Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
0' <br /> procedure, which would probably be desirable early in the life of this <br /> airport. Ox item is not shown on the plan is the approach zones <br /> for the runway. There would probably have to be some land interest <br /> for areas wlthin about 2000' of each end of the runway so that trees, <br /> powerlines, and other obstructions could be removed, if necessary. " <br /> Thus, in this earlier letter Mr. Matthews states that an approach zone <br /> of about 200b feet would have to be controlled by the airport owners —.- <br /> whereas in al' later letter he changes his position and states that the <br /> developers would only have to control the clear zone (which would be <br /> 1200 feet from the end of the runway by F.A.A. standards (at a 20:1 <br /> slope) , or TO feet by State standards. A letter from Mr. Willard <br /> G. Plentl, Jr. , Director of the Division of Aviation of the N.C. Dept. <br /> of Transportation, dated ally 1 , 1982, (Exhibit D) seems to throw some <br /> light on the reasoning of the D.0.T officials. Mr. Plentl states: <br /> "We are particularly concerned that the County may be going far beyond <br /> FAA standards in its requirements for private airports. As Bruce Matthews <br /> pointed out in his letter of June 28, FAA requires ownership or control <br /> of only the clear zone: Any controls beyond the clear zone normally <br /> takes the form of a height restriction zoning ordinance. Such an ordi- <br /> nance is clearly beyond the ability of a private citizen and should <br /> be a County responsibility." Thus, the D.O.T seems to be taking the <br /> position that the total approach zone should be controlled, but the <br /> airport develpoper should be required to control only the clear <br /> zone while the County should assume the responsibility for controlling <br /> the remainder of the approach zone through some form of airport zoning <br /> to restrict the height of trees, etc. in the flight path. This raises <br /> serious legal' problems of whether the County can or should put severe <br /> restrictions on the property of adjoining landowners for the benefit <br /> of the airport devellopers. It is one matter for the County to control <br /> airport approach zones through airport zoning when the airport is <br /> owned by the County, but is is quite a different (and highly questionable) <br /> legal matter for the County to apply zoning controls on the approach <br /> zones for a privately owned airport. This would be a case of a gmzernmehtal <br /> body "taking" Iproperty of one landowner for the benefit of another. it <br /> is doubtful whether the County could, or would wish to, get involved <br /> in this type of legal quagmire. It is precisely for this reason that <br /> our Zoning Ordinance specifically included item (c) in the list of <br /> requirements for an airport, viz. that "land sufficient to provide <br /> approach zones and overrun areas is owned or controlled by the applicant". <br /> In connection with the question of the approach-departure zones <br /> 1 <br /> another matter should be considered, namely the matter of safety of the <br /> airport both from! the standpoint of the users of the airport as well as the <br /> safety of the ci*zens living near the airport. Testimony was presented at <br /> the public hearing on May 23,1983 by Dr. Joseph Suggs that the F.A.A. <br /> considers that thr location of airport runways with respect to the pre- <br /> vailing winds is particularly important from the standpoint of airport <br /> safety. Dr. Suggslentered into the official minutes of the hearing sections <br /> 1 <br /> of an F.A.A. bulletin on airport design whir.h - <br /> 2 <br />