Orange County NC Website
, . <br /> _- DRAFT:: <br /> J <br /> . . <br /> . _. <br /> He cited th , acreage directly and indirectly removed from agriculture as <br /> well as conflicts between the use and its impacts with Goals 3,5 and 7 <br /> in the ()rani County Land Use Plan. Simpson erbradei sympathy to residents <br /> near Horace Williams noting UNC was Litrearrionigetc6Orte*YOrddit'iTeit3r/idit.koi <br /> 7Z7,311/17,171,-yeuerclosed. He requested that all references to UNC be sticken from project Li <br /> documents since they are uncommitted. <br /> 1 <br /> Simpson referenced sites 19 and 20 in the Airport Sites Study as well as <br /> a 137 acre tract advertised along 1-85. Citing Goal 12.6 in the Land Use <br /> Plan he urgea continued consideration of a County owned general aviation <br /> airport that would be financially accountable. He noted a number of land <br /> use goals would be violated by approval and that the Board has the legal <br /> right to denY the request and earn a place in the protection of N.C. lands. <br /> I <br /> Kizer requested Simpson submit documents referenced for the record. <br /> Ralph Warren - BinghimaltunShip resident. Warren addressed procedural <br /> questions: 1) Are we here properly with resdammittal of request and <br /> is the time interval appropriate? Article 20 amendment procedures <br /> references.significant change to land use in Orange County as subject to <br /> a resubmittal time frame. He added that the rezoning .amendment procedures <br /> are virtuall y the same as a special use and the same operations should <br /> apply to address the multiple hazard if not double jeapardy issue. 2) <br /> Since the staff present the findings of fact, what if valuable information <br /> is presented later which would affect findings of fact. 3) Section 8.2.2 <br /> addresseaffects of use on land owners but the primary though less specific <br /> concerns are not weighed as heavily as the specific considerations. <br /> Whitted indicated that the legality of these procedural questions would <br /> be researched. <br /> Dan Eddelman - Bingham Township resident. Edditoman expressed concerns <br /> About the impact an the existing and preferred land uses in the area <br /> noting 5% ofIthe population of Orange County live in Bimglaam Township <br /> yet Bingham Township accounted for 20% of the building permits, adding <br /> this would substantiate the need for zoning and the conflicting land use <br /> potential of the airport. Eddlibman noted that if an airport did not <br /> affect the public health, safety and welfare then why was the opposition <br /> to Horace Williams so committed. Eddleman addressed the impact of land <br /> vIaues noting a neighboring land owners concerns about building on the <br /> land. I <br /> Ed Johnson iBinghan Township resident. Johnson reviewed possible con- <br /> sequences of the proposed project. He took issue with the estimate of <br /> 500 operations per day noting Btrlington Municipal with 63 based planes <br /> had 51,000 operations per year, 809 per plane; Southern Pines with 48 <br /> planes had 33,000 operations per year; RDU with 195 private based craft <br /> had 197,000 operations; Gastonia with 71 planes and the largest airport <br /> without commercial planes had 57,000 opera-lions; and Horace Williams had <br /> 50 planes with 35,000 operations. In Horace William ecluivelant units <br /> the proposedlair traffic (750 operations x 26 planes = 207,500 operations) <br /> amounted to five Horace Williams. <br /> I , <br /> Johnson continued relating the proposal to the 20-40% ratio of hangared <br /> to tieCdownIcraft to equal 690 planes, 517,000 operations per year at <br /> 15- Horace Williams. Johnson asked how this could be compatihie with the <br />