Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
4. <br /> March 28, 1983 <br /> To: Orange County Commissioners and Planning Board Members <br /> From: Citizens for Airport Planning <br /> Re: Conditions on New Orange County Airports <br /> We are, deeply interested in the issues before the Commissioners in <br /> the matter of Conditions for the operation of the proposed Midway Airport, <br /> because the th ee conditions in question, if applied generally, might al- <br /> together preclde the creation of a new airport anywhere within the County, <br /> . <br /> As testimony delivered at previous meetings, <br /> - .~ have indicated in <br /> we have long sought circumstances that would favor the establishment of an <br /> alternative tol the Horace Williams Airport. Although we do not seek to <br /> support specific locations, we note the overwhelming need for a facility <br /> in the southerh part of the County, close to Chapel Hill . The University's <br /> AHEC program other activities require that an airport not be too <br /> distant frum ' n, The University has stated unequivocally that they will <br /> not close down the Horace Williams Airport in favor of a site many miles <br /> away. <br /> If thel conditions now imposed upon the Midway Airport were to be <br /> extended to any airport in the County, they would effectively prevent <br /> its dexelopme <br /> We beleve that the Commissioners have been misled by their Plan- <br /> ning Staff's recommendation that the airport control 6000 feet beyond each <br /> end of the runWay. NO SUCH REQUIREMENT EXISTS FOR ANY AIRPORT WITHIN THE <br /> ENTIRE STATE, 'including the RDU airport, the Charlotte airport, and many <br /> others. Mr. B uoe E. Matthews of the North Carolina Department of Trans- <br /> portation, <br /> in his testimony before the Commissioners, pointed out that he <br /> knew of no comparable airport ANYWHERE IN THE NATION where such conditions <br /> were set. To require them of an Orange County facility is an anomaly with <br /> the potential to bar arkt new airport from the County. <br /> We believe that this anomaly has its roots in a basic technical <br /> misunderstanding. An FAA circular describes approach and departure clear- <br /> ances <br /> fpr a utility airport which amount to 5000 feet, but this is not in <br /> practice an F requirement. Instead, according to Mr. Matthews, the FAA <br /> is primarily concerned "that no naturally occurring obstruction penetrate <br /> the specified approach surface." This F/�` intent is the reason North <br /> ,, <br /> Carolina actoqly has controlled approaches of as few as 400 feet for pub- <br /> lic �. <br /> 8irpqrts, or as few as ten feet for private airports, located in <br /> relatively flalt areas. Mr. Matthews indicated that he views 1000 feet as <br /> | ' <br />