|
„ ; .: 7.-5,, .rr,f-'1,!"._ ,.i,::f.'`.'l.t.: , :,: 4:: ' ;':' ' ''''.--:`::';'. : 7:
<br /> !,*;!,;.,-,..-„,..- --..-%.; ', --Y,-:-_ -"A''':: :.!: •.- ',:- ......'1- - ''. * ;-- . --, _.,- oi
<br /> -‘-.a......-7.i.-47;:':- .7 - -
<br /> .-,-.:.‘,'--•
<br /> .,..•
<br /> .•,-,-
<br /> The develoier has provided 4 list of possible uses within the F.B.O.
<br /> and maintenance hangars in a letter dated April 14, 1983. Some of
<br /> --- - these uses appear to be accessory uses to the operation of an airport,
<br /> other uses lappear to go beyond the usual definition of an accessory use.
<br /> Subsequently, for the June 27, 1983 continuation'of the public hearing,
<br /> the applicaiat proVided a typical hangar-accessory use layout plan. No square
<br /> footage of area devoted to each use has been provided; although the
<br /> I
<br /> estimated total square footage is 16,000 square feet. Referenced uses
<br /> include lounges,planrobmi „flight training area, parts department,
<br /> maintenancelshop , radio repair and sales, shop area, restrooms, vending
<br /> machine area, locker rooms, aircraft sales offices and waiting rooms.
<br /> Deletion of the fire access road requirement would result in an increased
<br /> response time for fire protection services. The approved Special Use
<br /> Permit specified as a condition that a fire access be constructed from
<br /> Teer Road. ■F,d. Johnson, Volunteer Fire Co. Chief, at the May 23, 1983
<br /> public hearing, suggested an alternative access through Meadowcrest
<br /> Subdivision. The public hearing was continued on June 27, 1983 to receive
<br /> comments from the applicant regarding obtaining easements through Meadow
<br /> crest Subdivision. At the June 21, 2983.public hearing John Northen,
<br /> attorney, indicated no easements through Meadowzrest had yet been obtained
<br /> and asked the Board to allow these easements to subsequently be obtained as
<br /> a condition 4f the Special Use Permit. Rowever, should these easements be
<br /> unobtainable, the applicant wanted the original request to delete the fire
<br /> access condition to remain. The necessity of such access was, however,
<br /> greater When I-the original proposal contained the airpark, offices and
<br /> warehouse facilities.
<br /> Deletion of the 50% limitation on flight training may inarease the number
<br /> of "touch and go” passes made to practice landing maneuvers. If this
<br /> condition is removed there could be an increase in the amount of noise
<br /> generated by the airport and an increase in the perceived nuisance of the
<br /> noise. Thereimay also be an increase in the crash potential associated with
<br /> training flights.
<br /> 3COMMENDATION: It has been the Copir,Wspolicy not to take a direct interest'in the developme
<br /> of airport facilities either through specific regulations such as airport hazard
<br /> zoning or through construction of a public facility. It has assumed the role of
<br /> "permitting authority", establishing through the special use permit procedure nee(
<br /> safeguards to secure the public helth, safety and welfare.
<br /> 1
<br /> The Board needs to carefully review the evidence submitted to determine if the
<br /> airport as proPosed represents an identifiable health, safety and welfare problem
<br /> and if the conditions imposed on the special use permit, as approved, address the
<br /> problem. Buck Mountain Development Corporation submits that deletion or modificat
<br /> of the conditions would not remove the safeguards necessary to secure the public
<br /> health, safety and welfare. The Board should consider this matter to determine if
<br /> deletion or modification of the conditions imposed pose significant and identifiab
<br /> threats to the public health, safety and welfare, and, if so, whether the conditiol
<br /> imposed represent reasonable solutions Which satisfy the specific standards that
<br /> must be met for issuance of the permit.
<br /> The Planning Board made the following recommendations on Jilly 18, 1983:
<br /> (a) lbat the requestlof the applicant be denied and that the applicant be required
<br /> to have control of the entire approach zone at each end of the runway, namely
<br /> 5000 feet measured from a point 200 feet from the end of the runway. This
<br /> zone is to be 500 feet wide at the point closest to the runway and is to flare
<br /> to a width of 2000 feet at the end of the zone as shown in the diagram included
<br /> with the original permit.
<br /> 1
<br />
|