Agenda - 08-01-1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

, . . "4 1- • :7/ :-;;?;":';- • 7r."7 4'r . , • Ai-7. Bruce Matthews, Airport Development Specialist of the NC. 021 Departmentlof Transportation, in a letter to Mr. Pollaty dated June 30, 1982, stated that developers should be required only to own or control the land lying under the Clear Zone portion of the Approach-Departure Zone (Exhibit B) . However, Mr.Matthews' earlier testimony in the form of a letter to Mr. Fred Luce, dated January 26, 1982 (Exhibit C) isin conflict with some portions of Mr. Matthews' letter. of June 30, 1982, In his letter of January 26, Mr: Matthews stated "We wish to emphasize that neither Federal nor State regulations require a private airport to meet F.A.A. design standards. However, failure to meet such standards could have an adverse effect on funding should the airport become publicly owned in the future. It could also adversely affect the potential for an instrument approach procedure, Which would probably be desirable early in the life of this airport. Onejlitemwhich is not shown on the plan is the approach zones for the runway. There would probably have to be some land interest J for areas within about 2000' of each end of the runway so that trees, powerlines, nd other obstructions could be removed, if necessary. " Thus, in this earlier letter Mr. Matthews states that an approach zone of about 2000 feet would have to be controlled by the airport owners whereas in ailater letter he changes his position and states that the developers would only have to control the clear zone (which would be 1200 feet from the end of the runway by F.A.A. standards (at a 20:1 slope), or 1100 feet by State standards. A letter from Mr. Willard C. Flentl, Jr., Director of the Division of Aviation of the N.C. Dept. of TransportItion, dated July 1 , 1982, (Exhibit D) seems to throw some light on the reasoning of the D.O.T officials. Mr. Plentl states: "We are Particularly concerned that the County may be going far beyond FAA standard in its requirements for private airports. As Bruce Matthews pointed out in his letter of June 28, FAA requires ownership or control of only the Cp.ear zone: Any controls beyond the clear zone normally takes the form of a height restriction zoning ordinance. Such an ordi- nance is clearly beyond the ability of a private citizen and should be a County responsibility.". Thus, the D.O.T seems to be taking the position thatIthe total approach zone should be controlled, but the airport develloper should be required to control only the clear zone while the County should assume the responsibility for controlling the remainder of the approach zone through some form of airport zoning to restrict the height of trees, etc. in the flight path. This raises serious legal 'problems of whether the County can or should put severe restrictions on the property of adjoining landowners for the benefit of the airport devellopers. It is one matter for the County to control airport approach zones through airport zoning when the airport is owned by the County, but is is quite a different (and highly questionable) legal matter for the County to apply zoning controls on the approach zones for a privately owned airport. This would be a case of a gomernmental body "taking" property of one landowner for the benefit of another. It is doubtful whether the County could, or would wish to, get involved in this type of legal quagmire. It is precisely for this reason that our Zoning Ordinance specifically included item (c) in the list of requirements for an airport, viz, that "land sufficient to provide approach zones and overrun areas is owned or controlled h., f-h.