Agenda - 08-23-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

^8� ~ �� 12. A fee as set by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Staff indicated that this was paid by the applicant. • The following specific requirements are those that are only for general • aviation airports: u All F.A.A. and State regulations are met as a condition of approval . ~'e Planning Board found that the applicant did not supply evidence that '^ own 'll the area within the clear zone and did not own or control ^^`/of tU- area known as the approach zone The vote was 6 in favor and any the � 2 opposed. This finding assumes that one interprets the Ordinance to mean that,---requ�rements are for airport regurdleo of the source of ��' t tion and still, I believe, disagreement funding. There was some contention ` , on the interpretation rf this item. b. The site and itt operation will not adversely affect existing adjacent land uses. Evidence in pages 15-18 of the draft July 8th minutes indicates • that there will he adverse affects on adjacent property, especially in the testimony of Mr. galloce Kaufman concerning land values and real estate • values and Bland Simpson concerning the affect on agricultural land. The agenda package is incorrect here; the vote was 6 in favor, 1 against and 1 absentiun ' h and over-run areas is controlled c Land sufficient to provide ap� vac zones v over'm n' owned and controlled by the applicant. The Planning Board found that the applicant' has not provided evidence that they control sufficient land for the ppa zones, The vote on this motion was 6 in favor and 2 against. Even ` ' - � - 'a' that all FAA requirements are met our Ordinaoca if on item a you assume , goes over and beyond FAA requirements and does require ownership or cnotrb|l -'' of the approach zone. This issue begins to raise a larger question should the Board find that this 1s not necessary will the Board be willing to deny any subdivision requests within the approach zones should they arise As per the testimony of Mr. Bruce Matthews saying that residential uses were incompatible with airports. d' Adequate land area is provided for all of the proposed uses, buildings x and nd storage areas. The Planning Buard` on a motion,' voted in favor of this item, 5 to 3, that it is contained in the application. However, there :as some confusion and disagreement on the interpretation of this itcm. There was. some that the Board felt proposed usage should have included the use Of the airport and consistent with item 'c' should say no to this mutiuo.The majority felt that this should f lt th t thi h ld bp interpretated as physical usage such as buildings or other structures. e' Screening of buildings, storage and maintenance areas is provided from adjacent res id hti l land. This item was found to be met by the application. on . f. Letters from ap r ' -te fire and rescue agencies that protective services s can be at an ---q-ae '--l . The Planning Board found that the applicant has no t me t the requirement for adequate fire protection as evidenced by the testi- mony of — ' Thomas Griggs on pages 13-14 of the draft July 8th minotca and by a letter 24, 1982, by Dr. Edward Johnson. The vote was 7 to 1. g. Access shall be directly onto a State maintained road. The Planning Board found that this item is contained in the application. ~~- - '--tiNe land uses are located in the final approach areas of the oir- 'c te Planning Board found that the applicant has not presented evidence '— t' �compatible land uses are located in the approach zones. The testimony that compor ' ' of Bruce'Matthews on July lD, 1982, public hearing, page 7, lines 32-35 of the draft minutes indicates that homes should be excluded from the approach zone of an airport. The vote on this motion was 5 in favor, 2 against and one abstention, Again, this raises the larger question, of if, if we cannot control through the way our Ordinance is currently drafted, uses withing the approach zone, quite frankly, how will we? There are other standards that the applicant can, must meet in addition to those l just mentioned. a Method and adequacy of provision of oevage disposal facilities, solid — 'ste and water. The Planning Board has found that the applicant has addressed the question of sewage and solid waste disposal and water supply. There is concern that storm water runoff will impact adjacent property. See pages 19, lines for that la.-,et , ne s 30 and 33 of the July 8th draft t concern pages m1notes, believe one citizen expressed a concern that a drainage easement was shm" on the plat and he had not been contacted on that.