Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 03-08-1982
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING 7: 30 P.M. , Monday, March 8, 1982 SUPERIOR COURTROOM, ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 1. Rezoning request from Cleora Sterling Corporation from Residential-1 to Light Industrial . 2 . Proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan for the area around Murphy School. 3. Rezoning requests from Residential-1 to Community Commercial- 3 from: a. Dean' s Truck and Coach b. G & M Electric c. Phillips General Repair d. Bass Welding Shop e. Auto Catering Service 4. Proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan for Buck Mountain Development. 5. Request from Buck Mountain Development for a Class A Special Use Permit and rezoning for a planned Development Office Institutional. 6. Request from Buck Mountain Development for a Class A Special Use Permit for a general aviation airport. ateA6 4,22% CHARD E. Wr TT Di 100603 MINUTES March 8, 1982 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in special joint session • with the Orange County Planning Board on Monday, March 8, 1982, at 7:30 P.M., in the Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. The purpose of the meeting was a public hearing on rezoning, Land Use Plan amendment and Class A Special Use Permit requests. Corrmissioners present: Chairman Richare E. Whitted and Camuissioners Norm Gustaveson, Shirley E. Marshall, Norman Walker and Don Willhoit. Planning Board members present: Chairwoman Pat Crawford, and Members Tom Bacon, Sally Beoricke, Alice Gordon, Claudine Harris, Logan Irvin, Hazel Lansford (who arrived late) , Steve Kizer, Nancy Lazslo, David Shanklin, and John Wilson. Planning Board members absent: None (one position is unfilled) , Chairman Whitted said tonight's public hearing would be in two parts: rezonihg-and Land Use Plan amendments which he would chair. Chairwoman Crawford said the first request was a rezoning from the Cleora Sterling Corporation from Residential-1 to Light Industrial . Mr. FriaiP Kirk of the Planning Staff made the presentation. Mr. Kirk said the request was to rezone .,74 acres which was the rear portion of two lots which fiuut on Highway 54 west. He said the fronts of the lots are in Carrboro's zoning jurisdiction and are zoned M-1. The Planning Staff recommends approval because 1)the watershed would not be affected; 2) most of it is already zoned m-1 by Carrboro; and 3) Cleora Sterling is a pre-existing use. There was no one who wished to speak either in favor or opposed to the rezoning. Commissioner Willhoit asked which fire district the property was in, Commissioner Willhoit questioned whether it was in South Orange Fire District. He said this question should be cleared up before it was zoned Light Industrial. Commissioner Willhoit also asked about chemicals and their disposal. Mr. Sam Maffei, representing the Corporation, said there was no chemical waste because no chemicals are used; the company does not do refinishing in its cabinetry work. _ . _ 00QQ4 1 Planning Board member Kizer asked if the Corporation would hook up to the planned Rangewxid Subdivision sewer line when it was installed; Mr Maffei said he hadn't thought about it but probably would hook up to the line. Planning Board member Irvin asked about the disposal of sawdust; Mr. Maffei said a local farmer collected it from the central vacuum system and he didn't know what the farmer did with it. Chairwoman Crawford said the Land Use Plan amendment and rezoning requests for the Murphy School are would be considered jointly. All Planning Staff recommendations are attached to these minutes. . Mr. Jim Polatty, Planning Director, made the presentation to the Boards. He said the request was for a change in the Land Use Plan for this area from Rural Residential to TWenty7year Transition; Commrcial Transition Activity node which, with the requested rezoning, would make all, existing Commercial uses conforming. Mr. Polatty said the requested change is not appLepriate for the neighborhood; that the existing commercial uses could have been covered in a request for a Rural Neighborhood node. Planning Staff recommends denial of the amendments to the Land Use Plan because the intensity of development that -would be allowed with the requested designation and application criteria set forth for Community Carmercial Transition are inappropriate for the area. Mr. Polatty listed alternatives: 1) designation of a Rural Neighborhood node; or, 2) change the application criteria of Existing Commercial-5 zoning district to allow it to be used in previously zoned townships. The Planning Staff also recommends denial of the rezoning requests because the "scale and intensity of development allowed by the request would be inapPro priate for this location. There are no urban services available to this area, and the existing commercial uses do not serve a large portion of County residents." Planning suggested alternatives for the rezoning request: 1) create a Rural Neighborhood node; "amend the Permitted Use Table to allow motor vehicle repair and maintenance in the Neighborhood Canmercial-2 zoning district;" and, 2) "Change the application criteria of the Existing Commercial-5 district, from application in -wizened townships to all townships, and rezone the properties to the EC-5 district." Chairwoman Crawford asked that those in favor of the requests speak first. Mr. Arthur Vann, an attorney who represented those applying for the Land Use Plan amendment and the rezoning, spoke first. He said these were people who 6.1E0305 had lived in the area all their lives and these were family businesses. Mr. Vann said the property involved represented about 60 acres and a little more than $500,000 tax value. He said 99% of those in the area had signed a petition to change the zoning. Mr. Gene May, owner of the G & M Electric said he had operated the company for ten years. Mr. Norman Turner, operator of Phillips Repair Service said he'd been . . running it since 1960 and would like to continue working. Mr. Hugh Bass, lives on Dove Creek Road and owns Bass Welding, said he'd like to continue working and do it within the legal guidelines of the County. Mr. Mike Riddle, of Auto Catering Service, said he'd always run a small shop and would like to continue. Mr. Gary W. Dean, of Dove Creek Road and owner of Dean's Truck and Coach, said the business had been there for twenty years and he'd like to continue his business within the laws of Orange County. Mr. Waldrop showed slides of the businesses to the Boards. -Th Mr. Vann said the character fo.the neighborhood had changed over a period of time and that the businesses didn't make a lot of noise, there were no offensive odors, and the owners listed their taxes. He added that Mr. Dean had gone to cons' able trouble to screen his business. Mr. Don Wells, principal of Carolina Friends School, read a letter to the Boards. (That letter is on page of these minutes.) Mr. Vann asked that those in favor of the rezoning requests stand; about thirty persons did stand to demonstrate their support for the requests. Mt. Vann said Mr. Dean was a diesel expert and he read a list of customers of Mr. Dean. There were no others in favor of the requests who wished to speak. Those who were opposed to the requests addressed the Boards. Mt_ Doris Paschall Petty, a Hilisborough native, asked how many of the present businesses were operating illegally; Mr. Polatty replied two. She said the Paschall heirs owned about sixty acres of adjoining land and the heirs are opposed to the rezoning; that it would be detrimental to the land use. It's not a good Prospect for metropolitan development. Such rezoning is requested to benefit only a small number of land owners in the area. Mnda Miller, said she and her husband had signed a petition against • 00606 1 the rezoning but she wished to introduce a letter fiom her brother, Mr. Douglas Pasdhall, who was out of the State. Mr. Pascall's letter said he was opposed to the rezoning requests; he said there was a high crime rate in the area already. The letter continued that Mr. Dean had built an illegal building and had made a "mockery of the Orange County Planning Department and insulted his neighbors...." Mr. John Lazslo, said he had lived there twenty years and was opposed to the rezoning, feeling that this was a "heavy-handed" response to the problem. He said the whole neighborhood shouldn't be rezoned. He said it was not proper to assume the Land Use Plan could be changed at any tine. He fears encroaching commercial development if the Land Use Plan is changed and the area is rezoned. He said there was no objection to those businesses operating legally but if rezoning was granted bars could be placed in the neighborhood. Mr. Bill Erwin, a resident and landowner, said that Mr. Bass and Mr. Dean were good men and successful and good neighbors. He said the worse thing would he to be a residence next to a commercial area. He is opposed to any increase in commercial businesses. However, he doesn't want any of the persons involved out • of business either. Mr. Vann asked Mr. Erwin if he objected to the alternatives listed by the Planning Department. Mr. Erwin said he was opposed to a change in the Land Use Plan. There-were- no others who wished to speak. Chairwoman Crawford turned the meeting over to Chairman Whit-Led. Chairman Whitted said since the next three items on the agenda had been announced for discussion at 9:00 P.M. he would therefore, recess the meeting until that tine. Chairman Whitted called the meeting to order at 9:00 P.M. with all members of the Board of Commissioners and Planning Board present as indicated at the beginning of these Minutes. Chairman Whitted stated the order of the requests from Buck Mountain Develop,- ment Company; in order to expedite the hearing, Chairman Whitted said all present- ations would be made first, then those who wished to address the Boards with evidence would be heard. All persons who either addressed the Boards or offered other evidence, i.e. letters, were sworn or affirmed by Chairman Mated. The requests from Buck Mountain Development are: Amendment to the Land Use Plan; Rezoning for a Planned Development Office Institutional and Class A Special Use Permit for a Planned Development Office Institutional; and Class A Special • • Use Permit for a general aviation airport. All Planning Staff findings, recommendations, and conditions are attached to these minutes,/ Ms. Susan Smith, Planning Staff, made the presentation on the Amendment to the Land Use Plan requested by Buck Mountain. Me. Smith said the location of the Midway Airpark is nine miles west of Carrboro on Highway 54 and the land is presently designated agricultural residential and is partly located in a neighborhood activity node. This rural neighborhood activity node l'was not intended to allow development of the size and scope of Midway Airpark." She said for the change in designation from rural neighborhood to transition activity node which would be required for the Airpark, certain criteria have to be met: 1) located in an area in transition fLoA rural to urban; 2) efficiently served ! by public utilities; 3) within five to ten minutes commuting time of urban areas. Ms. Smith said the Midway Airpark does not meet these criteria therefore the Planning Staff recommends the Land Use Plan not be amended for the following reasons: 1) it is at odds with the major concepts of the Land Use Plan which includes the promotion of residential development and commercial endeavors near urban areas; 2) an aim is to preserve the rural farm areas; 3) non-agree- ment of the request with the in-fill policy; 4) the proposed node is a consider- able distance from cities; 5) it is not served by public water and sewer; 6) it is separated from the cities by the University Lake Watershed; 7) the scale of development is ianappropriate for this area; 8) a concern exists about the possibility for spinoff development. Mr. Rick Cannity of the Planning Staff Made the presentation on the requests for Rezoning for the Midway Airpark to Planned Development Office Institutional and as Class A Special Use Permit for a Planned Development Office Institutional. Mr. Cannity told the Boards that a letter from Mr. Bruce Matthews of the 5 Department of Transportation had been inadvertently omitted from the agenda package and that the correct Resolution fiym the Town of Chapel Hill had not been inserted into the agenda; Mr. Cannity passed these documents out to the Boards (those documents are found on pages of this book). Mr. Cannity then proceeded to the findings of fact for this request (please see pages of this book for those findings of fact) . Mr. Cannity then presented the Specific Standards which are to be addressed by the Applicants (see pages of this book for those Standards and findings). Mr. Cannity said the Planning • 00608 79 ti Staff recommended denial of the request for Rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit for the following reasons: 1. The type of development and intensity of development are inappropriate in this location. 2. Access to the site is designed to pass acLoss the end of the proposed runway. The site has only one access point proposed for the whole development. 3. There is no buffer from the intense development proposed for this site and adjacent agricultural residential land. 4. A development of this size if approved will encourage other 'spinoff development requests. The intensity proposed is of an urban character but urban services are not availablb. Mr. Cannity said, in the opinion of the Planning Staff, there is not a "preponderance of evidence to indicate substantial compliance with the Specific Standards and General Rules governing the request by Buck Mountain Development Corporation for a Class A Special Use Permit." Mr. Fred Luce of the Planning Staff made the presentation on the request aunt Buck Mountain Corporation for a Class A Special Use Permit for a general aviation airport. Mr. Luce said airports are an allowed use in areas zoned A-R if a Special Use Permit is granted. Mt. Luce reviewed the findings of fact (see pages of this book) and introduced the January 26, 1982, -letter form. Mr. Bruce Matthews of the North Carolina Department of Transpor- tation, Aviation Section (see page of this book) and said Mr. Harold Robinson, Federal Aviation Authority, Department of Transportation Chief, North Carolina Section in his letter dated Mardi 5, 1982, agrees with Mr. Matthews and in addition !says the fuel storage tanks should be located away from the runways to increase safety and access to the airport be changed. Mr. Luce introduced Mt. Robinson's letter as evidence (that letter is on page of this book). Mr. Luce said the Planning Staff reaanTended the airport be built according fo FAA standards and submitted Advisory Circulars 150-5300-4E and 150-5070-6 dated June 24, 1975, and February 1971, respectively, and pub- lished by the bpeartment of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration as evidence. (Those documents are filed in the office of the Clerk to the Board.) Mt. Luce said the Noise Exposure Forecase (NEF) System would be used to measure noise impact at the site and Staff recommended the owner have noise easements over the land; he cited and introduced two sources for the "reason- ableness" of this condition, Noise Control Plan Development Seminar Notes prepared for the FAA and Planning for Airport Noise Impacts (see pages of this book for a list of Circulars & Studies) by the Arizona Department of 006.09 1 TransFortation. Mr. Luce said that in the opinion of the Planning Staff the applicant established substantial compliance with the Standards as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and the Planning Staff recommended approval of the reql. st for the Class A Special Use Permit for the construction of the Midway Airport by Buck Mountain Development Corporation with the con- ditions imposed as listed on pages of this book. Mr. Lee Mehler, of Peloquin Associates, represented Buck Mountain Development Corporation and made that firm's presentation to the Boards. , _ _ Mr. Mehler referred to the proposal for Midway Aripark and Airport dated November 30, 1981; that document formed the basis of Mr. Mebler's presen- tation and is included in these Minutes on pages of this book. Mr. Mehler said the general aviation airport alone would not support itself; that the airpark/office development was conceived to make both viable. Be said the two developments (the airFart and airport) would increase the tax base in Orange County and provide a much needed service. Mr. Mehler said no jet service was planned for Midway Airport. Mr. Mehler said Mr. Matthews bad redone his noise impact chart of the comparison of Midway with the FAA Stand- _ ards based on new assumptions and that Buck Mountain was accepting those assumptions; he added that under these assumptions, the airport would be within the NSF 30 range and that NSF 30 was a very low level of noise. Mr. Mehler said that Midway was designed as an alternative to Horace Williams Airport in Chapel Hill and as a general aviation airport. He thinks the 5000' iunway will make it the safest airport in North Carolina. Mr. Mehler said he would not address the Land Use Plan recommendation by the Planning Staff because he felt it was addressed in the requests for the air-park and airport; he acknowledged that the Airpark did not conform to the Land Use Plan and added that Land Use Plans and Zoning Ordinances were made to be changed if evidence or public opinion showed it should be changed. Conse- _ . quently, he addressed the Airpark Rezoning and Airport Special Use Permit applications. Mr. Mehler said there were some differences between the developer and the Planning Staff and he enumerated those differences. He said he had been told . that showing elevation of structures on the plans would not be required for the project. He differed with 8.8.8.1 saying the Planning Department had asked for five miles surrounding for aerial photos rather than three miles total as he V U 610 7-!-3 had understood. With regard to 8.8.1.b he thought that with Mr. Matthews' new set of assumptions, there would be no noise problems. For 8.8.1.f there would be no problem for the developer to adapt the design with regard to public utility in case the County ever wanted to take over the airport; public money is not needed, nor sought. For the entrance road question, Mr. Mehler said Department of Transportation had told them to put the road there, the developer is willing to change to whatever is agreeable to Department of Transportation. With regLd to runway width, the developer is willing to alter it; however, the runway centerline to the building restriction line is "sufficient" Mr. Mehler says. For the distance between the runway centerline and the aircraft parking area, the developer is willing to alter. The devel- oper, however, feels that the distance between the taxiway and aircraft parking area is "sufficient". For 8.-8.8.1.e the architects were told not to indicate screening, according to Mr. Mehler. In reference to 8.8.8.1.f, Mr. Mehler said he did get a verbal assent from EMS although no letter accompanied that response. Mr.. Mehler's response to the recommended special conditions ( as listed in this book) follows: #1—Acceptable #2—He questions the se>arity required for same improvements, that is, other than roads and sewer; ZOr. Cannity said it was his intention when he wrote this to secure only improvements consid- ered public improvements; conditions 2 and 3 are taken to- gether.! Acceptable. #4-5-6—Acceptable. #7—Acceptable. #8-9-10--Okay (#10 the Fire (ompany's reservations about its fire fighting capabilities are restricted to the airpark) . #11-12-13-14--Okay. #15—Mr. Mehler said the 100foot setback requirements had not been been required before, this was not part of the Zoning Ordinance and he didn't know the definition of "heavily landscaped" but a compromise might be worked out. 416-17—Acceptable. #18—Mr. Mehler said there may be some problem with the financing due to the high interests rates. #19—Mr Mehler said the airport is FAA approved. #20—Mr. Mehler said the 5,000 foot'runway is safer; he is not willing to change #21—Okay. #22—Mr. Mehler said this is impossible. #23-24—Acceptable. Mr. Mehler next enumerated his differences for the airpark with regard to the findings of fact on pages of this beak. For Article 8.2.1 he disagrees that the material submitted is not competent or the evidence is insufficient to support the developer's requests. He added that Land Use Plans are meant to be changed with sufficient reason and he felt his reasons were sufficient. In reference to Article 6.2.2.a, Mr. Mehler said they don't believe urban services will develop beyond this site, nor does he believe that additional development will be encouraged. He feels that conmuters from this area, Hillsborough, Chapel Hill will use the services. He feels that other develop- ment will be discouraged because of watershed problems, and water and sewer problems, which they've solved. He feels that precedent was set when Adam & Eve opened upt this did not encourage additional development. Fbr Article- - 8.2.4, solid waste disposal will be cared for by the owners. For the 'tire Department conditions, all were accepted. The developer is willing to change the road access to whatever DCT wants. With regard to the designation and request for a Planned Development--Cffice Institutional, Mr. Mehler said he had shown this because the Planning Department had told him to use that desig- natinn after changing its mind several tines. Mr. Mehler said he did not understand why under Artile 7.16.2 a motel/ restuarant is not/are not permitted uses; he said this is a support service. For Artilce 7.16.3, he said it was a semantic question; for Article 7.16.5 Mr. Mehler said this was the first time he had seen this particular. require- rent for setbacks and he felt it should be discussed. For Article 7.16.6, Mr. Mehler said they will conform; for the screening which wasn't shown, he said the site plan shown was "conceptvP1 in hature" and he didn't know how you could determine what was enough screening. He said individual site plans for each bnilding would be subnatted at the time it was planned to be built and that site plan would indicate screening. He added that under (b) walkways would be shown on large site plans. In regard.to 7.16.4, he feels that Planning Staff had made an inappropriate response. Mr. Mehler then responded to Planning Staff's reasons for recorrnending denial of the request for the Class A Special Use Permit for the Airpark: l--Mr, Mehler said the developer was asking for an exception to the Land Use Plan. 2--No response. #3--It will not encourage developnent, due to watershed, lack of watf.r/ sewer in the surrounding areas, and due to the expense involved. Plus the Adam & Eve development experience did not encourage development; he believes the development level encompassed by the Midway Airpark and Airport is so high that no one else could afford to do it. #4—This is in response tothe 0-I designation which Mr. Mehler feels he has already covered; this is a PD not an 0-I. 800 #5--/ Clerk's note: There is no number 5./ #6—He said that with regard to urban serTaces, i.e. fire, water, police protection, they are willing to do whatever needs to be done; he feels they should not be grouped in with any future development. Mr. Mehler then addressed the conditions which Planning recommended Should the Boards find the development acceptable: #1-2-3-4-5-6—Acceptable. #7-50,000 gallon tank with gravity flow system is the ultimate goal With stand by pump as recommended by the Fire Department. #8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15—Acceptable. #16—Will do whatever DOT wants. #17—The setbacks are excessive. #18--The developer and Mr. Mohler disagree. #19--Mr. Mehler asserts that he doeSn't know why the Planning Department wants this submitted as a Planned Development Office-IndustriP1. They do not want industrial development nor do they plan it. #20-21-22—Acceptable. Mr. Mehler concluded his presentation and response to Staff recommendations by saying this was a thoroughly planned project, carefully thought out. They feel this location is the best one available for this use and hope the case will be decided on its merits. Planning Board Member Irvin had several questions of Staff and the develop- er's representative. Mr. Irvin: Are there other sites available for a general aviation airport in Orange County? Mr. Luce: Yes, we initially surveyed sixty-nine sites. Nt. Irvin: Are scne- as satisfactory or more so than Midway? Mr. Luce: Yes. Mr. Irvin: Are other sites in the Land Use Plan suitable to industrial development, for example, along I-85? Mr. Luce: Yes, several. Mr. Irvin: Are some of those sites closer than the Triangle J Survey's choices; are some closer to Durham and to.Hillsborough? Mr. Luce: Yes. Mr. Irvin: Asked that Mr. Luce read "for the record" comments on the "Runway Approach Surfaces" from Mr. Matthews' letter. Mr. Luce: reading from Mr. Matthews' letter: 1. For Utility Airports, approach surface begins 200' beyond end of runway and slopes upward from runway elevation at a 20 to 1 ratio (1 foot vertically for 20 feet horizontally) . For runways without instrument approaches, surface is 250' at run- way end, 1,000' long, and 450' wide at outer end. For those with instrument approaches, surface is 500' by 1,000 by 800'. (TO 6:1.3 2. For Basic Transport, without instrument approach requires 20 to 1 slope with surface is 500' wide near runway end, 1,000' long, 700' wide at outer end. For instrument runways, the surface has a 34 to 1 slope, 500' by 1700' by 1010'. 3. No approach surfaces are shown for proposed Midway Airport. However, the road on the south end and into the office complex violates these standards. It is likely that the approach areas on each end of the runway have trees or power lines that also are not in compliance. The airport owner should control these areas to prevent obstructions which might be flight safety hazards. Mr. Irvin: Do you know if the owner controls that distance of approach? Mr. Luce: No, I don't know. - Mr. Irvin: Don't the owner's plans show the boundary lines at 250' - beyond the runway? Does he control the other 750'? Mr. Luce: No. Mr. Irvin: How many motor vehicle trips will be generated by this project? Mr. Cannity: The latest information is from DOT in 1981 for that section of Highway 54, it's 4600 trips; by going to acceptable standards, I estimate 378 trips per day for the airpark/Warehouse and for the airport, based on the per acre number, about 450 trips, and based on aircraft about 780. Mr. Irvin: That's about 14,000-15,000 trips total per day. Mt. Cannity: These figures are generally based on more urban areas than where this project is located. Mr. Irvin: Based on. the calculAtions for the amount of water and the number of trips, would you say this corresponds to a "fairly sizeable town?" Mr. Cannity: For the number of trips; I think in Orange County, only maybe 1-85 or 15-501 in Chapel Hill would come close to that level of use. For the Volume of water, the amount estimated, 130,000 is a reasonably small amount. Mr. Irvin: So, souebody, maybe the County, may have to someday provide increased services? Mr. Cannity: Someday, that's possible. I don't know if the County is ready to do that new, Mr. Irvin: I have some questions of Mr. Mehler. Mr. Mehler: May I respond to those questions you asked the staff? Chairman Whiffed: We need to expedite this; you will have an opportunity at the end of the meeting to respond. Mr. Irvin: Does the Buck Mountain Campany have the approach easements 0061..4 8LI) of 1,000' beyond the runways? Mr. Mehler: FAA and DOT have accepted our plans; approach surfaces are either in land "that is owned or under option as far as I know." FAA did not bring up the question of land ownership in the south so I don't know. You'll have to ask Mr. Hazard. Mr. Irvin: So you do have easements which will permit you to control the growth of trees and construction of buildings? Mt. Mehler: I suppose so; Mr. Hazard would know. Mt. Fred Hazard of the Buck Mountain Development Company was sworn by Chairman Whitted: On the south we do have the easement; on the north we have 200'. The 1,000 isn't a requirement, I think; I don't know, Dr. Irvin, if your figure of a 1,000' easement is correct. Mr. Willer: "As far as I know, we are in compliance with DOT stand- ards and FAA standards as well." Mr. Irvin: Are you planning to empty the approximately 130,000 gallons of sewage effluent into Collins Creek? Mr. Mehler: That would be an absolute maximum. We based figures on , . the maximum capacity of the development. The treatment we propose is a tertiary one controlled under the most rigid standards of the State. The effluent will be clean. According to our engineers, this amount of effluent is less than would be expected from a subdivision of comparable size. Mr. Irvin: How do you plan to get the necessary water pressure for the fire hydrants? Mr. Mehler: A tower is proposed in order to maintain a constant pres- sure. Mr. Irvin: Waht is the height of your water tower? Mr. Mehler: We don't know yet; the size planned, 50,000 gallons is small, but normal for auxiliary services. Mr. Irvin: Don't you need to know the height because of approaches? Mr. Mellen Yes, but not now, at this stage. Mr. Irvin: How many training flights are expected? Mr. Hazard: We don't know. Mr. Mehier: We are assuming 300 flights per month for about two years and then about 1,000 flights per month; most of those are transient flights. 066•15 393 - Mr. Irvin: How many repetitive runs are involved in a training flight? There's not just one take-off and landing. Mr. Mehler: Perhaps not; no one knows. Planning Board /venter Alice Gordon.: We on the Planning Board recently endorse the NEF 25 contour; could you address that? Mr. Mehler: I would like to take Mr. Matthews': assumptions as the basis for a response. He assumed 50 flights per day; we anticipate 30-35 initially. He assumed a 50% useage in each direction. With those assumptions plus that of - - - only the small planes landing there, the expected NEF contours are entirely within our boundaries; there is no need to amend the Zoning Ordinance. The NEF 25 contours are entirely within our boundaries. Planning Board Member Steve Kizer: What is the maximum height of the structures allowed near the airport? Mr. Mehler: Two stories. Mr. Kizer: Based on some quick calculations, your water tower will be about 85-90 meters, or about 250'. It will be too high. Mr. Mehler: I don't have a response; we have done no engineering on it. Chairman Whitted: You mention the symbiotic relationship of the airport and airpark. How much of the airpark will have to be developed to make this a viable concern? Mr. Mehler: The main point is maintenance. Borderline development is not done very often. The airpark is for the maintenance of the airport. Commissioner Gustaveson: The point is how much of this park will have to be developed according to your ten year financing plan in order to break even? Mr. Mehler: I'll have to ask the developer. Mr. Hazard: We feel 50% of the airpark completed Within 36-48 months will enable us to make money. 4 There were no further questions from the Boards; Chairman Whitted opened the floor for public comment. All persons were sworn by Chairman Whitted at the beginning of this session. Mr. Edward Johnson: Appeared as both the President of the Orange Rural Volunteer Fire Department and as a citizen of the Bingham TOwnship. Mr. Johnson reiterated the concerns of the Fire Department as outlined in his letter (attaCh- ed to these Minutes on pages of this book) . 00Bib As a member of the Bingham Township Advisory Council, Mr. Johnson said there were those from Chapel Hill who want Horace Williams Airport shut down and viewed this airport as a way to get that accomplished. He said it probably wasn't useful to note that the development .:occurred around the airport which was there first. He questioned whether the location of the alternative should be in Bingham Township. Mr, Johnson cited the Minutes of the Bingham Township Advisory Council from January 1979 and February 1979 which state that agriculture is the main industry in the Township, other industry is discouraged in Bingham and it is encouraged to locate in townships where they want it. Mr. Johnson asked those who opposed the airport to stand; approximately four-fifths of the courtroom audience stood. Mr. Johnson outlined the objections from the stand- point of the Advisory Council: 1) in conflict with the goals of the Township; 2) a precedent will be established if the permits are granted; 3) the development of Midway will cause problem in the watershed; 4) the residents are concerned over the length of the runway;5) the residents fear that jets will be permitted to land there, light ones are being developed now which could land there; 6) concern exists that Mitchell Mountain may not be permitted under FAA standards. Mr. Johnson said the air traffic at Horace Williams /-Clerk's Note: Here- after abbreviated HWA2 could be restricted to UNC traffic only That would eliminate about 80-90% of the air traffic. He questioned the 130,000 gallons of water and asked where it would came from and questioned that the developers did not anticipate air transport, saying it was very common now and would be a temptation. Mr. Johnson asked the Board to 1) refuse all permits; 2) refuse the office park permit, that was perceived as more of a threat to Bingham Township; or, 3) if the permits were granted, he asked the Board to remember Mr. Mehler's "glowing descriptions" of the buildings and asked the Board to make those promises part of the permit requirements. Or17 Ms. Verla Insko: Representing the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education. Ms. Insko said the Board of Education took no position on Midway Airport, however, concerns about Horace Williams Airport and the question of safety for students and staff dated back to 1963 or late '50s. Ms. Insko read a resolution which the Board of Education passed and sent to the Chapel Hill Town Council on September 22, 1980, regarding Horace Williams Airport. (A copy of that resolution is on page _ of this book) . Ms. Insko said this - - documented the concerns about the airport and she asked the Boards to consider those concerns. Mr. H. Stanley Bennett: a resident of Chapel Hill Township, Mr. Bennett said he did not stand when Mr. Johnson asked those opposed to Midway to stand because he assumed that applied only to Bingham Township residents; however, he is opposed to the air- port in Bingham Township too. He said this airport is a threat to the value of our property and to the County. He suggested the Boards examine the Airport Study done by the Planning Staff for alternative to this location. He suggested sites along I-85 closer to Durham. He said that he was unconvinced by Mr. Mahler's assurances and he didn't know the Buck Mountain Development company and anything of its ability to deliver what it promised. He did say that wi,z: the questions of safety, approaches and fire protection for the development that this is a "hazardous proposal." Mr. Gordon Rutherford: Representing UNC, said UNC planned to phase out Horace Williams by 1989 if an acceptable alternative is provided . Mr. Rutherford enumerated several items which UNC considered essential for an alternative tck Horace Williams: 1)ade- quate facilities, including maintenance, service, runway of same length; 2) adequate safety, runway lights; 3) proximity to UNC; 4) assure' t of continued operation and financial stability. Mr. Rutherford said UNC asks that the Boards give careful consideration to the pro- posal. He added that the University had no interest in the proposed adjacent airpark and that the alternative airport must have instrument approach caphbility. (see page for this letter) 006-18 -- 80t; Mr. Kizer: Asked Mr. Rutherford how many universities have an airport within six miles of the university. Mr. Rutherford: Replied he did not know. Ms. Gordon: Asked what the University considered proximity to it? Mr. Rutherford: Answered within minutes probablT. Ms. Gordon: Asked Mr. Rutherford if it was feasible for UNC to limit air traffic at Horace Williams to only UNC planes? Mr. Rutherford: It wouldn't be economically feasible based on the operation of Horace Williams as it is now, "it would force us to change a number of things. . .it would be something we'd have to analyze. " Mr. Rutherford said a lot of the air traffic at HWA is transient. Commissioner Gustaveson: What is the essential need of UNC? Mr. Rutherford: Five airplanes. Commissioner Gustaveson: Asked Mr. Rutherford if he would elaborate on the criteria UNC would use to determine the financial soundness of the alternative airport to Horace Williams. Mr. Rutherford: Said he did not really know but that since the runway lights would not be in for three years at Midway, the University would have ample time to study it. Commissioner Gustaveson: Said "After three years Horace Williams may still be open?" Mr. Rutherford: "Yes. " Mr. Eric Schopler: A member of the medical faculty at UNC and resident of Bingham Township, said this proposal was against the best interests of both Bingham Township and Chapel Hill. He said this would alter the agricultural residential aspect of the Township and stimulate further development. It would mean an increased cost for the construction of a thoroughfare, since it isn't located on such a highway. He expressed concerns about the safety aspect of the airport/airpark and the impact of such development on the Cane Creek watershed. He said it was obvious that Chapel Hill and Orange 1 County would need a feeder airport to the Raleigh/Durham Airport; • a 0 ; this airport does not meet those needs. Such an airport needs to be near industrial and transportation sites. He said individual develop- ers should not make decisions that affect the well-being of the entire County and all citizens. Mr. Roger Smith: (no residence given) Made three points: 1) the impact of the development will not stop at the property lines he asked that the agricultural nature of the Township be maintained; 2) There are other alternatives to Horace Williams which are better; 3) That no matter what happens to Horace Williams Airport it is of no concern to Bingham Township and its compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Bland Simpson: Resident of Bingham Township, said he is opposed tq the loCation of the airport in this area. It is not in compliance with the Land Use Plan Goals of Bingham and Planning Staff had found it not to be in compliance with those goals. It will tax the farmers out of the County. It will increase develop- mental pressure and would result in the loss of some of the most prodUCtive farmland and dairyland in the County. He asked that the County consider all reasonable alternatives for an airport and that the Township remain Agricultural as the law now says it is. Mr. Ronny Kirk: A resident of Bingham Township, said you shouldn't change the zoning too easily. As a volunteer fireman, he would rather protect his neighbors' homes and families than pro- tect Midway. Ms, Carol Cantrell: A citizen of Chapel Hill, spoke regarding the safety factor associated with Horace Williams Airport. She said she is a teacher in two of the schools which lie near HWA and fre- quently airplanes fly very low to the schools and drown out the activity occurring inside the schools. She said the kids are sittin ducks. She said there was a lot of gratuitous air traffic She asked that the Board get the airport out of town (Chapel Hill) . Mr. Tom Helburn: A resident of Bingham Township, is opposed to the Midway Airport being located here. He feels the airport is simply the tip of a wedge. He wants to preserve the green spaces uuti•dU 80%.1 in Orange County. He says this is not a positive contribution to the County; the air and noise pollution will extend beyond the pro- perty lines. If this project is approved there will be an urban sprawl there. He wants the airport placed in Northern Orange, near Hillsborough. Mr. David Curl: A resident of Bingham Township, said he had received a letter from the Planning Staff that told him of this proposal and that he had a house located in the flight approaches to the airport. Mr. Curl said Mr. Hazard didn't know his house was there and he was scared. He wants the County to make sure the developers know what they are doing. Ms. Julie Andresen: A resident of Chapel Hill, spoke for a group called Citizens For Airport Planning. Ms. Andresen intro- duced an editorial from the Daily Tar Heel and a letter from the Chancellor of UNC to Mayor Nassif (those letters are on pages and respectively) . Ms. Andresen asserted that HWA is a public, County airport; its use in itself demonstrates the need, for an air- port. She emphasized the location of the schools to HWA and her group's concern for the safety of the children there. The air- planes must pass over the schools to land. Ms.. Andresen said Chapel Hill has 66% of the the County population and probably pays much more than that proportion in taxes. She said it isn't good to infill from an airport. She asked that the Boards look closely at this alternative to the Horace Williams Airport. She added that Bingham Township had already felt some urbanizing pressure from Chapel Hill. Mr. Watts Hill, Jr.: Representing Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, said, 1) a substitute for HWA is needed; 2) it should be reasonably near Chapel Hill-Carrboro (3-5 miles) ; 3) as a matter of policy, the Chamber cannot take a position for a specific site but would like to make additional comments. a) demand calculated up to the year 2000 is 150 aircraft, which the Chamber thinks is understated; b) if this site is inappropriate which site is appropriate; c)is there any consideration given to the amount of taxes which would 1 .Q21 81)9 ....:,: :... be generated by such development; d) on page 35 of the County Planning i Staff Airport Study distributed tonight, key questions are asked but not answered. 1) Do the Boards think an airport to replace UWA should be built; 2) if not Midway, where? Mr. James Faust: Spoke as the Acting Chair of the Bingham TOWT ship Advisory Council and representing citizens of the area, and said on February 18, 1982, the Council had restated its opposition to the Midway project. 1) Incompatible with the goals of the Land _ Use Plan; 2) There will be adverse impact on the agriculture nature of the area; 3) a 5000' runway may permit jets to land and the noise is a factor; 4) will set a precedent; 5) Mitchell Mountain is less than a mile from the site; 6) the number of square feet in the air- park will place a strain on fire protection capabilities; 7) water quality in Cane Creek. He asked that the permits be denied. Ms, Miriam Murdoch: A resident of the Bingham Township, said the dairyland and farmland were endangered species. The noise pollution will disturb the cows; air pollution may be a problem; and Water may not be available. She asked the Boards not permit non-conforming uses. She asked if Buck Mountain will compensate its neighbors. She asked that neither the rezoning or special use permits be granted. Mr. Kizer: A resident of Bingham Township, addressed the Boards as a member of that Township not a member of the Planning Board. A copy of Mr. Kizer's remarks are on pages of this book. Mr. Kizer is opposed to this request. Mr. Kizer said this proposal is the first test of zoning. Zoning is supposed to provide protection. Ms. Pat Crawford, Chairwoman of the Planning Board, presented Chairman Whitted with a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Robert Fisher, residents of Bingham Township. The Fishers are opposed to this request from Buck Mountain Development. A copy of that letter is on page of this book. Mr. Phillip Frontiere, Jr. : A recent resident of Orange County, said he had formerly lived in Dallas, Texas. He said a "small" _....,i I 00022 819 airport there was no longer small and the community was divided and there were odors. He asked that the permits be denied. Mr. Zee Mehler: Responded that the Midway location was not the only location for an airport, but it was the best location. 1-85 doesn't meet the needs of Chapel Hill-Carrboro, tJNC. He feels the question of the number of trips generated per day is inflated and suggests a turn lane be built on Highway 54. He said the developers are willing to pay for their share of a fire truck. This development will not negatively affect the productivity of the area as the actual site is already deforested. He added that the Planned Development is not promises; it is the law if granted--a permit can be revoked if conditions are not met. No jets are planned to land at Midway; the owners can came back to request a speciLL.use permit to allow that, however. No transport planes are planned; well useage will be less than comparable residen- tial developments. He said the pollution with a general aviation airport is less than that with cars. Mitchell Mountain is not a factor; the FAA has checked it. He said there were not 60 sites suitable for airports in Orange County; that was the initial number of sites studied. He said the 130,000 gallons water supply was the maximum amount cited by the engineers as necessary. With regard to the financing of a public airport money probably is not available for it. Commissioner Wilihoit; Asked about the turn lane off Highway 54. Mr. Cannity: That was in a memorandum from the County Planning Staff to the Planning Board. Mr. Mehler: That's a suggestion, not a requirement of DOT. Commissioner Wilihoit; What about the financial arrangements that will insure the viability of the concern? Has consideration been given to a partic- ular type of mechanism which will ensure its success? Mr. Mehler: You mean for maintenance? Commissioner Willhoit: So that the developer doesn't decide one day that its not a viable concern and we are left with a few scattered businesses on the property but no airport. Mr. Mehler: "You are requesting certain bonds that are going to require all the land development and for the airport you're requesting there isn't that much more of the airport than the land development situation. So you're prac- tically guaranteed that you're going to require those bonds of that development... 00623 • that's a very expensive, guarantee." Mr. Hazard: We will have to satisfy one person regarding the runway before we can get hin as a customer. We don't know what the particular arrangement will be, probably on the order of "graveyard with perpetual motion." Ms. Crawford: Who will be responsible for runway maintenance? Mr. Mehler: The developers. We plan a joint responsibility for main- tenance for the airpark and airport. Mr. Wilson: You said you would not address the Land Use Plan. Why not? Mr. Mehler: We've addressed it throughout. We are against the Land Use Plan. Mr. Wilson: A lot of people who don't like your airport think it's a gocd plan. Mr. Mehler: No matter where you put an airport, people are opposed to it. Mr. Kizer: If it fails would you ask that it be changed to light indus- trial? Mr. Mehler: I don't foresee it going to an industrial park. Pi:.Kizer: Would you accept that as a condition, that youowould not ask that it be changed to light industrial? Mt. Mehier: Yes. There were no others who wished to speak or offer evidence. Commissioner Wilihoit moved to adjourn this public hearing until March 22, 1982, at 7:30 P.M . in order to receive evidence about the County Planning Sbaff's Study on General Aviation Airport Need and Sites Survey; Commissioner Walker seconded the uotion. Vote: Ayes,5; noes, 0. The meeting was adjourned until the time . date s.-.1 led ,191;140 Ri ,d E. ' q t.-d, Paulette Pridgen-Pond, Clerk DNG al'IE cous-rr BOARD OF COI:ViISSIONERS Ar_fciaa. - " Blr: .. , It(E vo.. 3 _ .T.TE.1 bmTaAcT ' NESTEUS.-G DATE 3-8-82 ., _----------_—__ , Sub-,Tiet: REQUEST BY CLEORA STERLING CORPORATION FOR A REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL-1 - TO I-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ... . -----:----- IFT-b lc 11-aring; - y ye-.. ' . na PLANNING . . , . . . . . . .. . . " .. . .. . ' . , .. . . . . . . ' ..------------ . ------,--- . . . . , "Infoivation. Coatact: Ikttachment(s): APPLICATION, LETTER,TAX . . aIM POLATTY. MAP, LETTER. FROM TOWN OF . - CARRBORO: . : . .P.700n2= Nuaber: 732-B1B1 E T 342 r , • ,' . ,'' * ''' A l' ' ''"1.. .'''•r:':': ;A;A ' '% ' ':' '. 7".7 7i'A.i..A.;':•77 7: ' ' :' '':' *"" '.• PURPOSE: To receive input and :comments concerning an application for a Rezoning froM'R-1 to I-1 (Light Indostrial-1) ._ . . , .. - . ... . NEED: The applicant has requested a. tight Industrial-1 (I-1) designation for the rear .74 acres of two lots located along Highway 54. The front portion of this property is in the Town of'Carrboro7s jurisdiction . . and is zoned M4-1.. ' (Manufacturing-Light Industrial). The'ProPdial . - •i.- has been reviewed by the Town of ..Carrboro and a letter recommending approval has been received. The Orange County Health Department . has approved the existing septic tank system., . , .'7",:'! :::''7'7':f,";':.':::'7.:;: , .;.!' ,,';',...::: ::'*;;T,q;::;:;,. .'.:':-.'.,.17'..7 7' ':. ,' ' :'',;::',": :.':'''''.' '' ;''.", - :'-' '''' .. , ..,, .• . .. . .. • ' - . „ . • ':. , .. . . . . . . : . . . . . .. : . . . . . - - .• - • . : . . . . . IMPACT: This proposed rezoning is not totally compatible with the land Use . . plan, especially regarding the University Lake watershed. However, the front portion of the two lots are already zoned light industrial by Carrboro. . Impact ,on the watershed from Orange CountY's action could be rinimaL. . . . , . . , aECONMENDATION: The planning staff recommends approval based upon the letter from the Town of Carrboro, the minimal impact involved in the rezoning, the fact that Cleora- Sterling is a pre-existing use, and most of the use is inside CarrborutW,zoiliOliniiaiblon- , . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . ' • . • 00132b . . .-- ,,,.....- . ...:.-.........y.f.-, 6 1.t.). - - .,-.,..-.,.7,..:7:,:::•'.---'2'i:...-i_'.73.;,: :-., ,.„. . ...... .. _ . ....,.. .....- . • ' . : "::„ ,-. APPLICATION FOR.CHANGE. OF ZONING.DirRicr.,cLAssi.r:IcA-trom, , ;:.:.;:, -. ,-.- .:-,•, ... , .,. ,,,::, ..,::.;: . • , " ., a... , , • , . . .• :!DPiTE 11 Dee.; 81 :„:', .. - . '..: ': . :-:- - ,,%..; .;...:....'„, , ..';,.:. •...t......t; -: . .,.., .:. ?..- 'Inc Honorable Board of County Comm'issioners' . : .4:' ,.,:- -..,..• ; , 4..t: -,..i,,,,:-.:.,;,..:. Orange County, forth Carolina . . .. ,::,-;:".,-, .... ,,..;::',., : ,,,,...,,.:' : ,'`:.. ...:‘,..,•-&,',..,- ...• :.: :::,,..,,,.7,-,,,„-.., 01.:it1-SSIOERS: . .1 . .. , -- : : .': -. '. -', . '... '- .:::' ,,•;:,- --.... . .: 7:, .;. ...-.).;.:','ff/..;,...''. .1h.e undersig.nedl-equest-tha4t,propertY located on Tax flap Flumber _.7., ,. Atwater. . . . . •-ir • Blot;k nuinberivb. .% , Lot numoet.4 E.: 2.,:, Shown en`„the aceompany,in,g plat, :., idhi ch 1 s presently in a .. re 0.dent ial -,---District be rezoned to . ..,'.•:'%--..,:-.- ------- -.- : "C.,.,..1......- - •• • .•- ... . for the following, reasons: . . . . , • ..... ,.. :' Area in uestion is salt between Carr'ooro & Oram-e Co. vat., . ...,‘, .... - ,......—.— 911; 2/3 Carrboro zoninz district zoned I.1-1 (Industrial); We - ....:-...,.,. . _r . .in 9.-e's ciarre.ntl operating.a manufacturing business on th.is . ..- . s • -proper.t.tr. and need the.ProPosed . ..-4 • ,,.... ' . * ... . ....7, *,t....... . ,, ... . 4.---...L.-.'--..;-...-:....:........-........-...-t.....-..,-.-.-........,................t.-7.....,..m....-...-......... , .... ....... . .. . ................................ - . . , . .' . . • *. '.•"" . ' '...m.,-....., '... . . , . .. ' , .....--.-.....*,- .,-....-....---,-*........... . , , , . "--.•'-'''.- . . • . , . . ... .. . . , , .--....- ...............,....... : . • ••. •' .. ' , . ._ . . . • ,. . .. ,. ., , *.-* *...--...., . • . • . ,. . . . Signed: C-De, ,,,, ,, INi\A„. ...;.....". :: Address: :, , ...,. ..• „. ,.. •., P.O. B ).2S._k.T.Li . . . . . . ,.. - :,..........—............... „.....z.......—.................:.....7............,,,...,............ .,..., .. ---..—.......__.. ; 0batr.1 H111,1\1.0. 27514 ' •----,.---,— ••• ' • - . •,....- ;., • -,:: : •.::: ,...-. , . .— . -,.....--......—...:. ..........._:-----,...-.7.....‘, , .,, --------.' •. .. t • • ......_. ,—.....:....,.. „... ,.!- ,. . • . • -., - •, . , . , • , :, ..:.. ,. "7'• ': • •': ' .: • ' .....•../ '•' . ••' ..-,: ••• '' ''.7'•• •''L • .- ;: •..- • •• .' ,',. ... , , t . ,,. . . 1 . ....... _ . . .._ .... - .._ ItEZflNi�G R' "CHEGIMIS7Y G ha el Hill N C 2 sS r P ti Box '2 .. /� r�1. �rr•t]NZ ln� iJ Qi4Y ADDRE ViillLL1S J LY [1�`3J' Y - -.? .. - _ r ♦:i. i. ::- ` ; ' ���7?}' ' Current land use Indus tr i al residenbia; Total number of acres � . Current zoning, f _ . � nProp l Tndus x a1 i:''' Type of rezoning, 1�quested 1 same Publi Community_____ ,J troposed Vater Suppi.y: ---- 2B Block Ats ?,Number of lots_.___ —__—; _._... XY. Tax map 11 ---- ---°-- �:,- Individual septic tank Alridividual proposed Scrooge Treatment: I?ublic�, •,� �. _ _ "' •" Describe existing, , Access onto state rand . H-.-~ 'Average, daily txafic count on the state road._ ----- --one Poorly drained areas :<critical. atcas: `Tlood prone areas . �ol�� ; none Otherr,tsensitive areas Streams ;s :..,, %ianu ae tur ing-- FE.c 113 y -Describe land. uses in General Area <•< - = Wholesale Dzsrabutort and. open field ofx Machine shop, { Adjacent parcels land t ;: .E ;• { -F. -_' _! t r i� '4 r �r S } r ( }'? r t •''a t t �;' -_ •s. �' +� s � .:�.'i.... i • • } r. i � a ; r r �y' .:i • • j ' - :} yr. ,t _r„ �.t. — :r.-;7 3 yr �� '.�.. a.� .F} s�•n �A'ii• .'r'. }t: ♦ t- ;`;•�,.•. ..t. : o `S�, »_ _ :i': "£ti:: h r ,i i ., r::. ;; -= s it „�- ; ';1- :r : ¢ .• t,... <;i Ott ti � r, i t ~3• b J. }.�� .-. r•t n_� +.� ti, . is .f - •+l ' � - .+}';:' 3 _ :f'•. a . r .. - Q� r i i' . . 006'27 • 810 The Cleora Sterling Corporation Rhino-Bilk 919-929-8749 919-967-8988 Shipping: Malan; Hwy. 54 West P.O. Box 287- Carrboro, 27510 Chapel Hill, RC. 27514 • To: Zoning Officer-Orange County Re: Application for zoning change (Article 20 Amendments) Date: 14 Dec. 81 We, The Cleora Sterling Corp„ are submitting an application for a zoning change for the property located on tax map number block number B, lots numbers 1 & 2,(4 & 5 on accompanying plat) , for the following reasons: A. Our lots are currently under the zoning restrictions of both the town of Carrboro and Orange County. Our Carrboro town zoning classification is M1 (industrial) , our back 80' of the afore mentioned lots are within the Orange County zoning district and are zoned residential. Having just the portions of our lots that are in Orange County rezoned to I-1 would make better use of this property now and in the future. B. Already existing on lot 4 on the accompanying plat we have a 10,000 sq. ft. manufacturing facility that has been in operation since 1979, and are currently preparing to expand this facility pending our zoning change. C. The expansion of our facility should not make any changes ir. the character of the land surrounding us because it is els: zoned M-1 (Carrboro) and currently has a wholesale warehou retail store on one side and a machine shop on the "other, D. The rezoning of our property and the expansion of a facility could only benefit the county because of an increased tax base as well as the creation of new jobs. E. We feel that our request affects only a small portion of property in Orange County, all of which is owned by us. Thank you for your time. S Sam Maffei cc County Manager .3 , .. . •' .. . . ... . . . . • ', ofib28 '- ffi 6 . . .. . • : ',4.: •.- • ',7."...:*;., , . --\---.--. • ''. : \ ', ',''': • 17:,\;'"''' • . • . . . L. • ., ....•._''. , . A , ..------.-*- 1 I I 1 ------------, . ZDO • ----TC:37:6 ------\--r--------- VadNIT I. ■, II r 9 1 1 11 5 4. 1 i I ■ 1 ., . t 0 '- ' CCA.3 014 11•3 ••1/4.19-1% - -• 1\1h 1G. . 1 '-i e-'112-1'6=_._"'I_q1* c)NA ■ t . I 1 .3 AC 1 A e t e , en. ' 0 est '•! I \\..:■44 .13:3 el '69't 10 5637 ..: i 1 1 t 1 0 0 t • Q ;*. : , NN.‘,, -.--- ■ ,,,..::::,... 1 V5 m 19 .—_- --- ---. ,-,----- ---- ___---- ---- -,----- --- -—.4--. 1 . ... ..... .....-..*.,,..... --..-...-•••"-■."*...,-..- ..,--*.-• ....m...........-..-.......,-.*^^,-.. ..........-."--. .........-.....,......................--.....—,..-....m ...- ,..„..,,,,.........,-„,....,,,,-,.,..—...............-.....7.,......-,....- .. . ■ C\ 0 C.■ ■ el 13 1,1 CIA I -----------------------:-----,-------.-..--- LEGEND cCUATY LINT. .....- EWE.Or til.r,..-.•4,,NY --- ------- - -------•-:1---. ----- 70•304 3141? LIME ---------- 50..LIV-M0 ,,....4.,...............,-........4-..,--......,.... 3 I . , - _- . — -.-.' 7t1' t..1•47.. T.ICA1...5.0 DIA1F.‘..14::;•I . -• -.m. IVVT:'S '1AIL.00301 .--'......''''''-- '''-- 1 .............. --'..'.-.-.-'" ''''-- -'-'*-- ''' -' 1 1 caliPIAL in-r Lt:c. ....-...-...- — EILOCA PCSIsmATSCA t„.1.;-.5)-s r, ..", 71•.•1•.•:.'ft^,;••:,:r.".'"1"•'•:1•■•.:.-..."'•:1,.<.•`''...•••• •••.:•41,..‘ '/..',".•,,'' ,•..'...•• ..., • •.:,..-," .:,:i•••4.!.".,....,-..:.c...,...,.",..'. . .• .. , 00629 • ii 1 :` .. .. r- may.. ti ✓ Al \ • '' \ 3. 5 I 1` • �r.. i �,,J7 ; 15:5 AC �f 1 :r'N 1 r 1 6,.,, .,... 1 r� �_ ;r 5.27 � �_ ;. •' I 72ki ` ` \ <,_ 1 \ 11[1::) ` f t . 7'1 .:4'y i•-') 11 AC ..,) )i R. 30,...3 ''21E1'5 .� 9.5: ,t,,, r . ` 18"9 9 ,AC. k 1/./04, cVI a J --- '"_ -m art t']"f,' � `f ""•T+..- --^ .•...� -^---"` T �. ! 9 '� ■,,;,e�'1 i x " r :,....... M 1 `• l:- 1`4AP 11 L-3 •'. .,y ..----- aw ^5i a^a f ?Or33 .,..5342 a0\I"'..' , ''' 1 .'0.,1� it '' t x•'11» •I• ...-, ,.. '01- ,-,.-:--~` ,\'''---- 2a,., (2'i".,,• ' 1 .,,"..4\4.1;`. -"ot:::: c .--;:iY,1 1'..c ,r.j.t.r. .-'7"t;",.., ---c--• — l':"! 2 i`r., : -__,...t I..v.■..<\r%;1'1,, s,, ,_,,,,!1,_.,,I.-‘--''''.i;,1 , SrC1 ! ' 53s � J ,�' • y r5 , . f �t? !' sG 1 j �113 --'. - r {rC S l,;.j ' , Qt Yi i , , \ 1is / . 605454 �f J 2 2335 ;:�a :p 4 Au. ^•u. 6 per.,- ; ' .r, a23 r it ;a� u9 I ipit 0 AS ;•ki: r r r N.tav2 tier. 2.5 C. • +\! j :DA 9024 6 -r ill' ---- " 1 l.5 Afi 4 F t ,--•s 7.s r .,- - - ________ __1 , , ,, � +''`C a . ._.. ......._...__._. ---.._-._--._ \3 ,63Ts_... .__. i 2 55 t C• .':r.. g?,:1 f'C _"'tVSSIir 36 ------Ac,.= � : .> l-4..56 C. I- f l 2.07 `. .. = ---,�,3 •. 1 r �.,-_._. _.- 00630 ' � g1(i ' '-- — ' - TOWN OF CARBBOHU of RI 14 PLANNING DEPARTMENT NORTH CAROLINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ° January 27` 1082 Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Dept. 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Rezoning Request for Rhino-8ilt Along Hwy 54 West of Carrboro, NC Dear Mr. Kirk: The Carrboro Planning staff concurs with Rhino-8ilt's request to rezone portion of its property lying in the Orange County residential zoning o —a�po'szr ict The Planning staff favors this request since the applicant's 'l within the Carrboro Planning jurisdiction is currently zoned "/- (light property lying�l�ghw industry) and the Orange County rezoning would merely allow the a plcant to fully utilize his property. Thank you for the opportunity to review this rezoning request. Since e Roy Williford 41111 Plasnn-4 g Director tp mv_BOX z�,msp�MAIN rm -rp*nvuoF1n.NORTH CAROLINA 27510 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER - - - --__ _'_- ____-___--- Offi31 - . 0 G CO ., .• -- 8IJ ., 7.1v_■: E . ' . -T"' .■'.7:.7.,, 74'..:".::‘;'S .. _ . •: -: :-.:-.:-..„:- /kz:hion. ancle. BOARb OF COMAISIONERS . , It.:CM. ACTION T,CEITDA ITEM i\BSTRACIC ME.I.:TIN.-G DATE_ 3-8-82 - , .. . . . Subject: AVENgENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN FOR THE AREA AROUND LIMP. HI SCHOOL . " ' Public 'Hearing: y yes . . 12 -'±-11s-ant: PLANNING . . --------.--_______---- " 77- . -.. / .. . . .. ., ' . . . . ikttaccexl,t_ -(s): APPLICATION- SUBKETTAL, Informa. tiort, Contact.: Jim pousTy . . PETITIONS , LAND USE NAP , . Phona 'N'isobar: 732-8181 ME. 342 . . , ' . PURPOSE:, To receive citizen inpUt and coMmnts on the proposed change to the Land tse'Plan for the area near Murphy School from Rural Residential to Twenty Year Transistion; Commercial Transition Activity node. .. _ .. - . . .".. .. There exist in,thisarea several coMmercial activities that are not zoned for commercial use They include home occupationa,non-conforming uses, and. 5-11:PgAl.:;.1cP17:411P4C141 P.Pq.§:.!..-7??.. . ,, .1. 9.10.41.11-al. 14,e- would make all of the existing uses? within the noOe, conforming if the • rezonings of the property were approved. Transition areas and Co* Transition Activity nodes are areas that are or will be urban in character and provide services to a large segment of Orange County citizens. . . .. . _ . , . . . . : . . . . IMPACT: The requested change in the Land Use Plan is inappropriate. The existing development is not urban, and the level of development the change would . . allow is inappropriate without urban services Most of the existing uses ,' could have been covered in a request for a Rural Neighborhood node, but it is riot clear that it is in the best interests of this whole area to encourage continued catmercial growth in this particular section. c0MENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends denial of the requested change in the Land Use Plan. The intensity of development and the application criteria for Community Commercial Transition are not appropriate for this location. . Alternatives exist other than out right denial. ALTERNATIVE 1 - Designation of a rural neighborhood node instead of Community Commercial Trahsition, would decrease the intensity of development allowed and also decrease the number of permitted uses. ALTERNATIVE 2 - Deny the request for designation as a Land Use Plan Activity node, and change the application criteria for the Existing Commerciai-5 zoning district to allow it to be used in this area. . . .. /sir • • . 7 APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF LAND USE.PLAN FOR ORANGE-COUNTY_ Dace: TO: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners, - ,Orange County, North Carolina _ .. - CO`MISSIONERS: The undersigned parties request thee the property located in Chapel Hill Township, Tax `laps Numbered 4, 4-B, and 5, and Eno Tax Map No. 25, and pre-t pre- dominately on the Northeastern portion of Chapel Hill Township, to Eno Township, as shown on the attached nap narked Exhibit A, and presently being classified as a rural residential area, be changed to a Twenty Year Transition Atea and the area be classified a Commercial Transition Activity Node, which is to be called the Murphy School. Commercial Transition Activity Node. That the property Involved is generally described as follows and contains approximately 200 acres, mare or less: Description ., 1. Starting at the intersection of the Southern Railroad track and N,C. 1710 West 2,550 feet to the intersection of Rhodes Creek. 2. Thence in a Southerly direction on Rhodes Creek, approximately 2,000 feet. � ., 0.- Thence Southeast 2,000 feet to the intersection of Murphy School .) p Road and Ht. Herman Church/Cornwallis Road. (5-*C\ 4. Thence Northeast some 1,BDD feet to a 900 turn on Couch Mountain f^f Road immediately North of a school residential area. r1.-fir°,,✓ 5.. Thence from there 2,300 feet in a Northerly direction back to the - railroad underpass at the intersection of Old No. 10, this being the point of beginning. That the reasons for this request arc as follows: 1. Ihat the area involved in obviously not of a rural residential character. ? That this property is very close to a twenty year transitional area in the Eno Township and that this would simply extend that beginning which presently exists. B. That there are already existing in this area some eight or nine commercial operations; Dean's Truck S Coach, 0 6 N Electric. Phillips General. Repair, Bass' Welding Shop, Corner Grocery, Starcastle Disco, Orange Glass Company, Piedmont Paving Company, and Automotive Catering Service.. That zany of these commercial ventures have been in operation for as ouch as ten years or more at their present locations. 4. That this property is located near 1-85 and the Southern Railroad. That we, the undersigned, would support and agree to the change of this zrca in the Land Use Plan.for Orange County. That further we understand that should the Land Use Plan be modified and amended as requested, that this land would be eligible for rezoning for commercial purposes. We also understand that in this transitional area urban services such as eater and sewer may be provided, That further these urban services may be either provided for by public or local funds or by individual owners as the situation develops over the years., That we, the undersigned, do further understand that this request to amend the Land Use Plan will he discussed in depth at a joint public hearing .. (over) i 0,d+. ALOIS CALLENlYil LAND SURVEYOR 1220&CHURTON STREET HILLSI1OROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27278 TELEPHONE:732-3883 AMENDMENT TO DESCRIPTION; BEGINNING at the intersection of the centerline of Hillsboro Road (S.R. 1710) and the centerline of Murphy School Road (S.R. 1714); Thence with the centerline of Murphy School Road in a southerly direction to the intersection of the centerline of Murphy School Road and the centerline of Couch Mountain Road (S.R. 1716); Thence with the centerline of touch Mountain Road in an easterly direction to the intersection of the centerline of Couch Mountain Road and the center- line of Dove Greek Road (S.R. 1715); Thence with the centerline of Dove Creek Road in a northerly direction to the intersection of the centerline of Dove Creek Road and the centerline of Hillsboro Road (S.R. 1710); Thence with the centerline of Hillsboro Road in a westerly direction to the place and point of Beginning. 4 FARM LOT,BOUNDARY,TOPOGRAPHIC,LOAN,AND CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS' • SUBDIVISION DESIGN AND LAYOUT . . ..., .. . . . .. . . .. . .. 8:,1t.,1 / / . conducted by the Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board on or about February 22, 1982 at the Orange County Courthouse. We further wish to state that we have examined Exhibit A which is the land involved. Signed: Lot No. Name Address Own or Rent , ,) 4 , d :N.` '.-. 62 . . i __ „..... ..„„.....4.,...rAtA-- ; gr .E ••.; ., 7\; a .0 .,.. air Ar" -,..do . e AI/......... 411favarawitimatilk.... r../ . Le,'L.--......._ Air 4,4----__ 41IPAGIMMININIF I' •' C.1._4.ccz? A • • At, __,/i_ 42j ,Q 0Z6-ireT doe. ii, ' C.7,g-9--121 0 i-t/"./1/ , . Ilk), " . . ._ - i,'74 ma." I .) . . 2 • — — . . ,. .3 _ . __ . __._.... ....... 00(-;35 . 4 • • ,• conducted by the Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board on or about February 22, 1982 at the Orange County Courthouse. We further wish to state that we have examined Exhibit A which is the land involved. Signed: Lot No. Name Address Own or Rent .25 1.1d4V/P „) C, 176 ifift144) 271 Aj •/ /01/s/Ae",* cde (.4411-6 11. LL L / I 1/2-0-v J.3 -- • ■ .4" .: 8.o21c • . . / •" conducted by the Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board on or about February 22, 1982 at the Orange County Courthouse. We further wi%h to state that we have examined Exhibit A which is the land involved. Signed: 1,ot No. Name Address Own or Rent Am `• • /77,- •• Alt—i BrA (' JI 7 /.'6-174 51.1.7"( 'LC 1r fl - -> • J 4 -4 • 01•}1.2.(% .67 . 6 . 1 • — +11).. • rt..e • kkr — - 9A)-ft 114w.4, t. s 1111L 419 • -- 00-1.2eg" • 00631 conducted by the Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board on or about February 22, 1982 at the Orange County Courthouse. We further wish to state that we have examined Exhibit A which is the land involved. _ . _ Signed: Lot No. Name .Address .Own or Rent --- ALmosMIaw A WA r M. 711'5:7 NIAMIjmiriff 1- -ITT; • 1 IIVAV Ar • 1 g,kei ef fel:: eza,„tr.:" Amp )2, 44„4 . A. WAWA , • f . J . • 111P fir Ore ef 4 c;) 111A. troatb_. . • L 58d . A c3- 77O • in, c_bil AM. _ 0`03 ` 8 t► conducted by the Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board on or about February 22, 1982 at the Orange County Courthouse. We further wish to state that we have examined Exhibit A which is the land involved. _. - Signed: Lot No. Name Address Own or Rent ► • 7 li• ikA CLi j& u'_ PALL t c.� ` S .LDo ' !ar'iC, &a ! p �l+ )Z R.'+- I F3 SG rnF.� 2g rte'-C� t . /.4 61, 5 r■ - � _��n� .mil,e r�,�.� %,.,.,� ,�r_ 6/ /1f/4/, 2 1 ,. �^ J 3 O ! !� 00G39 '' .' • ' ' . . , , . , . 3:1 il ... .. . . __ . .........._ _. _,.. . . - . Lot = Owner's Name and Address . . , -- , CHAPEL HILL. TM rt 5" kk,,v 47 Gene Autry Ha/ - Rt I. Box 239, Durham, N. C. 217P6' , 48 Nancy Divis"Mdenzie - Rt 1, Box 258, Durham, N. C 2176 49 Norman F . Turner - Rt 1, Box 257, Durham, N. C. 50 Gary Wayne Dean - Box 269-H, Chapel Hill, N. C. _._ (a) Michael Andre Riddle- Rt. 1, Box 254, Durham, N. C. , i, ,..?1. . _ 54 Claudia H. McFarland - Rt 1, Box 255-1, Durham, N. C. Tao; • 55 Hugh M. Bass - Rt 1, Box 265-C, Durham, N. C. 56 Hugh M. Bass - Rt 1, Box 265-C, Durham, N. C. 57 Claudia H. McFarland - Rt 1, Box 255.--1, Durham, N. C. 53 James J. Freeland, P. O. Box 765, Hillsborough, N. C. lA LouiZa W. Turner - Rt 1, Murphy. School Road, Durham, N. C. 1B T. L. Underwood - Rt 1, Box 364, Durham, N. C. p) Jack B. Williamson - Rt 1, Box 255, Durham, N. C. 3) Michael Andre Riddle - Rt 1, Box 254, Durham, N. C. Robert Lee Rigsbee - Rt 1, Box 253, Durham, N. C. 5 S. D. Harper - Rt 1, Box 251, Durham, N. C. 6 ' Hazel Barber - Rt 1, Box 263, Durham, N. C. 6A Hazel Barber - Rt 1, Box 263, Durham, N. C. I Charles W. Erwin - 15 Scott Place, Durham, N. C. 46A William R. Davis - Rt 1, Box 393, Durham, N. C. 46 William R. Davis - Rt 1, Box 393, Durham, N. C. 45 Scott C. Gardner - Rt 1, Box 391-1, Durham, N. C. 44 James D. Rigsbee - P. O. Box 11205, Durham, N. C. 241" 1C James D. Rigsbee - P. O. Box 11205, Durham, N. C. 35 , Felts R. Paschall •- 2416 Pickett Road, Durham, N. C. ZW3-. ,:r:e. j-;f ; /16 :/ I IJ or/,....,i.1 C• 277c CHAJEL HILL TM 4 21 W. M. Sharpe, Jr. - Rt 1, Box 390, Durham, N. C. 22 Thomas L. Underwood - Rt 1, Box 364, Durham, N. C. PM') 23 W. M. Sharpe, Jr. - Rt 1, Box 390, Durham, N. C. 23A Allen Floyd - Rt 1, Box 259, Durham, N. C. 2-iluo 24 Althea Bescher - 11121i N. Guthrie, Durham, N. C. 24703 26 James S. Harper - Rt 1, Box 251, Durham, N. C. 27.174C. 27 Roxie Cox Waller - Rt 1, Box 262-B, Durham, N. C. 20A Freddie Eugene Patterson - 1000 Ruby St., Apt. 23, Durham, N/C, 21761 29 Claudia II. McFarland - Rt 1, Box 265-1, Durham, N. C. 30 James M. Barton - Rt 1, Box 249, Durham, N. C. 2001) 310 Myra S. Sorahan, 5316 Hillsborough Rd., Durham, N. C. 23 Edward L. Rigsbee - Rt 1, Box 250, Durham, N. C. 19 Grover Adam Clayton - Rt 1, Box 378, Durham, N. C. 33C Fred O. Latta - Rt 1, Box 370-B, Durham, N. C. 33 Pauline S. Hall - Rt 1, Box 260, Durham, N. C. 33A Byrd Shambley - Rt 1, Box 248, Durham, N. C. 31C James M. Barton - Rt 1, Box 249, Durham, N. C. . , . a . , . 00640 CHAFE. HILL TM g 4B 1 James S. Parrish - Rt 1, Box 390-D, Durham, N. C. 717$, 2 Stephen Apple, Jr. - Et 1, Box 390-C, Durham, N. C.071, 3 Barry Gold - Rt 1, Box 3904-7, Durham, N. C. tilor 4 Thomas H. Byers - remrose r]3 - RFD 2, Chapel Hill, N. C. 5 Thomas H, Byers - ramose 7/13, RFD 2, Chapel,Hill,,N. C. 6 William J. Hubbard - Jeckson Road, Chapel Hill, N. C. 7 Larry M. Wilson - Rt I, Box 390-E, Durham, N. C. David B. Weaver - Rt 1, Box 390-2-B, Durham, N. C. 9 George H. Anderson - Rt 1, Box 390-B-1, Durham, N. C. ENO TM 25 74A John L. Browning - Rt 1, Box 390-A, Durham, N. C. znor 74B Lawrence Browning - 206 Dacian Avenue, Durham, N. C.2/705 74C William 3. Parrish .:- Rt 1, Box 390-1, Durham, N. C. 2/70( 740 Graham B. Hardison - Rt 1, Box 390-2, Durham, N. C. 21105' 61 - . . .. ...._ ______.......—... .._ . ... ,. ....,............. _.., .. .. .... .... .. . . .........—_—_______.—._ ...„..........._,_______. _____----, , 'I . t 1 . i .1. ....,.. \\ 1 1 It 3 . .. 3 3 . 9 i 1 I ifforamwar '- -------, .. N . ....... 4p---t • • ■,.,....... iii —..-- IL' .1- Oa I 414 ,, : lib a 4.°- .R. C7 MI .c, „ r isi 3 9 a:, si, __ .. 0 q.5". _. ., 1111111 -,--..,0 mi 3 IIC, 0 9 0 la .I —— -"r ,-': '13 i ■r it -77 A a 31 a All _---------_ , ..., . IL. . • l'2 .., ,... ..a ,.... 0 0 .... -........,..e, I I 4:3 N. 4; — 65 ° a cn c 1.■ %..... f ..riga 0 .--- 0 . . e., . (),. g cc) --K-5_ ta• "1 CD ' - ... 0 10 1 4„...., . O. 0 -----___ -In .s 0... in 0 ds =.. cr) 4••••• r1 kyr. ,,. , . - .... . - t 1 , Di ....... ....... — ...__ . .,„ "2 -4 1 __/ ........ ---.. • = 6 I I— La r __ . . ............___,......._ „......... .. O cA- i z .... i w . 1 - - 7 ____,..,_ ....____. 13 . ... ._ . .... ._..... .. . . . BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS .Act:o.-.1.1,n-4,..o...,u.:;-,:,::.7,;--..-:,•i-.4.i,,-7-.. - .0 0„:1O40,&•.-5:Attza-7:---,.'7„:;.- -.,;: 1 LTZ:7; E . 3'i'-.,..,;' -77.7'1=-7:-4 ACM:: 11,;EA=ON nal iiltSTRACT -'-',•:::•,..1: IG ---------- , Subject: REQUEST BY DEAN'S TRUCK AND COACH, C-01,ELECTRIC, PHILLIPS GENERAL - -- " REPAIR, BASS WELDING SHOP, AUTO CATERDiG SERVICE FOR A REZONING FROM R-1 RESIDENT AJ__,- 10 •'V. C Carr' •, r 'D D.??arb-rtan t: PLANNING . . 1 public 1 earing: . - - - _.„, • ' . , . . . , . . • 1 Attaci-mant(s): Petition for request pg. Information Contact: nal pcjiiki• ,,rz „ - 1-7; petition against request pg. .8,-12; . Iand Use map pg. 13; analysis sheet/ Phd,ne I\Xtriber: 732-6181 EIT.:342 : '.. . appliCation pg. 14-37; Lend lisp . :...7". ." - : % :-.. .7 .•• -iii7_2':,;-LY ::' :.:7:... n ' '.' =-:'•: : - :-'.. z: ;- ...- 77'."" 1'7' ''''' PURPOSE: To receive input and Comments concerning an application for 6. reZoning from ' R,-1 to CC, 3 (Carmunity CoMmercial -3) NEED: The applicants have requested a Community Coamrcial-3 designation for the : 7 5 lots involved' In this request. These five lots are located in a block hoarded by-Old NC 10 (SR. 1710) to the north, Murphy School Ed:r--(SEL 1714) r.„,, .•.•:::.. to the West,' Couch Mountain Rd. (SR 1716) to the south, and SR 1715 to the east these-lots are now served by onsite water and sewer. The follewing is-a list of commercial uses within the proposed Mu- prhy Schaal Activity node and the current zoning status according to the Planning Depart- ments latest iriformationt - - INMD!' G STATUS I4AP Ear T.-;.7. : USE NAVE : ari.rER(s) :- ::'.-"',..-.: ..•:"'%5.2..' ,,-.-6:::'-..,u0E(NER:b-fic5CFLK:::,4;,-:...,:.:-.7,IiAZtffWATITS'ai ,' -.' :7-:-' -1.042' ' 5 56 y BASS wiTsbn 'sy.C., i1 i-runii BASS -,:. .-- -- .— •..-f-HMS OCCUPAZON: . . 'ILLEGAL CHABSaTERSTEI • • OF USE 3 AUTO CATERING SVC. .• DUCHP.EL RIDDLE - NON=CONFORUNG USE 5 50 DEAN'S TRUCK & COACH GARY DEAN _ ILLtGAL USE 5 Lk PHILLIPS REPAIR SVC- LOUIZA TURNE'R. N0N-tON1ONT-117.C.: ILLEGAL BUILDING 5 47 G&M ELECTRIC GENE MAY HOME OCCUPATION 5 43 ORANGE GLASS CO. DON PASCHALL NON-CONFORMING USE 4 22 STAR CASTLE Disco THOMAS UNDERWOOD - - NON-CONFORMING USE - .. . - .• . , . - . ., . - .. This request, is made in order to allow these home occupations, illegal used and non-conforming uses to expand and enlarge legally. IMPACT: This area is designated as Rural-aesidential in the Land Use Plan. The applicants have,requested a change in the Land Use Plan designation to ComMunity7Coanereial Transition Activity node, and. have asked or a Community-Commerc3 zoning district. The district apPlication criteria indicate it should be applied to areas that generally serve wide areas of the County. This is also the second most intensive commercial district. .'.T.C.7ONMENDATIONS: The Planning Staff recommends denial of this request. The scale and intensity of development allowed by the request would be inappropriate for this location. There are no urban services available to this area, and the existing commercial uses do not serve a large portion of County residents. Staff feels the request for Cornunity Commercial-3 is in- appropriate under the existing conditions. The commercial activities in the immediate area include three illegal uses, three non-conforming uses,, and two home occupations. the Planning Staff recognizes alternatives to denial. ALTERNATIVE 1: Change the Land Use Plan to create a Rural Neighborhood Node at Murphy School; amend the Permitted Use Table,to.ellw motor vehicle repair and maintenance in the' Neighborhood Commercial-2 zoning district, an rezone the existing commercial uses to the NC-2 district. This district would alla.1 much less intense development levels. ALTERNATIVE 2: Change the application criteria of the Existing Commercial-5 district, from application in unzoned townships to all townships, and rezone the properties to the EC-5 district. This district is the most restrictive commercial designation, it allows the fewest commercial uses and has the fewest negative impacts on adjacent uses. This alternative would not re- , _ _ __......_ 4... 4-1.s. r,.:-.a use Plan, because an activity node would not APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION (7 3 1 Date: 1._ GL11) . C t S"2----- TO: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners, Orange County, North Carolina COMMISSIONERS: That if the Land Use Plan for Orange County is modified or changed in Chapel Hill Township from Rural Residential to a Twenty Year Transition Area and the area be classified a Commercial Transition Activity Node, which is to be called the Murphy School Commercial Transition Activity Node as requested, this property being within the area described and set forth in Exhibit A hereto attached, then we, the following property owners, request the Board of County Commissioners to rezone our respective properties, now classified as Rural Residential to Community Commercial Three Zone. That the reasons we make this request are as follows: 1. That the area involved is obviously not of a rural residential character. 2. That there are already existing in this area some eight or nine commercial operations; Dean's Truck & Coach, G & M Electric, Phillips General Repair, Bass' Welding Shop, Corner Grocery, Starcastle Disco, Orange Glass Company, Piedmont Paving Company, and Automotive Catering Service. That many of these commercial ventures have been in operation for as much as ten years or more at their present locations. 3. That this property is located near 1-85 and the Southern Railroad. 4. That there is no possible harm or danger to the public from this rezoning, That a legal description of the land involved is hereto attached and marked Exhibit 1. That other maps will be furnished as requested. There is no alleged error in the Ordinance that would be corrected by this proposed Amendment. That further there has been, over the years, a change of condition is th's neighborhood toward commercial ventures and that this rezoning would and is reasonably necessary to the protection of the public health, safety, and genera' welfare, That this zoning change would in no way be injurious to the public health, safety, and general welfare. That this proposed zoning request historically yhwill was originally carry ryio i and purpose of the zoning ordinance and zoning atlas on February 6, 1967. That the properties in question have historically be zoned residential. Over the years this zone has changed in that commercial operations such as welding, bus service, glass installation and repair, and others have been created in this area. Signed: Type of Business Address Lot No. Owner's Name q /f�f� .7 �r �,I't(/�ik-f;t.. , /7 . �'� 'r../( 0 '� -y I,1.'I'ALl.�3b ��//�•v is z-e C ,;i,') {C r-'- 1 / /.v, � ''yp '• "";-, A 1,Wil /' / (c I 3-1-11 6 $/c ._L ; �?©, ;�//,LaS- /‘ , 1 r t . r. We, the undersigned citizens and residents of Orange County, support the above petitioners and wish to advise the Board of County Commissioners that we have . ..___,.__1..___, ...,,.7«„tna and rezoning their properties to ..-----' 00644 , APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION 8("3r.: Date: r r T0: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners, Orange County, North Carolina CMIISSIONERS: That if the Land Use Plan for Orange County is modified or changed in Chapel Hill Township from Rural Residential to a Twenty Year Transition Area and the area be classified a Commercial Transition Activity Node, which is to be called the Murphy School Commercial Transition Activity Node as requested, this property being within the area described and set forth in Exhibit A hereto attached, then we, the following property owners, request the Board of County Commissioners to rezone our respective properties, now classified as Rural Residential to Comnuni,ty Commercial Three Zone. That the reasons we make this request are as follows: . 1. That the area involved is obviously not of a rural residential character. 2. That there are already existing in this area some eight or nine commercial operations; Dean's Truck & Coach, C & M Electric, Phillips General Repair, Bass' Welding Shop, Corner Grocery, Starcastle Disco, Orange Glass Company, Piedmont Paving Company, and Automotive Catering Service. That many of these commercial ventures have been in operation for as much as ten years or more at their present locations. 3. That this 4. That there pispnot located possibleharmnorr a danger to the public from�thisd. rezoning. That a legal description of the land involved is hereto attached and marked Exhibit 1. That other maps will be furnished as requested. Ihere is no alleged error in the Ordinance that would be corrected by —this proposed Amendment. That further there has been, over the years, a change of condition in this neighborhood toward commercial ventures and that this rezoning would and is reasonably necessary to the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. That this zoning change would in no way be injurious to the public health, safety, and general welfare. That this proposed zoning request historically will carry out the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance and zoning atlas which was originally adopted on February 6, 1967. That the properties in question have historically been ial zoned residential. Over the years this zone thatrco mercial operations such as welding, bus service, glass others have been created in this area. Signed: Owner's Name Address / Tyne of Business Lot No. Q t1R•�'»L , \ T ,ues67�sic�an�w�dl*i' ��►�/a 1 • ; a`/r i 'I� \\j .,M .,s_, i y+ / r / Pr`1c1 r3 / We, the undersigned citizens and residents of Orange County, support the above petitioners and wish to advise the Board of County Commissioners that we have , ..__,.,.-- r.. rho Commissioners modifying and rezoning their properties to .011,1!K Community Commercial. Three Zone District. That further we understand that this rezoning request will be discussed fully and in depth at a public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board on February 22, 1982 at the Orange County Courthouse. Signed: vier Lot No. Name Address Own or Rent AnIMMIffla I 111111511.111111. IMV'4P-AIMIWP 4.01 AINEWMIIMFMNINNAIMVIrorer Airie-Ar ,./ '1 A / 1404.4.? .4 i!! . . MPJ • Or* • liroper" - /NM 40 • In (40.„ 6S-27.7 0 • ifA01011,P Copies to: The Orange County Planning Board Orange County, North Carolina The Orange County Planning Department Orange County, North Carolina . Page 2 UUb`}O APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION cf�i�: Date: ' AF.5:; TO: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners, Orange County, North Carolina COMMISSIONERS: That if the Land Use Plan for Orange County is modified or changed in Chapel Hill Township from Rural Residential to a Twenty Year Transition Area and the area be classified a Commercial Transition Activity Node, which is to be called the Murphy School Commercial Transition Activity Node as requested, this property being within the area described and set forth in Exhibit A hereto attached, then we, the following property owners, request the Board of County Commissioners to rezone our respective properties, now classified as Rural Residential to Community Commercial Three Zone, That the reasons we make this request are as follows: 1. That the area involved is obviously not of a rural residential character. 2. That there are already existing in this area some eight or nine commercial operations; Dean's Truck & Coach, G S M Electric, Phillips General Repair, Bass' Welding Shop, Corner Grocery, Star casCatering le isco, OrangeTGlass Company, Piedmont Paving Company, and Automotive of these commercial ventures have been in operation for as much as ten years or more at their present locations. 3, That this property is located near 1-85 and the Southern Railroad, 4. That there is no possible harm or danger to the public from this rezoning. That a legal description of the land involved is hereto attached and marked Exhibit 1. That other maps will be furnished as requested, There is no alleged error in the Ordinance that would be corrected by this proposed Amendment. That further there has been, over the years, a change of condition in this neighborhood toward commercial ventures and that this rezoning would and is reasonably necessary to the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. That this zoning change would in no way be injurious to the public health, safety, and general welfare. That this proposed zoning request historically will carry out the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance and zoning atlas which was originally adopted on February 6, 1967. That the properties in question have historically been zoned residential. Over the years this zon ehas change in thatrcommme,cial operations such as welding, bus service, glass others have been created in this area. Signed: Owner's Name Addressn Type of Business Lot No. /Jr(4221 J n' rlsRusri.arzav[ � w rernistritv MENnowilitia6 ,7 l ,1 r,_ C r='/ Ye,o14 ri` /'_ 11" 11 .1). / p� .dl 7 �� 1 s .2•.. I We, the undersigned citizens and residents of Orange County, support the above petitioners and wish to advise the Board of County Commissioners that we hav nhiarrinns to the Commissioners modifying and rezoning their properties to 0064'7 APPLICATI©N FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION c % w Date: + . TO: The Honorable Board of County Commn.issioners, Orange County, North Carolina COMMISSIONERS: That if the land Use Plan for Orange County is modified or changed in Chapel Hill Township from Rural Residential to a Twenty Year Transition Area and the area be classified a Commercial Transition Activity Node, which is to be called the Murphy School Commercial Transition Activity Node as requested, this property being within the area described and set forth in Exhibit A hereto attached, then,we, the following property owners, request the Board of County Commissioners to rezone our respective properties, now classified as Rural Residential to Community Commercial Three zone. That the reasons we make this request are as follows: . 1. That the area involved is obviously not of a rural residential character. 2. That there are already existing in this area some eight or nine commercial operations; Dean's Truck & Coach, Ga& N Ele Electric, Phillips GGeneral Repair, Bass' Welding Shop, Corner Grocery, 5 Company, Piedmont Paving Company, and Automotive Catering Service. That many of these commercial ventures have been in operation for as much as ten years or more at their present locations. 3. That this 4. That there pispnot located a possible harm or danger to the public from ithisd rezoning. That a legal description of the land involved is hereto attached and marked Exhibit 1. That other maps will be furnished as requested. There is no alleged error in the Ordinance that would be corrected by this proposed Amendment. That further there has been, over the years, a change of condition in this neighborhood toward commercial ventures and that this rezoning would and is reasonably necessary to the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. That this zoning change would in no way be injurious to the public health, safety, and general welfare. That this proposed zoning request historically will carry out the int- I and purpose of the zoning ordinance and zoning atlas which was originally a on February 6, 1967. That the properties in question have historically bean zoned residential. Over the years this zone thatrcoamie,cial operations such as welding, bus service, glass others have been created in this area. Signed: Lot No. Owner's Named y Address Type of Business p -d XIilmsmotwAirAirI2?J�1PJAG. E/►Sl . f®Ai!—ifiirm Ir( 4f4 % i .3c)- , /. lip . We, the undersigned citizens and residents of Orange County, support the above petitioners and wish to advise the Board of County Commissioners that we have - ..._.,c..;-_ .,,,A rovnnine their properties to 00646 Community Commercial Three Zone District, 8 That further we understand that this rezoning request will be discussed fully and in depth at a public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board on February 22, 1982 at the Orange County Courthouse. Signed: Lot No. Name Address Own or Rent ‘1-Y-1.C6(zi ciAAAA.t.u.) eug..0 (aT 3 . (1,a c. f_s . 4 • € b / .•;// -1<'; ,<e Ar _ , ,2 5 °— 4,,7‹ K5 , sr .0.-4 __ie.(' F i "1 .f xrd, d Ark .-76.d/ /- 3 4-) Copies to: The Orange County Planning Board Orange County, North Carolina The Orange County Planning Department Orange County, North Carolina Page 2 83 l' / Community Commercial Three Zone District. That further we understand that this rezoning request will be discussed fully and in depth at a public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board on February 22, 1982 at the Orange County Courthouse. Signed: Lot No. Name Address Own or Rent ; .. e.o.m. ,....i,: e7).....— %:. ..... rs . .. 400WWMAr :- Av.........y. 0211/41•0170.77m 7( it / i , , 0 ; • ,-, of_ A 'worArafriati irg 1 3 e, 4B df 'A tgan."0 "--- V / Are ' .9-1 0 j /,7 / 6 GA-, . a ., v , _. _..,_.:_ W/ 2i;- 411,e,-7,--, _ 4 • ,e.r.. ... " Arat _ /g•......gm' ' w.....,,,................mrMWAINMIllir ( /L 4 .2 4 - • . . . _ .. . , ----------- Copies to: The Orange County Planning Board Orange County, North Carolina The Orange County Planning Department Orange County, North Carolina. Page 2 uuDou APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF LAND USE PLAN FOR ORANGE COUNTY Date: TO: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners, Orange County, North Carolina COMMISSIONERS: The undersigned parties request that the property located in Chapel Hill Township, Tax Maps Numbered 4, 4-B, and 5, and Eno Tax Nap No. 25, and pre- dominately on the Northeastern portion of Chapel Hill Township, and adjacent to Eno Township, as shown on the attached map marked Exhibit A, and presently being classified as a rural residential area, be changed to a Twenty-Year Transition Area and the area be classified a Commercial Transition Activity Node, which is to be called the Murphy School Commercial Transition Activity Node. That the property involved is generally described as follows and contains approximately 200 acres, more or less: 22EEE.1211211 1. Starting at the intersection of the Southern Railroad track and N.C. 1710 West 2,550 feet to the intersection of Rhodes Creek. 2. Thence in a Southerly direction on Rhodes Creek, approximately 2,000 feet. 3. Thence Southeast 2,000 feet to the intersection of Murphy School Road and Mt. Herman Church/Cornwallis Road. 4. Thence Northeast some 1,800 feet to a 900 turn on Couch Mountain Road immediately North of a school residential area. 5. Thence from there 2,300 feet in a Northerly direction back to the railroad underpass at the intersection of Old No. 10, this being the point of beginning. That the reasons for this request are as follows: 1. That the area involved is obviously not of a rural residential character. 2. That this property is very close to a twenty year transitional area in the Eno Township and that this would simply extend that beginning which presently exists. 3. That there are already existing in this area some eight or nine commercial operations; Dean's Truck & Coach, G & M Electric, Phillips General Repait, Bass' Welding Shop, Corner Grocery, Starcastle Disco, Orange Glass Company, Piedmont Paving Company, and Automotive Catering Service. That many of these commercial ventures have been in operation for as much as ten years or more at their present locations. 4. That this property is located near 1-85 and the Southern Railroad. That we, the undersigned, would support and agree to the change of this area in the Land Use Plan for Orange County. That further we understand that should the Land Use Plan be modified and amended as requested, that this land would be eligible for rezoning for commercial purposes. We also understand that in this transitional area urban services such as water and sewer may be provided. That further these urban services may be either provided for by public or local funds or by individual owners as the situation develops over the years. That we, the undersigned, do further understand that this request to amend the land Use Plan will be discussed in depth at a joint public hearing (over) ,-,-. prIr 5 1 333 . .. „ /9 L-- 2 Pe- 41/1/r 7 17/ 7 ,,.. / / 47 conducted by the Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board on or about February 22, 1982 at the Orange County Courthouse. We further wish to state that we have examined Exhibit A which is the land involved. Signed: Lot No. Namen Address Own or Rent 3 75 __-/,44 41( /./tf, --ZZ;1,74---- . _.... .- /. 2 — ----2 .7.F,..4Z(' I aggilr/ I • v,,v- /7J A ...e,,....._. ,5-- Oi• I el , / '13 . F . A se ,sec.a, . ir • 2 ii-k),,,t- -- ,c, , /21- / Ax ? 3 rE---- hi-,Or&G-z, : C, Jill , .41.■■ , G7 - Ire ,i1111--....,/,'..t1...., ? / 1 ( // 1/ 7 d ,, ( (7/4 _.----1 /......el_. ._. '---------7 if 4. ----..„) - v------''' .------- -"----------:'-::.- -------. - ,,, ..................../- . . 4 Copies to: The Orange County Planning Board Orange County, North Carolina The Orange County Planning Department Orange County, North Carolina Page 2 00652 Community Commercial Three Zone District. That further we understand that this rezoning request will be discussed fully and in depth at a public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board on February 22, 1982 at the Orange County Courthouse. ,--, ile.- .Z.,..f.)A/ / Signed: i Lot No. Name Address r..les. Own or Rent -.> • -> uk8L: 60o5L1 9 r,-,/ - , :,-, „ _ ___;, , -__ 2 .- „ _____ /, . /III irill. -7 ge t V 6 / Ac , 4-a. - I „L.: .7 . i- (1 _Dr 7_ / , / / 1 / L i -- . _ // ,r / 1 1- ... 01 A / l'' 1 . , ,... 6_, ,, ,;.} ,,,71:--• it-Ji 6e/ , ._,!... / /LAwmAluilr■ .42' 5- j .. 3-7- (,1:1 i7 a,. .1 .. . .r_,, ..„,r(2_..'i ')4..... '' C 6 .. 6.5s- , . I.... ,- A:. 1 • . ' . . C. .6.' . - q--4 /1 , i.vs., ...d, 1.:-■ . - 4° ' 2 -e3 r L, t (Yr- - ,Pg, •, .. _, • ' 3 /7,.. 3—7 /177/.4 1-1---/-z-ze.....-L A:,_C. ' ii.---- ---,, 1/- - 3 3 ....1-,..f.- ,h<-47.,..61,-, ,,,....,. .9/, C . 3 ;,,,,,,,,A ig 11/dit,'ll on17:_ir9,,- ,7-6 5 Copies to: The Orange County Planning Board Orange County, North Carolina The Orange County Planning Department Orange County, North Carolina Page 2 4.10•43'53 . ...,.,-.-,;,... - - -:.-. ... . . . -- 84 2.,, ., , , , , • , .•-:. .... • LL . February 24, 1982 Be it known to the Orange County Planning Board and the Board of County CommisSioners that the undersigned are firmly opposed to a requested change in the Land Use Plan and five separate rezonings for the area bounded by SR 1710, SR 1714, SR 1716 and SR 1715. Name Address Lot No. - .." /..,-er4or 4,44, ... e _ q'-..'t IP.t , . „Of ( -/ A / .-- "-- ..- -- 41 )1° 1 a - -- , • 4" _/ ..,(::::a0 12'9 4) -/ Y —....4..... . . , ,--- dr -2/1-e ,,,,, 3-1-Ad/I ( / 95 ' Al 0 t Wri t)? . .1 . _ I A A) .,, te, ,,,A'ce' A 4- .) 40 0 .. 5 .0 J - - . ,..„. ‘• -r 1 - q• ,)c 7 t.id„,,,,.- /0 C iii2)--. ..... .4. /14- ....../...... 46? 414W i BAAA jc.,,,,,,,., ..7- l 64,fi I l' 6,1j191 .3____:L)'*,_-' *C .■TC(.13'1/ , m&L,C.:._IA'0,-a Oil ne — ie L ..-' ,. t Lk I 111 c s Dv e/ .84,',, 3 70?) / er.A..-kr---2.7=- /ie. tP-( , ......., . _ .. . ., . .. . . . . . _ , . _ ... . , . ".• ' . . . 9 .. . . . :,. February 24, 1982 - . .. Be it known to the Orange County Planning Board and the Board of County , - Commissioners that the undersigned are firmly opposed to a requested _ _... ._ .. change in the Land Use Plan and five separate rezonings for the area _ _ bounded by SR 1710, SR 1714, SR 1716 and SR 1715. Named! Address Lot No. t• 7 F iii irgaVrict-- i-. 3, UM.4V1N. 4 / / " i / , . A. . )1/- P )-•2 70 9.4:, .• rldm s.. _ ,..i•lob r -- 4° AC 27? a, "21/151 WI-- os- iji.1- -c, ...c.,.:....- _ , Iht t _ a_al,, - _...,. ......_=.0, )4,, ./-,t :1,, . ,,,i,LA ' -_I 6 .v3 , / / e ,,,1 '5 ,v... . V / 7 - r-avi L' =r--,-L-• _., 4(21),Q / a Or'il / , A ...----- Y /,( _ e-1-./ R2 , 7 A , a0 ".1,•,, e/2/ /7-5 a • .1.+' . `%P :2 .1/ , - > e7 /,. / Z: ef„,) 'rif. s-,--)4"-- .,-,e. -- 91.01:4./4,,,,. ,177()..s-cx,-,‘ I 2L‘v 4.<// 1 ' fa.- i /--/:"2"--- R#( 6o-r gi4,1 - C- blipim-h. ; o...5 ire,.,1( ‘,/l,„7.„.; 1_,47--o ,C..2,4,1a,... ‘.7:7 e: _.,47- , --,--)''2.e.e...-- /. ..-//z-J gg,,,5/ "/LX .4/'5Z-3 1/1 4--ec",7,-, .,i- .77e:•7 J" 00656 - 844 February 24, 1982 Be it known to the Orange County Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners that the.undersigned are firmly opposed to a requested change in the LanT1 Use Plan and five separate rezonings for the area - bounded by SR 1710, SR 1714, SR 1716 and SR 1715. Name Address Lot No. f 4.11,A .4 i / I6 /,vegra676 6-41dc.7Y1:6 fed- ' aise- ;7. Aurlioge- ASL `-eic-0-11,147). irreA., / (er" gri>c.24K4 aeld/W66 (44-74,--) F-33 24-rv•--ve W Ainf 46,n 14).... AL 7 %.) 36 ck 406. i(!s,,e . Ok &slEbi - / • 41..„.„ ,/' ‘/PA avdir,„/K 0 /21?(1.7_40, ,Lefs- 4L) , 4?4' 64. • 11 .8,10 February 24, 1982 Be it known to the Orange County Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners that the undersigned are firmly opposed to a requested . change in the Land Use Plan and five separate rezonings for the area bounded by SR 1710, SR 1714, SR 1716 and SR 1715. .. Name Address Lot No. t/a4,/ 17g7 4-*A■ _41 6fre, (a?,1)100.ta-C • /PT'. I Arlo 4 _... 46,7z / 4ax-tt,(i .,: ' leiletit, d-L.3,7 tamoriAge: 1.-- r i‘ , 9 4- I - I2J) Ltej-1 D. i Hit4fre.-- -4 4) 3 '1;4 /, .0 1 „..e% /_____ __JON4...4 t.Mr/ ' '; ' 4/f . r # d.110“-- //1 t ;L 0 : t„. „a ;• f d: r2i VP 0” .... Ri; , ,,,,o), 3 io - 2-8 '' .4 ...gad cZ,D, / _ S,71-4..q4tfY30-8/(5 1261. `k6- 61•• II, , / it I - ' • /.4 , ., - r`1.7a,i - • , —_—___—_— • —....._ 17-- _ ... 00658 8 4.Li . . . [ _ ,........- -, -........: - 1016=2= .... .._—_—_______ .. _r_..,._,_r..__ 1 I Ix\ . . _ , ... N. N. N. 121 'N N Li 115 \\- \\ 1 1 t 1 8 7\ /2 1 1 ofoosolliwww . 3.. - --- -- 87-- .,..., ..... . i . ca .. ---""\.c........... ' AN 3 i n.`■ m ." .■,, - t., ..., 4 E.; rn .. .....„, o o A .Di , 0 i .. ..., I., ,.,. ;, e . , ..../ ... E2 1 13 " ".. .7-:g srj • .-. . . .6. .... 11 ..,._ 17 IT •....___t.,, 9 .._.b .....c.,,,,, .sf.. .. 4 v0-) ,..) o 0 0 0 c. c. 00 ct _a , (1) ti 1 ...,. ., (1.5 0 7-zi T 1 47 4 I . "•• s- - a) —0) r ----,_,. CY '497 0 4 .., I rs ,-..„,..... „ „C.17 ■. ' .52. 0, rI , a tv •-.. , _ -1 n. I— ID SO a a z - I ..... -... -- -- „.. = 6 ..., . L... ...j i..- Z ..... I - .- ,.. -.------...----..-.-...-----,---------...-----...--. 13 _ - 00659 I A ORANGE COUNTY MANN-LNG DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CA.ROLINA. 27278 6.00a oro"*;...sos * 4',4a0e DEANS TRUCK.AND COACH. - GARY DEAN REZONING RETESTYFRWRI-1 w CC3 The following application material in Article 20 (Amendments) must be submitted to the Orange County Planning Department for this rezoning request from R-1 to CC3 to be considered. ARTICLE-, 20-'XITADHEITS --11701..WEETOWSUPPLIED-BYAPPLICANT Ordinance requires: All applications shall contain . the following if apprapriatee a) If the proposed amendment a) A map has been subudtted, would require a change in the Zoning Atlas, a fully dimensioned map at a scale of not less than one hundred feet to the inch-nor more than twenty feet to the inch Showing the land whichwould be covered by tha proposed amendment, b) A le7,al description of such b) A legal description of the land. land involved is hereto attached and marked Exhibit 1. c) The alleged error in this c) There is no alleged error ordinance, if any, which in pie Ordinance that would would be corrected by the be corrected by this proposed proposed amendment with auendment, a detailed explanation of such error in the ordinance and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct same. d) The changed or changing d) "That further there has been, canditions, if any; in over the years, a change of the area or in the County condition inthis neighborhood generally, Ninich make toward commercial ventures and the proposed awendment that this rezoning would and is reasonably necessary to reasonably necessary to the pro- the promotion of the tection of the public health, -public health, safety, safety. and general welfare. and general welfaie. That this zoning change would in no way be infurious to the-public health, safety, and general welfare." From page 1 of applicAion. e) The manner in which the e) "That this proposed zoning proposed amendment will request historically will carry carry out the intent out the intent and purpose of and purpose of the the zoning ordinance and zoning adopted Comprehensive atlas which was originally adopted Plan or part thereof. on February 6, 1967. That the properties in question have historically been zoned residential. Over the years this zone has changed in that commercial operations such as welding, bus service, glass installation and . repair, and others have been created in this area." From page' 1 of application. ' - f) All other circumstances, f) The applicant made these state- factors and reasons which rents applicant offers in support of the praposed amendwent, 1. That the area involved is obviously not of a rural resi- dential character. Z. That there are already existing in this area some eight or nine commercial operations; Dean's' Truck & Coach, G & M Electric, Phillips General Repair, Bass' fielding Shop. Corner Grocery, Starcastle Disco, Orange Glass Compaay, Piedmont Paving Co., and Automotive Catering Service. That many of these commercial ventures have been in operation for as much as ten years or mare at their present locations. 3. That this property is located near I-85 arid the Sourthern Railroad. 4. That there is no possible harm or danger to the public from this rezoning. 15' . . . . . • 81J APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION DATE____9- The Honorable Board of County Commissioners Orange County, North Carolina . _ - - COMMISSIONERS: The undersigned request that property located on Tax Map Number__5.- ....., Block number , Lot number 5"-' , Shown on'the accompanying plat, which is presently in a 44.? District be rezoned to (1"....M119.1/411-Vie-e~,12. for the following reasons: --..-", -- 4.4 -at .141 ..,''...40 ...0, . ..- ._ •..A, 41 / -•'4 4 . 471 fi..,PA/1-d-• II- A.4,,e_eihro_ot. )4L 44 ...44.f ....4-4! . ' 4 .. alittdoit7 \ct ,, .4 --‘77e:474./WC-'6.441-11 ...164?,all-eX Va E-"•49 • / - ;LA ;AL, & _ .46211_2:14 Li - , __IXe /1 3/ iii,i 4 .4 2 j / i i AEI 12diLdead"e7e.4.4tdi. . ma 1,14 2 &___61-22-e--/Viie- .4 A 2- i 1_4L4 /4.:-.4.4. _2-4t/ f • ,;:a.. /. Ll 7 - a J ,1 4 1. . .t A.:-... -e. / ,,,,.-2...........' / SIP /-.../#elAd-o_...4 . Signed: Address: Ale. .. . A.41/A' , JO- / X V r2U 9-75/ id/ ,, - r . / / 1/ ..e...."..r.70:: 4 I tc. REZ014TNG REQUEST CIIECKLIST ADDRZSSL,6�/ 7, 1:. n g Total number of acre Current land Type 0-if zOnla4g reposed land uSe. Comullity--- opased Water SUPPlv: Pulilic umber of lots.�O r Tax ml, ock Iudiv��,�,Jal proposed Seurize Treatment' public Community c tank 1; _jnd1vidu3l septic count on the state road Access 0--,to state road # Average daily traffic co �,De,,O_ribe existing h . poorly drni-oW rrjzicaj �,rcaf_ rlood prone arear..- ser.5itive areas�_-- Af Descri;,, jr�,,j Cencral 1%rea.. �x 6WCV--, Z81 nctn rc Ind P:, Cr_ C7 C- Cul VIN TY`OF ORANGE, NORTH CAROLINA PERMIT 9 {3 ��i t� �� PROPOSED USE �Z DATA. . ` �- TOWNSHIP � �. ' �� j C► � � ,.# . OUTSIDE DIMENSIO '�( NO STORIES �. LOTS:,'�, PARCEL BLOCK TAX MAP NO. ROOMS BASEMENT CARPORT SUBDIVISION SECTION ff GARAGE N0. BATHS '�"" AIR COND. f OiINER 4 AREA FLOOR SPACE TYPE CONSTRUCTION ADDRESS LOT SIZE BUILDER SETBACKS: FRONT RI9 t ADDRESS r' LEFT-SIDE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR , 5 PLUMBING CONTRACTOR --------- ACCESSORY BUILDING TYPE CONST. HEATING-A/C CONTRACTOR TYPE LOCATION SIZE HEIGHT (;ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER PROPOSED USE WIRED BUILDING INSPECTOR MUST BE CALLED FOR: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, CHANGES, REMARKS 1. FOOTING INSPECTION: BEFORE ANY CONCRETE IS POURED. Z. FRAMING: BEFORE ANY MALLS OR CEILINGS 'ARE. COVERED. 3. FINAL: WHEN DOORS ARE HUNG AND BUILDING COMPLETED. MORNING INSPECTIONS: CALL BEFORE 9':OO.A.M. COST OF CONSTRUCTION l e4O6 o t3 FEE AFTERNOON INSPECTIONS: CALL BEFORE 1:00 P.M. T PAID BY: NECK ( } CASH 4--' CHARGE j j THIS PERMIT IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO: THE ORANGE COUNTY- ZONING CH i ORDINANCE, THE ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, THE N.C. LIST ANY OTHER INFORMATION NECESSARY BELOW STATE BUILDING CODE, THE N.C. UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL BUILDING + CODE, THE N.C. BUILDING CODE VOLUME 11 PLUM,5114G, AND THE � NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE. ----------- PLACARD MUST BE DISPLAYED DURING CONSTRUCTION, UNTIL COMPLETE [ AN '( t?ti`t C1 Y -/"' THIS PERMIT ISSUED BY: �rS . ,r {=`'' yi .,• {=� ^_{� _ BUILD r'G INSUCTOR Uk.).t}t : ' :,. . ORANGE COUNTY. APPLICATION FOR ZONING PERMIT . . e arm it No Board of Adjustment Case No. ---_-_ -_— / I. Application is made to '.,I.L._ a structure and/or premises (occupy, tLsg_,...e.2_:ect• alter, repair, remove excavate) Aq ail) .,.., ■. 4) located at a. // ' to be ud se for • Township (...._.•i'm . (- .a Ar 1/ Tax map 5 Block Lot...5--e Builder: Owner: 2 /.1-' . ...- A401-- .410 Agent: - -.4( 1/ ----- Address44-_, __Address: City': O, / i .1/' . e City:. .._.- ---- Estimated cost of work fOr which application is being A sketch of the proposed lot plan (plat) in duplicate shall be attached and made a part of this application. The sketch shall be drawn CO a suitable scale and shall show accurate mensions and location of each structure to be erected, installed, or altered. Front, rear, d side yard Aimensions, and location of water and sewer facilities shall also he acCuratel) . . . t . HAIN STRUCTU(E:INFORMATION Type of Use: Residential ommercil Industrial, • •-. Dimension of Lot 1, . Front Yard Setback: / (,,C,....,.,-'I;L- . . '57) .V. .--: ' '• /7'7'-' .",)`::::"' ' " ' Side Yard Setback Right: ..,- . Rear Yard Setback: • );:, .‘....' ..,.. ,' No. of Accessory 2.. No. of Dwelling —.....— . , . ACCESSORY BUILDING INFORMATION Description (including use) Setback from rear lot line_ Setback from side lot line ....S ..7.7..5. 7 ----- bnensions ..;;;;-..4.ARtir.c15:.;;;;e;.:=414xcar--• ,. .. ,..- _.. .,;.: 72.-etv.Trc.i:1,::-7Pisr7,'I.:,er -?:•='r.1.177=,t5she.;mv---..,:71 Zoning Permit Approved: Sigunture of Owner: 0 . .. • ! I ..,-;; F:-- -e5,>'-'e'------;,,,_,,,-,-,.._, 4 Verffer, . . • Zoning Officer. Owner ----------' . 01' : . 0 t„,..., .. . 0,Fniig5 3 5—C2 .C)t ,z 72/1 2P 00666 ... . • 8 b._.f. ... , . . ...... , . COI_EliAN, BERNHOLZ, DICKERSON, BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL.& HARGRAVE, ATTOP,NE.'1•5 A I LAW CHtlitTON.51 itEET 1.5,..10ROUGI I,N C,27276 August 19, "1981 732-210 ...9.12-8000 .. . CH NM.Hai 01 r in. $(.11E.20,1,1:Asr1I IN kitl.01 137 E.FRArrh3.1N S1M r CI 1.Wa 110.t.rt C 27511 1)17 920 7151 Mr. Gary Dean LEGat.CLIN:CS Route 1, Box 269-H msER05.EslAm'ssiarr Durham', North Carolina 27705 NCNEr FIALA CHAI'LL Hot ;4 C V111 910.929.0331 Dear Mr,: Dean: 110 W.MAIN 5 ritEE.1 ' truromm,r,1C 27701 . 91v.stowr Please be advised that I represent Orange - - - . ALEPIRC,g.i.r4A .W County, North Carolina. I am told that you are the simr=ive.i.:Immv. owner of a tract or parcel of land located on State DONALD R 0:,.71.:*:0',54Z 110C.F.08.130M1612 . Road 1715 in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, GOOF MN E Gi.r.l II Kt. and that you are currently using this property for nouGLA.sHARGRioa mArmsJ I3EKNHOL 2 a commercial use X further understand that on ' r Al ri IA 5r ANF"D"r January 8, 1980 you received a zoning permit and a mmiumww: building permit to construct a garage for residential B WINO D.5,40:Yrit CPO:1471i purposes only. The property in question is zoned residential'. The commercial use of this property . . is in violation of the Orange County. Zoning'Ordinance. On at least two occasions in 1981 the • Orange County planning Department contacted you : ----- informing yob of the violation and requesting. your - . , Cooperation in complying with the County's Zoning Regulations. The illegal use of your,prOperty • • _ continues. At the expiration of five (5) days from your receipt of this letter your property will be inspected to determine compliance. If the commercial use still exists at that inspection a criminal warrant will be sought for your arrest for violation of the County's Zoning Regulations. The Orange County Zoning Regulations; further provide, that each calendar Week ' that this violation continues to exist shall be con- sidered a separate offense. Ver . truly ill Geo . dedhill ) . GEG/jac , cc: Eddie Kirk . Orange County Planning Department 4-1 .. .....,_ . 006S7 - • • . • ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH • NORTH CAROLINA • 27278 oola ait:Fr r go a41•‘** AUTO CATERING SERVICE REZONING REQUEST FROM R-1 TO CC3 The following application material in Article 20 (Amendments) must be submitted to the Orange County Planning Department for this rezoning request from R-1 to CC3 to be considered. ARTICLE 20 AMENDMENTS INFORMATION SUPPLIED ST APPLICANT Ordinance requires: All applications shall: contain the following if appropriate: ,a) If the proposed amendment a) A map has been submitted. would require a change in the Zoning Atlas, a fully dimensioned map at a scale of not less than one hundred feet to the inch nor more than twenty feet to the inch be covered by the proposed amendment. b) A legal aescription of such b) A legal description of the lend. land involved is hereto attached and marked Exhibit 1. c) The alleged error in this c) There is no alleged error ordinance, if any, which in the Ordinance that would would be corrected by the be corrected by this proposed proposed amendment with ..amendment. a detailed explanation of such error in the ordinance and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct same, 00b68 db d) The changed or changing d) "That further there has been, conditions, if any, in over the years, a change of the area or in the County condition in this neighborhood generally, which make toward commerical ventures and the proposed amendment that this rezoning would and is reasonably necessary to reasonably necessary to the the promotion of the protection of the public health, public health, safety, safety, and general welfare. and general welfare. That this zoning change would in no way be infurious to the public health, safety, and general welfare." From page 1 of application. e) The manner in which the e) "That this proposed zoning proposed amendment will request historically will carry carry out the intent out the intent and purpose and purpose of the of the zoning ordinance and adopted Comprehensive zoning atlas which was originally Plan or part thereof. adopted on February 6, 1967. That the properties in question have historically been zoned residential. Over the years this zone has Changed in that commercial operations such as welding, bus service, glass installation and repair, and others have been created in this area." From page 1 of application. f) All other circumstances, f) The applicant made these factors and reasons which statements: applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment. 1. That the area involved is obviously not of a rural residential character. 2. That there are already existing in this area some eight or nine commercial operations; Dean's Truck & Coach, G & M Electric, Phillips General Repair, Bass Welding Shop, Corner Grocery, starcastle Disco, Orange Glass Company, Piedmont Paving Co., and Automotive Catering Service. That many of these commercial ventures have been in operation for as much as ten years or more at their present locations. 3. That this property is located near 1-85 and the Southern Railroad. 4, That there is no possible harm or danger to the public from this rezoning. 2N5 _ _ NW������� .~" .~, . ��� g _.__- AUTO CATERING SERVICE APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION DATE 25 Febrear 1982 The Honorable Board of County Commissioners Qorth Carolina — Orange County, _ '_ CONKZSOIO0ERD: Chapel ��%l -� The undersigned request that property located on Tax p Number Shown on'the accompanying plat, Lot number_,�___-_, S, Block num�e District be rezoned to which is presently in a _ � for the following reasons: Community SEE PETITION • Signed: s. ^DJ . mv Z-�� ' . _ Ai�Gi:Ni:�IG it1;Qt�G w�l .+IS��A�l�t ADDiiBSS :P: 6. Box 3182 Durham � man's NAIM Auto Caterin Service ,. c7 Total number of acres in,,,,,.,t_�___._Current land use t�_eneral comr:�rri�� �. current zonin _ Type o rezoning Ysquested Community Commercial 3 Proposdd land use Pra osed Water Supply: Public Community_______�_. Tax map k— --Bloctc Nu�uber o Lots P' Communit Individual. septic tantc Individual Proposed Sewage Treatment. Publiq,�,,,,�,.L- y — ate road Describe existing Access onto state road # _.1?.l.�t...._,�. Average daily traffic count an the st � _ Poorly drained critical areas: flood prone areas areas Streams Other,sensitive area -Describe land uses in: General Area See Petition see Petition Adjacent parcels of land x U0671 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 6.011 f WS;r1I c.p 41',4c100*. G & M ELECTRIC REZONING REQUEST FROM R-1 TO CC3 The following application material in Article 20 (Amendments) must be submitted to the Orange County Planning Department for this rezoning request from R-1 to CC3 to be considered. ARTICLE 20 AMENDMENTS INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY APPLICANT Ordinance requires: All applications shall contain the following if appropriate: a) If the proposed amendment a) A map has been submitted. Would require a change in the Zoning Atlas, a fully dimensidnedt map at a scale of not less than one hundred feet to the inch nor more than twenty feet to the inch be covered by the proposed amendment. b) A legal description of such b) A legal description of the land. land involved is hereto attached and marked Exhibit l- c ) The alleged error in this • c) There is no alleged error ordinance, if any, which in the Ordinance that would would be corrected by the be corrected by this proposed proposed amendment with amendment. a detailed explanation of such error in the 4 ordinance and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct same. 00672 - d) The changed or changing d) "That further there has been, conditions, if any, in over the years, a change of the area or in the County condition in this neighborhood generally, which make toward commerical ventures and the proposed amendment that this rezoning would and is reasonably necessary to reasonably necessary to the the promotion of the protection of the public health, public health, safety, safety, and general welfare. and general welPare. That this zoning change would in no way be infurious to the public health, safety, and general welfare." From page 1 of application. e) The manner in which the e) "That this proposed zoning proposed amendment will request historically will carry carry out the intent out the intent and purpose and purpose of the of the zoning ordinance and adopted Comprehensive zoning atlas which was original]; Plan or part thereof. adopted on February 6, 1967. That the properties in question have historically been zoned residential. Over the years this zone has changed in that commercial operations such as welding, bus service, glass installation and repair, and others have been created in this area." From page 1 of application. f) All other circumstances, f) The applicant made these factors and reasons which statements: applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment. 2. That the area involved is obviously not of a rural residential character. 2. That there are already existing in this area some eight or nine commercial operations; Dean's Truck & Coach, G & M Electric, Phillips General Repair, Bass Welding Shop, Corner Grocery, Starcastle Disco, Orange Glass Company, Piedmont Paving Co. , and Automotive Catering Service. That many of these commercial ventures have been in operation for as much as ten years or more at their present locations. 3. That this property is located near 1-85 and the Southern Railroad. 4. That there is no possible harm or danger to the public from 2-7 this rezoning. 90(473 ' 66,1 _ _ . - _ _ G. & M. cLoCIaIC APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION DATE 25 February The Honorable Board of County Commissioners _ Orange County, North Carolina gOFIlvIISDI0NERS; Chapel Hill The undersigned request that property located on Tax Map Shown on'the accompanying plat, Block number 47 Lot number , which is presently in a District be rezoned to nes�n�n�xpx � `=~...^^ for the following reasons: SEE PETITION ' . ' Signed: Address: ssE PETITION 2-6 - - 1, Box 239, Durham, t�. C• Z G. b1. Electric ADD US r.C3 omm'S NAME i y-,lot'"z! } General commercial Current Land use Current Zoning 11ttral residential Total number of aaieg,;r„_,� que`sted Community commercial 3 Proposed land use Type of rezoning G-G 3 t Public Community. Number of lots '_Proposed Water Supply: Tax map �1, �__,._,.T3lock 1_,_.,._., Individual— proposed Sewage Treatment! Public ` Community Individual septic tank_,�_„__,_„�,,,.,....,.._ Access onto state road ,� Average daily traffic count on the state road --- Describe existing Poorly drained areas critical areas: Flood prone areas other,sensitive areas Streams General Area See Petition ,Describe land uses. in: Adjacent parcels of land flee Petition � t� &1W75 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTAIENT EILL5BOROUGH NORM CAROLINA. 27275 4....10 •f .f."14711 1.■ 17 Vp 43.1 PHILLIPS GENERAL REPAIR REZONING REQUEST FROM R-1 to CC3 The following application material in Article 20 (Amendments) must be submitted to the Orange County Planning Department for this rezoning request from P4 to CC3 to be considered. ARTICLE 20 AMENDMENTS INFORMATION SUPPIUMD .. BY APPLICANT. Ordinance requires: All application shall contain the following if appropriate: a) If the proposed amendment a) A map has been submitted. would require a change in the Zoning Atlas, a fully dimensioned map at a scale of not less than one hundred feet to the inch nor more than twenty feet to the inch be covered by the proposed amendment. b) A legal description of such b) A legal description of the land. land involved is hereto attached and marked Exhibit 1. c) The alleged error in this c) There is no alleged error ordinance, if any, which in the Ordinance that would would be corrected by the be corrected by this proposed proposed amendment with amendment. a detailed explanation of such error in the ordinance and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct same. 30 00676 B e.; d) The changed or changing d) "That further there has been, conditions, if any, in over the years, a change of the area or in the County condition in this neighborhood generally, which make toward commerical ventures and the proposed amendment that this rezoning would and reasonably necessary to is reasonably necessary to the promotion of the the safety, and general welfare. public health, safety, That this zoning change would . and general welfare, in no way be infurious to the public health, safety, and general welfare." From page 1 of application. e) The manner in which the e) "That this proposed zoning proposed amendment will request historically will carry carry out the intent out the intent and purpose and purpose of the of the zoning ordinance and adopted Comprehensive zoning atlas which was originall Plan or part thereof. adopted on February 6, 1967. That the properties in question have historically been zoned residential. Over the years this zone has changed in that commercial operations such as welding, bus service, glass installation and repair, and others have been created in this area." From page 1 of application. f) All other circumstances, f) The applicant made these factors and reasons which statements: applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment. 1. That the area involved is obviously not of a rural residential character. 2. That there are already existing in this area some eight or nine commercial operations; Dean's Truck 8 Coach, G & M Electric, Phillips General Repair, Bass Welding Shop, Corner Grocery, Starcastle Disco, Orange Glass Company, Piedmont Paving Co. , and Automotive Catering Service. That many of these commercial ventures have been in operation for as much as ten years or more at their present locations 3. That this property is located near 1-85 and the Southern Railroad. 4. That there is no possible harm or danger to the public from this rezoning. 3 .�, � .�� " , � •������ � - ' . B1i i -- .-_ .. - . _ _-- ' PHILOLp GENERAL REPAIR APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLIM IFlCA[ION ^ . _ DATE 25 Februar 1982 ` � The Hondrablo of County Commissioners _ _ . _ _ Orange County= Nnrth Carolina _ � �� _�_ ~ �OPI0ISOIO0ERO: Chapel Hill located Tax Map Number 5~ The undersigned request that property _____ . _ Block number Lot number., 1-A , 5hown mn^the accompanying plat, ------� istrict be rezoned to which is presently in a . Rural residential D Community 3 r thn follm*ing reason s: _ SEE PETITION . • � Signed: Address: SEE PETITION . • . . - " . __________ . ,3_7'.'",- -z . 1tR 0NING UdIT 'CHECI.'L2ST x} ADDSS btur h School Road ovmrml S NAIiL' General Etc air �., :O ` ` `I'oti Current Land use general commercial `� Rural Residential Total number of acxes�,,..... Current zoning G-C 3 =quest Community commercial 3 Proposed land use Type of rezoning Y�q - :, Public Community—----_ Number of lots ;proposed Water Supply' _.-.------ Tax map #—____Block _ . individual septic tank, Community 'Proposed Sewage Treatment: 1'ubl�c_ -•.----- Describe existing Access onto state road t1 1,_ 7,,1`l Average daily traffic count on „_ the state read ____�.. Poorly drained areas critical areas: rlood prone areas Othex.sensitive areas Streams , See etition . Describe land uses. in: General Area to See petition Adjacent parcels of land t F.' t e . , . .. . . _ . ls 0 o ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Trr1"3",SBOROTTGEt NORM CAROLINA . . 27278 ,. 0 oola .f,...0 4E-7-.47.ril t 0:,■-F ., . ...__ ' 41'is COS' BASS WEIDING SHOP REZONING REQUEST FROM R-1 TO CC3 The following application material in Article 20 (Amendments) rust be submitted to the Orange County Planning Department for this rezoning request from B-1 to CC3 to be considered. ARTICLE 20 AMENDMENTS INFORMATION SUPPLED BY APPLICANT Ordinance requires: All applications shall contain the following if appropriate: . a) If the proposed amendment would a) A map has been submitted. require a change in the Zoning Atlas, a fully dimensioned map at a scale of not less than one hundred feet to the inch nor more than twenty feet to the inch be covered by the proposed amendment. b) A legal description of such b) A legal description of the lard land involved is hereto attached and marked Exhibit 1„ c) The alleged error in this c) There is no alleged error in ordinance, if any, which the Ordinance that would would be corrected by the be corrected by this proposed proposed amendment with amendment. a detailed explanation of such error in the ordinance and detailed reasons how the , proposed amendment will correct same. ..31- -,-,, 06680 8 d) co T changed or changing d) "That further there has been, onditions, if any, in over the years, a change of the area or in the County condition in this neighborhood generally, which make tagard commerical ventures and the proposed amendment that this rezoning would and is reasonably necessary to reasonably necessary to the the promotion of the protection of the public health, public health, safety, safety, and general welfare. and general welfare. That this zoning change would in no way be infurious to the public health, safety, and general welfare." From page 1 of application. e) The manner in which the e) "That this proposed zoning proposed amendment will request historically will carry carry out the intent out the intent and purpose and purpose of the of the zoning ordinance and adopted. Comprehensive zoning atlas which was originally Plan or part thereof. adopted on February 6, 1967. That the properties in question have historically been zoned residential. Over the years this zone has changed in that commercial operations such as welding, bus service, glass installation and repair, and others have been created in : . ... this area." From page 1 of _ .. application. f) All other circumstances, f) The applicant made these factors and reasons which statements: applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment. 1. That the area involved is obviously not of a rural residential character. 2. That there are already existing in this area some eight or nine commercial operations; Dean's Truck & Coach, G & IN.1 Electric, Phillips General Repair, Bass Welding Shop, Corner Grocery, Starcastle Disco, Orange Glass Company, Piedmont Paving Co., and Automotive Catering Service. That many of these commercial ventures have been in operation for as much as ten years or more at their present locations. 3. That this property is located near I-85 and the Southern Railroad. 4. That there is no possible harm or danger to the public from this rezoning. 3 s . 88681 - — 36d BASS WELDING SHOP CLASSIFICATION APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFI` DATE 25 Februar 1982 The Honorable Board of County Commissioners Orange County, North Carolina CuiviD3ID0ER3: _ Chapel The undersigned request that property located on Tax Map Number 5 . Block number Lot number 55 , Shown on-the accompanying plat, -- ' ' District be rezoned to which is presently in a � . � ^'^ _ for the following reasons: Community Commercial 3 SEE PETITION • Signed: Address: — _ SEE PETITION , _______ ____— ___________ ItEZbNING Rr t3ES'T'CHECKLIST CQ f Durham 00 _' ADDUSS 2t. 1, Box 2b5-C, c7 OWNg€tiS Na pass 1Veidin Sho ! ', aneral commercial blot Currant Sand use 9 Currant zoning Rural residential Total number of aerefj.! . . G_g 3 Community commercial 3 Proposed Sand use Type of rezoning rPquested ! public comnunicy��.---_- Nu�nber of lots °.proposed Suter Supply: _...---- Tax map BSaclt - Individual septic tanlc _�-» Public Community_______- i'raposad Sewage Treatment: --- ----'--�' Describe existing Individuai_ _ Average daily traffic-count on the state road._ Access onto state road f -- - poorly drained areas critical areas: Flood prone areas pther;sensitive areas streams .Describe land uses in: General Area See Petition r Adjacent parcels of land See Petition t� V'AO 7AL eSAt PR4r#2 TX aLC09D L933 m HDtl.PCR{IT ap334G,nATVd TCI1sD4 STAT4:s Lt4C IIJ1iCR 'NflC.ItiTP/Wr PD.H97.'rmrTs di 4LIG]I.'<:k411 D&SFGIIIY'Q11 �-25LtSF4 TAX tSC9R4 tEt I9fi7 A R-L Wt ar.at.d fit®Plat of tb..oc—patian Thl.va+he•b[g,.t vsidinq Shoe Mqh H.eaa. CA I A1715- M rhy }aaaea r.Prna Sand ul.gal Characttr- a€nc•3473 and 1. Tdna Rath i.tL..of uss. eanald+rad.tssaa aeCUp.tian Wt ha. Ixtbtr.t Mae ill+gai=herac;tr- Acquired 3-13 - €.efts of uas.- ' R 1 . tat cr.stsd ft—Oat of r£bm. c"�;ion• 1,-1913..4 la c R x rl— Cana A=T CA 5 47 old HC Tam 0aa.+r.rr..land tlds mnaldtral s hang Hay ArgVtzad Has Cnuc+ai In 1977. ncc,q.+cion. 3-73 _ R - 7clil9 160.48 In 1441,Iw kas'Lisrwr tllags2 ho aCCUpstlon Phi311P. Ho—P. a£ 5 3A HureAY 6th. 3-15-76 —ad Lt.iaca a-Ind Wfor.the WLidLnq C Tura•r 6 The#us Hiiliasam—ad d aneral 10 9 14 uss snllrgrdi ul,an 3'a.{r inaia• Uri s it!n J—1967.Tam wsa ;h.qie aaF n6arq.d P Vila— q start tram.4a 11Laq. Isi 1476 kt b...-sn - Ty[EtaL ::farad in 197]. in 3467 1171116 uam. tequlrad rh.Wilding+had a..Iw l-6B of 13,0+4.40. !at.,fnea housf Ilan-ibnfomiR4 farm�Lgr 4 6rrvtn 3 41Y Jd 1 tIt i 1 M1rDi'x sch. tri. kn IR6`r.xt Yta• Auto tatar' H3Cha.i A. vsI IA 1t C.'a.44 u.I. ■tn=a 1Tru tang [xl !Aq 8.xvi=• Riddle a .31 s 14 ratt'art gar.q.. kl—D Tcuct C mach uifa ilrfnd. fanAlf H.LkiA bgw{hr then De1n's T[a=s e J.YCA Riddle iand in 7dq.at 195g and Ca.eh aared at Auto - Acqule.d 8-74 3 meta vtrs=r.at.d In 1917. •easi++q-sva,seza{nn R 114i wimtnq—a Drina TraCr. 4nry V:ynf e S 50 SR 1731 wt crsat.d{n 1973.Plat xiiagal n.tzwe.d in%?do. i Cnteh 4r+n b vif. of 3tnaa J.rraal and t1d. Tlttrffarf th.V - A[ta PA.CnuOhl: rent ws is iikt9ai. - required 1}� - T4 i sells 4-79 ...-v _ carnar a#Loath •»]l..«.^--jc L-. .'.__ ... H.,7. tart and Corner Rarrl 4arlaae tH S 4 I.tory fraaa duallLng ILry tnak.y s=gsstr.t fired Htm. Ri. b ltarphy .aist+d Ln 1945 and had this Iat In i.Pt. C[acary raqu etA. rd. a value of 13,144.00 far I463. 7-49 b i' S�2 A H-a .q.1 and legal E son•d tzF 18 A R I 1kn-Caafarnin4 �f Ir a nun- at 4 43 off ba. 1714 4a€ld{Ag m PrarrrtY N fac+nfnq •+- Qin's �r• 1944• Prfdstea the ar' 41as ra, YascMil.-ire d£nuu+. - IY»-tontoa+t4n4 n+is-uar vrs - • _R �_...A-k..—.. _. ..—.�.......�....«.Uab.Yiat.d (n 1441....._ r.ratml 1i s Club ... it•rCSatla T£tnmaE L. �msi of old IiC 111 1970 at 4 3a s end 1.nan' T. am Harphy srh. 4Lecn£rarno:t'f tAlderuooil c . contm['Ainge GT#taarty Clabt t3Ar4a[.t C4daraaad Acquired 1,61 ,r e Rd.M R TM R_3,_.. ... _.. r ynna the ald jI Yurnar Cat tbrasn r. CH •S la' '£llrp h SSa.Y ,1.t rs ml rrnNUiy Ca[e tenser TYrn.r i I1a=iey nm-eglrftli�s{fn w.1s.VLI-A - f" v1.11 rt:.nau„[d- - 'R+rnai laPtM IA £ ''die .. . .. .. . _ , (_,AROLIN A ROUTE 1,BOX 183 DURHA.14,NORTH.CAROLINA.27.705 EUREMA383-04C CHATELIRIL9294.8a . _ . A, . . . _ - . Statement' at Public Hearing Before Orange County Commissioners Concerning Rezoning Request by Dean's Truck and coach Company, et al ... . ' I am Don Wells, Principal of the Carolina Friends School. The School is located in Orang® County about one mile from the land specified in this rezoning request. This statement will be brief and is divided into two parts. In the first part, I speak in behalf of the Friends School'; in the second, I speak as a private citizen and neighbor of many of those who have or will speak tonight. . . Speaking as PrinCipal of the School, the corporation of Carolina Friends . ' School chooses not to take a position with regard to this specific rezoning request because it believes that there are valid concerns on both sides of this issue. Yet, it dbes have a compelling interest in the resolution of this request by the Commissioners; for Dean's Truck and Coach CoMpany leases to the Friends School its five buses. This bus service provides transportation . for approximately one-third of the School's students; meeting a crucial need i . that arises from both the School's remote location and the inability of some of its parents to provide their own transportation. The need for, and quality of, Dean's service to the School. over the last five years has been recorded in our letter of 2 September 1982, to Mr. Jim polatty with copies to all the CoMinissioners. In short, the letter stated that the need is critical and the service is outstanding. . _ . . : Speaking as a private citizen, I first wish to commend the Planners, thePlanning Board and the CommissiOners for producing such a sound and thoughtful Zoning Ordinance. In particular -- as one who has spent most of .._ _ his adult life in meetings -- I respect the time and commitment it takes to produce such a comprehensive document. I believe that it will, tO quote from its statement of intent, "....protect and promote the health, safety and general Welfare of the County and its residents:..." During my study of the,new Zoning Ordinance i was impressed by its wise inclusion of many alternatives, variances and contingencies., These aspects of the Zoning Ordinance greatly enhance its soundness, for they empower the Commissioners . to reach careful deCisions on complex zoning issues with justice to all County residents. . With specific regard to this zoning request, should you the Commissioners 7- inligiltof the,evidence presented -- see fit to deny the request for rezoning - , . to commercial III, I would entreat you to utilize the provisions in the Zoning Ordinance and rezone the specific small family businesses appealing to you. By so doing, these folk may continue to not only provide their many valUable services to our community, but they may also continue to provide a livelihood for themselves and their families. ' Y . - ... . . - (RAM..1 O O Public Hearing Statement page 2 At a meeting concerning this zoning request the other night, Mr. Polatty stated that in his experience almost all requests for rezoning are controversial -- that they tend to pit neighbor against neighbor. I have known many of the "neighbors" concerned with this request for many years, have met with those on both sides of this issue, and believe. that_ _ • they are all persons of great integrity. It appears to me that those - - wishing that the rezoning be granted are basically only wishing to stay in business, and, that those wishing that the rezoning be denied are not opposing the presently existing businesses. Rather, they wish to protect the area in question from additional commercial growth. From this observation, it would appear that if the rezoning request to Commercial III is denied, a decision by you, the Commissioner?, to recommend the legal rezoning of all those presently operating small businesses petitioning you would be a most pleasant solution. It best meets the necOs and desires of all concerned. In my experience in leading a small - but complex - School community, whenever a solution to a conflict can be found that justly resolves con- flicting positions by meeting the needs of all parties concerned, I feel fortunate indeed. I believe that you the Commissioners have the option to adopt such a solution in this situation by invoking certain alternative- provisions presently contained in the Zoning Ordinance. I would submit that if - and only if - you do so, you are both affirming the soundness of the • new Zoning Ordinance as well as strongly promoting the health, safety, general welfare and harmony of the County and its residents. Thank you. Donald A. Wells 4. - "- - . .. 00686 • ,.!.. ' . . CAROLINA l'RIF,NDS SCHOOL RoutE 3.,Box 183 .. ... . DURHAM,NORTH CAROLINA 27705 DURHAM 3S3-664Z .CHAPEL I1111.929-103 .September 2, 1981 q . . - aames Pol4tty, Director , Orange County Planning Department .. , . -... , Orange County Courthpuse . . ,..... ., 106.Margaret Lane . . Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 - . , * . Dear James Polatty, - . * This letter is to inform you of a zoning situation under your jurisdiction in which the Carolina Friends 'School has a compelling interest.' The situation involves Dean's Truck and Coach RnOair Service, located on Murphy Schodi Road about one mile from the Friends School. Dean's' is allegedly operating his repair service in violation of present zoning regulations -- specifically, operating a commercial business in , .... „ . an area zoned non-commercial. Dean's leases buses to the Carolina Friends School and accomplishes all the repair on those buses -- a service Dean's has provided for about . five years. It is important to note that finding such a service for independent schools is almost impossible; indeed, the Deans are the only . i one in the area. Finding such a service within a mile of the School is _ therefore almost miraculous. . ...., ...- .: . I learned about the apparent zoning conflict from Gary Dean a short . while ago and with his permission spoke with Mr. Eddie Kirk of the Planning Department the next day. According to Gary Dean his business might be shut down by Orange County in the very near future. Mr. Kirk confirmed this fact, and advised me that Gary Dean could apply for rezoning -- the only option he had to remain in business at his present location. Mr. Kirk gave me the appropriate forms for this rezoning request and I subse- quently talked with Gary Dean. Re was surprised that he could make such an application, for he had understood that there was no way that his land might be rezoned under present land planning regulations. , He has subsequently applied for a rezoning consideration. Where's I understand from Mr. Kirk that such a process is a long one, I have been advised by Mr. Geoffrey Gledhill that it is important that the process get underway. Further, Mr. Gledhill advised me that informing members of the County Commissioners and members of the Planning Board at this stage would be advisable. „ . . „ . . 0" U Mr. James Polatty 9/2/81 . . This letter is to state that the existence of a bus service for- *rf the Carolina Friends School is crucial for the very existence of the School. The closing down of Dean's Coach and Truck Repair Service at this point would in effect so jeopardize the enrollment of the Friends School as to threaten the School's existence. Whereas the County's concern about Dean's operations appears to me to be quite legitimate;-: .7 this letter is to specifically request that his rezoning request receive your most careful consideration due to its direct effect on the existence of the Carolina Friends School. . . Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely yours, DA3-4I-91461 ' Donald A. Wells principal , Cc: Nancy Laszlo, Ruth Bordon, Dr. Logan Irvin, Pat Crawford, John Kizer, ' Art Cleary, Claudine Harris, Hazel Lunsford, David Shanklin,John Wilson, William Greer, Tom Bacon, Eddie Kirk, Dr. John Stratton, Chairman, Board - f of'Directors; Robert Cooper, Attorney at Law 4 _ _ . -00688 1'11U / , .��h,- / , . (9 4.461-Z.%/4-....a._) 7,--r:S.-ea--1-.---,4 . , .1..,69c, 0 / . - //ihi/z i it-47 -,4-a,f_ .,o,,,,,Z/- , 4 i , / --(037z- Ae.tsz „,ev--- ?_ -- 7,,,,er-,. .- 0/ <... ../ so 21a / / • 1/A/eg-02,■,_ <!-/ 1 7 — 6/41,iAl-- Vt. , i ,,�1-64r % �I) - ddre2", / (D//// (V, 1 :e ,,e / ;„ - . ; /7//e (Pc) 7 "-- jW / ,� , i / '. 0 f ,zj'6.4u - 7at.ae.�1�2.1 /77C. a44,72„/„..,&„ �4,„ ,, . 4/ _ azi,,,7 Zil- -ef '7 '14_,, - 12,1- ,(2,t4,1 ',24,4 -1/. 7 a ,,,,,. 4.0 4, ___, LI- - ,e0-(fiz,4/L ' ../,./I 7)xiX.A, dilwil 1, / ../ -//// • //fill,7/411! �'��`. ��R���� `' �'� . 8'/ .! ' . _ __� --�* Oltkpa-- 1411 .-.1/ 5- • _ __... ' liWitralikifirlf. ifiraliFY /411/2 Weilt Argo* A / ,ie ._ 5-z:-r..t,i,?./Aate.._igwtdA,, ;6e:./__, 6 f'.74/ -J-5-V _,.. . is7,,, ,5-1&,_ . ___.5,--qa,61 - • .4 ,(tdeot,L,_&11 ,67.4--x_g.-5-,/,________ -7) 67 _g,,_,._ i „tilt: • lelLiii.a4pit-y_Se401-( XI, familen,, ___4-r c.f.:5- . ...4_,... )6., ///.e-46 /2.194.z4,___et / ,._4:t6 ,x7. ,,,___.{_:._.,_._ ___ _ 54/• -,1 ' __-._ — "�_���� �/�� __ ' - . � / ' /~��' / ��� w�*~ //� A2-��._-_- =~// /�*, �����-//��/u��-- '� - ~~ ^^ -�-7---� / ' 4_ _ _ � -3 -./� 3 i/ rto•fi--ftk- f// //�~_ . ___. __- - -- . _-_---___�____'_-__' - ____�� '�' ` • ____- ____-__~__ .� - - _ __ ��'������ _- ___-___ _-� -_-_�_�� --�'___-' �___ __- � - - . _-- - 009 0 8 Ii, 1 1 1 / -# ,. L....., .. /1--... ...... ,it ........ N...„ / L'--C' I I '',4 A ' zr • sr, I 2 5 A 4. " "..... , .. " I ,.f.:- .... / '1 t'- ".■-... ......-- N. 4..., / I 1 r' ------ ' 4E- 7 , I 7' .."‘•• —.4. 1 ...N.,,...... 4- -i -.. A . # .........„ .... ,' 4 E , / •-. __.',.. / e_•-• ..:. ' -6--/11-.."--, _. ..f.:. ,....- , --...... B 5-ia i ' 1 ..._c:•...4:"..:-.' I,040 - .\ E ,. 5-2 .... .: ,.........„-••••••' - - - ./ (- .. . \ 5-•52 . \ ' N/ , 5-55 i ...._ . - 40 Z17 0 . (4 7: 6-547 \\JD 4 2 4 3-5 ------___ ' '411. .. / 1I-S7 /1 4 1 - -... - 4 s 'I_..., ....., 4 2., \ / ' _ gs--- \ , .'.! • . , . _ ., ____ N. i 3C . . \ 1 . . 1 *4. . \ 1 00691 .. .• , 04-v.cc COUNTY: • '. -,..-:-1,.--..--.,'.!::7?!.'-..,.t.--.71..:::-...: i U i u BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ' • ',,r.1-.1-4 .!.7.4.; Action. rtgenrla - . .i':1-,. ..-4 . .. Ac.r.coN .T.C;Fi::DA i'VEN I‘Is.5.CPACT. .. 1.1n_ .E.T. 'ENG DALE.._ 3-8-82 ., . .. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 111.-1.7, LAND USE PLAN FOR THE DUCK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMEW CO.REQUEST CALLED MIDWAY AIRPARK . . .. _. . . . D.:_-=o7—.-rt-inL.,--It: _PLANNING -1 Pub 'a II g: I . 1 1 X ye-s .: . . . . . i .. . .. . .. ..-. , ,. Attaci-liTtelht.(s): " Information : ,TE4 potarly • .. , .. . NO ta'l-siber: 732-8181 En'34.2 . -_.......,---•-,--- -, _,.:.1 .. . . •. , ,,,,,,,,,•;;,..L.:,.,,,,,,tt:e.:,; ;:..zr..2:: : :.; 7 ._,,:..;....:',,:-.Li.:77,-.‘,._:,:..:..:...•:•,:f.•••••;.:„...V...'4,.- .'..'':..,:-....,V.e..,4".:.;;:..".-•.r ,..Z...'' ....-..,. . . , .. . . PURE'°S-r3: To receive citizen input and cents on the amendment'to the 'Land , ' - ':' -. •,„ -:, Use Plan for the Midway Airpark proposal. . ... . .. . . . . , _ . .. . . .. . . . , NEED: The area in v!hich MidTay Airpark is proposed is designated a. 'icultural- residential. The proposal would require a chana-e in the Land Use Plan, to accorrmadate the level of intensity and the type of development proposed. The activity node ( H-1) 'located,near thisproje,ct is „ .... . ... - a rural neighborhood node, that was not intended to all or developunt Of the size and sCope or Midway Asp • „ " , ,. , . . . .. . . ._ - . . . .• . , . . . . , • . • . . , .. . , . , " . • . . . . ., . . . . • , - . - . ' . • .. . . „ ' ' ' " " • - ". . . . . ItTACT: Fbr the uses proposed, it would be necessary to designate a new transition activity node at the air' park site. Tne locational criteria stated in the plan for such a node include that it could be reasonably and efficiently served by centralized public services and utilities it is within 5-10 minutes coMmutin ,-- time of urban areas and would be located in areas which are in transition. The site . . . of the Midway Ai.rpark does not meet these creiteria. This proposed change in the Land Use Plan is at okius with one of the major themes of the plan vAi-Ch is to promote resii5entia3_ and commercial.development in and around the existing, urban centers .. and to preserve rural.areas for fa/Tiling'and low--density residential uses. The justification for the "infill policy" is so as to make the best use of existing public investment n water and sewer service, , .. roads, and to promote enercy efficiency by having jobs, residences and services close to one another. . .00iT,IrEIIDATION: The Planning Staff recomrends that the Land Use Plan not be amended ' to designate this area as Transition Activity Node.. . . , MANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIO1■jERS :etiod A i-tu-nIa..' „`' ,.•'- I .E.0:,: 1-1 ; IF F..t:DA 10,1 INBc.a'it' C.0 Ac2i: rIEL'MG 10:1 ____ 378782 __ .. Subjc'-'c' t REQUEST BY BUCK IriOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT FOR.A CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERHIT FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPVENT-OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL PROJECT UNDER ., SECTje s ..e. A' ------tj I'E___ ____..171-bliC 11-2arthg: -=_,_---------___r-_ X Ye•- 77-110 . . . . . . ' -------- . - . . Attadbfgent(S): F,pplicatiori pg. 1; letter Information Contact: Jim Polatty pg.2-3 thapel Fall Review 4-6; letter 7; . . letter from Ed abbnson. 1)9..8-11; ,Tax nap pg. phone. mrrebar: 732-814 EXT 342 - 12; findings of faqt bf pg7„13-26; Stqff 6-*&44.10". 21:-.27ArrATI58 ,1i, — klitue., .: To receivecitizen input and-cbMmentS on the request for a Gass A: - Special Use Permit and Rezoning to PD-al under Section 8.8.23 (PLANNED DEVED3PMENTS). . • . - ' - - . . . . .. ,. . . DEED: The applicant has requested a Class A Special Use Permit and Reonimg ' to construct an office and warehouse project on property off of Highway .. 54 across from the intersection of SR 1958. The propepty is_lodated : -' -- - . inLBinghamTOwnsh1p101 d. is-shown on Tax Map. 23, Lot 10_and.Map-26 _-___ . , Lot 5. The property lies adjacent to the proposed Midway Airport. The project uses the remaining land of lots 10. and 5. A central water supply is proOdsed, no sizes or particulars have been given. A central sewage.disposal system approved by the.State Division of . . - ::. ". .E.a.-10.-ratlir*-.Jdaiia=teraerit '''WProPosed.,' A-lay-7-oUt,cifthissystepl:.. ' is provided: .The.-sySteMs.WillbenWhed by the developet:onbY 'dh:'.. 1 - ,-- owners assbciatioh. All roads within the site will be built to NCEOT Standards. It 16 proposed that the main uses in the project Will, be' ..'. :-. office and Warehousing, with a 20-30 unit motel and restaurant. Office and wareheusihg'are allowed uses in an O&I district. Toe'motel and restaurant are not allowed. Access to the site is off of Highway 54 west, it is to be directly across the end of the proposed runway,. The number of trips generated by this development will be infollowing ranges: Office; typiCal 170 trips/acre or 4trips/10d0 square feet of floor area; warehouSe; typical 4 trip/acre or 0;6 trips/1000 sq.ft. The existing traffic count, on this area of highway 54 is 11600 average daily traffic. This project will very significantly increase the number of trips. It is proposed that each lot will'be issued a separate Special Use Permit, when a specific use for the property is knawn. IMPACT: This property is located in the icultural-Residential Land Use Plan category. A rural neighborhood node (15-1-7,1) is located less than 3/4mile ., from the site. The proposed uses do not conform to the intent of either the general land category or to the intent of the node. The intensity of development iS inappropriate for this location within the County. :0;vN.INDATI0A: The planning staff recommends denial of the request for the following reasons: 1, The type of development and intensity of development are inappropriate in this location. 2. Access to the site should not pass across the end of ... the proposed runway. There should be more than one , access point for the whole development. . 3 There is no buffer from the intense development on this site and adjacent agricultural residential land. 4. A development of this size if approved will encourage other "spinoff" developm.ent requests. The intensity proposed is of an urban character but without any urban services. 00693 . .'^�. ^ X1. _ .`� I,y;LIC&TlUN FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION . ^ �~ DATE bra = . -~ . ' ` The Uc:oro.) . /e board of County Commissioners O/angaCuLn(y" North Carolina ' ! _ _ . lho u:Ars1Qnec1 request that p?operty located on Tax Map Number 23 & 2G' , : Bloch xy���/ . • , Lot number 70 & 5 , Shown on'the accompanying plat, District be rezoned toSpecial � f� "if.; �.'e�cnily in a AIR Use r and s;:c.ci,/ Luc. with PD-O| ' Airport far `; for the following reasons: An presented 17-4-01 information it:co:nnn ` /^n ','~ ioc]odinnShepts A-lthrnuohA-x. lo,spn/corntn"r . . �:f�rm�*x»� -�--'u/a�' `o' �z�o��z�� . . -- _ • . r • ` � '`' _- Si gnud: Address: i �� - � ' _-'' _- Duck Min. Dav' Co. 910 Airport Road, Hill, N. C. -', =' 00694 Vkftrg. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ... DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O,BOX 25201 RALEIGH 27611 MvISMNOFAVW1ON . - JAMES B.HUNT JR 1919}733-2491 GOVERNOR January 26, 1932 . WILLIAM Fl.ROBERSON.JR SECRETARY Mr. Fred Luce Orange County Planning Department 106 E. Margaret Lane . Hillsborough, NC 27278 Ref: Review of Proposed Midway Airport Plan Dear Fred: Per your request, we have reviewed the plan for the proposed Midway Airport with respect to FAA design ,. .. criteria. The attached table shows the most important , . . design differences. As you can see, the airport as currently proposed comes closer to meeting the utility criteria, although its runway length would place it in the transport category. We wish to emphasize that neither federal nor state regulations require a private airport to meet FAA desigh standards. However, failure to meet such standards could have an adverse effect on funding should the airport become publicy owned in the future. It could also adversely affect the potential for an instrument approach procedure, which would probably be desirable early in the life of this airport. One item which is not shown on the plan is the approach zones for the runway. There would probably have to be some land interest for areas within about 2,000' of each end of the runway so that trees, powerlines, and other obstructions could be removed, if necessary. If we can provide further assistance on this matter, please advise. Sincerely, . . . Bruce E. Matthews , Airports Development Specialist BEM:by z Comparison. of Proposed Midway Airport Wtrz eppr : e FAA Design Standards Utility Air , -- L B'as'ic Transport'` Proposed Midway Standard _ -- Ifax. 4300' 4400' and above 5000' Runway Length' Runway Width 75' 100, 7 5 , Taxiway Width 40' 40' 40' Runway Centerline to Taxiway 200' 300' 150' Centerline Separation Runway enterline to Building 250' 400' 250' Restriction Line Runway centerline to Aircraft 250' 3751 190' Parking Area Taxiway Centerline to Aircraft 75' 40' parking Area 50' oach Surfaces 1. For utility Airport, approach surface begins 200' beyond end of runway and slopes upward from runway elevation at a 20 to 1 ratio(l foot vertically for 20 feet horizontally) . For runways without instrument approaches; surface is 250` at -.runway end, 1,o00` Long, and 450' wide at outer end. For those with instrument approaches, surface is 500' by 1,000' by 800' . 2. For Basic Transport, without instrument approach requires 20 to 1 slope with surface is runwa�s,wthe runway end, a 34 too0oslope�� f wide 50o� byl7oo� outer For instruTrent Lt 3, No approach surfaces are sholm for proposed Midway Airport. However, the road on the 0*1 south end into the office complex violates these standards. it is likely that the 3� approach areas on each end of the runway have trees or power lines that also are not in compliance. The airport owner should control these areas to prevent obstructions which might be flight safety hazards. -00696 - , 8 8.1 MEMORANDUM AGENDA Ploa To: Mayor and Council From: Ronald A. Secrist, Interim Town Manager , Subject: Midway Airport - Courtesy Review Data: January 11, 1982 Request: By Orange County for a courtesy review of the proposed Midway Airport and Airpark to be located north of NC 54 approximately 8.5 miles west of Carrboro in Bingham Township on approximately 232 acres of land. The airport includes a5,000 foot long runway, plus. ancillary hangars. The airport is planned to include office and distribution uses, plus a motel including up to 30 rooms. The airport is proposed to be developed at a maximum Land Use Intensity of 42. This allows a Floor Area Ratio of .230, which is roughly comparable to office developments in Chapel Hill. The proposal is to be located in an area designated for agricultural development in the County's Land Use Plan. Since approval of this proposal would, in the staff's opinion, involve a change in the Land Use Plan, the following comments are offered for evaluating the proposal. Land Use Planr ng This proposal is, according to our understanding, located between the University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. As it is planned, the proposal would likely encourage "spinoff" development in the inmediate vicinity creating another node of development which could encroach upon these watersheds. The creation of a new node of development, in itself, is a policy question which the County must decide. The density of development proposed is urban in character, and would likely encourage additional development at an urban intensity, which would imply the need for urban services. It is suggested that Orange County evaluate this proposal in light of whether the County is prepared to become a provider of urban services or would want another municipality to be created in this area. An alternative, of course, is to consider whether it is possible to limit the development of this potential node and if so, how to do so. The effect that the creation of a new node of develop- ment would have on the water quality of University Lake and the Cane Creek reservoir, it is suggested, is a matter of concern to Chapel Hill. The staff suggests that as a first priority, urban density development be kept out of either watershed. If development in either watershed is allowed, the staff suggests that development in those areas be sub- jected to strict water quality maintenance standards. Recommendation: That the Council adopt the attached resolution. Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board unanimously concurs with the Manager's recommendation. q- _ _ 0,04397 660 • - „ -"- • -_ A RESOTUTION CONCERNING THE PROPOSED MIDWAY AIRPORTAIRPARK. 82-R-6 BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council advises the Orange County Board of Commissioners as follows: That in considering the proposal, the County consider the potential of its spinoff effects, to include a new node of development in the area of the proposal. Second, that the County consider how urban services would be provided to such an area; and third, that the County consider the potential effects of such development on the Cane Creek and Univer- sity Lake watersheds and, as appropriate, limit development in those watersheds or ensure that water quality would not be degraded. by such deVelopment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if the Orange County Board of Commissione-:' approves this request, that the Commissioners ensure that zoning r-gul - tions prohibit residential and community facility development surrounding the airport/airpark. This the 11th day of January, 1982. • - 5 - " 00698 ,; ts,Ase„,„,•, -• PUVAVO'n. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ..„ JAMES B..FIUN T..JR Gram, North Carolina 27253-0766 GOVEFINOP. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS WILLIAM R ROSEMSON,JF1 December 15, 1981 SECRETAllY Mr. Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Subject: Preliminary Plan -.Nidway Airport and Airpark Off NO 54 Dear Nr. Kirk: Vie have reviewed the preliminary plan for airport and airpark. Based on the information given, we do not anticipate problems with the street layout and design. Our preliminary review and approval applies only to the proposed road work. Approval of the airport will be made by another branch of Department of Transportation. If you have any questions, please advise. Yours very truly, S. fl/Jones DISTRICT ENGINEER SHJ/NAB:jbh cc: Nr. Lee N. Mahler (' . . . 00699 o it A N G U. G I O V I. V 0 I.I.I N'I`1,E It P I R E CO itouq:3310 VtillOROLIGII,NUR II CAROLINA 2717tI - - To: Orange County Planning Board From; Edward Johnson, President Date: February 12, 1982 - Re: Proposed Midway Airport Planned Development Mr. Lee Mehler of Peloquin Associates has discussed with me the matter of providing fire protection to the proposed Midway Airport complex which he is helping to design- Since the Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Co. would be responsible for providing fire protection to Midway, Mr. Mehler has asked us to review the plans and express our opinion about our ability © provide adequate fire protection. Our Board of Directors at its,regular meeting on December 8 pasSed a resolu- tion expressing the opinion that our company presently has neither the equip- ment, the manpower, nor the level of training to provide adequate fire pro- tection te the airport complex as presently envisioned. Accompanying the resolution were a set of conditions which, if met, would substantially alleviate our concerns. These are discussed below following a description of the conditions under which we presently operate. Present Conditions . . . . - Oar company serves the Orange Grove Fire District which comprises some 57 square miles in Bingham Township. Within this district there is a smaller . . Cane Creek fire district consisting of all points within 4 road miles 'of the fire station. The homeowners within the Cane Creek fire district enjoy lower fire insurance rates. In order to maintain the Cane Creek fire district, we must meet certain requirements concerning equipment, manpower, and training. One of the requirements is that we must guard against leaving the Cana Creek district unprotected at times when we have fires in the outer reaches of the . Orange Grove fire district. ge maintain a roster of some 45 volunteers. Like most volunteer organizations, the bulk of the service is contributed by half or less of the membership. On weekends and at night we can routinely turn out about 15-25 volunteers on a fire call. During the day when most of our members are away fromhome,-the turn-out for a fire can be 5 or fewer. Occasionally, a second page is required to produce sufficient manpower. Our equipment consists of a 750 gpm pumper truck, a tanker carrying 1250 gallons, and a 4 wheel drive truck which specializes in woods fires. The entrance to the Midway complex is just over 4.5 road miles from our station. Because the tract is deep and narrow, approximately two-thirds of the proposed buildings are over 5 road miles from our station. This distance becomes relevant in the discussion below. . 1 . . 00700 8 6 . . , v, Orralge County Planning Board rage 2 \ . . \' ,. Presently (and for the foreseeable future) there are no fire hydrants in \ our district. For fires requiring more water than we carry on our trucks, we must rely on ponds. The standard procedure is to call in mutual aid from a neighboring district and set up a water shuttle from the pond to the Eire scene. Me have only one large commercial structure in our district at present ... . _ (Adam and Eve). Our experience and training presently do not prepare us to fight a large structure fire which may involve hazardous materials such as may be stored in the proposed Midwaycomplex. Me do not presently have the equipment to fight flammable liquid fires such as may occur at an airport, . Condi A tions of ...roval ya__, Ilp_ply, 1. An above-ground gravity-feed tank holding a minimum of 50,000 gallons. 7. A system of fire hydrants positioned so that no building is over 400 feet from a hydrant. Each hydrant must be capable of flowing water at 1000 gpm at 20 psi. Underground pipes must be sized so that it will be pOssible to obtain 1000 gpm from neighboring hydrants simultaneously. 3. Each huilding is to be equipped with sprinklers. The sprinkler system is to be tied into the watersystem. In addition each building should have a conveniently placed hook--up where our truck can feed into the sprinkler system. 4, We may also wish, on further investigation, to require a stand-by pump to provide additional pressure to the entire system (in case of a severe pressure drop during a fire) . 5. It would be desirable if the hydrant nearest highway 54 could be made aval.labla for training purposes and water be available to us in the case of a fire call in that part of our district. ...a 6. Us understand that the Midway complex is to be developed in stages. Ve would require an adequate water delivery system beginninz with the earliest stage of consttuction. 7. A person on duty 24 hours a day (who otherwise acts as a nightwatchman, maintenance man, etc.) who can provide the following services: a. assist in firefighting (this person will therefore need fire training and could be a member of our company) ; , - . 8 . WY'? I _ 7 _ jOrani..e County Planning Board / Page 3 . . b. direct us to the fire scene and have master keys to all gates and buildings; c. be iu radio contact with our fire trucks in order to turn us back in the case of false alarms and provide additional information in the case of real emergencies; this iuformation will include the • , location and nature of hazardous materials. , . Equipment 8. The above mentioned person should be equipped with turn-out gear, portable fire extinguighers, master keys, firefighting foam (as a back-up to our own supply), two-way portable radio, and air pack. Access 9. it would be desirable (in terms of shortened response time) but not critical to have access to Midway froM Tear Road. Need fez' Additional Fire Truck 10. The Midway complex is beyond our present 4 mile limit so that we are somewhat,constrained in what equipment we can provide at a fire. The North Carolina Insurance Service Organization has informed us that these limits may be moved out to 5 miles. Since most'of the Midway complex would lie beyond even-the 5 mile limit, we forsee a serious problem in being able to commit adequate equipment to a fire at that location. The' problem is that a fire at Midway would require (at least one),Iarge capacity pumper. While the pumper is on the scene, the rest of our . -::- territory is unprotected putting us in violation of our commitment to the Cane Creek fire district. We, therefore, feel that in order'to provide adequate fire protection to Midway, we would need to acquire a 1000 gpm pumper. This truck would automatically be dispatched to Midway and also be used as needed elsewhere in the Orange Grove district. We estimate that,Midway, if developed as'erivaibned by Lt e tacker:, of-the project, will, in 10 years time constitute a third of the square footage of all structure in our fire district. We propose, therefore, that the developaa of Midway contribute one-third of the cost of a suitable fire truck. We consider it wise and prudent to acquire this equipment at the earliest possible time to meet the fire protection needs of Midway as well as the growing needs of the rest of our district, The computations leading to the estimate of one-third are attached. Summar Statement i BCCaUSE of limitations of equipment, manpower, and training, the Board of Directors feels that The Orange Grove Volunteer Vire Company s not presently prepared to provide adequate fire protection to the proposed Midway development UU.eu4.., ., . Orawss. County I'lanning Doard .. Mc 4 Should the development be built, we realize that as a tax supPorted organization we will be obligated'to render fire protection services. Our concerns would be substantially alleviated if the commissioner's approval of the Midway proposal is conditioned upon the KidWay developers' agreement to all of the conditions stated herein. Should the permits be . - granted, we will move immediately to acquire a fire truck and will expect Midway's share to be availaae upon request- Ve will also move to upgrade our level of training and try to recruit new members for daytime fire— fighting, If necessary, we will recommend raising the fire tax in order , to support a paid fireman. In summary, our preference is that the commissioners not grant permits for the Midway development. If permits are granted, and the above condons are met, we will undertake the responsibility of providing the necessary :fire protection. - . . . . . cc: Feloquin Associates Charles Snipes, Chief OOVFC _ . . . ., . .. , S . . -.... .. . . . , . . . .... ip 00703 .. 8 ))- Estimated Proportion Of Total fire Exposure to be Coutributed by the Midway Development -within 10 Years .._ Bingham Township . . . Area 48,900 acres** Population (1980 3,954* Number of houses 1,660* Estimated population (1992) 5,800* • . Estimated no. houses (1992 at - 2.38* people per house) 2,437 , Fire District . . Area 36,500 acres** Proportion of Bingham Twp. .75 Estimated no. houses (1992) 1,828 Square footage of houses (at 1500) 2,750,000. Square footage of other buildings (101) 275,000 Estimated Midway square footage . . (see Peloquin plans) 1--'511-1(271(19- Square footage of Total. Fire Exposu 4,525,000 re Midway's percent of total fire exposure 331 , ' - Cost of fire tiucic and radio (FMC Corporation bid, Feb. 1982) $58,360 Midway's share of cost $19,259 . ' *ProPo-Sed Lai,a Use Plan fOr orangeColinty,"MaY, /981, f). 61:.' . - • . - . . --, **Supplie% by Orange County Planning Department. • - 4 . . I I . . . „,,.., . ..., . 8 LI I.: iy1.1?o. a.,4,.. .---- ..—.. sC . .. .. ......., sw■G . . . , ......-- D • • I 1 i . ... -........".---4 \ 1 I • ..... . i 1 . , .... 1 1 ""....., .... 1 , 05.. .........m ..,....f:I.,-,-.......”. 1.10 M.....AM.MO Om.•••oro. ,.........,,,.. .. ''''''...' , -.........-- .--......... t ?Aviv A.-1 .,...--,- AiRePag. ....- \ - . : 0 '?r . -.,„ . ...... ...... ., .. ,.. .... , -...... i; . ..... KIDW.64 , . Acig poet- „r..4 , V-- . 7 ......_:.,3 . ‘,...„1. - ... f...,Z 4.i :!....:1 ^..: • . r ■•••••■•*■••■••••10omml. i ' " .- I ....4 IN..' ".' . -- ...-.. a ,• _ ,....,,, a — .:_, pita 0.4.0 ....::,..._i .,_........... ____ .:...1...:....H'i44" "_.th..± -. ..... -...eltA ';:y.1: 0 -=',',. 11.4 ji - . I I. ...,.,1 ,,,,,,,,._,.. ...' 0 . .. ' .. a 7.-^". . " '- 1 1.:" ..... * •.IGfra 0 - p 0 0 7 0 5 8 6 MIDWAY AIRPARK CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FINDINGS OF FACT The following information is the Orange County Planning Staffs findings of fact concerning Buck Mountain Developments request called Midway Airpark, for a Class A Special Use Permit under Section 8.8.23 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The corresponding zoning district applied for is Office- Institutional. The following evidence has been supplied by the applicant or by the Orange County Planning Department. Article 8 Special Uses Ordinance requires: Findings: 8.2.1 a) The applicant shall have The Planning Staff finds that the burden of establishing, by the applicant has not presented competent material and sub- competent material and sub- stantial evidence, the existence stantial evidence for the of the facts and conditions approval of this request. which this ordinance requires for approval; and 8.2.1 b) The Board shall make The applicant has provided written findings certifying corn- figures that indicate com- pliance with the specific rules pliance with Article 5, governing such individual Dimensional Requirements Special Use and that the use, and Article 6; Application which is listed as a Special of Dimensional Requirements, Use in the district in which fbr the office institutional it is proposed to be located, district applied for by the complies with all required re- Developer. gulations and standards, in- cluding the provisions of Article 5 and 6 of this or- dinance, unless greater or different regulations are con- tained in the individual standards for the specific Special Use. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to present evidence in the form of testimony, exhibits, documents, models, plans and the like to support the application for approval of a Special Use, t3 00706 „ 8.2.2 Where the Board finds a perponderence of evidence to indicate compliance with the general standards, specific rules governing the specific use and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards, the application must be approved unless the Board shall also find, in some specific manner that a) The use will not promote The Planning Staff finds the public helath, safety that there is significant and general welfare, if evidence to indicate that located where proposed and this request does not comply developed according to the with the general standards plan as submitted; and specific rules governing the Special Use and that the use does not comply with the required regulations. This project if developed as proposed would be at urban intensity but urban services would not be available. In addition, a project of this size would encourage additional development within the vicinity. b) The use will not maintain or No evidence was presented to enhance the value of contiguous the Planning Staff to show property (unless the use is a that it will not enhance or public necessity, in which case maintain property values of the use need not maintain or en- contiguous property. hence the value of contiguous property); c) The use is not in compliance This project is located in the with the general plans for the Agricultural-Residential area physical development of the as identified in the Land Use county as embodied in these Plan. A Rural Neighborhood regulations or in the Comre- Activity Node (BH-1) is located hensive Plan, or portion there- less than 1/4 mile from the of, adopted by the Board of site of the proposed Office- County Commissioners. Institutional rezoning request. The intent of the Land Use Plan for these two plan categories is as follows: AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL. Land in areas where the prevailing land use activities are related to the land (agriculture, forestry) and which is an appro- priate location for the contin- (1- 0 0 70'7 8 uation of these uses. • RURAL NEIGHBORHOOD ACTIVITY NODE. Land focused on de- signated road intersections within a Rural-Residential area that is appropriate for small-scale commervial uses characteristic of "Mon and Pop" convenience stores and gas stations. The following policies in the Land Use Plan apply to the pro- posed change in land use: GOAL TWO: The conservation of natural resources in Orange County. 2.1 Maintain and protect land which contains valuable re- newable resources such as pro- ductive agricultural area, managed forested areas and potential reservoir sites by directing incompatible develor- ment away from these areas. 2.2 Protect non-renewable re- source lands from incompatible development and allow their use in a safe and reasonable manner according to performance standards designed to ensure a sufficient level of environmental protection. GOAL FIVE: The management of growth so that it is directed to areas where it is desireable and suitable to accomodate it. 5.1 Utilize the following locational criteria to designate the most appropriate location for the various Land Use Plan Categories: natural environment A constrants land slope, hydrology, flora and fauna, soil conditions; availability of public services and utilities; transportation system access and capacity; 5 pact on energy resources; exi - ing land uses; presence of prm ductive agricultural or forested land; appropriate population 00706 8,9tj densities; and the presence_ of historic or cultural features. 5.2 Guide growth to achieve a maximum amountof infill develop- ment in the urbanizing areas of the County while maintaining the integrity of the existing and future open space and re-' creational system. The purpose 11\ of infill will be to gdnimize sprawled development and pro- mote a more compact urban farm. Secondary pruposes will be to reduce transportation energy costs in addition to reducing public services costs. The Chapel Hill Township component of the Land Use Plan will be based on the assumption that 75% of the suitable vacant land in the Towns' existing urban • area will be developed; however the goal will be to achieve 100% infill. 5.3 Direct intensive land uses to existing urban areas and areas designated Transition Areas and away from areas suitable for continued agri- cultural uses and protected as water supply watersheds. 5.10 Designate land in areas where the prevailing land use activities consist of agri- culture and forestry and which should continue in these uses as Agricultural Residential. 5.11 Designate activity nodes of various types and functions at the intersections of major arterials and collectors in order to accomodate different intensity levels of comgercial and industrial development. 5:T2oUtilize activity nodes to promote clustered development and to discourage strip develop- _ meat. • 5.13 Identify activity nodes as the only places appropriate for tC. 00709 80 !' non-farm related commercial and industrial development. 5.17 Designate land focused on designated road intersections within Rural Residential or Agricultural-Residential areas that is appropriate for small scale commercial uses as Rural Neighborhood actility nodes. 5.18 Designate land focused on designated road intersection- within Rural Residential or Rural Agricultural Areas that is appropriate for industrial activities and which has good access as Rural Industrial Activity Nodes. GOAL SIX: The promotion of economic development which emphasizes employment meet- ing local needs while preser- ving the character of communities and protecting the natural environment. 6.1 Provide for a sufficient amount of suitable land to accomodate the expansion and growth of commercial and in- dustrial uses in the County. 6.3 Locate industrial sites in the Rural Residential and Agricultural-Residential areas along the U.S. 70/1-85 highway and rail corridor taking ad- vantage of the corridor's locational attributes. A limited number of small scale industrial nodes, not requiring urban-type services, are appropriate else- where in the County where good access exists. 7.3 Minimize the relocation of bonafide farming operations caused by non-farm development. 7.5 Direct residential, commex 11 and industrial growth away fro . farming areas to minimize in- flation or rural land values and tax assessment which can price farmers out of the land market. 00710 8Llo This proposal for a major office and warehousing complex distant from Chapel Hill/Carrbbro in rural Bingham township is not com- patible with the policies, both stated and implied in the Land Use Plan. It is Particularly at odds with one of the major themes of the Plan which is to promote residential and comercial development in and around the existing urban centers. The intent is to make best use of existing public investment in water and sewer service, to promote energy efficiency by having commercial uses close to population centers, and to prevent sprawl develop- rent. 8.2.4 In addition to the General Standards's stated in 8.2 the following Specific Standards shall be addressed by the applicant before the issuance of a Speci-al Use Permit: a) Method and adequacy of provision of a) It is proposed that a pack- sewage disposal facilities, solid waste, age sewage treatment plant and water. would be built and operated by the developers or property owners association. The system would have to be app- roved by the Division of Environmental Management. The System mill generally be a gravity flow with the ex- ceptions as noted on the site plan. No method of solid waste disposal is proposed by the developer. The County does not provide this service so the developer will have to contract with private haulers. A central water system will serve the project. The systerh will be large enough to serve the seven fire hydrants and pressurized sprinkler systems within the buildings. The System will be owned by the Developer or by the owners association. The N.C. Depart- ment of Health Services will approve the system and monitor le) U0711 • • !J its continued compliance with regulations. b) Method and adequacy of police, fire and rez-,cue squad protection. b) Police protection will be by the Orange County Sheriff's Departrent,a development of this type should have more police protection than the Orange County Sheriffs Depart- ment can furnish at the present time. Fire protection would be provided by the Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Company. Edward Johnson the President of the Company has responded by letter to the development proposal. His recommendations shall be- core part of these findings. Generally he indicated that Orange Grove Fire Co. has neither the equipment, man- power, or training to provide an adequate level of fire pro- tection for the Midway Airpark Project. c) Method and adequacy of vehicle c.) The only proposed access access to the site and traffic condi- to this site lies across the tions around the site. end of the Proposed Midway air- port. This situation is unsafe for both the rotor vehicle trat.':p and aviation traffic. The mai access to this project should be directly from Highway 54 not across the Airport prop- erty. Office complexs of this size could generate 170 trips/ 1000 sq. ft. (13,571 trips). Warehouse complexs of this Size could typically generate It trips/acre (252 trips) or 0.6 trips/1000 sq. ft. (378 trips). Trip generation figures come from the book "ghe Practice of Local Government Planning." by the International City Management Association. 1/ 00712 d) Specific requirements of all special use requests: 8.8 a) The following additional infer- The follOWing are specific req- mation is required for all Special Use direments for this special use Applications: request: Three copies of the Site Plan prepared A site Plan has been supplied. by a registered North Carolina land sur- veyor or engineer which shall contain the following: - - 1. North Point scale and date. 1. North Point, scale and date shown. 2. Extent of area to be developed. 2. The extent of area to be developed is indicated on the Plans. The developers, indicate in the narrative that they are requesting approval of the con- cept plan and that they expect to request a Special Use Permit for each building when the part- icular use for the tract has been determined. 3. Locations widths of all easements 3. Rights of way on public and rights of way within or adjacent roads are shown in the plan. to the site. They are all 60' wide and all roads will be public and built tO*N.6. D.O.T. standards. There are no sanitary sewer easements shown on the plat. Easements for all "public sewers" shall be required,these will be 30' wide. Anytire a sewer line goes over private property it should be cons- idered "public". 4. Location of all existing or pro- posed structures on the site. . The site plan should be concept only. Each lot will be required to apply for a Special Use Permit, at that time exact building location and parking arrangements will be shown. 5. Location of all areas on the site 5. There are no flood prone subject to flood hazard or inundatiion areas on the site. as shown on flood maps or soil's maps. 6. Location of all water courses on 6. There are no water courses the site, including direction of flow, shown on the site plan. 7. Existing topography at a countour 7. Existing topography is shown. interval of five feet based on mean level datum. • 04713 8. Proposed or existing fencing, 8.) The site plan is a "concept" screening, gates, parking, service plan only, therefore the specifies and storage areas, of fencing, screening, gates parktng.et6. are not outlined. The site plan does show the max- mum amount of allowed develop- ment and an amount of develop- ment with two story structures. A "concept" landscaping plan is provided. 9. Access to site including site 9. Access to the site is shown distances on all roads used for on the site plan(se4 also 8.2. access. 4. C). 10. Elevations of all structures 10. Architectural elevations proposed to be used in the develop- have not been supplied to the ment. Planning Staff. However, since this is a "concept" plan each individual lot will be required to apply for a Special Use Per- mit. Pages 14-15 of the deve- lopers narative set forth stan- dards for building construction. 11. :Names and addresses of owners and 11. The name and address of the applicants, owner have been applied. 12. A fee, as set by the Orange 12. The application fee has °aunty Board of Commissioners. been paid by the applicant. 8.8.23 Planned Developments 8.8.23.1 Additional Information 8.8.23.1 This refers to the standards set forth in Article 7 Planned Development. In addition to the information re- quired in Subsections 8.2 and 8.8, information shall be supplied as part of the application as per applicable requirements of Article 7. Article 7 Planned Development Districts 7.4.1 Relationship of Planned Devel- 7.4.1 Relationship of this pro- opment to Major Transportation Faci- ject to major transportation lities. facilities. (See 8.2.4,c above) Requires that Planned Developments make use of major roads for access; and public transportation facilities available. 7.4.2 Physical Character of the Site; 7.4.3 Physical Character of the Relation to Surrounding Property. Site; Relation to Surrounding Property. . . 00714 The Site shall be suitable for the type This site is rolling with a development proposed and be free from mazinn.m elevation of 590 and adverse natural impacts. a minimum elevation of 530'• The high point is at the rear of the property; the low point out near Highway 54. The project site has recently been timbered and has grown up in weeds and grasses. There are few if any existing trees, any screening of these proposed uses from adjacent residential or agricultural uses would have to be by several large plantings. , There are social neigh- borhood commerical uses along Highway 54, in addition Adam & Eve has an office warehouse facility east of this site on 54. The general land use in this area is agricultural; timber and single family residential. 7.16 Planned Development - Office and Institutional Districts. 7.16.1 Planned Development - Office and Instritutional Districts. Defined; Planned Development - Office and Institutional Districts are districts for the establishment of complementary groupings of office and institutional uses. Where existing developments exist, are proposed and previously approved devel- opments are (in progress, which are of nature substantially in accord with the intent of these regulations they may be rezoned to PD-OI status, and shall there- after be subject to the regulations and requirements for such districts). It is the intent of these regulations to As stated in section 8.2.2.C) provide for development of such districts above, staff does not feel at locations appropriate in terms of the that the proposed location for Land Use Plan and the Orange County this office warehouse devel- Thoroughfare Plan and in accord with opment is in accord with the standards set forth herein. adopted Land Use Plan. DO715 306 It is further intended that PD-OI devel- The location as proposed does opment shall be scaled, balanced and not reduce traffic congestion, located to reduce general traffic con- because it is not located, near gestion by providing employment to principal places of residence, close to principal places of residence, and it is not located near an and convenient pedestrian circulation area served by mass transit. systems and mass transit devices to further reduce need for private auto, mobiles. _ Within such districts, it is intended that uses shall be arranged horizon- - tally and veritcally 1. That major vehicular flows and other disquieting influences be so sep- arated from residential areas as to protect privacy and tranquility; 2. That general commercial and service uses be concentrated for maximum pedestrian convenience and located for easy accessibility by workers and vistors arriving by mass transit; and Where such districts adjoin resi- dential neighborhoods, it is in- tended that arrangement of boildi- - --ngs, uses, open space and vehi- cular access be such as to pro- vide appropriate transition and reduce potentially adverse effects. 7.16.2 Permitted Principal Uses and Structures The requirements and limitations that The proposed office and ware- apply within PLLOI districts are estab- house uses are permitted uses lished in Article 4 and Article 5: within the PD-OI district, acc- ording to Article 4. The pro- posed motel and resturant are not allowed within a PD-UI district. 7.16.3 Help, t Limitations Height limitations within PD-OI dis- No maximum building is indica- dricts shall be as established in ted in the developers narative. Article 5 and Subsection 6.2 It is stated that no building shall exceed two stories. Article 5 sets a maximum height of 35'. Article 6.2 sets additional st--- dards for building height. 2 00716 7.16.4 Permitted intensity of oment The requirements and limitations that The intensity level that apply within the PD-01 District are is permitted in PD-OI will not established in Articles 5 and 6. be exceeded by this develop- ment, if it were built at the level proposed. 7.16.5 Setbacks Required Adjacent to The setbacks around the perimeter Residential Districts of the site are proposed to be 35'• This distance does not Where PD-OI districts adjoin residential provide enough buff& between districts without an intevening street, a development of this.intensity a setback of a leat twenty feet shall and the adjacent property be provided. This are shall not be that is zoned AR. used for partking areas. 7.16.6 a) External Relationships: The site plan should show how the development will provide protection for the development from potentially adverse surrounding influences and provide protection for 'surrounding areas from potentially adverse in- fluenees within the development. 1. Principal access points shall be 1. There is only one access desimed to encourage smooth point to this entire devel traffic flow. Street layout opment and that acess road shall not connect minor resi- runs across the end of the dential streets with:collector proposed runway of Midway air- streets. port. The Planning Staff feels there should be direct access to Highway 54 to the project, that does not cross in front of the runway. Given the number of trips generated by this development it would not be unreasonable to require two access points; to separ- ate some of the traffic. 2. Access for pedestrians and motor 2. There is no access for ped- cyclists shall be safe and con- estrians indicated on the site venient. Where there street plan. Since this is a rural crossings, they shall be so lace- area it can be assumed there ted as to be safe, shah l. be marked would not be large numbers of and controlled. people walking to work. 3. Protection of visibility at inter- 3. Visibility at the pro- sections. Shall be as set forth in posed intersect in meets the Article 6. minimum standards set forth in Artilce 6. 2L-1 LI ti i 9 4. Areas adjacent to single family Ois 7 4. The site plan indicates tricts which cannot be used for that all parking are will parking. bp at least 357 from a)) single family districts. This set- back is not adequate to protect adjacent uses from development of this intensity. There is no existing vegetation on the site and any proposed plantings could take years to grow signi- . ficantly. 5. Yards, fences, walls, or vegetative 5. On the concept site plan screening at the edge of the PD-OI submitted by the developer district shall be such as to provide plantings are shown along rear protection of adjacent uses from adverse and side property lines. Since impacts by the developmnt, the site is completely cleared, in order to provide a screen these plantings would have to be greatly increased in number and size. b) Internal Relationships The site plan shall provide for safe, efficient, convenient and harmonious gourpings of structures, uses and fa- cilities, and for preservation of de- sirable natural features and minim= disturbance of natural topography. 1. Streets, drives and parking. 1. Generally the interior street layout is sufficeint. (see 8.2 4 c). The proposed system does not ilow through traffic be- cause it is a long dead end layout. There would be emer- gency across the taxiway and landing strip to several of the adjacent cnTh de sac. Two access points would solve any problems concerning inefficient use of property and convenient access to the site. 2. Ways for pedestrians shall form a 2. There are not internal ped- safe logical and conveneint system estrian travel Ways shown. for pedestrian access to all units, Since this is a rural area there project facilities and any principal would not be much need for ext- off site destinations. erior circulation, however, the staff feels that a minimum ped- estrain circulation system wit- in the development could be fal. 22.5 0( 7 3-8 3., Protection of visibility for auto- 5. Visibility should be good mobile traffic; cyclists and pe- at all intersections where destrians. Visibility protection motor vehicles meet. shall be as set forth in Section 7.16.6 a) 3 above. A. Open space and spacing of building. The proposed development does The requirements for open space, not exceed the allowed rex- pedestrian;landscape space; and imum floor area for a PLI-OI spacing of buildrig are contained and the site plan shows tha t in Aritcles 5 and 7. Definitions it provides therminimum open are in Article 6. space and pedestrian/land- scape space. The spacing of buildings meets the minimum revired. Staff feels this is an inappropriate location for this intensity of devel- opment. 7.16.7 Sign Limitations. General Identification Signs for the Signs for the project shall con- development as a whole. Shall be form in all ways to the standards permitted as follows: One sign structure, contained in 7.16.7 not exceeding twenty feet in height, and having not more than two sign surface areas, each limited to twenty square feet, may be erected inside or outside required setbacks adjacent to public streets, • provided that no such sign shall over- hang any public way or be so located or constructed as to create a dangerous Impediment to traffic visibility. Such signs may identify the development as a whole and bear directional informa tion, but shall contain no advertising matter. 2.‘ 00719 OU I The Planning Staff finds that there is not a perponderance of evidence to indicate substantial compliance with the General Standards and specific rules governing the request by Buck Mountain Development Corp. for a Class A Special Use Permit, The Planning Staff recommends denial for the following reasons: 1. The level of intensity proposed and the extent of development are not in conformance with the adopted Land Use Plan (8.2.2 c). 2. The proposed uses within the development are not in conformance with the adopted Land Use Plan (8.2.2 c) 3. A development of this size and type will encourage other developers to request similar designations on nearby tracts. Denial of these requests will be difficult if this proposal is approved. 4. The application criteria of the Office—Institutional district (4.2-16 ZONING ORDINANCE) says it is intended to provide locations for medium intensity office and institutional land uses and to function as a buffer between conflicting land use situations not instigate them. The application criteria are: 1. Site is located in areas designated by the adopted Land Use Plan as Commercial Transition or Industrial Activity Node. 2. Site would provide a buffer or step down in intensity of land use from a commercial use in a Neighborhood or Community Activity Node. 3. Generally, these areas should have water and sewer mains existing at the site or are to be made available during the development process. 4. Normally, the maximum amount of land zoned to the OI Classification shall not exceed 5 acres. 5. Vehicular access must consist of direct access to a street classified either arterial or collector as designated by the adopted Land Use Plan. Planning Staff feels this request meets only criteria number 5 provided the proposed access road is moved, 6. Urban services should be available ,po a development of this size, these include not only public water and sanitary sewer but also fire protection that is closer than 5 miles away, and police protection that is more frequent than the Orange County Sheriff's Department can possibly provide. Other amenities should also exist nearby such as grocery stores and restaurants, if they don't exist, once the development is approved there will be pressure to provide them. /sw 2.7 _ _ 00720 Jou ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT , IIILLSBOROUGE1 NORTE{ CAROLINA. 2727E3 veaS9 .r 01.. 017 IC: Ar a ) _ MEMO TO: Planning Board FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Class A Special Use Permit for Midway Airpark (PD-01) and the rezoning request for A-R to PD-OI. DATE: March 1, 1982 If the Board should find a preponderance of evidence to indicate substantial compliance with the General Standards and specific rules governing the request by Buck Mountain Development Co. for a Class A Special Use Permit, for, the Planned Development, the the Planning Staff recommends the Board consider the following: 1. That the final site plan and narrative of the -- - project incorporating all changes, deletions and additions through the final approval of the project are incorporated herein and made a part of the Planned Development Special Use Permit. That a copy of the final site plan and narrative be on file with the Orange County Planning Department. All improvements as in- dicated on the site plan or stated in the narrative shall be constructed according to the construction schedule: set up on the final site plan. The public improvements to the site indicated in the site plan and in the narrative shall be completed in each phase before permits will be issued for Building Construction in that phase. 2. That the grantee of this Special Use Permit shall post with Orange County, in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond or letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of all improvements plus 10%, The amount shall be determined on the basis of fully executed construction contracts or certification by a registered engineer ern- , ployed by the grantee of this Special Use Permit. Security for construction of the improvements in this project may follow the phasing in the project. Specifically, as improvements are completed in each phase, 2.8 , in)72/ 0 ki Memo - Planning Board March 1, 1982 Page 2 that phase and a corresponding amount of money may be released from the security instruments or the security instruments may be renegoitiated based on the un- constructed portion of the improvements. 3. That security shall be provided for the grading, paving and stabilization of all cleared areas, streets and other vehicular travel ways; sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways; erection of street signs; utility installation, including water and sewage disposal, street lights, etc. 4. That all necessary easements to permit utility (electricity, telephone and cable television by any cable television provider franchised by Orange County to serve this development) installation, servicing and hookups to the development and to each building within the develop- ment shall be provided at no cost to the utility provider. 5. That sanitary sewer easements be shown on the final plat for recording so that when lots are sold, the owner of the system can still maintain the system. 6. All plans for drainage, soil erosion and sedimentation control shall be reviewed and approved by Orange County. In addition, Orange County shall inspect the installation of control devices and the on going work for the total project. The project shall at all times meet the requirements of the Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. 7. That the water distribution system for the proposed development be approved by the State Health Department prior to th start of any construction. The system be designed to include a 50,000 gallon above ground storage tank, that fire hydrants be placed such that no building is more than 400' by road from a hydrant. The hydrants shall be capable of flowing water at 1,000 gallons/ minute at 20 psi, the water lines must be sized so that it is possible to obtain l,0001 '251 U 4., Memo - Planning Board March 1, 19B2 Page 3 minute from neighboring hydrants simultaneously_ Each building is to be equipped with sprinklers. The sprinkler system is to be tied into the water system. In addition, each building should have a conveniently placed hook-up where a fire truck can feed into the sprinkler system. That the developers provide a stand by pump to increase pressure on the system, if pressure should fall during a fire. 8. That the fire hydrant located nearest Hwy. 54 be made available to the Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Dept- in case there is a fire in the Hwy. 54 area of their fire district. 9. That an adequate water delivery system be available at the time the first building is completed and ready for occupancy. 10. That the developers or owners association provide manpower on a 24 hr./day basis that can provide the following services to the Fire Department: a. Assist in fire fighting (this person will need fire training and could become a member of Orange Grove Fire Co.); b. Direct the Fire Co to the fire scene and have master keys to all gates and buildings; c, Be in radio context with the Fire Co, in order to turn them back in case of a false alarm and to pro- vide additional information in the case of real emergency, d. The above people shall be equipped with the following: turn out gear, portable fire extenguishers, master keys, fire fighting foam, two-way protable radio and air pack. 11 That the developer pay 1/3 of the cost of a new 1,000 gal./minute pumper so that Orange Grove Fire Co. can provide protection for all its district in a safe, efficient manner, 12. 7hat the North Carolina Division of Environ mental Management approve the final plans .3 a 0 0 7 0'3 u 9i Page 4 Memo - Planning Board March 1, 1982 for the sewage collection and disposal 'system, prior to the start of any construction. 13. That all roads within the development shall be named and road signs erected at all intersections. Individual buildings shall be numbered in such a manner that the identification is visible from the road, 14. That all roads in the project be publicallY dedicated and built to North Carolina Depart- ment of Transportation Standards. 15. That a pedestrian circulation system be shown on the final plans, such system shall inter- connect the buildings. Walks shall be a minimum 4' wide and hard surfaced. 16. That primary access not be across the end of the proposed runway. 17. That there be a 100' building and parking area setback around the perimeter of the site. That this area be heavily landscaped with evergreen bushes and shrubs. 18. That the proposed motel/restaurant building be deleted from the project. 19. The project be re-submitted as a Planned Development-Industrial-1 (PD-I-1) project. The Land Use Plan would have to be amended to change the existing Rural Neighborhood node to Rural Industrial, 20, A final boundary survey of the Planned Develop- ment and improvements shall be recorded by the developer. Plat shall show all easements, road rights-of way, perimeter building setback lines, and lot lines, 21. That the continued maintenance of the public improvements (water/sewer) is guaranteed by a security instrument. 22. That is an owners association is to be formed and be responsible for any of the approved public improvements, all such documents and organizational material be approved by the Pr4pgp County 4,.. torney, /sw 3/ BOARD OF CbMMISSIONERS . ..t ion P4=-aa,'. :,:::,-,---.7 --•:. I Lem CO 1 ' 9)\ 11.11:2-1 id.C17.0CT ......„ 11E81.T.V.; itviz 3-8-82 ._ Stibi'71qt: FEWDST BY BUCKNDUNTAIN 1)EVELOME7)T, FOR CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERiiIT FOR A GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT (SECTIOW 8. ,8 OF TEE ZWING °ROMANCE) Wolic Hearing: _x yes . . ..i.D r r_x::partint=7, Flamm ' . , . . „ . ' . . Attachment(s)Letter pg. 145, Findings of Information Con,,—,. ;T?sa Polatty . fact 6-19, Imposed conditions-pg.20- 1h er 73 1T3 -el\lab : 2-8181 EXT 342" . . . , . . _ . . , ii13.POSE: To receive citizen input and cOmments on the request for a cias A Special Use Permit under Section 8.8.8 (General Aviation Airports, , STOL, and Heliports). - - ' . • NEED: The applicant has requested a Class A Special Use Permit to construct a general aviation airport on property located off of highway 54 west across from the intersection of SR 1988. The property is located in Bingham,Township-and is shown-on Maps1-23-.Lot 10 anildlap.26,Lot-5.--,, This proposal takes up less than half of the area of these two tracts. The health department has approved an area for the installation of a - septic sySteM. Tnere'is one road proposed to serve the airport. It . will be built to NCDOT standards. It is proposed that there be a maximum of:100-,baSed aircraf'tin:treaA"A" and'that-no planes,weighing.mDre- than .3. ,560ab , would use the'facty..The runway is'shown as 5000' Iong Hanger area "B" is to be used by groups; such as MC Vedical ,...- 4.- 'Services; Shaool of Forestry or other public agencies (Ho number of . . planes is indicated) area "C" has no number of aircraft indicated the developers' indicate that initially there should be about 300 landings/mOnth and within 5 years the total should be 1000/month. Local airports can generate from 6-12 vehicle trips/day .per based . airplane . . . . . . . . . . . „ . . , . IMPACT: This propetty is located in an area designated as agricultural- residential by the Land Use Plan. The, zoning is A-R; general .. • aviation airports are allowed uses, provided a Special Use Permit is granted. The developmnt will be required to meet all standards setforth in the Zoning Ordinance. 't7DENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval with the following impoe6 - conditions as listed after the findings of fact. 00725 91 oRANGE GROVE. VOLUNTEER VIRE CO Rot;FE.3,1111,1 SISOROLTAI,MC I II CAit01 INA 27278 To: Orange County Planning Board From: Edward Johnson, President Date: February 12, 1982 Re: proposed Midway Airport Planned Development - Mr. Lee Mahler of Peloquin Associates has discussed with me the matter of providing fire protection to the proposed Midway Airport complex which he is helping to design. Since the Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Co. would be responsible for providing fire protection to Midway, Mr. Mehler has asked us to review the plans and express our ()Pinion about our ability to provide adequate fire protection. Our Board of Directors at its regular meeting on December 8 passed a resolu- tion expressing the opinion that our company presently has neithr7 the equip- meat, the manpower, nor the level of training to provide adequate fire pro- tection to the airport complex as presently envisioned. Accompanying the resolution were a set of conditions which, if met, would substantially alleviate our concerns. These are discussed below following a description of the conditions under which we presently operate. Present Conditions Our company serves the Orange Grove Fire District which comprises some 57 square miles in Bingham Township. Within this district there is a smaller Cane Creek fire district consisting of all points within 4 road miles of the fire station. The homeowners within the Cane Creek fire district enjoy lower fire insurance rates. In order to maintain the Cane Creek fire district, we must meet certain requirements concerning equipment, manpower, and training. One of tbe requirements is that we must guard against leaving the Cane Creek district unprotected at times when we have fires in the outer reaches of the Orange Grove fire district. We maintain a roster of some 45 volunteers. Like most volunteer organizations, the bulk of the service is contributed by half or less of the membership. On weekends and at night we can routinely turn out about 15-25 yolunteers on a fire call. During the day when most of our members are away from home,'the turn-out for a fire can be 5 or fewer. Occasionally, a second page is required to produce sufficient manpower. Our equipment consists of a 750 gpm pumper truck, a tanker carrying 1250 gallons, and a 4 wheel drive truck which specializes in woods fires. The entrance to the Midway complex is just over 4.5 road miles from our station.. Because the tract is deep and narrow, approximately, two-thirds of the proposed buildings are over 5 road miles from our station. This distance becomes relevant in the discussion below. 00726 oran,.. County Planning Board . . \ Page 2 . . Presently (and for the foreseeable future) there are no fire hydrants in our district. For fires requiring more viter than we carry on our trucks, we must rely on ponds. The standard procedure is to call in mutual aid from a neighboring district an set up a water shuttle from the pond to the fire scene. , . li tle have only one large commercial structure in our district at present (Adam aad Eve). Our experience and training presently do not prepare us to fight a large structure fire which may involve hazardous materials such as may be stored in the proposed Midway 'complex. We do not presently have the equipment to fight flammable liquid fires such as may occur at an airport. Conditions of A. royal .C1 -..r2122---Y' l - 1,. An abovp7ground gravity—feed tank holding a minimum of 50,000 gallons. . . 2. A system of fire hydrants positioned so that no building is over 400 feet from a hydrant. Each hydrant must be capable of flowing water at 1000 gpm at 20 psi. Underground pipes must be sized so that it will be possible to obtain 1000 gpm from neighboring hydrants simultaneously. 3. Each building is to be equipped with sprinklers. The sprinkler system is to be tied into the water system. In addition each building should have a conveniently placed hook—up where our truck can feed into the sprinkler system_ . ' . 4. We may also wish, on further investigation, to require a stand—by pump to provide additional pressure to the entire system (in case of a severe presSure drop during a fire) . 5. It would be desirable if the hydrant nearest highway 54 could be made uve.ilabla for training purposes and water be available to us in the case of a fire call in that part of our district: -.3 6. We understand that the Midway complex is to be developed in stages. Me would require an adequate water delivery system beginning frith the earliest stage of construction. 7. A person on duty 24 hours a day (who otherwise acts as a nightwatchman, maintenance man; etc.) who can provide the following services: . . a. assist in firefighting (this person will therefore need fire training and could be a member of our company); .. , . . 7— 007?'-(i . , 11- . .. /Orange County Planning Board / Page 3 , . . b. direct us to the fire scene and have master keys to all gates and buildings; c. be in radio contact with our fire trucks in order to turn, us back in the case of false alarms and provide additional information in the case of real emergencies; this information will include the . . location and nature of hazardous materials. . - ' Equipment ft . S. The above mentioned person should be equipped with turn-out gear, portable fire extinguishers, master keys, firefighting foam (as a back-up to our own supply), two-way portable radio, and air pack. Access 9, It would be desirable (in terms of shortened response time) but not critical to have access to Midway from Teer Road. Need for Additional Fire .Truck 10. The Midway complex is beyond our present 4 mile limit so that we are , somewhat constrained in what equipment we can provide at a fire. The North Carolina Insurance Service Organization has informed us that these limits may be moved out to 5 miles. Since most of the Midway complex - - . , would lie beyond even the 5 mile limit, we forsee a serious problem in being able to commit adequate equipment to a fire at that location. The -- problem is that a fire at Midway would require (at least one),large . capacity pumper. While the pumper is on the scene, the rest of our territory is unprotected putting us in violation of our commitment to the Cane Creek fire district: We, therefore, feel that in order provide adequate fire protection to Midway, we would need to acquire a 1000 -um pumper. This truck would automatically be dispatched to Midway and also be used as needed elsewhere in the Orange Grove district. We estimate that Midway i eveloped a's-edViiened'by ibe LACkar3 of the . project, will in 10 years time constitute a third of the square footage of -.$, all structures in our fire district. We propose, therefore, that the developers of Midway contribute one-third of the cost of 'a suitable fire truck. We consider it wise and prudent to acquire this equipment at the earliest possible time to meet the fire protection needs of Midway as well as the growing needs of the rest of our district. The computations leading to the estimate of one-third are attached. Summary Statement 1 Because of limitations of equipment, manpower, and training, the board of Directors feels that The Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Company is not presently prepared to provide adequate fire protection to the proposed Midway development .3 a i ti Orange County Planning Board Pagn 4 .. Should the development be built, we realize that as a tax supported organization we will be obligated to render fire protection services. Our concerns would be substantially alleviated if the commissioner's approval of the Midway proposal is conditioned upon the Midway developers' agreement to all of the conditions stated herein. Should the permits be granted, we will move immediately to acquire a fire truck and will expect Midway's share to be availahle upon request. We will also move to upgrade our level of training and try to recruit new members for daytime fire- fighting. If neCessary, we will recommend raising the fire tax in order to support a paid fireman. In summary, our preference is that the commissioners not grant permits for the Midway development. If permits are granted, and the above conditions are met, we will undertake the responsibility of providing the necessary fire protection. , . cc: Peloquin Associates Charles Snipes, Chief OGVFC - ' . . • . : ;, : ,. =6 . . ' .. . . -.... • q--- 0072 9 -, _ Estimated Proportiou of Total Fire Exposure to be Contributed by the Midway Development within 10 Years Bingham Township Area 48,900 acres** Population (1980 3,954* Number of houses 1,660* . ._ Estimated population (1992) 5,800k Estimated no. houses (1992 at 2.-38* people per house) 2,437 . _ Fire District Area 36,500 acres** Proportion of Bingham T . .75 Estimated no. houses (1992) - 1,828 Square footage of houses (at 1500) 2,750,000 . Square footage of other . buildings (107) 275,000 Estimated Midway square footage (see Peloquin plans) 1 500 000 —7-- Square footage of Total Fire Exposure • 4,525,000 v., Midway's percent of total fire exposure 33Z Cost of fire truck and radio (FMC Corporation bid, Feb. 1982) $58,360 Midway's share of cost $19,259 . , *ProPo'Sed I. Lia tis'e Pl4n. lOr Oradge-COdnty,'May,"P'.181, P. 61"."' Supplin by Orange County Planning Department. , . . q . . . -. 5 (J0730 Buck Mountain Development Company's Class A Special Use Permit Application FINDINGS OF FACT The following information is the Orange County Planning Staffs findings of fact concerning Buck Mountain Developments request for a Class A Special Use Permit under Article 8, Section 8.8,8 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The following evidence has been supplied by the applicant orby the Orange County Planning Department. Article 8 Special Uses Ordinance requires: Findings: 8.2.1 a) The applicant shall The Planning Staff finds that have the burden of establish- the applicant has presented ing, by competent material and competent- material and sub- substantial evidence, the stantial evidence for the existence of the facts and approval of the request, with conditions which this ordinance the attached imposed conditions. requires for approval; and 8.2.1 b) The Board shall make The applicant has provided written findings certifying figures that indicate compliance compliance with the specific with Article 5 Dimensional -rules governing such individual Requirements and Article 6, Special Use and that the use, Application of Dimensional which is listed as a Special Requirements. There are no Use in the district in which: requested variances from re- it is proposed to be located, quirements. complies with all required re- gulations and standards, in- cluding the provisions of Article 5 and 6 of this ordinance, unless greater or different regulations are contained in the individual standards for the specific Special Use. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to present evidence in the form of testimony, ex- hibits, documents, models, plans and the like to support the application for approval of a Special Use. 67 0 nt I Ordinance requires; Findings: 8,2.2 Where the Board finds a perponderence of evidence to indicate compliance with the general standards, specific rules governing the specific use and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards, the application must be approved unless the Board shall also find, in some specific manner that: a) The use will not promote a) The Planning Staff finds the public health, safety and that there is a perponderence general welfare, if located of evidence to indicate compliance where proposed and developed with the General Standards according to the plan as and specific rules governing the submitted; Special Use and that use complies generally with required re- gulations. The Planning Staff makes reference to the following documetns that set standards for noise levels, safety, and design criteria for General Aviation Airports: 1, Airport Environs: Noise Polutted Land, March 1979, Environmental Comment Published by the Urban Land institute. 2. Advisory Circular 150/5200-5; Consideractions . for the Improve- ment of Airport Safety, Federal Aviation Agency, Department of Transportation, Feb, 2, 1967. 3. Advisory Circular 150/5300-4B; Utility Airports, air access to national transportation-, Federal Aviation Agency, Department of Transportation, June 24, 1975. 4. Advisory Circular 150/5300-6; Airport Design Standards, General Aviation Airports-Basic and General Transport Federal Aviation Adminis- trUtion, Department of Transportation, July 14, 1969. 5. Airport Compatibility Planning, Recommended Procedures and Guide- lines for Airport Land Use Plannin and Zoning, Oregon Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division, 1978. 1 o0732 Ordinance requires: Findings: 6, Noise Control Plan Development; Seminar Notes; prepared for Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration by Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc. (DRAFT) 7, Planning for Airport Noise Impacts by the Arizonia Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Division. 8, Urban Planning and Design Criteria, by .Joseph DeChiara/ Lee Koppelman, Second Edition, 1975. The documents will be the basis for setting the imposed conditions that follow these findings of fact. b) The use will not maintain or b) No evidence was presented to enhance the value of contiguous the Planning Staff to show that property (unless the use is a it will not enhance or maintain public necessity, in which property values of contiguous case the use need not maintain property. or enhance the value of con- tiguous property); c) The use is not in compliance c) The proposed use is in compliance with the general plans for the with the general plans for the County physical development of the county as embodied in the Zoning Ordinance as embodied in these regulations and in the adopted Land Use Plan, or in the Comprehensive Plan, or provided it is developed as pro- portion thereof, adopted by the posed and according to the follow- Board of County Commissioners. ing imposed conditions, This Special Use Permit is sought for property located in Bingham Township on Hwy, 54 west. The property and surrounding area is in the Agricultural-Residential Land Use Plan category. A Rural Neighborhood Activity Node (BH-1) is within 1/4 mile of the site. The following are the intents for these 2 Land Use Plan categories: /tit/ Ordinance requires: Findings: RURAL NEIGRf.ORROOD ACTIVITY NODE. Land focused on designated road intersections within a Rural-Resi- dential area that is appropriate fop,. small-scale commercial uses characteristic of "Mom and Pop" convenience stores and gas stations. AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL. Land in areas where the prevailing land use activities are related to the land (agriculture, forestry) and which is an appropriate location for the continuation of these uses. The following statementsof policy in the Land Use Plan apply to this pro- posed land use change: 2.1 Maintain and protect land which contains valuable renewable re- sources such as productive agricultural areas, managed forested areas and potential reservoir sites by direct- ing incompatible development away form these areas. 2.2 Protect non-renewable resourc lands from incompatible development and allow their use in a safe and reasonable manner according to performance standards designed a sufficient level of environmen protection. 5.1 Utilize the following location:' criteria to designate the most appropriate location for the variozJs Land Use Plan Categories: natural environment constraints land slope, hydrology, flora and fauna, soil conditions; availability of public services and utilities; transportat-Zoi system access and capacity; impact on energy resources; existing land uses; presence of productive agricultural or forested land; appropriate populat densities; and the presence of historic or cultural features. 5 Ordinance requires: Findings: 5.2 Guide growth to achieve a maximum amount of infill development in the urbanizing areas of the County while maintaining the integrity of the existing and future open space and recreational system. The purpose o infill will be to minimize sprawled development and promote a more compact urban form. Secondary.purposes will be to reduce transportation energy costs in addition to reducing public services costs. The Chapel Hill Township component of the Land Use Plan will be based on the assumption that 75% of the suitable vacant land in the Towns' existing urban area will be developed; however the goal will be to achieve 100% 1f'll ,..Ill. ! ect intensive land uses to existing urban areas and areas de- signated Transition Areas and away from areas suitable for continued agricultural uses and protected as water supply watersheds. 510. Designate land in areas where the prevailing land use activities consist of agriculture and forestry and which should continue in these uses as Agricultural Residential. 5.11 Designate activity nodes of various types and functions at the intersections of major arterials and collectors in order to accomodate different intensity levels of commercial and industrial development 5.17 Designate land focused on designated road intersections within Rural Residential or Agricultural- Residential areas that is appropriate for small scale commercial uses as Rural Neighborhood activity nodes. GOAL SIX: The promotion of economic development which emphasizes employ- ment meeting local needs while preset ing the character of communities and protecting the natural environmer - •,) 7 Ordinance requires: Findings: COAL SEVEN: The continues use of agricultural land and the maintenar of the farming way of life in rural areas as a viable part of the County's economy. 7.3 Minimize the relocation of bonafide farming operations caused by non- - farm development. 7.5 Direct residential: commercial and industrial growth away from farming areas to minimize inflation of rural land values and tax assessment which can price farmers out of the land market. 12.6 Undertake a feasibility study before another general aviation facility is built in the County to 1) determine the level of need far such a facility and 2) examine locational alternatives given the determination of sufficient need. The Land Use Plan does not address directly the appropriate locatic, ' an airport. The feasibility study identified in policy 12.6 has been undertaken and currently is in draft form. It evaluates the proposed airport site along with a numberol potential sites. The evaluation c .,cLz include several that are land use related: 1) location in planned low density areas 2) proximity to industr;a. areas 3) structures within 1/2 mile ot the site 4) impact on agricultural activity 5) proximity to environmentall! sensitive areas and historic sites 6) proximity to protected watersheds. The site proposed for this special use permit compares well in these categorie! to other sites identified in this study. Its main assets are that it is away from current or proposed resi- dential development it is close to Chapel Hill/Carrboro and has good access along highway 54. However, the site also has certain disadvantages. It is within 1 mile of the Cane Cr- ' water supply watershed. If this us will generate other development pressures and will thus create development pressures on this watershed. This increase in develop 0 7 3 6 Ordinance requires: Findings: - , meat pressure would also affect the farms that are located nearby and elsewhere in Bingham Township. 12- 0073 ? Ordinance requires: Findings: 8.2.4 In addition to the General Standards stated in 8.2 the following Specific Standards shall be addressed by the applicant before the issuance of a Special - - Use Permit: a) Method and adequacy of a) The Orange County Health provision of sewage dis- Department has approved an area posel facilities, solid for septic tank installation near waste, and water. the Hanger Area A; Hanger areas B and C are to be serviced through the central system proposed for the Midway Airpark. No material has been submitted concerning the method of solid waste disposal., This service would have to be handled by a private hauler. The Airportmay be served by a well or it may be connected to the centralized system proposed for Midway Airpark. (See the section on fire protection). The average water needs of the airport should be minimal, emergency needs could be considerably greater. b) Method and adequacy of b) Police protection would be police, fire and rescue squad provided by the Orange County protection. Sheriffs Department, any security need over what the Sheriffs Depart- ment can provide will, be the re- sponsibility of the applicant. Fire protection will be provided by the Orange Grove Fire Company, The ability of the volunteer organization to provide service is outlined in the attached letter from Edward Johnson, President, dated 2/12/82. Re4cue squad protection will be provided by Orange County EMS. c) Method and adequacy of c) The proposed access to this sit- vehicule access to the site is off of Hwy..54 West, 1100' east and traffic conditions around of the intersection of 54 and SR 1 the site It is proposed that the access road to the Airport will be built to Department of Transportation Standards. This section off Hwy. 54 presently has 4600 daily trips. The number of daily trips generated by a typical Ordinance requires: Findings: project of this size could be in the range of 5 trip/acre; or six trips/ based aircraft. Using these figures this project could generate on an acre basis 450 trips; on a based aircraft basis (130 based vehicles) 780 daily trips. This number of additional vehicles on Hwy, 54 is a significant increase.. These trip generation figures came from the book "Practice of Local Government Plan- ning" by International City Management Association. The additional traffic generated by this proposal will require that road improvements be made on Hwy. 54 at the intersection with the access road. These improvements include a left turn, acceleration, and decelerati lanes. The access road itself should be wide enough for a 200' left turn lane. d) Specific requirements of all special use requests: 8.8 a) The following additional The following are specific require- information is required for all ments for this special use request: Special Use Applications: Three copies of the Site Plan A site plan has been supplied. prepared by a registered N.C. land surveyor or engineer which shall contain the following: 1. North point scale and date, 1. North point, scale and date shown. 2. Extent of area to be developed. 2. Extent of area to be developed is indicated; possible future develop- ment is also shown. 3. Locations widths of all 3. The location of all existing easements and rights-of-way rights-of-way are shown. Sanitary within or adjacent to the sewer easements for lines srrving site, more than one structure will have to be shown on the final plans. 4, Location of all existing or 4- All proposed structures aer shown proposed structures on the site on thesite plan. 5. Location of all areas on the 5. There are no flood prone areas site subject to flood hazard or on the site. inundation as shown on flood maps or soil's maps. /14. 0 0 73 Ordinance requires: Findings: 6. Location of all water courses 6. There are no water courses on the site, including direction shown on the site plan. of flow. 7, Existing topography at a countour 7. Existing topography is shown.. interval of 5' based on mean level datum. .- 8. Proposed or existing fencing, 8. Al]. hanger areas shall have screening, gates, parking, service a surrounding fence and pilots and storage areas, entrances shall also be gate controlled. Actual parking spaces are not designated, it will, be provided at 1 space/r based aircraft. Service and storage areas are shown on the site plan. Maintenance facilities for aircraft will be in the building designated as F.B.O Hanger. There will be 2 3ash areas at each end of area A. Fueling location and fuel storage area are indicated on the site plan. 9. Access to site including site 9. Access to the site is shown, distances on all roads used for including the site triangles as access. required. This access shall be ded. and built to state D.O.T Standards_ 10. Elevations of all structures 10. No architectural elevations of proposed to be used in the the proposed buildings have been development, supplied by the applicant. 11. Names and addresses of owners 11. The name and address of the and applicants. owner have been supplied. 12. A fee, as set by the Orange 12. The application fee has been County Board of Commissioners. paid by the applicant. The following is specific additional information required by Section 8.8.8 for General Aviation Airport Special Use Permits. 8.8.8.1 Additional Information a) A configuration diagram depicting a) A configuration diagram depicting the layout of runways, taxiways, theilayout of runways, taxiways and approach zones and overrun areas, overrun areas has been supplied by These diagrams should also be on the applicant. These diagrams are aerial photographs that show the sera alos on aerial photographs. The within 5 miles of the proposed site, photographs do not show the area within 5 miles of the site. (See pages 2-3 of the applicants narrat . !). I g 0 0 7 4 0 Ordinance requires: Findings: indicating b) Isosonic contours showing the b) A diagram Indrcating the 30 NEF effects of aircraft operations contour level has been supplied by upon land within 1 mile of the the developer. There is some question boundary of the proposed site, about the assumptions used in generat- ing that noise countour. c) The number and type'of aircraft c) A 5000' runway is proposed. The proposed to be stored including also maximum weight aircrfat will be 12,500 the storage areas for aircraft,fuel lbs and the type planes will be limited and motor vehicles, service areas to small twin engine propeller air- for aircraft, craft. No jets will be allowed accord- ing to the applicants. In hanger area A there will be sufficient room for 50 aircraft in hangers, and 50 tie down areas. Ranger area B will be used by groups, possibilities include University of North Carolina, UNC School of Forestry or University Medical Schools. No based aircraft numbers are indicated. Ranger area C is shown for informatioru purposes only. No numbers are indicate( on the site plan. The locaton of the beacon and wind sack are shown. Fuelint and fuel storage areas in Hanger A is shown. Parking areas are shown but no space numbers are indicated. d) Row on site fire and rescue d) See section 8.2.4 b) and also services shall be provided and letter from Edward Johnson, President a letter from the appropriate of Orange Grove Rural Volunteer Fire C. agency stating services are available and adequate to protect the proposed facility, e) List land uses within the final e) The applicant has listed the land approach zones of the airport. uses in the area as: unused wooded land; agricultural land also in the immediate area are residential uses, grocery store, warehouse/office, junk yard and bar. f) Certification that all Federal f) The applicants indicate that the Aviation Administration and State runway has Federal Aviation Admin- standards and requirements have istration approval. been met. The following specific standards shall be used in making findings of fact for the approval or denial of this class of use. (0' (I 0 4 1 Ordinance requires: Findings: a) All F.A.A. and State regulations a) The applicants have indicated are met as a condition of approval. that FAA has approved the runway. Bruce Matthews of the State Department of Transportation has written that the design and layout as proposed does not meet basic airport requirements in several aspects. The State of North Carolina has no specific requirements for general aviation airports. It is important that the proposed airport meet Federal. Aeronautice Administration (FAA) design standards for three reasons. Failure of the facility to be built to these standards could have an effect on obtaining federal funding for it should the airport become publicly owned in the future. Secondly, most airports are designed according to FAA standards and pilots are most familiar with these facilities. A non—standard design could confuse pilots unfamiliar with the facilit and cause safety problems. Thirdly a nonstandard design could adversely affect the potential for an instru- ment approach procedure at this facility. The proposed design of Midway Airport does not meet FAA design criteria for basic general aviation airports in the following instances: 1) the entracne road is too close to tne end of the runway. 2) the runway width is insufficient. 3) the distance between the runway centerline and taxiway centerline is inadequate. 4) the distance from the runway centerline to building restriction line is insufficient. - - 5) the distance between the runwa, centerline and the aircraft parking area is insufficient. 6) the distance between the taxiway and aircraft parking area is in- adequate. (1 ti O 12 9 6 Ordinance requires: Findings: There could be other instances of the Proposed Midway Airport does not meet FAA design criteria. The evidence presented in conjunction with this finding of fact is as outlined in 8.8.2 a). 15 00743 Ordinance requires: Findings:, b) The site and its operation b) The airport, if operated as will not adversely affect stated in the narrative and existing adjacent land uses. according to the imposed conditions should not adversely affect adjacent existing land uses. c) Land sufficient to provide c) The information provided by the approach zones and overrun areas applicant indicated that they own - is owned or controlled by the or have control over areas sufficient applicant, to provide approach zones and overrun areas. d) Adequate land area is provided for d) There is adequate land area for all of the proposed uses, buildings and the proposed uses, buildings and storage areas. storage areas. These buildings should be rearranged in order to provide more distance and buffer between the adjacent residential land and the airport area. e) Screening of buildings, storage e) There is no screening indicated and maintenance areas is provided for buildings, storage or maintenance from adjacent residential land. areas on the site plan. f) Letters from appropriate fire f) Edward Johnson from the Orange and rescue agencies that protective Grove Fire Company wrote a letter services can be provided at an February 11, 1982 concerning fire adequate level. protection. There was no letter concerning rescue squad protection for the facility. g) Access shall be directly onto g) The applicant has secured access a State maintained road. easements to Hwy. 54. The narrative indicates that the access road will be built to State D.O.T standards and dedicated to the public. h) Compatible land uses are located h) The land uses located in the in the final approach areas of the final approach areas for the airport airport, include single family dwellings, office/warehouse, commercial uses, and.agriculture, these uses are not incompatible with general aviation airports. This project if built and operated according to the imposed conditions and attached narrative should not have adverse impacts on adjacnet uses. /sw 19 00744 4-, The Planning Staff finds that there is a perponderence of evidence to indicate substantial compliance with the General Standards and specific rules governing the request by Buck Mbuntain Development Co. for a Class A Special Use Permit under Section 8.8.8 of the Orange County Zoning Ord- inance. The planning Staff reconuends approval of the Special Use Permit with the following imposed conditions: 1. That the final site plan and narrative of the project incorporating all changes, deletions and additions through the final approval of the project are inc- orporated herein and made a part of the Special Use Permit. That a copy of the final site plan and narrative be on file with the Orante County Planning Department. All improvements as indicated on the site plan or stated in the narrative shall be const- ructed according to the construction schedule: set up on the final site plan. 2. That the grantee of this Spacial Use Permit shall post with Orange County, in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond or letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of all improvements plus 10%. The amount shall be determined on the basis of fully executed construction contracts or certification by a registered engineer employed by the grantee of this Special Use Permit. Security for construction of the improvements in this project may follow the phasing in the project. Specifically, as improve- ments are completed in each phase, that phase and a corresponding amount of money may be released from the security instruments or the security ins- truments may be renegoitiated based on the uncon- struted portion of the improvements. 3. That security shall be provided for the grading, paving and stabilization of all cleared areas, streets and other vehicular travel ways; parking areas; erection of street signs; utility install- ation, including water and sewage disposal, street lights, etc. 4, That all necessary easements to permit utility (electricity, telephone, sewer and water).inst- allation, servicing and hookups to the develop- ment shall be provided at no cost to the utility provider. 5. That sanitray sewer easements be shown on the final plat, for recording, so that when lots are sold, the owner of the system can maintain the system. 6. All plans for drainage, soil erosion and sedimentat- ion control sahll be reviewed and approved by Orange County. In addition, Orange County shall inspect the installation of control devices and the on going work for the total project. The project shall at all times meet the requirements of the Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. 2-0 00745 7. That the central water distribution system for the proposed development be approved by the Department of Health Services prior to the start of any Construction. The system be designed to include a 50,000 gallon above ground storage tank, that fire hydrants be placed such that no building is more than 400' by road from a hydrant. The hydrants shall be capable of flowing water at 1,000 gallons;minute at 20 psi, the water lines at be sized so that it is ibossible to obtain 1,000/ gals/udnute from neigbboring hydrants simultaneously. Each building should have a conveniently placed hook- up where a fire truck can feed into the water system. That the developers provide a stand by pump to increase pressure on the system, if pressure should fall during a fire. 8. That the fire hydrant located nearest Hwy. 54 be made available to the Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Dept. in case there is a fire in the Highway 54 area of their fire district. 9. That an adequate water delivery system be available at the tine the first building is completed and ready for occupancy. 10. That the developers or owners association provide manpower on a 24 hr./day basis that can provide the following services to the Fire Department: a. Assist in fire fighting (this person will need fire training and could become a neither of Grange Grove Fire Co.); b. Direct the Fire Co. to the fire scene and have master keys to all gates and build- ings; c. Be in radio contact with the Fire Co. in order to turn them back in case of a false alarm and to provide addit- ional information in the case of real emergenpy. d. The above people shall be equipped with the following: turn out gear, portable fire extinguishers, master keys, fire fighting foam, two-way poltab]e radio and air pack. U0746 11. That the developer pay 1/3 of the cost of a new 1,000 gal./minute pumper so that Orange Grove Fire Co. can provide protection for all its district in a safe, efficient manner. 12. That the North Carolina EdNiSiOn of Environ- mental Management approve the final plans for the sewage collection and disposal system, prpr to the start of any const- ruction, that is served by the central system. That the Orange County Health Department issue an improvements permit prior to the start of any construction facilities served by an in ground sewage disposal system. 13. That the access road be named and a road sign to Orange County standards be erected at the intersection. 14. That the road in the project be publically built dedicated and build to North Carolinatepart- ment of Transportation Standards. 15. That there be a 100t building and parking area setback around the perimeter of the site. That this area be heavily landscaped with evergreen bushes and shrubs, to minimize the impacts on adjacent property. 16. A final boundary survey of the Project and improvements shall be recorded by the dev- loper at the time the Special Use Permit is recorded. Plat shall show all easements, road rights-of way, perimeter building set- back lines, and lot lines. 17. That the continued maintenance of the pUblic improvements (water/sewer) is guarenteed by a security instrument. 18. That the airport construction be started with- in 6 months of final approval and that cons- truction of all improvements be completed with- in 2 years. 19. That the airport shall meet all Federal Aer- onautics Administration (FAA) design standards for the basic classification of general aviation airport. The applicant shall obtain from the FAA a letter certifying that the airport does meet their standards, 0074'(/ " t.; 20. That the runway length be 3700'. 21. That the standards of MEG be met by the applicant to insure that area hospitals can use the proposed facility, if necessary. 22. That the applicant secure a 301 right of way easement from leer Road (SR1001) to their property for construction of a fire lane. This fire land shall be build to Class C private road standards, and secured so that it cannot be used for Public access to the project. 23. That any lighting of the runway or other parts of the airport necessary for safety or con- venience shall be of a design and so located and screened so as not to create a nuisance on adjoining properties. 24. That if an owners association is to be formed and be responsible for any of the approved public improvements, all such documents and organizational material be approved by the Orange County Attorney. 0-3 00748 31) TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL 306 NORTH COLUMBIA STREET CHAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROLINA 27511 orrice or Mr MAYOR Telephone (919) 929 1121 January 12, 1981 Mr. Richard Whitted, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners 106 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Commissioner Whitted: Council and I wish to thank the Board of Commissioners for giving us an opportunity to review the proposed Midway Airport and Airpark. This courtesy review item was on our January 11 meeting agenda and was discussed that evening, On June 8, 1981 Council passed a resolution urging the Commissioners to consider the need for an Orange County airport as part of the county's zoning ordinance project. We still maintain unanimously the position stated in that resolution. (A copy was forwarded to Commissioner Barnes in June and another is enclosed for your reference.) Our concern about the closeness of Horace Williams Airport to schools and homes has not diminished. We realize that the proposed Midway site is at least ten miles west of Chapel Hill and not even adjacent to our planning district. While we sincerely appreciate the chance to comment on the proposal, we also realize that we may not be knowledgeable about potential problems with the project or the site. However, we do wish to convey our interest in maintaining fine water quality in both the University Lake and Cane Creeklotersheds, and our confidence that the Commissioners value water quality very highly during all stages of review. Again, thank you for allowing us to comment. If we may be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to ask. to, HE GOV G BOARD j0( Jo; ifh L. Massif -yor cc: Council Members Ronald A. Secrist, Interim Town Manager UO74J 9j A RESOLUTION REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF AN AREA AIRPORT (81-R-88) WHEREAS, growth and development in southern Orange County have made Horace 1 Williams Airport undesirable as a permanent site for an airport; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest that a site be identified to provide a suitable alternative to the Horace Williams Airport so that said airport can be phased out of use in the future; and WHEREAS, the University of North Carolina has indicated its desire and intention to phase out Horace Williams Airport; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of the County of Orange is currently considering a land use plan for Orange County; and WHEREAS, such plan should account for the needs of the community for an airport; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby urges the Board of Commissioners of the County of Orange to act affirmatively in its land use planning to consider the need for an airport to replace Horace Williams Airport; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town of Chapel Hill will work cooperatively with the Board of Commissioners, the University of North Carolina and all the other public agencies and private bodies to accomplish the objective of phasing out Horace Williams Airport. This the 8th day of June, 1981. • 4 00750 (-1 A RESOLUTION REGARDING'HORACE WILLIAMS AIRPORT (80-R-205A) • BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town will work with the University, Orange County, Triangle j Council of Governments, pertinent state agencies, and the people of the community to seek an alternate location for aviation activities so that such activities may be terminated at Horace Williams Airport as soon as possible. This the 10th day of November, 1980. 00751 933 MINUTES, January 11 1982 Chapel Hill" Town Council Resolution Concernin• the Pro.osed Midwa Air.ort/Airpark Mayor Nassif stated that this was a courtesy review at the request of Orange County as part of the joint planning process on this item. Councilmember Straley felt that the wording of the proposed resolution seemed negative and proposed that more positive wording be added. Councilmember Howes felt that the resolution did convey concerns that the Town felt should be considered by the County. Councilmember Kawalec concurred with the feelings expressed by Councilmember Straley; COUNCILMEMBER KAWALEC MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER STRALEY, THE ADDITION OF WORDING IN RESOLUTION 82-R-6. COUNCILMEMBER BOULTON MOVED A SUBSTITUTE, MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HOWES, THAT THE MAYOR SEND A LETTER TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THANKING THEM FOR THE REVIEW AND CALLING THEIR ATTENTION TO COUNCIL'S PREVIOUS RESOLUTION AND THAT THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL REMAINED VERY INTERESTED IN A COUNTY AIRPORT. Councilmember Howes also wished to express concern over any possible development in University Lake and/or Cane Creek watersheds. Councilmember Kawalec did not concur, as the proposed plan was not actually in either watershed. Councilmember Wallace reqUested that the Mayor, in his letter, also convey concerns that the County Commissioners pay particular attention to the question of water quality in the watersheds in whatever area they might consider. Councilmember Boulton concurred. THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION CARRIED 7 TO 1 WITH COUNCILMEMBERS BOULTON, BROADFOOT, HOWES, KAWALEC, PASQUINI, WALLACE, AND MAYOR NASSIF SUPPORTING, AND COUNCILMEMBER STRALEY OPPOSING. THE MOTION TO MAKE THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION THE PRIMARY MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. e.,--IN% ,,,,.... , . _.. , ..... .f.,„.......co.,. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION! P.O.BOX 25201 JAMES B.HUNT.JR RALEIGH 27611 MVISMNOFAviATION GOVERNOR . 019)733-2491 January 26, 1932 WILLIAM R.ROBERSON.,JR ., SECRETARY Mr. Fred Luce Orange County Planning Department 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 2727B Ref: Review of Proposed Midway Airport Plan Dear Fred: Per your request, we have reviewed the plan for the proposed Midway Airport with respect to FAA design criteria. The attached table shows the most important design differences. As you can see, the airport as currently proposed comes closer to meeting the utility criteria, although its runway length would place it in the transport category. We wish to emphasize that neither federal nor state regulations require a private airport to meet FAA design standards. However, failure to meet such standards could have an adverse effect on funding should the airport become publicy owned in the future. it could also adversely affect the potential for an instrument approach procedure, which would probably be desirable early in the life of this airport. One item which is not shown on the plan is the approach zones for the runway. There would probably have to be some land interest for areas within about 2,000' of each end of the runway so that trees, powerlines, and other obstructions could be removed, if necessary. If we can provide further assistance on this matter, please advise. Sincerely, c Bruce E. Matthews Airports Development Specialist BEM:by Comparison of proposed Midway Airport With Appropriate FAA Design Standards Basic TranspaxtF Prop os_ e�Midwa Standard t Utility Airport _ -- Runway Length Max. 4300` 4400' and above 5000' Runway Width 75` 10J' 75 Taxiway Width 40' 40' 40' Runway Genterline to Taxiway 200' 300' 150' Centerline Separation Runway Centerline to Building 250' 400' 250` Restriction Line Runway Centerline to Aircraft 250' 375, 190' Parking Area Taxiway Centerline to Aircraft 50' 75' 40' Parking Area Runwav Approach Surfaces 1. For Utility Airport, approach surface begins 200° beyond end r runway and slopes upward from runway elevatioinstrumenttapproaches, surfacerisC2501 at.runwayeend horizontally) For -runways without roaches, surface is 500' by and 450` wide at outer end. For those with instrument app 1,000' by 800' . 2. For Basic Transport, without instrument app 700' wideuate outer tend.slFor instrununtce is 500` wide near runway end, 1,000' long, , 1700' bar 1010' _ runways, the surface has a 34 to 1 slope, 500 by 3. No approach surfaces are shown far proposed Midway Airport. However, the road on the south end into the office complex violates these starer power lines that lalsoaare not approach areas on each end of the runway have trees or p prevent obstructions '- in compliance. The airport owner should control these areas to p which might be flight safety hazards. 00754 . _ . . DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AvInai. AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFkiCE 1568 Willingham Drive, Suite C College Park, GA 30337-1599 March 5, 1982 0.? Mr. Jim Polatty Planning Director Orange County 106 East Margaret Lane Eillgborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Yr. Polatty; Reference is made to yaurletter of March 2, 1982, regarding the layout plan for Midway Airport and Airpark. We have reviewed the layout plan as you requested. Since there is no requirement that private airports be developed to meet FM standards, we would not want our comments to have an adverse affect on the development of a private airport. The FM standards are, of course available for reference if a private developer desires to "^'IrU61sel his facility to meet appropriate standards. The only requirement :MA:has regarding privately owned airports is that a Notice of Proposed Construction be filed with the FAA. This has been accomplished by the proponent. The result of the airspace determination is shown on the enclosed letter of December 11, 1980. The recently planned 1400-foot extension for a total of 5000 feet received a similar airport determination. The use of FM design standards is required when the airport is being constructed with federal aid. Similarly, if an airport is constructed with private funds and future plans include converting it to a publicly-owned facility, with the intent of Obtaining future federal aid, it would be desirable to plan and construct it in accordance with FAA standards. If a proponent should ask our reconnendations for development of a privately owned airport, we would recammnd that the FAA standards be utilized. Our comments on the plan are as follows: 1. We agree with camments made by Mr. Bruce Matthews of the State of North Carolina in his letter of January 26, 1982. We would recamend that current standards for runway separation, etc. , be •11 applied if possible. 2. The report indicates FAA approved of the development, however, this only relates to airspace affects as shown in enclosed letter, 0 0 7,55' 0 41 0 2 3, We recammand that the underground fuel farm be located in an area away from the runway. The tanks themselves would, of course, create no problem since they are underground, however, trucks parked in the area while refueling the tanks could create a safety problem. e*- 4. We would recommend that an alternative location be planned for the access road to the air' park development. The present proposal indicates the road adjacent to the runway end. In addition, adequate - should be given to providing proper clear zones to provide for unobstructed approaches. We would reccantand that a 341 slope be planned. .All roads should be at least 15 feet beneath the 34:1 slope. We hope that the above courients are of assistance to you. Sincerely, Howard N. Robinson Chief, North Carolina Section Enclosure . . . . ., , L31. . .. „ .-;..2-...;:...=.5.2.,... ,i:A:prxj..l..............-■-•- -7......-' .•••••''''.:"."-..:..."- 7-",--■.:......*Ma...,.,-r•r7..r.......‘",,,,..,..,..........r...-..,. .-.".'-''''' . AlnPoaTs DisTricT cleric's 15GB willingham Drive, Suite C College Park, GA.. 30337 ........."...•....• . .................. DEc1.1. 1S0 Al 6 .-‘,21 ...N..... I P Alit '414. t. Charles Williams, Agent w,..... ..... 1 Buck Mountain Development Co. . . 910 Airport Road Chapel Mill, NC 27514 Dear Mr. Williams: 1 . Reference is made to your sublassion of a notice of landing area orP•••■Osol. I proposal dated 9115/00. It has been determined that the proposed 1 ,.../t......,...• public use Midway Airport, to be located at latitude 35°56'20"N, L . langitude 79°12'50"W, Cha.el-Mill North Cara na, will not adversely. ....... . . affect the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace by aircraft, -- provided: , ova.ill•AsPo All operations are conducted in VFR weather conditions. 13,1137MAjlad Please be advised that the airport is near publish ed Irk (IR-416) , ,......... and VTR (VR-1061) low level military training routes, These routes are generally used daily up to 3,000 feet AGL at speeds up to 450 Imots. , . . --Unless extended, revised or terminated, this determination expires .....r..._.m in two years if the landing area is not in operation by that time. I Please notify the Raleigh, North Carolina, Federal Aviation Admin- istration Flight Service Station and complete the enclosed pre- PATO addressed FM Form 5010-5 and mail within 30 days after the facility ............ becomes operational. \ This OITIAs.Tj determination should not be construed to mean FAA approval of I .,..---- the physical development involved in the proposal. It is only a determination with respect to the safe and efficient use of airspace . IITC.•••i by aircraft. In making this determination, the FAA has considered matters such as the effect the proposal would have on existing or contemplated traffic patterns of neighboring airports, the effects ...,....m it would have on tha existing airspace structure and projected pro- grams of the FAA, and the effects that the existing or proposed man- PATIO made objects on file with the ?AA and natural objects vAthin the affected area would have on the airport proposal. This determination in no way preempts or waives any ordinance, laws, or en regulations of any other governmental body or agency. ' "S. OPTIAI PATO. . .. FAA Eons 135D-14(7-67) OFFICIAL FILE.COPY ... .... . _ 00751 ... — . ; t.. r 2 - 1 1 The FAA can evaluate proposed construction in the vicinity of airports to determine if structures would be a hazard to air navigation. However, we cannot prevent the construction of any objects. Airpart environs can only be protected through such means as local ordinances and acquisition of property rights. ' . . Federal AviatiOn Regulations, Part 77, defines certain imaginary : - - surfaces around runways which should be maintaincd clear of obstructians. Of prime importance, the runway approaches should have a 20:1 approach surface that is clear of all obstructions. The ends of the runway should be a minimum of 500 feet from nearby roads, so that a minimum .: clearance of 15 feet may be obtained between the roadway surface ■ and the 20:1 approach surface to the runway. In addition, the center- line of the runway should be located at least 250 feet from nearby roads, so that a minimum clearance of 15 feet may be obtained between the road surface and a 7:1 transitional surface for the runway. If the roadway elevation is higher than the runway elevation, these minimum distances should be increased to provide the 15 foot vertical clearance above the roadway surface. These clearances should be increased to 17 feet for interstate highways. A general ordinance of the State of North Carolina provides that certain airport construction or alterations require a written peLwit prior to coeltruction. The permit may be obtained from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Aviation. • ..._ .. Should you have any questions concerning the above action or desire technical assistance in airport matters, our advisory service is available to you. Sincerely, original signed GEORGE L. WARPY4 George L. Ibrren. Planning Engineer cc: Federal Highway Administration w/encl. (7480-1 & sketch) Mr. Plentl, State DOT w/encl. e Bureau of Outdoor Recreation w/encl.'' If II o GADO, Raleigh w/encl. FSS, Raleigh w/encl. ASO-205 . . AS0-530 , Ms 330 w/encl. . . MT-230 NC-21:GLWar ren 11c:x7268 2/10/80 . _.. • MIDWAY AIRPORT AND AIRPAFtk Orange County, North Carolina November 30, 1991 4111 for Buck Mountain Development Co. 910 Airport Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina Q1/71r 0 r PrOPOSal e-, by Pe loquin Associates I P. A. route 4 b o x 1174 E3 chapel hiil , north oeroline 27514 1 p2s - 716E3 ".„,11:$,:4,, v4,.I '4, '',,',r 41-4P.4 j..?11%fie '` it s ;',5,44.1$ . '7 t. .,„r 0:0•C Tx,,,.. ‘i.,,,,..4-- i 4.,,,,, 7' 4'''4 eifr .t.:7,213k4.P' .f -‘ 4., it .4.14-ki-c:41,:iltf.A41,.,943:,40.141p,tii,fria,..,..ei,.*_,L...-. *3. Vit.-,,,v, -...V.1. 4...,' -Va 4AiAo.*-el-,..- - '..14t*"14.; ,''PAq‘A-SIT 4.iti'.'W`.1/45.0.0011:%4.40,1t .-^ '!:f■''i. 4,$::4 1,k 'C'' .frift$13 ^-,S. :". ■Vat...frr.. .-1.AZ;VV '-1'att,"3 '';:i -' 1.1ii*. I, ''''''W.P.7",ACIT. "'it:V14."-"*.,..,4471:144 l's;1.41..0417.1'';;•'A7. "07,,,,' , "P,P1'14' ?;41.171A,11,AZit14-A 7 . 2-,:q4"4 , ::,.-:',1:;_.; \ti. lee n.mehler a.La.. --/ ;, peloquin associates p.a. glen r. lehmann a i a -!.'0;'"Ct ■i tii e planning design/build route 4-box 174B chapel hill,n..c.27514 ,. . kf., November 30, 1981 45',`' • Orange County Planning Department ,-,-; Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 . , Dear Sirs: ; ' ' ^ The following is documentation of assumptions and additional presented at subsequent hearings and information to be verbally pres� meetings for the "Concept Plan" for Midway Airport and /Qr�ark. I hope this treatise will be helpful in the approval process and ^ ` perhaps expedite it. _ Midway Airport and Airpark are being presented, as you . .! requested in our most recent meetings and correspondences as a Special Use Permit application and a Special Use Permit with Planned Development - Office/Institutional application respectively. (I am � assuming that this is a final decision of your preference of procedure ,- since we have been advised in different directions several times now.) -;, We are requesting the two parts of this development be approv- .. , ed simultaneously due to the fact that they are symbiotic, that is, `,,I.., one cannot exist without the other from an economic development rk:fl-c, standpoint. The bulk of the cost of the Airpark development may :. '4-1 be covered by sale of hangar space, but the perpetual maintenance t'.'.4, of this part of the development cannot be done without outside ,0 financial backup. The Airpark development cannot be justified by ,%,..,,.6 itself either due to the lack of guarantees of a market for these 1 ..t- members of the american institute of architects .'..,"' $4-',4.1:"". :rw,,,J-4. '-',01,- 1 ,411;i4t.:-.--1; *.,,---,.:.--,1 -,-+t'. .44,:;"11,1:ilat",41A.: 35,11?:!---',1,";:2;:',,,,`,.1.','":0',::,':9.. -r,,,:i.,:,4,t4N::,1•1''4,;'-.",;',...t. -'-'''W .1'1* .- ' '''. ek, 4 s IN .: 1*g.el Ai,, ',,,* '4 41"Wf.,,. ' tdP-0,- -,/:,..,, ,:r.N. :4; r4iii',044..%,'TT '4"rPcaPt r.&,-.4."-,A ^ 620. .se, 4, ,,,.. ...:. ....14ter,44,4-4;eaft,pvif.revsitt`,f-,41,t;41.;`.47c.:4747441-'4,$**.t.::,..1:,;;.:,t,:, . t. ,,,,,g...:$3.1-4.p a-,z,,..„ye:0,$ le"Ii.7 ,MOW •To :, %,,,, .1VV:47TVE.....r,r,,`XXiirW;At..t.ZW,r-17-,,4 v,,,,r 4,,,s-•s.",-.•-,,•.,v.r.vg.-n. ,-..4,-,-.• .,-,..,,,,,VA,..11,,,L, , ,,•4,, -,,,,,vt, 4,;,,,,,,,,,-Pc -t. 4 ..,1?1, -,,,,,pi,-,,,K,1>s, .+4,10-,,,,,t,,,:er4 4 ,',*A 4-,-..4S.7....,;49,`,Y.A.,,r,„,,.,-0; ....-..,-;,,,,,e4,..., ..sik 1;rft.,r.'s<IA-5,1M-1*;:ks. ''' 'kriL:-0,46.t-*V44.aS,1-k ..,.frr 4 4., MO,.,,4,-;.- 0.147,,,„ ,?,410...r SY:teg ...f14ivage 00,4,„.3,,,,,,,.. .-4,y4,,,,,,,, W.F4,,zii,.-,_...,7*.r.A.-.-.4*kr.c.- - . t.0...,.InAli,r,,- „i,, -, ,4.,..-41. .., . ..4.,..4. ,,ii,,,,,,,,e.45g.,44..§- .,--„ , ,,, ,,p..-wv,p,p-,0,4.,,,..5..11w-g -,,- ..., ki:,44,:„.1,.,,-..., ,- , — , ,,,,„......,1„, ,.., ,,,. g-,,,,f.:,,i„, . .: ,L31,..., ..4*.., 04..-,,, $, k; ;Wien. /11.&,,,AC4ePT„-.S,Vgr't a=lSte4V.,G,V301+45.';A:444-1-tAx474.p:fd 5;2,,:-,,--,,,i,:,:r<1;;;I to ',fp '-. -014.' , •-pt- 044,1e6.4.,....4A -,z, .-A,-),,,,,5,-,,,, ,..n,--- ..,,t-v...1'41--sae -‘vp.a--,, ,,:l,„.'-: e '' ` "-- ,114 *,r4.- , , '-',-)•-.4!4.,tor..-:,‘ --,.'";,,,t...0.7-..,•,.:al.,..13.,:;,;,..;;,...,:,,,f12.,4.-,,,,-4;1.4,„,,2 ,-,.4:, , 4. ,,',1$105,44-4,4•1.:1 sfis,:;1' 74.:01 '"4,• .441 M4Z,_ "Se,■I ;-3; i,4'51t1q,"44 ) ,*,1777sni:;:-1%t-.1:11,Z...V;c1"t%:::v.4.,:it;=',' -':::'::•,'' ,V".'■-,*.,',.*1:=1,'i'l.."'"'AIVir.4'4,■.,, 1;t1,,...,t-... lif,,,,* , IV,:, -4,p1,r■,,,,:g.1,,,,......... .n.-,4, „,...sc,...„:7„,,,,...,,... ,,.....,..,.,, ,,,,,,..,t„,„ .. . 00759 .4.-;..• types of faculties. The adjacent airport substantially increases the probability of the financial well-being of this development \ . ,...:.-: : by expanding the market base. We are enclosing the following documents for your inspection: ... ,.. 1. licati9ns for Special Use Permits and Planned .. . . - Development approvals. . ,. 2. s Sheet A-1 Preliminary Site Plan-Maximum Development $: 1 . .. Sheet A-2 Preliminary Site Plan-Minimum Development . 1 Sheet A-3 Preliminary Utility Plan $ Sheet A-11 Preliminary Soil Erosion Control Plan ..:. , ,., Sheet A-5 Typical Site Plan-Office unit, Signage .., , ,.. .. Sheet A-6 Typical Site Plan-Office/Distribution Center Unit ...,'.. Aerial plan with Isosonic and required zone , 1 overlays. s. - — 3. Letter ,,,0 fAsErcA/21 from FAA, DOT,Fire Chief, and . 6 1 , Emergency Services. - 4„ OwnerhE Docunent .on land encompassed by this project.. t' 5. Submittal Fees Special Use Permit 6180,00 Planned Development 490•00 Total $670,00 Please note that the overall site plans we are submitting are scale of 1" = 200 , We are aware of the zoning ordinance request for 1" = 100' drawings and your letter of October 13, 1981 requesting . 1" = 20' drawings. We are submitting the enclosed for the following reasons: First, upon initial discussions the planning department indicated , the same scale as the formerly submitted plan for this project at 1" = ' 200' scale was acceptable. Second, no more information than is shown ,.t;,??,,-,4,,:; ',i':„,-..:;-- 1,t).;.-'n','.;.',".-4,,,se,„',..':44^.t,"-Wii/o,,, r7471. -*\:■01.17141e;:;"'' ',j;,E'...„,6;',%:.;'',474-=.1„:i.' ;.::„0,;,...1 (r.'...-V--=41.Y.,-;;',,..,',1--.-..., - ;-1,0'11i,74,--'..:.' 4`.'t..47.ifY4:.'4":7'f'7""i:-",'''.V-il,... .3.it f4P,c1''''-irtfttltIA01'11,',•.):,:::":C5,,-.44"t- 2.,'-".rit2,7'1),ti.'0'...■r%r1;-'a'Pd.'W14"-.10t-:.'4' 2V.‘ „kw 'W,4474-41W4,-".11 -f*i.*• ,•I'i;V*4 .tPVIiia,*1,, ,4otiAL:14.77•44,..•,r,flttei 1. - . ■tost , ..."Wit t':---.....: -1.4 AP. .t-,"",.-t .''.--1....2 ,"`.'',)'4,•'4.,;i7.,' ,.._ ,,,,::„ , „ , t.,:*;.;1^t,' "1-:- '' `.':'-':: ,,;,:,;^, ;r„.,,tv,-2.:.7-1..7„..;;..„ ..no t_.__ 1_;,.:1„,.,,,ty,,,,,.,4.....cr.' „„..2.-....-V•‘:,..?:, =,.';',;,„• . -14•-,t!,1,....:X=4.24",,M=t-,..-•.=ter•;,,..4,4---.4,10;$4-'s.'-,==‘,2.7'n."''',-=r. ,,Vit,416. - -1/4v-...1,--„,,r0,-..=0.s r, - - ^ • ---r i t;-..trt#,,,,,,';=N,,t-tws.,41,14illti*cf- tz.:F.11.4,11,r.teilarAtfit. ,• ''.007-. . ct•■•."1:-,,-;,",th,ir''.4 -4,1."_tut,* "-,-,- '1-i'14.-.*tet3o1.,- 1 ::zs'*':74.44.Tt4: '-'-'---11,*e1,-=-Ort:„eit'pN-i,r..i'in‘livii.44,my,:...,,t,t.-.01,E,,,-.741r.„-itid.,ft,cios.,41ttirt.,'„,p.„0,,,-1,1%.,„,40„,,I., Ke. -,k. , .A•,prodt,;,,,,,,,r4-,e 4 11.4,74 '....z.--1, -:"'' v 44-4,-'-0 4,17n4.1,-4-41.-Vr4-,,,,40.4. -4.,,,1 vie, ' 40.-'",•*.T.A,,'. 1"'.' ""''''' -sr; -4. ,- Arc-"--'"ct. , ",;i. ."..""'ll. A I.. ‘I'V-Ott'''i ,' •,,7,.."P.41;0,1'''...4,1;“,'•'.#7,rr-ir ,411/ 7-AZ. ***,•Vi*-'VW::ft *02, ' ,,,tt- -,,,i- „t., ''r .1'Y, .1, 0 0 7 6 0 , . 8 4 6-. . ,-,,-.,- ... . 1. : :,.r, -.- 3 - - ,-.....„,. . . at tills scale is required for submittal according to the zoning ordinance and our communications. A larger scale will not show ' any additional information, nor is any required. Third, to enlarge - the scale-to41-=-20' as theplanning_department_suggested is .....--- ,;•'-t, impractical for two reasons That scale would necessitate a drawing 30' by 20' or 100 - 2' by 3' sheets without showing more relevant „, . ■ . '''',-.54-:-, information. These drawings are based on required information for , ...1.- * 3.--,-.-- the special use permits and the P0-01. To give more detail at this . •'4,",..` time would require programming and design far beyond a reasonable level and would cause the developers to spend an immense amount of money for architectural and engineering services without even knowing f. ,-..t...,, if the project will be able to proceed. We are therefore submitting the above drawings and the .47, following information under the requirements of the Orange il. County Zoning Ordinance. , & 1. - .•, ... ....7.,4 ."""•',.rl'e3 , ..•„--,,k4: . k-.}. .. , k...v..- _ — ___. ,..,.A. ,,..--....'. ..-k,q,,&„. .,,_ tkz'ski.,,,,--.-,...1„---4-4r, t, , ..,...'2--:.-.,,101,-.1‘,4,1 4 .1.;p-i.,-,-01,,,o: ..:". .?:.s"4,, Aat.,-;;.....,,,.,-p.....,..,4-w..4..ika.:,4-...3,04Y f.W.„ -ifrfot,,,z,•,.7.-,.k.-,,,k.„ ..7:7',.,..E4..., „,.. liv.,:s, 24, ,' ,v, ..ci ,,,,,,.., ,,,, „a._ x ,,,„e ak „,„, i, ..._,■-..:qvV,V-P,':,A,-:,,,,,"..t.'.4.:'4,;t::;e T..4,-,r4,.z/kAy,,•,-,6*-4....e.,:r...y.,,,,,,..7,-;,;'• 4 ri ,,. ,. ,1, ,,,,tr,..4.i., 4-4, ,-. ,res,,,,,,,.... ,t.4"," . . i- •-.,,,, eg-44.,,..,,,,I,-,,r_.z.,;4.,:,,,z...-•-,i , ..,Zolz...3...,..._,-.:.;,-4,,A.,-6,,o,h,z-,-.1•_&•,•'+-r-41,r4..;; -.- ,...."'.4 Vi'. *te'''''''r'PS:.?If'....".' %,'''...V V •;.' ,,,C''.'7111',,,V1,11:1'd,P4-4.4fL.'..et 1,:j7a, .4',17..,1,r.t,Zroir;-.4.,;It"...A.,'.,:fr.,--•,-.',..,,,,i.::1,,,Z."7',1;17..,-"t'r'. .+1 '.41...,...'-',f.,..', ._;*''."*".` ••''.g.• ',43V4. ..n.illa*t ., ,,J , t" '. "c,,tic--•'-',,V..--'''''''Vil-r,,C-, .^,.4'1 tA, -.=!.1 ,......?",,',...,-,1;(.0.7,t,..::„P,....•••:,' ',', .7..:: r2, . 14„t.,;,..t,,, -4-Alot„4,.,,..,.4e,/,-...,,,- Alt-A-,.,,4-..,...--.0.'f,,,r-,144. ...,:,,,,,--,,,,,g,%xaiizt,,,,,,..A-;,,pq...,4,t,-.5 .4 ...4,,,- - r44,0,,;;A$14,-1,,,,kr.r..4 ---.1.ett,..4.1:,..4 - '-' - '' 4144. 40e4,-..“.1.&V51;*4:Iit, :::.0Se ZOC•11,10. .15.;,,,;,,,Ii?tdr,-.P.31P.:.'.,, .,„„dP,.Vit-leg.i,-,- ,,,..,:...:,f."113;':17.4,4,14.NO,:rp,':: .^" ,rtZr.....,"•;"'",-;,i....,....;,,L.,11"., c'-',. .w...z405; 4 :, 4, *,,,10'46-.. -_-4-, .. -... 70"4. -lak.' t1'.44:404f14124(414kri'W;IIM'W(M1-1.--4*S'°:'6: '': NAr -,.,,. ` C;..4", n . "7 ,C:VA -" Lz"»'t:. -I, , '14 , ,4*A51,117471i---:-4444k:40071"Wc-,V=A*.:Y. --;,-v . -41:"Y,4;74,.. t. , ' '4 't'.i'" ' ; ..^3i%V`; .4ZIP 4ak,Vil...V.,1 :*".44.r,..4.,.".t47.Att,.vis.4,,i'qvIt, 4 - .., - ;‘,„,,i .- ,.;,,,,.,---,„..,,,,,,,.k.,,t049,4-.- 4 .4,,;„:40.4,. ',:,,,14,6:.ts,..keit,-..,ritt4,04e4y.,:.4 0,-,t,1*,-.'W.,..,..,44.■,,,*.r..:',1-t.1/44' „i,- ',.rdy:,,,,,:,,' ‘.,41.47:21,41ilsx'v.,4-;:4,.,x;:.sH,- -;`,.,i,,,„:,,,Z,:::„ ..„,.... ,,,,,,,, L , . 7,r,. As,-..,... ..,...f.49;4,,,,,,,,,.„. ,,_ . •-•`" -....V.V ,,,' :, 4 -; — ,.• fl,vii.W5 'kr.4r4y0,Al.ley‘,1,:e.„.g It, ,,,,Art..;',.':-* ='!'="'" ‘4,-..''"t' ''''sr•-‘*=';' ,";-&''V.P;41=1"!!lir-V,Ii4S-7::. " ." P., ( 1 - - ' 4" .4" """ .• "...74-'4V •tis,"*:-; ' r' 1-5.4t•-••,--4; .q ."”'..-r•...,..'4, -",,-,:?Li‘..,■'".;",",• :,t--." ei't,...SM/..ITT.,. ' - ' - • ' , .. . .''.....- ,---,.-2,74 00761 i',..E....": ' . .. ..-, , ,.:-..... -..,. General Information and Site Justification ..` ',.... Midway Airport and Airpark is located 8.5 miles west of Carrboro on North Carolina Highway 54. Access to the area is off this main ..:. - traffic corridor. It is advantageously located in close proximity to Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough in Bingham Township, Orange County. It Is also within: reasonable distance to a major use generator - - . University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The University has publicly stated their desire to close the existing Horace Williams Airport if a suit- .2 able alternative is offered within a desired distance of the campus and 1- medical center. The town of Chapel Hill has also expressed the desire to t ' ... find an alternative to Horace Williams. We hope this development will fulfill these needs. „ I ^'L. t..• This site is one of the only ones appropriate and available in the Orange County Area. The surrounding area is agricultural in nature and_the impact upon existing conditions will be as minimal in this il- ,. area as in any other in the county. The majority of the existing site „ was previously cleared. The majority of the surrounding land is unused fl, -.., and wooded in close proximity to the airport. Further out, the land is . ... .. _ . : . used for agricultural purposes. The noise and environmental impact of this project will be minimal and carefully controlled. (Evidence of this is provided below.) The area immediately around this development in dudes a junk yard, a bar, a warehousioffice, and a grocery store. 1.1- The project is_a_General Aviation Airport and Airpark with various y.,-. controls and limitations as stated here. It will be a major asset to the . .;.. surrounding city and county areas, provide a new tax base, and en- courage corporate relocation and development to this area. The Airport and Airpark are mutually beneficial and mutually dependent . . - for surrival. ..: . 1 _ -; ,,,,,,, „,,,,,y,,z,,m;„;1. ,te4,,:;.-,.:,;,:"-, '=!-V 1.1^t-f.'.7' ,..":„A',;, :::••:,-..-...*:- r4?,t. *'2 .4-:"). c ,,,,,,:yt:',,Y..73 .zili,;kt::,-;f':''-., SI'i',.";1-4:*::::= ;F; 'l" 4::t.;:..Y..;";'c•;.'I'j::'It'F:..,a':-'44;',_,r;:;i:Fa,: :r•-tq,'A'Fg::Z:,a42;.:,:v-'24;, ;il;;i;i,s%.s:7'. :-. ,-;-1;;.,,,,W0:4-frtm,... ....0.74rat4 :i.P;-,131,4-44.:_r, 4,...■.,,:t.v.,;,,....!:+4.,44, 0 .r,,...?-1-',,;-:,,,,:,77,:,rgo`:-■;':.1`,4%'; :1.F.Z(t;t1V.:*'=" :,,e4-',i,?:,..1.1'f,T,S;err;i4"q "1.,f'. ■ E"....'S‘4,1e-4 .....i. r.:” ;,1"."7%■'1,^h!.,41...14'-ri,'",%:','.4.;%."..;:;""1 ir'gr,'". •:.`,,,,r",-r,, ' 7.,:',...',,r"..--T,,- *,.r. '.r..4,';';,'4,:4,-..;.4,,,rt _r...'r-•„?.-. .,..;--;1. -ki-.. ,t.,.41.,,,,,,., ,n.'? ,..,:,.- "zr::.,-1 .= r`i',4"-•,■•. .^r,'L.;;:'. e4,7. - ,- ., ..,- •:-.,,, ,-1.,!..-. p..,,,;-:,,-- ;:: "-;',-;i-c.ar,;.,. 4 -r-"R r.,n :-'t° ;.r; 9 7 7114:44, .41=-K1114;"7:: � Flax ro •r e, "°r iii.: a.fie„ + ! �`, =4'f".,sa 6 '� ' 1�, ��>r. � u� +Y� ,�'�,.w"`r.r�,.f �'{x - � ���Y� .r�-`t!d'Y ''^a' ,��,i s�r�ar�4��"4 4 � �" t�e ,�i�u; ,�' �;xP x'�.4 y �,, �t�- mY " K ����. T{a��'?�r�'b�s� Y�;y A'C�"��sJ�� Y �f'�"^� �.ir^;'.�r�y, �F1' }�.� '��*"RCt a ;Y' �,,,H��K; 1rv�.t,�'w"'yy'' �° - b�St' �,-P �rr- °-': °, ;w;,6„7 G t.,o f i:. c'11a� t r! . `p. EK �. x;. . id s',x"` 7 tr r t. - �4 -k <et -,t�„r'tt�.rho ' ^na''s y t P a A:LY.A ` al" t,c""` s t::,e 'xes , . S t ! �". °.t^L, "�s m� # w .7+g kixh'".` ,� S r c}T a z �� ;t,,, '�'r i x„- �.�it;� r ,:! ♦ - i'' -,r s "l Sr ' py xx&Svt, kM r. rr 1-4,..; .a'«A� k'...:^a._ rk "d } w .ha" r�.r {s"EtiRgta,. �a'4ka G,s� , xk' k t E Drawing lu mDial _ n of assumptions and additional - . The following is a summerizatio = Y •:!' �. ' x. 1 information directly related to the enclosed drawings: +V Sheet A-1 Preliminary Site Plan .. We have shown here the maximum allowable development under the special use permit's and planned development for our proposed project. ` The chart in the upper left corner lists the parameters for each Airpark lot under the requirements for the PD. We have shown the maximum land coverage assuming all one story structures and all office . buildings in the Airpark. Buildings one through sixteen are designated +,,. x '. office/distribution centers Buildings seventeen through thirty five {exclu mg 'w building thrity-two) are for office use. Building thirty-two -.. is designated motel/restaurant. Its intended use is to be limited to ;;,;. serving the Airport and Airpark. The motel is to be 20-30 rooms for overnight accamodations for travellers or corporate visitors. The .,.. restaurant is tobesmali to serve these same customers as well as sia- nificant lunchtime traffic. Parking areas shown are also the maximum required by ordinance and are drawn assuming 350 square feet per vehicle. The Airport development is to be limited to the 5000 foot runway and taxiways shown, built to FAA standards for 12500 lbs. single and ti,, small twin engine planes, with the three hangar areas shown. Hangar Area A will accomodate 50 planes in individual T-hangars. One large ;, hangar will house maintenance facilities, as well as typical FBO functions, ` '-. plus waiting rooms and material storage areas. The area immediately .., '- to the south of this will provide tie down capability for up to 50 air-- f'3.r^F, r ' craft, Hangar area A will have wash areas, equipment storage, gas -':; i _-.t.,ru ,�q� tii- -_. +a ,tw, r , . 1:-."' rt.P5b i' , ., ,.0. .,+,A- ,r i+""' . It.r, , r4+`.,.r4 7�..X s` . t Yy ,x -■�" 'x � ,r`'Ft" i^, c c i-� ��'rF L�'p""N, � + ,,d`Y txh t :'y°' .a.'� , � nY „+ e.' 4:44,7 �1Y_}„. ' r`F.. r,{ „ .r kfr eS, .r "A'.. �>6-".4(41.5',.1" rt `,-"5 u �F?�?'40-'i„ `K C.g �fi1�V74', Y�z ASi.3 ".. 4.ri sly ,A- Jn'"+{r`3" V ti s .."'..;*:!/-4-'4";" ..K 'k "�" a'd? .:r "r:" 'ter ' .., tv -'(;'.a'5,, ✓i4 '�'S°r, "' �" . $ I-^ Et �i f ."r'*..,I +, 't.`xj 4•( "`t, -. �* ^. Y.,;y" n ; r.,y r!" +::::": .' 4 •:t.-'. iP a i n. 9.*r''r e'7+,"S:,Fk :A.-. c',,,---.1 ..� ' '� 5 " ,4`'t....-A t +,t � 4i d" L[ y t';c,„,,,,,,,,„-,,,, } �4,-...-k , ' i;\'""4,8"1".t.- 4`,..." -' `.xy 1�'�t' 54% .YS -..; ,y` ' i` =w '`'".!'}";h •'�,,. rt'ti.1 1,.` t 'i�n.�" r a�,.�,P,.,, f 4,rT A C 'IF,e•,, '�4+�, Y''1.rs _ iyy� f, �y,, .v .,! X 'r.x x:x%`drS"H z +.t.Sa'� !Y•x x^.+ +'`Tit ,..d p �.a`�'+"SL ,` .�i`�.``Gi.s '�"a a�;w�.H �Y'1�+t4rS+�,t'< �.�` .+�°'� ��r^„rGatc�'r ��'tt1Y�Ya y,^;u�Tfq+f���- y' G.r�ty.n � �.. { ,. , ^" e i ys is+f c, r,. "+ip .0,,,,,'"h k. r,'P', rt,. :* > .;6 _ i"7 .k`4C" tdd:''i»r .. "}'. ..rtzl!^ay3>.r hu. ::'r`r+n 1 i'.a». ar'. ,t: " 'a S.L.n ,c..a_;.... nl.n...L .r,`'y,..,r 3k'''.! ..a�:..i _',r ti v:u.,!'.: • 41'-/1/*-hp,.., -4`>5-, 0.11-,iivAsAi*PV ..,,,.,- ',/-1,..,. .0 - SAftltillnifiTNITTST,17:7,471,A:;-!4:.. -IT' r,:g14:4 " ..4-, ,c ...1,,,' 444,..' li.;., xlik. 4;.,-,/,-44--vg,.,. -3 i„,:t ,,,,-,., %3,(A,,4;--.5-L.RfrA.-..r". •-lrell'i..5x.4,'.fW7:s1; - .4 .;, , , 'J.L44.11'',;7'7. 7...,.., -;e7-4-,Atir,‘,4,34,?,ut4k1-4-3,hg!‘,-7,,lit .',,,-1.,.4',-,„...0:r.-.1.4% 4.., .;4:-42.0oil/',. - '21,X19.°4!-, : ' ,,;,4,-AVc4&•-",',. ..," *--0,,,, 4- er'47A7:-, -:.R/14 ._3(01-4,re..,tikle.„e;; ;.,,.. •44Zi-1,-,340-.,./t,0 ... 007q3 ' 4 . ■ ■ 'M: distribution area, and parking for users. All directional and safety .....L.L r-, equipment and vehicles will be based in this area. Parking for pilot- owners will be accomodated at their own T-hangar. This area will ,. $ be the first constructed with the runway. Please note separate public and pilot/emergency entrances to this area. This is typical of all three '',3.• - ....-,..,, hangar areas. All three hangar areas shall have a surrounding fence for security and safety. Each pilot's entrance will be a controlled gate entrance. All visitors will be channeled through the FO building 4r. . ,.... for control of traffic. Hangar Area B is to accomodate one or two overall use groups. fi Possibilities include University of North Carolina functions encompass- - 0 . • ing medical services, School of Forestry or other public agency airplanes. .4., 1 ;*•-• Again, the purpose here is to portray maximum anticipated and allow- 4. ,.. ..:- .-.,,,.. able uses of all facilities. , * Hangar Area C is projected for future use. The anticipated - =. ..,,,,... use is for executive aircraft of a higher quality than Area A to be housed in hangars. This area shall have its own maintenance hangar • ' . and fuel pumping area. Aircraft size and type will still be limited to the above. - The airport is anticipating handling a maximum of 300 landings per month initially up to 1000 monthly landings within 5 years,. All runway and taxiway paving will be clearly marked conforming with --i,- FAA standards.standards. The airport will incorporate the usual visual aids .:`,•;;', such as runway edge lights, runway end threshold lights, rotating , beacon located atop the Area A FEY) hangar, and a lighted "wind-- sock" direction indicator and airport identifier. All these improvements will be completed by the final phase of the airport. Midway Airport's 1 '.4,. ,',... t , :,---1 ,,,-o,. ,..r...,.,,,,, ,74+,r^::i°4$6.•■;'.': -■•- 4 ' .'• 7-•, •,,..I.,- ■.,..,,,"«.„,4'.7P..!4k. ,..' '.Id4,71'47..tia'-..kvjt..elr.r., '")'...1.N.r'-1'":•"....,.. ..":..■ ;:'''''”'.",,,;" J;a 6r,4:5.'!,1`,-r,"6.0,q,7,,,'",-1 r it',1:-..:'..'..:r.°.....'t;;F:.-7,':';7 4',.,! -,'z',,:■.1:'':-"'-',114-7:s'1,-= --,,r,"''''r::?t,...1,,!;:kii,,U0',fLie.4■,..4t11,3..-:^:..5114.,'•..„,.`1.'"'",,,,„",,,1'Ln t",4.1,:-1;.'-,:',-4:PSek.4.4410FAVY'il i...:',4,.......-:-,3'..." 2r.-,Y.t'',"%,1‘-4--;,. ,,':■••",';q7.17.1;V:*i"A'4,.'4. -;L.-.<-0'1`1••-.:474,3',0.-54,-r-r-r 7:7,t,,,,,.,--1,--4 ,--.1",..e.4:,.. .,,,,-,,j;','if•,,,,?,+1,4,,,i,u,Ife2tx,t4„&,;.„..,p4:,-:A1,-,,,A,.-k:„.,,s;„.,:,...:*;„:.1.4.-:*,..?1,;,„.,,,,,,,=;,,...„..... .I.,Kt-,, ., r3.fe . ;%ZA, ,S14V1/1.41V-9;;:t1■00.k.."417X1',14F-1.4. titr,,„511,":11cVet-WAVs. -'•/,''' , .t.,4- !,-„ i:•.?':- ‘t:vd:'?,:.1,;:1-1-21-Ntt:,A1,-,,ilf,::„:nz.„,17,:,-,:lipzi.,5t,4,;-:,--1,,4 '''-',6-,' ',.:...',. ' ,-'• ",,71 / :',"..r.:1-7•:::;.:,,..,: -- - . -, ,,:;:).: :,::::.:' *:'7...=:". . .!` '.;-1',.."'":-.....r=-•'7.Vt4..'lf- ----.,--,,,,1 ..,;----,.--.6-„,,,-;,,,,,:,.;:‘,..%,;....,. ., ., ; ..v.:q ,-_ „..,.„,.t . , ..,,,l'..1.,t,.*,:,1•,,;:',,:„1 ir.,. *;-,vre•t:;$7.4Ft*VIti,j,-0,74:NAkrii.Vto-Aar.-67,1i.. .ttlipl",.;-4 .e.. : , 71..ztrip- 1-"r - ‘'W ''''i:re.:4,44.!, , -;-^-4,-fe"-444Fiff ,I.T, ri.r4,..ft,r,V-A;IiiiZeigirAtZt.P.IZPVIV410.0.V ,41.91-it,1., 1,46-r4.r tg,*- 4, '-' ,c4 ..-. ""4-.:4) „V -4- -;-,,,,, -, - 1r,.. , . ..4. 'f , ,„,•.f ,4". ^.1v., 4+7,4 ,;,, -•' :{vt,t-A.-.+71',..fF:ti'%%:er'..17,1ePP.1";44.•'*4'14*44411411,1"Vrt 45*.f4,;kt- te.:417 P ,e16"4 .1, 4.. ....e...V.4$12.,...- **4--rit.'. 'ik.:0Q0(Viig„'"Iii707-44.41',, ,fW,Q,71,'&54-.P;"-iftrfki.;.rt,SAVVAiri4tar4-.9'4V-444-t&s;q11,4:t0,ft: , ' f",,V,:!;-or+,ZVV,M*i;ltVTifo*:!AS::,Wa*':6cfig,*gtrIWTt'egAt'fei,:AWaWV:rt:re-il'6AVW,#,'-',„:' ,A-14.41c74AVR5,1`077,4,,,PC-F0.0 .54a,..41.*P'0-`4i.XV;WW,41V0V‘':•4400.',VkrWeWilee.c*Zi';'1r14,-41.1.;t•*.'" ei *te43?g-itVA-'Z:;.Z!Tttt.lr:P:4t4'.4e4:6:degArA-4'4445.**&4,;-;."6,ezt-V.:•*4figg:A-441441&402-14,43.F.;;Y:40". tir„■,,,' 00764 ot,. operation will be VFR (Visual Flight R.ules) initially and IFR (Instrument) within three years. The runways are on a North- 4„...- . -,2....- South axis which is ideal for orientation of takeoff and landings. . 1. .: This runway has been approved by the Federal Aviation Administration. ... ..._ - All-roads-in-the project to be built to Department of ,,---; -- - Transportation standards Several emergency exit loops are being ,. - formed, as noted on the drawings, to provide access from either road to the other in the case of blockage due to an emergency sit- , . ---,, uation. This conforms with suggestions by the Orange County emer- gency services. The entrances to the complex conform to DOT stand- ards and will be clearly marked (see signage sheet A-5). . l'- • Sheet A-2 Preiiminar Site Plan - Minimum Develo.ment The purpose of this drawing is to show the minimum antic- .., ,-. — parking ipated land coverage of the buildngs and i if built to the maximum allowable density, We have assumed here that the Office! Distribution Center (1-16) will require half, or less, of the parkina , shown on Sheet A-1 due_to the assumption that at least half of the facility will be warehouse-type space. Buildings 17-31 and 33-35 are .- shown here as two story structures thereby covering half the land of the one story building and again allowing more green space. This •4'••• , is very likely due to the economics involved in two story commercial e• -, construction. The development can be anticipated to be somewhere between that shown on Sheet A-1 and A-2. 1. . -V ; - ,,v,f? ,,,- : ■. • •jr-OZI,Ottt.Wet.tkiracts440,.*:•••.'...,-" ,,444--. .•-•.4p,,t, •, • -■ .„. '.• -., ..... ,..,- ''-14 ii''' v*i4., 't":7:,0.71.,"•''':71 .?'.0'.7,-,V. 'AC.14 44*:54k7` 4.44; `'''!41:44.- 4,41,:9404; tfiftfir.Z.4,5VVP.■'• "'"qi 'jfer,;:iti■H' OA ■ 1..*54: ."" .,,,-.4 4' ..70.' . . „%,-'.2.1,t,..,. ....'1.-.,. '. .iEz- .Q.,,V.,'4,,...-zt 4.9....,;.*:=.1- 0;%:;,':,..".,..'. :...4',,,.,,,I:. ....F?.I.h.--,.•';'.'''-il,"?1 :1'.t-i,e•Zi':■..;‘,7*:''';,0'?1 :'''.e,fr -N7.4%•44i- VP•4:45-01-4 .4•7' ',., '':i•c,..T!,4, ' '• ' Of ..''',".' -41"f'si-4",44.i^: :..;•:`, II,,;7'',..6715,-,',...,-.,,, ,Vie-4::7-L.,, ....,.!,,,szo :. , ....4,-;:t yu,%24;a4k■,,..5Z.,tr.IV«rA,1+744.'-'4,, Va.:Nkr.A1-•,,t44-e•'.41-t•i4:4‘,1W;....la 1 .' "r.'7,05:152:4:714'.4-Mt.400 -''' "(k' “*Fe-:1!U147VA ' '' - --•""0•1".r,;.,,,x-i.'ilb1/4'.'41., ,___cif:f. - '!'ti:=Ta.:?,g-4-11,',.:', 44,-',„:te,;-_ ak'"' ik, JO, ,vz-iii ...1, ,..-:AT-,•-.±._...,:x,,i!ti ttuetd"-:1,..--;',V4570:44.4.-ATAt,v4::'21,7,r: ''.:.At..,1:3,,,::.:Iv..•:‘,110 te.,4 ••-•-•..-.agoggtrg-,:ip_e-r-Tir:rt r'wir,...rwv, ,n.,..,7.,rviri.7.4.•Azz:7-4•;5f. .T.....y.-Fp, -,--. 1" eleh,.. )., . - • ,t,,,tgA'',st.4.A4.''t6;:g0-4,tpitVFpv•,,t;y..t:tkW,4.:gzw'4Vo•-4c ::;.::;;:::.;-•'.g.'s.14.-4,4" 0,:,10tie.4 .. ,bt,jet., „rivt, vAtLv4v1,74*,,4,-,,-. V: ‘t.;;Yer00,..4wcv--:::--%t..,,K,. '47, ,,-; .../: 7...)4w.,4,.A:ato.:. *.aa 4,....: '*'5WA., Att,V . ta...:NW,p..1.0..m474.:4diikb*T66 , ;4_ 11',..*,- .,,,. ,1- . 4,...,-0-:„tf-_,O'‘.. .erE401Y,41x-•.:-' --N-r---•-, -,1?.1:4,VvT.,p,ii-i4,1 .,..:4,,,,,,,p1,3,1r,..cet:-1.5f4., 'V'''.. - '-'''47P•Zt44'eV'''''' 11'''. 1 .*Vr4tVW'MVII6t .W ?.1' ''Pl•V1*''' :A.VrtIc4'14C641.""11°"ci-":14‘1 -`41•41‘Atri314.0,-.4.g4;?Met.5p;rs " .4t.::. ,',P,r4i4:4"` ...o, -....4.:' '0.4..tif-rlik .11. 0,i'o44- 0117171*5 "- 4,•:,.. Sheet A-3 Preliminary Site Plan - Utilities 1) Sanitary Sewer System ',';• , The entire site will be routed to a waste water treatment package plant. The only exception to this is the seperate treat- i ‘ p. rtent facility for airport Area A that was previously permitted by the county. The package plant will treat an estimated 130,000 apd. The system will generally be one of gravity flow except as noted on the drawing. The system will be privately owned and operated by the developers or a property owners association. The system will be designed to the most rigid standards required by the e i : . State of North Carolina and a final system design will be submitted .., r:.. .- ...., to the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management for approv- - j.. al and issuance of permits prior to construction. Adhering to these strict standards will permit use of the existing Collins Creek trib- utary on the site. 2) Water System - The Airpark will be served by a central water system. This , will provide sufficient water for flexible use for these buildings and will allow a pressurized system for sprinkler systems as required with an exterior hydrant system at 7 locations. The central system shall be privately owned and maintained by the developers or a property owners association. . ..,. ,,.. , . The Airport_may_have .a seperate well system or be connected *v to the central system described above. Water use by these facilities is at a minimum level. AU well well sites will be approved by the Orange County Health ' Department and the total system will be approved by the North . , -,:=', • ,Y:-0144.!*?1,. Z;''',".*:',:"'!'",'::•.-:.:1":"•- '" -.:4-' t''''-`•--F,:,:',,L1-;,',-%...v7,,,:,,: ric,:p.,:...pir,i,:74-i.--,i4t.•,,,,.:P2',..4'et';t:, e'1,.,,„,,i14.,'.I.4,,....,P...:4: ::ki..d.W.:-1.,:h t- ,,,,:i.:6' ..4-r.V...4-: ,-,.- I4-. ,.4%.1'2;:',i'. .,v''.',4V.t:q,,r'44M'I.."-,rir016k."•WW.01,1.1?"-erti.:;+1.t.-A-.'..P•24'a'v ::,:e -•-'-'..•,':.-:,:y.,7•.',...i.tmtw,;I:.-itg:;-:,t•::''",;-,=::.•.:nc,:ct-,..,1.;'.,1...=4:t...v.K•i'..,..v.-.4„ " ' "..v:-.---?,.c:-.44,04,,944,.„;4•47v4p.4.,,,,,,,ei,„...ip,44,;,,,,, 4r-ii„,:v.:,,AWN21,4g -/R.:::4-72..7414,;4. ,-,`,47,,' .2K.:,';`-■:'•:,!: ,.': - -.1sitil'AT+ ' ..I4Wit.,...„17 *, .•-,-,,,,,,„b .e.,- .>,..74'kii.."- ,-,.,-.,‘i,,:::.,,,: i,..1,-A.,,Ivq.,.. .f4.:-,-,,,gi,,,,,;i,, fry„,p4•44,,,, ?...,1.10,4*-7:spf,,,vter4--„,-,4-4-1,„4,10 .,:t ,.., 4,,j.•::;,.:'''''',,q,'*4.71:0,4.-k.—fii.:.1;''',..,`,';:.--,l,..;•A•i.-t;::,:.7;4g-:-ti.l.."",t;'irli.';',.41‘4(424.744N 0.'1^'$147,W4--eltS,4101Wir;-L•4;''''2■1:1.1-e',WA.,..,,'"V,-''' 'r.'1,4%::.:• , , ,«;.-C''''-'-'1; ,':',4 Vf'..;''...V:}' t.':::i'lx.:'',4•11-tt.:;,,T.1:,: if"),T 1c*V'V:""ViV4 .',,iik.-4,4^=,,,,„,..;•.;'7;-,-, ••.' .,,„.. ''''':74'",-'. ' a:7^‘-'..,:'14":''',';',..;*V5 ,P'-,'4.•^-':,..''', 4;."''''':,:f I....,-,:c'5:', • --,., -1- - .,1 -..7'‘;1';''.41-.1"1•41.174.",n;-.^,(1,.....u.-t-";V:C•r,-.;-;''-rx.....417-: '-'"&'4,'"*#411.:f;'4"P',"'•':;'; ' Carolina Department of Health Services, , 3) Electrical and Telephone Systems . These distribution systems are proposed to be underaround . The exterior lighting system will incorporate a uniform style through- ; ,,t,;.• out.the_complex_and will be.sensitive_to the_style of_the buildings . —._ __ .., • • and be careful not to conflict with airport safety lighting. All signs ,. „, , • will be illuminated in a uniform manner (see Sheet A-5). ' .' t. Sheet A-14 Preliminar Soil Erosion Control Plan This plan represents preliminary overall storm drainage and I i--•- sedimentary control for the entire project. A detailed plan and , :-..t.... calculations will be submitted for approval prior to issuance of i' -;'''' grading permit. Detailed plans of dedicated streets shall be sub- -.4,t-15 mitted to North Carolina Department of Transportation for approval 6- -.' prior to construction. 4, ,1t Uniform signage is illustrated on this sheet. The purpose of this type of sign system versus the "required" on building type is threefold. First, the use of signs at the driveway entrances ' '' �. to parking areas will reduce duplication and thus keep the clutter in numbers to a minimum. Second, the size for legibility on many 1 .4. of these buildings which are set back from the road a large dis- .. • tance would, out of necessity, be very large. This system keeps . 7.",',', the size of signs to a minimum and reduces conflicts caused by at '`-,-;•.,'? the road screening and desire to view sians. Third we are creat- - ,-.:t ing a subdued, uniform system that will be more pleasina to the eye :.:I-i than an uncontrolled, random system. . 3.,„ • 4 .... ..d.„.. ,,, .....,34..,,,,.,,,,.k„. , ,,...„,13.r.r.,..,. .. v....,..4, .,„3 , ,,,. , : i.,_....„.3,, ,q:31.7.1„,,,,,i.i..„:„...... 3.3...,,...„,...3.3...,....,,„„,.......,32. ,2.1:11,..3, ..•... . „,,,, ....3„.„rn_.4.3.v.:. 3.,,, „. .4 'j '"1"''' ''' • 41 .. 776.`1:T"'''' '''41.14 ..h,'. 'y*..''' ..7.I.'",.*Ci"..' .' :1,,,? jr■g 4:Fr4,*AnAVIA„;174.4:k -.--2.-i,;i4,,'V.,;"1--V,P3P,V.-iZYS?ifiTi':"1;:fYlIF-7','{- -„, ,Tres'olt,ifite, .:•.-..:b,j;00,-194,' vcvaif.-.3/4- .41-A,:,-.,.,?):pgr, Y.?'''''";1'•;■?2:,q.';:t_deleS:SCP*94V:\,004,"17,?'14' VI`"Vit,'''''7.,',A*1 Pot-WcrOtte5NO,4 A ''*1,tkbii A '13'411 IL444:fil.140440 ").44Vi.oN0 .1.0-r,-'w.1. '1,6-_,. ...1.01.4.7-&-It0-4,,.. , '. ...:f2...:qtrr '..',. ,Vfei,14=','6;44:&..1.,V-gi'fi'-tigniieN,V=. ..46.-";,n"6. •411":+50K"4:"6614Wee=6.;:i.rwArawriltk,-,6-6,42.i"''e,---4::, A,•"„4(:,;.'t","-^LZ41:&.: 00767 . •,..„ . i "V. • The typical site plan at 1" = 50' scale shows in detail a typical , .. :116,16, office building and its relationship to parking, delivery, walkways, '.'5:' ,f' • ' . 't. 'ki'i., 2 dumpster, and open spaces. Landscaping is indicated to show quanti- ties and typical screening. Please note landscape in parking areas. Keep in Mind that this is still extremely schematic since the exact programming for each building is not tied into a specific user. Under , the approval we are requesting for the planned development of this project each building to be built in the planned development area - 6 will be required to be resubmitted at this scale or larger showing t I this specific information in detail. , Sheet A-6 Typical Site Plan - Office/Distribution Center No. 12 ..L.k, This typical site plan shows the other type of building design- ated for this project. Again blown up to 1" =- 50' scale and assuming a one story structure, this building is the office/distribution center e6)6 ,.. ,.... ..,. ...1 type. Again, we have shown parking (assuming half office use), screening, dumpster location, walkways and landscaping scope. Paved walkways are to be required and links between buildings may ..,:., i • - be..destreahle.—Elere-clermer_y_traffic is anticipated heavier than pure office and a truck delivery area has been shown. We will again require landscaping in the parking areas at a ratio of one space for every twenty parking spaces. Aerial plan - FAA and NC DOT Required Zones -, 1 „6-6A This aerial plan at 1" =1100' shows several square miles surround- ing the proposed project. Please note the nature of the undeveloped land at the immediate site as well as the surrounding areas- The site of this project has been cleared more to date than shown by this older photograph. The functions of the surrounding land have remained constant. • - ., . 7,- I, • , , i ▪ iP517:":" •ft:11 ;',-:. {:t...!'-^47,..,■;:-:'-::- .47.'?::Ai:,:: 7:7; ,A1r1. !,, .t.'• -•'.,Pc' ,.. ''..:!.---''',,4-;F-...,•",.'1,''',,,'..;•■•;;%1:4S:nil," • .'444V. 1rA ':1-:,T.;:. .:■:-');-..,'Ln''■:1.t.:*,:tt-ig:Y04:Zic6,:n.fiAck.,';: -,i .;.;.%egrk(14:.:0 ::"'21:>344,"-. .:1:::": f.:154•,,,:t;t541:A.;AS.4,.. .A7,4:4;4'1A.41gb; t/.'!:1;;.:if,IVP.AW:Alt, 71,7;cL,r, 71;',,t4,4cr"-.41;4.0..? ?.V40,""1 .4:!...ZA.A:::-.7f,:tf V,!C,tf`4::::::4A,;'''4'.:"Y-7Z-151.7::::',..-''''...'rl'::.....:4,.X7 ---,":".".; *F.'1V,Tc"V=q4.V.^:,tV'C',':%!5:r':"' '',L,■,-11,-`*".^t.',L .1:'';', '', :',::-.1;:i:',;k40,V.: •-• -. :',..-:•"=`-',4.1,.,;.r,`.'.;'1';:t,r! ,r1,::..1:,,.,`,:;31;::,:i:',7,;,.tz.;,,,..,-,:,;„:- :-,-,,-,-„,.;I,,:',;..--..1^',:.:..:',...(-:I*::;,;,,-..:*..!..'24:1;1,-:,*.i' .,,,,V--704 i h. �»`y c y ic Y p v✓-' kP^.�k' s'1•:°`;.k-f.1 _t..n w am_ , E< 1. -, � c o , Y- e°�'��r- r nriv t ApAcet443,140....-, .�t ` F o i ''3'.4-R1, � �,x "t s ,t1 7t4, ' � *- � � � P.A r.r r L. f+. }` ,z ,- � ^R i u " :f7a1 `T "* L��` M"" 1ys ��'*�0r? `'' Ss'l ) � i{tn•v S 1, i ^ 4'."c , l t"i .*1� �1 .i �* � g « . s: {� 41,'',f zra 11+1:.r �. ° M 'Jg 4�4v� sts�Y t4-P4.x ' � 0'4 i� L> "7. t ^ S4 r_ ' r !a f • "5 � mss �a�` 3xfx ? ;f viJ ;.: • H ' t.x y rt ` .1.x'. ,;4� h �tri 4 J £ ` � ��, .«�� "� K , *u .4V nt h� � k a 1 i�X1 , � Y r ^ rr i A '. .8 1 .G ;»Ar: � " .ti1 •.:w,M..1? m y 9 r :, lw a Ys . U0768 i Js -11- c 6 { U i r.l The required FAA and DOT zones for Midway Airport are shown i on this overlay. Additional clearances noted here are shown elsewhere on the plans. The runway is 5000 feet of total paved length. Runway '{ `µ� width is 75 feet. Taxiway width is 40 feet, Botli of these are re= sX>. r quired maximums. Distance between runway centerline and taxiway centerline is 150 k: feet (required minimum is 100 feet). Distances between runway center- , - , , . line and property or building lines is 200 feet (required minimum). i. i' We exceed minimum distances between landing strip end and property :{ tine, and between runway centerline and edge of tiedown area. On the overlay, the required primary surface shown is 200 feet '?,. I-1 wide. The Primary surface, which includes the actual runway surface }l is shown as required. The Approach-Departure surface is 3000 feet long, 200 feet wide , at each end of the Primary surface, and Hairs to 500 feet wide at the i 3000' point. At this end point the imaginairy surface is 150 feet above the established airport elevation. - - I The Clear zone is the area directly beneath the Approach-Depart- ure zone and is 2000 feet long with a height of 50 feet above the terrain at the end. This provides more than adequate area for "unobstructed I passage_of aircraft landing or taking off." Longitudinal runway and landing strip grades shall not exceed 2%. Transverse runway grade shall not exceed 11%. Transverse land- ing strip grade shall not exceed 3%. Longitudinal taxiway grade shall not exceed 2%. Transverse taxiway grade shall not exceed 1,1%. •;" r E+� > w r• •v A 2i .-._.... . y414,4 < W• :*� 1. r_w x S 4 o n W t .r >� rc.y ti a S ' z .S 4,,,_rcY . " C*.'it 3 -'''IT* 4a ..0'•x , • 'a- A �� t ��- ` h . • .. - NY r ; M' '^'. r 1 t ,43P"' ,3s� - .� ro''1 A � . gly;a ' �' r ± r fa' , zt� x r :2 sr 4[y , --- r i . -ci*7tNKZ "� ' 1 �J • FS E1i t. -' wL I� 1• �{t,ro;i � ,,,,.--r,,.+ . 1"G i . �- . ;. .:'R!p"r .4anr af.t, S� . ''1 3. W: j ...� VaT:r[- ji ,` T � ,"4,A.,' ,, , -SM,''-'`, r w yyi xNLt ;‘ �' 7 5 k3 `� a F� y�ry�" J, r k �fc '' ..xw_... __...11,53'a�`'.7:6A 1. g,-r+t. . '''i, '.,' -F ..4"..�Fnc -12— Aerial Plan - lsosonic Contour Plan . ,- , The second overlay shows the isosonic contour limitations for . the NEF 30 level as delineated by the North Carolina Department of ' -,r 2 Transportation developed by the methodology used in the North : :4 Carolina Airport System Flan. . The wedge shown here is the limitation of the area under the NEF . is the Noise Exposure Forecast. CNR is the Composite Noise Rating. we: The state prefers the NEF ratings because it is a measurement of noise over a time period. According to the State of North Carolina . evaluations .a_hy land use function is "normally acceptable" under this rating, and certain functions ji- functions within this wedge under the state guidelines include re- 1:,..,, trz skiential areas, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, playgrounds and parks, office buildings, commercial buildings, ‘1,,,' manufacturing uses, public right-of-ways, extensive natural recreation -,' oi areas, and most importantly agricultural and livestock . farming including animal breeding. This NEF 30 wedge is limited area as shown. Any area outside this wedge is affected even less t by any noise. 6- Further backup is provided by a study done hy the Calibration ,. and Auditory Research-Laboratory, Hearing and Speech Center, School 1 4..',-,i of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. This study done for Horace i ''';:.': Williams Airport documents noise levels from overflying aircraft of the -,,; size and type presently housed there and proposed to be allowed at 0 IL gs: Midway Airport. The results of that study are aptly summarized in r.z.,)- -,/ VA,.."..."s'14.,, 14.... .‘,:,' . 41 .,„,X'-,eft .411'.-.44....,E"Tex„7,-,•4%.' , ‘,1-..„0:;,Wc.,'T•"*Z..«,;5441-';:'''*,,,;"I.7.V.44",,,OW:',11-17.0 .* 4:6-4,vA.,:,,,,,g4A fed4t4,0„.--7,y4,-,r... .s,,,,i,....--P‘, .„..,„..„,....„.„.„,,,,,,,,...,,,,,,,,,,,-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:;,,,•:,:ict-m:---:.:7'-43- ,tr-lwat..,41-A-,teV.-..---.,,,,,,,p314:1=-Naezi--e:,41,,,,..-4.\-„,-,. .1.4.--.p.=„),,0,:,14-41.4. ...-:ai--.. ?i,..,7,1 •,,I;,;4,„V.:.c,-A.0',0,1147 ,04's..[:-..,t,..,;‘-'6,',,*;;)t'Vy.A.,,,ZtAr"1.,-,7, -,-,«L'.,',:qZti'vlXijti4:i7*tY,*-z4P...,..A.;•3,,,V-4701=c.n.z:■_-.4".. .,44-.:. Sly4a.,14,,,,,r,1-r+e,-1,t1 '•4'-i 4'.`:,t P.,..i:••"•'4';',.,-..•-:•--..17:4, .rt,4••a:'ft1-,,•,•-,4:•,-„::,,?!•,77;. ,:41,;("ir:-1.'! ••s?-1!';',4''-'411-0tr+:•••-'.--40,44-‘7* ,,Itt„1--•.i-X-455-Zft:',.A,',;(•"il,-"i;i'--'73`'-',CX.,!!tr41`:z:•`-':-"7"--:-:".•'•• -t1,: lf'-':z;t7.-<f"'''4;.4'-xl•'• `.«`.,,i;X:•;N,„,, r,,IIIViiz,;•-•-.F.I,`-ket7,14 ,4I0-W:AgtelfV1' '`‘;'-;',,,1;:f.,•.,-;:.;*•,4•+,:jr,s''*'.**41--r":*-t",':•,**• •-***.• ,**,,, ,;'*•,‘,•:•*.*:,*-ri.;-• ,..*St4:', .r.,,,,,,1:4-*‘4:„,...=''',-.4-''''''t1"2/1,_,,A ...41„„-17-,A;;M',',4,44.),,-;10.,,4. ,,,z,y; z;:-:,,,,y •-•:F..7::::,-.'1,'F:if:4V,",,ta_).',*1,1*:.,;47A+V.:1,44-4.;;*,- ,ist'-,:.0,42.4..,01:$,VAZ, ,,,,, .0.4..r.tv,e,Xr.i.;;;IIK .,;:--•irty,',;:t. ;:_,,:,,L ,.v;,:r,;':4',I,;;'-y-t,ictA4.,,Kztp.y,,p;:a'Zp4Zt.....gn,33,fA-'LAF''.P:'i;:git-k,....'rvt,.f.-ZrY.t :4*-1 :1!"....t4:::;:ir"-i-V,:r.:4; Vq•-1=1;"-,:„:,:',„=.t.,:,,„4k1:1-„,,,7-',0t1,,i,,'■,:=:,-T.f44:',1-.7,rs..,-,,,,;;;:i.kra.,;,..'„ ;:y F —• *iv-,,,,, ,=-4,5.47:4.4- -itie-.11.s.',-;.".*.'-=-41-z1.41.,1,..::-q",:":„..77,.... .,,,,,;FF,4:':,;17:,=1:a1+4'A'r,Z4,7;r7S,-;•‘-•'••- - 'r.,.*L5N,„„a4.-1.."4•••*kk'e,m.....V114:1114.:=4;:***ri-,§,:41.,:e.:5;,-0:: **C***-'''4.****** ** * i 1 0- 7 0 7, '•'--,- .-, . -- .. ....,,..._,a., . 9 L .,,v,,,,..,.i''',' ", i ": ■ 1...)U •••4','N 1 i'-'1'.4. ''. - . •.',,--',Vr 1`,.■k„.*, ., ,, . - 13 - • .,1"1.,.A,'.. '41'1,, 1 I*",rr,'F'•,0,1 - , .2••,..•,,,`: . , , the follow nt from the • trument „ - • ., ''It is apparent following statement: measuring ins 30 feet of the mea ;-i'k • • i ,, - 1 • -5.-- data ft • *,, that the sound of automobiles than the sounds •:, . , 4.• in every case and small trucks passing were greater within . le altitude.11 allowable the aircra • , ., as they flew fromarly of - ., • . I et 1 •• --- •• • ly.7rhead at the minimum allowab ,•'' : ... . ' -.,.; ',..: 1.-- _ .. - ,•! . , A vz ., ,1 7, i,-,..ro--.;:=.'4,tr--wh'k3vit' .*...1-w="1-•:,,?■., ,,F ;.;`---.- .•.-' nl Trf.:4";;.i).:,#.:4:4-,16,,,$.'c.::-r;1/44,,,......,":A.-,. ,64"*,-; 4...;-,,-"..-...,,*4 ' ■r-k-0",...,-,-..... , ,..,,.- -'•.-" -***********•*P" -****,0****,41.41■110***-•.ii7Ar 4•".•••"-'1*...4,r ith 4 V,,'',.,!. ...k", ,W,P•aft••••-“ILAZ,4,I .. ,..• ',.,'.,*,:a.k0.,,:rt--,, ,f. ,'..s', ,. ,- ,.. , -,, " •'‘.7,,,12*,,eX4.,,■-•4*1 ti • ,2,...ti,;194V.••••V.,.!4,Mks,---;.,-,,,,k,,OA:',r:.F-kb*,741** * * --.."4** .7;i40_, ,'''',,,,,4"zt^,f,,,,....%1„.5",";■;';',,,,L=..:',5:,0-...:;,. ," ,:.:",',.,.,--. ' ,FE`',:t'b"‘114:49gi S''7,AU.,.4-_,, ,14,1:1,t':..e," '",4`:;:,,-4?,,,',"‘444■',,,,.,,.1" 44,,,,,"'"9- _.:'' '' 17 - ,4"'''':'a.'"!iq'=5tr=.'tns"4'e;;',FT!--;;',..:Pi'i:cr''',40:, :r....1.,".;',-..-1-_,11:: ' -,-,t, .47',`",.-' 1,,c,•:X.,-+xkt,..-'',z-i.eyz 17.7.1-',..,,,d- got.ff:W"-, ..exe„It, 4,it .,„ .14',''''' ' "--.4.1.'"'k,'.. .4 ta,.,' 1,, V '''l'ZY.1. •:''1:1-:''`r,1 AgAr. ``/Iu'.4.,. -., - -4,-:.0%-'w,-.44i,17::7-1.,',71..itri t^..1 ....-:--"-1,.., ,:,:i.tlit:--0•11.,se,!,,pin„-lir,.;::AAL,,k.;;S, ,k4,„);,.4-`.„,,T•at.7.9p-4,11.." , 44,,,,,r,,,kl'e -,..,. A,. . ''17-"'I-411';';';''' "'1'.i '''''''''''-'''';4'. 4'''''''''"' .4'''''''''1'1**-4-':VV'',:tti■g:*.';:q1.1:4%74'1'% )"''.' '-',: '_gat6n, '21: ''k7';''''':■,-■`5'•"..7,"..1,4g'.":" 1:-..,"«.'',Z.o.f. '" ...tr." ,..”._,T,, u: -.•,„■ ,=,.•..,a ‘......, >4-..0,t , . ,,_ -Air m.:7740,-..,..44:=7.m,-4-4-7,o-wjz,z,-ff-_-,,,-„nc-2207...-in,,,p,i7,i.„,1,,,, -"`PV'''''Mr4ti: ..f,'41iO4...'..W,,,t4t4+1.4 fl-r- •11".rker:444141.Wt.,"W.4,i :".- , :..7," -'''--1*-If 1*;11.2444,117,4t.S'' -rdik-.4',0.1...,PAFA.4',A, ..,-.Alli_n't:mfi-14,,,ii...-4w.,64,- ' ' ...t41051e,,,..4%'.40-7.:,,',Vt?' ,-.,,,,, '1 r.,1,,,„40..m ,. II'VeA,V,tr:•': ,-04 ,-.V:tt-*Wliv..r ..,4 "- i r -,21 t4-"r-V 4. - P4kvpi," Ayarer-A7-10-,40w,...4,v-A 4.,,,itileWit' .;_, - ,- - v-r. .'0,34/4",..4A 4■ 1.,_,,,A,:;...-Z:4,..-qt,,,,e4,1-4,vr,.. _ =.1t.,-it -'IT■ . 't.W.,*. ... .r.k7Atviii ,.4,,,,,i,.. xi, . .tp„, • "Al) , .4,,. ■Ing •, ....-...., _ -', q. „ ... -Al..-,-. -.44=4..., 04 0- -4„,, 0077 I 0 j - 14 - . '..' ,,:.„-„-: - ,,,• • ' '2,-' 1 ,; Additional Standards for Midwa Air•ort and Air•ark . . The developers of Midway Airport and Airpark have expressed the desire to have this complex be as high quality as possible. We, .-...„. the architects, have taken this directive and 'eyed out ground rules for the project that may be incorporated into the PD requirements if ,z desired. They are as follows: 1) Approvals: All development in the Airpark shall be present- Y ed to the Owners and their Architect for approval in the form of a -i- . ' , site plan at a scale of 1" = 30' and elevations of the structures. All proposed buildings shall be presented in like fashion, as required, , to Orange County for approval prior to issuance of any building permits. Approval for each site shall be granted based on adherence to PD requirements and Midway standards delineated here. 2) Landscaping:The required site plan shall indicate plant quan- tities and type. Screening of all parking and dumpsters shall be 1' required. Planting in the ratios indicated on the plans shall be required in all parking areas. Berming for screening purposes will be encouraged. -- - - -3) Signage: ,Sians_shall be limited to the type approved under the PD and in the locations approved on individual site plans. AU materials, , . . , , .I size, illumination and content shall be approved by the Owner and ,.... the Architect. Streets signs and traffic control signs shall be of an .,, approved uniform design. 11) Building Materials: All structures shall conform to standard exterior materials and finishes designated by the Owners. Material -; A . samples and elevations indicating material use shall be submitted for f; approval. For example, all building exteriors shall be a minimum 25% ,.. , . , -—— .,.,„:„...`,, 7F4Srte t.,,,IF:r.,`,,AST.:,,,',,, ,:^it,".),ts"',°`,...,..4 i:,.r°4-, '''',. ..2'.-''°r..„.-"`• 'r- ..-4.,,...--,,,-,',"'",..7.A. °,1,7, --*,,4,,,,,,,rriir,s,v1r.i..,,. Iv,.1.,,,,,,..e..,,, I.,,,,,. , „,i;,.....,..-.,...7,,,z,,,,,...,:,1....,-.4 .....,....-,,t1,.^1.-17':,,,-,-.t:'0,,,,I.." -,!1■:-„1 7.':,'VI:r.•,t..."',...r,,,,,,,,,...,-....ir,kv,...,-,t.x,.4-i".=p-zf.., . ..,-. • .-$:e.4.-*../4.,.,,-:,,,:4.0..«.,,•1--;■,k:r.. ,;4.,r•_,4.;..":--:-...,-",;.1...", . .--tra:0--"'',..;'.."'r ":".,;"-,i' l-11 i,t.1,4t,"•,,„,,Vrr;•ri" .4-0.: '.',.;,5'.-V16-ie 7'„i",-.:%te4t4r1-,,,goe4.1.7:4..,4, " ,,,,•.r:.'-. -.• ;,!'x•...r..,.'.- ' ,'".: '7. '..., ''%.-'-'I.....,'*et^'?T.1=,.V.'4',:if Z'`":•'".'04..'...rj."'"1:"11.",:■-4'4^ ''.4* a 14": ';'6'.'+'::',.'''''"'''''''' '''''''.1 '''''.... '''''1 ."""'" ' '''''''':',. ''''' '''-■"`, , ':. ' -;..•.4 •' '. L ,',,,," 1 1:1',.." ,....''0..',:'.r„... , '',.•."-.,+.';...',.., .."-e't...1 ,,, , ..,,,.,...„ ■,..,;,!.,,v-,4,4 4..„.,,,,,„w....,„,.,..,.. ;,z,„,„..:.,....,' ;',',', ,r °' . ," r_..,- .- ... :1:„.., -.. .--,......,-..,;,.,0;.;.. ..,-,:f,..,A. ,.:,"..,:.4.;":::',.'''''''...t."..%.,',. - '' ': " '''"'''''`'''''''''' '-:z.7.-‘-'-‘''.:'':...7*,-.--: ". e,•-......1,4',,,,,,:„. ..,r •..,..-....,......4 :,x V.41'',Lt.;"'"1:''''''' i =$,d r 4 ,'.x. *sst c x4 t� ;7 20°. .r 's"' ' 1-: �.` >s.ati ' ^T.. t 4'+' i t ' u �r ", itr sf , 1'w �" R 31":4'1r Y• 3e �i .h �C'rctx" 4, x ",R i, q ,,. t` h�` ! r rt 2-. �„I'�4 w- r' 1 4f r ' e - r '0 3 .,ov, +.x}r k + r,.r x i r m.r"--- " .. -. - a T{i r c ,,h�a.a'�„� ,4 h+ `T - j �h" f. �c ' -„d4 ' � :, ,= s. f_.1 r 'tw i :ya „,,:...t,,.1 t.f _ r R r 0 '�• '” f i+ „-a, 1 -ia -+= 5+� �* a g tP� ' '. .r * x i ., r a• Si�'u ,, ,"tax py� t C .4 ,,dcd'• ,,' i CO., : " ' ' tt... { 8, 44" xs: a i . "- .#n_a = , + . 4, .r' ,t rt _ c i a i ..; - 7- . 1 � , 4 ,,,�• ,: . :"�s itS" ' ,,,,-( ,.4 .'' ` `..ti t �-,, •.. ` `: T;. � tiw . 7r .c'"m • ¢t 'an.r Yt 1 FT' -- Y 5 _r�r 1 the Owner and standard masonary_type material for this complex chosen by i Architect. 5) Building Uses: All structures on the site shall be strictly limited to those allowed under the requirements of the PD. They shall f` conform in all aspects with items outlined in this document and on resented' _ t --• .� __ the-drawings:petalled infarmatinn on building use shalt be presented ; for approval. No uses will be allowed which are in anyway po ' "I.' or deeded inappropriate by the Owners or the Architect. 6) Building Height: All structures shall be a maximum two story in height. i All site lighting shall conform to the established E 7) Lighting: g g lighting guidelines for the complex. All lighting shall be indicated on I I. ^._ the enlarged site plans submitted for app rnvat. Natural lighting in 1.,;,3 each building will be encouraged. B) Building Setbacks: Setbacks as shown on all the submitted plans t` _ ,c: are to be consistent for all tracts in the Planned Development area. Setback requirements for combined lots will apply to the site in its entirety. requirements are as follows: Side setback - 2.. feet.�_.. i Rear setback - 20 feet ; ;` Front setback - 50 feet i Rear or Side setback at Project edge - 35 feet with screening Rear setback on Airport edge W- 50 feet 9) Energy Usage: Passive solar design and energy efficiency will be encouraged in all building designs. This will include proper insulation; 1 passive and passive hybrid systems, efficient electrical fixtures, natural ,li -' lighting, berming and other energy efficiency measures. Solar easements I will be granted. _._. �zs.7:...v eF.. 4 i ,.y5.4� ^fit }'d x ., �, y,`a' "?,Yc4 tls5• ' rrtrW^f1,,,,7,-44n,,,,...,-..,P7.4X.A�ti a.•�• r'8 '3'Y.� �t 4 i'' . ew o C.r �'� w. tt ,.jw>& ;, ,... .0 A'�."d r y .,.^r?' t k ..rr 4, :i• x -r^ ,1 dx,%-r+3`" .t, ti.i:,.'c ity r YJ' w f,tw2 i i ,f `�{`t y:,,,,, S�- z t� a„lr s . 4`^ o _, -., 0. p" "T'i'-`y: ."' Ca.'} r^'s ti-+t' f. "a'` :�k •▪.s a.-rAk' '� 1 ?1 t''',aFtl t�,;r*, i -� Ass ,�" � �i ��.�'�,-al� u � yr tr aw.�. *r�...xh a`f a�" C r s 1 .�.z+'",;.t,,�, ,. 'k; k .�� G }r £3"r r 'Y3., x-', ++d ^°S'+y' � c '70,,,,, 4 V, ■. A., t ,, .:rs t .-1,-,' .,:z,;,r rx t.1 . �.- r" r. ' + .FX, Y;a�r^i � , " a:, 4X yr '"+ ', F•:,n, ate'' .,,,,1/41,41W,.. Y `A_ ,`, s, wr b ti � ,, :V': a-.,b•• r;,{7.,7'.. `''E -1.'^Y r r<• [ r 4, '-4..rw � .- ' �^c, v' .1ja -k.- `�;it 3 t'' -t *r .!-�"?�.k, 'S #-a+v'4i" a 7� y t >A., @ *1 ,rr. :may -L 1 ;r rr 5Yv?LLL'X ,c k.., M: `' a,CS q,q""';r' '-r` ti'14.kX-0iog: �.}_ i. +-r"Y~'•Yl 'l L ,.�_.., .. .. 3 , �_ . . t`!'M... .. f ..ter. ' "8i i. 1...isa rsf, r._..:.-�. u rY '•t R...a r.X x,I..Q..: -,r".:",''7'',-,,i,-,.''','5e:.,,- "_,-,'":•:1-,f,: 4',.:;4I',.,"+,704,1'itil'SX*:,. 1".,!,'"i`tgl..t.r.."3 "'IFFP,f0T74:54al'e,4 •ft4.0'.Va9,0., ,'1.0,,,. `,,,,,„404 .,,, , „4,if 4 'ry:,'„,-;:. 1,4'..44.! ::''■77'4 'L'(.;,:;i'....1:1".".4,:•;,^. "-::1,4,7•»4■4,r3:74-7,*-W.,Oki?,t;•titet`fc,t;`,10ie 050rA,Z1* it,.i4CT,W44.tif,*.{...jiir-,,q,4 -''.47,1.,';;.71.":14;Q"---d-":•;.7:'1';'`WV-;;:11"::4',''`:::.'1,;T'';:':'.4-* eg,40$1.4„, civt.7.,:r;'';',7.76.4.44.. ..: ty*NIVAV,,i-h",, .:R•5, 16 --;.47. pgs!*'-'1,4P1r-'-'.:::•':;`,:,,* .4.1:::",,-:-.;-=z"..;e'1.-.,r.444--',V.1;5::$-A.txt14--•,' .. *-'4,414-7xi „,,...v-,?4,!;;tla it...-}w, 4 ' l--'f.ivii::-Ziei.., ,,I.).(47,:-::,,et..-7e3:*-.4s'2):I4Vz,- .?;ei.7-;s:'*i•'*.i1Z.Sr-ilf. r--vi2.4;,,,- .4,,A.14,P;.=,,tA:41 .1z.b..734;,0 .4 1 vt'':•7 :frs.. ./1:4V,Ati:4'';',41.0`4i,i` ,y v.,..,...,,t.. ,...,,,..,-.,...,,..,..,F....,:.m...... ...„.1......::-.:,..--„,..,,,....;,....,,-,,,-......:.....-.-, ,.. .,.,. .......„,....-"........,....,....,o,„„,......,, - , A., - 16 Additional Background Information and Documentation ... ., .'...;,■,--, ,., .,,, The following is background information and documentation , of ownership and development expectations for Midway Airport and Airpark. - Enclosed is the deed to the property for the south side of the _ .. proposed property, the option to buy for the north side of the project, and the right-of-ways from NC 54 through the properties immediately adjacent to this property. All land shown in the drawings is under ownership or option to buy based on approval of zoning. The financing for this project is "locked in" to the extent possi- ble before final dispensation of the zoning. The owners have approached a local bank about this project. They are proposing a "Guaranteed Loan" through the Farm Home Administration which will be applied for by the lender if they are the lending institution. It is impossible to obtain •. an absolute guarantee or commitment of any financing arrangement prior ;.. to rezoning. This project is being financed and developed by local people. This project is being geared to accomodate the present needs of Horace Williams since there has been considerable expressed desire from many interested parties to close that facility for safety as well as -, financial reasons. Midway Airport and Airpark is specifically being designed to solve these two problems. The rural, undeveloped nature of this area is ideal for needed clearances and this facility will be 1. respectful of the surrounding land uses. The airport will be mostly financed by sale of the 50 initial T-hangars plus land lease within the first 90 days of operation. These hangars are attractive to owners :- because of airplane protection, security and approximately 25% reduction in insurance premiums. Within one year of operation initiation the aircraft 'f''r'/A44,47,T5111.41ze-r,. .*frgV,141:iii4a"-Wi:14:1PAlt -A."%ir'4,/03%.,Jr.,40-2444..÷.W.4": ' rtUJ,44.* '''''c:AMV3.f4'2-;j !i.,,,„ ,7•.F,,,,,,Yig:,-1;10:74,:e..15?.$61444..iii; ,4.,'N'141P4- 42.;7.4.45.30:4., -7,44Z 4fi.:;:-Adt -lk-4„4'.4`"i, , O.4„, •'il,-12t144VVt44:4-F:t iE:-A-4ii-V44., :"Llt:";'1,,'''Vg'::r'i-';:'4"tli,..':tt::Vi&Atlr4v-.4."fef;4X4*ti,' ,4ih4m*....,r'.'V,,-3.$'-4*;irkOSO;,..:'.'1';`•40Ztt,r2e,e.'.?k.': W-1,14,,`,r,a':,:T.,ti?-d ..,- ,... - .,1;454,-,Nsc..."-N--ic.,,,tiev.-irm,,...v.,,,,kit-Ortl,,Frov= „.Ott+z,b,r,,..,r,L,„/..,..,-,,e.....A,,,,,Ty.--„,,..Ve,,,,1•7 i,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,.,.. 41,,..,,,,,,,i,viit: tr-4,-{.,,.. ; ,„ t,,,..!,0,1Z.",.4 ,.„4.',:!.."4:74‘-.4,41,:a.t.,,,V''■,*7.:Ztr, ,,,,,,..," • *„;z4,3"..,-. ..'" "."ZVilc;%1'11,',:Ai,,,,,.,.,..'a=1..!..V• t".;.i.--,,...t....4",".f„; ';'-'1.,4'. Jrz„1474',I f.„-W*4-4-,?.., " 1„.1- :q*■i'',:";., .%,":P.t. ,•;.1••■,,,,„^Ift„":',5;W:,:c.f.1.:1P.rPtt, V''',"*"%taki,tif. .-'1,1't 1...k.,'.'.''!..;44;!A2174. '''',.1.-""^4.'' ' ' .'''''''. '''Y''ila.14.'4',4' .1:-I'S"1:'::";'""'V.,';'',',.:,-..,:.-:s4,t:1,-..,,,i•r,".fc..,--",t-,,,v,'3-1,,,-04.4..t„:,,%„_:,,,,i.,?,,, „A575M4:;;;„,V,,flz. v.4.-r. , .4%,:„,,,,$ ,41.4,-4„„,,,,t,„ tple,(40,,,7• 1:7,1,,r„j4 .."'. .-...:'''.' '7.;*'',"/L')"...".1'. ..,'",,,,,,(1.-','",'4.41--P,:'-'Skv•A:.t`,tg.. .",,',:r:V"k.'A'r;kVA;,,I...e 4• .'..,r7.41:,,,'.ry , •,"`wr,„,,., , ,,,,, ,.,,. „t,„,,,,,, 1..e.'=.,,,,-7.,.z`e''';'.;;`,1,24‘:':7;::1nN,-.;-';'aiT'll `"P-,-"44'.441/4.4 . eV,Slii- ,..'''.4 ...Y'.-" t4-.■'" .e,'""af -0''. . V"-4"-1,41-' il"`..-Y-t — 1-.;,.. ..r.A*';',.,.--40,..,41- ^:i.'-,——1 '''''',.. - -,,,.4-*-.1 4. I ' s -4-,.■. At. ,....A....•.P.;14•V:6,,-trr,s,r,.5 "";•-•• .,. P5,----,e..•—i......1.... ..tc ti.'4,07'sr;„717.41;73R4:37Y57,1=,171V1144::;:i. vi2,, ..*,,=-„ C.'"1".". .i4eve.'"7,7,'*.I.A.,,'Aw... ,,.',,4''c'`ai`t,42.teofkivc",,,,L,:at,.1,-tgi--- 'cl'''4',.0.,,!.‘,at.%-,17;4-it*Z-X,,....kftr...,':,•.9, '''.`:-'N'Ac. ":•`'°' : 'I'iP'..-q. `-,...i.:V44.i: 4:',.‘0:! . 145,,,'V' '1413r4 .1/44^'''.'.%,eHlity,1134..y.- i AL •"r4MtVWe*....44, *-ie,3"'eL'', ''".0*-,Vitlf " ...."'ntri-+ 1 ,r,•:. -;c5;.,,,:,,,t,,-*?--- .,, ..,. ,:.,11-14...., ,,,,-;,,I-: ,,t4.-vrix tf.44,1.,..,:,p .q.,,,,„,„,.llorstAtt-444", .1i- , -,....! --,,,,,....A4,-, •,,Lrfalo',..:z1.07,04 :::,-,.;. 1i.-1:,-.." rti' '':L•.t'i.,'''TY",- .fd: 1"44-41,e,'„, -.---g,100,1.,=.°..41f.ef fi.v,`54," -6...or-lw. "....ip. Cite,z4,.«,,t,V..., ,,•,,,,....—','"zfrie,;.4=119-4rt,‘ - 17 - - 17 - ' ' ,";.1 ' f :',,I. . . population is expected to reach 100 units. Again, this facility will be general aviation type onlytrestricteci to 12,500 pounds and under aircraft, single and small twin engine planes. The construction of the runway will be a limiting factor on the weight and type of aircraft that can be accomodated at the airport. The 5000 foot runway length exceeds - . required length and was deemed necessary for increased safety factors and improved circulation and runway use. Midway Airport will be, due to these safety factors, the safest general aviation airport in the state of North Carolina and possibly the entire Southeast. _- The condominium type setup of hangars for the Airport in con- junction with the Airpark development will create a maintenance organiza- tion .. to provide upkeep for both parts of this project. This is the only viable way to maintain a general aviation airport in a type of perpetual care - !:r .- - situation that is a necessity. The shared financial responsibility with the Airpark will guarantee the success of this project. The construction schedule for this project will be expedited in every way possible. Subsequent to approval of the special uses and planned development concepts, approvals will be sought for grading per- 4 mit which will entail engineering drawings for soil erosion control. Further development will be done for utility systems and structures for - , other phases at this time. Within ninety days of the receipt of adequate , - zoning and related-permits,all financial arrangements will be finalized and, weather permitting, construction will begin on roads, runway, : , . parking and T-hangar areas. Second phase, concurrent with, or , immediately following this development will include larger hangar areas and office buildings. Thirty days after the completion of the runway .4 $ . . fifty of the T-hangars should be complete. 90 to 120 days after the :. . ''. ''''Z2,4%,-,t4.2Vi.r4ite,,, I;i"Z,,,‘"÷:';';'74',.;', "°::?>;',t,•:1, 5.1.:"4'7,-",7 Y 4,2", .'''''''Z,V4.;4A.t.-+,$.34-tit 4 ATL.114.1.1.1:!..gR'''.1,V .'"V.. 4.V.1.44;....'.-i-* '''L*'''-''j".•itti''k,''';'"'''''-*4.',e4174:1 :i;;'^':'r?O. 7: 0 .yjr . 4 ' .?"‘47: :1,!-''''''4q 4 ' -...11.:1"1`'-'eW'rer'..*44.":40. -M;Vi21'118■1 -:P?"\C".'Y;1'^fN,Wrr•011,4:- ^* *Z47: '..''' 7;:i.',..`."'";•:%,-..I...7,," `' '..,..1.' ''7:-......',I,;,y,1531-,-....„ ,..,-;;:,',.= '."-',-4....,_.:- ,:..' ..:,- ,-, :-. .4.,,,"„ ,,:4,,•:.;r-,.0,.,r,-.....;,,,, ,;-_-1_.7.,: ,i,,*-,,,,..,--Y,..,'-:1.,,-1-r 1 ,1" '.. .--..-:-, :. ,., !,,....,',,i-•••.-"...,el 0',,„ .--- , 4, `',-';: *-':,17, ,,- 71:z=V.7,,,,".".',1 "..741:' .s.,--”,uvr•-•::.1-..740,,V.r,'UnX.,14:-, o ..,..,-• - .,...,-•....4.0 ...ft-.. v e s 1.,t, A.,161.fty '., - W,,,..,„,,,,,, ,..a..i.475417;;;;T-.).5,:+trw.•41,24. ....,,,,,,,,, ,, i9--77. - % .t.V.1, •.71.41.1'• ""••^,S:.brviih: 17044,- z , i,...4._-'i....W' */'* '" w -,..2 . "7-1. +vitt..---..-.--o...-..t-1,'",t; 4,z...11*.)k-1-tvq.i........z6.- 5_15,..:;,,,,,,A-c, 4 lit.rAiNel.7:',ZI",,,,a.,_,F"it..i."7401r--....,*4'41, A?* 7.'.."X-r 40.■i‘ ' '-e, 4—'4: .,e." „,,,--,.,3/4*-7..-:154 I-' ''''''iciti,,,.A..W:Ve..4.,- :.--r.--.1:',i44.R., ,," '''-‘k6•.**-W43.WIr7W•'''ZI.4":74„..•:714:•-"=-.0rgre.i.,t97.4.10., k,lie•t'.1..,'•:4,,yr'lli,"el., Or.At: .:. 74+74.4,..ff.Wi**0.,41M..3:sc,k14,; 1,.., ,:1,,,,tzte--v,,,-.4.,„...z...,„1,7zt,,,,,rvoi„,.. ....0A1,....4," Si.' l''..#V.. .:....-0., •— '''''.; a, Tr.e91 ..I."s6 - ' ...z,".rq&'.5,C4r1 /Pr,0:: '' ''' ;:17p...tz!_i, '*.r44, j., 1441,4,V,14,,, ,,,..,,,r*, -; rAtIV 10,{IFA,"," .% ' -''.'1-•^' $.'v''' 's-'1,;°74,4"4 ,?2';.' v.(',loVV.,,:. i7-,.:1!"j*1142 -'*'.-S'..-:*;. ' U07", 5 '' . ' - '•' 7., 016 t..) ' .., •' --71 - 18 - completion of the runway the maintenance hangar should be complete. Hangar Area B will be started 6 months after start of construction and substantial completion of Hangar Area A. Airpark land will be marketed concurrently with the above activity. It is anticipated that . , at least three tracts will be in construction in this area within the first , . .- . , • . i year after the above approvals and the total should be developed and operating in S to 10 years. This is, of course, dependent upon many variables including the economy, our ability to create an attractive, well maintained park and the marketability of the project. On-site motor vehicles and fuel vehicles will be few. Fuel will be stared and pumped from underground tanks. One fuel truck will be used to refuel aircraft remote from this area as an extra service. Other motor vehicles will be administrative type vehicles and one small truck to patrol airport areas for security, firefighting and first aid. , - - - This too is an extra service in that no fire safety vehicle is required by any standards for a general aviation airport. 1 ..-. 4 - ■ ■ . , . . ---_---- —-... , '•'... ....,..„1, _.` -'.. , q•-..:: 41,..,:a,!.-,.'!..,;,':;,1,,:--::'' "t..V.:T.,„ :";:0, RI%'t.T.Z.,'''It'.•'''''''r:','.34.■"Via&j7-,7:^7.4 t;' .1'17',7,'''',.:741'7"Plk-<;;;,■:V.;',7N6'47**:1;?;ar.414jile QP4 .11'Z'.421:,...:,7:;' -1:-7,-,1.-rt•I„Y.„-r",k, LI-,•:',41,1 36,--.,,.,-,...,td.v.,-.11.1,:-;5..;-,,-,,- -'•ri,,i.'-4.--6.-?■;,f,,b, :C.i;,,•;•;" ;,:'...-:`,-,;,,,,..;-7-;r4^,,z-...,-•-44..„,1-,',„,,,,„'..;.-:,- ■•,14%,F3',,., :le:r A•rt.',"...:..-uric:01.,,,..,!:"t',.%sli.t-'1,4. ;-.14'.-V^•)',1,W;,,,,......:4*. .,.,,, '0";`",. t..;".."':'''','%,,,'4, , , 1,,, . , ,,--......---,-.,,,---!:,- ,,..,- ;,-,, -,,,,,r,t-.:-=-,..,.-7,..7r.-,'..-. : :...'.'"02 4,-,',;.4.,,,L:-2,-_, -.,...f-,r.,..„tt.--.4-,--....:,,-...g-,--4,,,,:,-.4.,77.-1^,;:7,-",''■' ',";''',.= ',..1-,-,;t r tir,-• ' 7-''k'''''''*:',,'''''''-‘'j,e,-;:f--,..-",-,:'.:I,-,; *( ,,',■,::.-": '''''''' '-','''''',' ,',..,'',,,'•:.'-`4%4;'-'''''"-':1-'4v"1",-T-. "''"r..-"',,,:,',•11,..."'-,..,....',,,,,, .C -, -..`";:* ,",...c, ,-;..,'., A°r�+.�t, .zYkx a'S�S n x,x y r wfr.�,Y.z'K+-sr`eds�W.t T�' i4 x k gat, 4'.!F ". , • �' ,{ , am �y yytp �+2 `:" F e j"+ n,;-r` § . :ratty" -� - 7 '^Y7" •' �1ck r,r ra-°. ;2,1 ' ;`f'' 'Y' '+ ,'` i 4 'e s,4dd ra"° �.�'.U;# ` . ,10,; r e ry. A.t n e{.r,:7 F w ..yy '4 -�. �gsk ehs ' ""'yy`S , ,. F 41'"' ,r ?3N t- - n' -tr F� +ia `� •'�li �' � �,N» r.t1 C` :a,ay, ,rr� ' 1," 1F.tn` SR �. �F.$ ^t p y ",S;,'n.}*rf-'-, ^v r�.7 s' r sue' y,d' V6h' "'w-tl F," t ,,:r•^. 'R' alt." d+w'+ � y„`v S rs�ali':rts �o- aG 1 7;.. ��,��� qq,, S wh, "w No� � €>•?,�:"i 4 ti. rt' �2 'j,„ f.-77.77 a 'x.;to.}.0 r �' . lsss".. 4r.";' 5 ,a.s.r t-e" f�. .. .�. ._ .-'"'_ w• 19 The above information along with the enclosed drawings and '':" �}.'✓ documents provide a complete and comprehensive description of this proposed project. We have made a conscious effort to W create a high grade project that will be acceptable to all inter- ested parties. I hope the effort we have put forth here will 1: answer any questions and will help avoid criticism based on - misconceptions. Sincerely, Lee N. Mehter A.l.A. Principal, Peloquin Associates, p.a. It } r,�,� t,! Nt S vY f zY s `kt'a -'Yc Fi icxY¢T� t5� •"1*241." ° f .. �"xa. � jF ` t Rt'"t"s '` 'h.,F 4'tS'e.`4-1 ,I✓ 1.7,'471 t'tYC'Y.. zF `.�,1,.+ ' Iii -i- ` i k,'ed'` • v 4.n,„42--:„.,A-;!.4.-4, -ata v ar n Y .if2 4 F ,I' �,�, t� - t' v I^ti 7" �' T,. wnrh- ga ,r r t C'F r xf �'' �d'.�"�' ss �� �! •$`d!Aa� . ` r t.2 /4t y � k . F x T y wti S rM�r_2f� La yt��as qrt i Wt 4sr es _:�Y�t'J.S.,.r e ..5 t ay p-,z�`t�,....'.3 u-+- +,c,� r.a..J.-...+,.a.,c,.w a P l I<d.�.:..a,.7s F'�`, t,t 7a.,. t�`Ya2 G r'�`'"�5"i-`T hv.,r,r.Y"LR.cwa^�r�'."�n ry.i h.4-�'.'a t#�`.�.L... ��"p.�.`'°•y�!u1fti':rf x��SY }-.� y�k7 4 1°�o�� ;nµ .,'fi�_� x �. e '�,. y917 ir '_ k ... M 49 � 0.,Te.,` .i��' • r � �� ���'` ' , . � � �,� ���� .-- � `� N8 00777 UL;u - - -' __ ____-_ _ ----- ` w�nnr*ouwo^p 27514 `- ' ' ���� LINCOLN CENTER, � — ' `' . - ' .w,*,° °~wn°�`. `w"" ^`«m^cnN�»/�w/wrEwoEw/ 23, 1980 ' � September , �� � ' * - *~ The Honorable Joe Nassif Mayor, Town of Chapel Hill ' 306 N. Columbia Street 27514 � � ��� ~ Chapel Hill, North Carolina '� - - � / Dear Joe: / , ... z� The primary concerns of the Hil\ Carrboro Board of Education � ` + Education��Airport are for the safety of students— ` jn �e����nn to the Hnrace W�ll�ams jts openutjon_ Dther majn� ^. � and staff and the noise factor related to using our facilities when ' for the well-being of persons Community Schools - ' ^' c«»«''�«� a/« o in session i e recreation programs, onmmrnj )djng� , cc� �� are not n ` ' '^ public investment in our �u ir'�|ron�':ucc.) and protecting the pu ._ and grounds, ' The activities at Horace Williams Airport have been of great t cuncer n to Boards of Education for many years as evidenced by agenda items appear- � . i»� for discussion/action by the Boards many times., Some school locazians . . were chosen on indications that Horace Williams Airport would be closed., r`. ' ..'' `� ' � Wfc i�t oroa l background and the concern for - ' board unanimously passed the following motion at its j � September 22, 7980' . , ^ ' ^ ` .~/ "That the University of North Carolina � ' Villj~'s Airport as soon as is feasible but no later th n 1990 and until _ �� the airport i s c�m�ed t�a� th� fllow1ng restr jxt='s be included in the Chapel Hill zon ing ordinance. , N ` . . ' - - I ���Aeitrqc� ~�� ,- ft as defined in the -, University operations a nd policies guidelines for Horace , ' Williams Airport ";' j 2.' A maximum of 60 aircraft based at the airport 3. Flight patterns for ' ` , h five school properties (Estes Hills, Phillips, Seawall, - CHHS, Carrburo) in that area ,, 4 noise level ordinance as guide to regulate ' ' Use current town noise levels over school property ,. 5. Use FFA altitude ordinance to enforce attitude level of \ ' ' school property , � planes over ~--' ' . . . � - __-__�-__-________ _-____ _ ___- ---__-__�_-_- --__-- ______-_ _ �`� �` � � � ��� '� �,'-=- �, -� ' ^`-`�` ^, �.°, ` .= � .,�~�-.--" .' ` _ `'^ . _ °=^~ - ~,^.5-. . . . . ...,„.,.. ...„ ... „ _ , • -:;••':,•,,,,-?:-', - •• -,:',• :'•:-• . . „ _ . .• . . . ' . -: -.',,0,07.7:67,: . --.,: . .,. . , .966 Page 2 Mayor Joe Nassif September 23, 1980 6', Phase out all flying lessons by 1983, at which time the ''• ''' maximum number of tie-downs would be reduced accordingly . . Until phase out date, restrict flying lessons to UNC fatuity, staff and full-time students ' .-- P. Restrict airport use by all aircraft to those used for . University related purposes, except for emergency use 'r • 8, Modifications to runways and other facilities are to be approved by the town council and are not to increase the size, scope and purpose of airport operations " 1 -n4,7 :741:ri cf Edication will have representatives at the Public Hearing un ;:c::,...el7ter 29, 19Z,7J, to state our position. Let us know if we can offer furtncr assistance or clarification in this matter. Sincerely, . . , . Phyllis K. Sockwell Chairman Chapel Hill-Carrboro ! :.:: • ..,,, Board of Education PKS:vf cc: Mr. Gene Shipman , r. Christopher Fordham . , _ •.: , . r. Jahn 7empIe 1:)r., Charles Rivers Members of the Board of Education . , . . . _ . , . ' . ' . . . .. , . • . .:: ... . . ,:•,• . ,•, . . . . . .. \ ..... i . • • , '• . . 0077q THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL FULL Offite of tho The Universlry of North Carolina al Chapel Hill Vice Chancellor for Elusions and Finance 211 South Building OW A Chapel Hill.N C 27514 March 8, 1982 Mr. Richard Whitted, Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners Dear Mr. Shitted: On April 17, 1981, Chancellor Fordham wrote a letter to Mayor Nassif of Chapel Hill outlining the University's position on the future operation of the Horace Williams Airport. The University's position remains as outlined in this letter,which states in part that 1) the University administration and its Trustees hereby indicate the University's willingness to phase out all non-University use of Horace Williams Airport by not later than July 1, 1989; 2) to close the airport in its entirety, including University operations, not later than July 1, 1989, provided that an acceptable alternative airport facility has been provided within reasonable - 7-- - proximity—to—Chapel Hill; and 3) to accelerate the phasing out and closing of Horace Williams Airport if an acceptable airport facility is provided within reasonable proximity to Chapel Hill earlier than July 1, 1989, and if it satisfactorily meets the needs of the University's aircraft. This letter went on to pledge the cooperation of the University in the development of an alternative airport facility for the community, although it was made clear that the University does not consider it as its responsibility to provide or subsidize such an alternative facility. In defining an airport that would satisfactorily meet the needs of the University air operations, we would include the following. 1) adequate physical facilities including a paved runway of not less than the same dimensions of Horace Williams Airport, berths, taxiway, ramp, fuel availability, qualified mechanic, security area, hangar, etc. ; • :00780 JUL, . . Mr. Richard Whitted Page Two March 8, 1982 2) adequate safety provisions including runway lights, rotating beacon, instrument approach provisions, etc.; 3) adequate peoximity to the University; and _ . 4) adequate assurance of the continued operation and the financial soundness of any new airport. We would point out that the assurance of the continued operation and the financial soundness of any new airport facility is of particular importance. Such assurance must be attained without a commitment of the University to move to such a facility. The University cannot place itself in a positionof being the first to move to a new airport and, in fact, the University would need to seek the funding that would be required to make such a move. The University is encouraged by the proposal for the new Midway Airport as representing the first indication of a move to establish an acceptable alternative airport facility for southern Orange County. This facility has the potential for meeting the needs of the University; and therefore, the University would recommend careful consideration of this proposal, Sincerely, 4 ohn L. Temple Vice Chancellor _ . . • U0781 JUJ Members of the pbbnning Board and County Commissioners, My name is Eric Schopler. I want to make a atatement to this group from two points of view: First from the perspective of a resident of Bingham Township for the past 11 yrs; and second as a memIter of the faculty of the LING Medical School in CHapel Hill who uses the medical school flying facilities at Horace Williams and at RDU7-I-would like- to explain why-the proposed airport and it's industrial development goes against the best interests of botH Bingham Township and the aviation needs of CHapel Hill and Orange County, For Bingham Township the creation of the proposed airport and industrial concentration would completely and irrevocably alter the agricultural and residential nature of the Township for which it's now zoned. The office,warehouse, and Motel complex would stimulate further spin-off of development which would substantially overburden Highway 54 and the use for which it was just recetnly rebuilt. THose of us who live in Bingham recall how long it took to widen this road just 10 yrs ago, and how costly that was to the tax payer. The proposed , complex would require further widening of 54 at a much higher cost, unnecessary if the airport was located near an existing mass transportation through-fare. In addition, such a development could not be provided with adequate fire and police protection from the present volunteer fire department and understaffed Sherriff's Office. The industrial use and development would also impose an encroachment on the Cane Creek and University Lake watershed. The proposed airport complex is equally unOsatisfactory from the perspective. of Chapel Hill. It has become clear that the growth of Chapel Hill requires that the heavy aviation use of Horace Williams be transferred to another site. It is equally obvious that both C H apel Hill and the County will need a feeder airport to RDU, one that will meet FAA standards for a commerical airport, including facilities for instrument landing, adequate mass transit access, and be located where it will enhance existing industrial development.The Buck Mountain airport will meet none of these needs, while laying heavy, unnecessary additional burdens on the tax payer, • O2 d 2. As I see it the basic problem has to do with whether a project of this magnitude should be developedd for the prodit motives of individual developers, or whether it should represent the total needs of the county to residents, The time is long past when we can allow individual developers make long-range planning decisions that will effect every resident of the county. I therefore urge the Planning Board and the County Commissioners to dedicate themselves to the appropriate location of a commercial feeder airport near existing transportation facilities and industrial development, and to turn down the request to rezone Bingham Township, a decision that would radically chage the farming/residential environment that we have elected to maintain here. /4 3/0 154,' /241- - ■ - "_� i-t Kl 4 i � E. lase out air" o�°� } .tile action � fanned by Buck M1uunEa,n t ' LIP t- tX€0 and duct€the runway One airport already hasbcenp sity ended a rMeivin g 530, p' Dcvclopmclit,Inc.it would be iae.'atett in 13ingham'ftpOrt, attc€vc scltnol hoard and nctghborhood objections. ship off of N.C.54,€t miles from Chapc!€-lilt:The airpar€. f r 3 By Lf:ILA D UNHA�� In h9T5,the University decided to provide lighting for would cover 232 acres.It would include a l the runway.Again,this decision MCI opposition from the c-alted Iindu%ty, t %VA) school board and neighborhood gtoupshecausc this would 1pany airplanes.s.OnlytsixtPro ate be ots border 1UC airport € le Usnversny-owned t brace\Villiants Airport(H l i is to be phased out sn that Chapc!1{stet and all of land.so it€s in a relatively low pitpuintion arca•ermns i increase the amount or air traffic.The University a{ The Town of 0ingham tsar granted building P p tempted to appease tile prap[c by impal tr more d tar e 1 l age County can have an air vr€ that can satisfy 30 tluc catitpany for glum has of the airport and run- 1 v,ng needs. tions on itsclr.it limited a€t comnscrciah traffic and large way but has not done so for the industrial park.Some i \VA is o[r Airport Road.Two sF�Itovts,Estes Hills aircraft, Bill the number Of phones had grown to 50. tee he!leve it is because Binghant Townshiip plus five AHEC planes.which she University had claimed of tite people l l tit!'s.ptoblctns, ( n,to y and Phillips tile Eunwa ./t he no more than doesn't want to be tite answer tv Chapel II t.t}00 yards of[ Stec runway.jjrwo other sc€tools, it was restricting. pct Flit! High ScttoaI and Wbrcntb=Jtsniijr14igh; to All 1950,tite AHEC pro;ram wanted a hangar for €f the mayor,town council,and.Un€versify sincerely work i in the flight pattern. Fleavily PoPttiated neighbor- Y want la phase out id\VA,they will have to try will, Bingham Township and the state.The Plans arc i l ds have grown up around 14WA,with plans for the its airplanes.in,The University board and neighborhood eed once groups drawn and Buck Mou€ttalti is ready to start building. i trying to compromise with a toning amendment whtctt :traction of large condominiums in€he next two to cried out again. ht3traininig esPo donee more b l The advart€ages of the proposed airport are numerous. c years. would eliminate night g First,the airport would bring added jobs to theTria,tplc, 110,ncaple wlta live and go to s£hao!'ncar FiWA do ermit,rand the zoning anundincni was struck dowtt by a patt[cttiarly Cho€cl Bill,and wtitiid therefore bring in t phased ouE€or two seasons.They are afraid of to t nod November€ nin due University received its buildln more industry.A great many companies own their own rsrrtucd danger to their children caused by low-[t} g P vote.Also,Slue Chapel"I'll Counc!!passed a many wcrc lees taking off and landing. IMP They dislike the noise 5 staic not able to land there legally.Many[trots would like to be to hue planes bee of t€tc praxisnis s that it doesn't and priaatc au�tlguvrg€iies to ensure a replaccmc€tt air- Pianos,and because s Rates ltCllurham Airport oral`trio traffic.icy are a of tite University making prom part would be built within 15 mites of the town as soon able to bypass g lt!' It sc au H�VA after as Possible. Chapel Hill and Triangle industry is growing, and Orange County needs an airport€hat can serve as a center i he University was supposed top ' S for companies.ince rid War it.when it was used as a Pre-[light school madc no action to work to rind a new airport.The Citizens t)n companies. that fly in for particular games and tstc Navy. far Airport Nanning{CAP). a neighborhood group } tticir twin turbo•engmed icts events would be able to fly t t was used very little after the war,until tltt ntid b0s, that wants to see HwA closed,has sent tettcrs to both i :n the Medicate 3chaol bought a plane. Vice Chanceilar of l3us€ncss and finance 3ohn'Temple into the new airport.TI tey were not allowed to jnvW3Y I p HlVA btxausc of restrictions,atthougit same did any n ItXrS,€he Chapel ttill-Carrbnro School ltaanl madc the airport would be taken ot€[of i as to build 1 st£s and Phillips schools. ft asked the and hiayar ioc Nassif,Pleading for action.Tetra is and Most importantly, P te l ivcrsity what its plans were for H\VA•Dr.Si€arpc, Nassif have taken no action. a highly populated area that was allowed to grow because vote apt ttse tuning ort€htancc that would eliminate flight of the Town Council's shat[sigtttcdntss and the Univer• n chancellor.wrote a letter to stet hoard stating that to ocad,tonsil€t tiic Town Council will meet again to si€y's care attitude.Tiic University and Town Council v,\would be phased out is the futurclet!for funds tr:un€ng from IMA. tut three years late the University aPP 'Tito€light tea€ning restrictions,aimed to appease Inc could rid themselves or catty limit tile air tea and silly } Pa a runway will not ctfco- restrictions that don't really Iintlt the air trai'fic. € m she Federal Aviation Agcrtc lap though very important to Eite e school board and people in tite growing neighbor- 4i$tyltrrrtit flying airgtraffic-only one-third of the ti5 The AHEC program, l '�7 ids protested, so the University formed.a Fat ul€Y University and Medical Foundation{it reechoes more until commission to make rceommendatons. Carolina Flying Ctub members are students.Carolina than Sig'nshilinn directly front the state t£gislature each lirplancs at year)could still rune out of the Midway Airport, _t the Co€nnrisston rcitnr,cd that t€ie t)€t,yc€sity should Flying Soviets has approximately s are til l2 5€udtnts. Finally,the UnivtKity couidhonor its40-year,aft-hroi cn it tiip-Itt activity at Stec airport tail e University torso the ai port[Studentsrwitit instructors aisv arc t of likely promise by f€€telly ph15€ngout the h fors£c Williams Airport. 3 [tic three plarucs owned by Y _ :dical Foundation Pragrum.'rhis program,tilt Area to be reckless, s i Stec noisiest -tratntng €tilvts are sane. !€otrrareJorrrr€alisiii ar€d Spafruh rnalnr was formed to take in fact,some of the natsit si aupiaues at FItVA € (eiln 13ur,lxrr,asap writer for The l3aily Tar al€h Education Center(At tEC). rorrt 1lif rJrd. Affxrs., is o staff € mars and nurses in framing around site state to tent• tsi,I,b c�solsnilon iscnot€o eliminate flight trrnTow Program-€ olinci f f raryclinics. 1€• + lforace tt'ilfia,rrs.tirftfsrf. 9 'file L'atnnt€SStnt4 at<it stated ltek1t fl\VA shaltld.i4t t€� r,ec.i EOttPaf€T.C,titi€Q TU,1.fit ai#efnahVentrpartn Cntntet€ 1tCCl.Sl€e fS a StUtiF'rrF fJ7[rtr e€trFet€(I FaKrRt'aE£.i$UlIS ar € ,fi,uis „t•ntil atIV111cr airport acs€het' a i ' 0 0 7 8 4 THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL 27514 OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR 103 SOUTH BUILDING CID5A (919)933.I33 April 17, 1981 The Honorable Joseph L. Nassif Mayor, Town of Chapel Hill 306 N. Columbia Street Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Dear Mr. Mayor: We are aware, as you are, of the continuing discussion about the operation of the Horace Williams Airport by the University. In order to provide a public statement of the University's position and to respond as affirmatively as possible to these who are deeply con- cerned about the airport, we offer the following: (1) The University administration and its Trustees hereby indicate the University's will- ingness to phase out all non-university use of Horace Williams Airport t - --by not later than July 1, 1989, subject to the conditions stated below. - - (2) We further agree to close the airport in its entirety, including University operations, not later than July 1, 1989, provided that an ac- ceptable alternative airport facility has been provided within reason- able proximity to Chapel Hill. (3) We agree to accelerating the phasing out and closing of Horace Williams Airport if an acceptable airport facility is provided within reasonable proximity to Chapel Hill earlier than'.-July 1, 1989-date,-and it satisfactorily meets the needs of the University's aircraft. It must be understood that in making these statements, the University is doing so on the assumption that good faith efforts will be made to bring into being an alternate airport facility and that in fact a facility will be provided. The University administration and its Board of Trustees reserve the right to reconsider all these statements should an acceptable alternate airport facility not be a reality on or before July 1, 1989. I should make it clear, Mr. Mayor, that the University does not consider it is our responsibility to provide or subsidize an alternative airport facility to the Horace Williams Airport. We do however, stand ready to cooperate and work with the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, with Orange County or any other appropriately constituted group in seek- ing a solution to this problem- I hope that it is clear from this letter that the University administration and its Trustees are willing to modify the use of the airport as indicated when an acceptable alter- . native facility is a reality. T hc University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is a constituent institution tart FIE UNIVERSITY OE NORTH CAROLINA - WiIIiu,C Friday,President ■ - : Out OIL) lhe Honorable Joseph L. Nasslf Mayor, Town of Chapel Hill April 17, 1981 Page 2 We appreciate the opportunity to work with you, and I'm sure you know that this letter is provided in the spirit of cooperation with the Town of Chapel Hill and the citizens of this area. We hope that the issue can ultimately he resolved to the satisfaction of all. Sincerely-yours, Christopher C. Tordham, III c: Mr. Hargrove Bowles, Jr. Chairman, Board of Trustees Vice—Chancellor John L. Temple ,..00786 . _ . Members of the Planning Board County Commissioners I am speaking to you tonight as a resident of Bingham Township and as a citizen of Orange County rd than an as a member of the Planning Board. My _ reasons for speaking at this time are several-fold but result mainly from the importance of this proposal and the necessity to have certain items entered into the public record. I am opposed to the Midway Airport proposal for the following reasons: 1. First of all, the site chosen for Midway Airport/Airpark is not a good one. A major transportation facility such as an airport should be within easy reach of the three major population districts in and around Orange County; these being Durham, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough. The current proposed site is accessible only to Chapel Hill by a major collector, Its access to Hillsborough and Durham - would be-round about and there is no major north-south highway connecting the proposed airpark site to the northern parts of the county. Tucked away as it is in the southwest part of the county, this location for an airport/airpark is a poor one for pilots and flights originating in Hillsborough and Durham. If the airport should prove a financial failure as a private enterprise and the county assumed control, the county could do little better with this airpark in its isolated topographical position. Much better location sites would be along the 1-85 corridor, readily accessible to Hillsborough and Durham. Furthermore, the 1-40 link between Chapel Hill and 1-85 would make central Orange county an ideal location. It should be pointed out that this is not the only suitable airport site in the county, The Planning Department in little more than two months has already located 60 sites with suitability similar to that of the proposed location for Midway airport. . . U0787 970 2 In addition, if the Midway Airport/Airpark were to be built and be highly successful, this might necessitate the building of a north-south highway and/or four-lanning Highway 54, promoting still another major transportation corridor through Orange County. Thus, the proposed airport site is not ideal. Furthermore, the proposed industrial park is also poorly situated for the same reasons. Travel time for workers to and from Hillsborough and Durham would be prolonged. This _ consideration of highway accessibility is not trivial. Based on the fact that the backers of this proposal are anticipating anywhere from 3-6,000 workers, it is clear that the local surrounding countryside cannot supply such an abundance of labor manpower and major roadway improvements would be needed for accessibility. 2. It has often been said that a general aviation facility to relieve Raleigh-Durham airport of its light aircraft is needed. For many of the reasons outlined above, this particular proposal is inadequate. For example, in a recent study in which questionnaires were mailed to pilots currently owning airplanes at Raleigh=Durham airport, only 13% suggested that they would be willing to move :.,.. their airplanes from Raleigh-Durham to an airport located in Orange county between Hillsborough and Durham. One can imagine that an airport located even farther into southwest Orange county in an area not totally accessible from the major population centers would be even less attractive. This makes it likely that the location of an airport will be a crucial factor in deciding its vitality - not an inconsequential matter should the county decide at some time in the future to take over its operation, 3. As recognized by the Planning Boards of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and Orange county, this major proposal is of urban character requiring urban services. For example, in this proposal, it is suggeSted that 130,000 gallons per day of water will be required for the airpark. If the average individual uses 50-60 gallons of water per day and one assumes that each individual will be working 8 hours, then this amount of water would support 6,000 employees. Furthermore, . _ . . • . . . 0 g • 3 the total floor space within the proposed buildings would be equal to a third or more of all of the current floorspace in Orange County, including the University of North Carolina, This is not an insignificant project without major impact. If it were successful, it would require major capital investment by the county perhaps four-laming Highway` 54, or construction of water and sewer, construction of a north-south highway, and increased police protection. Furthermore,.if one figures 130,000 gallons per day of water, this breaks down to 100 gallons per minute and would necessitate, based on the current production of wells in our area, anywhere from 20-45 wells. In addition, in July and August, Collins Creek is a dry creek and the 130,000 gallons a day of treated refuse from this facility would constitute its entire runoff. Furthermore, as both the Planning Boards of Carrboro and Chapel Hill realize, this proposal would encourage such significant spin-off development around it, that the airport may become a new urban center. This project is located adjacent to the border of the Cane Creek watershed, and therE'is a question as to whether some runoff from the airport will actually flow into the Cane Creek watershed. The ensuing development which may grow up around the airport to serve 3-6,000 employees will create a tremendous development pressure on the Cane Creek watershed. This would seem to be poor planning, when Cane Creek and the Jordan reservoir may be the last two water resources open to Chapel Hill. The Commissioners ought not to allow encroaching development to limit this potential new watershed, a fate which befell University Lake. Furthermore, the county is not equipped to provide water service nor fire fighting equipment nor do I see any mention made in the proposed plans for a water tower. It is unlikely that sufficient water could be made available for a major fire on an "on-demand" basis from a system of wells to supply either a sprinkler system or main hydrant system without a backup water tower, Furthermore, the proposed airport and the possible spin-off development around it will have a major . . , . - . UU78 r, . . - . .. ......., .. . . . . . . . ... ...„...____,__.__.............. .._...,_ 4 impact on the future of Bingham Township. Coupled with the proposed Cane Creek Reservoir, the airport/airpark would deal a fatal blow to dairy farming in Bingham Township by increasing the cost of land, stimulating sprawl development and raising the tax base of farm land due to the necessary rezoning. Furthermore, this development will cause strip development from the Alamance County line straight through to Chapel Hill and Carrboro similar to that which has occurred along the Chapel Hill-Durham Boulevard. Again, for emphasis, let me state that this is not a minor undertaking, it is a major industrial proposal, and should be considered in that light. 4. I might also add that despite the current predicament of Horace Williams Airport, there is no need established for an airport in Orange County. It is not clear what should be included in the definition of "need." Is recreational flying a "need" of the county, or is only business flying? Or, even still more limited, is only that flying associated with the medical center a true "need"? If this latter be so, of all the operations which currently take place at brace Williams, only 12-15% are due to AHEC flights, the rest being due to business and as much as 50% being due to recreational, flying. The current ceiling on operations at _ Horace Williams is 35,000 per year. If recreational flying alone were discontinued, even if the expected growth in business and medical health flights from the airport occur, this operations ceiling would not be exceeded for the next 25-30 years. In its deliberations over whether to build an airport in the county, the commissioners should ask the questions, what would happen if Horace Williams were closed en- tirelY? What would happen if the operations at Horace Williams airport were limited only to AHEC flights? What would happen if Horace Williams were turned into a helioport for tansport to Raleigh-Durham airport? Should Horace Williams airport be abandoned? Since the University of North Carolina is a state-owned institution, should the state exercise the power of eminent domain to condemn right of ways and surrounding land to make Horace Williams a viable operation? I am sure that the . ._ ,.. , • . . . _ .. .. . . • _. . • .- . . . . . •... ., . _ . . . _ ,- . ._ ,-.. ... . , . ......,,, ...,. . . . , .. . - . ' - ..-,,,-2::14:.,7;;.;,' --- 7.- . . . - ,.,,::,,,,,,,.-:,-;- , '- -'',-, •,..-.,`,-.:"..71 -„ -.. _ .' --.- .:.,;,'.. ...:':',-*•..- .: ..::::::'":,:iF..7.., 0079,- J78 . . 5 County Commissioners are well aware that the pressure to close Horace Williams should not be equated with a rush by the county into the airport business. Furthermore, political pressure from Chapel Hill concerning the disposition of Horace Williams should also not cause the Planning Board or the County Commissioners to make a poor site selection for an airpert if it should be needed. The placement of such a n facility is a major undertaking, and should be examined carefully. 5. The county should also make inquiries as to whether it would be better off with a publicly owned or privately owned airport facility. Many experts believe that an airport properly managed by county government can be an effective revenue producing facility. By having the county own and operate the airport, the airport is accessible to all, and presumably is also subject to public scrutiny. Further- more, the power of eminent domain is possessed by the county to prevent encroach- ment upon its landing rights-of-way and a governmental owned facility is also eligible for federal funding. If the county should decide that the pressure on Horace Williams airport from the city of Chapel Hill is sufficient to force the county to build an airport, then the county should strike a deal with the university and the city of Chapel Hill for financing the future airport. Funds could be made available through federal monies as well as grants from the state. Further- more, the county should insist upon an equitable sharing of the huge sums of money which would become available from the sale of property of Horace Williams airport. This would provide the county with a ready source of revenue and the means for financing the airport without a bond issue. And, Chapel Hill and the university would help assume the financial burden of solving their own problems. 6. Finally, it is the stated intent of the Land Use Policy to stimulate infill development around the towns and in those areas where transportation facili- ties are already present. This is in response to the recognized problems of dealing with transportation in the times of dwindling energy in areas where sprawl develop- , ment is dominant. Furthermore, it also addresses the problems of building new transportation corridors into areas which are not already heavily transversed by : I \ 07 9 S-19 6 major arterials and the cost of upkeep of reads which are a burden on the trans- portation system. It is also in response to the recognized need to preserve agri- cultural land against the day when urban sprawl takes enough of the land so that farmers can no longer produce sufficient food for our support. This is not a fanciful possibility. In German}, and Europe, governments are actively buying farm land to prevent development. In the USA, farm a farm buy-back program is in effect in Suffolk county, New York. The land use plan has recognized that there are population centers which must be intelligently developed so that farm land is protected. It was with these principles in mind that the Land Use Plan was enacted and the zoning ordinance followed suit. Thus, in this area of the county, in- dustrial parks such as this massive airpark are specifically prohibited. I would submit to the County Commissioners that this proposal is the first real test of zoning and whether or not the zoning ordinance is a meaningful instrument to guide the development of the county. During the development of zoning throughout the county,-iiiembers of the Planning Board and the County Commissioners repeatedly re- ' assured members of the county that zoning was for their protection, and without it, one could not hope to maintain agricultural land, promote intelligent growth of the cities and locate major developments in areas most suited for their purposes. Most of the citizens of the county agreed that if the zoning ordinance were implemented in this fashion it would indeed be a useful instrument for controlling the over- all growth and development of the county in a rational manner, Some citizens of the county, however, are not so sure that this desired ideal is the actual end result from zoning. If the Midway Airpark, which is so clearly in opposition to the overall stated goals of the county, is permitted, then it will become clear to the citizens of Orange County that the Land Use Plan and the Zoning Ordinance are nothing more than paper games which increase the cost of doing business while protecting no one The proposed Midway Airpark is a major urban proposal, it does not belong in the heart of Bingham's agricultural district, Thank you. . • - 0070 9 b0 tig tigs ROBERT C FISHER Route 1, Box 162C Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 141-0.A.1. / • 111" PJ • I • m c • .. • • I . . •:- t' • • MEMORANDUM 4. TO: Board of Education DATE: September 25, 1980 • = FROM: Phyllis .„ • The enclosed sheet shows points of agreement between the town and the university about airport operations. This listing is for your information • o*0-,. you can check over our motion and see how the two correspond, area wi; 1 not be caned "university airport" as that 1.4:;L :, the degree of control that the town needs to enforce these: regulatiOns. Also, the number of tie-downs (planes based there) cannot he deriw.ed of the "grandfather" clause. There seems to be agreemen-V to end fi3Onq lessons so this will eliminate one great danger. And, oftEourse. • I 'Lim airport cannot be closed down by the town because of the "grObdfather" • tlausv. r.I ; 10 If you have questions about this - please call me. Otherwise 1 '11 ;ec you Monday evening and read our original motion, but assume have nu y.Prious opposition to the enclosure. Or. Rivers will keep us briefed on any new developments on the %thou' bur. Otuation. It looks now as if the buses will run until a week or ' u otter (hi hoard hpar-; from the drivor%. • ef Enclosure • • '!.i ` • 1 iS 'T,„t". ' AIRPf3RT, LIMITED AVIATION. An airport which is operated for the benefit of the ',University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and N.C. Memorial Hospital as further de fined in this Section. 1 The airport has only one runway, and the length of such runway does not exceed 3,500 feet. 2. The total number of aircraftbased at the airport does not exceed 50. No commercial operation other than maintenance shall be permitted at the facility. 3. The airport is restricted to small aircraft only. Specifically, use of the airport is prohibited to fixed-wing jet-powered aircraft, and aircraft weighing over 12,500 pounds maximum certificated take-off weight. 4. The airport shall have a landing pattern as approved by the Council . The landing pattern shall include consideration of surrounding ' aild uses and tl relationship of the landing pattern to such land uses. 5. Pilot training at the airport is limited to classroom trainin, only. 6. Non-emergency maintenance at the airport is limited to the maximum 50 plan( i . ; based at the airport. 7. Non-emergency use of the airport is permitted between the hours of 6:00 a.r and 9:00 p.m. only. 8. Applicable Federal Aviation Administration regulations shall be observed at the airport at all times. 9. No gliders, helicopters , balloons, experimental aircraft or miniature air- craft are based at or operated from the airport. Aircraft operations for purpose of,parachuting, stunt flying or aerobatics are prohibited at the a port. , • t ., ,.. , - . Estes Hills School ._ , . 4, Estes Drive Chapel Hill, llorth Carolina 27514 •:. ,,,i7A q. .,,,.,. 4'5-i■• :.':`•:' .4 . ,r 0, The i-ayorls Airport Committee Town hail ....:2,4 316 North Columbia Street Chael Lill, North Carolina 27514 Attention: Hr. Tommy Gardner, Chairman Gent:gemen: . , Mhe PTA Board of Estes School would like to express to the , _.o..1; 1:ayor, !0 Airport COmmittee its grave concern over the frequency I Ot, with .4ch. aircraft fly out, of Horace Williams Airport over 1 ,.. . Ests' m e , Bleontary School. 74r' ."•`: 10 pro:Amity of our school and other schools to the airport •.; : poser.; a danger to the children and personnel at these schools. Certinly sonothirv.: should be done so that our schools rand Close - are not subject to the hazards posed by frequent low- . flyid2; airplanes . ;We are Eratified that your committee has been avOntc-: to t!lis serious natter. "fie look forard to learnin,', of -;,uur corttee Is recommendations for action by the Tom and. the • , i ,.. Univity to solve this problem. . 1 • Very truly yours, : r kfliiige&kAie (9 4 13414404efe0 . , 0- ' 'dilliam J. Erinson ',... . President, Estes PTA c.,. . cc: 6-;.,ncellor, University (:)._' :,orth Carolina Ce3 ::ill ::::ord of Ald,rmen Pi ' H '. . c., C .7,pel Kill News:Laper . k• , i'.'f I , t ■ .!.•'' Y'f:f. kik1". •t..d CC . tiff• : 2 f, March 4, 1968 h;,: ,.. She Chapel Hill Board of Education met in regular session on March 4, 1968, at 1:30 1 in the Administrative Building. Dr. Roy Lindahi , Chairman, presided with the fallow) nrmhers present: Mr. Wade Degraffenreidt, Mr. Paul Guthrie, Mr. Ben Perry, Pr , Neill Rosser, Mrs. Mary Scroggs,.. and Mr. Ed Tenney. Or . LInd.3hi called the meeting to order and the minutes of the regular February 5, 15. ur,etinq and special meeting of February 12 , 1968, were approved as corrected and made ,a matter of the official record. :,!.,�;r. Lindahi reported that he had received a call from Dr. Donald Johnson on February ,, 12 , 1968, and he offered to make a presentation to the Board about the University's plans for the development of the University Airport. pr. Lindahl explained that i , Dr. Johnson 's main purpose was to present to the Board what is being planned a-id ,:: where the University stands at this time. This presentation, he said, will pr::vide •'Fsbme of the information the Board needs. , . pr. Lindahi then introduced Dr. Donald Johnson of the University of North Carolina faculty who is a member of the Chancellor's Committee for the expansion and developmt !"± of the University Airport and the Advisor to the UNC Flying Club. Dr. Johnson I ' apologized for not contacting the School Board at an earlier date. He explained the i',s soon as the . University had made tentative recommendations relative to the air- 1' . part , they went to Hr. Peck and the Planning Board. This was done on December 5, 191 i • ' lhi!n they submitted the plans to the Federal Aviation Administration for foe,.. In thi : s; .amount of $155,000 to help the UNC improve what has been a rather large fat I 1 I ! y for i-- II- • "' sl.'i�ut 25 years but of minimal value to the community and the University beca��,, of Johnson said, are not In the n,3t:�� of ,.;S,,� r,,cher poor drainage. The improvements , Dr. s `: �'� m expansion. As the airport has existed In the past, there have been three major !" lieways: one east-west oriented, one southwesterly and one southeasterly. ,� . • 4t'iV( . Johnson presented maps which showed the improvements that have been proposed and . ,;^ _ �1s had also drawn for comparison, the current use of runways. He said Chancellor .. , tterson appointed a committee In April of last year to study the airport needs J. ,.. March A, 1968 ` : '7 r: Because of the possible conf I !r c. ; of the University and the lands available. ro the � It has c of , lased 214) with the High School p P y with cic�,� to trafficstitly hunway i,� r.,w,mitted , ro err has to to traffic with the Schaal nofundsnf�omdtheT FAA,lthe Pfie pUniYers Y► runways In order to obtain April made recommendations In e r i od of 20 years . The Committee formed In Ap Peck, and the for period preliminary plans were sent to the FAA, Mr.�i' 'i: ' requested the Committee to work � ' Board of of rrTe and p use. Board of Aldermen. The Board of Aldermen have req . itY ft. , by 75 ft . of •, with the Planning Board to consider the area for community and University The application sent in December requested funds for 3. , pavement for the runway. Dr. Johnson said the.Com Committee hhad d lookedHi Hills Schools the pav Possible eci interaction best the add airport mpr ue the State western io of Cof the decided it was best to add the improvements to the western section of the Airport. Funds are also being requested Department Jt�Y�� on said at Aidpoet. he and Development and will nCSmwou{dpbetlnrthe the overallUniversity. benefit of the Lbrrxnunfty believed these improvements approved $9,999 for an Administration i(' and the University. The Chancellor also apP -making but merely to be built on the hill where the current hkol. Dr• Johnson stated that Building that he ,did not propose to defend the Administration's P pointed' out that an application has been made and it is University.n not Irrevocable nt it aoes: i,nd{cate a definite p osition on the part Universo'ty has recently acquired a two-engine plane to transport their exeCut ve of the children Mr. Tenney asked if these hePimprovementswould are intendedthe tosafety enhance the safety of ti.. ; Dr. Johanson replied that t P ill;e: planes 'landing at the airport. ' .ucfid, n on the e: -• _ ��r►rr►rthlnq In i• Mr. Guthr}e uestioncd h standard air feel.-Q �uy� Qs. at what elevation would a excess landing point. Dr. Johnson replied about '400-50 '^ In lower than that, ��,,•� plane idr►ding an that strip be at that p feet. UJ Johnson slidnthefewere.prMr. Guthrieyasked In terms of the typ .,.,( air- craft ,'..� Dr,what sa they cawhat would be the estimated would level co�,` zral►te , ; , pr. Johnson said that the aircraft to a car, therefore, its noise level would be similar and feltrtt,erE.sttrcra ) i Y' , it-ti engine is well muffled. Dr. Johnson said he, p . 1;,' Road presented more danger and noise than the airport . Mrs. Scro`''i y �.,� rrt3vamc .v,�;"� , pr. Johnson if this is the u1tlAteThjSPwi11 bring extent more the alrUtraffic,ys� •.•� sald, r�,. insofar as runways are concerned. ,,, therefore , what is the University'aicommitment lowsrfo�onegrunway other and inasmuch 4 .. Or. Johnsan replied that the Federal ruling as the University is dependent upon Federal funds , this will most likely he to of their development. The extent of operations and the c mmit; rtofS extent o "goes no further than I have said Univers} ty, he said, g making their int,.:�,t know stated that the Board in the be phased out. Dr.gLindahl related hi since the Bya P from t e nivers y, and Mr. Williams said tha conversation with Mr. Williams, plan i sometime in the past this question had come up and he cannot find a statemen of intent. Mr. Tenney reported that there was roporedhstudcntthotsifgtplan for the airport area, Mrs. Scroggs voiced concern plans, will we be notified and that we ought to be abic to feel }.i is a: change in p �.. • that, we are not inviting troubi reb�he building fundedaanpro Jectolrequlrcd a{5clety• zon � Dr. Cody asked if the FAA, before they did. Mr. C,t,{ I,rir In- ?:.: at t�-e end of a runway and Dr. Johnson replied that they had. qoi rco if the southwest runway would be developed nextthtime funds are tl,csei lmbl ., . and Dr. Johnson said that the University went o i.rl provements would require nor would the FAA provide funds for the development L more than one runway. . . ''. 4:„ . — • , . . .._ , .. , . _ -4 ' . • .;'S■' :•j / , , . 1)1. ... . . . ., .. . ......—.. _ --.. . . . .-- •,' : 11.. .A..40 \745..k (7) . I . % .....• i : • . , . THE UNIVERSITY ()1 NORTH CAROLINA ; • ■ ' •,,r AT 1/4 ,-t%1,,,1/4 I 'c1 '' s' Ch3pc1 11.11, North Carolint 27514 , , .• • . IFS DIV15 WW1 ( 1.3.111tETII . VI Lt ihi, t.o.iit4-11-. Dioal Tog at 1;1'11,1111,N 13 1 i 1 weoitit, TutPlioNE 95 3.1114 , February 8, 1968 p, to 1SOX 541: ,• . . , . . ! • , MZMORANDUM ... . . , , , • ' TO: Mr. J. A. Williams, Acting Business ilz,,laer . FROM: Grey Culbreth, Director of Utilities . : . . i SUBJECT: k.....--University Airport . A In early 196V; I met with Chancellor Paul Sharpe and M . E, W. Tonney '. • to discuss the possible purchase of a school site fromithe 1Jo040raity. I was chairman of the Chapel. Will School Board at the time and !lc. Tenn i was chairman of a site acquisition committee for our board. The discussion was primarily concerned with our, offer to puichaLie a paz , ,!,,- . e, ; • of the University's Airport property on which to locate a new birh scho • - L .., in the course of the conversation, Mr... Sharpe was asked about Li futur , , of the airport as.an aeratin, facilit . M recollection of is answer .. _ is quite definiteElitIluLsAbal H i : •y. 4.: 1 i a. There was no de .n'te .lan to abandon the airport.•b. The Univer- ..._ . • _ : . : eration there.' _.. • . __ a_ _ i 1 We had asked him about the University's intention becaUse we were canes about the safety factor involved in airport activity in proximity to th t f school and the expected heavy buildup in residential. development. 4 . • 7 . ; We cannot support this with a written statement. To my certo,n 1,nawle ) . , however, the school board has assumed eventual abandonmeut bo,,, on th1 conversation and the subsequent non-expansion of the facili :y , thc 1:7 , . I have not been able to contact Mr. Tenney today to secure hit; V ' , to quote him at this time. ( : 1 „ )/ 7/ i — _V —,—;f41--LL---i -Gi.pv itulhroTh i THE UNIVERSITY OF, NORTH GAROL.I. ;k , cMArta. HILL V,, s , i i OfirCIS or TMR GN•NCILLQN Yay 7, 1965 1 1 1 . y • : Nr. J, X. Augustine ' Airport Development' Coiralasion ' , 1 P. 0, ilex 127 , Chapel Hill, North Caroline Re: The Borneo Williams Airport t • ' Deer 16,4 AuAuatinet ";' ,n. Thaynk you for your litter of April 23, 1965, eoncernin1 the use of the :' • ;,,i -`( University airport. I 1 Since rocetviug your letter, we have rovioued the eituation kith rc. ava ti vorsit property on which the airport is located, and have uycurod i „ �° , ' to Os �L Y P i>±?�;: an •xti4to from the Federal Aviation Agency to Charlotte, North Cxr)li:.e, of this con of paving one runway and providing l,i;�t.tf.nir for uiattttita'' u.sa uL this• •;;' i �� reewi,y. the PPA engineer oatiaaLee t4at it corAa erproxtmatoly Sitiu,t:r i r..► , ;17 construo$t. a runway 4000 b;► 75 feet and to provide ligbtinw. The Vaivo ,; t,► ? y.:# ,i, .: �''..� mould bey required to provide one-halx of the e:©sti au+vu;iinU that tlm !•r"A ` 1 'nOprov'd' the project. There is no peasibility of prey niting a firm , ar,u; �,t ,i,; I . ,1,, ter. the FAA 193a program, The aarlia►t presentation that the Vn:t�'uralc; ,could make would be for the 1J67 program. E `.` J.. it !iC,�..; In col+gi,doring the uNe of tl�e ntrport property in ralac:ion to L'1ti `uc�,c• 11„� expeaaton of the University, we believe that the tollowir.; poiata aar'u parti.neet 1, The Univat`att twat make n more _uteasive uao of its 1:.nd, 4'' Y It ie certain that the Uottioreity will continue to grow: rapidly and -;rt' 1 ei that the expansion after 1970 will require extensive land aro:la. At any (1 _ i9!. reneareh facility. a. student housing aria, or, possibly, a new carves wren.may be needed, _ . 1 2, In tau event that the Cnivereity should apply fort er d kw7live FAA'eupport for airport improvements, the University would be rp'iuix°'4 to Wbrt'e that the airport would be toed as an airport for a oiaiuu:n of 20 yoare. The University veuld be expected to pay one-half the coat. r1 The University does not have coney for this purpose wad it is untihily that the State would make an appropriation for a University airport. I ! .wvr� ' .� ill ritVDC. PF—INC h I .Serves ___ t `►ia 11 v' Ch11�e1 I;iTI, rCELLV.E >, Library, From the ;,.Vim' is Department,.1 University AtCttiLves, Manusctip •4. .lII ;�<� :.„r ,3„::',,, r , MY . .. %; x.. ..::. .,.. 4 . .�. r ....w rw ite.,x' ;ri y... •h 4:i'.::'.",�`i t.r,'#"1' :$:74,..: {{ , `.i:;:, :',:;',2'.,`•,' •: " •'I i,-. .:..w� ..,i4,t!,•e•�' �,:• w-•.er....,......:..,.. ,'!T"..ca ;.!.∎,,,:.,.” :, ';..r":''Y;i L'�':.. im-, :1^< ..i.'":: f•'�x i4 .'rl ;,;!:. ...,,Fk •'ti„ r cl� n.31uk,. I+"1.r.:•n .:Y _ 4 r y,.+-•i. ,Y "r ''f r< ;-....;:y• .r::� r. �.�...:".:1...;4411:;,;:«7.„u mr• r. .a i. .t:.•.i.. =:.ti.i �' v,.. ar' Y.:'•. ", t. .; • r ; ,: *-"7_,.:1".' ' };s...- n, '. x yq 1.77•.M { i `' r r" „. " _ •'' r' ''�'i.;'1' �.fiS!��y�'•'.�".',. : ; "r 7` , I,;.... ;-y. '•.•t"1 .41,i° I :.;,.IC•r,i:.:a5�'ra1Y`��t ';',::;::,14., .i » '.. .'%''! i ','�'.(�.i,�. �-s»�:• • 1:.•,trx:ti+-' + „t ! :4•ivi!"4's%''�'.�+'tx•sT"h,'- L u,. t.w� ••�y`T,:_.i rvlti :''' .. ,•+a-:'•41 NS'.7,7 ^!'41.7",—...0.t.! •,,":?,i; :,l;:..: 2w,,•,.4. i•K, ,,.5.r.. _• 4 ' I'.' � '!:N!4w , �' .r i:.�'.;F:��'N,ln•MR'+F,+�1,• _ �� :y. .i ,�� �� � .f.::.try4ii:•'=�� i '. `` '�y. •x ,:i'r'; ... 1 rr '''14 :*•:=:,i'it x'.44;!1',. Fi 1 I .,,yr•. :r ' 'i..,L.•+�M•iY K ,,,....::. r Y �.• '.y#' {�i.3 Iq I ,i-•,�.''!",`r '"',' '^I'c,ri:F�t.f!�t 1 .�, .�,.�I+'•;y' _f '+'+" 1'"3 li'i,,,,,•!',�4.v,:�;;:,v -,2. {� y •:l.tM•1'E'"p4A+1 '��, '� i •� I��r N •`''f'+'�, .,Y :,C1.16',..t. j 1 x'i4: , t ,�" "ti� H/ i...{ L.,.:h-r I ;.•y t• I'.:.'a,1,1 l'r!, v; .t1..Al.1$,,','� ;'i.ff 1 t _ i,, 4 1;::.Y. "'�. :W .' Y✓✓4.(. N ' '�''` • {.`;,f;'li,;t...._i",' ! i d :S` , I l It,i ,I;..4' -} " ',11,'''.» 2 ! , • ':: 7" ',x.,TM+hY..'.�`! "•"i.:.. F F,' H'':.NI .L Ill f 1 .. , ' It 4 /: d r i! :' • jI X:E t1�•�{' ' _ ,:+.I, ,:i I!• .t.`•j 4�;•.:r r:',..' . Y+ 4.. " I ,,dry;.,• i:.hl . y ;, ;S'.; ss y, t[ r ,Fier;, .i�, .r�;+:.. a J ! ..1 t. , ,;�"-,�°I:ry a `4,is: : 1 r.r'.x} 1, _ 1,„ .y �1' I I iyk 4,1I'A.!•r R 4.1; l �11j td Ai y tl.il:z_ �` '' •S e!- ' •+ `1 'J„ . 4 : ` f 6 „�,•■y (' I-i q} _ .I. , it 1 F t' ;- .,}-'vf.'.�0}, .,Ip,•,•• '[ .,l i . ,t.'.;".., I '‘!!• » •{ , L ' I '•tiu'r•3.17f.<4%•r,� V* . 4„ .1.. .r .. 4 ST' ' II S tl:,> 4",,3.",•r )_y y.,-.5. • {• ' ` i• ..s' i ;.'s..: "1•r:Jl.i ?-•:;e'K'ry.`"• + .=r, MYac +Ly:•:i:.:.:� .. Nny 7* ,n�3h ', �A Sr. '. $. Augustine 3, T derrelo Rent of the areas eu« .undi , �o asks Glee able `''' chQAl rearos►tioaacantixuwd o end ,von hazardous the ...• `1I^ i1: For these and other reasons that University tear! lnxxdiu arsattt can �+�t innots R ';;; the une o th'• air•rart ipdeifesitul as • d4 Vthile there are no i�aaae�li e 1st be interested ins leasifK it tts auotlasr agency• •k�:;',.: _ ;.__,.q7r De = o anent 'oM-�int;+f�?�z wont( .•'r' the ai sort we believe th a+r,„;. be etas's , „ ' ti:i be troll advised to make •lsns for an atx'xort in another hed toralvag��urwhua��lc .. t• qualify for FAA sou• sort and which cou d �.._ "*,'t 1',i... The Frsuggestiors that the University 1a obligates! to retails the use o this ;” federal in or 1 t 1 airport because of a donation of t3daral funds for ita consatrssctio�s in 1Et1 is t ,a ={};, has no obligation to any ''�:' not based on fact, Thee University fir,;.••w: to retain the Use of this property for an airport. Dr. Uorsce Wi11 ax authority portion of the laud to the University in tae simple vlL.b no .; ;' ; . devised the greater �' condition. attached as to its ante. . Y 'r Duna, Sincerely y ,, ., r , Paul y'. Sharp `�t'`� ' PF$:ap M v , cc. President Willi** Friday ' , Mr. 3, A. Branch I } I I t . . r� LAND USE PLANNING GOALS IDEUTIFIEO BY GINGHAM TOI1i?1SHIP_ January 1974 Township and Countywide Coals Identified i by the Bingham Township Advisory Council i - February 13, 1974 F GROWTH 1. Agriculture is Bingham Township's main industry and other industry should Agricultural Land ed a di be discouraged.� hater reservoirs should be kept out of Agricultural areas. 2. Most commercial and industrial development should occur in Chapel Hill Bingham Township should try to retain its agricultural character. Township and other townships that want it 3. Commercial and in industrial growth that does occur in Bingham Protection and preservation of farming should be given top priority Township.should be confined to designated areas close to the Chapel in any land use plan. Rill Township line. Growth 4. A few high density growth areas should be identified. high density I development in the rest of the township should be discouraged. A s gingham Townshi s main industry and other dustry in should be discouraged. SEWER A Commercial and industrial growth that does occur in Bingham Township should be guided to that area of the township closet to Chapel Hill in designated areas. most comercial and industrial development should occur 5. Sewer and water should not be encouraged in the township since such L- in chapel Hill and in other townships that want it. facilities bring development. A few high—density growth areas should be identified. High density development in the rest of the township should be discouraged. AGRICULTURAL LAND Bons The construction of apartment buildings, low—cost Federal housing and fi. Bingham Township should try to retain its agricultural character. trailer parks should be discouraq�d In Bingham Township. ing should be given top priority Apartment building construction that does occur should ba in designated 7. Preservation and protection of farm areas close to Chapel H in any land use plan. ill.. of residential subdivisions should be guided to areas 8. Water reservoirs should be kept out of agricultural areas. construction where land is less suitable for agriculture. The minimum lot size should be larger in agricultural Areas of the township. HOUSING Coamunity FACilities 9. The construction of apartment buildings, low-cost federally subsidized housing. and trailer parks should be discouraged in Bingham Township. Need an elementary and ,junior high school in the township. 10. Apartment construction that does occur should be in designated areas � Increase police protection in the township. close to Chapel Hill Township. Greenbox program should be expanded and special provisions made for disposal of bulky items. There is a need for increased fire protection especially in southern { Bingham south of State route 54. There is a need to name roads in the county and erect street signs. i i I.I:' • ,■. / '' " '. CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS LINCOLN CENTER, MERRITT MILL ROAD CHAPEL HILL,N.C.27514 . f..:: ; f( FRRIIS H Rl■f RS. ACTING SUPERINTENDENT ittiPriCr•I.insAgG . ,....,, 0.:::+-. • . .;,,' L 110 .• , November 5, 1980 ':'•:Z,', , V*. Joseph Nassif, Mayor Town of Chapel Hill ••, . ...." : 306 N. Columbia Street ,... ,.. : Chapel Hill , North Carolina 27514 Dear Mayor Nassif: I,V The Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education at its meeting on Nove7be.' 3, —„, 198 , reaffirmed the previous position that the Board, had taken on the mytter *f, '4; -,-:' of Horace Williams Airpcq,,-- The Board unanimously agreed that you Ex:: c:her 4. —mernbers of the Town Council should be reminded that the Board is primari , . _ -!! - ›cdncerned for the safety of students, staff and school property,: •:- .iL The concern is so strong that the Board would urge the closing of : . Horace Williams Airport as soon as is feasible, but no later than '1590 and that until the airport is closed, the following restrictions be included in the Town zoning ordinance: , Restrict airport use to small aircraft only. • 2) A maximum of 50 aircraft based at the airport. . , • . , 3 Flight patterns for eil aircraft be planned to avoid all five school properties in the.: area (Estes Hi71s, Phillios . Seawell , CHHS, Cerrboro) . 4' Use the current toes. noise level Ordinance as a guide to regulate noise levels over school property: -0. 5 Use the FAA altitude ordinance as a guide to enforce altitude levels of planes over school property. 6; Phase out flying lessons by 1983, at which time the I: 140 6.., 4.; • maximum tie-downs wi7I be reduced accordingly. Un-,..i': the phase out date, restrict flying lessons to full -time . UNC faculty, staff and full-time students. :,,..,......i,;...;41,1 ., 7) Restrict airport use by .transient Planes to the used for University-related purposes , except for emergency I' ll use , 8 Modifications to runways and other facilities are to 5e • ,.11. approved by the Town Council and are not to increase . the size, scope and purpose of airport operations. • i I ■I'' •. I '''i . .. . ._ ..' - "V ., r Aill'' P Page 2 f..7, ..6 Joseph Nassif VNovember 5, 1980 ..f..11)' . " 9) ReStritt—airlibft Ute. by 1983 to plane used for Uhi'Vet'sity ,., ..).: . business. 40 • ;.,- , • 4..t.t., Although the Board did not take official action on it, there is a great deal of sentiment, for getting the Town Council , the County CorrisOoners, and members of the Board to begin dialogue around the proposifioA of moving L..t.: Horace Williams to a new location. The Board realizes that the de9ision is yours and the Council ' s to make but the Board wishes to implore you to 1,.....- take heed its concern for safety. Thank you very much for any attention given this crucial matter. i . . Sincerely, ,-:::•;;; : eih.i2,11,.:;11 6st,...„.4..A...,. ntI .. Charles H. Rivers Acting Superintendent it CHR:bds .. . ... f ■ . ';', • cc: Town Council members -. =1:; ......._ , . . • . _ . , Board (a. Education members ,... , , _ _ . _ ...... ... . . , !..,: . • ,!.. ..... i „ , • :-,,,!. , 4,4-4 , +1 ,. - m olu,i,woomoiowlsmip...441.A461111:...h a", .'ini:fiwo.... i. a 1-•. A4A . ..• ......ii' .....,42 .;,:::. ': ... ::• ' . '. ..,,,;+:'':.'.1.." ■,..-.i,:l : i l i. :' . DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE 1568 Willingham r,rive, Suite C Collecva Park, (4, 30337-1599 4,7 :s?:!,, • -,,,!"/ Mr. Fred Hazard Buck Mountain Development Company 910 Airport Road Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 Dear Mr. Hazard:, Reference is maele to Peloquin A:-_,, ociat(,s' letter dated Decorber 16, 1981 . It has been determined that the oroposd runway extension at Midway Airport, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, located at latitude 35°56'30" N., longitude 79° 12'50" W. , will not adversely affect the safe and efficient ue of the navigable airspace by aircraft, provided all operations are conducted in Wi. weathet: conditions. Please' advised that the airport is near publi5!frled IFR (IR-86) and VFR (VP-1061 ) low level military roues. These routes are generally used daily up to 3,000 feet AGI, at speeds up to 450 )(riots. We are coordinating the proposed runway extension with the Federal Highway Administration. We do not anticipate any objection; however, we will, let you know if they have any comment . This determination should not be construed to mean FAA approval of the physical development involved in the proposal. It is only a determination with respect to thc safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft. In maYinq this determination, the 11‘: has considered matters such as the effect the proposal would have on existing or contemplated traffic patterns of neighboriryl airports, the effects it would have on the existing airspace structure zrd projected procIrags oC the rv,, and the effect that the ?xisting or proposed manmade objects on file with the natural objects within the affected area would have en the airport proposal. This determination in no way preempts or waives any ordinance, l 's, or regulations of any other governmental body or agency. The FAA can evaluate rroposed construction in the vicinity of airports to determire if strictures would b2 a hazard to air navigation. however, cannot prevent tIu construction of any objects. PdrporL environs can only ha rotectH through sudi means as local orclinEnces arl ac.7uisitiorl of procerty rights. 2 Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77 and PAvisory Circular 15075300-4, define certain imaginary surf aces around runways which should be maintained cli?ar of: obstructions. Of prime importance, the runway approaches should have a 20: 1 approach surface that is clear of all obstructions. The ends n minimum of 7100 feet n.ealbv rni . )t.ini!Jilu! clearance of 15 feet uhtai:1.=,6 chi: roadway surtacv:1 and the 20:1 approach surface to the runway. In addition, the ce.nterline of the runway should he located at least 250 feet from nearby roads, so that a minimum clearance of 15 feet may be obtained between the road surface and a 7:1 transitional surface for the runway_ It the roadway elevation is higher than the runway elevation, these minimum distances should be increased to provide the 15-foot vertical clearance above the roadway surface. These clearances should he increased to 17 feet for interstate highways. A general ordinance of the State of North Carolina provides that certain airport obstructions or alterations require a written permit prior to construction. The permit may be obtained from the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Stiould you have any questions concerning the above action or desire technical assistance in airport matters, our advisory service is available to you. Sincerely, • ) Thomas M, Prn4;ect .0,anagr Enclosures: Letter anfl Slmt&es cc: Federal Hig!:Iwy NrIministration North Carolina Dept. of Transportation Heritage Conservation & Recreation Service GADO, Raleigh, N.C. FSS, Raleigh, N.C. a 71 e 3 • peloquin a lee O nnRh/0r a peloquin 8sG0ciatesC�.a. A/enr /' 'rnann a , ^ `: architecture ,:planning design/build route 4 ' box 174B nhapel hi{[ n,c 27 (9l9) 92 December 16' 1981 - ���c�- HowardRobinspn Airports District Office FAA Suite C 1568 - Willingham Drive ^-,- Room 116 College Park, GA 30337-1599 � Re: Midway Airport - Proposed Public Use 8O-ASC]-4Gl-NR,� Dear Mr. Robinson: As per our conversation, of November 25, 1981 and at Orange County) North Carolina request I am submitting the following information to *Update your file on the abmue referenced project. Please indicate in writing to us updated approval of this ^ — o proposed facility based on the only change being an extension of runway to 5000 feet from 3600 feet away from the main access road and 75 feet wide The following is a review of pertinent information as stated in~ a letter by Eleanor J. Williams of October 10, 1 980' PROPONENT � Buck Mt . Development Co. 91 0 Airport Road Chapel Hill, NC 2 7511 AIRPORT DATA Name • Midway Airport Location � Ten miles west of Chapel Hill, NC, at La 35 degrees 56' 30"N , longitude 79 degr 12/ 50"W (see reverse) Elevation : - 550 feet AMSL Runway � l /1 9' 5000x75 feet, asphalt with a low intensity runway, windsock, beacon • members of the amahranin5titw*ofarchitects „ ” , ' Page 2 ` OPERATIONAL DATA ________ Based Aircraft Initially - 5D single - engine and 5mu| engine, within 5 years - 100 single-en� wnd 25 multi-engine Monthly Landings 300 initially; 1 , 000 within 5 years Type of Operation VFR initially, |Fn within three years Thank you very much ' _ . Sincerely, °y � -~'�.°u~�� |� ��/r Lee N. k4eh)er' AI4 _ Principal, Pe)uquinAosoc(ates' p.a. . , ' - ` / , ___'--__— �_= _—_� , / 1+ 1 .,1'&,.:' :r'''T. ._„t...L:,...,4-. ..,.-:.!, ,1\ 3e/ c, ,,,),:(59,:f-. ( \ /\,... ,.._, \ ‘ / '1'2' Vs ?\ ') . \\1..k ,1 16,...;:i5i r t,62.„. . •. .5.\\:-.....„,..11A1,,,,r zh-,,,55,\i')',.-6- . ''•4 .--• 4:1-.-..,11;,..,‘L!..2**4'1, , ,,, 'is ,„., , t, i, \ / it\"-1 V -.Gy-7.----- —' '''''''''srOo\c").v.:2 ".)ri',. F"'Imin'' „..1.,p... oi,.•-:',.r , ',.,,,,,:.,,.`1,,,e.,...'".,p■•t: f,:i1,4,,6(......\\ It .1::/ / ) ,,, ......,...„,, ,.„ „„....5_.,. .7. ,.„„,,,,a/L, i.-..5 ...-pri- .11 "1"""),41-7A,,t1)!48/?,. ').A1,1.:P;i'' S\ 1.1. ,,.."4-..---..,- ,,..4., ''.1,. i J4t1-'7.4?-4,-,4..F.-i'.-(t-ii!!!Yi`4,"47°'`..1% 'i o i N's4,---9:-.::: - .' rio ' ..! ; ..-1.: ,_. ,,.„.,, t•--E) '.• LI:,j -,-..ii',11-‘? l 1\„, -1,', f,, 1 , t.„ ,i , , ,.\ ,t.„,.7.7 IA/ • 1-. li ., _,, ') yil_ \t '', 9,, .„... ..„.‘ it ,_,..,/.,7". .. ,...:..AA' l../..-- ri,E, .. ' 1 v).c' „11 ,„,, r. E„.,„„Fy>.,,,,,..,„_._ i, , \,. ,, , ,...., i i•., , , i 1 ,,,.4 ..,.... (,( ., . t.t_i 1_1 •t.. ....,1.,_. .,i__.1..‘_‘,s , I !.1.1 s !,.../. . i: , t, .1 "" "*s."."1,FI'0''_,i,,,..' i /, r _ ___— ,::, ./.: ,ll 0 , N,,,,.1.-- ...: f d .1 .•,- i : ...,,,....., i i(;;;;),,r,.......,, „, 1.0., ..)c. :.e e,) ...,„„____:........,,...„,,,,- . ,... i \ ..._ 1,1 c.,...i l 3.. t..;;;.;,.-.. - ...\ ' _ '''.r.-,,, '' '•' r \'S V. :,_0;1 r.,.„it. , --N i . , ,.- ,iv 4: -4;1 t; ti'-;:;'"":'..'!..) .. t-r- l'.. •., ‘,4., '' •.!?,. 1, I :3:11.13:1 ,.-L--:-.:1 ' ''''.”-- .„A.,...,,,. - 1 A.: 132, \,. Tr, ..,..,), . „•.■, / .r..,, ti,