Agenda - 05-23-1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

, . . , ,,.. .; ,..;.,:,,,,. _. I,:. :,,,2:::;T;.;;;;-:-.'?,-- ■,,i,'..: . . . . . . . On:- , . OPF. COUNTY EOARO OF Ca-RISSIONS Action. m noel ACTION ry.GEND.; ITE24 AaSTPACT ne lb DEET.M; DATE 5-23-83 Subject: Modification of Class A Special Use Permit for a General Aviation Airport for Buck Mountain Development Company I _---- I ic X yes Publ II-=Aring: no .. I . 1 I " ..---- Attarl-Mleat.(S) : Application pg. 1; formation Contact:: Marvin Collins Additional information pp. 3-4; Letters pp. 518; -Information pp:. 19-28; Letters In Phone Number: 732-8181 EXT. 346 pp. 29-37; Information pp. 38-42 PURPOSE: To receivelcitizen input on a request to delete or modify three (3) conditions placed on the approval of the Class A Special Use Permit granted Buck Mountain Development for a general aviation airport. . . NhMD: The September 7, 1982 approval of the proposed Midway Airport by the Board of Commissioners contained four (4) conditions which Buck Mountain Development would likelto have deleted or modified. The letter, dated 1-28-83, from Mr. John Northen, attorney for the developers, contains the response of the applicant to the conditions imposed on the approval of the Special Use Permit. Four of the conditions are the subject of this public hearing. The developer is requesting approval of..a 3800' runway with 500' safety overrun on the south end and a 700' safety overrun on the north end. In addition, they request that condition #2 be modified to include a 1000' long approach-departure zone. The applicant has provided a specific list of uses which might take place in the Free Base Operator and maintenance hangars and which they state are for the maintenance of aircraft and operation of the airport. Condition #3 which the developers wish to have deleted is the requirement for a fire access road from the airport property and 'leer Road. The limit placed on training flights in Condition #7 is also requested to be deleted. I . DIRKT: The requested change to Condition #2 will probably require that Orange County Change its position concerning development of general aviation airports. Up to this point, Orange County's role has been that of a permitting agency, reviewing and approving plans for the development of public/private airports. The County has not attempted to assist such developments through "hazard" zoning to control noise, structure height, etc, nor has it attempted the acquisition or development of a public airport. It has provided a review function rather than intervening directly in such a development.