Agenda - 03-08-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

U 610 7-!-3 had understood. With regard to 8.8.1.b he thought that with Mr. Matthews' new set of assumptions, there would be no noise problems. For 8.8.1.f there would be no problem for the developer to adapt the design with regard to public utility in case the County ever wanted to take over the airport; public money is not needed, nor sought. For the entrance road question, Mr. Mehler said Department of Transportation had told them to put the road there, the developer is willing to change to whatever is agreeable to Department of Transportation. With regLd to runway width, the developer is willing to alter it; however, the runway centerline to the building restriction line is "sufficient" Mr. Mehler says. For the distance between the runway centerline and the aircraft parking area, the developer is willing to alter. The devel- oper, however, feels that the distance between the taxiway and aircraft parking area is "sufficient". For 8.-8.8.1.e the architects were told not to indicate screening, according to Mr. Mehler. In reference to 8.8.8.1.f, Mr. Mehler said he did get a verbal assent from EMS although no letter accompanied that response. Mr.. Mehler's response to the recommended special conditions ( as listed in this book) follows: #1—Acceptable #2—He questions the se>arity required for same improvements, that is, other than roads and sewer; ZOr. Cannity said it was his intention when he wrote this to secure only improvements consid- ered public improvements; conditions 2 and 3 are taken to- gether.! Acceptable. #4-5-6—Acceptable. #7—Acceptable. #8-9-10--Okay (#10 the Fire (ompany's reservations about its fire fighting capabilities are restricted to the airpark) . #11-12-13-14--Okay. #15—Mr. Mehler said the 100foot setback requirements had not been been required before, this was not part of the Zoning Ordinance and he didn't know the definition of "heavily landscaped" but a compromise might be worked out. 416-17—Acceptable. #18—Mr. Mehler said there may be some problem with the financing due to the high interests rates. #19—Mr Mehler said the airport is FAA approved. #20—Mr. Mehler said the 5,000 foot'runway is safer; he is not willing to change #21—Okay. #22—Mr. Mehler said this is impossible. #23-24—Acceptable. Mr. Mehler next enumerated his differences for the airpark with regard to the findings of fact on pages of this beak. For Article 8.2.1 he disagrees that the material submitted is not competent or the evidence is insufficient to support the developer's requests. He added that Land Use Plans