paid by the applicant. The following specific requirements are those that are only for general aviation airports: a. All F.A.A. and State regulations are met as a condition of approval . The Planning Board found that the applicant did not supply evidence that they own all the area within the clear zone and did not own or control any of the area known as the approach zone. The vote was 6 in favor and 2 opposed. This finding assumes that one interprets the Ordinance to mean that FAA requirements are for any airport regardless of the source of funding. There was same contention and still, 1 believe, disagreement on the interpretation of this item. b. The site and its operation will not adversely affect existing adjacent land uses. Evidence in pages 1518 of the draft July 8th minutes .indicatos that there will be adverse affects on adjacent property, especially in the testimony of Mr. Wallace Kaufman concerning land values and real estate values and Bland Simpson concerning the affect on agricultural land. The ac;enda package is incorrect here; the vote was 6 in favor, 1 against and 1 absention. c. Land sufficient to-provide approach zones and over-run areas is controlled or o,vned and controlled by the applicant. The Planning Board found that the applicant has not provided evidence that they control sufficient land (nr the. approach zones. The vote on this motion was 6 in favor and 2 .against. Even if on item 'a' you assume that all FAA requirements are met, our.Ordinance goes over and beyond FAA requirements and does require ownership or controll of the approach zone. This issue begins to raise a larger question should the Board find that this is not necessary will the Board be willing to deny any subdivision requests within the approach zones should they arise. As per the testimony of Mr. Bruce Matthews saying that residential uses were incompatible with airports. d. Adequate land area is -provided for all of the proposed uses, buildings ar,d storage areas. The Planning Board, on a motion,' voted in favor of this item, 5 to 3, that it is contained in the application. Howev.r, there was some confusion and disagreement on the interpretation of this item. Th�.re was some evidence that the Board felt proposed usage should have included the use of the airport and consistent with item 'c' should say no to this motion. The majority felt that this should be interpretated as physical usage such as buildings or other structures. e. Screening of buildings, storage and maintenance areas is provided from adjacent residential land. This item was found to be met by the application. f. Letters from appropriate fire and rescue agencies that protective services can be at an adequate level. The Planning Board found that the applicant has not met the requirement for adequate fire protection as evidenced by the testi- mony of Dr. Thomas Griggs on pages 13-14 of the draft July 8th minute::: and by a letter dated June 24, 1982, by Dr. Edward Johnson. The vote was 7 to 1. g. Access shall be directly onto a State maintained road. The Planning Board found that this item is contained in the application. h. Compatible land uses are located in the final approach areas of the air- port. The Planning Board found that the applicant has not presented evidence that compatible land uses are located in the approach zones. The testimony of Bruce'Matthews on July 19, 1982, public hearing, page 7, lines 32-35 of the draft minutes indicates. that homes should be excluded from the approach zone of an airport. The vote on this motion was 5 in favor, 2 against and one abstention. Again, this raises the larger question, of if, if we cannot control through the way our Ordinance is currently drafted, uses withing -the approach zone, quite frankly, how will we? There are other standards that the applicant can, must meet in addition to those .1 ;List mentioned. Method a. ethod and adequacy of provision of sewage disposal facilities, solid waste and neater. The Planning Board has found that the applicant has addressed I, the question of sewage and solid waste disposal and water supply. There is concern that storm water runoff will impact adjacent property- See pages for that 17�t concern pages 19, lines 30 and 33 of the July Stir draft . minutes. 1 believe on;, citizen expressed a concern that a drainage easement was shot..:!, on the plat and he had not been contacted on that.