Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19820308 IMarch 8, 1982 The Orange County Board of Ommissioners .mt in special joint session., with the Orange County Planning Board on Monday, March 8, 1982, at 7:30 P.M., in the Superior Oaurtr0m, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. The purpose of the meeting was a public hearing on rezoning, Land Use-W_ - - Plan amen&ent and Class.A Special Use Permit requests- _ Conmissioners present: Chairam Richare E. Vbitted and Cormissianers Norm Gustaveson, Shirley E. Marshall, Norman Walker and Don Willhoit. Planning Board members present: Chairmen Pat Crawford, and Members TW Bacon, Sally Beoricke, Alice Gordan, Claudine Harris, Ipgan Irvin, Hazel I Ltansford (who arrived late) , Steve Kizer, Nancy Lazslo, David Shanklin, and John Wilson. Planning Board manbers absent: None (one position is unfilled)., Chairman Whitted said tonight's public hearing would be in two parts: rezcniftig and Land Use Plan anenarents which he would chair. -- Cha;rwnnaft Crawford said the first request was a rezoning from the C1eora Sterling Corporation from Insidential-1 to Light Industrial. Mr. Eddie Kirk of the Planning Staff made the presentation- Mr. Kirk said the request was to rezone .74 acres which was the rear portion of two lots which front an Ijighway 54 west- He said the fronts of the lots are in a=boxo's zoning jurisdiction and are zoned M-1. The Planning Staff reeommands.approvdl because 1)the watershed would not be affected; 2) most of it is already zc ed M-1 by Carrboro; and 3) Cleora Sterling is a pre-existing use- There was no one who wished to speak either in favor or opposed to the I � ' rezoning. C«rani_ssilaner Wil]hoit asked which fire district the property was i_n, 11 ox=ssicner Willhoit questioned whether it was in South Orange Fire r lDistrict. He said this question should be.cleared up before it was zoned Light Industrial. Conmissioner Wi, it also asked about chetnicols and {heir disposal. Mr. Sam Maffei, representing the Corporation, said there was no chemical waste because no ammi-cals are used; the ocapany does not do refinishing in its cabinetry work. Planning Beard member Kizer asked if the Corporation would hook up to the planned Rangewood Subdivision sewer line when it was installed; Mr Maffei said he hadn't thought about it but probably would hook up to,the line. Planning Board member Irvin asked about the disposal of sawdust; Mr. Maffei said a local farmer collected it from the central vacuum system and he didn't know what the farmer did with it. Chairw=on Crawford said the Land Use Plan amendment and rezoning requests for the Murphy School area would be considered jointly. All Planning Staff reccavendatitns are attached to these minutes.- Mr. Jim Polatty, Planning Director, made the presentation to the Boards. He said the request was for a change in the Land Use Plan for this area from I Rural Residential to Twenty-year Transition; ComTe=ial Transition Activity node which, with the requested rezoning, would make all existing Commercial. uses conforming. Mr. Polatty said the requested change is not appropriate for the neighborhood; that the existing commercial uses could have been covered in a request for a Rural Neighborhood node. Planning Staff recommends denial of the amendments to the Iand Use Plan because the intensity of development that would be allowed with the requested designation and application criteria set forth for Community Com ercial,Transition are inappropriate for the area. Mr. Polatty listed alternatives: 1) designation of a Rural Neighborhood node; or ..2) change the application criteria of Existing xcial-5 zoning district to allow it to be' used in previously zoned townships. The Planning Staff also recommends denial of the rezoning requests because the "scale and intensity of development allowed by the request would-be inappro- priate for this location. There are no urban services available to this area, and the existing commercial uses do not serve a large portion of county residents-" Planning suggested alternatives for the rezoning request: 1) create a Rural Neighborhood node; "amend the Permitted Use Table to allow motor vehicle repair and maintenance in the Neighborhood Cmuercial-2 zcning district;" and, 2) "Change the application criteria of the Existing Ommercial-5 district, from application in unzoned townships to all townships, and rezone the properties to j the M-5 district." chairwoman Crawford asked that those in favor of the requests speak first. Mr. Arthur Vann, an attorney who represented those applying for the Land Use Plan amendment and the rezoning, spoke first. He said these were people who i 7J t had lived,in the area all their lives and these were family businesses. Mr. Vann said the property involved represented about 60 acres and a little more than $500,000 tax value. He said 99% of those in the area had signed a petition to change the zoning_ Mr. Gene.May, owner of the G & M'Electric said he bad operated the cmpany for ten years. Mr. Norman Turner, operator of Phillips Repair Service said he'd been running it since 1960 aid would like to continue working. i Mr. Hugh Bass, lives on Dave Creels Road, and owns Bass Welding, said he'd .like to continue working and do it within the legal guidelines of the County. Mr. Mike Riddle, of Auto Catering Service, said he'd always run a small i shop.and would like to continue. Mr. Gary W. Dean, of Dove Creek Road and owner of Dean's Truck and Coach, I said the business had been there for twenty years and he'd like to continue his business within the laws of orange County. i Mr. Waldrop showed slides of the businesses to the Boards. Mr. Vann said the character fo the neighborhood had changed over a period of time and that the businesses didn't make a lot of noise, them were no offensive odors, and the owners listed their taxes. He added that Mr. Dean had gone to cons' able trouble to screen his business. Mr. Don Wells, principal of Carolina Yriends School, read a letter to the Boards. (That letter is on page of these minutes.) Mr. Vann asked that those in favor of the rezoning requests stand; about thirty persons did stand to dmanstrate their support for the requests. Mr. Vann said Mr. Dean was a diesel expert and he.read a list of customers of Mr. Dean. There were no others in favor of the requests who wished to speak. Those who were opposed to the requests addressed the Boards. Mr_ Doris Paschall Petty, a Hillsborough native, asked how many of the present businesses were operating illegally; Mr. Polatty replied two. She said the Paschall heirs owned about sixty acres of adjoining land and the heirs are i opposed to the rezcning; that iLt would be detrimental to the land use. It's j not a good prospect for metropolitan development. such rezoning is requested to benefit only a small number of land aaners in the area. Mss Linda Miller, said she and her husband had signed a petition against 1 the rezoning but she wished to introduce a letter from her brother, Mr. Douglas Paschall, who was out of the State. Mr. Pascall's letter said he was opposed to the rezoning requests; he said there was a high crime rate in the area already. The letter continued that Mr. Dean had built an illegal building and had made a 'mockery of the Orange Oommty Planning nepartnent and insulted his neighbors...." Mr. John Lazslo, said he had lived there twenty years and was opposed to the rezoning,. feeling that this was a "heavy handed" response to the problem. He i said the whole neighborhood shouldn't be rezoned. He said it was not proper to assume the Land Use Plan could be changed at any time. He fears encroaching I commercial development if the Land Use Plan is changed and the area is rezoned. He said there was no objection to those businesses operating legally but if rezoning was granted bars could be placed in the neighborhood. Mr. Bill Erwin, a resident and landowner, said that Mr. Bass and Mr..Dean were good men and successful and good neighbors. He said the worse thing would be to be a residence next to a commercial area. He is opposed to any increase in eomx-rci.al businesses. However, he doesn't want any of the persons involved out of business either. Mr. Vann asked Mr. Etwin'if he objected to the alternatives listed by the Planning Department. Mr. twin said he was opposed to a change in the land Use Plan. UL— wa.-,e no others &.o wished to speak. Ctmaaswommarm Crawford turned the meeting over to Chairman V itted. Chairman Matted said since the next three item on the agenda had been announced for discussion at 9:00 P.M. he would therefore, recess the meeting until that time. Chairman Whitted called the meeting to order at 9:00 P.M. with all ors of the Board of commissioners and Planning Board present as indicated at the I beginning of these Minutes. Cha_;_n n Whitted stated the order of the requests from Buck Mxmtain Develop- ment mbmpany; in order to expedite the hearing, Chairman Whitted said all present- ations would be made first, then those who wished to address the Boards with evidence would be heard. All persons who either addressed the Boards or offered other evidence, i.e. letters, were sworn or affirmed by Chairman Whitted. The requests from Buck Mountain Development are-- Amendment to the Land Use Plan; Rezoning for a Planned DeveloPMent Office Institutional and Class A Special Use Permit for a Planned Development Office Institutional; and Class A Special i - 0013"57 . Use Permit for..a general aviation airport. `All Planning staff findings, recommendations, and conditions are attached to these Minutes.% Ms. Susan Smith, Planning staff, made the presentation on the Amendment to the Tand.Use Plan requested by Buck Mountain: Ms. Smith said the I ation of the Midway Airpark is nine miles west of Carrboro on Highway 54 and the land is presently designated agricultural residential and is partly located in a . g activity node 'was not neighborhood activity node. �.s rural, net. intended to allow development of the size and scope of Midway Airpark." she - - said for the change in designation from rural neighborhood to transition activity node which would be required for the Airpark, certain criteria have to be met: 1) located in an area in transition from real to urban; 2) efficiently served j by public utilities; 3) within five to ten minutes *?muting time of urban areas. j Ms. Smith said the Midway Airpark does not meet these criteria therefore the Planning Staff recommends the Land Use Plan not be an-ended for the following reasons. 1) it is at odds with the major concepts of the land Use Plan u&ich includes the promotion of residential development and commercial endeavors near urban areas; 2) an aim is to preserve the rural fam areas; 3) non- agree-ment of the request with the in-fill policy; 4) the proposed node is a consider- able distance from cities; 5) it is not served by public water and sewer; 6) it is separated from the cities by the University Lake Watershed; 7) the scale I I of development is ianappropriate for this area; 8) a concern exists about the Possibility for spinoff development. Mr. Rick Cannity'of the Planning Staff made the presentation on the requests I for Rezoning for the Midway Airpark to.Planned Development Office Institutional I and as Class A Special Use Permit for a Planned Development Office Institutional. Mr. Cannity told the Boards that a letter from Mr- Bruce Matthews of.the Department of Transportation. bad been inadvertently omitted from the agenda package and that the correct Resolution from the Town of Chapel Hill had not been inserted into the agenda; Mr. Cannity passed these documents out to the Boards (those documents are found an pages of this book). Mr. Cannity then proceeded to the findings of fact for this request (please see pages of this book for those findings of fact). Mr. Cannity then presented the I Specific Standards which are to be addressed by the Applicants (see pages of this book for those Standards and findings)- Mr- Cannity said the Planning 0 6 0 7`+u Staff recmu ended denial of the request for Rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit for the following reasons: 1. The type of development and intensity of development are inappropriate in this location. 2. Access to the site is designed to pass across the end of i the proposed runway. Me site has only one access point proposed for the whole developrent. 3. There is no buffer fran the intense development proposed for this site and adjacent agricultural residential land_ 4. A development of this size if approved will encourage other 'spinoff' development requests. The intensity proposed is of an urban character but urban services are not availabl'2. Mr. Cannity said, in the opinion of the Planning Staff, there is not a "preponderance of evidence to indicate substantial--compliance .with the Specific Standards and General Rules governing the request by Buck mountain Development Corporation for a Class A Special Use Permit." Mr. Fred Luce of the Planning Staff made the presentation on the request from Buck Mountain Cbrporation for a Class A Special Use Permit for a general aviation airport. Mr. Luce said airports are an allowed use in areas zoned A if a Special Use Permit is granted. Mr. Luce reviewed the findings of fact (see pages of this book) and introduced the January 26, 1982, 'letter form Mr. Bruce Matthews'of the North Carolina Depar nmt of Transpor- tation, Aviation Section (see page of this book) and said Mr. Harold Robinson, Federal Aviation Authority, Department of Transportation Chief, North.. Carolina Section in his letter dated March 5, 1982, agrees with Mr. Matthews and in additIm 'says the fuel storage tanks should be located away from the runways to increase safety and acoess to the airport be changed. Mr. Luce introduced Mr. Robinsm's letter as evidence (that letter is on page of this book). Mr. Luce said the Planning Staff remanded the.air=t be built according fo FAA standards and submitted Advisory Circulars 150-5300-4E and 150-5070-6 dated June 24, 1975, and February 1971, respectively, and pub- lished by the Dppartment of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration as evidence, (Those docment, are filed in the office of the Clerk to the Board.) Mr. LUoe said the Noise Exposure Forecase (NEE') System would be used to measure noise impact at the site and Staff recorded the owner have noise easements over the land; he cited and introduced two sources for the "reasGn- ableness" of this condition,nditi.on, Noise Control Plan Development Seminar Notes prepared for the FAA and Planning for Noise Impacts (see pages Of this book for a list of Circulars & Studies) by the Arizona Department of FJ60 °�:k7-. .�y,:i;;.s,;" � Mme.•:.' I Transportation. Mr. Luce said that in the opinion of the Planning Staff the applicant established substantial compliance with the Standards as set forth in the zoning Ordinance and the Planning Staff recommended approval of the request for the Class A Special Use Permit for the constructiOn of the Midway Airport by Buck Mountain Development Corporation with the con-' diticns imposed as listed on pages of this book. Mr. Iee N,hler, of Peloquin Associates, represented Buck Mountain --...__.. I Develo *it. Corporation and made that fi=n's presantati..ar_ to the Boards- ------ - Mr. Mehler referred to the proposal for Midway Aripark and Airport dat9d November 30, 1981; that doh ant formed the basis of Mr. Mahler's presen i tation and is included in these Minutes an pages of this book. i Mr. Mehler said the general aviation airport alone would not support'itself, that the airnark/office development was conceived to make both viable. He said the two developments (the aul art and airport) would ancreease the tax base in orange County and provide a much needed service. Mr. Mahler said no jet service was planned for Midway Airport. Mr. Mohler said Mr. Matthews had redone his noise impact chart of the c=q=ison of Midway with the FAA Stand- ards based.cn new assumptions and that Buck Mountain was accepting those assumptions; he added that under these assumptions, the airport would be within the NEE 30 range and that NEF 30 was a very low level of noise. Mr. Mehler said that Midway was designed as an alternative to Horace Williams Airport in Chapel Hill and as a general aviat-im airport. He thinks the 5000' �qnway will make it the safest airport in North Carolina. Mr. Mahler said he would not address the Iand Use Plan reconmiendatim by the Planning Staff because he felt it_ was addressed in the req77Psts for the airpaxk and airport; he acimowledged that the Airpark did not cariform to the Iand Use Plan and added that Land Use Plans and zoning Ordinances were made to be changed if evidence or public opinion shawed it should be changed. Conse- quently, he addressed the Airpark Rezoning and Airport Special Use Permit applications. Mr. Mahler said there were some differences betmen the developer and the Planning Staff and he enumerated those differences. He said he had bean told that showing elevation..of structures on the plans would not be required For the project. He differed with 8.8.8.1 saying the Planning Department had asked for five miles surrounding for aerial photos rather than three miles total as he i I X. U l had understood. With regard to 8.8.1.b he thought that with Mr. Matthews' new set of assumptions, there would be no noise problems. For 8.8.1.f there would be no problem for the developer to adapt the design with regard to public utility in case the County ever wanted to take over the airport; public money is not needed, nor sought. For the entrance road question., Mr. Mohler said Department of Transportation had told then to put the road there, the developer is willing to change to whatever is agreeable to Department of Transportation. With regard to runway width, the developer is willing to alter it; however, the runway centerline to the building restriction 1tne is "sufficient" Mr. Mohler says. For the distance between the nmway centerL;*b- and the aircraft parking area, the developer is willing to alter. The devel- oper, however, feels that the distance between the taxiway and aircraft parking area is "sufficient". For 8.8:8.1.e the architects were told not to ir4icate screening, according to Mr. Mohler. In reference to 8.8.8.1.f, Mr. Mahler said he did get a verbal assent froan EMS although no letter accompanied that response. Mr,'...Mahler's response to the recmnmided special conditions ( as listed in this book) follows: 01—Acceptable #2—He questions the severity required for some improvements, that is' other than roads and sewer; LMr. cannity said it was his intention when be wrote this to secure only improvements consid- ered public improvements; conditions 2 and 3 are taken -r'. to- gether�./ Acceptable. #4-5-6—Acceptable. #7 Acceptable. 08-9-10--Ckay (#10 the Fire Company's reservations about its fire fighting capabilities are restricted to the airpark). #11-12-13-14--Ckay. #15--Mr. McMer said the 100foot setback requirements had not been been required before, this was not part of the Zoning ordinance and he didn't know the definition of "heavily landscaped" but a promise might be worked out- #16-17—Acceptable. #18---Mr. Mahler said these may be some problem with the financing due to the high interests rates. 019MIr Mahler said the airport is FAA approved. #20—Mr. Mohler said.the 5,000 foot rumvay is safer; he is not willing to change #21—Okay. #22 Mr. Mohler said this is impossible. #23-24—Acceptable. Mr. Mahler next enumerated his differences for the airpark with regard to the findings of fact on pages of this book. For Article 8.2.1 I he disagrees that the material submitted is not competent or the evidence is insufficient to support the developer's requests. He added that land Use Plans IAy.v.. .m v i are meant to be changed with sufficient reason and he felt his reasons were sufficient. in reference to Article 8.2.2.a, Mr. Wl-filer said they don't believe urban services will develop beycarnd this site, nor does he believe that additional development will be encouraged. He feels that commuters from this area, Hillsborough, Chapel- Hill will use the services. He feels that other develop- ment will be discouraged because of watershed problems. and water and sewer Problems, which.they've solved. He feels that preoedernt was set when Adam & i Eve ope-ned p;- this did not encourage additional development. For ,Particle- - - 8.2.4, solid waste,disposal will be cared for by the owners. For the Fire II Deparbyant conditions, all were accepted. The developer is willing to change the road access to whatever DOr wants. With regard to the designation and request for a Planned Development--Office Institutional, M. Mahler said he I had shown this because the Planning Department had told him to use that desig- nation after changing its mind several times. i Mr. Mehler said he did not understand why under Artile 7.16.2 a motel./ restuarant is not/are not permitted uses; he said this is a support,service. For Artilce 7.16.3, he said it was a semantic question; for Article 7.16.5 Mr. Mehler said this was the first time he had seen this particular require- ment for setbacks and he felt it should be discussed. For Article 7.16.6, Mr. Mehler said they will conform; for the screening which wasd't sham, he said the site plan shown was "conceptual. in .nature" aa4 he didn't know how YOU could determine what was enough screening. He said individual site plans for each building would be submitted at the time it was planned to be built and that site plan would indicate screening. He added that under (b) walkways would be shown on large site plans. In regard,to 7.16.4, he feels that Planning Staff had made an inappropriate response. Mr. Mehler then responded to Planning Staff's reasons for r ecommending denial of the request for the Class A Special Use Permit for the Aixpark= #1--Mr. Mehler said the developer was asking for an exception to the land Use Plan. #2--No response. #3--It will not encourage development, due to watershed, lack of water/ sewer in the surrounding areas, and due to the expense involved. Plus the Adam & Eve development experience did not encourage I development; he believes the development level encompassed by the Midway A!,prk and Airport is so high that no one else could afford to do it. #4--This is in response tothe 0-1 designation which Mr. Mehler feels he has already covered; this is a PD not an 0-1. #5---/-Clerk's note: There is no number 5, #6-- ie said that with regard to urban services, i.e..fire, water, police protection, they are willing to do whatever needs to be done; he feels they should not be grouped in with any future development. Mr. Mahler then addressed the conditlans which Planning recommended should the Boards find the development acceptable: #1-2-3-4-5-6—Acceptable. #7-50,000 gallon tank with gravity flow system is the ultimate goal with stand by pump as recommended by the Fire Department. #8-9-10--11-12-13-14-15--Acceptable. . #16--Will do whatever DOT wants. Will setbacks are excessive. 418--The developer and Mr. Mehler disagree. #19--Mr. Mahler asserts that he doesn't know why the Planning Department wants this submitted as a Planned Development Office-industrial, They do not want industrial development nor do they plan it. #20-21-22—Acceptable. Mr. Mahler concluded his presentation and response to Staff rec=mendations by saying this was a thoroughly planned project, carefully thought out. They feel this location is the best a;e available for this use and hope the case will be decided on its merits. Planning Board Member Irvin had several questions of Staff and the develop- er's representative. Mr. Irvin: Are there other sites available for a general aviation airport in Orange County? Mr. Luce: Yes, we initially surveyed,sixty-nine sites. YX. _iron: Are sage as satisfactory or more so than Midway? Mr. Luce: Yes. Mr. Irvin: Are other sites in the Land Use Plan suitable to industrial development, for example, along I-85? Mr. Luce: Yes, several. Mr. Irvin: Are some of those sites closer than the Triangle J Survey's choices; are sate closer to Durham and to,Hillsborough? Mr. Luce: Yes. i Mr. Irvin: Asked that Mr. Lure read "for the record" comments on the "Runway Approach Surfaces" from Mr. Matthews' letter. Mr. Luce: reading from Mr. Matthews' letter: 1. For Utility Airports, approach surface begins 200' beyond end of runway and slopes upward fran runway elevation at a 20 to 1 ratio (l foot vertically for 20 feet horizontally). For runways without instrument approaches, surface is 250' at run- way end,, 1,000' long, and 450' wide at outer end. For those with instrument approaches, surface is 500' by 1,000' by 8001. I i I 1010 r. 2. For Basic Transport, without instrument approach requires I 20 to 1 slope with surface is 500' wide near runway end, 1,000' long, 700' wide at outer end. For instrument runways, the surface has a 34 to 1 slope, 500' by 1700' by 1010'. 3. No approach surfaces are sham for proposed Midway A.ii.zpvrt- Haaever, the road on the south end and into the office complex violates these standards• it is likely that the approach areas on each end of the runway have trees or power lines that also are not in camplianee. The airport owner should control these arms to prevent obstructions which might be flight safety hazards'. I Mr. Irvin: Do you know if the owner controls that distance of approach? Mr. Lune: No, I don't.know. -- ---. Mr. Irvin: Don't the owner's plans show the bm rxiati'y lines at 250' beyond the runway? Does he control the other 7501? i i Mr. Luce: No Mr'. Irvin: Fcw many motor vehicle trips will be generated by this project? Mr. Cannity: The latest information'-is from DOT in 1981-for that section of Highway 54, it's 4600 trips; by going to acceptable standards, I estimate 378 trips per day for the airpark/warehouse and for the airport, based on the per acre number, about 450 trips, and based on air=aft about 780. Mr. Irvin: That's about 14,000-15,000 trips total per day. Mr. cannity: These figures are generally based on more urban areas than where this project is located. Mr. Irvin: Based or, the calculatio-s for the mxxnt of water and the number of trips, would you say this corresponds to a "fairly sizeable town?" Mr. cannity: For the.number of trips, I think in Orange County, only maybe I-85 or 15-501 in Chapel Hill would came close to that level of use. For the volume of water, the amount'' estimated, 130,000 is a reasonably small amount. Mr. Irvin: so, samabody, maybe the County, may have to someday provide increased services? Mr. Cannity: Someday, that's possible. I don't know if the Oounty is ready to do that now. i Mr. Irvin: I have some questions of Mr. Mehler. Mr. Mehler: May.I respond to those questions you asked the staff? i Chajnnan Whetted: We need to expedite this; you will have an opportunity at the end of the meeting to respond. Mr. Irvin: Does the Buck Mountain Ompany have the approach easements I of 1,000' beyond the runways? Mr. Mafiler: FAA and Dar have accepted our plans; approach surfaces are either in land "that is awned or. Linder option as far as .1 know." FAA did not bring up the question of land ownership in the south so I don't ]mow. You'll have to ask Mr. Hazard. Mr. Irvin: So you do have easements which will permit you to control the growth of trees and construction of buildings? Mr. Mehler: I suppose so, Mr. Hazard would know. Mr. Fred Hazard of the Buck Mountain Development Ccanpany was sWOM by Chain-nan Vdvitted: On the south we do have the easement; on the north we have 2001. The 1,000 isn't a requirement, I think: I don't know, Dr. Irvin, if your figure of a 1,0001.easement is correct. Mr. Mahler: "As far as I know, we are in compliance with DOT stand - arils and M standards as well." Mr. Irvin: Are you planning to OTpty the approximately 130,000 gallons of sewage effluent into Collins Crews? Mr. Mahler: That would be an absolute max?*t"n+'+. We based figures on the maximm capacity of the development. The treatment we propose is a ternary one controlled under the most rigid standards of the State. The effluent will be clean.. According to our engineers, this amountoof effluent is less than would be expected from a subdivision of omparable size. Mr. Irvin. Now do you plan to get the necessary water pressure for th fire hydrants? Mr. NlPhler: A ttswaer is proposed in order to maintain a constant pres- sure. Mr. Irvin: Waht is the height of your water tower? Mr. Y filer: We don't know yet; the size planned, 50,000 gallons is small, but normal for auxillary services. Mr. Irvin: Don't you need to know the height because of approaches? Mr. Mahler: Yes, but not now, at this-stage. Mr. Irvin: How many training flights are expected? Mr. Hazard: We don't know. Mr. Mahler: We are assuming 300 flights per month for about two years and then about 1,000 flights per month; most of these are transient flights. NE U y,. w .;Fyli�:�„}w.: I Mr. Irvin: How many repetitive runs are involved in a training flight? There's not just one take-off and landing. Mr. Mehler: Perhaps not; no one knows. Planning Board Member Alice Gordm: We on the Planning Hoard recently endorse the NEF 25 contour; could you•address that? - Mr. Mahler: I would like to take Mr. Matthews-'t assumptions as the basis I for a response. He assumed 50 flights per day; we anticipate 30-35 initially. He assL�d. a 50% useage in each direction. With those assurgDticns plus that of only the small planes landing there, the expected NEF contours are entirely there is no need to amend the Zoning Ordinance. The 97 ' within our boundaries; - 25 contours are entirely within our boundaries. Planning Board Member Steve Kizer: fiat is.the maximum height of the structures allowed near the airport? • Mr. Mahler: TWo stories. Mr. Kizer: Based cn some quick calculations, your.water tower will be about 85-90 maters, or about 250'. It will be too high_ Mr. Mahler: I dcn't have a response; we have done no engineering on it. Chairman whitted: You mention the symbiotic relationship Of the airport and airpark. How much of the airpark will have to be developed to make this a viable caum ?? Mr. Mahler: The main point is m--iintenan e. Borderline development is not done very often. The airpark is for the maintenance of the airport. Commissioner Gustaveson: The point is how much of this park will have to be developed according to your ten year financing plan in order to break even? Mr. Mahler: I'll have to ask the developer. Mr. Hazard: we feel 50% of the airpark completed within 36-48 months will enable us to make money. There were no further questions from the Boards; Chairman Whitted opened the floor for public oomment. All persons were sworn by Chairman Whitted at the beginning of this session. Mr. Edward Johnson: Appeared as both the President of the Orange Rural. Volunteer Fire Department and as a citizen of the Bingham Township.. Mr. Johnson reiterated the concerns of the Fire Department as outlined in his letter (attach- ed to these Minutes on pages. of this book). �t1•t As a member of the Bingham Township Advisory Council, Mr. Johnson said.there were those from Chapel Hill who want Horace Williams Airport shut down and viewed this airport as a way to get that accomplished. He said it probably wasn't useful to note that the - development !occurred around the airport which was there first. ` He questioned whether the location of the alternative should be .in Bingham Township. Mr. Johnson cited the Minutes of the Bingham Township Advisory Council from January 1979. and February 1979 which state that agriculture is the main industry in the Township, other industry is discouraged in Bingham and it is encouraged to locate in townships where they want it. Mr. Johnson asked those who opposed the. airport to stand; approximately four-fifths of the courtroom audience stood. Mr. Johnson outlined the objections from the stand- point of the Advisory Council.: 1) in conflict with the goals of the Township: 2) a precedent will be established if the permits are granted; 3) the development of Midway will cause problems. in the watershed; 4) the residents are concerned over the length of the runway;5) the residents fear that jets will be permitted to land there, light ones are being developed now which could land there; 6) concern exists that Mitchell Mountain may not be permitted under FAA standards. Mr. Johnson said the air traffic at Horace Williams / Clerk's Note: Here- after abbreviated HWQ could be restricted to UNC traffic only. That would eliminate about 80-90% of the air traffic. He questioned the 130,000 gallons of -A water and asked where it would oane from and questioned that the developers did not anticipate air transport, saying it was very cmum now and would be a ternptation. Mr. Johnson asked the Board to 1) refuse all permits; 2) refuse the office park permit, that was perceived as more of a threat to Bingham Township; or, 3) if the permits were granted, he asked the Board to remember Mr. Mehler's "glowing descriptions" of the buildings and asked the .Board to make those promises part of the permit requirements. i U17 �i. Ms. Verla Insko: Representing the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education. Ms. Insko said the Board of Education took no position on Midway Airport, however, concerns about Horace Williams Airport and the question of safety for students and staff dated back to 1963 or late 150s. Ms. Insko read a resolution which the Board of Education passed and sent to the Chapel Hill Town Council on September 22, 1980, regarding Horace .Williams Airport. (A copy of that resolution..is on page •. of this book) -. Ms. Insko said-this - - documented the concerns about the airport and she asked the Boards i { to consider.those concerns. Mr. H. Stanley Bennett: a resident of Chapel Hill Township, i Mr. Bennett said he did not stand when Mr. Johnson asked those opposed to Midway to stand because he assumed that applied only i to Bingham Township residents; however, he is opposed to the air- port in Bingham Township too. He said this airport is a threat to the value of our property and to the County. He suggested the Boards examine the Airport Study done by the Planning Staff for alternative . to this location. He suggested sites along I--85 closer to Durham. He said that he was unconvinced by Mr. Mahler's assurances and he didn't know the Buck Mountain Development company and anything of its ability to deliver what it promised. He did say that wi_n the questions of safety, approaches and fire protection for the development that this is a "hazardous proposal." Mr. Gordon Rutherford: Representing UNC, said UNC planned to phase. out Horace Williams by 1989 if an acceptable alternative is provided. Mr. Rutherford enumerated several items which UNC considered essential for an alternative totHorace Williams: 1)ade- quate facilities, including maintenance, service, runway of same length; 2) adequate safety, runway lights; 3) proximity to UNC; 4) assurai of continued operation and financial stability. Mr. Rutherford said UNC asks that the Boards give careful consideration to the pro- posal. He added that the University had no interest in the proposed adjacent airpark and that the alternative airport must have instrument approach caphbility. (see page for this letter) Mr. Kizer: Asked Mr. Rutherford how many universities have an airport within six miles of the university. Mr. Rutherford: Replied he did not know. Ms. Gordon: Asked what the University considered proximity to it? . Mr. Rutherford: Answered within minutes.probablyz Ms. Gordon: Asked Mr. Rutherford if it was feasible for UNC to limit air traffic at Horace Williams to only UNC planes? Mr. Rutherford: It wouldn't be economically feasible based on the -operation of Horace Williams as it is now, ".it would force us to change a number of things. . .it would be someEhing we'd have to analyze." Mr. Rutherford said a lot of the air traffic at HKA .is, transient. Commissioner Gustaveson: What is the essential need of UNC? Mr. Rutherford: Five airplanes. Commissioner Gustaveson: Asked Mr. Rutherford if he would " elaborate on the criteria UNC would use to determine the financial soundness of the alternative airport to Horace Williams. Mr. Rutherford: Said he did not really know but that since the runway lights would not be in for three years at Midway, the -University would have ample time to study it. Commissioner Gustaveson: Said "After three years Horace Williams may still be open?" Mr. Rutherford: "Yes." Mr. Eric 5chopler: A member of the medical faculty at UNC and resident of Bingham Township, said this proposal was against the best interests of both Bingham Township and Chapel Hill. He said this would alter the agricultural residential aspect of the Township and stimulate further development. It would mean an increased cost for the construction of a thoroughfare, since it isn't located on such a highway. He expressed concerns about the safety aspect of the airport/airpark and the impact of such development on the Cane Creek watershed. He said it was obvious that Chapel Hill and Orange I County would need a feeder airport to the Raleigh/Durham Airport.; 80 77 this airport does not meet those needs. Such an airport needs to be I ` near industrial and transportation sites. He said individual develop- ` ers should not make decisions that affect the well-being of the entire County and all citizens. Mr. Roger Smith: (no residence given) Made three points: I 1) the impact of the development will not stop at the property lines he asked that the agricultural nature of the Township be maintained; I 2) There are other. alternatives to Hosrace.Williams which a�,e..better; 3) That no matter what happens to Horace Williams Airport it is of no concern to Bingham Township and its compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. i Mr. Bland Simpson: Resident .of Bingham Township, said he is opposed tq the location of the airport in this area. It is not in compliance with the Land Use flan Goals of Bingham and Planning Staff had found it not to be in compliance with those goals. it will tax the farmers out of the County. It will increase develop- mental pressure and would result in the loss of some of the most productive farmland and dairyland in the County. He asked that the County consider all reasonable alternatives for an airport and that the Township remain Agricultural as the law now says it is. Mr. Ronny Kirk: A resident of Bingham Township, said you shouldn't change the zoning too easily. As a volunteer fireman, he would rather protect his neighbors' homes and families than pro- tect Midway. Ms. Carol Cantrell: A citizen of Chapel Hill, spoke tegarding the safety factor associated with Horace Williams Airport. She said she is a teacher in two of the schools which lie near HWA and fre- quently airplanes fly very low to the schools and drown out the activity occurring inside the schools. She said the kids are sittin ducks. She said there was a lot of gratuitous - air traffic; She asked that the Board get the airport out of town (Chapel Hill) . Mr. Tom Helburn: A resident of Bingham Township, is opposed to the Midway Airport being located here. He feels the airport is simply the tip of a wedge. He wants to preserve the green spaces UUb�U. in Orange County. He says this is not a positive contribution to g Y Y P the County; the air and noise pollution will extend beyond the pro- perty lines. If this project is- approved there will be an urban sprawl there. He wants the airport placed in Northern Oiange, near Hillsborough. Mr. David Curl: A resident of Bingham Township, said he had received a letter from the Planning Staff that told him of this proposal and that he had a house located in the flight approaches to the airport. Mr. Curl said Mr. Hazard didn't know his house was there and he was scared. He wants the County to make sure the developers know what they are doing. Ms. Julie Andresen: A resident of Chapel Hill, spoke for a group called Citizens For Airport Planning. Ms. Andresen intro- . duced an editorial from the Daily Tar Heel and a letter from the Chancellor of UNC to Mayor Nassif (those letters are on pages and respectively) . Ms. Andresen asserted that HWA is a public, County airport; its use in itself demonstrates the need for an air-- port. She emphasized the location of the schools to HWA and her group's concern for the safety of the children there. The air- planes must pass over the schools to land. Ms. Andresen said - .. Chapel -Hill has 66% of the the County population and probably pays much more than thas, proportion in taxes. She said it isn't good to infill from an airport. She asked that the Boards look closely at this alternative to the Horace Williams Airport. She added that Bingham Township had already felt some urbanizing pressure from Chapel Hill. Mr. Watts Hill, Jr. : Representing Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, said, 1) a substitute for HWA is needed; 2) it should be reasonably near Chapel Hill-Carrboro (3-5 miles) ; 3) as a matter of policy, the Chamber cannot take a position for a specific site but would like to make additional comments. a) demand calculated i up to the year 2000 is- 150 aircraft, which the Chamber thinks is understated; b) if this site is inappropriate which site is appropriate; c)is there any consideration given to the amount of taxes which would I M be generated by such development; d) on page 35 of the County Planning i Staff Airport Study distributed tonight, key questions are asked but not answered. .1) Do '.the Boards think an airport to replace HWA should be built; 2) if not Midway, where? Mr. James Faust: Spoke as the Acting Chair of the Bingham Tour ship Advisory Council and representing citizens of the area, and said on February 18, 1982, the :Council had restated its opposition to the Midway project. 1) Incompatible with the goals of the Land Use Plan; 2) There:'will be adverse. impact .on the agriculture nature of the area; 3) a 5000' runway may permit jets to land and the noise is a factor; 4) will set a precedent; 5) Mitchell Mountain is less , �i than a mile from the site; 6) the number of square feet in the air- park will place a' strain on fire protection capabilities; 7) water quality in Cane Creek. He asked that the permits be denied. Ms. Miriam Murdoch: A resident of the Bingham Township, said the dairyla.nd and farmland were endangered species. The noise pollution will distixrb the cows; air pollution may be a problem; and water may not be available. She asked the. Boards not permit - non-conforming uses. She asked if Buck Mountain will compensate its I neighbors. She asked that neither the rezoning or special use permits be granted. Mr. Kizer: A resident of Bingham Township, addressed the Boards as a member of that Township not a member of the Planning Board. A copy of Mr. Kizer's remarks are on pages of this book. Mr. Kizer is opposed to this request. Mr. Kizer said this proposal is the first test of zoning. Zoning is supposed to provide protection. Ms. Pat Crawford, Chairwoman of the Planning Board, presented Chairman Whitted with a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Robert Fisher, residents of Bingham Township. The Fishers are opposed to this I. request from Buck Mountain Development. A copy of that letter is i on page of this book. Mr. Phillip Frontiere, Jr. : A recent resident of Orange County, said he had formerly lived in Dallas, Texas. He said a "small" 003 22 airport there was no longer small and the =mw nity was divided and there were odors. He asked that the permits be denied. Mr. Lee Mehler: Respaa'►ded that the Midway location was not the only location for an airport, but it mas the best location. 1-85 doesn't meet the needs of Chapel Hill UNC. He feels the question of the ntunber of - trips generated per day is inflated and suggests a turn lane be built on Highway 54. He said the developers are willing to pay for their share of a i fire truck. This develo mnt will not negatively affect the productivity of the area as the actual site is already deforested. He added that the planned Development is not promises; it is the law if granted-a permit can be revoked if conditions are not met. No jets are planned to lard at Midway; the owners can come back to request a special use permit to allow that, however. No transport planes are planned, well useage will be less than comparable residen- tial developments. He said the Pollution with a general aviation airport is less than that with cars. Mitchell Mountain is not a factor; the FAA has checked it. He said there were not 60 sites suitable for airpo is in Orange county; that was the initial number of sites studied. He said the 130,000 gallons max„rn,m amount cited the engineers as necessary. With water supply was the _.._. ' by regard to the financing of a public airport money Poly is not available for it. Cmumssioner Willho t: Asked about the turn law off Highway 54. Mr. Carty: That was in a memorandum fram the County Planning Staff to the Planning Hoard. Mr. Mehler: 'that's a suggestion, not a req+»renlant of DO'P. Commissioner Willhoit: What about.the financial arzarIgeMents that will insure the viability of the conncern? Has cozlsideration been given to a partic- „ter type of mechanism which will ensure its mccess? Mr. Mahler: You mean for maintenance? cc=ssioner Willhoit: so that the developer doesn't decide one day that its not a viable concern and We are left with a few scattered businesPes on the property but no airport. Mr. Mohler: 'you are requesting certain bonds that are going to require all the lard development, and for the airport you're requesting there isn't that much more of the airport than the lard developnent situation. So you're prac- that tically guaranteed that you're going to require those brands of rveminri,wnt-- i I that's a very expensive guarantee." i Mr. Hazard: We will have to satisfy one person regarding the runway before we can get him as a custm er. We don't know what the particular arrangement will be, probably on the order of "graveyard with perpetual motion." Ms. Crawford.: Ti20 will be responsible for may maintenance? Mr. Mehler: The developers. We plan a joint responsibility for main- tenance .for the aiprk and airport- Mr. Wilson: You said you would not address the Lard Use Plan. Why riot? I Mr. Metiler: We've addressed it throughout. We are against the Land Use Plan. Mr. Wilson: A lot of people who don't like your airport.think it's a good plan. Mr. Mahler: No matter where you put an airport, people are opposed to it. Mr. Kizer: If it fails would you ask that it be changed to light indus- trial? Mr. Mehler: I don't foresee it going to an m2ust-ial park- - Mr..Kizer; Would you accept that as a omr-lition, that youjwould not ask that it be changed to light industrial? Mr. Mehler: Yes. 7here were no others who wished to speak or offer evidence. Coimussioner Willhoit moved to adjourn this public hearing until. March 22, 7982, at 7:30 P.M., in order to receive evidence about the.County Planning Staff's Study on General Aviation Airport Need and Sites Survey: coumissioner Vblker seconded the m tim. Vote: Ayes,5, noes, 0. the meeting was adjourned until the timeend date spe ied i Ri E. Paulette Pridgen-Pond, Clerk f I I