Browse
Search
Agenda - 07-19-1982
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1982
>
Agenda - 07-19-1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/3/2017 3:51:47 PM
Creation date
4/3/2017 3:24:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
7/15/1982
Meeting Type
Public Hearing
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19820719
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1980's\1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
93
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
3,or <br /> . � <br /> Chairman Whjtted: ,As I told you, Mr. Northen, the public hearing was <br /> continued to receive evidence from Mr. Matthews, That was the specific pur- <br /> pose of continuing the public hearing to this time. Others have asked if their <br /> ~' <br /> evidence could be submitted tonight and they have been told there was a specific <br /> purpose for this continuation so I think it would be unfair to have the record <br /> open to receive that information." <br /> There was some discussion among the Board of Commissioners members present <br /> regarding the advisability' of continuing the public hearing to receive additional <br /> significant information. <br /> Mr. Kizer: Said, in response to that possibility, that the public hearing <br /> had been duly announced held and adjourned and he questioned the legality of <br /> continuing the public hearing to receive more information from individuals who <br /> had not been at the earlier public hearing. <br /> Mr. Mehler: (The architect for the developer of Midway) Said that in the <br /> interest of time, he would be willing to "forego" the additional information <br /> which might be received. He additionally asked to clarify one point on earlier <br /> evidence offered on the proposal. <br /> Mr. Geoffrey Gledhill: When asked for an opinion from the Board Choir, re- <br /> plied that he did not know what Mr. Mehler was going to say therefore he couldn't <br /> give an opinion. He suggested the Board decide if the information clarified <br /> earlier testimony, if it is the case, he, Mr. Gledhill , dues "not see any pro- <br /> blem." <br /> Mr- Mehler: Said he would clarify the question of the number of aircraft <br /> to he "housed" at the airport "and what is housed?" The proposal said the <br /> 276 aircraft maximum to be hangared did not include tied down aircraft, and, <br /> was, Mr. Mehler said, "an incorrect statement." He said they, the developers, <br /> have said the number of aircraft housed will be 276, this includes hangared <br /> and tied down aircraft but dues not include transient aircraft. <br /> Mr. Kizer: Referred to Appendix & of the presentation for the Midway Airport <br /> and said "hangared planes: phase I-87 units; hangared planes: phase 2--total <br /> 183; hangared planes, phase 3-276 units," And asked Mr. Mehler if he was saying <br /> there would he 276 planes hangared plus tie downs? <br /> Mr. Mehler: "Nn," He said that be had picked "out of the air" at the in- <br /> sistence of the Placn1ng Department for o number and would be "limited to that <br /> number of planes based at this airport." <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.