Agenda - 08-01-1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

• .• ••• •. - ......... ., • , • - p • ' : : • " - : i+7 031 Gordon 4keE :if the Board would care to send a back-up motion to the Board of Commth.-ssioners. Shanklin suggested that all four motions, including his be sent to the Board. Pearson felt no additional recommendaric== should be sent. Smith indicated that the Board would see all the ao...)zions as part of the agenda abstract submittal and the Planning Boa..7-3 minutes. MOTION ADDITION: Gordon indicated that the last paragraph on page three should also be included as part of the motion. She requested that the record reflect its inclusion. The Board concurred, The Board discussed the request to delete the limit on training flights at the airpo=t. MOTION: Gordon moved denial of the request to delete condition #7 regarding training' flights. Pilkey seconded the motion. Shanklin expressed concern about the means to assure that the limit has not been exceeded. Irvin suggested that the operations be logged as fligh training operations. Shanklin noted it would be difficult to obtain accurate figures on theiloperations at the-airport. Smith noted that the Horace Williams manager had indicated the number of flight training operations monthly at the airport. I Laszlo indicated that the safer the design features at the airport, the less concerned she was regarding training operations. Allison Felt that the restriction of the approach-departure zone requirement addressed the primary safety concern. Smith asked for a reasonable alternative to the proposed 50% limit. Shanklin suggested that the limit be couched in terms of the maximum number o daylight operations permitted. Smith indicated that no one was sure of the number of operations likely at the airport to set a cap. VOTE: The motion ended in a tie vote. In favor: Pilkey, Walters, Irvin, Gordon. Opposed:i PearsDP,, Shanklin, Laszlo, Allison. Each Board member indicated his/her reason for the vote given. Laszlo felt that the condition should not stipulate the type of operation, but just stipulate the number of flights permitted. Shanklin felt the limit should be based on alspeeified number per based aircraft. Smith asked if Shanklin • felt these operations could be logged. Shanklin answered yes the airport operator could log the number. Smith asked if the airport operator would set the Limit on the number of flight training operations permitted for all the airport activities. Shanklin responded he would prefer no cap on the number of training operations, but, if a cap was desired, then he preferred that it be based on the number of flights. Laszlo added that her primary concern was safety and that that was addressed by the required approach- ...