Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
' - '7 • • 4' <br /> - 4 - - <br /> • <br /> • <br /> 0.1.J <br /> Or. Richard Whitted <br /> Page 2 <br /> At the present time, we own or control sufficient land to <br /> provide an aPproach-departure zone of between 1,000 and 1,500 feet <br /> on either end of the runway, but no more. We ask the County <br /> Commissioner to reduce the requirements set forth in Condition 2 to <br /> cover an approach-departure zone of 1,000 feet from each end of the <br /> runway, or id. the alternative no more than 1,500 from either end of <br /> the runway. At a distance of 1,500 feet from the runway, objects <br /> could be no higher than 75 feet, and we believe this would be <br /> substantial compliance with the intent of the ordinance to provide <br /> adequate safety measures for the use of the airport. As the airport <br /> is being built in a residential and agricultural zone, we do not <br /> envision that any structures will be built to a height greater than <br /> 75 feet, and would therefore pose no problem to incoming aircraft <br /> beyond the 1j,500 foot distance. <br /> 3. We believe that the third condition, restricting <br /> commercial uses only to those uses specifically referenced in the <br /> project narrative and the site plan, is unduly restrictive and would <br /> greatly hamplr the operation of the airport. For example, the <br /> condition would appear to prohibit any type of normal accessory <br /> commercial use, such as snack bar-or restaurant, gift shop, office <br /> for sale of aircraft, and other normal and incidental activities <br /> associated with airport facilities. We believe this condition can <br /> be made morelflexible, and generally be within the intent of the <br /> zoning ordinance dealing with accessory uses normally associated <br /> with such projects. <br /> 4. The fourth condition contains many safety features which <br /> are acceptable to the developer, but some are outside our ability to <br /> obtain. Thelcondition requires us to provide an access road from <br /> the project to Teer Road, but the developer does not have, nor is <br /> there any indication that we can obtain, a right-of-way across the <br /> adjacent property located between the project and Teer Road. I <br /> believe the fire chief indicated in his letter that such an access <br /> road would be desirable, but would not be essential for the <br /> provision ofiadequate fire protection services. Therefore we ask <br /> that this condition of requiring the fire access road to Teer Road <br /> be deleted from Condition 4. <br /> 5. The construction schedule set forth in Condition 5 <br /> appears to be adequate and reasonable. <br /> 6. The requirement of a bond for the public improvements set <br />