HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19820719 c -
285
t
MINUTES
JULY 19, 1982
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in a joint public hearing
with the Orange County Planning Board adjourned from July 8, 1982, to this
time and place .July 19, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in the Superior,.Courtroom, Orange
County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
6 Commissioners present:' Chairman Richard E. Whitted, and Commissioners
Shirley E. Marshall and Don Willhoit.
Commissioners absent: Commissioner Norman Gustaveson and Norman Walker.
Planning Board Members present: Pat Crawford, Chair, and Sara Boericke,
Logan Irvin., John Kizer, Nancy Laszlo, Hazel Lunsford, John Wilson and David
Shanklin.
Planning Board Members absent: Tom Bacon and Alice Gordon.
Chairman Richard E. Whitted called the meeting to order announcing that it
was a public hearing adjourned from July 8, 1982, to receive evidence from
- and to question Mr. Bruce Matthews, Airport Development Specialist, North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Division of Aviation, on the Special Use Permit
Request from the Buck Mountain Development Corporation.
Mr. Matthews was present and was sworn in by Commissioner Whitted. Mr.
Matthews said that, rather than make a formal statement or presentation to the
Boards, he would respond to questions the members might have.
Planning Board member Kizer: Said that one of the questions was of flight
operations estimated per airplane per year using data derived from Horace Williams
Airport /-Clerk's note: Hereafter abbreviated as HWA7 and if the estimates
could be considered reasonable given the fact that HWA "presumably has restricted
operations." Mr. Kizer asked if those estimates were "conservative or pretty
indicative of an airport this size."
Mr. Matthews: Replied that if his memory were correct the estimates were
500/operations per plane per year, and that if based on the HWA data, were repre-
sentative of historical data in this area. He said the figures may err on the
conservative side but "probably not a whole lot." He said that his research of
airports around the state ranged from a low of 135 operations/per plane per year
to 1800 operations per/plane per year and that HWA data were used because Mr.
Mehler wished to use HWA data. He said the flight training operations were in
296.
e particular were probably "fairly indicative" of the County-wide demand for such
a service since anyone could go to HWA and take the flight training from any
t of the planes based there. Mr. Matthews feels the estimates are reliable as
planning figures at this point.
Mr. Kizer: Asked Mr. Matthews why the Division of Aviation preferred the
method of traffic calculation based on the annual operations rather than the
method "derivative of the number of airplanes."
Mr. Matthews: "It is the operation that generates the traffic, not the
airport We are more comfortable with a traffic generation tied to the actual
activity of the airport itself."
Mr. Kizer: "How did you get 5.8 trips?"
Mr. Matthews: Replied that DOT highway engineers in the "Planning and Research
Branch" provided the figures for him at his request; specifying that Mr. Springer,
one of the engineers,.said the "text references" used by DOT cited those figures
and, Mr. Matthews added, would be used by DOT engineers for any airport in the
State.
Planning Board member Irvin: Asked Mr. Matthews in his "position" for DOT
what he considered.to be his principle function.
Mr. Matthews: "To ensure that there are adequate airport facilities in t
State to meet the requirements that are imposed upon such airports by the fly H19
public and by the communities."
Mr. Irvin: Asked if airport safety was not important.
Mr. Matthews: Replied that safety was #1 priority in any project.
Mr. Irvin: Told Mr. Matthews that, in his opinion, Mr. Matthews' letter of
June 29, 1982, to then Planning Director Jim Polatty, seemed to be biased in favor
of the Midway Airport and seemed to convey the opinion that the Planning Department
was "unreasonable" in the recommendations it made with regard to the approach
requirements. Mr. Irvin asked Mr. Matthews if he'd have written the same letter
if he, Matthews, had been the "recipient of a petition signed by 500 concerned
and somewhat irate" citizens of Bingham Township?
Mr. Matthews: Said that he could not say what he'd have written had he
been a member of the Planning Board and that he was not a member of the Board
of Cr,...,ij_.sioners either. He said his office favors the Midway Airport- because
of •: iveral factors: an unwillingness on the part of the public to either
expand or continue HWA operations; and that his office had not seen evidence of
-291
interest on the part of the County to provide an airport to sheet the demand
that exists in the County for the service. Mr. Matthews cited the North
Carolina Airport System Study as the basis for.the demand for regional air-
port services in Orange County. Consequently, private development of this
airport was encouraged given the above reasons.
Mr. Irvin: Directed questions regarding the clear and approach zones to
Mr. Matthews saying, that as he understood Matthews' letter of June 29, 1982,
Buck Mountain Developers wbuld be required to control a distance of 1000' clear
zone from the end of the runway plus 200' approach zone; making a distance of
1200' from the end of the runway to be controlled by Buck Mountain Development
Corporation. Mr. Irvin cited the figure of 20:1 for rise in the approach zone
(including the 1000' clear zone), saying the rise for the 1200' would be 60'.
Mr. Matthews: Said that was not correct that the rise would be 50'. He
elaborated saying:
We would begin at runway elevation and go out 200' at runway elevation
so we have a rise of 0' / zero.feet3 for that first 200. The clear zone
is defined by FAA as the first 1000' of the approach surface or the point
at which the approach surface is 50' above ground level. Assuming that we
have a completely flat terrain, that would mean per at the 1000' mark. From
the beginning of the approach surface to the 1000' mark, the approach sur-
face would rise 50'; so that the point 1200' from the runway the approach
surface would be 50' above runway elevation.
Mr. Irvin: Cited the heights of two different trees (loblolly pine and
tulip ) noting that each grows to a reasonable average height of 100'. He suggested
that someone who owns land in the approach might have trees of that size which
would penetrate the approach zone.
Mr. Matthews: Agreed but added that "The approach surface is a relative
height; the absolute height of the tree...is of very little importance at this
point. Rather the relative height of the tree..ah..for example, if one went
out this 1000' if the ground at that point were 50' lower than the runway, we
could have a 100' tall tree a 1000' from the end of the runway and it would not
penetrate through the approach surface."
Mr. Irvin: Replied that then the converse must also be true, i.e., if the
ground slopes upward the tree height would have to be added.
Mr. Matthews: Replied that each site must be considered independently; that
they would actually go out and measure the heights of the trees in the approach
areas.
Planning Board Chair Pat Crawford: Asked if NCDOT would then modify its
requirements.
292
Mr. Matthews: Said that his office did not modify requirements but would
look at "where the obstructions take place." He said the FAA looked at trees
(obstructions) in two different ways: 1) by definition, if something penetrated
the approach zone, it is an obstruction, however, it may not be a hazard to air
navigation; 2) the FAA would conduct a study to determine if the obstruction
was hazardous to air navigation (the study would be conducted by the FAA General
Aviation District Office out of Raleigh/Durham Airport).
Ms. Crawford: Asked if the owner or developer would then be required to
take appropriate action if an obstruction were determined to be hazardous.
Mr. Matthews: Replied that with regard to a Federal Aid Airport the owner
would have to either remove the obstruction or "displace the landing threshold."
Mr. Irvin: Said that'in this particular instance Buck Mountain Development
could not move the runway too much because they only controlled 800' on the North.
He continued, asking Mr. Matthews how he would control the heights of trees beyond
the 1200' clear zone which penetrated into that zone; Mr. Irvin added that Mr.
Matthews' letter suggested that the owners of the contiguous property would be
responsible for such removal of obstructions rather than requiring the developers
to remove the obstructions.
Mr. Matthews: Replied:
The typical method by which the trees would be trimmed, and I will say this,
I am not aware of any County in the State which has a zoning ordinance
oriented toward a private airport. I would also say I am not aware of any
County in the State that is proposing such a stringent private airport oi•d,-
inance as Orange County is. Typically where a zoning ordinance exists, it
gives the airport owner, the city or the county typically, the right, at
its expense to remove or trim trees as it deems necessary. The landowner
simply must allow the airport owner to trim the tree if that's appropriate,
or if they decide that it would be best, to remove it completely. And he
would bear no expense under that ordinance.
Mr. Irvin: Said. that would be "virtually a seizure of land" and one could
not use the land for forestry. He continued that the only use of the land would
be to fell the trees and use it for agriculture (soybeans for example).
Mr. Matthews: Responded that if the land owner felt that use of his land
were !,;duly restricted, assuming the passage of such a zoning ordinance, that ll .
it would be a matter for the courts to decide.11 He added that he was not
aware of any airports located in areas of tree farming, most were located in
i
agricultural centers and the understanding he has is that most of the property
in the area of the proposed Midway Airport is agricultural. He did agree that
if a landowner were a tree farmer and wished to grow a tree 100' he might have a
d .
problem; but if he were growing a smaller tree, he may not have a problem.
-294
Mr. Irvin: Replied that he did not know of any "commercially valuable
trees" that were only "50' to 60'" (the figures used by Mr. Matthews).
Mr. Matthews: Disclaiming any expertise in forestry, said that in
areas of the country where there were airports near where forestry was occuring,
Weyerhauser, for example, that it was sometimes more %economically feasible to
cut the tree for timber at 40' than to wait till it was 100' (rate of growth
was cited). But Mr. Matthews did agree that someone who wished to practice
y
forestry may have a problem in the approach zone with tall trees.
i
Mr. Irvin: Asked Mr. Mattews if he didn't think, with this problem
in mind, wouldn't it be simpler to require the "developer of this airport"
to "have an easement to control the land beyond the clear zone and the approach
zone." In that way, the developer would have to deal with the landowner, either
buy the land or compensate him for that.
Mr. Matthews: Replied that that would be simpler and that the Special
Use Permit Requirement in the Zoning Ordinance required the developer to control
"the entire approach surface." He added that even with the powers of taxation
and eminent domain, counties rarely purchased either fees or easements, rather
i -
i a county would usually buy the first 1000'. He added that in his opinion, it
was unfair to require an owner to do something that the county would not normally
require of itself.
Mr. Irvin: Said that if the County were developing the airport it would
have more at stake, but the developers were asking the County to do something
for a private company which was set up to turn a profit which would place a "severe
financial burden" on adjoining property owners.
Mr. Matthews: Said he didn't agree with Mr. Irvin's conclusion regarding
an airport placing a severe financial burden on contiguous property owners. He
added that counties routinely provide money for private purposes and cited as
an example, water and sewer extension lines. He stated that "If Orange County
believes that an airport is necessary to serve the County, does not wish to build
that airport itself, then it should take the steps to allow the airport that will
serve the county, if allowed to be built, to .protect that airport so that it can
'be operated safely."
Mr. Irvin: Asserted that Mr. Matthews had admitted that if someone wished
to grow trees it would be a "severe burden." Mr. Matthews denied that, saying he
295
had admitted that the landowner might be restricted but that did not mean he
►' would suffer a severe burden financially.
f:
Ms. Crawford: Asked when the last privately owned airport was built in the
k
State and locations.
Mr. Matthews: Replied they were being built on an almost daily basis and
cited Wayne County and Harnett. County as two locations. He elaborated that any-
one wishing to build a private airport must receive a permit from the Division
F of Highways at DOT, whose engineers would examine the site to be sure all' approaches
clear the surrounding roads. He said that his department normally receives
copies of such permits and his department tries to inspect each site also.
He said normally 50-75 such requests per year were processed and that about
1/3 such builders actual-ly.submitted the permit request.
Ms. Crawford: Asked of those he did see what was the average size.
Mr. Matthews: Said those were mostly turf.runways, 2000' long with no
lights, no fuel tanks, designed for one or two airplanes and only as a con-
venience to the aircraft owner.
Ms. Crawford: Asked Mr. Matthews if his division had any recommendations
on how counties should "draft zoning ordinances or advice to handle private
airports."
Mr. Matthews: Replied that his division did not have any policy or recom-
mendations such .as Ms. Crawford asked about. He•added that there were few counties
with county-wide zoning and usually the property owner was free to do as he
wished regarding his land. He cited an example from Onslow County of a man who
had had a power hang-glider airport opened next to his home. He said airports
did not usually have this problem. Elaborating he said that counties more highly
urbanized, examples given were Mecklenburg and Guilford and Buncombe,' had "land
Use classifications"where airports were allowed but he was not aware of any counties
which had "design criteria."
Ms. Crawford: Continued by asking if he knew of any private airports com-
parable to the size proposed by Midway?
Mr. Matthews: "No."
Mr. Kizer: Asked if Mr. Matthews thought that the market for that "number
of planes" existed in Orange County for the next five to ten years.
Q
Mr. Matthews: "No."
29C
P
Mr. Kizer: Cited figures based on the number of operations per plane per
year, which indicated an average of an operation every two minutes; Mr. Kizer
asked Mr. Matthews if an'-airport with only one runway could handle that kind
of traffic.
Mr. Matthews: Replied in the affirmative if the airport has one runway
and a parallel taxiway. He feels that some airports probably exceed that number
of operations for limited periods of time and cited the Wilson airport on a Sat-
urday afternoon when that airport approached 50-60 operations per hour. Mr.
Matthews said the total number of operations under FAA standards would be approx-
imately two times that number estimated by Midway.
Mr. Kizer: Asked if Mr. Matthews could outline the advantages for private
versus publically owned airports or vice versa.
Mr. Matthews: Said his Division encourage public ownership of required
airport facilities by the county. When Mr. Kizer asked why, Mr. Matthews con-
tinued that if the airport is needed, and is serving County requirements, i.e.
economic development, and providing facilities for owner/operators in the County,
it was always subject to being displaced by a more lucrative financial operation.
He said that several associations, the Pilots Association was cited, had approached
his Division about introducing legislation to exempt privately owned but publically
serving airports from taxes, which his Division (feeling that it was a matter for
local legislation) had declined to introduce. The reason was that the owner has
to pay taxes on the airport and improvements and he may .get a better deal and close
down the airport. He noted that his division was currently working with eight
counties across the State which were trying to replace private airports which
we,,•e being closed down.
Mr. Kizer: Noting the problem that existed with HWA, asked Mr. Matthews if
there was any way to prevent development around the airport and have to reface
the HWA problem restated in several years.
Mr. Matthews: Said that "zoning" was "the most appropriate method." He cited
Raleicgh_Durham Airport which had Airport Districts and-permitted all uses except those of
public assembly, schools, homes, churches, hospitals. Which means that the land
can be used for industrial activities, shopping centers, offices. , He listed other
methods: convenant restrictions, fair disclosure ordinances, County specifically
withholding development of water and sewer lines to the airport area, and some
building restrictions on homes near airports which specify acoustical treatments, etc.,
2917
e. and the owners of the airport buying the land and reselling it with convenant
restrictions. He said that in North Carolina zoning was used most often.
Commissioner Marshall: Told Mr. Matthews that she thought he had earlier
said that zoning was not often used in North Carolina and that airports were
located in agricultural/residential areas.
Mr. Matthews: Replied that there were airports located in agricultural/
residential areas.
Commissioner Marshall : Asked Mr. Matthews that with regard to his knowledge
of zoning ordinances if airports were "typically" located in agricultural/residential
areas.
Mr. Matthews: "Typically,,yes."
Commissioner Marshall: Noted that she was not a member of the Board of Com-
missioners when the zoning, ordinance was adopted and noted that previous testi-
mony from the earlier part of the public hearing /-July 8, 19827 indicated that
this (agricultural/residential) zone was not the best place to put an airport.
She asked if, according to his knowledge of zoning ordinances, if airports were
usually located in such zones (agricultural/residential)?
Mr. Matthews: Cited his knowledge of the ordinances in Rocky Mount, Clinton,
said that most counties were not as "sophisticated" as Orange in their land
use designations; i.e., they would have one or two industrial zones and every-
thing else would be residential/agricultural . And typically, airports don't locate
in densely populated areas and his division does not encourage such locations.
Commissioner Marshall : Said that the "perception" was that the HWA was a
"nuisance to a certain extent for some people" but primarily it was of "concern"
for the safety of the children in-the schools located in its flight pattern, "and
you've already said that's not good;" but to the "quality of life" question, it's
been said that'�roperty values are decreased becauseitof that" •and she asked Mr.
Matthews if, in his experience in seeing airports located, property values had
fallen.
Mr. Matthews. Disclaimed his expertise as a judge of property values but
continued:-
I would say that the only areas where we've seen a major change
take place has been.around airports that have stimulated economic
development, in which case property values have gone up. I guess I
would respond to HWA, I'm familiar with HWA, it's an airport I'm res-
ponsible for in my job along with about forty others in eastern.,
North Carolina; and, I would say that if:people are scared to death
of HWA and property values are falling, you sure couldn't tell it
. . 298
� V L w
by the way development is taking place around the airport;
it seems that that's where all the development in Chapel Hill
is taking place right now. If HWA had not adversely affected
property values I'd hate to see what it would look like out
there today.
Commissioner Marshall: With regard to the Midway Airport project now
before the Board we / the Board of Commissioners] must find whether or not
it is legally "within our adopted Zoning Ordinance or not" and many citizens
who live in the area of the proposed site have "perceptions" of the airport
having a "nuisance value." She continued asking Mr. Matthews if in his dealings
with other communities the-,citizens there had similar perceptions.
Mr. Matthews: Replied that from attending public hearings on airports,
only those who "literally live on -the runway" and he specified 1000' to 1500'
from the runway were those who were mounting the "concerted effort"opposing
the airports. He cited the Warren Field in Washington, N.C., as an airport •
in use twenty-four hours a day and as having an area of "exclusive housing"
near it. He said that there were jets using that airport and as far as he knew •
there was no major effort to close it down although he was sure some landowners
objected to it, they had not banded together to get relief.
Commissioner Whitted: Noting that Mr. Matthews was responsible for HWA,
asked if, that airport conformed to the established criteria for approach, clear
zones.
Mr. Matthews: "No, sir."
Commissioner Whitted: "There are violations?"
Mr. Matthews: "Substantial violations," He referred to a diagram showing
approach and clear zones and related it to the HWA situation. He said that the
HWA runway was East-West and the University of North Carolina probably owned about
500' to NC 86 which runs North-South; and, on the other side of NC 86 trees which
are about 100' tall are growing giving an approach of about 10:1. He said at
the other end of the runway at HWA the University owned about 1500' but that trees
were growing to such a height there that the approach was only about 5:1. The
University had been told to trim the trees but had .not done so.
Commissioner Whitted: Does that "constitute a safety hazard?"
Mr. Matthews: "I'm not qualified to make that statement." He did, however,
continue that there had been no accidents at HWA due to the height of the trees.
to hir knowledge.
Ms. Crawford: Asked if Mr. Matthews knew what the flight patterns of Midway
would be.
295
k
¢ Mr. Matthews:
The typical FAA approved traffic pattern altitude for small air-
ports will bring an airplane in roughly half a mile off the side of
the runway at an altitude, and this can be set by the airport owner;
typically it's 800' above ground level. Some airports have chosen to
raise that altitude to a 1000' to 1200'... Primarily for noise. There
are some airports that have a mix of high performance of jet traffic --
low performance propeller. They'll put the props low and the jets high
to separate them.
The airplane typically would continue at this point about a half a
mile off the center of the runway. Till it reaches a point roughly one
half to three quarters og a mile beyond the end of the runway at which
point it would make a 90 left turn and begin descending, it would actually
begin descending at a point about adjacen� to the end of the runway.
We would begin a descent, turn another 90 left turn to line up with
the runway, approximately 2500 to 3000' out. At that point the airplane
would be maybe 300' above ground level as it turned its final approach.
The FAA specifies for all airports that a left turn pattern is standard.
Which means essentially that in turning into a runway the airplane is
always making a left turn; in taking off and turning away from the airport
it's always making left turns. The problem with_.is, and HWA has a right
hand pattern, on runway 26, being the approach from the East over NC 86.
HWA has adopted a right hand pattern for runway 26; a left hand pattern
would have aircraft flying down here which of course is a very heavily
developed residential apartment area. So HWA has a right pattern so that
when aircraft are operating back to the West they will make right turns
landing and right turns taking off. This is one of the things we do for
noise abatement. We would possibly raise the traffic pattern altitude;
we might have preferential runways; you might decide, for example, that
there are areas around the airport that are noise sensitive that should
not have traffic over them either at any time or during specific times
during the day in which case we might say between the hours of 8 P.M. and
7 A.M. land and take off only on a certain runway.
There are several different things we could do to alter that traffic
pattern if necessary.
Ms. Crawford: Asked if there was any reason Mr. Matthews was aware of
that would preclude its /Midway's% using a left hand pattern.
Mr. Matthews: Responded that he didn't know of any now. But that was an
option that was completely up to the owner of the airport to choose to "imple-
ment a right handed pattern or a higher or lower altitude" under FAA standards.
Mr. Irvin: - Referred to the public hearing of duly 8 (on this same request)
and said that some people had said noise was not a problem around airports. He
continued saying that now Mr. Matthews was indicating that it was a problem, citing
"shifting air approach patterns" and acoustical standards for buildings near
C airport zones.
Mr. Matthews: Agreed that noise was a factor for "some operations" and some
airports. He,added that noise, he thought, would have been more of a consideration
0 in the Midway initial proposal because it would have had "virtually unrestricted.
operations of jet aircraft." Now that won't be a problem, Mr. Matthews, said,
because the owner indicated he would not allow regular operations of jet aircraft
30C
at Midway. He said propeller aircraft were considerably less noisy. He
said while he had not seen the final "noise exposure calculations" for
Midway he doesn't think there will be a problem. unless a house is very nearby.
Ms. Crawford: "How do you define 'problem'?"
Mr. Matthews: Said that it was a problem if the individual was uncom-
fortable enough to go to a lawyer to do something about it.
Commissioner Willhoit: Asked haw many decibels that would be.
Mr. Matthews: Replied that he didn't know.
Mr. Kizer: "How about the NEF rating?"
Mr. Matthews: "A very clear-cut NEF rating is a 40 NEF; the borderline
is between the 30 and the 40." He said that the airport should control all
"property inside the 40 NEF contours." He added that "there should be some
type of zoning ordinance for properties between the 30 and the 40 NEF to restrict
noise in compatible development." He said that a case by case study should be
made between the 20 and 30 NEF but there shouldn't be a noise problem within those
contours.
Mr. Kizer: Said that he understood that Mr. Matthews would not recommend
agricultural zoning under an airport so would he recommend ind.:strial or what.
Mr. Matthews: "Agricultural use is a compatible use." He said the Raleigh
Durham Airport District grew out of some conferences held with the FAA in the
60's and it looks like a football oval that extends about three miles off the
end of each runway. He said it conforms almost perfectly to the later developed
30 NEF contours. He added that the District says there should not be "noise
sensitive development" or places of "public assembly;" this excludes residences.
With regard to general aviation airports, according to the "book we're not
supposed to have a problem."
Mr. Kizer: Asked if in Mr. Matthews' opinion, airports stimulated commer-
cial development.
Mr. Matthews: Replied that some do and some don't. He feels that an air-
port is a "prerequisite for economic growth" but that several factors enter into
an industry's decision to locate a plant in a particular area. He continued,
responding to Ms. Crawford, that jet traffic was not necessarily allowed at those
airports which stimulated growth. He said that with the increased cost of jet
fuel and increased efficiency of propeller planes that the latter planes were
becoming more competitive, particularly over the shorter trips (300-400 miles).
301
He said there was no requirement that the runway be 5000' long and cited
t an airport in the Chicago area where the runway was 4000' long and had 650
F
:T
based aircraft and some were jets.
Commissioner Marshall : Asked if Mr. Matthews knew of any case in which
r
r
an airport located in an agricultural/residential district .had begun a rash
of rezoning requests "for industrial purposes" in the neighborhood.
Mr. Matthews: Said that he didn't know of any such airports in the general
aviation range although that had been the case at Raleigh/Durham because the
owners saw the.land as more valuable in the Airport District.
C
Commissioner Marshall: Noted that the comprehensive Land Use Plan for the
County did not see such development in that area as desirable; she had wondered
if the pressure for development would be so strong as to force the Commi.ss" ,:::i
to "let it happen."
Mr. Matthews: Said he didn't really foresee that occuring with regard to
Midway Airport; that there were so many different factors involved in an industry
deciding to locate near an airport. There may, he continued, be an individual
who decides that it would be a good idea since he was already located near the
airport who .might want rezoning for a special purpose, but it would be a real
special purpose. He noted that the same thing would occur in northern Orange if
I-40 were built.
In closing Mr. Matthews said his department saw the airport as a "much ne ,j,d
facility" in Orange County and would much prefer that that County build the air-
port but perceiving no interest on the part of the County to do that and with
the developer willing to do it, they wanted to see it built. He offered any
additional information the Board might need.
Mr. John Northen an attorney, approached the lecturn, and told Chairman
Whitted, that his firm had arrange for Thomas Heffn @r, a real estate appraiser,
to give testimony at this public hearing regarding the previous testimony given
at the July 8 hearing about the property values if the airport is located and
developed as proposed. He said that while Mr. Heffner was unable to attend the
previous meeting, and he, Mr. Northen ; .understood that the public hearing was
coo,,^ hued to allow Mr. Matthews' testimony, he, Mr. Northen, now had a letter
froo,Mr. Heffner stating his opinion on property values near HWA, and two other
airports;_ he requested permiss=ion to introduce it into the record of this hearing.
302
J v V
Chairman Whitted: "As I told you, Mr. Northen; the public hearing was
r
continued to receive evidence from Mr. Matthews. That was the specific pur-
pose of continuing the public hearing to this time. Others have asked if their
E
evidence could be submitted tonight and they'.have been told there was a specific
purpose for this continuation so I think it would be unfair to have the record
open to receive that information."
C
There was some discussion among the Board of Commissioners members present
F, regarding the advisability of continuing the public hearing to receive additional
significant information.
Mr. Kizer: Said, in response to that possibility, that the public hearing
had been duly announced held and adjourned and he questioned the legality of
continuing the public hearing to receive more information from individuals who
had not been at the earlier public hearing.
Mr. Mehler: (The architect for the developer of Midway) Said that in the
interest of time, he would be willing to "forego" the additional information
which might be .received. He additionally asked to clarify one point on earlier
evidence offered on the proposal.
Mr. Geoffrey Gledhill: When asked for an opinion from the Board Chair, re-
plied that he did not know what Mr. Mehler was going to say therefore he couldn't
give an opinion. He suggested the Board decide if the information clarified
earlier testimony, if it is the case, he, Mr. Gledhill, does "not see any pro-
blem."
Mr. Mehler: Said he would clarify the question of the number of aircraft
to be "housed" at the airport "and what is housed?" The proposal said the
276 aircraft maximum to be hangared did not include tied down aircraft, and,
was, Mr. Mehler said, "an incorrect statement." He said they, the developers,
have said the number of aircraft housed will be 276, this includes hangared
and tied down aircraft but does not include transient aircraft.
Mr. Kizer: Referred to Appendix A of the presentation for the Midway Airport
and said "hangared planes: phase 1--87 units; hangared planes: phase 2--total
183; hangared planes: phase 3-276 units." And asked Mr. Mehler if he was saying
there would be 276 planes hangared plus tie downs?
Mr. Mehler: "No." He said that he had picked "out of the air" at the in-
sistence of the.Planning Department for a number and would be "limited to that
number of planes based at this airport."
.. S
Commissioner Willhoit moved to adjourn this public hearing on the
Special Use Permit request by the Buck Mountain Development Corporation to
August 23, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. to receive the recommendation of the Orange
County Planning Board on this request; Commissioner Marshall seconded the
t' motion. Vote: Ayes, 3; noes, 0.
' With no further business to come before the Board, the members adjourned
P_
by consensus.
r
�p
€ Richard C. Whitted, Chair
Paulette Pridgen-Pond, Clerk
It