Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
• • <br /> " • • <br /> . . <br /> - • <br /> " : : ;.• "1. <br /> • <br /> 03 <br /> Allison felt the Board needed to be concerned with the implications <br /> regarding federal funds. Irvin noted the various testimony given <br /> regarding frequent failure of private airports and public takeover. <br /> Allison felt there was a discrepancy in the distance required given the <br /> state milimum. Gordon responded that the FAA specified 1900 feet and <br /> the state 1100 feet. <br /> ShanklinInoted the 34:1 ratio was extremely conservative. Irvin cited <br /> the FAA Bulletin as Exhibit E in the handout. <br /> Pearson felt that the County should not anticipate problems and discuss <br /> public takeover until a problem arises. <br /> Shanklin felt the County should also build a County-Owned airport. <br /> Irvin fellt that the concern should be with safety and encroachment of <br /> the airport. Mehler commented that this would be the safest airport. <br /> Irvin felt that the airport was poorly oriented. Hazard expressed <br /> concern that the testimony was from the Greensboro Airport and may not <br /> be applicable. Irvin stressed that the Board could not consider evidence <br /> beyond th publichearing evidence, and that the testimony of Mr. Suggs <br /> was keasonable based on the opinion of the meterologist at the airport. <br /> He also noted that the evidence was not challenged. <br /> Shanklin iindicated that a crosswind component is not airplane specific. He <br /> noted that there is a difference between crosswind versus a crosswind <br /> exceeding l the crosswind component of a specific airplane. He noted that <br /> the crosswind component was a design factor for an airplane. <br /> Allison asked if an analysis of the area was done. Irvin responded that <br /> the Greensboro meterologist collected data for Horace Williams, RDU and <br /> Greensbor and that the meterologist felt that the data collected at <br /> GreenshorO was applicable. <br /> MODIFIED <br /> MOTION: Shanklin Moved that the area to be controlled by 1500 beginning at the <br /> end of the 200' clear zone as specified in the January 28, 1983 letter, for <br /> a total of 1700' . <br /> Pearson seconded the motion. <br /> Irvin exkessed concerns about later federal funding. <br /> VOTE: - Motion failed. In favor: Pearson , Shanklin. Opposed: . Pilkey, Irvin, <br /> Allison, Laszlo, Walters, Gordon, <br /> MOTION: Gordon moled suggested motion #1 in the handout. Pilkey seconded the motion. <br /> Al 1ân 1.-.1=c=rr.A -- 1 , • <br />