Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
_ <br /> I <br /> 1 <br /> 0Gb <br /> i <br /> EII • <br /> I , <br /> regulations. Therefore, ownership and control of this.area cannot tle_a <br /> standard tinder the Count's reo re ents. <br /> � � The State, likewise, does <br /> not require control or ownership of the approach surface. The <br /> C9vnfiv's a renient whicti makes state and federal standards its own, <br /> cannot exceed or be less than those standards. <br /> Since state and federal standards do not impose control~-or <br /> ownership ;reou_ire, s -cif. sport owne .bcvond-the &ear zone, this <br /> too sets the standard for the- subsection (e) r <br /> sufficient! to provide approach zones and overrun areas is aownedaor <br /> controlled by the applicant." This is so.b_ecAuse the County ordinance <br /> contains no other. (other than state or federal) standard for providing <br /> approach zones and overrun areas. <br /> -subsection ,(b) presents a slightly� y �diff <br /> Vent cuestian with <br /> respect to the 8 <br /> pproach/departure zone requirements previously <br /> imposed by the County. The evidence on the effect Midway Airport <br /> will have on existing asiiaeent Lang_ uses during the previous public <br /> hearing was mixed. Presumably this, along with the specific health <br /> safety anti welfare concern presented by the location of public schools <br /> and residential subdivisions, in the approach/departure zone of the <br /> Horace Williams Airport, were the legal basis of the requirement that <br /> Buck Mountain control all of ,the approach surface. ©n this point, 1 i <br /> would caution the Board to carefully review again all of the evidence <br /> from the prior hearing and all of -the OTQence from this hearing to be <br /> sure cna`t,,,,dantrotung rnis- area, Keeping iir mind that it is three <br /> dimensional 1 and at die ena ox use clear zone has a bottom of 50 feet <br /> above the terrain rising to 250 feet at the end of the approach <br /> surface solves the "affecting existing adjacent land "uses" problem <br /> posed. The questions to answer in this regard are_l) does the. <br /> proposed airport as_acesenLtu by„ Ze applicant with co,icra. _oc <br /> c.1. 1: zone only adversely of ect existing adjacent land uses, If j t <br /> aces nor- no furf1e`r"inquiry on this point is necessary, If it does, 2) <br /> does_reauiring control or ownership or ttte aaor©a, zCZn,e or—some C?a3t <br /> of it cure the problem' <br /> roblem? If it does, '"impose such _control with, a special <br /> condition. If i�does nor, do not. <br /> With resoect ,-to specific _health,; safety and welfare <br /> ',ncerns, onl this point the burden or proof snitts to those opoosest to <br /> the apprication. The questions are I) does the airport. aG:Proposed, <br /> with its owners controlling the area known as the clear zone only, <br /> pose an identifiable threat to the hpealttt. sa el,,g.. anri_w 1fAre? 2) If <br /> so,! does requirgsg control or ownership <br /> this threat? � it' fne tieeltn. sareLg�,anrt w aoc�ro$ch surface cure <br /> -. x elhze fire. threatened in an <br /> icentiriabie way by the airport as originally proposed and in the <br /> modification proposal, then the ©ermit cttni11,4 IN co .4.,..:_..r _.... , <br />