Agenda - 07-08-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

• . . _ _ - - Cannity stated that the proposal is substantially the same project and that . the Planning Department staff's recommendation remains substantially the same as at the last public hearing on Midway Airpark. Cannity noted the findings of fact were referenced%pages 10-11 and 13-14. He noted an error in the title of the diagram on page 14 which should read: Approach Departure Zone Dimensions . Cannity reviewed the recommended imposed conditions noting that the developer's proposed imposed conditions are generally the sane except that the developer leavesthe campletion date open-ended where as staff has specified an end date for completion. Kizer asked if Mathews based the annual operations figure on Horace Williams which restricts based aircraft. Cannity answered affirmatively. Kizer asked if this was a reasonable basis for determining annual operations. Cannity responded that staff deferred to Mathews as the authWity on the question. Cannity submitped a letter from Chapel Hill to the Boarci.r7z2 ;1,-, . Whitted askei that the datg7bource of letter be noted and the Chapel Hill Board resolution regarding Horace Williams be attached as well as the minutes of the Jan. 11, 1982 meeting. Kizer inquired if Mathews was present. Cannity responded Mathews had indi- cated he could not attend. The staff presentation was concluded. Lee Mahler presented the developer's proposal and comments. Mahler noted that this was a scaled down project due to the proceedings and decision on the Midway Airpark proposal. He indicated that the runway was shortened to 4000 feet and that overrun areas were provided asitarnprorni5 6. safety provision. He noted additional housing for 276 total aircraft would be provided in three phasesrMAller referenced letters from C.D. Knight, Vneriff's Department; Bobby Baker, EMS; and OCT noting none of these agencies had problems with the project. Mahler cited a letter from Plentl of the DOT to Jim Polatty which made reference to the relationship between FAA standards and ownership of easement rights over land in the approach zone: He emphasized that the condition # 12 regarding 5000 feet of approach area was the only item the developer questions. He noted that 1000 feet is a reasonable control area. The letter from Plentl was introduced and read. Mahler requested a change to 1000 feet of control citing fiDU had 10 miles of control off the end of the runways. He added that conditions 1-11 were acceptable to the owners of the project. He noted that the June 29, 1982 revised plan showed an access loop road which addressed condition # 10. Whitted questioned the number of vehicles per day, specifically noting the letter from Bruce Mathews. Mahler indicated that the original source of the vehicle traffic data had errored and new calculations were resubmitted on June 30, 1982. He noted there was still a descrepIncy between the developer's and. Bruch Matthews' figures. Mahler stated the key word in these calculations was in a statement made by Bruce Mathews that airport planninseinexactu science. He 6 ant) suggested that a range of figures be used.