Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19820708I t .._.--------....~..~~.._.~._.. - _ _ f 3 ~- _'~ °' -. ,, . Y 4 . MINUTES - JULY 8, 1982 The.Orange County Board of Commissioners met in a special joint public hearing wfth the Orange County Planning Board on Thursday, July 8, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in the .Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsbprough, North Carolina. Commissioners present: Chairman Richard E. Whitted, and Commissioners Norman Gustaveson, Shirley E. Marshall, Norman Walker and Don Willhoit. Planning Board members present: Pat Crawford, Chair, and members Sara - Boericke, Lagan Irvin, Steve. Kizer and David Shanklin. Planning Board members absent: Tom Bacon, Alice Gordon, Nancy Laszlo, Hazel Lunsford and John Wilson.,. ,, - Chairman Whitted said the first item on the•agenda of the joint public hearing was a Special Use Permit Request fora General Aviation Airport by • ~ Buck Mountain Development Corporation. All those who wished to give testimony - ±on the Special. Use Permit Request by~Buck Mountain Corporation fora General Aviation Airport were-either sworn or affirmed by Chairman Whitted. Mr. Cannity reviewed the categories of used as defined in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance: they are permitted uses, non_permitted uses and Special Uses. Mr. Cannity elaborated on_the requirements for a Special Use Permit as outlined in Article 8 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (hereafter abbreviated Zoning Ordinance). He noted that in addition to the conditions required by the Zoning Drdinance the Board of Commissioners could impose additional conditions which the applicant must meet "as will afford protection of the public health, safety and general welfare, ensure that substantial justice is done and equitable treatment provided." Mr. Cannity said that after this public hearing the Special Use Permit request will be referred to the Planning Board for its recommendation to the Board - - of County Commissioners: Mr. Cannity noted that any conditions imposed on the 5pecia --U;e permit Request, if granted, "shall run with the land and the use, and shall be finding on the original applicant as well as all successors, assigns and heirs." Mr. Cannity provided additional in`orr:~atinn to the.8oards: The definition of a general aviation airport, which is a public air- - - ----•--- -- l - - _ :138 ~ -- -- _ -. - = - -- .~,~; -~~.~:~~t-, 1 ~N '~~,• aJ"'y r port, serving ;aviation other than commercial airlines. The facilities include any runway, land area; ar other structures designed or used for. ' landing, or taking off of small aircraft. - A basic utility aircraft / sic_% which is equivalent to the Midway pro- posal would accommodate about-95% of the propeller airplanes that weigh -__ under 12,500 pounds. M:^. Gannity defined several terms which dealt with the physical layout of --- the airport and the air surfaces surrounding it: 1) Primary Surface--Is the actual runway itself; A surface longitudin- ally centered on a runway. When the runway has a specially prepared hard surface, the primary surface extends 200 feet beyond each end of that run- way. The elevation of any point on the primary surface is the same as the - elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline. The width of.a primary surface for a basic utility airport is 250 feet'for runways having only visual approaches. 2) Approach Surface--A surface longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline and extehding outward and upward from each end of the primary surface. An approach surface. is applied to each end of each run- way based upon the type of approach available or. planned for that runway end. The inner edge of the approach surface is the same width as the primary surface and expands uniformly to a width of 2,000 feet for that end of a utility runway with a nonprecision instrument approach. The approach surface extends fora horizontal distance of 5,000 feet at a slope of 20 to 1 for all utility and visual runways. The runway clear i zone is an area at ground level that begins at each end of the primary , ~ surface and extends with-the width of the approach surface to terminate _ ' directly where the slope reaches a height of 50 feet above the runway end - -or 50 feet above the terrain. - ~. ... Mr. Gannity continued his presentation to the Boards by quoting from a letter written by Mr. Bruce Matthews, of the North Carolina Department of Trans- portation, Division of Aviation, on June 30, 1982, to Planning Director Jim Polatty. /'Clerk's note: I am reproducing Mr. Matthews' letter of 'June 30, 1982, since Mr. Gannity quotes from it extensively.) ~~~ 7-2' ~.~ O ~ o -.~, A ~ ~~ i ~~~~~ STATE QF NORTH CAROLINA v dEPAFi7ME=NT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 25201 - - AMESB.HUNT,JR. -'- '~~ ---RALEIGH 27871- _ _ _ _ nivlslarv-o~ Avl.~~ ~_w DOVE=RNOR (9191 7332441 LIAFA R. F?OBERSON,JR. ~. `Tune 30 ~ 19$2 j SECRETARY i _- _ - - ~n_- - '35_ - '.h. ~ - _ f~' - _ =~. c - . Mr_ Ja,m Po1.laty~• - - Orange Caunty_Planning Wept. 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC Dear Mr. Pollaty: - ~ - ~ -'j A: _ - - - - - - - - - - ..z.-` -- - _ - - _ -- ~~~'~ Per the request of Rick Cannity an June 29, I am pleased to provide the following information with respect to aircraft operations and ground traffic expected at the Midway Airport. AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS '-- The projection of•aircraft operations is a highly inexact art dependent upon a number of •f actors unique to each airport_ FAA generally-recommends consideration of ,500 to 1000 annual aperations•(an oparativn Xs a takeaff.ar a landing) per aircraft j permanently•based at the airport, with. an average of 750 used _fpr__pX~ltiminary review. ,This figure is inclusive of .all •• __ •_ operations anoludi.ng transient traffic. ` In North Carolina, we find that actual annual operations per based aircraft at the at public general. aviation airports range from a law of 131 at Lexington to a high of 1737 at Wilson. The average xs appraximate1y.850. Lee•Mehler-has indicated -that he would use the current figure for Horace Williatus Ai.rpart, which is 500 annual operations per based aircraft (25,000 operations 50 based aircraft = 500). Mr_ Mehler believes the local airport use is indicative of•future use of Midway Airport. I agree with him-that a figure of 500 operations appears reasonable for planning use. Highway Traffic Generated: We have discussed with aux Division of•Highways the figures they would use to estimate generated highway-traffic. They Mx. Jim Pallaty• June 30, 1982 Page 2 _- use two different figures depending upon their analysis of potential airport use. One figure is that each aircraft operation would generate 2.5 one-way•hi,ghway trips. The other figure is that each based aircraft would•generate 5.8 daily one-way .highway •trips_•-"Calculations for Midway Airport result. _._-_-. in the folowing fa.gures. A. Based on Operations 500 .annual ops/based aircraft x 276 based aircraft 138,000 annual ops.; 138,000 annual ops x 2.5 high- way trips/op = 3#5,000 annual vehicle trips; 345,000 annual vehicle trips c 365 days = 945 vehicle trips per day:. B. Based on Based Aircraft 276 based aircraft x 5.8 highway trips = 1600 .vehicle trips per day We understand that the Division of Highways is most comfortable with figures based upon annual operations. Thus, tae tend to accept the 945 vehicle trips•per day as being the most appropriate ~ , fox--this study.. ;• ~_ This concludes our comments. Please advise if we can be of further assistance_ ~i ~~/yv~pl Bruce E. Mat:'ci~ews - Airpart. Development Speca.ali.st Mr. Cannity continued his presentation by adding that Highway 54 currently nos about 5,000 vehicular trips per day. Mr. Cannity said this Special Use Permit Project is essentially the same -- ~,roposal that was previously submitted /March 8, 1982, Public Hearing]. Mr. annity said Planning Staff's recommendation is the same. Mr. Cannity intro- duced the Planning Qepartment's work on the Special Use Permit Request asyout- fined in the findings of fact-and cited pa.rtieularly those pages (~ ~q=~l/V in his book) which cited FAA circulars and airport design manuals (the findings f fact are on pages ~~'~/!~_of_this book);-_Staff recommended conditions are found on pagesJr/o'~~v y~of this book, as introduced by Mr. Cannity. He added one (further recommended condition: Airport construction will be started within one year of final approval and all construction will be completed within two years of its initiation. Phase one will be complete '9U days after completion of the runway. Phase two will be started within 6 months after the start of construction of _ Phase one. Phase three will be completed within two years of the completion of Phase two. Mr. Cannity noted an error in the title of a diagram found on page ~/~ of ' this hook; the title should be Approach Departure Zone Dimensions. P}anning Board member Kizer: Asked if HWA was a restricted. airport with regard to the number of planes based there and if so, was it reasonable of Mr. Matthews to base the annual operations figures for the Midway Airport on those for HWA? Mr. Cannity: Replied that HWA was restricted and he deferred to Mr. Matthews' judgment..in this "particular case." Mr. Cannity presented a letter and Resolution from the Town of Chapel Hill Far the record of this public hearing at the request `of that governmental unit. Commissioner Whitted announced that the letter was from Mayor Joseph Massif and was dated January 12, 1982; attached to the letter were Resolutions on HWA and the :+lidway Project as well as Mi'-iutes from the.-January 11, 1982, Town Council meeting. (Copies of the letter, Resolutions and Minutes are found on pages J~/~- ~~' of this book.) j Mr. Kizer:.,Asked if Mr. 'Matthews was--€present tonight. Mr. Cannity respondet~ i that Mr. Matthews was unable to attend this public hearing. ~ This concluded the Staff's presentation. cc: Mz. Fred riazzard, Suck zfountain Development: Co. . Mr. Ii~ward Robinson, k'I~P. A~7-anba ADO __._-.-... i ._____..,~...~ -.~ .. Mr. Lee Mahler, Architect working for Buck Mountain Development Corporation, made the presentation for the developers on the Class A Special Use Permit Request for Midway Airport. ~ Mr. Mahler began by saying this was a "scaled down" version of the original i request since the office park had been eliminated and that the airport'portion• was "essentially" the same as had been presented earlier. Ne noted some changes: the runway has been shortened to 4,000'; overrun areas a5 an additional safety feature were reached as the result of a "compromise" with Planning; and that i additional housing for 276 aircraft was provided for those that "could possibly be hangared" in three phases. Mr. Mahler listed letters he'had received from the Sheriff's Department and Mr. Bobby Baker saying the respective emergency services could be provided; a letter from Department of Transportation saying there were no road problems as a result of this project; a letter .from Mr. Bruce Matthews detailing noise calculations; a letter from Mr. Willard Plentl saying there were no. problems from the FAA's standpoint, Midway is in compliance with its requirements fora basic utility airport; requested land ownership•dacuments; and an additional letter from Mr. Plentltato Mr. Polatty contesting some of the County's requirements. (Those documents are.on pages5~i(-55~jS~~i f this book.) Mr. Mahler continued with the conditions which are recommended by the Panning Staff: Conditions 1-11 are "acceptable to the owners;" he said revised drawings dated. June 29, 1982, eliminate # 1D; #12, Mr. Mahler:said, was the only one they "called into question at all" and it was the question of reasonable approach zone. At this point Mr. Mahler read the letter from Mr. Plentl of the Department of Trans- portation, Division of Aviation which questioned the County's requirement in this matter. (see page~~f this book). Mr. Mahler said the developer would like # 12 to be changed to control of the 1,000' dimension.. Mr. Mahler contended that there was no other airport that he knew of that had an equivalent area control requirement. Mr. Mahler noted that the developers had considered what the Board of Commissioners had asked for during the previous hearings and that they have "adhered in every way to -. the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and the FAA standards." Mr. Mahler requested approval of this project. Commissioner Whitted asked Mr. Mahler to clear up the discrepancy in the number of vehicular trips per day estimated to be generated 6y Midway. He specifcally i referred to the Letter from Mr. Matthews which Mr. Cannity read (previously :cited). - ~} ~'~ a Mr. Mehler said earlier information was incorrect and he cited a letter dated June 30, 19$2, in which new calculations were submitted. by Mr. Matthews. He noted 'that he.had referred.~to a company out of Wilmington, N.C. and Columbia, S.C. which primarily deals only with general aviation airports and the company said there - would be 1.3 vehicles per landing and takeoff. Mr. Mehler noted that despite the..:.: discrepancy in the projected figures, Buck Mountian, is projecting in phase one, 156 vehicles per day; phase 2, 312 vehicles per day; and phase three 487 vehicles per day; he said that was less than a 10% increase in vehicular traffic. Ne said that no one really knows how many flights will come out of this airport nor how many vehicles will be generated by the airport. Mr. Kizer: Asked if flights at Midway would he restricted; explaining to Mr. Mehler, restrict operations of aircraft... And Mr. Kizer wondered, why the - developers had chosen the "figure of 500 for HWA which is a restricted airport; for example, if you are using a true range and you use the range of about 1700 which occurs at one airport; if you use the maximum range one would find that you could generate about 2200 trips per day." Mr. Kizer contends that this would increase by about 50% the highway traffic. Mr. Mehler:. Replied that he had deferred to Mr. Bruce Matthews' expertise in this field. He felt that the 500 figure was a conservative one but a reasot~~ble one; he added that the transient air traffic would not increase "five fold:" Mr. Kizer: Asked if Mr. Mehler agreed that the figure cited was a conservative one: Mr. Mehler: Cited the Raleigh/durham Airport experience and said the figures cited far Midway are "so high, in fact, that•they are almost ridiculous." But, he continued, they are Mr. Matthews'.and he is the best source around. "The reason that 1 think they are ridiculous is that at the maximum development, the number of flights coming into this airpart...projected at that many per vehicle, would have a very high...higher than any other of its size. in this area." Mr. Kizer: Asked Mr. Mehler if he had recalculated the NEF contours based on the new, larger "amounts of operation." Mr. Mehler responded that those new NEFs were based on the higher numbers of operations. Commissioner Gustaveson: Asked if Mr. Mehler could give the examples of. private airports he had used a.s models while working on Midway, which were locate+~ ~.on the Eastern Seaboard, the Midwest or North Carolina. i I I ..i ,ti'eF /~ l Mr. Mehler: There were "none of this size." He said most were associated ith a commercial airport, such as RDU. He said basically, they had looked,at ~he Chapel Hill situation and made projections based on that. We noted that he ~ad examined the Triangle J's Airport Study and the County's Airport Study to ascertain need. i Commissioner Gustaveson: Continued, there was no private airport that you looked at. j Mr. Mehler: Said situations were "never equal." He said that general aviation airports are considered desirable in most parts of the country and that those i.rports were surrounded by planned development, "commercial, office, industrial." Commissioner Gustaveson: "But did you find one example of this size?" Mr. Mehler: "Not on the Eastern Seaboard." Commissioner Gustaveson: Asked if this would 6e one of .the largest private irports on the Eastern Seaboard. Mr. Mehler: Said that he didn't know and had not "investigated" that. Planning Board Chair Pat Crawford: Asked if there would be aqy restrictions regarding access during non business hours, as she noted the loop road: Mr. Mehler: Replied that Mr. Matthews had first suggested a crossover access situation and later changed to a loop road. He noted that 99% of those using the crossover would be pilots and that many general aviation airports use this means of hangar access. Ms. Crawford: Asked if access to the aiport would be restricted, assuming that the airport would not be under constant operation. Mr. Mehler: Noted that there there several things they had done to make this operation .more feasible: 1) increased the number of planes; Z) "initiated the possibility of maintenance fees; 3) "and eliminated some things like fencing, that were originally in the project." Ms. Crawford: Asked if Mr. Mehler would explain in a little more detail, the maintenance fees. Mr. Mehler: Mr. Hazard, he replied, would 6e the person to ask .those questions, since he had done the calculations on the fees. Ms. Crawford said she would hold her questions on that topic. Planning Board Member Irvin: Said he had two questions, the first if the Buck Mountain Development, listed as Inc., was incorporated in North Carolina. ~i 4 h ~ ~ R • ~ ~~~ . . ~ _~ Mr. John Northern: Attorney for Buck Mountain, said the company was a general partnership and the reference to Incorporated should be dropped. Mr. Irvin: Wished to know how much land was under the control of Buck .Mountain with regard to the approach departure surface and how much more land i they controlled to the extent of being able "to invade to cut trees." Mr. Mehler: Replied that the majority of the land off each runway to 1000' +are controlled and that for the"slight bit of land that is not, we accept as. 'condition for approval." He added that in this type of project there were people who would not give their approval until the project had been approved. He con- tinued saying, that the FAA and OOT considered the amount of-land presently con- trolled fair and that therefore, they would not try to obtain more. Mr. Irvin: Asked if Mr. Mehler could be more specific about control to the south of the runway and to highway 54. ` Mr. Jahn Northern: 'Said he would be glad to. speak to that. He pointed out on a map the limits of the land owned or controlled by the developer. He said that if the Board of Commissioners decided that the amount of land to be controlled by the applicant was 1000' from the runway then it would be incumbent..on-the applicant to shift or shorten the runway to get the required controlled distanc:~. . Northern added that the Orange County Zoning Ordinance does not define the approach zone and that it would be difficult to get easements for one mile. He continued that the applicants feel that 1000' was the "appropriate zone" of approach and that "basically" it would depend on what the Board of Commissioners decided. Mr. Irvin: Suggested that the developer had control up to highway 54 but not beyond that. Mr. Northern: Yes. Mr. Irvin: Asked if the property controlled extended north into the Crawford property line. Mr. Northern: Said they controlled the Walton tract but not the Crawford tract._ And he does not remember the width of the Walton tract but feels that it is specifies on one. of the maps. Continuing along another line of responses, Mr. Northern said that he could talk in general about the maintenance fees, but,he does not want to specify detailed financial planning. He said he-would aot_like to discuss haw much the airport ez~ects to make, or charge in specific situations. •~ V Ms. Crawford: Replied that she understood that, however, her. questions really dealt with the monthly lease arrangements, etc. Mr. Northern: Said that within the partnership discussion regarding that question was continuing. They did not wish to be locked into either "straight lease" ar that they would "sell long term lease rights or condominium ownership I Hof the hangar space" until they had examined .the market response and to see if they could do either of the above. He added that first, they must convince all those "potential buyers" that it is a "viable prpject." Commissioner Gustaveson: Asked Mr. Northern if one option "could be a condominium type sale." Mr. Northern: Replied that one option could be .rather than a fee simple sale, they would own their hangar space. "Correspondingly you would have to create condominium type documents that would put a burden on everyone of those units to contribute to the maintenance pro rata and the ability to enforce it...." Commissioner Gustaveson: Asked what the projected operational costs were.far a year. . Mr. Northern: Responded that he does "not have that information." Mr. Cannity told the Boards that he had a copy of Mr. Plentl's July 1, 1982, letter to Mr. Polatty; he said he had not introduced it as evidence because it was Mr. P]entl's opinion of the Zoning Ordinance and not evidentiary. While Mr. Cannity distributed copies of the aforementioned letter, Commissioner Whitted noted that Mr. Mehler had introduced the letter as evidence. Commissioner Whitted told Mr. Fred Hazard'.that in checking his list of those who were sworn to give evidence, he saw that"Mr. Hazard had been so sworn and asked if Mr. Hazard desired to give evidence; Mr. Hazard responded that he was available to answer questions but had no formal evidence to present. Ms. Crawford: Asked Mr. Hazard if he knew at this point what type of operation "he would be running," she specified the number of employees, construction vehicles, managers, etc. Mr. Hazard: Replied, "I don't have the slightest idea; we're looking at several models and actual performances around the State." He noted that the University had been very generous in letting him look at their operations costs and he would not feel free to discuss their specifics regarding operations and costs. He added that it was difficult to find a similar proposal around the State but Burlington Municipal was one being examined. Mr. Hazard told Commissioner Gustaveson that it did not seem to be very effective for them to go farther afield than North Carolina ~+~6 ~~~ -........._.lr noting. that once one left. this State the operations seemed to be controlled "almost area by area." Mr. Hazard continued saying that he is not "worried about hired help" but he is concerned about "what it takes to keep the runway operational." He felt that it was more useful to look at those airports with similar climatic conditions in order to evaluate the stress and motion on the runway itself.. - . Ms. Crawford: Asked about the method of runway construction and materials to be used. Mr. Hazard: Said that they have specifications from the FAA and they were also checking the "operation maintenance data" from other airports with regard to. freezing and snow removal. He added that if there is no air evacuation operation at Midway, "I doubt very seriously that we would take snow off the runway." He clarified that the heat of the sun on the black runway waUld melt the snow in two or three days: and that if the air evac operation were there, "then we would have a commitment to them too, we'll have to clean the runway then." Mr. Hazard said that the biggest concern to the developers now was "What will it take to keep thF runway in operatipn?" pne of the responses to that question, he noted, was serious consideration of the establishment of a "perpetual care fund." Ms. Crawford: "do you intend to sell fuel?" Mr. Hazard: "Oh, yes." Ms. Crawford: Asked if he knew what the hours of operation would be. Mr. Hazard: Replied that Mr. Bruce Matthews and Mr. Willard Plentl were working with the developers to establish noise control, traffic .pattern /`Ms. Crawford inserted that that was her next questipn7 and hours of operation which would probably be worked out in a single package. Ms: Crawford: Asked when. Mr. Hazard: "When? No." Ms. Crawford; "It's really hard to se11 a project that no one knows anything about." Mr. Hazard: "We are asked to do this tremendous amount of work...if, if and if,..:and we don't even know what lenght runway you're going to approve yet." He added that the project had been in the works for three years and that he "honestly cannot answer the question." Ms. Crativford: "That's fine." '~ Commissioner Gustaveson: Asked Mr. Hazard his estimate of the cost of phase one. :m......~.~,_~. _._.._. ~, , '. - • ~ ~ [? Mr. Hazard: "I don't know at this time." Commissioner Gustaveson: "Do you have any numbers that you're playing with?" Mr. Hazard: Said that he did have some he was "going over" but that labor, tone and money costs fluctuate from day to day. He added that they know the quantities required but without a permit they couldn't buy the stone. Commissioner Gustaveson: "po you have some range?" Mr. Hazard: "Yeah." He continued that since this wasn't a government project osts could be lower and that the runway would be built for under one million dollars. Commissioner Whitted: Asked what kind of instruments would be in place in pnase one. Mr. Hazard: "Oh, just what HWA has at~the present time." Ms. Crawford: Asked just what HWA did have. Mr. Hazard: Replied surveillance approach; and if money permits, a nan» directional beacon because the costs were reasonable. Commissioner Whitted asked if the beacon would be in phase one anal Mr. Hazard replied yes. Commissioner Whitted: "I believe the tie down capacity for-phase one is 276; is that right?" Mr. Hazard: 276 Is the total. Commissioner Whitted: Asked if Mr. Hazard knew what his break even point was for the airport on the number of based aircraft. Mr. Hazard: Said he was unable to answer the question. He. feels that a period of.twelve to eighteen months of "negative cash flow" is to be expected. Ms. Crawford: Noted that she was confused explained that she thought there were to be 276 hangared planes and any number of tie downs. Mr. Hazard: "We've planned for 276 hangared aircraft." He cited the example of a football game and said they would not tell pilots they couldn't come in because they had committed to a specific number. Ms. Crawford: Asked if Mr. Hazard agreed with the common percentages of 20-40% of total aircraft being hangared aircraft. Mr. Hazard: "I hope that we do a better job than that." He noted that hangaring was advantageous tv the aircraft owner because of reduced insurance rates and that "we will try to get all that he saves:" Ms. Crawford: Asked if Mr. Hazard could give the dimensions of one of the I hangars that would house thirteen units. ~, Mr. Hazard: "No, I can't." He added that Mr. Mehler could provide the infor- I~ motion. X48 Via' Mr. Hazard: Thinking said probably 200' long and 50-60' wide. Ms. Crawford: Asked if the buildings would be metal. Mr. Hazard: Replied that they were unsure at this point. He noted that Mr. Mehler and Pe1o.quin Associates had been researching materials that would be !"as maintenance free as passible." Ms. Crawford: Wanted to know if the floors of the hangars would be paved. Mr. Hazard: Said that probably not; it would be paved to the door of the (hangar and as long as water doesn't get inside the hangar there's no' need for paving there. He added that working with. the fire departments was the biggest concern to provide access for the fire vehicles. Mr. Irvin: Asked if the figure of one million dollars included the cost of constructing the access road and the hangars. Mr. Hazard: "No." He added that the hangars were not included in the figure and he wasn't worried about the cost of the access road since its cost would be small. He added that figuring the extra 200' of access road after allowing for the cost of a one mile runway was negligble..and that it would be built last. Mr.'Irvin: "And does it include the taxiways?" Mr. Hazard: Said .those taxiways would be put in as the hangars were sold. He added that he wasn't "going to go out and put in two miles of taxiways with no airplanes to pay for them." Mr. Irvin: "I'm just trying to find but what your estimate covers." Mr. Hazard: "The runway and getting into it, that's about it. Basically, all we need to get started is a runway and some lights and a roof to get in there." Ms. Crawford:. "But I believe the way the Special Use Permit is structured by the. staff you would need everything you've designated on here as phase. one." Mr. Hazard: "That is correct." Ms. Crawford: "Which is more than a road, and a runway and a light." Mr. Hazard: "But that didn't answer Or. Irvin's question." Ms'. Crawford: "Ok. Ok. I just wanted to be. sure I understood." Mr. Hazard: Said they couldn't make a profit on the runways; that only the hangars would produce an income. 5o they needed to get them in quickly. Mr. Irvin: Asked an estimate of the cost of each hangar. _.,..a~ Mr. Hazard:. "No, I wouldn't want to even if I knew, I would~i't want to give it to you. Because what I pay fora hangar is my own business. Cause I'm gonna sell it. You don't ask a builder how much it costs to build a house; you ask him what I I ~. 2. 3• 14.9 ~~~. . ~~~ 1}. he's gbning to sell the house for." 5. Mr. Irvin: "I accept your answer." .He added that he was trying to get•at b. what "qualification" Mr. Hazard was putting on his estimate. 7. Mr. Kizer: ,Said that based on Mr. Hazard's answers thus far, "you are planning 8. to sell hangars, nat lease?" - q. Mr. Hazard: "No. Our plan is to make money off of the hangars. Now whether I can 10. make more money by leasing them, I'll do it; if I make more money by selling it, 11.. I'll do it." 1 2,c' Commissioner Whitted, referring to his list of sworn persons, asked Ms. 1 3. Miriam Singer if she wished to give evidence. ~,~.. Ms. Miriam Singer, Route 1, Bingham Township: Said that she and her son had ls. recently bought an old'farm in Bingham Township and at present was leasing ten 7.6. acres to a local farmer. She said a few years earlier she had lived near a private 1 7. airport and on that experience was contesting Buck Mountain's assertion that the 1 8. airport would not "adversely affect adjacent land." She said she had lived with 14. airplanes buzzing over her head and even.now finds that airplanes are an intrusion ?0. and a "source of noise pollution." _._-.''-1. She continued that she-is "appalled" to find that the developers plan to 2 2. have nearly 300 planes hangared there. She questioned how many others would be 23. "just sitting an the field, T'm still not sure and I haven't learned anything mare 2~.. tonight." She feels that any airplane, "even the small ones" are a "serious and 2$. constant disturbance" and mould adversely affect the use of her home. She added 26. that the effect of the proposed airport on highway 54 traffic was also of major 2 7, concern to her as she uses that highway now and finds that it is sometimes "hectic 28. and rough.." She urged, for the reasons cited above, denial of the permit for any 2 q. airport planned for that site. 30. Dr. Thomas Griggs, representing the Orange Grove Fire Department Board of 3Z. Directors: Submitted a letter from Mr. Edward Johnson, President of that Fire --..32; Department, dated June 24, 1982, which outlined the position of the Orange Grove 33o~Fire Department on the Midway Airport. Dr. Griggs said that Mr. Johnson had 3j}~ requested that the letter be presented 6y another member of the Fire Department 35. since he, Mr. Johnson, wished to comment on the Midway Airport from another per- 36. spective. 37~ Dr. Griggs said that the "firefighters have a considerable degree of anxiety" 3$0 over the proposed Midway Airport. He noted that the department was originally 39. 40. 1. 2. 3- ..154.. _ __.....,._.. __ - -- _ _ -- --- ~~~ ~• created to protect "private hamos:' and that Midway was a departure from that 5 original concept; it would require additional resources, training. Dr. Griggs b• said the Fire Department wished to "go on record as notifying the Commissioners 7• that this would require a considerable elevation in" the Fire Department's g• "capabilities." 9• Following this preamble, Dr. Griggs addressed specifics from Mr. Johnson's 10• letter., previously cited: 1) questionable water supply; 2) movement of the water; 11• 3) additional equipment needed; 4) for certain types of fires, specific to this 1~• project, mare than'wator would be needed, far example, foams, and the Fire Depart- 1 3• ment requests that Midway provide these additional supplies.and a place to store ' 14• them; 5) recommendations for safety; and, 6) need for an access road to the site 1 S• from Teer Road: /the details are spelled out in Mr. Johnson's letter.] ].6. Ms. Miriam Murdock, Bingham Township: Said that she hoped to convince 1 ~• the Commissioners of the inappropriateness of this location for an airport. 1 ~• She said while she was in sympathy with those who desired to close down HWA, there 19• were two differences between those residents of Bingham Township and those around 20• HWA: 1) "We were here before the airport;" and ,2) HWA has 50 spaces, while . 21• Midway plans for 276 hangared planes and unknown numbers of tie downs. She said 2 2• that they were not trying to move an existing airport that proceeded the building 23• of the homes and that most people had bought so that they could experience the 2~.• quiet unspoiled land without "planes" buzzing aver the children's heads. 25• She continued that the Township was "delighted" when the Zoning Ordinance 26. called for Bingham to be zoned Agricultural/Residential. She feels that there ~7o is "no more inappropriate place in Orange County" for an airport. She said that ~~~ the establishment of land reserved rural was important, especially since Chapel 29• Hill was expanding; she Hated that people would see the Midway Airport and equate 30. that with the HWA problem increased 50 times. She feels that demonstrates that 31• property values are not enhanced. 32• '. Ms. Murdock continued that traffic concerns were an issue; she feels that 33• a North-South highway would be needed in addition to Highway 54. She cited 3~1-• additional demands on taxpayers; she noted that those persons served by I-85 35. 'would not be adequately served by Midway Airport; she cited a survey of pilots .3~• which showed that fewer than 10% would relocate to a site on the Durham-Orange 37• boundary. She feels the potential for the failure of the project is too groat 3~. and that the County Commissioners may later have to approve the Airpark project 39. 1. UU - l~t- 6 ~: 2° recently voted down, in order not to have an "unfinished, unused mess" in Bingham ~~ Township. She feels that the site on I-85 and U5 70 is far more appropriate than ~ Bingham Township. She cited concerns that if the airport is approved and is success- • ful that Special Use Permits may become routine in the area, rendering it useless 5• for residential purposes. 6. Ms. Anne Gilland yield her opportunity to Mr. Wallace Kaufman who was sworn by Com- 7~ mission r Gustaveson (Mr. Whitted was out of the room). Mr. Kaufman presented his credentials to the Boards: 8' I come as a real estate appraiser...rgy credentials are: I've been in 9~ the real estate business some 15 years. And far the past 10 years most of my work has been. appraising real estate, determining values and what affects ld. values and things like that. T've written about the value of real estate for numerous publications and county papers; the New York Times and not- 11. Tonal magazines. And the kinds of clients that T've had are quite varied and they range of course, from individuals to the NCNB Commercial Loand 12. Department, Wachovia's Trust Department, numerous lawyers in the area, the Liggett Group.iri Durham...I've appraised land for OWASA, Chatham, Pittsboro, 1 ~~ Chapel Hill and Carrboro. And, of course, within my firm we've .specialized in appraisers...we ve of course:appraised~for Hillsborough, Drange County 1l~. and a number of other government bodies here, Rocky Mount and all over the eastern part of the State. We also appraised for the utility companies and 15• for people who oppose the utility companies both, which I think speaks to something of our objectivity. 16. Mr. Kaufman said he would address the issue of the value of land adjacent to the 17.~~.airport. 'He said that as he understood the Special Use Permit, procedure, the - 1 8. Board of Commissioners, in order to grant the Special Use Permit request, would _ have to find that the use either does not affect property values in the area or if ~'9• if does, it either maintains or enhances those property values. He said there __. 20° were some questions to be asked: 1} "How do surrounding property uses react to 21• an airport?" He cited examples from RDU, where he said the Research Triangle Park had objected "long and loudly" to expansion of.that airport; he said few subdivisions 2~' had been built near that airport for obvious reasons. Citing HWA, he noted the 2 3• residents were opposed to it being in their midst; he said if the expansion proposed ~4' had been granted values in the neighborhoods surrounding HWA would have dropped. ~5' He cited law flying military planes on North Chatham and haw Congressman Andrews ~6' had .intervened to stop such activity. He summed up the responses to question # ~7° 1 by saying that "Almost no where do residents welcome an airport." He said the . 28' matter of taste affected property values, the dollar value on real estate. 2q' 2) "What creates value in land near ttiis proposed airport?" He said that the 3~• most "ii,mportant" factor was the desirability of this land for residential uses. 31• The rural, "sparsely developed" nature of the area made it more valuable and _-_32~• enhanced its-value. 33° 3) Given two homes, which, Mr. Kaufman asked, would you be willing to pay 34• more for; the one "over which planes buzzed unpredictably" or one which is in 35• a "quieter neighborhood?" He said that if the latter were chosen, then to put 36• that kind of use in an area where it.doesh't already exist, is to lower the values. 37. 3~• 39. 1~7~ „, ., . ~ ~~ Z. 2. 3• • !~. Mr. Kaufman continued that if the Board wished to compensate those adjacent ~. property owners for the devalued amount of their land, it could zone all the b. property around the airport industrial and raise property values that way, whether -. 7• the land owner desired it or not. He said by permitting the airport one piece of 8. property will acquire enhanced value at the price of devaluation of all the sur- 9. rounding properties. 10• He summed up his comments: 1) airports do affect land value; 2) airports are 11. incompatible with residential use of land; 3) property an airport is located on 12. is increased in value; 4) and, surrounding property values are lowered by an air- 1 3. parts presence. 1l~. He suggested areas in northern Orange which were suitable for an airport and 15. where the property values would not be lowered but raised around it. Specifically, 16. north of 70 and I-85 where he feels there is an unanswered demand for industrial 17. development. 1 8. Mr. Bland Simpson, Bingham Township: Said he and his wife are opposed to the Z9. airport being located at this site. He submitted a letter from Mr. Eric Schop'-=- 20. a neighbor, who is also opposed to the airport's proposed location (that letter is 21 . on page$tJ of these minutes). /Clerk's note: Mr. Simpson submitted a ten> page 22. typed transcript of his comments which is reproduced fully on pages ~^S~rc of 2 3. this book. Following is a summarization of his comments.] Mr. Simpson cited the 2!}. zoning Ordinance Article 8.2.2.b as evidence of the Commissioners' discretionary 2s. powers to deny the permit; he cited the 1977 Oran a County 5oi1•Surve (published 26. by the US Department of Agriculture, The Soil Conservation Service in Cooperation 27. with the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station and the Orange County 2$. Board of Commissioners, Sheet 24, page 17, Tables 4=5) in refutation of the develop- 29. er's claim that the land was worthless for anything except an airport. He continued 30.. his citations with the Land Use Plan for Orange County, stating that the proposed 31. Midway Airport is in conflict with Goals Two, Five and Seven. Mr. Simpson asked 32•. ghat all "references in Buck Mountain's Application to 'University use of Midway 33• Airport' be stricken from the application and supporting documents" since the Univer- 3!}. sity is uncommitted. to Midway. He feels that even should Midway be developed the • 3~. University would not be under any obligation to close down HWA and the County may 36. then have two "unsatisfactory airports." He heels an airport should be in northern 37. Orange around I-85 where development is desired; He cited the County Airport Site 38. Study to support that contention. 39. ~..~r-. ~~ He further cited an advertisement which appeared in the Chapel Hill News- paper, May 9, 1982, which listed land for sale in the Cheeks Township near the two sites referred to in the County Airport Site Study. He cited the Land Use Plan Goal 12 in support of the location of an airport along X-B5. He urged the Commissioners to consider a "County General Aviation Airport, owned and operated by the public, financially accountable and financially responsible." Mr. Simpson also cited the National A ricultural Lands Study: The Protection of Farmland: A Reference Guide Book for State and Local Government, pp. 34-35, to introduce the concept of the "impermance syndrome" which results when "significant development is introduced into a primarily rural area." Mr. Simpson asked that the Board of Commissioners exercise its legal rights and deny the Buck Mountain Special Use Permit Request for the Midway Airport"and thereby earn for Orange County a special place in the history of the protection of North Carolina's agricultural lands." He urged denial under Article 8.2.2 a-c pf the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Kizer: Asked if Mr. Simpson would submit the documents he had cited for record as evidence. Mr. Simpson responded yes./documents too bulky to reproduce in the Minute Book are an permanent file in the office of the Clerk to the Board. Mr. Ralph Warren, Route 1, Bingham. Township: Said he had three concerns regarding this proposal. 1) is this reapplication a valid one under the Zoning Ordinance? Mr. Warren cited Articles'20 and 8 from the Zoning Ordinance which he believes prohibits the submission of a 'same or similar' application" within one year after denial or withdrawal of the previous application. 2) Mr. Warren feels that by presentation of 'findings of fact' and recommendations" prior to the public hearing on the part of the Planning Staff, some issues may be raised by the citizens which have not been considered by Staff. 3) Mr. Warren cited Article 8.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance as saying the Board of Commissioners must find that the 5pcial Use Permit, if granted, will not cause a "negative impact." /PIr. Warren's comp9ete remarks are also attached to these Minutes on page~~ ~] Commissioner Whined: Noted that the legal questions Mr.~Warren raised would be researched 6y County Staff. Mr. Dan Eddelman; Bingham Township: Said he lives just off the southern end of the proposed runway. He continued by saying that he had three points to discuss: 1) The Land Use Plan for Bingham calls for Agricultural/Residential Use; this Township had 20% of the building permits issued in the County in the previous year .4 1488 which indicated that it had experienced a high rate of growth and would continue to grow. He said to grant the Special Use Permit For the airport would permit the same "conflicting" land use problems which currently exist around HWA. 2) He said that the Zoning Ordinance indicated that the applicant for a Special Use Per= mit must demonstrate that the use won't "adversely affect the health or public safety." He asked if airports have no adverse affects on health and public safety, why are those who live near HWA so committed to getting rid of it? 3} He addressed the issue of decreased land value of property adjacent to the .proposed airport and cited the example of someone who owns two lots next to his property who is now hesitating about building there because of the airport. He said the airport will "decrease the desirability of Bingham Township" as a residential-area. Mr. Cdward Johnson, Bingham Township: Said he lives 3-4 miles north of the proposed runway. /Clerk's note: Mr. Johnson's remarks were very detailed and lengthy; complete remarks are on pages 5~''9-59,3 of this book. A brief summary Follows: - Mr. Johnson questioned the number of plane operations estimat° He Feels the numbers will be much higher and gives a detailed analysis c~ why he believes this estimate to be in error. He introduced the Minutes of the Bingham Township Advisory Council of February 15, 1979, into the record /those are on pagesf this book:] He said the developer had said that the airport could not exist without the airpark, which is no longer proposed and he questi.aned the economic feasibility'af the airport. He recommended denial of the. request-because: 1) it doesn't promote the health, safety or general welfare of the public; 2). it is in conFlict with the Land Use Plan for this Township; and, 3) the economic unstability of this project; he feels the County will have to bail out i.n some way the developers. While he recommends denial, he also suggested two conditions if the. permit is approved: 1) that no jet will ever beyallowed to land at Midway; and, 2) a bond equivalent to cost plus 10~ of the project from the beginning to the completion. Mr. JoP~nson asked those who were in the courtroom and who were opposed to the -- airp::•t project to stand. /Clerk's note: Most of the audience stood.] Ms. Julie Andresen, resident of Chapel Hill and representing~Citizens For Airport Planning: She said the purpose of the group eras to seek a solution for the health and safety problems posed by F141A:s Tocation. 5.he that the group has a broad base.oF support for its objectives. She. cited the Chapel Hill Town Council's _._ti, _.~ i~:9 position on HWA; the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education, Ms. Andresen said, had repeatedly requested that air flights over the schools from HWA be restricted or stopped; and the Chamber of Commerce's enthusiastic endorsement of the Midway Airport. She said that UNC has said it will move '.all air planes to the Midway Airport "if the same services are available." Ms. Andresen asserted that Midway "is such an airport." Shg continued that the health and safety of the HWA are "inextricably" connected to the Midway praposal and urged approval of the Midway proposal. Ms. Sandra Rathwell, resident of Chapel Hill: Noted that there are 1200 students near the HWA and pointed out the ;approach to the runway. She said "90~" of the airplane crashes occurred near the runway; and cited the health and safety haaard. Noting the accident which occurred at University Mall in which a car careened out of control and children were injured, she asked the Boards how badly they would feel if an airplane crashed on the school. Ms. Mary Lou Rubins; Chapel Hill resident: Said she d s a teacher who lives near Phillips School; she is concerned about the passibility of a plane crash near the school. She cited the safety records of commercial pilots versus private pilots. Mr. Bill Thorpe, Chapel Hill resident: Cited concern for the safety of the school children and said they need help moving HWA out. He said UNC is willing to move its planes. Ms. Mary Penta, Chapel Hill resident: Also a representative of Citizens For Airport Planning. Ms. Penta cited the health and safety factors involved with HWA so near the schools. She requested that the Commissioners approve the Special Use Permit request far Midway while she noted that 70~ of the County's population lives in Chapel Hill. Mr. Franklin 1;irby, Bingham Township resident: T07d the Board that the developers of Midway showed drainage and culverts built onto his family's land., He said they don't own the land and he doesn't want the runoff water on his prop::rty. Mr. David Curl; resident of Bingham Township: Said he still had a house built within 1600 feet of the end of the runway and he is still concerned about it. -He expressed sympathy with the Chapel Hill people who wish to close HWA but he feels Bingham Township isn't the place fora replacement. He asked who the Buck Mountian Company was and. asked that they step forward and identify themselves. I ~ ~~ c~ Cj e~ _ I I~ h Mr.Charles Antle: Yielded to Mr. Gordon Rutherford. Mr. Rutherford, Director of Facilities Planning for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Introduced two letters, previously introduced at the March 8, 1982, Public Hearing; one from Mr. John Temple to Mayor Nassif, dated April 17, 1981, which outlined the University's position on an alternative airport near Chapel Hi11; and one from Mr. Temple to Commissioner Whitted, dated March $, 1982 Mr. Rutherford revieved the specifics in the letter under which the University would phase out HIdA. (those letters are on pagBS~~ leDo~: of this book, respectively). Mr. Rutherford. said that the Univerai.ty.:does not like being in the airport profession. and the proposed project does have a potential of meeting the University's requirements for an alternative to HWA. Mr. Rutherford said, "1.7e would emphasize the fanancial...viabili.ty of• the airport should not be determined on the basis of the University's participation...." He cited Mr. Temples letter to Commissioner Whitted of March 8, 1982, previously introduced. He a~ntinued that UNC cannot commit to an alternative airport until its acceptability according to standards outlined in the letters cited; in addition the University must have fund- ing available to enable it to move its operations to the alternative airport. }" did, however say that the University would be willing to end non University P,.::zc'tio_;, from the airport as soon as an alternative was available. He said that would take care of about /.,.5 of the planes based at HIJA now. He recommended serious discussion of the Special Use Permit request before the Eoards. Mr. Kizer: "How many of the 50 planes does the University awn?" Mr. Rutherford: 13eplied that the "Medical Foundation owes five." Mr. Kizer; "F~.ve out of fifty?"'.• Mr. Rutherford: "Yes." Mr. Kizer: Asked about the general xequi.remen~ that a suitable alternative be located witl?`n ten miles. Mr. Rutherford: Replied that it was AHEC's criterion. Mr. Kizer: "Does Duke University fly any of the planes; do_they participate in AHEC? " Mr. Ruterford: Did not know the answer. 11r. Kizer: Asked if the University had ever discussed with the County the t Possibility of ns3.ng proceeds from the sale of HIJA. Nir. Rutherford: Replied that he thought that had came up during a staff di s- cussion and Ntr. Temple had responded to Commissioner tlhitted in a letter. Hawever~ w . , ~.F .~ ~ ~.. _. t =~ ~.+~ he said "The University is not free to divest itself of the property HWA is on." So he doesn't knows he said what Elands might be available should H4JA close, He added that IJNG is willing axed has iii the past expressed a u'i7lingness tp work to- ward the solution of the problem. Mr. Kizer: Asked if UPIC had any "long range plans for" the property HWA i s on. Mr. Rutherford: "Not immediate plans, no." NLr. Kizer: Asked if the University had thought of using it as part of the campus. Mr. Rutherford: Said that due to the enrollment "cap" there were no immediate plans for uae as part of the campus; it was however attractive as a "satellite campus." - Mr. Kizer: Asserted that i£ this occurred it would almost be County "funding" of a campus far the University. "So therefore the University would gain twofold. l~lould they not?" Mr. Rutherford: Replied that he didnTt understand Mr. ILizer's question; Mr. Kizer repeated it for him saying that if a private developer or someone opened up an alternative airport the University would benefit by having the land HWA is now on being freed up for other use. Mr. Rutherford: Replied that there were restrictions on the land iri the "gaff" conversant. That the money will revert to the State if the land is.sold. "It!s not.a clear-cut issue...." I Mr. Kizer: Said that since the University was State rung didnft it "have the powers of emmin.ent domain surrounding HIdA?" Mr. Rutherford: Said that he really didn't understand the question but that he supposed UNC had that power. "Weld have to prove the use." Mr. Kizer: Said that the point was 'that whaia the airport was being developed the State could have used eminent domain in order to control development around their runways. Mr. Rutherford: "I carat answer that." Mr. Roger Smithy Route 1~ >~J.and: Said there was "no doubt" a problem with HI~/A; buts granting a Special Use Permit to Midway wa.s not right either. "Two wrongs donut wake a right." He said there were 60 sites approved for an airports and many were more suitable than both HWA and 1rli.dway. 12r. Carmi-ty su'bmitted two letters from Peloquiri AssocS.ates for the Board's information' (those letters are on pages of this book). 1:58 ~ :~: •~ c, ti Commissioner 4lhitted submitted three letters he had received which asked to be part of the record of this public hearing: the James Fisher family; Lois and John Furman Herring, and Mr:.and Mrs. Robert Fisher (those letters are on pages GO f~(~//~ of this book, respectively). -. There were no others who wished to address the Boards on the Special Use. Permit Request by the Buck Mountain Development Company for a General Aviatior. Airport. - - Commissioner Whitted said, as is the usual practice, the Commissioners would adjourn this meeting to a time and a place to receive the recommendation . from the Planning Board on this request; he added that the hearing would remain open for Mr. Johnson to mail to the Clerk the Minutes of the Bingham Township Ad- visory Council which Mr. Johnson introduced but did not have an his person. Ms. Crawford, Planning Board Chair, asked if the Commissioners would adjourn the meet- ing in order to question Mr. Bruce Matthews who had been widely referred to this evening; after consultation, the Commissioners said they. would have a quorum pre- sent at the Planning Board meeting of July 19th for that purpose. Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to adjourn this public hearing on the Special. Use Permit Request by Buck Mountain Development fox a general aviation aarpoxt till 7:30 P.M., July 19, 198, in order to question Mr. Bruce Matthews. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. - The Boards took a short break and resumed discussions with all members pre- sent as noted earlier. REZONxNG RE UEST FROM FRED GATES AND ELxZABLTH CATES x`x•om Residential 1 t;o Residentiial-8) Ms. Crawford chaired the remainder of the public hearing. Mr. Rack Cannity made the presentation for the Planning Aepartment, giving the site locataon~ description. $e noted tha intent of the provision of districts in the Zoning Ordinance. He said that this rezoning xaquest was in conformance with the 7.and Use Plan but said there would be adverse effects if rezoned to R-8. t~ir. Cannity listed the areas that were not pzrovaded for by a rezoning; fire pro- tection~ recreational. facitilites; building setbacks, pedestrian circulations inter- ior circulation, centxal services, parking and an overall plan of development which would assure adequate services and access to the remainder of the tract, 14r. Cannity said the Staff recommends denial of the rezoning. Mr. John McAdams, Engineer for John and IIizabeth Cates, addressed the Boards. Mr. 1•icAdams said t1v-s'request was to rezone four acres adjacent to the e~.sting Cates Farm; he added that this development had bean "caught" during ~~~5,9 :~ ~~,~, the fbunty's adoption of a Zoning Ordinance last fall. The developer was asking that the project continue as originally planned. Mr. McAdams said there were /~8 existing units and 32 more. were planned. He said the site is served by water and sewer lines and is well suited for high .denszty develop- ment. l~lith regard to concern ~ 2 expressed by the Planning Staff, Mr. McAdams said the "developer'daes propose to: provide. recreation facilities; this is a rezoning request and it is his intent to provide recreational facilities and y to all the renters who have moved axlto the first /~S units,.; he has told them that recreational facilities will be there. He does intend to provide them." Dir. McAdams continued that for the remainder of the concerns, fire protection, trash removal, paving, parking, landscaping, etc.., "these things will, be pro- vided in the manner that has been established by the development of the first 60~." Dir. McAdams .said the existing development pro~rides "the lalowledge of the standard that would be used in the continuation of the development." Mr. McAdams continued by stressing "that it is the SO units which renders feasible 'the provision of recreation faciliti.es~ the amenities, the maintenance of the development a.xl the manner which. the developer has proposed." Mr. McAdams said that /~8 units had not proved large enough for the developer to provide a "swi_ming pool" but it was axl his original plan to provide a pool for the development. Ms. Crawford thanked Mr. McAdams for hi,s presentation and comments and asked members of the Boards if they had questions of Mr. McAdams.. Mr. Kizer: Asked if the roads were intanded ip be paved. Mr. McAdams: :.Replied the roads would be paved with a tar and. gravel surface treatment known as "macadam." Commissioner 4lillhoit: Noted that the developers statement said water and sewer services were available, he asked if "there was a commitment on the part of the Town to provide that." Dfr. McAdams: Said the 48 existing units had water and sewer lines and the Town was ''willing to allow" those lines to be extended to the proposed 38 units. Commissioner :.IJS.l1.hoit: Pursued the matter by asking 'the Planning Staff if such a commitment had been "secured from the Town of Iiillsborough Board." Mr. Canni.ty: Responded that "x don't have anything in writing from the Town Board." Commissioner Wa.llho~.t: Said he felt a written commitment from the 104![3 .. ~: - .: 1~~ ~~~~ r Board should be secured as he understood from newspaper articles that there was some question of the availability of those services to the project. Mr. McAdams: "I would say there is no question of the availability; only a question of the amount of charge per tap." He added that the charge by the To.wa of Hillsborough was not in question but a surcharge which would go to the school. system under an agreement in 1973 rd'ien lines were extended to the Grady Brown School was being disputed. Mr. McAdams provided details of the agreement. The developer appealed to the School Hoard to xeduce the surcharge due to the. volume umber of uni.ts~ and the School Board declined. tor. McAdams said the developer has decided that it would be cheaper to extend the water and sewer lines by another method rather than paying the surcharge. The lines would- be extended for 30 feet from Oakdale IJrive~ and a water boost pump station would be utilized. Commissioner 4Jillhoit: Asked in terms of long range services to tt:= ' area if "that is the most xdEal method" of provision. Mr. McAdams: Said the the utilization of a water pump booster station would enhance the water pressures raising the water pressure in the entire area • so that a71 users i.n the area would benefit. Commisai.oner 4Jhitted: Asked Mr. McAdams if there was a sketch plan available for the next planned phase. Mr. McAdams responded that he does have one but not with with him at this hearing. Commissioner 4Jhitted said he was particularly concerned was the safety factor of the streets. He added that ''.he had bean to Phase I and while he would not call it pavements he'd accept that term. He asked if this "pavement" was the same as was planned for the axes requested for rezoning. and if it was the same as i..n the mobile home park ~he Timbers. Mr. .McAdams said the mobile home park had two inches of "asphaltic treatment" but that the loop road within the park was paved to State ~. secondary road standards. Commissioner ~•Jhitted said he had two fuxther concerns: 1)• that with regard to Phase I~ 'the e~d.ating unita~ the developer had not __.. provided maintenance of the roads during snow and a.ce storms so that'conaequent. . residents had parked along Orange Grove Road creating a "safety hazardin ands 2) with regard to the "sheer numbers" of those who would be living i_n the existing units the mobile home park and the planned units the egress axed ingress on the hilly along with the existing traffic on Orange Grove Road produced a safety hazard. Commissioner ~.itted asked if improved safety design could be considered and incorporated. ~. i sf~ i~~~ Mr. McAdams: Said that that safety had been given a "cursory" consideration. He added that given the theorectical capacity .of that road r'the road is lightly loaded at this time." I~.r. McAdams was unsure if sight distance on the hill was a problem. 1fr. Kizer: Asked Mr. A1cAdams if he would respond to each of the concerns listed by the planning Staff (please see pages of 'this book for that 'last). I'1r. 14cAdams: ~1--1Ji11 be provided; ~~Recreation facilities will be provided including a swimming pools but he is unsure what else is included; • ~3-~-Is not aware of any proposed laundery facilities; one dumpstex is at the .site and "at least one more dumpater is proposed;" ~/~.~Idalkways avnnecting the parking areas .iri_th the buildings is proposed and when xecxeation facilities are provided .walkways connecting those facilities with the buildings would be provided; #5--the same surface pavement as those already existing there; Mr. Kizer asked if Mr. DlcAdams preferred that the roads not be "paved to State standards." Mx. McAdams replied that "I'm ta7.kiiag about what is intended by the developer. YIe've come t0 you Wa.th a rezoning request; not a Special Use Permit proppsal." #6-^-parking will be off a loop which is off the maa.n entrance drive; ~7---"Y don't ]mow what spacing has been provided." 1'he landscaping is pri- maraly.:'r-shrubbery, pine bark mulch no grass." Commissioner Flhitted asked if I4r. McAdams had designed base x and he replied "jdo.rr ~g--xs not a "development provision." Mr. Kizer: Asked Mr. 1dcAdams about his feelings for the recommendation by Planning Staff for a Planned Development for this project. 19r. McAdams: "If the zoning had not been enacted in Septembers the developer would have done ti~at we have in mind anyway and we're just asking far the rezroning so he can gv ahead and do it. ~ Tha e~dsting development down `:there pxavides the best information an what will be continued.." Mx. Caru~i-ty. Reminded th'e Boards. that this is a rezoning request. and they must weigh the merits of the project for. this zoning di.strict.in its particular location. "It xs impossible for you to weigh the intentions of the developer or an3't~.ng he says he intends to do. 1'ou need to be ready to accept the R-8 zoning with none of these things addressed. Although the developer may make the state- ments that his intentions are to dv such and Stlch.'r 1~Is. Crawford asked for audience comments iri favor of the rezoning request; there were none. I~Is. Crawford asked for audience cenments opposed to -the rezoning request, • Mr. David Rooks Attorney for residents living along Orange Grove Road, . said that there were currently 17 farm-lies living in .single units along Orange Grove Road to its intersection with Oakdale Road. He said the issue is rezoning. I 412 !~ ~~ ti:i 14r. Rooks continued that if the project is granted, the Hoard mould lose control over the issues such a landscaping, recreational facilities and the Hoard would have to live with what the Zoning Ordinance requires i.ri Rt-8 zones. Mr.Hnoka, referxing to the Zoning Ordinance, cited "Section 201 outlining reasons for rezaninng;.. there is a manifest errox" tdx. Rooks _ said that at the time the zoni.ni.ng ardirance was established that the Board had made "a conci.ous choi.ce`•as to how to zone this property." He said the Board knew the development was undexway and still zoned it R-1. He sa2d~ "based on that...T do not believe the Board made a clear error." He said next the applicant says there "are changed conditions in the area." Mx. Rooks said there were none except the "planned development, The Timbers the trailer park, faxther down on Orange Grove Head, which had gene in since" the Zoning Ordinance was adopted. To his knowledge, Mr. Rooks', there w~.°. no other "changed condi.tions." He said this area was a "gateway" entrance to Hillsborough and the xezvning, if granted, would eliminate this single family residential "gateway," He asked that the request be denied. Mx. Ronald Wagner a resident of the Orange Grove neighborhood fox four years said that the• ead.sting_ /~8 units put in. 2 years ago, had lowered pxaperty values. Mr. Wagner said at the time, there were 20 fami].i.es living in the neighborhood with, for example, four people per home which gave a maximum of SO people and 1~0 cars, if two cars per family waxe allowc~:;?w Mx. Cates had, Mr. Llagner said, increased the population by x'70 people and the vehiclular traffic was increased proportionately. Mr. Wagnex said there were no shoulders on Orange Grove Road and kids ride bikes or walk to the store cxeating a safety hazard. He contended that there wexe "wreoks almost weekly on Orange Grove Road" in this area. He said kids would ride in the street. Mx. Wagner continued that he lives at the "top o~ the hill" and he feared that a child would someday be stxuck by a cax coming over the hill because of the lack of sight distance. He requested that the rezoning from R-1 to R-8 be denied.as incompatible with the neighborhood. - Dr.Chriatopher Byrd Route 2, Box 179, said that Mrs. Fwd. M Hines, who lives on the south of I--85 and east of Orange Grove Road was h3 s, motherin-law and he was speaking for her as well as himself. He said Mr, Homes, if he wexe alive, would have tried to prevent the development from occurring. He said i+1rs. Hines had lived in her home for 28 years and every effort i 4t ~. had been made to preserve the land as forest. FIe said the property, values v .~ had already been lowered by the neighborhood by the existing /~8 units. FIe complained of the noise created by the inhabitants o#' the existing un~.ts. He complained of stray dogs in. 'the neighborhood. He cited the safety factor i. e. no wal.k-aay along Qrange Grove I1nad. He said he was •"unalterably opposed" to the rezoning request. Mr. Rooks: Said that many persons td'io .were opposed to the rezoning request had been present earlier but had left as the meeting grew longer. There being no itirther persona who wished to speak in opposition or in favor of the rezon' ~ request, Ms. Crawford turned the meeting back over to Chairman lJhi.tted who declared the Joint. Public Hearing of the Board of Commissioners and Planning Board adjourned. C. ROAD NAMING PUBLIC HEARIPIG l~.S PUBLIC NCN-STATE MAINTAINED ROAD h1r. David.Shanklin, Chair of the Road Flaming Adrrisory Commission, conducted this public hearing. He withdrew Riverboat Road in Little River Township from consideration and asked for public comments on all others as presented. (A list is on pages of this book.) Two residents of Little River Township objected to Sweet Drive and that name was accordingly withdrawn from consid- eration at this hearing Mr. Shanlrlin announced the next ROIv*AC meeting for 7:30 P.M. at the Courthouse on July 21 and asked t1'~se parsons wha objected to road names be present and provide alternatives for consideration. With no further audience comments, Mr. Shanklin submitted the list to the Board of .Commissioners, minus the twv names withdrawn as indicated above. Commissioner lfhi.tted declared this Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Ylillhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to adjourn this meeting. Vote: byes, 5; noes, 0. Richard E. 1•Thi.tted, Chair k'aulette Pridgen-Pond, Clerk