Agenda - 07-08-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

... , DRAFT Kizer inquired if the developer was planning to restrict flights. Mahler - asked in what way. Kizer clarified the question to mean restrict operations. He added that using Horace Williams figures would suggest consideration of restricted highway traffic. Mahler citedMathews'staterent of using a rule of thumb and added this was a conservative: but accurate figure as transient flights will not increase fiocfoldwi.th a fiv6:01d increase in the number of based planes. Re added that Mathews has notedi40: the presence of operations can double or not the total number of operations. I Trot Kizer asked if Mehler would agreelthis figure is a conservative estimate. Mahler respoilded that if you look at the RDU experience these figures are so high as to be ridiculous but that Mathews is the best source. He inAlcated tha problem of proportional relationship between 50 and 276 based aircraft. Kizer inquirled if N] contours calculations included the idler number of based aircr4t and comparative frequency and number of operations. Mahler responded that the new figures were used in the calculation and the NEF contours displayed on the wall. Gustaveson alsked if there were examples of private airports of this size in the eastern Seaboard, Northwest or West Coast. W.hler responded there were nom in this area and that such a size was generally =Enacted with comnercial airports like RDU. Gustaveson pursued the question. Mahler responded that elsewhere general avaition airports are considered desir- able with plbimed associated developmnt. Gustaveson inquired if this would be one the largest airports in the Eastern Seaboard. Mahler respond- ed he did no know and that their research had been confill'ectto this area. CrawfeEd asked if there would be restricted access to the property duringhours aiverl000 riec441 Mehler responded that ridt ,i4rek6txdrifieb42(Vossae4, ArtaY0401tErebttengd f-0 4 l 0. ma. lkhlo rides gee, ofVec_fris5oveyffb, Rcaoldko pi 464 Mkt//1031,4rOM/acsfaixin eii '',rt UM This ine4ns dir aCe.05.51b.nA7,34rs . Cmafold .51241`iic Irvin inquired of the Buck Mountain Conipany, Inc. as listed on the applica- tion was incorporated in NCth Carolina. John Northern, attorney for Buck Diountain3sad the company was formed ae kgeneral partnership and that the reference tlo incorporation should be ,. ':i01-'' ' Irvin askedymwruch land the developer controlled off the end of the run- way either through purchase agreement or easerent. Kehler responded that the majoriJO of land was controlled'up to 1000 feet, sore subject to conditional approval. He added that no effort had been node to control beyond 1000 feet due to the FAA/DCT judgement regarding this matter. Irvin reqtxedMehler to be more specific about the south end. John Northern degcribed the property controlled by the developer adding that if a 1000 =trol area was a condition of approval it would bel'incumbent on-the'deveioper'to shift or shorten the runwayPto get cogtsol'of 1000 feet. He added that the zoning ordinance does not definethe approach -6- zo*that there had been much discussion of the length and that it would 1 2■1 be dflficult to get easements for one mile. Irvin clarified that the )All \) developer 110 controllfand south of the runway 1E4o but not beyond NC , 54. Northern responded that the developer had control over the Walton parcel onlli. He added the developer's control extended to the northern property line but not into the Crawford property. / ,/ / 1