Agenda - 07-19-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

i DRAF-1 Kizer ingi� if the developer was planning to restrict flights. M.shler asked in what way. Kizer clarified the question to mean restrict Operations. He, added that using Horace Williams fib would suggest consideration of restricted highway traffic. Mehler cited Mathews's'tatemnt of using a rule of thuft;b and added this was a conservative but accurate figure as transient flights will not increase five�,fold with a five fold increase in the number of based planes. i He added that Mathews has noted.-99t the price of operations can double or not the total number of operations. Kizer asked if Mehler woruld agr;--evthis figure is a conservative estiamate. b e aer responded that if you look at the Rol' e;<perience these figures are so highlas to be ridiculous, but that Mathews is the best source. He ix04--ated tkae problem of proportional relationship between 50 and 276 based air=aft. Kizer *,. ui red i.f NEr contours calculations included. the W yr nmber of based aircraft and c m parative frequency and number of operati oxns. Mehler responded that the new figures were used in the calculation and the Nom'' contours di.'splayed on the wall. Gustaveson asked if there were files of private airports of this size in the easrn Seaboard, Northwest or West Coast. Mehler responded there were nom:in this area and that such a size was generally o mnected with commercial ercial airports like FW. Gustaveson pursued the question. Mehler resp=W that elsewhere general avai.tion airports are considered desir- able with panned associated developrent. Gustavesson inquired if this w aul.d be orb the largest airports in the Eastern Seaboard. Mehler respond- ed he did not know and that their research had been cxnfirtie4,to this area. f Crawl ash if there would be restricted access to the roper:ty cji=ingAaur' ci.ve�looD i road,.. Mphler responded that .,�i "c F ct r�' nt� a l rtrd. t! h�l r � of � z5om� 604414 " �1►a�rx� /d r cr 7`l r 7r /f� �1 istryk'��15 df`�cCCtr 5 a , Twin inquired of the Buck Mountain Cionipanyr Inc. as listed on the applica- tion was incorporated in Nt7.rth Carolina. John Northern, attorney for Buck Muntai.ny said the company was formed a general partnership and that the reference to incorporation should bed I Txvin asked how much land the developer controlled off the end of the run- way either through purchase agreement or easement. A3 hler responded that the majority of land was controlled up to 1000 feet, some subject to crxnd,5.ticnal.i approval. He added that no effort had been made to control beyond 1000lfeet due to the FAA/wr judge ent regarding this matter. Irvin requited bi--hl.er to be more specific about the south end.. John Northern, described the property controlled by the developer adding that if a 1000 oontrol area was a dondi.ti on of approval it would be incumbent on the developer to shift or shorten the runway to get control of 1000 feet. He added that the zonirq ordnance does not define the approach zone that there had been much discussion of the length and that it would be d;,,.fficul.t to get easements for one mile.. Irvin clarified that the developer had controtv%nd south of the ranway up�o but not beyond W 54. Northern responded that the developer had control over the Walton pare only. He added the developer's control extended to the northern property Line but not into the Crawford property.