Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
���� <br /> °~^^= <br /> Mr, Matthews' Said that his office did not modify requirements but would <br /> look at "where the obstructions take place." He said the FAA looked at trees <br /> (obstructions) in two different ways: l) by definition, if something penetrated <br /> the approach zone, it is an obstruction, however, it may not be a hazard to air <br /> ' <br /> navigation; 2) the FAA would conduct a study to determine if the obstruction <br /> was hazardous to air navigation (the study would he conducted by the FAX General <br /> Aviation District Office out of Raleigh/Durham Airport). <br /> Ms. Crawford: Asked if the owner or developer would then be required to <br /> take appropriate action if an obstruction were determined to be hazardous, <br /> Mr. Matthews- Replied that with regard to a Federal Aid Airport the owner <br /> would have to either remove the obstruction or "displace the landing threshold." <br /> Mr. Irvin: Said that in this particular instance Buck Mountain Development <br /> could not move the runway too much because they only controlled 800' on the North, <br /> He continued, asking Mr' Matthews how he would control the heights of trees beyond <br /> the 1200' clear zone which penetrated into that zone; Mr. Irvin added that Mr' <br /> Matthews' letter suggested that the owners of the contiguous property would be <br /> reup6nnible for such removal of obstructions rather than requiring the developers <br /> to remove the obstructions. <br /> Mr. Matthews: Replied: <br /> The typical method by which the trees would be trimmed, and l will say this, <br /> I am not aware of any County in the State which has a zoning ordinance <br /> oriented toward a private airport. I would also say I am not aware of any <br /> County in the State that 1s proposing such a stringent private airport o/J- <br /> inanoe as Orange County is. Typically where a zoning ordinance exists, it <br /> gives the airport owner, the city or the county typically, the right, at <br /> its expense to remove or trim trees as it deems necessary. The landowner <br /> simply most allow the airport owner to trim the tree if that's appropriate, / <br /> or if they decide that it would be best, to remove it completely. And he <br /> would bear no expense under that ordinance. i <br /> ' <br /> Mr. Irvin: Said that would be "virtually a seizure of land" and one could <br /> not use the land for forestry. He continued that the only use of the land would <br /> be to fell the trees and use it for agriculture (soybeans for example). <br /> Mr. (,�atthewu: Responded that if the land owner felt that use of his land <br /> ^ <br /> were ' tduly restricted, assuming the passage of such a zoning ordinance, that <br /> it would be a "matter for the courts to decide." He added that he was not <br /> ] <br /> aware of any airports located in areas of tree farming, most were located in <br /> i <br /> agricultural centers and the understanding he has is that most of the property . <br /> / <br /> in the area of the proposed Midway Airport is agricultural. He did agree that <br /> if a landowner were a tree fanner and wished to grow a tree 100' he might have a <br /> problem; but if he were growing a smaller tree, he may not have a problem. ' <br />