The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 07-08-1982 ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING THURSDAY, JULY 8,1982 7:30 P.M. SUPERIOR COURTROOM, ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA A. CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FROM BUCK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT FOR A GENERAL AV ATION AIRPORT. B. REZONING REQUEST FROM FRED & ELIZABETH CATES (FROM R-1 to R-8) . C. PUBLIC HEARING FOR 48 PUBLIC NON-STATE MAINTAINED ROADS. LAr 149Z9 ICHARD E. WHITTED, CHAIR ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ___^_ . __.- _-_-_____'--__ / � � � �_� � `�� '�/� ` ' ` r�� ^-? ' , i . � . / , �� MINUTES . JULY 8, 1982 ' The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in a special joint public hearing with the Orange County Planning Board on Thuruday, July 8, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in the Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, ° North Carolina. Commissioners preSent; Chairman Richard E. Whitted, and Commissioners Norman Gustaveson, Shirley E. Marshall, Norman Walker and Don Willhoit. Planning Board members present: Pat Crawford, Chair, and members Sara Boericke, Logan Irvin, Steve Kizer and David Shanklin. Planning Board members absent: Tom Bacon, Alice Gordon, Nancy Laszlo, Hazel Luntford and John Wilson. ' Chairman Whitted said the first item on the.agendu of the joint public hearing was a Special Use Permit Request for a General Aviation Airport by / Buck Mounbiin Development Corporation. All those who wished to give testimony - on the Special Use Permit Request by Buck Mountain Corporation for a General ! Aviation Airport were either sworn or affirmed by Chairman Nh1tted, Mr. Cannity reviewed the categories of use as defined in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance: they are permitted uses, nun,permitted uses and Special Uses. Mr. Cannity elaborated on .the requirements for a Special Use Permit as outlined in Article 8 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (hereafter bb i d Zoning Ordinance). He noted that in addition to the conditions required by the Zoning Ordinance the Board of Commissioners could impose additional conditions which the applicant must meet "as will afford protection of the public health, safety and general welfare, ensure that substantial justice is done and equitable treatment proVided." Mr. Cannity said that after this public hearing the SpeCial Use Permit request will be referred to the Planning Board for its recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, Mr. Cannity noted that any conditions imposed on the Specia - Use Permit Request, if granted, "shall run with the land and the uSe, and shall be inding on the original applicant as well as all successors, assigns and heirs." Mr` Cannity provided additional information to the 8oards: • The definition of a gohpral aviation airport, which is a public air- , , �~?/�- port, servingmviatiun other than commercial airlines. The facilities include any runway, land urea, or other structures designed or used for landing, or taking off of small aircraft, A basic utility aircraft /-sic/ which is equivalent to the Midway pro- posal would accommodate about-9S%-of the propeller airplanes that weigh under 12,600 pounds. Mr. Cannity defined several terms which dealt with the physical layout of the airport and the air surfaces surrounding it: 1) Primary Surface--Is the actual runway itself A surface longitudin- ally centered on a runway. When the runway has a specially prepared hard surface, the primary surface extends 200 feet beyond each end of that run- way. The elevation of any point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline. The width of a primary surface for a basic utility airport is 250 feet for runways having only visual approaches. 2) Approach Surface--A surface longitudinally centered on the extended runway entarline and extending outward and upward from each end of the primary surface. An approach surface is applied to each end of each run- way based upon the type of approach available or planned for that runway end. The inner edge of the approach surface is the same width as the primary surface and expands uniformly to a width of 2,000 feet for that end of a utility runway with a nonprocisinn instrument upproach. The approach surface extends for a horizontal distance of 6,000 feet at a slope of 20 to 1 for all utility and visual runways. The runway clear zone is an area at ground level that begins at each end of the primary surface and extends with the width of the approach surface to terminate directly where the slope reaches a height of 60 feet above the runway end -or 50 feet above the terrain. = , Mr. Cannity continued his presentation to the Boards by quoting from a letter written by Mr. Bruce Matthews, of the North Carolina Department of Trans- portation, Division of Aviation, on June 30, 1982, to Planning Director Jim Polatty. [Clerk's note: I am reproducing Mr. Matthews' letter of June 30, 1982, since Mr. Cannity quotes from it extensively:/ STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O.BOX 25201 wmsnB.HUNT,JR -- —RALE|GH �7G1l - DIVISION-OF w//°..oN GOVERNOR mm173x2wn mmn.noosnnow.Jn June 30, 1982 SECRETARY / ' » • , ' • - - 1 M . Jim Pollaty • Orange County Planning Dept. 139 106 E. Margaret Lane 473" Hillsborough, NC Dear Mr. Pollaty: Per the request of Rick Cannity on June 29, I am pleased to provide the following information with respect to aircraft operations and ground traffic expected at the Midway Airport. 1 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS The projection of .aircraft operations is a highly inexact art dependent upon a number of factors unique to each airport. FAA generally recommends consideration of 500 to 1000 annual operations (an operation is a takeoff or a landing) per aircraft permanently based at the airport, with an average of 750 used for preliminary review. This figure is inclusive of all _ operations including transient traffic. In North Carolina, we find that actual annual operations per based aircraft at the at public general aviation airports range from a low of 131 at Lexington to a high of 1737 at Wilson. The average is approximately 850. Lee Mehler.has indicated that he would use the current figure for Horace Williams Airport, which is 500 annual operations per based aircraft (25,000 operations 50 based aircraft = 500) . Mr. Mehler believes the local airport use is indicative of future use of Midway Airport. I agree with him that a figure of 500 operations appears reasonable for planning use. Highway Traffic Generated: We have discussed with our Division of Highways the figures they would use to estimate generated highway traffic. They Mr. Jim Pollaty June 30, 1982 Page 2 use two different figures depending upon their analysis of potential airport use. One figure is that each aircraft operation would generate 2.5 one-way highway trips. The other figure is that each based aircraft would generate 5.8 daily one-way highway trips: --Calculations for Midway Airport result _ in the folowing figures. A. Based on Operations 500 annual ops/based aircraft x 276 based aircraft = 138,000 annual ops. ; 138,000 annual ops x 2.5 high- way .trips/op = 345,000 annual vehicle trips; 345,000 annual vehicle trips 365 days = 945 vehicle trips per day: B. Based on Based Aircraft 276 based aircraft x 5.8 highway trips = 1600 vehicle trips per day We understand that the Division of Highways is most comfortable with figures based upon annual operations. Thus, we tend to accept the 945 vehicle trips per day as being the most appropriate foi-this study. This concludes our comments. Please advise if we can be of further assistance- -- • sXooere1y, �.` r -' `� � �� `-�-�� ' — ' �— Bruce E. Matthews - • Airport Development Specialist n�� Mr. Fred Hazzard, Buck mountain Development co.Mr. HO=acd Robinson, FAA Atlanta ADO Mr. Cannity continued his presentation by adding that Highway 54 currently | ,us about 5,000 vehicular trips per day. Mr. Cannity said this Special Use Permit Project is essentially the same proposal that was previously submitted / March 8, 1982 Public Hearing]. Mr Cannity said Planning Staff's recommendation is the same. Mr. Cannity intro- duced the Planning Department's work on the Special Use Permit Request as.out- ined in the findings of fact and cited partiCularly those pages (62)N-24) in his book) which cited FAA circulars and airport design manuals (the findings found On pages:5/A 4.',/gof this book, as introduced by Mr. Cannity. He added one further recommended condition: Airport construction will be started within one year of final approval and all construction will be completed within two years of its initiation. Phase one will be complete 90 days after completion of the runway. Phase two will be started within 6 months after the start of construction of Phase one. Phase three will be completed within two years of the completion of Phase two. • r. Cannity noted an error in the title of a diagram found on pugo:5*3 of this book; the title should be Approach Departure Zone Dimensions. Planning Board member Kizer: Asked if HWA was a restricted airport with regard to the number of planes based there and if so, was it reasonable of Mr. Matthews to base the annual operations figures for the Midway Airport on those for HWA? Mr. Cannity: Replied that HWA was restricted and he deferred to Mr. Matthews' judgment in this "particular case," Mr. Cannity presented a letter and Resolution from the Town of Chapel Hill for the record of this public hearing at the requeot"nf that governmental unit. Commissioner Whitted announced that the letter was from Mayor Joseph Massif and was dated January 12, 1882; attached to the letter were Resolutions on HWA and the Midway Project as well as MimUtes from the-January 11, 1982, Town Council meeting. (Copies of the letter, Resolutions and Minutes are found on pages 5-6-4-4q of this book.) Mr. Kizer: Asked if Mr. Matthews wos 'present tonight. Mr. Cannity responded that Mr. Matthews was unable to attend this public hearing. This concluded the Staff's presentation. -_-__-_ i ��0 °»'�mp _� 4^7- Mr' Lee Mehler, Architect working for Buck Mountain Development Corporation, made the presentation for the developere on the Class A Special Use Permit Request for Midway Airport' Mr. Mehler began by saying this was a "scaled down" version of the original request since the office park had been eliminated and that the airport portion was "essentially" the same as had been presented earlier. He noted some changes: the runway has been shortened to 4,000'; overrun areas as an additional safety } feature were reached as the result of a "compromise" with Planning; and that additional housing for 276 aircraft was provided for those that "could possibly be hangared" in three phases. Mr. Mehler listed letters he had received from the Sheriff's Department and Mr. Bobby Baker saying the respective emergency services could be provided; a letter from Department of Transportation saying there were no road problems as a result of this project; a letter from Mr. Bruce Matthews detailing noise calculations; a letter from Mr. Willard Plentl saying there were no problems from the FAA's standpoint, Midway is in compliance with its requirements for a basic utility airport; requested land ownership documents; and an additional letter from Mr. Plentl`'tu Mr. Polatty contesting some of the County's requirements. (Those documents are on pages�8c��(��°1�(f this book.) Mr. Mehler continued with the conditions which are recommended by the Planning Staff: Conditions 1-11 are "acceptable to the owners;" he said revised drawings dated June 29, 1982, eliminate # 10; #12, Mr. Mehler.said, was the only one they "called into question at all" and it was the question of reasonable approach zone. At this point Mr. Mehler read the letter from Mr. Plentl of the Department of Trans- portation, Division of Aviation which questioned the County's requirement in this matter (see pageOlVdf this book). Mr. Mehler said the developer would like # 12 to be changed to control of the 1,000' dimension. Mr. Mehler contended that there was no other airport that he knew of that had an equivalent area control requirement. Mr. Mehler noted that the developers had considered what the Board of Commissioners had asked for during the previous hearings and that they have "adhered in every way to , the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and the FAA standards." Mr. Mehler requested approval of this project. Commissioner Whitted asked Mr. Mehler to clear up the discrepancy in the number of vehicular trips per day estimated to be generated by Midway. He specifcally referred to the Letter from Mr. MatthewS which Mr. Cannity read (previously cited), ��!� +�-~ Mr. Mehler said earlier information was incorrect and he cited a letter dated June 30` 1982, in which new calculations were submitted by Mr. Matthews. He noted that he had referred to a company out of Wilmington, N.C. and Columbia, S.C. which primarily deals only with general aviation airports and the company said there would be 1'3 vehicles per landing and takeoff. Mr. Mehler noted that despite the discrepancy in the projected figures, Buck Mountian' is projecting in phase one, 156 vehicles per day; phase 2, 312 vehicles per day; and phase three 487 vehicles per day; he said that was less than a 10% increase in vehicular traffic. He said that no one really knows how many flights will come out of this airport nor how many vehicles will be generated by the airport. Mr. Kizer: Asked if flights at Midway would be restricted; explaining to Hr' Mehler, restrict operations of aircraft, And Mr, Kizer wondered, why the developers had chosen the "figure of 500 for HWA Which is a restricted airport; for example, if you are using a true range and you use the range of about 1700 which occurs at one airport; if you use the maximum range one would find that you could generate about 2200 trips per day," Mr. Kizer contends that this would iccrease by about 50% the highway traffic. Mr. Mehler: Replied that he had deferred to Mr. Bruce Matthews' expertise in this field. He felt that the 600 figure was a conservative one but a reunmp2b/e one; he added that the transient air traffic would not increase "five fold.'" Mr. Kizer: Asked if Nr. Mehler agreed that the figure cited was a conservative one. Mr. Mehler: Cited the Raleigh/Durham Airport experience and said the figures cited for Midway are "so high, in fact, that they are almost ridiculous." But, he continued, they are Mr. Matthews' and he is the best source nround' nhe reason that I think they are ridiculous is that at the maximum development, the number of flights coming into this airport..,projectedat that^many per vehicle, would have a very hiUh.,,higher than any other of its size in this area." Mr. Kizer: Asked Mr. Mehler if he had recalculated the NEF contours based on the new, larger "amounts of operation." Mr. Mehler responded that those new NEFs were based on the higher numbers of operations. Commissioner Gustaveynn: Asked if Mr. Mehler could give the examples of private airports he had used as models while working on Midway, which were located on the Eastern Seaboard, the Midwest or North Carolina. | - ' d7 ' Mr. Mehler: There were "none of this size." He said most were associated Nith a commercial airport, such as RDU. He said basically, they had looked at the Chapel Hill situation and made projections based on that. He noted that he ad examined the Triangle J's Airport Study and the County's Airport Study to ascertain need. / Commissioner Gustaveson: Continued, there was no private airport that you looked at. Mr. Mehler: Said situations were "never equal." He said that general aviation airports are considered desirable in most parts of the country and that those Lirports were surrounded by planned development, "commercial, office, industrial ." Commissioner Gustaveson: "But did you find one example of this size?" Mr. Mehler: "Not on the Eastern Seaboard," Commissioner Gustaveson: Asked if this would be one of the largest private .irports on the Eastern Seaboard. Mr. Mehler: Said that he didn't know and had not "investigated" that. Planning Board Chair Pat Crawford: Asked if there would be any restrictions regarding access during non business hours, as she noted the loop road. Mr. Mehler: Replied that Mr. Matthews had first suggested a crossover access situation and later changed to a loop road. He noted that 99% of those using the crossover would be pilots and that many general aviation airports use this means of hangar access' Ms. Crawford: Asked if access to the aiport would be restricted, assuming that the airport would not be under constant operation. Mr. Mehler; Noted that there there several things they had done to make this operation more feasible: 1) increased the number of planes; 2) "initiated the possibility of maintenance fees; 3) "and eliminated some things like fencing, that were originally in the project." Ms, Crawford: Asked if Mr. Mehler would explain in a little more detail, the maintenance fees. Mr. Mehler: Mr. Hazard, he replied, would be the person to ask those questions, since he had done the calculations on the fees. Ms. Crawford said she would hold her questions on that topic. Planning Board Member Irvin: Said he had two questions, the first if the Buck Mountain Development, listed as Inc., was incorporated in North Carolina' | — ' '-------' � +��`v�� ~ ' ~ �^� � Mr. John Northern: Attorney for Buck Mountain, said the company was a general partnership and the reference to Incorporated should be dropped. Mr. Irvin: Wished to know how much land was under the control of Buck Mountain with regard to the approach departure surface and how much more land they controlled to the extent of being able "to invade to cut trees." Mr. Mehler: Replied that the majority of the land off each runway to 1000' are controlled and that for the"slight bit of land that is not, we accept as condition for approval." He added that in this type of project there were people who would not give their approval until the project had been approved. He con- tinued saying, that the FAA and DOT considered the amount of land presently con- trolled fair and that therefore, they would not try to obtain more. Mr. Irvin: Asked if Mr. Mehler could be more specific about control to the south of the runway and to highway 54. Mr. John Northern: Said he would be glad to speak to that. He pointed out on a map the limits of the land owned or controlled by the developer. He said that if the Board of Commissioners decided that the amount of land to be controlled by the applicant was 1000' from the runway then it would be incumbent on the applicant to shift or shorten the runway to get the required controlled distanc ,' Mr' Northern added that the Orange County Zoning Ordinance does not define the approach zone and that it would be difficult to get easements for one mile. He continued that the applicants feel that 1000' was the "appropriate zone" of approach and that "basically" it would depend on what the Board of Commissioners decided. Mr. Irvin: Suggested that the developer had control up to highway 54 but not beyond that. Mr. Northern: Yes. Mr, Irvin: Asked if the property controlled extended north into the Crawford property line. Mr. Northern: Said they controlled the Walton tract but not the Crawford tract. And he does not remember the width of the Walton tract but feels that it is specffie' on one of the maps. Continuing along another line of responses, Mr. Northern said that he could talk in general about the maintenance fees, but he does not want to specify detailed financial planning. He said he would not_like to discuss how much the airport e4ects | to make, or charge in specific situations, | ` � =�`*.�� 4,/J Ms. Crawford: Replied that she understood that, however, her questions really dealt with the monthly lease arrangements, etc. Mr. Northern: Said that within the partnership discussion regarding that |question was oontinuing. They did not wish to be locked into either "straight lease" or that they would "sell long term lease rights or condominium ownership of the hangar space" until they had examined the market response and to see if they could do either of the above. He added that first, they must convince all those "potential buyers" that it is a "viable project." Commissioner Gustaveson: Asked Mr' Northern if one option "could be a condominium type sale." Mr. Northern: Replied that one option could be rather than a fee simple sale, they would own their hangar space. "Correspondingly you would have to create condominium type documents that would put a burden on everyone of those units to contribute to the maintenance pro rata and the ability to enforce it,..." Commissioner Gustaveson: Asked what the projected operational costs were for a year. Mr. Northern: Responded that he does "not have that information," Mr. Cannity told the Boards that he had a copy of Mr. Plentl 's July 1, 1982, letter to Mr. Polatty; he said he had not introduced it as evidence because it was Mr. Plentl 's opinion of the Zoning Ordinance and not evidentiary. While Mr. Cannity distributed copies of the aforementioned letter, Commissioner Whitted noted that Mr. Mehler had introduced the letter as evidence. Commissioner Whitted told Mr. Fred Hazard that in checking his list of those who were sworn to give evidence, he saw that Mr. Hazard had been so sworn and asked if Mr. Hazard desired to give evidence; Mr. Hazard responded that he was available to answer questions but had no formal evidence to present. Ms. Crawford: Asked Mr. Hazard if he knew at this point what type of operation "he would be running," she specified the number of employees, construction vehicles, managers, etc. Mr. Hazard: Replied, "I don't have the slightest idea; we're looking at several models and actual performances around the State." He noted that the University had been very generous in letting him look at their operations costs and he would not feel free to discuss their specifics regarding operations and costs. He added that it was difficult to find a similar proposal around the State but Burlington Municipal was one being examined. Mr. Hazard told Commissioner Gustaveson that it did not seem to be very effective for them to go farther afield than North Carolina }�� ^�� , ' +'� - ' `:�� 480 noting that once one left this State the operations seemed to be controlled "almost area by area." Mr. Hazard continued saying that he is not "worried about hired help" but he is concerned about "what it takes to keep the runway operational." He felt that it was more useful to look at those airports with similar climatic conditions in order to evaluate the o eva ua stress and motion on the runway itself. Ms. Crawford: Asked about the method of runway construction and materials to be used. Mr. Hazard: Said that they have specifications from the FAA and they were also checking the "operation maintenance data" from other airports with regard to freezing and snow removal. He added that if there is no air evacuation operation at Midway, "I doubt very seriously that we would take snow off the runway." He clarified that the heat of the sun on the black runway would melt the snow in two or three days and that if the air evac operation were there, "then we would have a commitment to them too, we'll have to clean the runway then." Mr. Hazard said that the biggest concern to the developers now was "What will it take to keep the runway in operation?" One of the responses to that question, he noted, was seriuu' consideration of the establishment of a "perpetual care fund." Ms. Crawford: "Do you intend to sell fuel?" Mr. Hazard: "Oh, yes." Ms, Crawford: Asked if he knew what the hours of operation would be. Mr. Hazard: Replied that Mr. Bruce Matthews and Mr. Willard Plentl were working with the developers to establish noise control, traffic pattern /-Ms. Crawford inserted that that was her next question/ and hours of operation which would probably be worked out in a single package. Ms. Crawford: Asked when. Mr. Hazard: "When? Mo'" Ms. Crawford: "It's really hard to sell a project that no one knows anything about." Mr. Hazard: "We are asked to do this tremendous amount of work',.1f, if and 1f,.,-and we don't even know what lenght runway you're going to approve yet." He added that the project had been in the works for three years and that he "honestly cannot answer the question." ' * Ms, CraWford: "That's fine." Commissioner Gustaveson: Asked Mr. Hazard his estimate of the cost of phase _ __- -_ _ _' - -_______--_'-___'__ �_-_ - __ �^�� . -��o " 481 Mr. Hazard: "I don't know at this time." Commissioner Gustavesvn: "Do you have any numbers that you're playing with?" Mr. Hazard: Said that he did have some he was "going over" but that labor, tone and money costs fluctuate from day to day. He added that they know the quantities required but without a permit they couldn't buy the stone �uan ' stone. Commissioner Gustaveson: "Do you some range?" Mr. Hazard: "Yeah," He continued that since this wasn't a government project costs could be lower and that the runway would be built for under one million dollars. Commissioner Whitted: Asked what kind of instruments would be in place in phase one. Mr. Hazard: "Oh, just what HWA has at the present time." Ms. Crawford: Asked just what HWA did have. Mr. Hazard: Replied surveillance approach; and if money permits, a nun- directional beacon because the costs were reasonable. Commissioner Whitted asked if the beacon would be in phase one and Mr. Hazard replied yes. Commissioner Whitted: "I believe the tie down capacity for phase one is 276; is that right?" Mr. Hazard: 276 Is the total' Commissioner Whitted: Asked if Mr. Hazard knew what his break even point was for the airport on the number of based aircraft, Mr' Hazard: Said he was unable to answer the question. He feels that a period of twelve to eighteen months of "negative cash flow" is to be expected. Ms. Crawford: Noted that she was confused explained that she thought there were to be 276 hangared planes and any number of tie downs. Mr. Hazard: "We've planned for 276 hangared aircraft." He cited the example of a football game and said they would not tell pilots they couldn't come in because they had committed to a specific number. Ms. Crawford: Asked if Mr. Hazard agreed with the common percentages of 20-40% of total aircraft being hangared aircraft. Mr. Hazard: "I hope that we do a better job than that." He noted that hangaring was advantageous to the aircraft owner because of reduced insurance rates and that "we will try to get all that he saves." ° Pb. Crawford: Asked if Mr. Hazard could give the dimensions of one of the hangars that would house thirteen units. Mr. Hazard: "No, I can't." He added that Mr. Mehler could provide the infor- ' - �!�� 48,e Mr. Hazard: Thinking said probably 200' long and -60' wide. Ms. Crawford: Asked if the buildings would be metal . Mr. Hazard: Replied that they were unsure at this point. He noted that Mr. Mehler and Peloquin Associates had been researching materials that would be "as maintenance free as possible." Ms. Crawford: Wanted to know if the floors of the hangars would be paved. Mr. Hazard: Said that probably not; it would be paved to the door of the hangar and as long as water doesn't get inside the hangar there's no need for paving there. He added that working with the fire departments was the biggest concern to provide access for the fire vehicles. Mr. Irvin: Asked if the figure of one million dollars included the cost of constructing the access road and the hangars. Mr. Hazard: "No." He added that the hangars were not included in the figure and he wasn't worried about the cost of the access road since its cost would be small. He added that figuring the extra 200' of access road after allowing for the cost of a one mile runway was negligble and that it would be built last. Mr. Irvin: "And does it include the taxiways?" Mr, Hazard: Said those taxiways would be put in as the hangars were sold. He added that he wasn't "going to go out and put in two miles of taxiways with no airplanes to pay for them." Mr. Irvin: "I'm just trying to find out what your estimate covers." Mr. Hazard: "The runway and getting into it, that's about it. Basically, all we need to get started is a runway and some lights and a roof to get in there." Ms. Crawford: "But I believe the way the Special Use Permit is structured by the staff you would need everything you've designated on here as phase one." Mr. Hazard: "That is correct." Ms. Crawford: "Which is more than a road, and a runway and a light." Mr. Hazard: "But that didn't answer Dr. Irvin's question." Ms. Crawford: "Ok. Ok. I just wanted to be sure I understood." Mr. Hazard: Said they couldn't make a profit on the runways; that only the hangars would produce an income. So they needed to get them in quickly. Mr. Irvin: Asked an estimate of the cost of each hangar. Mr. Hazard: "No, I wouldn't want to even if I knew, I »ouldh't want to give it to you. Because what I pay for a hangar is my own business. Cause I'm gonna sell it. You don't ask a builder how much it costs to build a house; you ask him what 1�� 421.$ 2. 3, 4. he's goning to sell the house for." 5, Mr. Irvin: "I accept your answer." He added that he was trying to get at 6. what "qualification" Mr. Hazard was putting on his estimate. 7. Mr. Kizer: Said that based on Mr. Hazard's answers thus far, "you are planning 8. to sell hangars, not lease?" q, Mr. Hazard: "No. Our plan is to make money off of the hangars. Now whether I can 10. make more money by leasing them, I'll do it; if I make more money by selling it, Il, I'll do it'" I2+ Commissioner Whitted, referring to his list of sworn persons, asked Ms, 13. Miriam Singer if she wished to give evidence. Ms. Miriam Singer, Route l, Bingham Township: Said that s h e an d h er son had I5° recently bought an old farm in Bingham Township and at present was leasing ten 16^ acres to a local farmer. She said a few years earlier she had lived near a private 17. airport and on that experience was contesting Buck Mountain's assertion that the 18. airport would not "adversely affect adjacent land." She said she had lived with Ig, airplanes buzzing over her head and even now finds that airplanes are an intrusion 20" and a "source of noise pollution." ?I. She continued that she is "appalled" to find that the developers plan to 22, have nearly 300 planes hangared there. She questioned how many others would be 23~ "just sitting on the field, I'm still not sure and I haven't learned anything more 24, tonight." She feels that any airplane, "even the small ones" are a "serious and 25, constant disturbance" and would adversely affect the use of her home. She added 26^ that the effect of the proposed airport on highway 54 traffic was also of major 27" concern to her as she uses that highway now and finds that it is sometimes "hectic 28, and rough." She urged, for the reasons cited above, denial of the permit for any 29. airport planned for that site. 30, Dr. Thomas Griggs, representing the Orange Grove Fire Department Board of ]I. Directors: Submitted a letter from Mr. Edward Johnson, President of that Fire 32. Department, dated June 24, 1982, which outlined the position of the Orange Grove 33, Fire Department on the Midway Airport. Dr. Griggs said that Mr. Johnson had 34° requested that the letter be presented by another member of the Fire Department 35° since he, Mr. Johnson, wished to comment on the Midway Airport from another per- 36. spective. ]T° Dr. Griggs said that the "firefighters have a considerable degree of anxiety" 38, over the proposed Midway Airport. He noted that the department was originally 39. � 1" .1�(�11 7~', 2. 3. , created to protect "private homes" and that Midway was a departure from that 5, original concept; it would require additional resources, training. Dr. Griggs 6, said the Fire Department wished to "go on record as notifying the Commissioners ?, that this would require a considerable elevation in" the Fire Department's 8. "capabilities." '^ Following this preamble, Dr. Griggs addressed specifics from Mr. Johnson's IU, letter, previously cited: 1) questionable water supply; 2) movement of the water; II, 3) additional equipment needed; 4) for certain types of fires, specific to this 12, project, more than water would be needed, for example, foams, and the Fire Depart- 13. ment requests that Midway provide these additional supplies and a place to store 14^ them; 5) recommendations for safety; and, 6) need for an access road to the site 15. from Teer Road. /The details are spelled out in Mr. Johnson's letter:/ 16. Ms. Miriam Murdock, Bingham Township: Said that she hoped to convince 17~ the Commissioners of the inappropriateness of this location for an airport. I8^ She said while she was in sympathy with those who desired to close down HWA, there 19" were two differences between those residents of Bingham Township and those around 20° HWA: 1) "We were here before the airport;" and,2) HWA has 50 spaces, while 21, Midway plans for 276 hanVared planes and unknown numbers of tie downs, She said 22, that they were not trying to move an existing airport that preceeded the building 23, of the homes and that most people had bought so that they could experience the quiet unspoiled land without "planes" buzzing over the children's heads. ' 25, She continued that the Township was "delighted" when the Zoning Ordinance 26, called for Bingham to be zoned Agricultural/Residential- She feels that there 27. is "no more inappropriate place in Orange County" for an airport. She said that 28, the establishment of land reserved rural was important, especially since Chapel 29, Hill was expanding; she noted that people would see the Midway Airport and equate 30. ' that with the HWA problem increased 50 times. She feels that demonstrates that property values are not enhanced. , Ms Murdock continued that traffic concerns were an issue; she feels that 32. ' 33" a North-South highway would be needed in addition to Highway 54. She cited 34, additional demands on taxpayers; she noted that those persons served by 1'85 35° would not be adequately served by Midway Airport; she cited a survey of pilots 36° which showed that fewer than 10% would relocate to a site on the Durham-Orange ]7. , hnundary She feels the potential for the failure of the project is too great 38, and that the County Commissioners may later have to approve the Airpark project ""` 101 � // �� I. 2, recently voted down, in order not to have an "unfinished, unused mess" in Bingham 3, Township. She feels that the site on I-85 and US 70 is far more appropriate than 4, Bingham Township. She cited concerns that if the airport is approved and is success- ful that Special Use Permits may become routine in the area, rendering it useless 5^ for residential purposes. 6. Ms. Anne Gilland yield her opportunity to Mr. Wallace Kaufman who was sworn by Com- mission r Gustaveson (Mr. Whitted was out of the room). Mr. Kaufman presented his ?, credentials to the Boards: 8. I come as a real estate appraise/...my credentials are: I 've been in the real estate business some 15 years. And for the past 10 years most of 9, my work has been appraising real estate, determining values and what affects values and thing like that. I've written about the value of real estate 10. for numerous publications and county papers, the New York Times and nat- ional magazines. And the kinds of clients that I've had are quite varied 11. and they range of course, from individuals to the NCNB Commercial Loand Department, Wachovia's Trust Department, numerous lawyers in the area, the 12, Liggett Group in Durham'.,l've appraised land for OWASA, Chatham, Pittsboro, Chapel Hill and Ca,rboro. And, of course, within my firm we've specialized I3^ in appro1sers''.ve've of course.appraised for Hillsborough, Orange County and a number of other government bodies here, Rocky Mount and all over the 14^ eastern part of the State. We also appraised for the utility companies and for people who oppose the utility companies both, which I think speaks to I�" something of our objectivity. 16. Mr. Kaufman said he would addiess the issue of the value of land adjacent to the 17. 'airport. He said that as he understood the Special Use Permit procedure, the Board of Commissioners, in order to grant the Special Use Permit request, would IO, have to find that the use either does not affect property values in the area or if I9° if does, it either maintains or enhances those property values. He said there 20" were some questions to be asked: 1) "How do surrounding property uses react to an airport?" He cited examples from RUU, where he said the Research Triangle Park 21. had objected "long and loudly" to expansion of that airport; he said few subdivisions 22" had been built near that airport for obvious reasons. Citing HWA, he noted the 23, residents were opposed to it being in theirmidst; hp said if the expansion proposed 214., had been granted values in the neighborhoods surrounding HWA would have dropped. 25" He cited low flying military planes on North Chatham and how Congressman Andrews 26^ had intervened to stop such activity. He summed up the responses to question W 27" 1 by saying that "Almost no where do residents welcome an airport." He said the 28, matter of taste affected property values, the dollar value on real estate. 29. 2) "What creates value in land near tilis proposed airport?" He said that the 30^ most "dwpmrtant" factor was the desirability of this land for residential uses, 3" The rural , "sparsely developed" nature of the area made it more valuable and 32" enhanced its value. 33" 3) Given two homes, which, Mr. Kaufman asked, would you be willing to pay 34~ more for; the one "over which planes buzzed unpredictably" or one which is in 35" a "quieter neighborhood?" He said that if the latter were chosen, then to put 36, that kind of use in an area where it doesn't already exist, is to lower the values. 37. 38, 39. / _ � ' � - _ ' — _ _ �� 0 �m I^ `r 2. 3. Mr. Kaufman continued that if the Board wished to compensate those adjacent 5. property owners for the devalued amount of their land, it could zone all the 6~ property around the airport industrial and raise property values that way, whether ?, the land owner desired it or not. He said by permitting the airport one piece of 8. property will acquire enhanced value at the price of devaluation of all the sur- 9. rounding properties_ IO. He summed up his comments: 1) airports do affect land value; 2) airports are 11. incompatible with residential use of land; 3) property an airport is located on 12. is increased in value; 4) and, surrounding property values are lowered by an air- 13. ports presence_ I/4. He suggested areas in northern Orange which were suitable for an airport and I5^ where the property values would not be lowered but raised around it. Specifically, 16. north of 70 and 1-85 where he feels there is an unanswered demand for industrial 17. development. 18. Mr. Bland Simpson, Bingham Township: Said he and his wife are opposed to the 19. airport being located at this site. He submitted a letter from Mr. Eric Schap'^ 20" a neighbor, who is also opposed to the airport's proposed location (that letter is 21° on puye5*15 of these minutes). /Clerk's note: Mr. Simpson submitted a ten page 22, typed transcript of his comments which is reproduced fully on peges' ' ��v of 23. this book. Following is a summarization of his comments) Mr. Simpson cited the 214.. Zoning Ordinance Article 8'2.2'b as evidence of the Commissioners' discretionary 25. powers to deny the permit; he cited the 1977 Orange County Soil Survey (publiShpd 26° by the US Department of Agriculture, The Soil Conservation Service in Cooperation 27, with the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station and the Orange County 28, Board of Commissioners, Sheet 24, page 17, Tables 4-5) in refutation of the develnp- 29° er's claim that the land was worthless for anything except an airport. He continued ]O" his citations with the Land Use Plan for Orange County, stating that the proposed 31^ Midway Airport is in conflict with Goals Two, Five and Seven. Mr. Simpson asked 32-, that all "references in Buck Mountain's Application to 'University use of Midway 33, Airport' be stricken from the application and supporting documents" since the Univer- sity is uncommitted to Midway. He feels that even should Midway be developed the 35~ University would not be under any obligation to close down HWA and the County may ]6, then have two "unsatisfactory airports." He feels an airport should be in northern Orange around 1-85 where eve 3?° Dr d I 86 wh development is desired; He cited the County Airport Site 38, Study to support that contention- ��}-- ^^° � He further cited an advertisement which appeared in the Chapel Hill News- paper, May 9, 1982, which listed land for sale in the Cheeks Township near the two sites referred to in the County Airport Site Study. He cited the Land Use Plan Goal 12 in support of the location of an airport along 1-85. He urged the Commissioners to consider a "County General Aviation Airport, owned and operated by the public, financially accountable and financially responsible." Mr. Simpson also cited the National Agricultural Lands Study: The Protection of Farmland: A Reference Wide Book for State and Local Government, pp. 34-35, to introduce the concept of the "impennaooe syndrome" which results when "significant development is introduced into a primarily rural area." Mr. Simpson asked that the Board of Commissioners exercise its legal rights and deny the Buck Mountain Special Use Permit Request for the Midway Airpnrt "andthereby earn for Orange County a special place in the history of the protection of North Carolina's agricultural lands," He urged denial under Article 8.2.2 a-c of the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Kizer: Asked if Mr. Simpson would submit the documpnts he had cited for record as evidence. Mr. Simpson responded yes /8ocuments too bulky to reproduce in the Minute Book are on permanent file in the office of the Clerk to the Board]. Mr. Ralph Warren, Route 1, Bingham Township: Said he had three concerns regarding this proposal. 1) Is this reapplication a valid one under the Zoning Ordinance? Mr. Warren cited Articles 20 and 8 from the Zoning Ordinance which he believes prohibits the submission of a " 'same or similar' application" within one year after denial or withdrawal of the previous application. 2) Mr. Warren feels that by presentation of " 'findings of fact' and recommendations" prior to the public hearing on the part of the Planning Staff, some issues may be raised by the citizens which have not been considered by Staff. 3) Mr. Warren cited Article 8.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance as saying the Board of Commissioners must find that the 3pcial Use Permit, if 'ranted, will not cause a "negative impact." /Mr. Warren's complete remarks are also attached to these Minutes on page-a/41 Commissioner Whitted: Noted that the legal questions Mr. Warren raised would be researched by County Staff. Mr, Dan Eddelman; Bingham Township: Said he lives just off the southern end of the proposed runway. He continued by saying that he had three points to discuss: 1) The Land Use Plan for Bingham calls for Agricultural/Residential Use; this Township had 20% of the building permits issued in the County in the previous year V� ^�v " which indicated that it had experienced a high rate of growth and would continue to grow, He said to grant the Special Use Permit for the airport would permit the same "conflicting" land use problems which currently exist around HWA. 2) He said that the Zoning Ordinance indicated that the applicant for a Special Use Per- mit must demonstrate that the use won't "adversely affect the health or public safety." He asked if airports have no adverse affects on health and public safety, why are those who live near HWA so committed to getting rid of it? 3) He addressed the issue of decreased land value of property adjacent to the proposed airport,and cited the example of someone who owns two lots next to his property who is now hesitating about building there because of the airport. He said the airport will "decrease the desirability of Bingham Township" as a residential area. Mr. Edward Johnson, Bingham Township: Said he lives 3-4 miles north of the proposed runway. [Clerk's note: Mr. Jnhnxon's remarks were very detailed and length,; complete remarks are on pages5Y9'5445 of this book. A brief summary follows) Mr. Johnson questioned the number of plane operations eotimof He feels the numbers will be much higher and gives a detailed analysis o: why he believes this estimate to be in error. He introduced the Minutes of the Bingham Township Advisory Council of February 15^ 1979, into the record /Those are on pagps044f this book] He said the developer had said that the airport could not exist without the airpark, which is no longer proposed and he questioned the economic feasibility of the airport. He recommended denial of the request because: 1) it doesn't promote the health, safety or general welfare of the public; 2) it is in conflict with the Land Use Plan for this Township; and, 3) the economic unotability of this project; he feels the County will have to bail out in some way the devolopprs. While he recommends denial, he also suggested two conditions if _ the permit is approved: 1) that no jet will ever be"allowed to land at Midway; and, 2) a bond equivalent to cost plus lO% of the project from the beginning to the Completion. Mr. Johnson asked those who were in the courtroom and who were opposed to the airport project to stand, /Clerk's note: Most of the audience stood) Ms. Julie Andresen, resident of Chapel Hill and representing Citizens for Airport Planning: She said the purpose of the group was to seek a solution for the health and safety problems posed by HHA!s lucbtfun' She that the group has a broad base of support for its objectives. She cited the Chapel Hill Town Council 's 1cv~a dk - position on HWA; the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education, Ms. Andresen said, had repeatedly requested that air flights over the schools from HWA be restricted or stopped; and the Chamber of Commerce's enthusiastic endorsement of the Midway Airport. She said that UNC has said it will move all air planes to the Midway Airport "if the same services are available." Ms. Andresen asserted that Midway "is such an airport." 3hg continued that the health and safety of the HWA are "inextricably" connected to the Midway proposal and urged approval of the Midway proposal. Ms. Sandra Bothwell, resident of Chapel Hill: Noted that there are 1200 students near the HWA and pointed out the.upproach to the runway, She said "90%" of the airplane crashes occurred near the runway; and cited the health and safety hazard. Noting the accident which occurred at University Mall in which a car careened out of control and children were injured, she asked the Boards how badly they would feel if an airplane crashed on the school . Ms- Mary Lou Rubins, Chapel Hill resident: Said she is a teacher who lives near Phillips School; she is concerned about the possibility of a plane crash near the sohool. She cited the safety records of commercial pilots versus private pilots, Mr' Bill Thorpe, Chapel Hill resident: Cited concern for the safety of the school children and said they need help moving HWA out. He said UNC is willing to move its planes. Ms. Mary Penta, Chapel Hill resident: Also a representative of Citizens For Airport Planning. Ms. Penta cited the health and safety factors involved with HWA so near the schools. She requested that the Commissioners approve the Special Use Permit request for Midway while she noted that 70% of the County's population lives in Chapel Hill. Mr. Franklin Kirby, Bingham Township resident: Told the Board that the developers of Midway showed drainage and culverts built onto his family's land , He said they don't own the land and he doesn't want the runoff water on his property' Mr. David Curl , resident of Bingham Township: Said he still had a house built within 1608 feet of the end of the runway and he is still concerned about it. He expressed sympathy with the Chapel Hill people who wish to close HWA but he feels Bingham Township isn't the place for a replacement. He asked who the Buck Mountian Company was and asked that they step forward and identify themselves. Mr.Charles Antle: Yielded to Mr. Gordon Rutherford, Mr. Rutherford, Director of Facilities Planning for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Introduced two letters, previously introduced at the March 8, 1982, Public Hearing; one from Mr, John Temple to Mayor Nassif, dated April 17, 1981, which outlined the University's position on an alternative airport near Chapel Hill; and one from Mr. Temple to Commissioner Whitted, dated March 8, 1982; Mr. Rutherford reviewed the specifics in the letter under which the University would phase out HWA,(those letters are on pages6-19-4,1).2 of this book, respectively). Mr. Rutherford said that the University does not like being in the airport profession and the proposed project does have a potential of meeting the University's requirements for an alternative to HWA. Mr. Rutherford said, "We would emphasize the financial...viability of the airport should not be determined on the basis of the University's participation...." He cited Mr. Templets letter to Commissioner Whitted of March 8, 1982, previously introduced. He emtinued that UNC cannot commit to en alternative airport until its acceptability according to standards outlined in the letters cited; in addition the University must have fund-, ing available to enable it to move its operations to the alternative airport. F did, however, say that the University would be willing to end non University f, from the airport as soon as an alternative was available. He said that would take care of about 45 of the planes based at HWA now. He recommended serious discussion of the Special Use Permit request before the Boards. Mr. Kizer: "How many of the 50 planes does the University own?" Mr. Rutherford: Replied that the "Medical Foundation owns five." Mr. Kizer: "Five out of fifty?" Mr. Rutherford: "Yes." Mr. Kizer: Asked about the general requirement that a suitable alternative be located with,a ten miles. Mr. Rutherford: Replied that it was AHEC's criterion. Mr. Kizer: nE0es Duke University fly any of the planes; do they participate in AUG?" Mr. Ruterford: Cid not know the answer. Mr. Kizer: Asked if the University had ever discussed with the County the p3ssibility of using proceeds from the sale of HIM. Mr. Rutherford: Replied that he thought that had come up during a staff dis- cussion and Mr. Temple had responded to Commissioner Whitted in a letter. However, 457 Lp he said "The University is not free to divest itself of the property HWA is on." So he doesalt know, he said, what funds might be available should HWA close. He added that UNC is willing and has in the past expressed a willingness to work to- ward the solution of the problem. Mr. Kizer: Asked if UNC had any "long range plans for" the property HWA is on. Mr. Rutherford: "Not immediate plans, no." Mr. Kizer: Asked J.,r the University had thought of using it as part of the campus. Mr. Rutherford: Said that due to the enrollment "cap" there were no immediate plans for use as part of the campus; it was however, attractive as a "satellite campus." Mr. Kizer: Asserted that if this occurred it would almost be County "funding" of a campus for the University. "So therefore, the University would gain twofold. Would they not?" Mr. Rutherford: Replied that he didn't understand Mr. Kizer's question; Mr. Kizer repeated it for him, saying that if a private developer or someone opened up an alternative airport the University would benefit by having the land HWA is now on being freed up for other use. Mr. Rutherford: Replied that there were restrictions on the land in the "gift" convenant. That the money will revert to the State if the land is sold. "It's not a clear-cut issue...." Mr. Kizer: Said that since the University was State run, didn't it "have the powers of emminent domain surrounding HWA?" Mr. Rutherford: Said that he really didn't understand the question but that he supposed UNC had, that power. "We'd have to prove the use." Mr. Kizer: Said that the point was that when the airport was being developed the State could have used eminent domain in order to control development around their runways. Mr. Rutherford: "I can't answer that." Mr. Roger Smith, Route 1, Efland: Said there was "no doubt" a problem with HWA; but, granting a Special Use Permit to Midway was not right either. "Two wrongs don't Make a right." He said there were 60 sites approved for an airport, and many were more suitable than both HIIA and Midway. Er. Cannity submitted two letters from Peloquin Associates for the Board's information (those letters are on pages of this book). 158"-' A Commissioner Whitted submitted throe letters he had received which asked to be part of the record of this public hearing: the James Fisher family, Lois and John Furman Herring, and Mr: and Mrs. Robert Fisher (those letters are on pages 6 p$.(d) of this book, respectively). There were no others who wished to address the Boards on the Special Use. Permit Request by the Buck Mountain Development Company for a General Aviation. Airport. Commissioner Whitted said, as is the usual practice, the Commissioners would adjourn this meeting to a time and a place to receive the recommendation from the Planning Board on this request; he added that the hearing would remain open for Mr. Johnson to mail to the Clerk the Minutes of the Bingham Township Ad- visory Council which Mr. Johnson introduced but did not have on his person. Ms. Crawford, Planning Board Chair, asked if the Commissioners would adjourn the meet- ing in order to question Mr. Bruce Matthews who had been widely referred to this evening; after consultation, the Commissioners said they would have a quorum Pre- sent at the Planning Board meeting of July 19th for that purpose. Commissioner 4lillhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to adjourn this public hearing on the Special Use Permit Request by Buck Mountain Development for a general aviation airport till 7:30 P.M., July 19, 1982, in order to question Mr. Bruce Matthews. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O. The Boards took a short break and resumed discussions with all members pre- sent as noted earlier. REZONING REQUEST FROM FRED CATES AND ELIZABETH CATES (From Residential-1 to Residential-8) Ms. Crawford chaired the remainder of the public hearing. Mr. Rick Cannity made the presentation for the Planning Department, giving the site location, description. He noted the intent of the provision of districts in the Zoning Ordinance. He said that this rezoning request was in conformance with the Land Use Plan but said there would be adverse effects if rezoned to R-8. Mr. Cannity listed the areas that were not provided for by a rezoning: fire pro- tection, recreational facitilites; b»lding setbacks, pedestrian circulation, inter- ior circulation, central services, parking and an overall plan of development which would assure adequate services and access to the remainder of the tract. Mr. Cannity said the Staff recommends denial of the rezoning. Mr. John McAdams, Engineer for John and Faizabeth Cates, addressed the • Boards. Mr. McAdams said this request was to rezone four acres adjacent to the existing Cates Farm; he added that this development had been "caught" during 1 '159 the Gotulty's adoption of a Zoning Ordinance last fall. The developer was asking that the project continue as originally planned. Mr. McAdams said there were 48 existing units and 32 more were planned. He said the site is served by water and sower lines and is well suited for high density develop- ment. With regard to concern # 2 expressed by the Planning Staff, Mr. McAdams said the "developer does propose to provide recreation facilities; this is a rezoning request and it is his intent to provide recreational facilities and to all the renters who have moved into the first 48 units,, he has told them that recreational facilities will be there. He does intend to provide them." Mr. McAdams continued that for the remainder of the concerns, fire protection, trash removal, paving, parking, landscaping, etc., "these things will be pro- vided in the manner that has been established by the development of the first 60%." Mr. McAdams Said the erasting development provides "the knowledge of the standard that would be used in the continuation of the development." Mr. McAdams continued by stressing "that it is the 80 units which renders feasible the provision of recreation facilities, the amenities, the maintenance of the development in the manner which the developer has proposed." Mr. McAdams said that 48 units had not proved large enough for the developer to provide a "swiming pool" but it was in his original plan to provide a pool for the development. Ms. Crawford thanked Mr. McAdams for his presentation and comments and asked members of the Boards if they had questions of Mr. McAdams. Mr. Kizer: Asked if the roads were intended-10 be paved. Mr. McAdams: Replied the roads would be paved with a tar and gravel surface treatment known as "macadam." Commissioner Willhoit: Oted that the developer's statement said water and sewer services were available, he asked if "there was a commitment on the part of the Town to provide that." Mr. McAdams: Said the 48 existing units had water and sewer lines and the Town was "willing to allow" those lines to be extended to the proposed 38 units. Commissioner Willhoit: Pursued the matter by asking the Planning Staff if such a commitment had been "secured from the Tom of Hillsborough Board." Mr; Cannity: Responded that "I don't have anything in writing from the Tom Board." Commissioner Willhoit: Said he felt a written commitment from the Tom - 160 t 9‘; 1 Board should be secured as he understood from newspaper articles that there was some question of the availability of those services to the project. Mr. McAdams: "I would say there is no question of the availability; only a question of the amount of charge per tap." He added that the charge by the Town of Hillsborough was not in question but a surcharge which would go to the school system under an agreement in 1973 when lines were extended to the Grady Brown School was being disputed. Mr. McAdams provided details of the agreement. The developer appealed to the School Board to reduce the surcharge due to the volume 5umber of units7 and the School Board declined. Mr. McAdams said the developer has decided that it would be cheaper to extend the water and sewer lines by another method rather than paying the surcharge. The lines would be extended for 30 feet from Oakdale Drive and a water boost pump station would be utilized. Commissioner Willhoit: Asked in terms of long range services to ti area if "that is the most ideal method" of provision. Mr. McAdams: Said the the utilization of a water pump booster station would enhance the water pressure, raising the water pressure in the entire area so that all users in the area would benefit. Commissioner Whitted: Asked Mr. McAdams if there was a sketch plan available for the next planned phase. Mr. McAdams responded that he does have one but not with with him at this hearing. Commissioner Whitted said he was particularly concerned was the safety factor of the streets. He added that he had been to Phase I and while he would not call it pavement, he'd accept that term. He asked if this "pavement" was the same as was planned for the area requested for rezoning.and. if it was the same as in the mobile home park he Timbers7. Mr. McAdams said the mobile home park had two inches of "asphaltic treatment" but that the loop road within the park was paved to State secondary road standards. Commissioner Whitted said he had two further concerns: 1) that with regard to Phase I, the existing units t the developer had not provided maintenance of the roads during snow and ice storms, so that consequent residents had parked along Orange Grove Road creating a "safety hazard;" and, 2) with regard to the "sheer numbers" of those who mould be living in the existing units, the mobile home park and the planned units, the egress and ingress on the hill, along with the existing traffic on Orange Grove Road produced a safety hazard. Commissioner Whitted asked if improved safety design could be considered and incorporated. 161 aL1,5 Mr. McAdams: Said that that, safety, had been given a "cursory" consideration. He added that given the theorectical capacity of that road, "the road is lightly loaded at this time." Mr. McAdams was unsure if sight distance on the hill *as a problem. Mr. Kizer: Asked Mr. McAdams if he would respond to each of the concerns listed by the Planning Staff (please see pages of this book for that list). Mr. McAdams: #1—Will be provided; #2--Recreation facilities will be provided, including a swimming pool, but he is unsure what else is included; #3--Is not aware of any proposed laundery facilities; one dumpster is at the site and "at least one more dumpster is proposed:" #4--Walkways connecting the parking areas with the buildings is proposed and when recreation facilities are provided walkways connecting those facilities with the buildings would be provided; #5--the same surface pavement as those already existing there; Mr. Kizer asked if Mr. McAdams preferred that the roads not be "paved to State standards." Mr. McAdams replied that, "I'm talking about what is intended by the developer. We've come to you with a rezoning request; not a Special Use Permit proposal." #6--parking will be off a loop which is off the main entrance drive; #7—"I don't know what spacing has been provided." The landscaping is pri- marily "shrubbery, pine bark mulch, no grass." Commissioner Whitted asked if Mr. McAdams had designed Phase I and he replied, "Mo." #8—Is not a "development provision." Hr. Kizer: Asked Mr. McAdams about his feelings for the recommendation j 2 by Planning Staff for a Planned Development for this project. Mr. McAdams: "If the zoning had not been enacted in September, the developer would have done what we have in mind anyway and we're just asking for the rezoning so he can go ahead and do it. The existing development down there provides the best information on what will be continued." Mr0 Cannity: Reminded the Boards that this is a rezoning request and they must weigh the merits of the project for this zoning district.in its particular location. "It is impossible for you to weigh the intentions of the developer or anything he says he intends to do. You need to be ready to accept the R-8 zoning with none of these things addressed. Although the developer may make the state- ments that his intentions are to do such and such." Ms. Crawford asked for audience comments in favor of the rezoning request; there were none. Ms. Crawford asked for audience c,..7mments opposed to the rezoning request. Mr. David Rooks, Attorney for residents living along Orange Grove Road, said that there were currently 17 families living in single units along Orange Grove Road to its intersection with Oakdale Road. He said the issue is rezoning. 1:62 4 Mr. Rooks continued that if the project is granted, the Board would lose control over the issues, such a landscaping, recreational facilities, and the Board would have to live with what the Zoning Ordinance requires in R-8 zones. Mr.Rooks, referring to the Zoning Ordinance, cited "Section 20-1 outlining reasons for rezoning'," there is a manifest error" Mr. Rooks said that at the time the zonining ordinance was established that the Board had made "a concious choice as to how to zone this property." He said the Board knew the development was underway and still zoned it R-1. He said, "based on that...I do not believe the Board made a clear error." He said next, the applicant says there "are changed conditions in the area." Mr. Rooks said there were none except the "planned development, The Timbers, the trailer park, farther down on Orange Grove Road, which had gone in since" the Zoning Ordinance was adopted. To his knowledge, Mr. Rooks', there w no other "changed conditions." He said this area was a "gateway" entrance to Hillsborough and the rezoning, if granted, would eliminate this single family residential "gateway." He asked that the request be denied. Mr. Ronald Wagner, a resident of the Orange Grove neighborhood for four years, said that the existing,48 units put in 2 years ago had lowered !i property values. Mr. Wagner said at the time, there were 20 families living in the neighborhood with, for example, four people per home which gave a maximum of 80 people and 40 cars, if two cars per family were allow , Mr. Cates had, Mr. Wagner said, increased the population by 270 people and the vehiclular traffic was increased proportionately. Mr. Wagner said there were no shoulders on Orange Grove Road and kids ride bikes or walk to the store creating a safety hazard. He contended that there were "wrecks almost weekly on Orange Grove Road" in this area. He said kids would ride in the street. iMr. Wagner continued that he lives at the "top ol the hill" and he feared that a child would someday be struck by a car coming over the hill because of the lack of sight distance. He requested that the rezoning from R-1 to R-8 be denied as incompatible with the neighborhood. Dr.Christopher Byrd, Route 2, Box 479, said that Mrs. Ed M Hines, who lives on the south of 1-85 and east of Orange Grove Road was his mother-in-law and he was speaking for her as well as himself. He said Mr. Hines, if he were alive, would have tried to prevent the development from occurring. He said M . Hines had lived in her home for 28 years and every effort 163 had been made to preserve the land as forest. He said the property values had already been lowered by the neighborhood by the existing 48 units. He complained of the noise created by the inhabitants of the existing units. He complained of stray dogs in the neighborhood. He cited the safety factor, i.e. no walkway along Orange Grove Road. He said he was "unalterably opposed" to the rezoning request. Mr. Rooks: Said that many persons who were opposed to the rezoning request had been prebsent earlier but had left as the meeting grew longer. There being no further persons who wished to speak in opposition or in favor of the rezoning request, Ms. Crawford turned the meeting back over to Chairman Whitted who declared the Joint Public Hearing of the Board of Commissioners and Planning Board adjourned. C. ROAD NAMING PUBLIC HEARING 48 PUBLIC NON-STATE MAINTAINED ROAD Mr. David Shanklin, Chair of the Road Naming Advisory Commission, conducted this public hearing. He withdrew Riverboat Road in Little River Township from consideration and asked for public comments on all others as presented. (A list is on pages of this book.) Two residents of Little River Township objected to Sweet Drive and that name was accordingly withdraw: from consid- , oration at this hearing. Mr. Shanklin announced the next RONAC meeting for 7:30 P.M. at the Courthouse on July 21 and asked those persons who objected to road names be present and provide alternatives for consideration. With no further audience comments, Mr. Shanklin submitted the list to the Board of Commissioners, minus the two names withdrawn as indicated above. Commissioner Whitted declared this Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to adjourn this meeting. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O. Richard E. Whitted, Chair Paulette Pridgen-Pond, Clerk Joint Public Hearing July 8, 1982 Board of County Commissioners Present: Richard Whiffed, Norman Custaveson Shirley Marshall, Norman Walker, Don Wilhoit Planning Board Members Present: Pat CraWford, Logan Irvin, David Shanklin, 1 Sally Boericke, Steve Kizer The public hearing was called to order at 7:40 p.m. All those wishing to present evidence were sworn in. Agenda Item # 1: Class A Special Use Permit Request.frm Buck MoUntain Development for a General Aviation Airport Cannity presented the findings of fact and recommended imposed conditions for the special use proposal. He gave a short presentation on the three types of uses in the permitted districts table of the Zoning Ordinance. These include permitted uses, non-permitted uses and special uses. He explained the applicant had the burden of establishing compliance with the ordinance arid that the Board of County Commissioners must grant approval of the proposal unless they find the proposal contradicts the items in Section 8.2.2. Anyone opposing the proposal on the grounds stated in Section 8.2.2 a) thirkd) must provide substantial evidence to support this claim. 1 Cannity added that the proposal must meet both required and imposed conditions and that Si* conditions run with the land and the use. Cannity presented the information required and provided by the developer as well as additional information including a letter from Bruce Mathews dated May 30, 1982 regard- ing aircraft operations. Cannity indicated that Mt. Mathews felt it reason- ' able to assure daily operations of 500 per plane. He added that with regard to vehicle trips, DOT felt confortable with using annual operations. I . 1 • . . _ _ - - Cannity stated that the proposal is substantially the same project and that . the Planning Department staff's recommendation remains substantially the same as at the last public hearing on Midway Airpark. Cannity noted the findings of fact were referenced%pages 10-11 and 13-14. He noted an error in the title of the diagram on page 14 which should read: Approach Departure Zone Dimensions . Cannity reviewed the recommended imposed conditions noting that the developer's proposed imposed conditions are generally the sane except that the developer leavesthe campletion date open-ended where as staff has specified an end date for completion. Kizer asked if Mathews based the annual operations figure on Horace Williams which restricts based aircraft. Cannity answered affirmatively. Kizer asked if this was a reasonable basis for determining annual operations. Cannity responded that staff deferred to Mathews as the authWity on the question. Cannity submitped a letter from Chapel Hill to the Boarci.r7z2 ;1,-, . Whitted askei that the datg7bource of letter be noted and the Chapel Hill Board resolution regarding Horace Williams be attached as well as the minutes of the Jan. 11, 1982 meeting. Kizer inquired if Mathews was present. Cannity responded Mathews had indi- cated he could not attend. The staff presentation was concluded. Lee Mahler presented the developer's proposal and comments. Mahler noted that this was a scaled down project due to the proceedings and decision on the Midway Airpark proposal. He indicated that the runway was shortened to 4000 feet and that overrun areas were provided asitarnprorni5 6. safety provision. He noted additional housing for 276 total aircraft would be provided in three phasesrMAller referenced letters from C.D. Knight, Vneriff's Department; Bobby Baker, EMS; and OCT noting none of these agencies had problems with the project. Mahler cited a letter from Plentl of the DOT to Jim Polatty which made reference to the relationship between FAA standards and ownership of easement rights over land in the approach zone: He emphasized that the condition # 12 regarding 5000 feet of approach area was the only item the developer questions. He noted that 1000 feet is a reasonable control area. The letter from Plentl was introduced and read. Mahler requested a change to 1000 feet of control citing fiDU had 10 miles of control off the end of the runways. He added that conditions 1-11 were acceptable to the owners of the project. He noted that the June 29, 1982 revised plan showed an access loop road which addressed condition # 10. Whitted questioned the number of vehicles per day, specifically noting the letter from Bruce Mathews. Mahler indicated that the original source of the vehicle traffic data had errored and new calculations were resubmitted on June 30, 1982. He noted there was still a descrepIncy between the developer's and. Bruch Matthews' figures. Mahler stated the key word in these calculations was in a statement made by Bruce Mathews that airport planninseinexactu science. He 6 ant) suggested that a range of figures be used. ... , DRAFT Kizer inquired if the developer was planning to restrict flights. Mahler - asked in what way. Kizer clarified the question to mean restrict operations. He added that using Horace Williams figures would suggest consideration of restricted highway traffic. Mahler citedMathews'staterent of using a rule of thumb and added this was a conservative: but accurate figure as transient flights will not increase fiocfoldwi.th a fiv6:01d increase in the number of based planes. Re added that Mathews has notedi40: the presence of operations can double or not the total number of operations. I Trot Kizer asked if Mehler would agreelthis figure is a conservative estimate. Mahler respoilded that if you look at the RDU experience these figures are so high as to be ridiculous but that Mathews is the best source. He inAlcated tha problem of proportional relationship between 50 and 276 based aircraft. Kizer inquirled if N] contours calculations included the idler number of based aircr4t and comparative frequency and number of operations. Mahler responded that the new figures were used in the calculation and the NEF contours displayed on the wall. Gustaveson alsked if there were examples of private airports of this size in the eastern Seaboard, Northwest or West Coast. W.hler responded there were nom in this area and that such a size was generally =Enacted with comnercial airports like RDU. Gustaveson pursued the question. Mahler responded that elsewhere general avaition airports are considered desir- able with plbimed associated developmnt. Gustaveson inquired if this would be one the largest airports in the Eastern Seaboard. Mahler respond- ed he did no know and that their research had been confill'ectto this area. CrawfeEd asked if there would be restricted access to the property duringhours aiverl000 riec441 Mehler responded that ridt ,i4rek6txdrifieb42(Vossae4, ArtaY0401tErebttengd f-0 4 l 0. ma. lkhlo rides gee, ofVec_fris5oveyffb, Rcaoldko pi 464 Mkt//1031,4rOM/acsfaixin eii '',rt UM This ine4ns dir aCe.05.51b.nA7,34rs . Cmafold .51241`iic Irvin inquired of the Buck Mountain Conipany, Inc. as listed on the applica- tion was incorporated in NCth Carolina. John Northern, attorney for Buck Diountain3sad the company was formed ae kgeneral partnership and that the reference tlo incorporation should be ,. ':i01-'' ' Irvin askedymwruch land the developer controlled off the end of the run- way either through purchase agreement or easerent. Kehler responded that the majoriJO of land was controlled'up to 1000 feet, sore subject to conditional approval. He added that no effort had been node to control beyond 1000 feet due to the FAA/DCT judgement regarding this matter. Irvin reqtxedMehler to be more specific about the south end. John Northern degcribed the property controlled by the developer adding that if a 1000 =trol area was a condition of approval it would bel'incumbent on-the'deveioper'to shift or shorten the runwayPto get cogtsol'of 1000 feet. He added that the zoning ordinance does not definethe approach -6- zo*that there had been much discussion of the length and that it would 1 2■1 be dflficult to get easements for one mile. Irvin clarified that the )All \) developer 110 controllfand south of the runway 1E4o but not beyond NC , 54. Northern responded that the developer had control over the Walton parcel onlli. He added the developer's control extended to the northern property line but not into the Crawford property. / ,/ / 1 DRAFT _ - _ - Northern indicated the developer planned -to charge maintenance and con- daminum fees. Crawford inquired what financing structure would be used: monthly leases, owner associations or sales of hangars. Northern responded the developer did not want to lock himself into a financing structures as it would depend on market opportunity and response. He added that buyers needed to be convinced that this is a viable project. Gustaveson asked if one option would be condomithm 4ages. Northern responded that likely there would be fee simple sale of hangar space with candominum like documents for maintenance and enforcement. Gustaveson inquired about projected operational costs. Northern responded he did not know that information. Cannity indicated to the Board that copies of Plentl's tater to Polatty dated July, 1982 were not introduced by staff because this was Pientl's opinion of the Zoning Ordinance and not evident/tn. He distributed copies of the letter. Whiffed noted Meyer has introduced the letter as evidence. Whit-tea asked Fred Hazzard if he wished to present evidence.Hazzard responded no, but he had been sworn irase he was asked to respond to questions. Crawford asked Hazzard if he knew details about his operations ie. employees, managers etc. Hazzard responded negatively adding the developers were looking at models and similar local operations including Burlington Municipal:). He indicated he would not discuss these details. He respon- to Gustaveson's question regarding like examples stating airports differ fran locale to locale. He noted he was concerned about, climatic ,!ei . aspects of keeping a runway operational. sh o-v t/310 Crawford inquired about construction materials. Hazard responeta0 that if there were not air evacuation operations at Midway it would be un- likely that they would remove the snow and would probably close the r"•- u facility. He added they were considering perpetual care operations for maintenance purposes. Crawford asked if fuel would be sold. Hazzard answered yes. Crawford inquired about hours of operation. Hazard responded that a package of data would be provided following these procedures that would govern traffic patterns, noise control measures and hours of operation. Crawford asked when this Would be provided citing the difficulty of selling a project nobody knows about. Hazzard responded that these its were hard to specify given uncertanity about runway length that would be approved. Gustaveson asked the cost for Phase 1. Hazzard respondedile.did not know it as the cost of labor, stone, and mgaey are never the same fran day to day and that they were not sure ofqmount needed and cannot negotiate for costs until project is approved. Gustaveson asked for a range of costs. Hazzard responded well under a million in construction costs noting counties could not keep costs so low. Whitted inquirel_about instruments at the airport. Hazzard indicated there 1 A IL n - DRAFT domiiq , beacon would be installedV ighase 1 . Witted asked if total based aircraft would be 276. Haizard indicated yes. bitted asked at what point the airport would be financially feasible ie. the breakevein point. Hazzard responded there would be a 9-10 mcnth negative cash fl . Crawford noted there would be 276 hangared aircraft aircraft and any number of tiedowns.1 Crawford asked if Hazzard quarreled with the estimated per- centage of transient aircraft. Hazzard responded no adding hangaring gives 10-20%, reduction in insurance. He noted there would be a trade off between security and less maintenance. Crawford inquired about hangar dimensions. Hazzard responded he did not know them. ICrawford asked what construction materials would be used. Hazzard indicated they were investigatigating maisitenance-fite, siding. Crawford asked if hangars would be on paving or grass. Hazzard responded paving would extend up to and between hangars wherever planes would go. He added that the biggest concern would be fire protection access. Irvin askediif the 1$ million figure included hangars and acess road construction. Hazzard responded that it did not include the access read as this was la small cost. He added access roads would be paved last and as hangars are sold. Crawford emhpasized the condition that all of phase 1 be ,e mleted in a specified period of time. Irvin askedithe estimated cost of a hangar. Hazzard indicated he would not provide those figures as he would be sling. these hangars. Kizer noted the hangars would be sold or leased as necessary to make money. Members of the audience were asked to give evidence on the proposals. Miriam Singr - resident of Bingham Tbwnship; owner of recently bought and renovated farmhouse; leasor of 10 acres under cultivation. Singer contested 4sertian of no adverse impact of airport on adjacent lanqUses froth experience of living near an airport. She cited major ne0ance po- tential of Proposed number of hangared craft and unspecified number of tid:powns. She expressed concern regarding impact on NC 54 citing heavy traffic at present. Singer urged denial of proposal. Dr. Thomas Griggs - representative of Orange Grove Fire Company Board of Directors. Griggs submitted Board's letter at request of President Ed Johnson. AS general comment Griggs indicated the anxiety of both fire- fighters and Board membersmith regard to the proposal citing the Company Was organized to defend residential uses. He referenced the contactual agreenerctwith the Board of County Commissioners to provide fire protection to all uses1 and the considerable elevation of responsibilities and capa- bilities suggested by this project. Griggs specified the five Board concerns and recommendations: 1) Water Availability - The required 30,000 gallon capacity could be provided by ponds serving as drainage areas and supplementafFwells in dry VATher. He asked that these treasures be guaran- teed prior po permitting. 2) Water Mbvement - Griggs noted the need for all weather access' dry hydrants and tanks and pumps necessary al apparatus for shueing water to hangars. 3) The need for a high expansion phone to be supplied by project. 4) Griggs specified a number of safety features in the hangars. 5) The provision of an access road off Teer Road is needed (riven the recent air crash in a remote area. Fir Miriam Murdock - Resident of Bingham Township. Murdock stressed the ina- ppeopriatenes of this location for an airport. She added the residents sympathized with residents near Horace William but noted that the Bingham residents proceeded the airport and the difference between 50 based aircraft and 276 hangared plus tirjown craft. Murdock referenced the designation of the areas for agricultural and rural residential uses and questioned the impact on property values. Murdock sited inadequate highway services, demands on the local tax burden, land coasaned by a north/south highway, the lack of service provided to Hillsborough and northern Orange County, that only 10% of RDU pilots served would move to a site near 1-85, the potential for project failure and the advantages of sites on 1-85/US 70, particularly the site recently advertised for sale. Wallace Kaufman - real estate appraiser. Kaufman indicated he was not an immediate property owner but an appraisor addressing the question of air- ports and land values. Kaufman described his credentials and experience in making a statement an this matter of impact on property values. He responded to three seperate issues: 1) How do surrounding property uses react to any airport expansion? Citing local examples at Research Triange Park and the expansion of RDU, Objections to intensive or expanded use of Horace Williams Airport and the halt on military runs in parts of Chatham County he noted that vlaues will drop as taste and attitude affect real estate value and investment . 2 ) Wet creats value in land near the airport? Kaufman noted the desireability for residential development in rural, quiet sparsely developed are raises values and protects and enhances values. 3) What determines the value of one home vs. another home near an airport? The airport loenrs values of hones already there and remains undistuxbdd by residential uses. Kaufman addressed the concept of compensation by either zoning all the areas industrial and thereby raising all property values or changing one piece of land for industry and thereby devaluing land for residential use. He noted that approval would clearly affect land value and the highest *Lie was residential use incompatible with raising the value of the airport land. Speculation of the air port land wculd raise its value while lowering the value of )tvenespeCulation of surrounding land. He stressed that this view was documented by common sense and literature. He added that the County needs an airport but that other areas are more suitable and land would not be devalued at: these areas where there has been an unanswerd demand for development. Bland Simpson - Resident of Bingham Township. Simpson urged 4gni4t of request and submitted a letter from Dr. and Mrs. Shoepler for the recorqr, Simpson cited Section 8.8.2 of the zoning ordinance as containing the discretionary power of the Board to weigh and assess evidence for com- pliance or lack theieç og.with the Zoning ordinance and due process. He ade4 Section 8.2.2b) must — surrounding area due to nature of use ie. air- planes. He noted for Mr. Shoepler that several buyers had withdrawn offers for his land due to the airport proposal, ihereby causing economic and psychological effects. Simpson noted Hazzard's statement at the last public hearing that the land is worthless for anything but planes, responding that the Orange County Soil Survey tops 601-65) references soils of this type as having high pdtial for corn, soybeans, and timber among other. Simpson cited the Nation l Ilgricultural Lands Stadyl211121121 Farmland: A :-fernce (] de Book for State and Local Government ppps. 34- 35 with regard to the ' 10- 11 syndrome NtortO leads to a reduction in on going investment in land improvements and farm structures and in- - fhP end of agriculture." , . _- DRAFT:: J . . . _. He cited th , acreage directly and indirectly removed from agriculture as well as conflicts between the use and its impacts with Goals 3,5 and 7 in the ()rani County Land Use Plan. Simpson erbradei sympathy to residents near Horace Williams noting UNC was Litrearrionigetc6Orte*YOrddit'iTeit3r/idit.koi 7Z7,311/17,171,-yeuerclosed. He requested that all references to UNC be sticken from project Li documents since they are uncommitted. 1 Simpson referenced sites 19 and 20 in the Airport Sites Study as well as a 137 acre tract advertised along 1-85. Citing Goal 12.6 in the Land Use Plan he urgea continued consideration of a County owned general aviation airport that would be financially accountable. He noted a number of land use goals would be violated by approval and that the Board has the legal right to denY the request and earn a place in the protection of N.C. lands. I Kizer requested Simpson submit documents referenced for the record. Ralph Warren - BinghimaltunShip resident. Warren addressed procedural questions: 1) Are we here properly with resdammittal of request and is the time interval appropriate? Article 20 amendment procedures references.significant change to land use in Orange County as subject to a resubmittal time frame. He added that the rezoning .amendment procedures are virtuall y the same as a special use and the same operations should apply to address the multiple hazard if not double jeapardy issue. 2) Since the staff present the findings of fact, what if valuable information is presented later which would affect findings of fact. 3) Section 8.2.2 addresseaffects of use on land owners but the primary though less specific concerns are not weighed as heavily as the specific considerations. Whitted indicated that the legality of these procedural questions would be researched. Dan Eddelman - Bingham Township resident. Edditoman expressed concerns About the impact an the existing and preferred land uses in the area noting 5% ofIthe population of Orange County live in Bimglaam Township yet Bingham Township accounted for 20% of the building permits, adding this would substantiate the need for zoning and the conflicting land use potential of the airport. Eddlibman noted that if an airport did not affect the public health, safety and welfare then why was the opposition to Horace Williams so committed. Eddleman addressed the impact of land vIaues noting a neighboring land owners concerns about building on the land. I Ed Johnson iBinghan Township resident. Johnson reviewed possible con- sequences of the proposed project. He took issue with the estimate of 500 operations per day noting Btrlington Municipal with 63 based planes had 51,000 operations per year, 809 per plane; Southern Pines with 48 planes had 33,000 operations per year; RDU with 195 private based craft had 197,000 operations; Gastonia with 71 planes and the largest airport without commercial planes had 57,000 opera-lions; and Horace Williams had 50 planes with 35,000 operations. In Horace William ecluivelant units the proposedlair traffic (750 operations x 26 planes = 207,500 operations) amounted to five Horace Williams. I , Johnson continued relating the proposal to the 20-40% ratio of hangared to tieCdownIcraft to equal 690 planes, 517,000 operations per year at 15- Horace Williams. Johnson asked how this could be compatihie with the - DRAFT Land use goals/plans of the Bingham Tommthip Advisory Council as found in the February 15, 1979 minutes. These minutes 4itleatthe preservation of agriculture as the #1 goal and maintenance of agriculture and prevention of land use conflicts as primary concerns. Johnson inquired if Midway could accomplish what it proposes, noting Hazzard's reluctance to respond in economic terms. Johnson cited statments 4 and 7 of the proposal for the November 30, 1981 public hearing which state that Ne are requesting the airporyr:irpark ,sinultaneously due to their symidOtic relationship" and these mutually beneficial and dependent for survival' Johnson suggested the project as now proposed maybe economically unviable . Johnson indicated he had researched as a developer the costs of the venture noting that the normal activities of a general aviation airport generally cover only the day to day bills and that Counties generally supplement these revenues. He indicated financing would come from hanger sales ort long term leases. Citing all cost features and comparing these with examples of number of hangared and theiBowns crafts at local airorts, Johnson noted a significant shortjall in expenses vs. revenues and a lack of interest in investment. Johnson felt he was presenting a best estimation of market, cost and profit to show if this was a financially viable option. He continued on the basis of the proposaj actually beaconing operational. He noted that should the facility be viable and lure out Horace William traffic what would happen if Horace Williams is closed and Midway fails. He suggested that pressures would be exerted for 1) public take over of the operation 2) approval of other uses at the facility 3) closure of the facility. Johnson recognizei the choice was difficult but recurnended denial of the proposal on the basis that it does not promote the public health safety and welfare; conflicts with the Land Use Plan for Bingham-5:7,ernshipsand is an econtmictly inviable project which may lead to a County bail out at a later date. Johnson added that if the Board grants approval it should be with stringent conditions including 1) no jets, given that he was advised that jets can land here and not damage the runway if not a routine operation and 2) a sizeable construction bond of cost plus 10% for the life of the project construction phases. Johnson added that it is difficult to get a large turnout for a second public hearing and asked that the oppositioA presence make itself known. Julie Andersen - Chapel Hill Resident, Representative of Citizens for Airport Planning. Andersen indicated that this group was formed in 1970 to seek a solution to the health and safety problems of Horace Williams. She referred to the broad base of support for closure of Horace Williams and emphasized that the existing airport was inexticably tied to the proposal. Sandra Rothwell- Chapel Hill resident, Chapel Hill resident, Hothwell noted the location of schools and number ott citizens in the vicinity of Horace Williams, citing the percentage of crashes occuring during take off. Using as an example the unforseen car accident at University Mall which was decided by the courts to not be a case of negligence, Bothwell emphasiZed that the liklehood of an aircraft crash could be anticipated. Mary Lou Rubins - Chapel Hill resident, elementary shcool teadW. Rubins ex- pressed concern about possible crashes citing the number of deaths in air crashes at Horace Williams and the increasing risk of crashes with more pri- vate pilot activity. She felt it imperative that an alternative to Horace Williams be found. C)RAFT ,- Bill Thorpes .7- Chapel Hill resident. Thorpes requested- consideration of the Horace Williams problem and asked haw many Planning Board WEIM" bexs were present. Mary Penta -IChapel HIll resident. Penta indicated that citizens Air- port Planning was a large, varied group with a common concern and recommr ended the proposal as a solution. Franklin Kirby - Bingham Tcwnship resident. Kirby indicated that on the S&E plans for the proposal, drainage facilities along the eastern side were located on his family's property and not on property controlled by the developei. David Curl- Bingham Township resident. Curl indicated his house was on the approaCh zone 1600 feet from the southern end of the runway. He inquired as to who Buck Mountain Company was. Gordon Ruthe*ord - University of North Carolina Director of Facilites e5)-1Ap-v Planning. Rutherford cited two letters introduced at the March 8, 1982) Public Hearirh indicating that the University's position remains the N same as outlined in the April 17, 1981 letter frail John Temple to Mayor Nassif. Rutherford ecmphsized tht financial viability should not be deter- mined on the basis of UNC involvement commitment. He added that UNC has ree and cannot risks a commitment to an alternative airport until it is deter- mined that the airport meets the requirements of the university and fund- ing it available to move university operations to another facility. He continued that UNC would phase out the ncm7university use of Horace Williams by 45 based planes. Rutherford stated the University was not keen on the airport business and that the proposal does have a chance to meet the university's needs. He ma:amended considerable discussion of the pro- posal. Kizer asked how many planes were university - owned. Rutherford responded five. Kizer inquired if AHD C required a Facility within ten miles. Ruther- ford noted that was an AHEC criteria. Kizer asked if Duke had the same requirement. Rutherford responded he did not know. Kizer inquired about the use of monies obtained form the sale of Horace Williams landl. Rutherford responded that Temple has indicated in a letter to Richard Whiffed that the University cannot aWestitself of property to determine available funds, but that the University expressed a will to work with the County. Kizer inquired about long range plans if Horace Williams closed. Rutherford indicated there were no plans. Kizer noted the suggestion of La satelite compus at Horace Williams. Rutherford responded that there was a rough enriPlilvtht-cap presently and there were not indications that it would be lifted. He added that future decisions may raise enrollment tolbe qpcomcdated through a satellite campus. Kizer expressed concern that the County would indirectly be funding a new campus by approval of the project and that UNC could close Horace Williams and that the land would be f up for another use. Rutherfdrd indicated there was no inten- tion of sellir the land as much of the land was restricted die to being obtained as a gift to the University or purchased with state funds. Monies obtained for the land would revert back to the N.C. general fund. Kizer inquired about the University's authority to exercise the power of eminent domain around Horace Williams. Rutherford responded that the University could do so in the name of the state. Kizer questioned why this power _ not been exercised earlier to control the area around the runway. DRAFT Williams and the proposed Midway airport were wrong and- that Eher siteseuld be preferable. Cannity submitted two letters from Peloquin Associates for the Boards' infor- mation. Whitted submitted letters from Martha and John Harris, Fischer family and Robert Fischer. The public hearing on Midway Airport adjourned at 10:25. The record of the public hearing would remain open for submittal of the referenced items given as evidence. Crawford requested that the public hearing remain open for the Board to question Bruce Mathews and asked the staff to request his presence at the July 19 Planning Board meeting. The Board of County Commissioners would also be pre- sent for this matter. Wil]-hoit moved adjournment of the public hearing. Marshall seconded. Motion passed unaninously. Agenda Item B. Rezoning Request fran Fred and Plieabeth Cates (Fran R1 to RS) Cannity presented a description of the proposal and its location. He explained the intent of the provision of districts in the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that the proposal in conformance with the Land Use Plan, but that there would be adverse impacts of the Peoposal, R8 rezoning. Cannity added that a rezon- ing cannot address the follcwing concerns; fire protection, recreational facilities, central services, pedestrian circulation, interior ciruclation, parking, building to building setback and an overall development plan to assure adequate services and access to the remainder of the tract. The staff recur denial of the, rezoning request. John McAdams, consultant to the developer, indicated this was a request to rezone four acres adjacent to the existing RS development of Cates Farm. He noted that the developeemeLees caught under the enforcement of the revised Zoning Ordinance and that the rezoning request would enable the continuance of the development according to the original plan for 32 units using the same vehicular access as the existing 48 units. McAdams addressed the staff comment regarding the proposal. He indicated that it was the intent of the developer to provide recreational facilities and that trash removal an(fire protection would be provided in the same manner as established for the firet 48 units. He emphasized that the existing development provides the knowledge of the standard and that 80 units would provide for the feasibility of recreation nanagement and maintenance as intended and orginally conceived and planned. Kizer asked whether the roads weuld be paved. McAdam responded that there would be surface treatment of the road commonly referred to a "macadam". Willhoit inquired about the commitment of the 'Down to water and sewer pro- vision. McAdams indicated the Sewn was willing to extend lines sized for this purpose fran the orginal 48 units. Willhoit asked if the Town's commitment was documented. Cannity responded negatively. Willhoit emphasized the importance of the availability of services. VeAdams stated that it was the tap charge not the availability of services which was in question. He explained that under a 1973-74 agreement regarding lines to Grady Brown School there is a surcharge of $200.00 per tab collected by the Town and for- warded to the Orange County School Board. The issue in this matter is the DRFT The School Board has dedlined to decrease the surcharge and the developer has decided it is cheaper not to tap on to these lines but to exalatd the 30 foot missing link for the line on Oakdale Drive and put in a water boost pump station! Wilihoit asked if this was the most ideal method. MdAdans responded that a booster pump station would enhance the system by addressing a pressure problem in the pressure zone. Wilihoit inquired about plans for water lines. McAdams responded that these plans were not finalized. Whitted asked if them:ewes a sketch plan for the next phase. McAdams indicat- ed no. Whitted expressed concerns regarding the streets asking about con- ventional paving vs. surface treatment. McAdams responded that the main road. of the Timbers was to state standards and the loop roads would have surface trea=. - t. Whitted noted that the lack of snow removal.had forced residents to park on Orange Grove Road. He inquired about the design of the area to be developiat to improve safety. MbAdars responded that their consideration of the problem. had been cussory but that concern for traffic was legitmate. He indicated that based on theoretical capacity the road was Lightly loaded. Whiffed expressed concern about egress/ingress on the hill. Kizer asked MCAdams to briefly comment on each of the staff's concerns. McAdams responded: #1 OK; #2 swimming pool proposed and other recreational facilities were yet endertermined, # 3 no proposal for laundry facilities and one dumpOter exists and one is p . used; # 4 access ways connecting parking lot to building and buildings to recreational facilities but no building to building connections would be provided; #5 roads would receive surface treatment as developer would prefer not to pave to state standards; #6 parking would be provided off loop off main entrance and therewculd be no parking directly on the drivei#7 the developer was unclear on spacing and landscaping would be shrubbery and mulch but no grass; # 8 this is not provided for in the development. Kizer expressed concern about traffic backing out into the travel ways. MAdams respcInded that thereuculd be loop road parking. Kizer asked McAdams feelings on the Planning Depart/met:staff concerns. MdAdams'respdnded tht this proposal was a construction which was 60% developed and thetIALIcipst information on the proposal was the existing developed por- tion. He added that recreation facilities be provided at the completion of the project.. amity indidated that asa rezoning the Board must weigh the merits of this proposal at this location with this density not weigh the merits of the proposal on the developers intentions. Wiliboit added that the pro- posal also cannot be Wilaghed on the basis of the reomemended alternative. Cannity indicated he wished the recommendation could be rewritten as he recognized ti4is concern. David Rooks -1 Attorney representing 17 single family owner occupied residences. Rooks emphasized the rezoning, if approved, wouldpreclude control over what would happen lat the site. He noted Section 203.3 of the Zoning Ordinance which outlineig the reasons for a. rezoning and indicated that the Board had not made an error but had made a consemus choice to zone this area as it was. He added that there was an established community of single family residences which served as a buffer between Hillsborough and the County and indicated that rezoning to high density would encourage further high density developmentlreduce the value of existing property and destroy a DR* FT s _ - He recommended that the Board deny the request and reaffirm the decision: ' - to zone the area-R-1. Ronald Wagner-Hillsborough Township resident. Wagner indicated he was a recent homeowner and expressed conerns about the devaluation of the neighborhood with Cates'proposed actions. He noted that two years ago twenty families„with a maximam of four persons per household and two vehicles per house,lived between 1-85 and Oakdale. He expressed concern about the drastic increase es and cars this project proposed. He empbqgzed that there were no stores in the area, no shoulders n Orange Grove, a 55 mph speed limit, many traffic accidents,poor sight distance) and children in the roads at this location. He encouraged denial of the rezoning. Dr. Christoper Byrd - Representing Edie M. Hines, owner of 55 acres near site. Byrd expressed concern that Mrs. Hines was being taken advantage of since the death of her husband who desired the preservation of the neighborhood and maintained the property as forest. He indicated a Plann- ing Board member had told then to sell out as the property would be devalued. Byrd emphasized that the existing Community's standards could not be main- tained by the proposal. He expressed concerns about the increased number of stray dogs, increased noise, potential accidents at the crest of Orange Grove road and the lack of pedestrian areas along Orange Grove Road. He indicated he and Mrs. Hines were opposed to the development and wanted to preserve the neighborhood. Rooks emphasized that many residents in opposition to the proposal had attended the public hearing, but that as the night wore on they had left. The public hearing on the Cates rezoning adjourned at 11:15 • • 164' 0?..AZE COUNTY BOARD OF Ca.2ISSIONS, Action Agenda- ,: (.1 Item A AcrioN AG:aa-\ n.--at ABSTRACT OEETENZG DATE 7/110 2 • subj.ct, PeCilleSt by Buck !"buntain Develco7ent for a Class A. Special Use Permit Zor a general aviation airport -(section 8.3.8) • P arming IFLiblio H.aring: x yes E.. oarb-rent: Attachment(s): Findings of Fact pg. 1-14 In:formation ContE=t: Jim Folatty Application Materials . _ _ -TaXMap Phone anba-r: 732-8181 EXT 342 PURPOSE: To receive citizen input and comments on the request for a Class A Special Use Permit under section 0.8.8 (General aviation Airports, E.T.O.C. and Heliports) of the zoning ordinance. MED: 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. 1953. The Property is located in Bingham Township and is shown on Naps 23 Lot 10 and rap 26 Lot 5. This pr000sal takes uo less than half of the area of these two tracts. The health department has approved an area for the installation of a septic system. There is one road proposed to serve the airport. It will be built to NC DDT standards. It is proposed that there be a maximum of 276 hangared aircraft. This does not include aircraft store- in the tie down areas. The developers indicate at the remirlm7 level 'ofzbperation there will be 1.34 - 3.60 Flights per hour by the hPngere,-, aircraft. The developers state there will be an additional 35. 95-717 extra major vehicle trips/day generated by this development at the maximum number of hangered aircraft. A 4000' runway is proposed, the maxirrum aircraft weight will he 12,500 lbs. The type planes based at the facility will be propeller driven. IKPACT: This property is located in an area designated as agricultural-residential by the Lane. Use Flan. The zoning is A-R1 general aviation airports are allowed uses, provided a Special Use Permit is granted. The development will be required to reet all standards setforth in the Zoning Ordinance. RECOml-TENPAITIONS: Staff recommendations and Findings are contained in the attached Findings of Fact. (See page 13.) • • 165 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO ORANGE, COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, OR REQUEST SPECIAL USE PERMIT Notice is hereby given the Boardof Adjustment and the Zoning OfficVerof an appeal from the ruling of the zoning Officer on the 17th day of May , 19 82 , which ordered that or I request a Special Use Permit as provided for in Section 8 for Midway Airport • • - 71 premises located ,8.5 miles west of Carrboro on N.C. Hwy.54 .Tax map #27. & 261 lot tl 10 5 said premises being within the area of jursidiction of a zoning Ordinance for Orange County as applied to Chapel Hill and Eno Townships, adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Title for this property is in the name of Buck Mountain Development Company and enclosed documented owners. . The grounds for this appeal are as follows: - • , • jMay 17, 1982. Date,' 141 / ,,,,,„.1,1-,,,61 SignaOrre o ppell-n Mr. Fred Hazard Ag t-Buck tn. Deve opment Co. 916 Airport Road, 'Chapel Hill, N.C. Address ' 7 If title to above mentioned property is not in the name of the applicant and apoP.;:t. is on behalf of such property, attach a letter from the owner signifying his approval. Appeal must be acoompanied by a small scale vicinity map, showing exact location of of property with respect to existing streets, street numbers and size of lots, nature of adjacent property uses, and other important features, within and contiguous to the property. The names of the owners of all lots within 300 feet in all directions from the property will be shown. • 182 RESOLUTION REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF AN AREA AIRPORT (81-R-88) WHEREAS, growth and development in southern Orange County have made Florae- 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. 183 ' • •• 4.4'2 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. . . 18 r- . MINUTES, January 11, 1982 Chapel Hill Town Council Resolution Concerning the Proposed Midway Airport/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 Council. Straley; COUNCILMEMBER KAWALEC MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER STRALE 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 CHAPEI. HILL REMAINED VERY INTERESTED IN ' 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 Mayors, 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 NAS5IF SUPPORTING, AND COUNC1LMEMBER STRALEY OPPOSING. THE MOTION TO MAKE THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION THE PRIMARY MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. . _ 185 MINUTES, January 11, 1982 Chapel Hill Town Council Resolution Concerning the Proposed Midway Airport/Air_park 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 take 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. .• • 1-6 5 0 Buck Mountain Development Oampany'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 or by the Orange County Planning Departrient. Article 8 Special Uses Ordinance requires; Findings: 8.2.1a)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 cumpliancelliW1 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 the it is proposed to be located, requirements contained in complies with all required re- Article 5 or Article 6. 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. 1 •' 167 „Jul 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 cemplies with all required regulations and standards, the application must be approved unless the Board shall also find, iA 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 the use complies generally with required regulations. 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) Tne-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 en-bodied in these regulations and 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 Board of County Commissioners. 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 (131-1-4) is within 4 mile of the site. The Land Use Plan does not address directly the appropriate location for an airport. The feasibility study identified in policy 12.6 has been completed. It evaluates this proposed airport site along with a large number of other potential sites. The evaluation criteria include several that are land use related: 1) location in planned low density areas 2) prox- inity to industrial areas 3) struc- 2 168 tuxes within ½ mile to the site 4) impact on agricultural activity 5) proximity to environmentally sensitive was and historic sites 6) proximity to protected watershed The site proposed for this special use permit compares well in these categories to other sites identified in this study. It main assets are that it is away from current or proposed residential 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 Creek water supply watershed. This increase in deVelogrent pres- sure would also affect the farms that are located nearby and else- where in Bingham Tol.mship. The intent statements for the Land Use Plan category and for the Rural Neighborhood Activity Node and the various statements of policy from the Land Use Plan that apply to this proposed _ follows: 3 169 ' 1 7 RURAL NEIGHBORHOOD ACTIVITY NODE: Land focused on designated road intersections within a Rural-Residential area that is appropriate for small-scale commercial uses characteristic of "Nam and Pop" convenience stores and gas stations. AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL. Land in areas where the prevailing land use ac- tivities are related to the land (agriculture, forestry) and which is an appropriate location for the continuation of these uses. _ The following statement of the policy in the Land Use Plan apply to this pro- posed land use Change: 2.1 Maintain and protect land which contains valuable renewable resources such as productive agricultural areas, managed forested areas and potential reservoir sites by directing incompatible development away from these areas. 5.1 Utilize the following locational criteria to designate the most appropriate location for the various Land Use Plan Categories: natural environment constraints land slope, hydrology, flora and fauna, soil conditions; availability of public services and utilities; transportation system access and capacity; impact ca energy resources; existing land uses; presence of productive agricultural or forested land; appropriate population densities; and the presence of historic or cultural features. 5.2 Guide growth to achieve a maximum amount of infill development in the urban- izing areas of the County while maintaining the integrity of the existing and future_open space and recreational system. The purpose of infi 11 will be to minimize sprawled development and promote a mere 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% infill. 5:3 Direct intensive land uses to existing urban areas and areas designated Transition Areas and away from areas suitable for continue agricultural uses and protected as water supply watersheds. 5.10 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 node of various types and functions at the intpr- sections 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 employment meting local needs while preserving the character of communities and protecting the natural environment. 4 GOAL SEVEN: The continues use of agricultural land and the maintenance 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 developmnt. 7.5 Direct residential, coanercial 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 Uncles-take a feasibility study before another general aviation facility is built in the County to 1) determine the level of need for such a facility and 2) examine locational alternatives given the determination of sufficient need. 5 171 ,..,' Ordinance requires: 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- Eepartnent has approved an area posal facilities, solid for septic tank installation near waste, and water. Phase 1. Phases 2 and 3 are to be • serviced through the central dicposal system which has not yet re- . ceived approval. Solid waste dis- posal will be handled by a private hauler. The Airport will be served by decentralized wells. The water needs of the Airport will be minimal. Maintenance hangers will have bathroom facilities, hangers areas will have wash areas only.water for emergencies is • discussed below. b) Method and adequacy of b) Police protection will be pmovid- police, fire and rescue squad ed by the Orange County Sheriffs protection. Department. 24-hours security will be provided by security/maintenance/ emergency vehicle with radio capa- bility to augment this service. An accompanying letter from Sheriff Knight rotes his having reviewed this plan. The applicant has not provided a letter from the Volunteer Fire Department concerning the ability of that organization to provide fire protection. The application is incomplete in this regard. Pascua squad protection will be provided by Orange County E . The accompanying letter from Mr. Baker notes his having reviewed this plan. 6 • 172 C) Method and adequacy of c) The proposed access to this site vehicle access to the site is off of Hwy. 54 110' east of the and traffic conditions around intersection of 54 and SR 1958. The the site. access road to the Airport will be built to Department of Transportati . Standards. This section off Hwy. 54 presently has 5000 motor vehicle trips/day. The additional number of trips generated by this project will be presented at the public hearing. d) Specific requirements of all d) The following are specific require- special use requests: ments for this special use request: 8,8 a) The following additional A site plan has been supplied. information is required for all Special Use Applications: Three copies of the Site Plan prepared by a registered N.C. land surveyor or engineer which shall contain the follow- ing: 1. North point scale and date. 1. North point, scale and date shown. 2. Extent of area to be develop- 2. Extent of area to be developed is ed. indicated. 3.--Locations widths of all 3. The location of all existing easements and rights-of-way rights-of-way axe shown. within or adjacent to the site. 4. Location of all existing or 4. All proposed structures are shown proposed structures on the site, on the site 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. 7 173 N-0 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 flew. 7. Existing topography at a come. 7. Existing topography is shown. tour interval of 5' based on mean level datum. 8. Proposed or existing fencing, 8. There is no fencing in this screening, gates, parking, service project. Parking spaces are de- and storage areas. - signated. They are provided at 1 space/4 based aircraft. Service and storage areas are shown on the site plan. Maintenance facilities for aircraft will be in the build- ing designated as F.B.O Hangar and maintenance Hangars. There will be 2 wash areas at each end of air- craft storage areas. Fueling location and fuel storage area are indicated on the site plan. Screen- ing is shown 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 dedicated and built to state D.O.T Standards. 10. Elevations of all structures 10. Architectural elevations of the proposed to be used in the proposed buildings are enclosed develoment. (see appendix B). 11. Names and addresses of owners II. 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 Conmissioners. 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, the layout of runways, taxiways and approach zones and overrun areas. overrun areas has been supplied by the These diagrams should also be on applicant. These diagrams are also aerial photographs that show the on aerial photograPhs. The photo- area within 5 miles of the proposed graphs show the area within 5 miles site. of the site. . „ Ordinance requires: Findings: b) Isosonic contours showing the b) A diagram indicating the effects of aircraft operations noise level has been supplied by upon land within 1 mile of the the developer. This information boundary of the proposed site. was supplied by Bruce Matthews an . was based en only 50 operations/day. c) The number and type of aircraft c)A 4000' runway is proposed. The proposed to be stored including maximmnweight aircraft will be also the storage areas for aircraft, 12,500 lbs. and the type planes fuel and motor vehicles, service will be limited to small twin engine areas for aircraft. propeller aircraft. Only propeller driven aircraft will be allowed. In Hangar areas there will be sufficient room initially for 87 aircraft in Hangars. Phase two will include up to 96 additional units and Phase three 93 more. Hangar area (phased as needed) with twelve T-Hangars and main- tenance Hangar! 1 The one maintenance/emergency vehicle and maintenance equipment will be housed in a Hangar buiY,, ing. Parking areas are shown wit1 space for every 4 aircraft. This will be phased as the project is phased. d) How on site fire and rescue d) See section 8.2.4 Related Letters. services shall be provided and No letter has been presented from a letter from the appropriate the fire department. 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 airpoLL. 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 all Aviation Administration and State Federal Aviation Administration an ' and requirements have State standards and requirements h ben met. been met. See Letters from FAA an Bruce Matthews. The following specific standards shall be used in making findings of fact for the approval or denial of this class of use. 9 175 `-‘)U Ordinance requires: Findings: a) All F.A.A. and State regulations a) The applicants have supplied a are net as a condition of approval, letter from Bruce Matthews that all F.A.A. standards for a basic utility airport have been mat. The State of North rarolina has no specific requirements for general aviation airports, - - It is important that the proposed airport meet Federal Aeronautic Administration(FAT) 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 facility and cause safety problems. Thirdly, a nonstandard design could adversely affect the potential for an instru- ment approach procedure at this facility. The Planning Staff makes reference to the following documents that sets standards for noise levels, safety and design criteria for General Aviation Airports: 1. Airport Environs: Noise Polluted rand, Parch 1979, Environmental Comment Published by the Urban Land Institute. 2. Advisory Circular 150/5200-5; Consideractions for the Improvement 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 Agnecy, Department of Transportation, June 24, 1975. 4. Advisory Circular 150/5300-6; Airport Design Standards, General Aviation Airports-Basic and General 10 _ , _ 176 Transport Federal Aviation AdMinis- tration, Department of Transportai-i July 14, 1969. 5. Airport Compatibility PlanniL , Recommended Procedures and Guide- lines for Airport Land Use Planning and Zoning, Oregon Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division, 197B. 6. Noise Control Plan Development; Seminar Notes; prepared for Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration by Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc. (DRAM 7. Planning for Airport Noise Impacts by the Arizonia Deptrent of Transportation, Transportation Planning Division. B. Urban Planning and Design Criteria, by Joseph DeChiara/Lee Koppelman, Second Edition, 1975. The documents will be the basis for setting the imposed condf, ' that follow these findings o 11 17 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 indicates that they own, is owned or controlled by the have control over or will have applicant, control over areas sufficient to provide approach zones and overrun areas. An imposed condition address- es this issue. d) Adequate land area is provided d) There is adequate land area for for all of the proposed uses, buildings the proposed uses, buildings and and storage areas. storage areas. These buildings are arranged to provide distance and a buffer between the adjacent residential land and the airport buildings. e) Screening of Buildings, storage e) There is screening indicated for and maintenance areas is provided buildings, storage and maintenance from adjacent residential land. areas on the site plan. f) Letters from appropriate fire f) See accompanying letters from and rescue agencies that protective fire and rescue agencies. services can be provided at an adequate level, g) Access shall be directly onto g) There is a secured access ease- a State maintained road. merit to hwy. 54. The access road will be built to State D.O.T. standard 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 compatible with general aviation airports. This project if built and operated according to the imposed conditions and attached narrative should not have adverse impacts on adjacent uses. 12 . _ . 178 • 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 Mountain Development Co. for a Class A Special Use Permit under Section 8.8.8 of the Orange County Zoning Ord- inance. The Planning Staff recomuends 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 in- corporated 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 Orange County Planning Department. All improvements as indicated on the site plan or stated in the narrative shall be constructed according to the construction schedule, set up on the final site plan, 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 public improverents 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 improvements 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 renegotiated based on the unconstructed portion _ of the improvements. 3. That security shall be provided for the grading, clearing, paving and stabilization of all areas in public streets and the erection of street signs. 4. That all necessary easements to permit utility (electricity, telephone, sewer and water) installation, servicing and hookups to the development shall be provided at no cost to the utility provider. . _ . _ 1 5, 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 Cunty Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. G. That dense evergreen screening be provided for any buildings that are not at least 500' from the property line. This screen material shall be of sufficient size to provide a 6' hedge within 3 years of planting. Also acceptable as a screening material is a 6' birm or solid wood fence. 13 , _ 179 7 L. 7. That the developers provide a 24 hour/day vehicle will be provided for security, fire fighting and maintenance purposes. This vehicle will be outfitted with master keys, radio system, turnout gear, portable fire extingusher, fire fighting foam, and airpack. 8. That any lighting of the runway or other parts of the airport nec- essary for safety or convenience shall be of a design and so located and screened so as not to create a nuisance cn adjoining properties. 9. That if an owners association is to be formed and be responsible for any of the approved public improvements, all such documents and orgainzational material be approved by the Orange County Attorney. 10. That the developer build a 20' wide hard surface access road along the southern property line westward to service the "T" hangars on the west side of the runway. 11. That there be no based jet aircraft at the facility and that the Airport /Facility Director pliblished by the U.S. Dept. of Conrerce (14.0.S.) shall specify that the project is not intended for jet aircraft. 12. That the developers own or have control over the height of objects in an area at each end of the runway which is know as the approach - de- parture zone. The dimensions of this zone are shown in the diagram below. If the developers do not own this area, the easenents rights they negotiate with each property owner must specify that the developer can control the height of objects within the approach - departure zone. The County Attorney shall approve the form and content of any easenent agreerents. 4/11/78 S AC 150/5300-433:CHG 2 Appendix 6 APPENDIX 6. RUNWAY CLEAR ZONE DIMENSIONS • • Primary Surface Itunwey Clear Apprvach Suzface 01) 20;2' AFPROACR OT IER rr Annroaeh ICICATILO Runway pncasceaorm..■Tralrouc.a...r.rieras..... 14 . _ _ .., IRO 51-1 , . ir., ) V its. I le' 1 .,... i . TEER RD. .r . A _mg:, • 11 c-9: 40 1. e .... .. • c, IDEKGL, 7 i Lt • / * ;- PROPOSED k. o e• og • t ;..,,.2is:r.q,-;•:: 0 to Ns." I') - MIDWAY < L g , A ') .... IRPORT 1._ ,y r960 e 5-21 ;•,' v.1.-. ). -----k , ..... ,...- 1, : . ,,----„,1.Q . ,..-7 .1 1 , 1 ( V ,..„. \ ,s . ..,, . : 1 j I' -----"--"` " . .... I PROPOSED MIDWAY AIRPORT Scale, In=4000', . .... .. . • ,..--, . _ 181 TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL 305 NORTH COLUMSI4 STREET CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA 27514 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Telephony (919) 9294111 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 Creek'Watersheds, 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. HE GOryG BOARD ,•=2e 9( h L. Hassif ' y or cc: Council Members Ronald A. Secrist, Interi m Town Manager 18e1 1114111:1111, (- ) MIDWAY AIRPORT BINGHAM TOWNSHIP ORANGE COUNTY, N.C. 1...) Proposal] by Parioquiin Associates P. A. route 4 box 1746 chapel hill , north oarolina 27514 929 - 716E3 ie. 1 , .. , ..,.,:-.....t. Thefollowing is background and additional request f information, and support documents or the or a Special Use Permit for Midway Airport: _ - — 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 4) The Orange County Health Department has provision of sewage dis- approved an area for septic tank installation posal facilities, solid near the Hangar Area A; Hangar areas 13 and C waste, and water. are to be serviced through the central system proposed for the Midway Airport. Solid waste disposal will be handled by a private hauler. The Airport will be served by decentralized wells.. The average water needs of the airport will be minimal. Maintenance Hangars will have bathroom facilities, Hanger areas will have wash areas only. Emergency water is discussed below. b) Method and adequacy of b) Police protection Nvi11 be provided by the Orange police, fire and rescue squad County Sheriffs Department. 24-hour security protection. will be provided by security/maintenance(emergency vehicle with radio capability to augment this servicc An accompanying letter from Sheriff Knight notes _ his having reviewed this plan. Fire protection needs are discussed in the accompa in letter from Edward Johnson, President-Orange Grove Fire Company. The above mentioned vehicle will provide aid in fire fighting, All reasonable requests by the fire department will be met by this development. Rescue squad protection will be provided by Orange County EMS. The accompanying letter from Mr. Baker notes his having reviewed this plan. c) Method and adequacy of c) The proposed access to this site is off of vehicular access to the site Hwy. 54 West, 1100 east of the intersection of and traffic conditions around 54 and SR 1958. The access road to the Airport the site. be built to Department of Transportation Stand ards. This section off Hwy. 54 presently has 5000 daily trips. The number of daily trips generated by a typical project of this size will range from 11 to 23 vehicles per day in phase one to a maximum of 36 to 72 vehicles per day i phase three (see appendix A) . Using these figures the vehicles generated by this project *J�� ~�� . ' Ordinance requires: Findings: to the Hwy. 54 load is insignificant. These trip generation figures are based on current estimates by Horace Williams Airport and Talbot Cox and Associates, airport consultants. (See letter from DOT.) d) Specific requirements of all special use requests: 8.8 a) The following dditiona| The following requirements for information is required for all this special use request: Special Use Applications: Three copies of the Site Plan A site plan has been supp|icd' prepared by a registered N.C. land surveyor or engineer which shall contain the following: �. North point scale and date. `' North point, scale and date shown. 2. Extent of area to be devel- 2. Extent of area to be developed is indicated. oPed^ 3. Locations widths of all 3. The location of all existing right-of-way an/ easements and rights-of-way easements are snnwn, within or adjacent to the site. v' Location of all existing or u. All proposed structures are shown on the site proposed structures on the plan. site. 5. Location of all areas on the s+ There are no flood prone areas on the sloe' site subject to flood hazard or inundation as shown on flood maps or soil's maps. 6, Location of all water courses 6. There are no water courses shown on the site on the site, including direction plan. of flow. 7. Existing topography at a 7. Existing topography is shown. countour interval of 5' based on mean level datum. 8. Proposed or existing fe"cing, n'Thery is no fencing in this projo.:t' Parking screening, gates, parking, spaces are designuted. They are provided at service and storage areas' uspacc/bosed aircraft. Service and storage ' —' — -- ' - --- � ` ' 1 8 9 • Ordinance requires: Findings: areas are shown on the site plan. Maintenance facilities for aircraft will be in the building designated as F.8'0 Hanger and maintenance Hangars. There will be 2 wash areas at each end of aircraft storage areas. Fueling location and fuel storage area are indicated on the site plan. 9. Access to site including 9. Access to the site is shown, including the site distances on all roads site triangles as required. This access shall used for access' be dedicatedand built to state D.O.T. Standards, 10. Elevations of all struc- 10. Architectural elevations of the proposed tures proposed to be used in buildings are enclosed (see appendix o]' the development. 11' Names and addresses 11- Buck Mountain Development C Inc., 910 of owners and applicants. Airport Road, Chapel Hill, N.C. 12. A fee, as set by the 12. The application fee is enclosed ($180'00)' Orange County Board of Commissioners. The following is specific additional information required by Section u'V'V for General Aviation Airport Special Use Permits. 8'8.8'1 Additional Information a) A configuration di a) A configuration diagram depicting the layout of depicting the layout of run- runways, taxiways and overrun areas has been ways, taxiways, approach supplied, These diagrams are also on aerial zones and overrun areas, photographs. The aerials show the area within These diagrams should also 5 miles of the sito' be h t ra' � n aerial p p p og p h s that show the area within 5 miles of the proposed site, b) !,onsnnin contours show- b) See Appendix C. The d nd charts ing the effects of aircraft Matthews, N.C. Department of Transportation operations upon land within Aviation specialist, show that for a 50-50 use 1 mile of the boundary of and related amount of aircraft traffic of approx- the proposed site. Imately 50 flights per day at maximum devel- opment there is no NEF 30 noise level gener- ated. For this reason no noise level contours are shown. Also enclosed is the Land Use Compati- bility Guidelines for Aircraft Noise Environments that shows the numerous functions that will be acceptable under these low noise levels including "livestock farming, animal breeding" and any human function. -' 19 0- , • Ordinance requires: Findings: c) The number and type of c) A 4000' runway is prnpnsed. The maximum aircraft proposed to be weight aircraft will be 12,500 |bs. and the type stored including also the planes will be limited to small twin engine storage areas for aircraft, propeller aircraft. Only propeller driven aircraft fuel and motor vehicles, will be allowed. In Hangar areas there will b� service areas for aircraft. sufficient room initially for 87 aircraft in Hang Phase two will include up to Va additional units and Phase three 93 more. Hangar area (phased as needed) with twelve T-Hangars and main- tenance Hangar will be used by groups, possibility including University of North Carolina, UNC - School of Forestry or University Medical Schools. The one maintenance/emergency vehicle and main- tenance equipment will be housed in a Hangar building, Parking areas are shown with one space for every 4 aircraft . This will be phased as the project is phased. d) How on site fire and d) See section o,z-u Related Leuern' rescue services shall be provided and a letter from the appropriate agency stat- ing services are available and adequate to protect the pro- posed facility. e) List land uses within the e) The land uses within the final approach zr' final approach zones of the in the area are: unused wooded land; aQrl, airport. land; residential uses; grocery store; war, office, junk yard and bar. f) Certification that all f) All Federal Aviation Administration and State Federal Aviation Adminis- standards and requirements have been met. See tration and State stand- Letters from FAA and Bruce W1auh=.s' ards and requirements have been met. The following specific standards shuU be used in making findings of fact for the approval or denial of this class of use. a) All FAA and State a) All Federal Aviation Administration and State regulations are met as a regulations have been met. See Letters from condition of approval. FAA and Bruce Matthews. " b) The site and its b) The airport will not adversely affect adjacent operation will not adversely existing land uses. :Iffect existing adjacent land uses. ' —' — ' -- - '� o�� ^~~_ . . _ t.. �i;.� Ordinance requires: Findings: • c) Land sufficient to c) The owners control areas sufficient to provide provide approach zones and approach-zones and overrun areas. See Appendix D overrun areas is owned or controlled by the applicant. d) Adequate land area is d) There is adequate land area for the proposed provided for all of the uses, buildings and storages areas. Please note: proposed uses, buildings 100 foot setback is observed here but is not now and storage areas, required by ordinance. e) Screening of buildings, e) There is screening indicated for buildings, storage and maintenance er=as storage and maintenance areas on the site plan.provided from adjacent ' residential land. f) Letters from appropriate f) See accompanying letters from fire and rescue fire and rescue agencies that agenc|e^' protective services can be provided at an adequate level. g) Access shall be directly onto g) There is a secured access easement to Hwy. *4 a State maintained road. The access road will be built to State D.O.T. standar and dedicated to the public_ h) Compatible land uses are h) The land uses located in the final a ~~ ch/ocatnd in the final approach areas for the airport include single family of �irpnr�, dwellings, office/warehouse, commercial uses, and agriculture, these uses are not incompatible _ with general aviation airports. This project will not have adverse impacts on adjacent uses. ' - - - ` ^ � KQ� �~� . ' . - �r:� --` In addition to the above information, the following conditions will be incorporated into this Special Use Permit request: 1. All public improvements Ow' access road) will be guaranteed by a bond or letter of credit in a form acceptable to the County Attorney. Security for construction of the improvements in this project will follow the phasing of the project. 2. All plans for drainage, soil erosion and sedimentation cnntrul shall be reviewed and approved by Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control. 3. The Nitrification field was previously approved by the Orange County Healty Department. A new approval for this area and use will be sought prior to construction. 4. The three Temporary Drainage Basins shown on Sheet A-2 shall be stabilized for pnndh`g areas and water level will be maintained by mechanical means and access provided for water pickup for fire fighting purposes. 5. A 24 hour/day vehicle will be provided for security, fire fighting and maintenance purpnses. This vehicle will be outfitted with master he radio system, turnout gear, portable fire extingushers, fire fighd,._, foam, and airpack. 6. The access road will be named and a road sign to Orange County Standards will be erected at the intersection. All signs will be to DDT standards. . 7. Airport construction will be started within one year of final approval and all construction will be completed within two years of its initiation. Phase one will be complete 90 days after completion of the runway, Phase two will be started within 6 months after the start of construction of Phase one. Phase three will be completed as demand dictates. 8. The runway length is 4000 foot with a 500 foot safety overrun areas on each end. The 4000 foot runway will accomodate propeller driven plane up to 12,500 lbs. The overrun areas will support rolling weight of these aircraft. 9. Maintenance fees will be charged on all storage units in this complex to provide project maintenance, security, and emergency services. 10. Any lighting of the runway or other parts of the airport necessary for safety or convenience shall not create a nuisance for adjoining property or for aircraft. " 11. All standards for AHEC will be met if they are to be a user of this facility. _ ' - _ _ ~ - � � 193 ^ '. ' 12. This Airport . el Hill. It within the distance requirements of both the City of Chapel Hill and University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. The facilities will initially be equal to those of Horace Williams and will soon after exceed those limitations including future (|LS) In- strument Landing System. Chapel Hill and UNC have expressed the strong desire to close Horace Williams. Upon completion of the first phase of development all of the approximately 50 planes presently housed at Horace Williams could move to the new facility. After the first phase additional planes used directly by the University could be transferred when the University commits to this location. 13' The aerial photographic material submitted is according to zoning ordinance and shows 5 miles from the site and the FAA zones for this runway. 14' Runway crossover will be controlled with safety stop-go lights at crossover points coordinated with landing aircraft and supplemental shuttle buses as necessary. These will be master controlled by the fixed base operator. 15' The Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) shown on the aerial photograph overlay and the enclosed plans will be cleared of all trees prior to completion of the runway. All land shown within the Obstacle Free Zone will be owned by the developers. '' _ ' ~ - ' ' i!� - � "�� u . Appendix A MIDWAY AIRPORT TRAFFIC GENERATION Hangared planes Phase one 87 units = 87 units total Phase two 90 units + 6 units = 103 units total Phase three= 87 units + 6 units = 276 units total _ From Horace Williams Airport records range of 150 flights/month/month to 300 flights/month including based, transient, and training aircraft for 50 based aircraft. From Talbot Cox and Associates (Wilmington N.C.., Columbia S.C.) General aviation airport consultants Rule of thumb standards: 2,3 occupants per landing/takeoff 1.3 vehicles per landing/takeoff 15 hours of operation/dayvernge From Department of Transportation: 54 has 5000 trips per day Phase one 87 aircraft = 261 to 522 flights/month divide by 30 days = 8,7 to 17.4 flights/day average 15 hours per day (/a.m. to 10 p.m.) = .58 to 1-16 MS` time 1-3 vehicles/landing = ,75 to 1.5 vehicles/hour times 15 hours per day = 11'25 to 22.5 vehicles/day Phase two 183 aircraft = 549 to 1098 flights/month divide by 30 days = 18'3 to 36.6 flights/day average 15 hours per day = 1.22 to 2'44 flights /hour times 1'3 vehicles/landing = 1'59 to 3'17 vehic\es(hour times 15 hours per day = 23.85 to 47.55 vehicles/clay Phase three 276 aircraft = 828 to 1666 f|ights/monyh divide by so days = 27.6 to 55.2 flights/day average 15 hours per day = 1'84 to 3'68 flights/hour times 1.3 vehicles/landing = 2.39 to 4'78 vehicles/hour times 15 hours per day = 35.85 to 71'7 vwhicies/daY - _ _ 7 ^�� Ordinance requires: c) The number and type of aircraft proposed to be stored including also the storage areas for aircraft, fuel and motor vehicles, service areas for aircraft. d) How on site fire and _ --- -- rescue services shall be ^------- _ _ provided and a letter from -----------' the appropriate agency stat- ing services are available and adequate to protect the pro- posed facility. e) List land uses within the e) The land uses within the final approach Zones - final approach zones of the in the area are: unused wooded land; agricultural eirport' land; residential uses; grocery store; warehouse/ office, junk yard and bar. __________ - - '-_ f) Certification that all - Federal Aviation tion AdmiL. nis- L. and State stand- ards and requirements have been met. The following specific standards shall b` used in making findings of fact for the approval or denial of this class of use. a) All FAA and State a) All Federal Aviation Administration and State regu|atioos are met as a regulations have been met. See Letters from .onclition of approval. FAA and Bruce Matthews. b) The site and its b) The airport will not adversely affect adjacent operation will not adversely existing land uses' affect existing adjacent land uses. • , �� =� �vu Ordinance requires: 9 Access to site including 9. Access to the site is shown, including the ' d site triangles as required. This access shall sAte distances on all roads be ded}ca�6and built to state D.O.T. - used for access. ' Standards. 10' Elevations of all struc- tures proposed t6 be used in the development. 11. Mountain and addresses 11. Buck oun��n Deve|opment Co., Inc-, 910 of owners an d applicants. Airport Road, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514' 12, A fee, as set by the 12. The application fee is enclosed ($180 Orange County Board of Commissioners. 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 a) A configuration diagram depicting the layout of depicting the layout of run- runways, taxiways and overrun areas has been ways, taxiways, approach supplied, These diagrams are also on aerial zones� and overrun areas. photographs. The aerials show the area within These diagrams should also 5 miles of the site' vu a � be on aerial photographs that show the area within 5 miles of the proposed site. b) Isonsonic contours show- b) See Appendix C. The enclosed charts ruc ing the effects of aircraft Matthews, N.C. Department of ^.—.-p _—n operations upon land within Aviation specialist, show that for a 50-50 use 1 mile of the boundary of and related amount of aircraft traffic of approx- the proposed site. imately 50 flights per day at maximum devel- opment there is no NEF 30 noise level gener- ated. For this"reasnn no noise level contours are shown. Also enclosed is the Land Use Compati- bility Guidelines for Aircraft Noise Environments that shows the numerous functions that will be acceptable under these low noise levels indu' `g "livestock farming, animal b.ced\nc-" and any human function. _- `. ' � 197 . ,t ; II 0777=PHONE712.VAUBILLSBOROUGH 942-6300 CHA.P.M..TULL =9.,PHONZ 712.- Ili I. P- PnVit Sheriff of Orange County HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA May 11, 1982 Pelaquin Associates, R. A. Route 4, Box 174B ' Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Attn: Mr. Lee N. Mehler Dear Mr. Mehler: . . . After reviewing your plans for the Midway Airport, Bingham Township, Orange County, North Carolina, I can assure you that our department will provide protective services at an adequate level. It is our .. .. - policy to patrol as often as possible by any given development, etc. We always patrol two to three times per shift and more when time and personnel permits. Very truly yours e.0). . 49 C. D. Knig ,t / Sheriff, Orange County cDK/p • • .. - . ' . 9.8 ORANGE COUNTY CHAPEL PILL NORTH CdROLINA 27514 Estakace1775 May 11, 1982 Mr. Lee Mehler Route 4, Box 1748 Chapel Hill, N. C. 27514 Dear Mr. Mehler, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed plans for the Midway Airport. After having met with you, it is apparent that considerable thought has been given to the ability to deal with emergency situations at the sight. One suggestion that night be worth consideration is a service road entering from Highway 54. This road could be used as an emergency exit should the need ever arise. Again, I would like to thank you for allowing our suggestions and Input. Sincerely yours, Bobby L. Baker Emergency Services Director BLB/pdg . . . ) STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham, North Carolina 27253-0766 ■ May JAMES B.HUNT,JR 12, 1982 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR WILLIAM R.ROBERSON,JR SECRETARY Mr. Lee N. Nehler, AIA Peloquin Associates, P. A. Route 4, Box 174B Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Subject: Revised Preliminary Plan - Midway Airport Off NC 54 - Orange County Dear Mr. Mahler: We have reviewed your revised preliminary plan dated May 6, 1982. Based on the information in the plan, the location and alignment of the pro- posed street will meet our standards. .__ Our final approval will be our approval of the construction plans. At this point, we do not foresee a problem with the street meeting our require- ments. This review pertains only to the proposed street and should in noway be construed as Department of Transportation preliminary approval of the air- port plan. If there are any questiaas, please advise. Yours v 7; truly, 4 S. J )ones DISTRICT ENGINEER SBJ/NAB:jbh cc: Orange County Planning Department _ . •20 0 ,.., ..: :....,-_,.. , Appendix B .1 - TrI-574, ..1.-- ---,- ,...---.tr,twor-tto.p.-t-r*"*. rx..1Ntr. it--■,,, ...,.•-• ?:-;'....,. 5.1.,:"T -N.4r,5" ........'4--e. 34-4....,p,,- - _-:"....<'r',"•■„i.-,'"I'L -ta.:,,,,......,,..,....h.,--. . ----..- -.....,,,,:-.--.1 . - -.----1.,;1,4,,.G..,A,_.-&-.:;. 4,--... ..--- 4 .. ••••••-Am=x2o47=. . :,44'44.:14.f14,4,..1,-;.;4;41';',•:a..144:-.....,,4,■••,: •4..r..,•,••„...Ni,.,",,".:••••• '',..,•,.:'•-:,...•,,•4 , ,,,,,...a.:4.,r--- -4,..--..'•'-*';•7•*';',za,.-ITZZ.4.4mra,tud•ona-**."'*"'"'; rZqXQV•''Si,.:• 'f• T'7-:'.... ,..-..-::•-••,••,-.^••*"'":".... .,,•—•-zzt,44 ,...ku.1.4.,..1 - ' . • • N.2-1.4.-••••• 1010,S6.0•.••••••• -‘-mhe, • .- . - ' •• ""'"-, -..,•1 :`'-aia,•;.Z44,=Frt`'`'"11.7".•,,••'""..1'?•4.•-rig.;77•.-..75.k• • .,-•,..15,,,,•-•"'"4"4,4,,,„ • .*,7-••11,.•',.---•-,:..t. ..' ....,1 ,,, '' k. .._- ..^-,-,!,...-;:;:-,....-•,..-.1, ,t,,,,,1„,,_ .:1-6,;!•• •",'•.% - '''',”...,- '-';'•,,-7.A"--.-••'1--,`,.--,,,''',;',-'••••7:=•••" - -- 4,..„.,.... ' -•-• - ''1," . • -- ' ' ^ [., 'S:.',,,,.•:,4••:„,".74:_....„,....,,:','",',"'"r14c-t•i„,,4,4.•••?'",••• .„.-.7. • -j-:-2----- ,- -'`•- ., , .....,..-..r4z-,-,......n,;r,„,"'.*".z..„.....s.,_.,::R------. ,0,-,-:-,0-'', ..--- ' ---'.1.7.'1' •■••mr"4,,,'.1:'15.;:::7;,..'11„ . • .,.'`*"ti."..,'7,71-' -- 'r-',4'-1. '' . :1•1''',1'-'': •14,1,,,t-4 . .-"*17,1'+ ..,..tf.,•-•, ___,--,-,- ••"=""„.. .,,,,,,e''', 11',..1r,..,1"0:,"•,ir 0.,"0,-::::: •.1.-'1..1,•••••&••-••••1.•'%4 „.., 're,.,-.•'.."•,-:«IL .,..,••••-••,'''...,-.,,,tV...••••••••••,..,,,trt,',•'••••.1.":":1,,.,...--,-'•1.-•-• '• r:;-......- .-4--4':--,- .--_r--,-.4---- 1,....- 3 .,;,;!,,,,,. =r:..;.1.,-.. ,.s,t- .. :-.c-rrzY,,,,, ,;i-,.7 ..?..-_A,,,,- ___..-.„,-. 1.•-: =- -,-;:--,-----i -:-..4.'., -...,-",:-., -,FA.7.-: ',', S.2:,Lr-Ti .. ,AR,..c.3-,:-.::''...-'; 7,-;:::--iir"-.::n.il"?..-&-t-t:24:',% , .,''...:Iii3V;-;;;-1:1411.7;"' .....,,,,,-'7v,5L ...--:.,- =•:.`-''-._yr''''fj.•*''-•'''•**• ' T5-'": ?''%4''''-1:'"••4'''7•-:'AT•c:4'•I,Ti'*e+'•i:•,'r•'r' -'.* ,•-d4-1. 4117.* *'"I'''•:-. .i .*t4L2•4;-*..1.:' '' ''.'.„.....,..--,1",-',,f;;-..•'' r'''.*.`,.4:::••; ****t.,,..-"' 1r''' ''rT:4;;T:;-,,-- ,.k.4.-L.7e."H.,;-: 74■7/.1 .:S.**'ZZ,'Pl'ifrr4*-'-'*' „.:,,,,.._'''.4i..,,4._„.4,--T-7...."-•*'1,„„_,V •kr,„„„ , '4.7='0'' 'A•74,474. 11=„1.itt,"'"' „..•••-•;:r •••-• :,4"):.,„....•••7' ,.....,;•--' •-4,v-,7" , -,-*,-.:cr...),,---,...,*,:::::',,-.:-.-.N.,,t47----- - ....,„ ----'4,---41.',:iv-fs.:4-_,:is---,, -i:iii----;'•4-:,,,,;',1,5-:„Iit3cilf,ri.i-Y---:;=,'-- ' _--.----___-:;--" ..;17 : ,..,,..,......"_,,,,.,-,...yi, --,,t'....,v...;,. -...,, ---...,.... ,,,,,, ,....?..., --",..,,,.2,27,,,,7,-,.. , . ..„,,,.:„1,.. ''''''',,,:,,',5,r,..-!,.•,''''' •-•.'••-...'"7,,,,,,,a)•°.7.-:: 1-i'L'''' ''',,,,„,,„,...'''",,,,,,,,,,,. ....,... .:••,,,,,,,,,,,:''''''''••.-,,, , 1 1 . .*,---- !..:*-7.'--,--. .„,,,,,,_. '''.--,-"-.-..,,,,,,,..._,,,_ : .,:,..4?:.**:'„i:.=-- ,-;• :',.4..V"15-''.- ---_,;,.---3--.--------------' FF.,.44:4?,>,'A)',7,'-',.- 1Rf-e',..-, *--' ---... 7 t._•.' , - • . ,,,,,,,.. .2„...,ig, ,,,_.'L_—;.--. ..ri±:i.. .-_---,,,,,:s-:,1-0,--., .,...r.-----:-....7 t,';-:::.'%'''''''•'-,....4:,%.^ ..',*:;.x..."'":po.' -"› . ' ., t,...;,....z>,.. „.„,•,,,,,,,,....).'fr ,,,,,,-7.:,,,...,..:.-,-..,...-.....f....„--,-,......,11..f.'t., „.,.....i.-;-:,,,,,,,,,,,,,;,......... .. .....- .,.....,rge:40.....- . ,.• , ,..>. ....-=''....,.. .....,, -.-.... ::-..Ar-,;,.. „.....7-4..--.....,4,.....,...--'...,-r. ;1/47-il.,.::::,:t-,„...--, ,,,..,4,;••^'''..41"•• „... P''''''-'7 --,4",;''',...,-,1 :',..'''''';;• -•-'7.-';''',. .,:itj ;■.',•,`:. ;'=';:it.t.'*..,:t;*. ,,,,,r■t7". ..e•'!..7' ,s00' L.....t.:7 -5-'5.e'''•• Lr!.,-,..V:1•74-4,-7-,..se.,-, ,•••,'•>1'•-='••*".;:,:;• :"'•'.....•-•, 4";. "A'''.'--•,..,5- 144-- _...e..7t..,"` -:;,. ..."""' ......--= :. 1:' 0..•.".'.`,...,4.-......----.7,,..-''."--- - .---,7.,:-..;,,,,,---..„4---.).--... .,::-,1--4,--i..,-,. --- ..,.......„..... ‹...-.....,. .1- n';:;;""' ,,-,k."`"1":.':.;:::'.;::'' , '.'4.i.s111:-.....z.2-,..-----. lt,-.:, n-';'..:,„;....,1 ,.; *,'..-..,,,,..gr:1---,:4-."?....,_,•:-,-;--,....,-.6v..%-.,; .,-.,4,---...„.....---- ,..,-, _ .,-- ;700' r.,-.4'',. =;,24:,- */.;‘,.:,"''',:..,-..t.r7. '-..,- .--,'-'-"-:•--5-r..??.:'';‘,.4.:Tr*-•'',-,,i#7.,,,,3 ' ' .......' v.rfjl'7 il ....._.=.... .,,,.....,,,.,....„1,,4, ,,,, .... ......1:,%,:: ..'.;!_p_; ,.. .:-..7,",,,,,,s1-,-,...*:.... .-` . ,-',,-,-..-.,:,-;-,,.-='. ,.• . •--,:.---,--::::;„,,z7 . - rY'fi CA L T — ,, .....,_ F1.2H—,4-7:-..---,..71(.--,..7-7::7::•-----s-"' :---- - ., pg: -: ais ------,-------- -- , „ ,,-,•.--=!,-11,-..i:‘,..,!,70 , T..-iti„.........),..,„_. . Nilin ,111 ......,...-=:_ ,,,..„3,!..:,,,. ,-t.:,-vvz,..;%,., -----------L, 42l:7t.::-:21.06- ILL_ .. 01,.,,irl4wisal";.ffe..,",: tii..4.:,:. .. ., . :jr.av,IpY.r.v.."1-!...1.ifi,...'L.p141.:?:,:::.' 0,-`24144.. 4,"---.,m.: • .------„---.-.... ..;•-4-.-4:4- Y,IV- ,..-. • . ' s'"- - .,--' -----' - .r.".-- ,F,7x.v,..1-,, ,::-.-4"-:la.,%.""„Z,"7',gii.'n..",-:.'..- ' • ' .w...-r- • -- . - • - ..!I -' "'''''-•-• .' .., :',..Z.:.7.'z.,:-44;44kti ' ,.P.Z:t.W.'441-Y.--.4_ . „,'''''• •'-.-44.... . ''''''''. •444,6%--,t• 1 11.- 1,;;;;r:'••A'•'411,144".e.141''e.',.. , •-•_,.:•Zi•,, "'7-.'.."51.•:4•1•■•"It`,.....,,17"Ar"-Z7Zr,•-Z■W,4,71 „,„_.-eZ7J1- 4•,•,::'- ..,,, •••••,,•,...,-......, .../Ir -3.1frq.i0.1T-4t.A1,1i ''' '.---:-.---',..1-i--,,, ' - , --- -. .,,, ,...,•*.-.. .,.0;•*+:„.0,,,:;1,,,,„v-e.:;, ,,,,,,..,2„.,-.4..r..«,-siiei.:6,, ,---'1.,Ew4.-za,,,„-.---m,t-tt,,44„,....zz.,•,-..,--2,..,..,_, In-A-_____,PZ,,,,,,,,_,___,7.4,----miz. ,,,,..,,,„___*-----"----- ..„44 , ,...-1,,,f,4 ,4,/,--.;.t.. -p.y.',1:7.e...T--:,,,.:2,-;;-:=4..„.4,-$.- s .....:---,,,-;,--."-_,Ls--,--,1"..7r-Au f.':°..--7,;i4s1:11-11if.g?C`V.I.F?.:.'r" :-'4::4Z-r'...7",-G:41-E.f2L.ItcPATI-t,_,..F4;r41,71--..•' m2, ........,..„..., ...--.7.--,,,r:,......t,......,-...m......w.-,,A,--.5i2.;?.. .r......a.r, ....,‘,,,--F.;*".44.'-'."''', i i N.:11..,;.P...t44,:AL,:bir.,-,,,'....:.....xxj.:,;.,..ig,..,,,,L., 4-,:,,,,:il.....,± ...,,,,..„,,,,,i,..„,„.,:, f".t...,,tf.. ,,,,,,,,,.#Z.'Z' • ''....ktril i'iv 4'4 riii;114-..4.,4i-'1 cig7775, ,41..1,-.4- P.&:-."‘'L'eV.:'S-14=-t-V...'1.t,,r'1:::k6r:.?'-'":• , 1•4 14, .i ,,,•1:4%'': •1'1,...4.,..r1-.-. --...-1,-.:. ,.. g,, ,--,A...--..,-4,-.:,--....,4,-- . r-,,,,,-;-• -,•$:=-1i4P4',1 !"4-7 42.' '1.:-.ZZ:C17,tti,ifi4•"-k".:'il4•4144 '''Z','I'V''''••• ••;4171-:•*`-lAfVF"•■•li'5• ••,•74/.24:4471''%'''' . 1.-- -!:. ,:„!,,,,...., ,,.e.,,z ."..-'-..... ..z..,,..•:,:,,,,,- - ''.ii',',:1,....r.,..m. 7,t' '.4..t.,'.I 1.1,'"-"=:" :41:''**, •°11` • .... 14,"'"-1,.t,.1,4,:..-X44,:t4iA,,,..;:''''',",4';,• /..-.!-,4,,. "1;•*•'• '415;-;Eri- . Ale, CI) Q.ZW,F"-7-7,.. .-:"--'777.---', ,t, . 4i .' ii,..,...,;::::::,rtrman: r , ...? '-,.. ".... . ''' ' ,.-..."n''.. ', 0'.1,.....,,..::'^'S..q..%1,,,,'..,;•"^`,......,*, i.■,:1..411:.11 'ffit.Zi ' V . 1 ' - " v,...44Z,71::-:.1?:,;;;,,;„.:1;:,;,!,:.:?...,,q,,,,,::e.,;,4,tr. AliV+4 1 i,,:ff.''''. f.f:t.-r..,,,;,,,,,,,5......,r-,,-71-' ,.....7,2rz.,...71-=--._,..r.,-,•:,',:i. ....W.r:4441-4,q, ,I.'4,14,-.6.7r.5-i?-.•!i;z,5,t....i?.q.:,,I. ....,... ...••:: -,-.,-..-... . -po.ii!....-..,-.3,-,k,=:,,,?..N.,?..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ir,Q•--.;.,.-_-7-:.Fa-61:-,.,-1,f41.?.,,,,,:4,... )..,1-,, ,..-:*-.,--,t.,.... -— ...',,ELF,,„!...,5 1 L.,y,,,L Li....,p,...,•,";,..•,t .'„VZ,..1,i..16',4,./..,.?:.;:: ■••;',,,,,,:,:-...+,,,,,S5L2,4;,,,k144;..1,7Ta.}.,,,,,,-4—, .....-.• .... . ' '•— .. . 1.1f.:LI vn:::',.,:,4. , -,' . -Fyn CAL- MAINTel\IANC, -FAN/6AR ... ... :201 0 1 e`11 C r • Appendix C DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS )3 A C TO Po rr Y FROM: 1-2)Ri)C5 7/Yinrritd''''S 1E' 1NtA DATE: 'A-/ ES HAt4PL a SEE ME Peg rlie PeOLie.sr ..116.'" tsb14-)6-6-' COL,tity /Ai 6- o REPLY CI MY SIGNATURE 73°11" ,A) .., 61"toc,./4— ',Joist-- co",rouia D AS REQUESTED " ID APPROVE C tin P.T 5 6 r tsc 6 P/5 ,e— /7 141 0 NOTE AND Pi V 00t...4sr)couc„1 CI RETURN CIRCULATE CI FILE ,„„A. DIETRIRUTE Dc Dorms TELEPtiOttE CALL FROM.-...... NO .... AM TIME PM ‘.• .•.:, • • . II • • -''',Or''-'4.;%"ltrirZICPC'ArlitFP4',71W4g-rlt-ZZOREVir ,O*Otif •,. .• priM014fiiifei' ' I { i1t'jI)i1I1• '14'.34.4*1`444.}7j. - . " `S.:-..7-1•44.1444;140:•■•440 .4khat.4raii••:i:-0 • .•.•• . • - - •- _ . • 'L.14, 20-% 1 , s,„xpos vit c.%JP-vas FOA C-Erva-Rig-j. / pai 4rAprs C p.ves oev6-40.0ao #ellehopm, . AtOt ..7 .e-x •050116-- c-o•rv'rov/k5 Fait (5-51vgltrtg. AVLS-7-10,-0 "4-1APCArs 1Y (3Ic ' 9 13'47P0Ar Aso. F.4-4-04).5-. 7 , 4 ece-r.oe-Ft 15.7 ce-or"P pa 45- rr,AI-Er-.S ,A,v 0 ctJew - A F1XT C Leve-s..s °A. °P7-' 'J s.„ 3 Pe -$ -t3 LL p CA c e^s, O F• FIV tr'^,5 15 eArg.rta.v5:„ 3 13 IsrAt oP" Ls se F4 .4 si",6,46, ArAporr.r 1".eRbis CiPb-Arrrto.t.,; f,r) OPeArrrgara IS A 7-Axgo -p. OF Lmovoi,...,G.. ows F-oAs-euuero I3Y ,4 r-AeCeoPi. A, pg 7:z 6- 'se S Miir MC01000 F 56,(;;;.)13-o., P,OL.‘ le•••tl Ave- O'?#'Y caPe1247-1o•vs, I!! rog Puleepost,s or -lilts T ec, A cN *Jbt#Cr CICt.,As .+5 e a/v P rawia Peac.a.v)-,449-e-s op, rue6-.,..7. .s-.4,4 4-121,7 et>: C 41113102-si,tv,-5ro .4s 0/u)) C 5 % C5-N) EA)6,,,„/5.„ fte PA esen.tra rrte AVER Pl-frE P A cE-Airet tre op 012 eft»rl eras 741.0-Der +SY e.q., ...Y PeRC7/46-eS e"16-t■oe caPeeto?-r-to,,s P/4 v 4466; 0 7o CA.utRev..arem A5 r-)) roS% C7"), ø% C pr'-) , 4ivo 4-15.0: •Da-$ ro ANTPCr prerp-e) 0 Or,,REc.rrc.n)• A irs.44.4..c.e.0 use C 1E. a4e.,-. brREC.4-,ond c-7s, a /5 (n.,Otc.ArE0 7-, S-C, CA) rk+X Gen,ro....et, C j1:1- P — I). Foork cc$7,P.4 frri;4-Y qs-4.cr• 0P6•74,971Daa CI e. e9x.i oeuG ".0 I 47 t4 1"" JS USED GO 1-14 T•k4s 4.o.t16-efi eciu-rouP,4- • 7--)44; 7-7+Kepp.p. OrAecrto,u ) , Atoz ,4 24- s r 09-.8-$ 4 VA•,,I-Jory4 o,J •-$4 c c 014fer„ ilpoc. Lifttr l• 467-47Ar.11116 Allalket-6-12 04./.L.y trsa c2%,= 14tReettrt 7-0 .4.1e-ftAes'r gO o P2FulriDA)5, DereAm•A,Pei fxII7 p tu 'Sri,v zd-if•T 0 Rati.ua re, '6%, • 5%, c A: 5 % 3 , Dere,ttrowe 09„,,,,A 0,1, r. r-o t .l4 co/1-4- 6A.,61,1E 0 POR no",S, Po t,. D r-a 510.., e 910, o tt. 0.96. De-TeRnionii: 5 Ps- r /iv oeu La r. : ••• 20,3 A6-6 3, ruRN To 7-71.6s61S O/46-PS -S A 0 158r�a7r,Iry EI' -6 Ill 4,.t.Y 0PtRr}r'cn;s 6, (J v c.1e #4PPRoAR+nra OPekKir.u,vs 1-lc-1+0„vb� 1j TE 2 ■..e of APPnoPR.xrt N/ -'- /q.vp 'rt....)rN G-n,e-.,v6 PcRcc+vr4 Oe$ . preAarNrr rtc4os.c r Ttte corvrouA, sc'r P,eARE Se.vr,rvo- r-,•teT NEF 30/ ANp 3s ,s SriowN CAr ore.; N© ev Leo C G `rr*U,Q„$ AAe 6-aeve-A 4reA QY o Pe-Aorr,oN-f of t +-1,9 4 e-vat-s CoNrR„v ea Iry rH,s "IrvR}YSri,T /P 'L Co/vro•.R. (s -g t•-•"/ 4-5 4-$ AJ.g OPERr4r,o,.,6 on) a 5-1-tE 6 ,119.., con,4 Cr) G.vr VN4-OEoiA76 Ta (5-4A,eARr6 Tt-,>r cororouR • B. Tuft& 7o rh,S at0 ctfrlrar,$ AA,A Ooc., y 7'10c% CaNrov? Ser Nvm73a`t. pt'Te.Am,NE01 ANA 'rig-E A-PPRcPR.r'rt Au”'L.J4V (J .6 S P/-r — t Q 714E LErrEAIgo con,rova Aa 4te-ScwrS 1-+1e OeSrbn.•?Tao • /e-P CpnrTOUR FOR TES (rrV4N CP • A. r•o.✓ XArnPtc 06-7e-itrowe /ac,SE CCA.rvVRS r.:/ evcp' Fort RN /9,/+0ORT• 4VC4,}(jrN(r f u o O P c`,e'-r -J-S t' h 44y, . .S`Ys I3 air/4- A/r b r+-r o P&ta r}T•-49-0 ,. 'Jld% ',No- TW:u c°1✓Ornrc OPc3.2/9r.wvD, /WA 4 >S-as- }7uNwAy SPA or /. %149s-0' vru P,-6-E 3 S ,p,¢r.1 FoR roo Ave-. e,-a 7t . ()/../OZ2 Y1t,3 oc•aarc`s L1Na Fo.2 •r", ?mr a, Rt4n,Nc. 4G/toss / NCF 7,0 6S Fpvn+A oN c0/vrovo. a G� NBP XS aN +Z 0 ever 30 bov A L> R v 1..-0 rid e3P- 3 5 01e 6-R5/ rz li S Fuiv ER..Wrao. el'. 71-'040 To CHARTS N67O6,4 ,v6F -P.-)y- Ci R. 75°.1S ,CV•+rurf7Y sr,r tr s, 7'VRN Ta 7-M& Gfrr}A7 6AEN r ' P-7S•'�.' 6• .2444,6 7,re. rrn'E Son c'o,vro,..4 c-0A Resp0,v rnr4- Yo "oe 0FSr4 t?n ,•6F co Alrou;` . U 51 iv r>+£ 4•Rrp LYSr6r„ T'itR+vtr-dA Oast e4 co"rrou,Q To noi.e ... , -,,q;-• ... 204 ...,..:.(.., p,-94.17 3 1 1 PRop ci/v.ty I So 0PEAAvoAis, /opAy oile-P 3r" NA N A ei A n)1) NA • N A . . _ 3 4e N A NA iv A e/xt .5 c 5 b 56- N ori ... ., r:: ."SN - aar r' 6. 0 5 o 5 e Iv xi . _ 5 AI -125 r ID : I Siv - 1 pr' Sc 50 i 5,v - - V..,..,' . - ._. /00 0 PEr2,47704.45/4,41)1 0 rti-ii,7' i D 15. Iv A NA SD 5E" iv . . 5c. 50 .5•6 NA 7•SAI•'• . 117' A.C. e•a-ii-.) 7:14.7 'su>a 6 01, '' 'CI r • c 3.,c) 3e "14 • S 5N -aar I C 0 Fe- Sc S. 0 5a .. . 265 •. - :),..'...:, E 0P 0 Ai 2.), i go o p&Aprnyv.s i D/9 Y . b rye'F 2.s A",E•p 0 N6,c 35 ,L) . Psev - far r 3c •3.0 "1,4 '/C. a•sou-,2f r , 3 c 3 4 36 r. •S.A,-42-T 2 C P. 4 P-E. J4 - - .T., 1 E. ti 1 A,EA+-3/2fr 5 Et 5 c 5'LI 5 4" 4A I - fir C.. . , 0 S-p.. -1.g?r 1 C 1 ,D lb- Ai A . :,......... 414F- Seu ;10o cf,P / c ' NA- „eyu -20r 1 G I 0 1 li ,X,At 5 c... -...... g 5.9- or a c 2. n P.tg ivii .5” 8 Sc. •3-4)- 307- 5,1a - iztr‘ 58 5c 56 s Er iNtil ,err 1-1 6 4 C. 9 6 4 i e-• . . . . . 1 . ., p096-6 s I PRoP am Ay I 5 a tvep Z0 N6--P Z$ ,v e- 30 ov ep 3 5 04./ - 0 r - a a 0 4.4.1. . IC. lb am — a Pr 5 8 Sc: sa se (25/v - 3or 1-1 8 4 c 4 r) 4 5 . .. .. IC ID le' N4 dr4). I/c. cit D L4 6 .., 2;: ..2•s-lv --,.../117" 8 3 c '3 A 3 e- :,-.: -: '•.i I ,s-p., -a or' 3 3 3 c- ,o 3 e"-: liZ!' $ J -or 2-/13 Li c ci D 46 13 ' / c '13 IC 4... 0 .3 00 ppArtnedus oxty ON-or I C ID i 6r NA ØN /T7 58 1C. aaiv -3pr 33 3c. 34 3 - Li 8 14 e_ CC tz• 41-4... 3 a :rot/ -31:47- 2 a 2.c - 0 .2d" L5-044.)- (7r ti 8 4.64 c‘r.o ela 33 3 t..., / 3 / c 1 15 t e , - 2O IR • . .. _ _.1 _ _ _ . . ,..;..--- • 1 . _. _ _ ___ _ _. ._ . . i . ri I 14 • o 1 # 1-—-f---- I 1 _ n t-- t—1.---h---I-- 1 i. - .•I- .1 0.. 1 • L 1 + f 1 1 . _!-- . 0 ■ t -1 T , I ! I I '!- r ----.,--• 1 t - - /11 Cs.i ' 1 . • -I- .4.-- cn 1 I 1 i f t , I - • r--1 • -1.---- Ell 1 ! — 1 SIII 1 , i . _ h.- --.) III _..1._-..1_ L_t_ ..t -4 i - — _4_4_4 . .._L _ 1 i c. N I lil -t , f 1' -;:f t i -I-- .. So• __1___ 1-1._ ..1._ ry c . .. _ Mil I 1 ' I /I- i - --, --\-4, - - - ..... .._ is --1--,---,-- - 4- ..+ -I- -- - -I - -,z -,-- , 1 ._ _ _. 1 • 1111_ 111 " -1- 1 III Nv, I. _I._... _,. ! II .2 r Ti , - -r -- - - - - -t -I- '=)- , 4--- : _ - l- I 1 1 i i r I I co- . ; I :- ---; --I 1 itl i ; ' I 4-1— 1— c.,.. _,_ I I -I- a L'-. .--2 L I .' - ' , :," I.'.. 1 --I —1 - I- 1 c 11.---- r-- 0:,z 747... _L_.. • __L....4__.,.1- • N • • akip, -I I -I- -4 . 11111 t in cv -st 1 ri2 eg trl 1 OEM . _ II C4 Ln -11•1111.E111 • -Lll ..0 .....r. .. 140...0. -, ci--t Mini illnall ,..., c, , „.... 0 0, co N. ,0 trI •cf cn co «- cp .-- t--,.1 (-1 ..4. in .0 i., co 0. 0" .— 001 10 spuosnoto ti; couo490 . . ._.... . _.- .._ '208 ::7 L Ill IPI -- i II ■ N O. • _ .......■1 ,51,poi �1111■■■■■ O _ ►1 1111■■■■ 11111 F■irl,, N11■■■ � MIUMMN••• 1 Mir •••••111 MEM pi Imo 1 1111 ■■11l logs Asomm II n ■ 11.11 1 ■■ ■■1111■■■ ..■ ..... o1 c ■■ ■■1111.■►r ■ UUu �. UURUU ■ UUd I N ■■ ■■ ■� U ■ ; m c iIjr4iiIIIIi■ ; • hi 'IhIIiIL . ' ■ ■� U■� N al s m 3S" momm 1111■ roc c s ti N ■■■■■■■■■ ■■ f_ © ■■■■■■■■■■ N Gi 1111 1111■■■■■■■ ■ b ■1111 NNL ._I ■■U=.1111 UUI a c9 " G7 P co t, .o L t7 r) ni r p .- N C') ' u7 •0 h CO a 0 . 1 3 JO spunsnay l u! 93"490 .' 2O3 ■ , ...., ..1:.‘,...' . .. III cc) _ _ 'II_ . . ... I-- --- --, f .. ., _ _ .. . _ _ .. . 1 , .. . i.r, I -4. ,--, c-= D... 1 it --I- t - , 'I ....i i , — la- ; I - . • - - ----,- -1- iii " 1 -I---I o i Z ..I_ i 1 ..t -, — I I 1 I Ili- i L....--J „ MU 1- \. i EMI __,_. 11 • - Ill cn t_I I Ell - 1—j- Ail i- i II c: N't .. _ , 4 Ir ii, xlig , . ., r,o .,... . ...„. t-... 4.D. ---ielip ., t ...o. . III IIII _ . _ hi _ ilmil 0 1 , , ,. -1 , _ k_- - - . _.: ..„ Ell ' 1 -t-- - ,_ EMI- I ! , 1 1 I4__-4. .1.-- -t 1 - • , f f , __1_• - ..., 1 I 1 • I —i--1.- 4- -1----- - I - 4 -,—4--- _L — Irl 3 •-- ., 1----.1 .--1———4 .- t. — ---.--——--F. , ___ s0 O I 1 I 1 ; 111111 -.1.* C --I— —.. 4--- --- 0 —1 . 111 tp >4 i I I i M — '.-—I— --.. 1 Cr. • EL'6-. 1 4 I L 1 4..... .... • 0 e e 13, 4 1 it 1111 .!--1-- . 1 , __ I 111 04 6` < III p.- ,5 _1 111 LiJ 0 ).,, VI • 2.-6 M _i I III • ;6 123:Di:it • MI • 1 111 ap csi so 11111 ill • • lir _ -MIMI . o. Co N .0 ,„ ..,, (..., cs1 •- a ,-- (NI c-, -a in .4:3 N co o- a 00j Jo spucKnoto I4! DDUD.NO ._ . . _. . . . :1 , 210 . , L-;:i _ __ . :• I__ _ __ 1 . 1• • .0 ..4_ ,,, _. 1 ._. .1 ___ .H .. _ • „ ME 1) _ III Q 1.,.. Iii. I 7- Lj 1.11111 - IMMO III I - - 111,,, El 'Irk I ii_ --__ i k n . ii__ . _ _ Num -1--1 IN I 1 1 1 11,.. . . , L , t, . -.- ImEammint iti boi ._, ._ I ...mmq, 0 ti e mons= II _ 1 in - - m II 194. § ._.- . Emma _. . IMI is _ i Le, CS • - 4_ __ _ _ _1_ _ 1 I ti • !_ _ - - ' I- 1 . N • t 1 •_ NEER! , 1 i ft , 0. ''' +11-1 4 7 ° • '21f, II NE Ni N - - - - I IlL ilorea. p ..;,65-,t . ••••••••• .. .. • ....„42.• • Itii . 1111111111110E1 LAIIIIIIIIIIIINNE iiill . 1 r. Oil * 11111 It 0 o. co r.... so 141 .4. V.) N ,-- Q .-- cv ri cr in .43 I--. co o- 0” ' 4Roj jo spuosnou t.f! oDuo44C :.211 • :;,•1,:- .. . " ---T-7-7 T- I 1. —1 i 1 1 ) -I--1---1 i c° _ , 1 . .,.. 1 .__i_ .__. , , __r __ __; ; _ I. . 1 t A '' —___, ! i i 1 tr) F--...-t-. 4 - I- -4 - 1- -1- -f • ...- -I :(....-i•.---1---r- .. i - r I 1 4 : - 1- -I i I . 1 .-i---1.•- 4- -, , 1 4 ..,i 1 .., '- i f- .1-. -I.-- -;,- -- •--1.------ . 1 , wi.i. • _ .1_4. ..:__ 4 - r _t _ I-.—■ .. 444\..._....i_ ..,i.—1 .,_.1._.4 ' \. I 1, T -1--•I -1-- `4 I : 1 1 i f ' 1\4_ 1 1 t ' i .1---t—4---,• , •,... .4 -. .-. .-.....- _-_ 1 1 1 , i 4:21 ; 4 1_____, tr, 1 ! t---I-1 t---:- t .'t i i_____j _ .I. ..._i_ so ! lit I . 43 , 1 .___, /--....-I. .r.._r___,_ • 1 1 . i 1 rs.. :V. ! , ■ 1 1 ....._.,_._,. . ...,_ ,i La- a3 0 _.: 4 . _, -I- 1- , , . I- 1 1 . I , . . . — 4—. —I--4-- ' --I . 0 IR Ir4. 1 I _ I 1 ! t ' 1 t L_ ' i-r- , I I '-' .2 :or , L. -1 1- — ;,.., , . , ! . „ -1--1------ -- _ __,__ t \\_i___t_____[____ . i ! i i —.I -1•• - .- '-f 4 1 7 1- ! 1 —1 1 ‘*- i ! C") 0 -- - --1 -i - 1- - - 4 -H -i -,. 2 ti 1 , . • ' ' ' . 1 I I .-- .., .. 4 —+ '1" I ! I I —- I , I I: ; 7 11 - 1 1r -t— 1--I— —ND : c . .__ i• t- ., jirli4 1 (..) .,,,,2 . • 4- 1 ii ! II . I — El20 I 1 r..)-E 52 i I , 1 i I 1 0 i 1-1^ •- . • / / 1 I 1 C.I 111 W...•■ 7 i 7 r I RI /r) 4--4--.--4 1 1 • , • •6 p.. c ..... „ . „ .1--, 1 (.4 ll z. ...,, ,Y 4 1 ' 1-- 1 i _ • --I-4 -I--r _ + ____ 1 I tn CV ' I .t. 1 ,,... . ._ _ — --- 4— t -.1--- i--4---L ——._______ N. 1 1 i I I t _1_1. 1... 1 ,,, ca 9/ 'cst strorr" c-, 0- 1.:.3 N. -. if-, -1. el r., — c .-- Ni (-1 - It) tO N. CO 0- C) .-- 0— Ci•%)! j 0 Sp.,005nt:',141 :0 • . .. ._ _ .. . . .. 213 ■, ,17 - i ' ....•''0: : • . •. I 1 1 I 7 1 i 1 1 _1 _ 1---1-. 1--- 1----1 - .- 4 - ' ' 1- 1 -I ' f I - Ln I I i 1 : , A '''''"' -- • I' t - -1 - r . ' . I I i i I _t_.._I_I____ — _j. + .i_ i _ t_ -.1- - rn ............3, "----'-j I r- --t---I----I-- --I -- . c..4 . tr) i ' 1.■ --I- ' fl- 1---4--t- ■ -H -4- --11-± +' 0 o i • ! I • I I i I , 1 --1- 1 - - 0.. I ---t -1. \ t .1-- t 1 f-- --1 , ,, " \t __I ' 1 --t- , -t-i--- ..\--i 1--4-1 1 4- • ■ I I II . J 1..1 • . '-- 4 L---I--4-- 1-K-1'-: --I: - -r - -. - , 1"' - 1.— h. t 1 i 1 t ! : 1 i --I i 7r 1---Li \' 1- : L;• 4---F t 1 --r ..0 . . 1 c i .1_ . t 1 • , ,-- ..•• tt• --I, in l i 1 i A .4- --1 14111 : 1 J---1- rt-t 1 I , I , - ri • — — wi/ , 1 t 1 ____,___ • . i f .--• 4- Titi -1-tt41 -i-':111 mil -,) --I i 1 1 I i r:t. co l --t • T . , I . . , ..„,,, . _ i 1 L 1 . , 4, --. i --I-- V) C I . ■ • I \ .t:511 ' ' 1 / -+ . t•- • -r 1 '4)- ‘ '''' I , I I . I • 1 -.- f . k --I i. 7) i -1---i-----1 N - • / " . \ ' 411h,N, -*---±---r , 1 I i '1 4 I co I I , 1 1 1 i 1. I i - : 1 .-4--, -- 1 15 0 I I 4_ I c:› 1 , --t- .., -t-- \-t----4 1--' 1 — - - 1 I ' 0 " --I- T i- I - --1---1--4 N1‘--, 1-- t 4- ti I i`,.‘ .„,. . 1 I I I- I 1 I i 1- -; --r- --I ---..L,-1\ i t---1--1- !I-4 I I 1 r.) 1 '--- ' 1 I ..___i 1-1- •— — -4 - ,- f---.- , -1 - •- 4- --- 't--I-- --4----4 — I i ,-- - I 1 . ,ID Nur 1 h''''1- 1• I 1 7.1 __.) ..t I ..i. 1 ..1 r 1 , ,.-.-- I J I 1 I : i ---.- - - f I . i • r. Cii N tr.•W' a 0, CO I... .0 in -a r) •IN •.-- C.;) .-- r., (--) -.41- ..-1 -.0 t--., r- c>, c? .- .- 1aD) JO spuocnoqi u! a.)uu.is!c . ...,. - .. '.- . 212 . ;.: ,4 i I . I I i l kn.,./ s i 1 . 1 E _.. �._t .. _ ._ - • _ { . _. i_�_�._� _ _ 1 1 I i 1 1 1 _1 i I (- . . ■ - - cr 1 I 4 �- • _i—..t _i :__ c� r i t I —T • i I I__ j 4_._,_ I i��.+ ., ...I N a+ • i I I lit I I 1 — � - r__-1--...t.._1 -I-----•_ I . 1 1 _._., 1 l- 1 - r - . .I r '1\f- ' ,.1 0 . _ . - J rt--I--4.4• --4- r _ ...0 I • .... --1 -+- t. _-L--r--1--- , - 1 _ .... ' I ' i --r 1 ..1- t - I.. _' _ ,___— O ` I i i- -, . _ .. �. .-�- - 1-• 1 I_-4--,.r - 4�. i- :• t I t • ! - i 1 I i k -j t� _! $Q 1 1 I ; ,.1- , — -a \\ _• _L_ ' e N I I � -1 j I �_r. ! +n a -- , 1 I 1 ' I t — 7 CJ..CL l/1+1 ;...__1 �..—r-.. r•-i-- 1' 1 I 7- t q7:71-- I ;� 1 1__ 1 _ r-, i 0 - m 1. •• u1 `Q •1 c,4 © cv •1 V " v1 h a) o• 0 R3) - spuusnoyl u! :3)..1:.0;c1 214 (18 .. .._ . 1 .. .. . ..0 I 1 1 I i 1 77 I l' I 'T ''-' -"'- I " t i 4 - I 1. 1- 1 .• 4- - i, - -1- c....., .--- • - 4- • i- I 7 i t i 1 1 1 : - -,-t. --1 ---t--. -ii' .- -:' Li - II- .. I 1 1-i -*-.- -I, + I I -t-. --4------1..- f- -4- 1--- 1- 1----$1- -f- 1— ••-- im I ! 1__..; I I NI CI I i i Ell c; 1 I I. -t-- - 4-r - ; 1 cl.. I I \t ri .....;___i____,t_ .1_4 _..,.... min Do I t-41-I-I i MIN i 1 -1- j II k II 111 . M 1 1 1 . . .4 alla ti, .' I 1 I -1--f :.r• 11 Mill ■ ' I I . im. c•-) 1 .1.- i , MI 0 •--, .•.-0.• ! 1 I 1 I C • c --!- , ! \1\r_ 1 , , 1 _.;. 1 . .. . „..... ' OEM - •,,o ei,.', ,..„.._ ,1 t 1 1 -1 .--t -- --- . R. .. . ._ , 1 \ is r, c ._ ... , , , -I- ... 1 1- 1 ---1,--I I - *.t 0 u I tI Ln 0 1 I . MIMI , . _1__t__.-1, • 1111111 . .. 1 t • j .. i ; : , \-1- . • • 111 cp J 1 t I \ 0 1- I- + --1 -- ' -1 -I -I- - ,-:- -i- --- r --I- 1 -1 - - IF il- -I—I in 0 1 • 1 -i-i-L. •- - 4 1----i--,---.- . r- -1-- --1--- -1- 1-----\, 1 2 -. t i • 1 • `46.7- 7- It 1 i 1 '-r , :1r\ 3 ta= 1 • ,,,, --- t>,,• I r, MN 00 . Z&a CCA I I I li i I 1 •-4 ____ No --, . 1 1,1 1- -1- I -1- +-- I 1 i 1 , I I a 0 q/ C‘i 0 o CO 1".. .0 in ,:r tn 04 ,..- a •--. CNI el 47 ul ,0 In. CO 0- CO 100j 30 Spurnnoy 1. Li! OOLIDISla .. ... . .. . . _ . .. . :..:C .1 . . . .. . --1--I--7-" " 7.' I I ' - /•• ; , .., .. ; •,.' _..1_2 _' . Ir ,__,I ' 4 _I,. 1 •• ,. 1 1 ! 1 , , , , , 1 --t--- - --. .--- 1 1- -i--i- - -- - - -r I - — --t 1 . — i 4. --^—— 1 .— ..kl- , i 1 1 .. .T —I- 1 - - i--/-— i- -I—1-- t -I- --I- - - 1 - in r--. . • , i I 1. I I I .. cp --i—1-- -I -. !-- -1--t -4-- .:• -t—1- -- .1---.1 --I —y ± I • -1-'-1 ---± 1 -T -r- 1 - !— -4---1..- 4 '—4-—1o.• 0.- ; 1 . I ' 4 _ 4_ a rc, ._ ■ i : I i ...4--i -..r. --11.- 4 -I.--I.--,--2- —I- iiii N.AL i 1 I I I I Ell r '-4- 1-14--,-- _l_ 1 i i_ _____,_. • 1 , „ . a . T. , , I 1-1-- I, --rl• .4_ t -4. $ I . -----I • ' . , . v7 . , • , __:____A___* _i____t _ • _ N I t __i 1 1 1 _ _, S -••.i-i-1--1--• . - . i ' , ---t- - :--,--- c' •-•6 i ._;.... i, ...__ 4 1 L---1 • 1 I , ; 1 . IN ' t' - t ----T- 1-1-7 . 1 - -I t. -- la - 'cil _c k1C I ; I-- -.4 Li -it--• ' ' ' " It I . 4._...: ,4 . • I 3 1 ' I 1 \ 0 .. C I ; i I s . • -- 1 I -i-• 4- • 't .1\' tn D ! . ; 1 . 1-.41 -1 I l !-k-1- • id - -.I.- --1. -.- 1 - 1 4v '0 a i I g .1---+ 1- -4- I t, . --1-1-4- ! 1-- -",- -1 ;-- ' . co .4 t-- • .--.- .:- --: - -'-' -1- 1-- -1 ' '4+" 1'" '....' C'' . 1 el-• Eh 1 ' ' \. 1 I : • I T-7 •- -i---s-- t -'- ' -- -1 --I- .' -.--r--1-- - 1 1 • • I \I 4- : . 1 -1 r----, r-, --4- -2.- -1. --i- -4 _--i, 1. .1.-.) ! _ i. e.ti ' . 1 i --i- 4---1- 1 -I--4---0- 4r-- t I ■\ in _r_f_.-.1- ...4 --—..--.1.--.r. i___...„ .0 :,:i1;-- ' ; I I I . liN _ .-._+.......,_ ! 0 = >.' L 1 1 I i ' t••• 0 0 ID..,:r -;..., -.-1- - --1-- 1.- ,1--1 . I i Nz.taj'i , 0 1 --,- E ,?s 1 i 0 0. a 1- .0 in -it c) N !-- cp — i-4 t--) . ,- •- ■ 4O .) JO spuosnota. u; coLm.isie ... ..• - -.0,-4.0.-Li..?.........,L.16........3,:1":,, P.i..t.i;...•.44t 1.../1.1.4.-.....i......loPtr-117-V".4ii . . . - .. . -.. . . ... . . --. , 21€ . . -c, r-- 7.-----1--1----* ,.._. 1 1 1 . „ i • . 1 , kr, 1 ; ; - . , . .. 1 1 I ! ' - '- "" - ■ . , _. .. I I, .,, . ,.. . , ...1._ 1 ; 1.. ,. , , __ ___._ :_-_- .,, ips , , ., 1 , . , 1- -1 --...t- . - 0 1 I I - 1.- 1 , _ , 1 I T7 r. I 4\ 1 -1-•-• ' I I r 1 +---I--1-- .E-4 ...--r• I IIII c° 1 u- to . • --I-- i I •-■ \K.--1- ..+ - -• 1 T jr 4 4 --4,--- I I ! 1 I -- ---I--- - --; --1- 4 -1-:- --' it II T i i 1 I. tn 1 I I 1 1 , t I i I .1 --t---I- ; -.- ,-I -: +-44i I' I. I— .- , I 4: 1 II ! 1 1 . -1- 1 .1)- 1 I I I -1 +4---n-t- . • -i--. . -4 1- , - .:-- . 1 r. 0 I ' I i___I 1 ' - ' , A, " I . 4. - 1-- . 4-- c:. .., i 1 • „, A , , i , i , 1 f !- .4- -,' 1 ' : '. : 4- = Li i I I- 1 .1)- 1----1 - II I 1\ •- - I "1---1— i i 1-1- 1-• •-• -0 , . I .41 c” i .11. II I I I 1 't . I I 1 \I 4 • • 1 II T 4 -I- -11 -1-1\--1 - . . 0 c ul o -1----i-- , • 1111111 i 1 t r --t-' , i- -'t--- ' - / ■ -,- --I.- I ' P. ..--..r - . --\ - '7- 1— ——4—.— I c0 1 1 t 1 1 1 ! 1 • D 0 1 1 1 I , — _ t :_ _4_ ...1 ... ,• ,4., + ,1 i i. 4.---f-- 2 , 1 I .---- - 1 .,_ , 1 1 . ' • I 1 I ..., >,,0--,,.. t. _.1 1._L t. ... .. 1 r -i - 1;., 1 •-4 ,,. 8-6•tri:), . 1 E 0 , --i- I i I -t- ,- -t - i- -1.N4 --I- ,-1-4-- t",2 - -4. +- - • - r-1.- 1-- 1 -cr E g P4 i :, 1 ' ! , I .. = -4 I t --ri -4--- 1 -'- -r t I 1 tr) ..- ' ". I j 6 t' - I I - ---1-- t I I +......1. ..i._. I .o - 4- --1- 1 • 4 ,--1 4- 1 ,.. ,,... III I i i I -4-- 1 , : .„,. c.0 1 1 i mi 1 L., 1 I I ! E I- i 1,?6, . , N.I 0 O• CO N. ••0 4;n "4- Ce) IN .-- CD .-- CN ("I -a- to ..0 1-, .-- ..._ .1001 jo spuosncii u! opuoism ,„__..... . . ......_ „.„.._ ... .. . . -. . „ .... • . . _ 4 , 217 , .,..,t..-. . . • , ,. . Ti '10 'I i 11 II, I 1 ! 1 1 1 I , I 1 ` i . I lin - i i -: i ! . 1 I 4 . 7 I i I 1- ' - 77- - - tL7A-, 77 .- • 1 4 1 + - . .. . 1 I I . 1 I I i ,,, .,,,..., r-.4 . -- - I- :, I " I — • t 1 I ,._ I. 1.1 .. 1 _ ..4.. 1 , t 1 t 1 , ,- i 4 ... , . -1 - -4 , , . — - . i , : • I I , --.._.--J. _ .,.J. ..4..._. ..1_ 4 .,... i. .. ,_ .i .i .. 1 1 . i. . cp ; • 4. 1 $ 4 I • r . .- - - 07. 4 • . ,y ■ ' • ' CO Z 1 . 1— N L I \ •• - --t 4 . T i -,- , 1 1— *'''''' ^/'''. 1. 11' ±.- i SO I 7 7 -2-477 7I--7.4..--.7 tn. • ---,-7-..--•!„ ,. - .. L . i i "t " 1 I .,...„-4-.......+... 417 r ; •N ' - -. '4.-". I - "- * ''.' 1- 'h C' • ; I - 4 7 .,..L. 2 4 11 . - N te . I • ____,_ 1 1. il.i_ r_ L : I — 1 , ..... ,— ..._. s ! • I. I el .I, 1.-..- ■ . , ''"0 I i. I! i r: ,5, ) 1 `D r--4.— .\– 4 I . - -4 1'S 4-1- 0 rst a_ \ : ! - 4 .7. , 1119, -1 ! al 7: 4') c I , *. ' \1/4..,. ! I - ., ,... ,___ .,__,.. * .- ' * : ,„. -4t- "4- 0 ., • I ''' t.) . • ' - lc-- c to E IL- I ...." • - 1 .77-77...—.... 4--4- - 4" I — • .... a, , - I - -, . ., L g u 1 [ t.3._?,1 . , • - ., 4,,, 4 -,r! -1 - ''') u. c t,T,°- .4.2 t I • 1 ; N., • ; , - ' C D e 15 , • • • i , ,, Ist,,,:. ,_ -a "t "4:-.; (74 N ...77, -, -, 1.7.•-. • 47n :;:i7-::, I -- ----'.- - - - i I 1 I ' 1 I a. -, . . • , 1 " ' 4 " t"..''''.- ' -- --L -- -*' .--4' ' ' i's .--.7"--"%.----. I I I I i 1 1 • 1 • r..- 4". a.,••- -1 - 1 ' -11- --t-- I •-. • ooc ,r . • • * I I ' i 4_i -- -4- --.,- - ;. - • : t .:_ .....,-.i. -.I .... ... 4 t. I • . i I 4 , • 1 I 1 • ' ..-- I 1---.. • - r.,- -....• ...- A 7. P' 4' .... 477 (m, r., - .„ '4 ( , '11 7 7 •..7: JC. ,..','....:.'41C;411. '..... 4.•,...454C. . . .. . . • , 21 8 .),..., , ••0 - --r--r- t 1 i • 1 • i 1 4 , •-.1. -1. .. •. ; ,-- 1-..4- •._ . ;_ i ,_ I • . : : : i ; :•,• I 1 , -- . , •-t- • - - --I • -4 - 1 4 t 4 • e 1 . ' . I . I • I CN4 i----4,---4-- 1- -4 - -,- --I- :—4- h t. -L 4-11- / ri--- 1 . i I-.4 „_-.4.-4 I .- 0 ---1 I 1- ft\\:4' I - t L 4- 4 i,3 4- Orr 1 U. ; LU 1 ',I 1---4-, - 1—. - 4. -I •- '.t. 1. • - -4 1 CO Z • I I i i ' -1—"±- I--1--. •—-I- -4 4 I —" ' I 1 —4.. I—._ _ . I I ;• : , , • --- . .-........41-444.-44. I t. .t..... .......; ...... . .4 4 . ,,,, , . 44,—.444,44.--et...4 a *4-.--...--- 1 i ' • I SP 4 -- - I , . , • , , - „.... : I 1 - -i-- i, 0 ... 4 '\' 41 .-- — r _I i __i r. ; 1 I i • -1 1. ' 4- I I CV _c • * -4-. :---1 1. ' -t - -.' .1 - -L-.-- .1 v) c . ' 4 ' -4,<-1-•-4-- -a. 0 L i . .• . - 1 , 1 i-... , i I v, t--.. ; - • I , „, , „ ....... 8 ....c..., , • I , 1 , . . — o to \ • i., I I i -"---: i S'1.4, ; \ . I • ) ,„ 16 oc ' I „ _ , :,_t _, ,;,,, , o E ct • i i. ' I • i q I am p.• ...5- J.. ,„...4 .,_ ._.,...T... . _ , .... .; ...4 _,. .................,. _ .0 i i „11.4 75... I I -1 -:----i—-- ! r.- I . I-9 2 gt 7 1 — —st- —' !--i 7-1- 4 •-• t.--I-- La ! , .. • g , .._-___.....4.._.t — ,........ 4 - -i.- $ . '' ' : ! ” . i' --. 4:4. 96 '...4^0. t 1 . 1 1 . ' I -i- 1 1 .1, _,,,,, . i , - C.+ ' C‘,1 0 (;), (I) 4- *11 -.1 c-) r-4 - --....." .- ,• :,..-• -r • • -o s--- = a cl r.- 4oz#,) Jo sputisnot.a .... ... ..cts:c . . . . . . . . . • .. ..)c...,,...7 . . .. . --,--F-7---T-77T 1 T1 go —1-- 't 4,- .1 . .it----I -1 I $- - - ' - I- --- ..._ I 1 • 1 . . • , . 1 : .. , . • C.-.. - — --* -- " '; . . , I I 1 • 1 , • i ....4. . _ ... ...i._ . ., I I " --- . . C) .-- . 0 . 1--" t -' I - I. I ' ,. . ■t. , 1 , . , , .. 1. ...i■-•..---II: 0, 1..,, i .............r 4......1.. .......-1,....-.1.... .-.& -..I- I.. I- .4 -t --r -t-, - •," -i•-- , a - ; : , •:\ 1 1 . _.4.....\/_. ..../ _ .__ . _i_ _i.._._i_t , 1 II ; , ,, 1 . 1-----t-1----r-",-- : - -1- .-!--- - ` ± --;•'-- 1 i"7,- T -t— s() . 1 1 i ■ _i___1..._ . --t---t- — - , --1-- - '• ''-r- , . -r" ,--11 ' 1 i e .. ' -41- • 1 el --,-- ..-. • - — ,+. - •- 93--7- -1-— ts1 0, -1- -4-i-- .1---,. -r• . : . _, -- 0 1 , .i. 4-- , ° i ,. -ti., c , 4-1 1- • I I - • -' 't ' 1 L. 11- Tr ,, ". - 0 1 1 ., .- tlsci ' — Mil 1 1 i • • t . • • ' —1- i-- -.- . t. 44.--1 —."- - 4-- 1.--r-- • , I : • ;_.__t .._.,' 1 • -•,! . 1--1---1-- • I-, , ,.....- . i . 1 • , 4 . '„ ... - . : --,— 4----i- IA ■ I.. ; . I 0 ... - -1,—4-1--- 7.• - , - 1----I--. 1 — .-14 . 8 Cu-) ! . , , ”-.. C1,0 c I- - I- 1 ! --1 I. ''. I— - "I-- t' 1 ' i"' ' --N 7,----r- •- ,2. 0 1 . : . --4. .7. r —I. - 4—.---r- - --!- -.-- - - •--' i E g i‘i ■ i i ' _i_ ' 1 _-,—.1-- -,c ; Ln ,---t-— P., L-`- !---T,- i . t--, 't-- —7 : I .'-r- I i • ...4 I L±..-1-- I -0 3.6 ' i ---,-----4_T---, --t *---t • -1- ' • i i. 111 t 1 ... _4_1.. _i____L_ N a 70. 13 4--4---;.---1.- — -: ,.— •N ,..., r) i 1 I .',3 6,- c 4.. 1 I _j___+_. cc. Ell Z ci:c: g r 1 I i I I 1- - -'-t--1-1- i -i__-it----Iii-IJr..--1--4.-2.-- . 4'_i.. . ._!, _. ___, .-- i i__L___Li____;__1___:•_J_ I • 0 9q ,, c„. 0 0. co N., -o in '7 cn (....4 ,-- .."A .7' tr). N, CO 0.• 0• ,, .-- 4Qi3.1 Jo spuotnotti u! apuo.ts■a .._ -.... ... .,., . .,,... . .. _ . _. _. ...._ , . 22 0 , .....- ,..;,...'!„: —- . . • . .0 ' j 1 I i 1 ■ ITN „- In . - -r -I , . .1 • , 1 ; I. I - 4- - - -4- -1- 11 ! 1 1 ' I: • In t -1--- r i t-- . 1 1 , - ---- ,_ 0 . _ , 1 \_,. ...i__ 1 I I-1 l ..., 1.___\ 1- I I-1 r ri- i 7 1 __L__i_j .4. -1- itI- NMI a'. , tt- -r- 1 1 1 -on 0:, . z • \it. 1 1_2._ ..., 1 1 1 n. . . ... , \ , 1 I 111111111111.t - ' —I ' - I " .1 ,0 „ -4- . --1 4 t I MIPPr 1-1----4- ; ! • Ei no v- i ' mg ! + +14„... INUMINt 1 I 1 i A ; _., , 4_, ! 111111MMLI ,L. ' ' Ai ' I ! 1 ' ' KIN 0 -41{- A I 1- ft tH I-t-Tv 1-- 1 1 ---t- ---i - ' ! -+ 4 \ t-4-1---1— , . , 4____4 _ -I. 0 I . 1 1-1\ 111 ... 44_1_.14.... ....:„. . ' .1 ' ... VI LI ' ' . ill ..-1.1 Na E ' . !. I 17 1 " : T : • -1.---' . Eili in co . . . • . - - . -1—f ' ---"-- , , I i_ r e -''-'f.--; : V 1 .,.! , 8 0. - - + —;i 1 0 to . -I- — ,o e -1.-. 1,--r ,- .-- ' . i -4-1,-.2...g — i 1-- -4- .--- 1 1,. f. 1.__4., ..., _ c4 , , c,,n . t 1 ; ; ; . ' NEM ,..., ! 0 , ;,- I 7-1- 1-1 7 t- il --1-' - _.Li-,t 4 ____,+1__ i ' .L... , ___.' 4__ ' ... 111 ..,, 1Eq, i ! I ! ' r il-HT — .. .B..' ---r.1 1-- 1 I TI 4L J-,--[-k_t___;_ _ g; 1---1--- ' 1 n to 4) - li. >' 1- ' I I ; 4 P.) .,, 9 -i--- J 1 _f.,. .. _ _ Mini N . 67:: eit +:'t "c5 8' 'iz -. ,._... Ctf r, ,+--r.i : 1 + a> 4 ..4... 1, I. _ __1. _ _ I III ca /6-0 . i : ...,.. , , , , :.... (.., 00 r.. ..o ,c, -I c., r+.1 ..-- 0 .---, ev 0, •v- in ■0 N. co c,• co cs'i .••• 4onj Jo vc;Josnou u! opuD4s!G , , . 221 ..,t. _ ..'!. 1 ......S..;,...; 1. 1 4 , . . ..0 — i 1 '1--T-7- '---" 'T,---• '`, 77- . In - . 4ils ; ii.._ / i 1 1 . 1 i , , • .- , 1 1 t 1 i 1 0 - • 0 I \ !I. i -- -1 - i _ 2 .I.• '" r 1 ---"----; ---1-- —4.- 1 -1- - 1 ; -- u_ 1 ; , 1.1.1 t T I cp Z 4. I • _I. 7 , — ___-__1— r., '.. -- , . . _ — ;, ' - ...0 , . i - --. i ' I . . , -f-- — - .- '.• --- \--' - - "- ,-i 4- .4• tr) .1 1\ . --- - -- ' 1.---*• 0.1 I I . 1.— , -1-.4 -. ■ 1 . 7., \...: \ I i — a , 1 i , 1 ! e, .= . 1 r.--1---,-1-1- '1-'9IS r I ..... . . _ U i i C .-- • --.-■.- — ■■ ,--,•■-■---, LI 0 I ; 41 1 1 • ! 1 • . . - 4— N _,__ ....r \s• ' -••••- • ''" ' '-'• '`'""'"i--"'— cla •----1-.. . 7 I 0 — • \ --- .. — - ,i 1 I •t to : I tr.) 4-- --f. .......,- - . i — - 4. 4N. .., -1.--- --: i .. (..) I I • I I I 1 \ , . I . o -t tc ›,,,,....■?. i -- '— •••• ''—'÷-- - Ir 1 '-'l 4 -\ -I. --1-- I '-i- c•i 1 a zn- ; I i , \; , 1 — . ! .1. ' ' - .4' • 43 2 46 " I I\1- I . 1 1 r - , _._ _: ... t .4._ tn .......... 4 1 . 1 <7.= ; . ! t . • 1 • . Li,_ 4._--4....1 4._ ..._,_ ,_ j '-' -'---; — CD >•• 1. ' s' 1 1 • , I : .-- 4 -, i 0 c .... -2 , D 0 •-• - 1" , it 4' "--- 1 "--4--- i 1 -1- -4 C.1 .-- CI-CC tit I ' I ; I ' ! 1 ; _ . t I ' I i ' 1 ' i : • . I k..--4— ., I • -...... ...1-. ,..._,.„I , -' , I-- +.a.■ 1 0 C 4; T. ..o in ....r in r•-4 - (.... .-- .-. ..-: -,1' J ...-: r. r.. 0- 0" t- jr:. vutsnoyi ..:! o)La..,isfc . _ ... . _ . . 222 impLt ,.,,t (1 j;i:- Appendix C NOTES FOR FIGURE =-, Olt' ' i.t; r....._,—... 141' 1—_—■\. N.....,7•77.-.. ;.,..,-;:•7.7,;:o,-: 7 i•,,,,,:,,,;,7, Clearly " Normally Normal ly Clearly Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable unacceptable I • Clearly acceptable: The noise exposure is such that the activities associated with the land use may be carried out with essentially no interference from aircraft noise. .. (Residential areas: both indoor.and outdoor noise environ- ments are pleat.) ... ' 1111 san Normally acceptable: The noise exposure is great enough to be of some concern, but common building constructions will make the ,indoor environment acceptable, even for sleeping ,. quarters. (Residential areas: the outdoor environment will be reasonably pleasant for recreation and play.) Normally unacceptable: The noise exposure is signifi- cantly more severe so that unusual and costly building con- structions are necessary to ensure adequate performance of •, activities. (Residential areas: ' barriers must be erected . . between the site and prominent noise sources to Make the outdoor environment tolerable.) - Clearly unacceptable: The noise exposure at the site is so severe that construction costs to make the indoor environment acceptable for performance of activities would be prohibitiye. (Residential areas: the outdoor enriironment Ft would be intolerable for normal residential use.) .----......i. ' . 0 lie Approximate Noise Exposure Forecast No i se Value Where New Construction iisr. f Sensitivity Code Development is Not Desirable 0011110■11•11111111M01.4.1100.1.1...........1MOMPOW10011.101111.. AIIMINNIN 30 2 35 ; . 3 40 4 45 .. - . .. 5 50-55 I , . ta....-4:0-5roiliamM.W.W=V2M;Pm(7-=7-7-1747-7tV7117,,,:s.rggp.z..7.657XF4Mit"ILIV*Z -341-X:1-th4-4217,:,1.ju.5,..:•z-,..,4,:•!-T-:-.i,.EiNi,i-27-1- „,, ,,,.„..,‘ ,,,,,...,,.,.„.tr•-4:,!*4-4.z.,-44., ,11.• •14-•••••,,,r-,... .. .•.%,•,..f..•..-7,,,,,..t..0-1--b,-,:awz,-,A.7.. .. ...,4Ne•-..,,,:pa,::—..,,,..,;,,z-...c.,,,,-,,..:,.._, Ato.,144-14.0.4,-4.444.p.,..-Aus - . ',... .•=.•••••.„t . -....1-.4.-;..•,....4-.^. ,..,.Sciit:t;:.....:*:.1: . * r'i:::':.*:. ,*I:.!.::: 4,11,1:1?. ?:;; Iii : .MIOATii:iiiiitIli: 'iVI :: ::::!tliii'ili!Niii:."i7;1A.:::..::^',::i:'1*:':;„ii;43:i•Ni.iiii ::' -* AIiillilit:,;:- kaijkAiaLliiiiiiiiiiititaiii4,141ialtililliai1W-Siibqiiigliliii:441iii.iti00000*, filif!!,t:Vrrirolil.:?1IT..,:•.:.,':-, :!. ' '.,--::::,,:-.... :_„,„.,_. • ,4c...%-...,!=.:.• !.:.:::;::..::.4,..,„:.;:..;-. .... 4,;:,L.............1", ,,,,,s,... ...,,,i4;,.»... t.....4-kg.ii,.7,0,g174.,t7:Mtg. :11,-,--''''''2 :1Vir,-4.4, : q :•,: • • 1 ' , I I : . • , , , . : :•-"' , :i 1. :: 1 :1i4 - •- : - • ,z! • ., ,,I.,:•••••••0 • • „ . . . 1 ,,• . , „. , . •, ..„-.... , ,•,:,;,„,,....,,,, , ... 141.,- •, • . ,.,;:.,,,,,w:,tr,,,„,z.;,,a .,,di...a,,w,m.t=v,,4-E•.g.,*.,:;,e,w.,,rz,„p.+.0,s---,%s.t.-fso .4„,,.t..4•,-•t:%,,,,,s,„v••.-j. ..u...,,z;„,,•,.,,,.:4J•.,12,•:.:.:..;:.t4.:.,;,,,,,,,m:t . ,71,•,,,,r...-.71,„,,,,,,z.zt,•=. .7y,-41_,...4,,,;?.-,.....:-1.,„.„-74hel,:,..:, ....!:::•-••;:,:::::..,.., ,„,,,.:ii.:;.,..,,,,fil i.:•:.,..a..4:;?iiiiii:i PiT,F;ii:,,i ;r4i;:ii ,-::4::ii,-, Liiiir.iit.0.i•41•0;, :;;,,ii•;,i,i,:ii;,.4.4:1.,,... iiiiii: itit.1 .. "''').11;r;tiAtiltaftiltiftle,;,:;,Ti,.;:,..?.,•4:'ilta;:::::4;itlili:M-4::i4...- °.1'4'1i4‘;'Elm.?4-4.s.m•'7'-,-itro."-'iiti' ::••'0.;::"::!].1";:::ii.t.t17%::4„;i4;:;:•::: ' H.i.i.•1 :.:.id•ii.Z::11.1iiii4. :1•:•:V ..."..::::. . -:'•.ii,:l.!:: iiii::::•••:::ii.. :••'T"ililit:.;;;....,:i.,i,;;;;}•:;,.•:!!:',1 'r'. *.•;14Pit:i..%1%,-,•er ,....4.::z.: F.:- •igizr.... .?,•,-4;11,;. .,i4;. frig ." 374: 4,=„y-,-;, •i,• •iregAgrgfalMri .‹'- .4,zia• A4‘..1 .4.,-. r-'.1- .....'-0 ifs iw,kf it..0..) USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES FOR 11CP.AFT NOISE ENVIRONMENTS . . , LAND USE INTERPRETATION j il,LIID USE CATEGORY NSC FOR NEF VALUE ;',.1 - • 10 20 30 40 50 1.......--,.............-- 4 gidential - Single Family, • r 3 all o . Duplex, Mobile Homes " Ix i licsidential - Multiple Family, 11. 1 1 Transient Lodging 151i 2 •,,:\y : :71---- L. , . , ' I . c School classrooms, Libraries, 68 i; Churches 711, 1 • ' , -, Nospitals, Nursing Homes VAIL 1 • . I Auditoriums, Concert Halls, 1 tiusic Shells , . MI Sports Arenas, Outdoor Ell 1 • ' . . Spectator Sports H ; . 1 I I Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 76 , i 1 • f . , Coif Courses, Riding Stables, I 1i1 ix, 1 3x,1 2 '.\\kr ' L Water Cemeteries wat Rec., C7i il ,.. ,, -- I i _0 f F l c e a u i ld i n g s, Personal , 611v 6 3 t Bus i n es sand p r0 f cssi on a 6 .9 65 ; ,-Lt .-.... Ccr-mercia 1 - Retail , Movie _ 5 , 54, 3 r-1-1. Theaters, Restaurants I 5 1:77' 59 tormerc ia 1 - Wholesale, Some i , •2, 64, 4 Retail Ind., Mfg. , Util. 3, 4 i ' ',..,k■\\, 1,...„, .N. — • , . \' r , KInufacturing, communicat ions ' 5, 4 . (Noise Sensitive) I 1 2 . • If Livestock Farming, Animal i :15, 81 ., ' 3 i if. Breeding t :17 X \\ 11 .., Agriculture. (e>icept Livestock) , 1i, 1, 82, : 5 t , /lining, Fishing 1 ;4,85,91 , `,•:\... \I .•. fi. .Public Right-of-Way i 5 5 1 k., ■ i ---; I , tAtensive Natural Recreation i •1, 92, •3 . 3 \ - o : 1. Areas I 99,7491 ,7 Q." .C. - . • . - - -I - ,4 4 , . 4.m* .. .- •sk-sist..v,,, Kovno.: - as,.... .. -,-- ,T49 q Wrileakir -- " -, .---• .4'0 • • - ?1.4 1 I $14 224 0"‘ifetthi tCW STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O.BOX 25201 RALEIGH 27611 JAMES B.HUNT,JR DiviS10N OF AVIATION GOVERNOR (910)733-2.191 , WILLIAM R.ROBERSON.JR May 17 1982 SECRETARY Buck Mountain Development Company, Inc. 910 Airport Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Attn: Mr. Fred Hazard Dear Mr. Hazard: The Division of Aviation has reviewed the site plans submitted for the Midway Airport revised May 12, 1982 by Peloquin Associate. Our review indicates the proposed design for the Midway Airport meets all current FAA criteria for a basic utility airport with the potential for all possible instrument approach systems exclud- ing the- ILS (Instrument Landing System) as contained in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-4B, Utility Airports, Air Access to National Transportation. Should you have any questions or if we can be of assistance, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Willard G. Plentl, Jr. , P.E. Director WGPjr:mp _ , 225 Appendix D f , -a -- ). • .,..i,c7 1"' / --eLe--ex.4 "ej 42-e7eleez,a Ae4).4: co io..0,4 1 72 . ,/ czt,i/ ('- e •I ,4.--,t / . ! --ie . ----1) ti,... , i, z_e_ey, . , • - ,i2i.,,a,-,),--z.c.....- / i ' • f • ..,..: -. • . • el_f_e_...3. /../.--._)--e - ,---e- .....-e-y •• • . - Al4 • , kite &- --e. 496-ccf a' ./ & 0,0_ 4 a_e_A '--2-i-i -e4 ":_-{-4-e- ,:e-z..-444- . _ . at_,,a 444 eiyc . :/' '(.-(-,Oz•6 , f--- 1- 3 10?2e. -- .- , ■7. e 4i. . . ,.,. ///1 ■•"' Me , , . , , ., , i ./ ,, , . if 0/ .0„.1,, i ea_,4._ / t , . , •,, ,, , a-c.._4 4. .-, i!, , 'f.?"Z■te•-•"C--a-•.V oc_.„4 .,„".4, „ ,,,., . • A.,. . , .. ,. . • 7,„aose . .,c-fe • °I' r . . 9-: _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ ___ .... ____ _ , _._ " \624:- tj • -'. °-. 4.1) ".': , . 226 6C THIS DEED, made this Co day of 198 , by and between FEDERAL PAPER BOARD COMPANY, INC. , a New fork corporation with one of Its places of business In Columbus County, North Carolina, party of the first part, and BUCK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a North Carolina General Partnership, with its principal offices in Orange County, North Carolina, party of the second part, whose address ie 910 Airport Road, Cltapal Hill., North Corolla 275 WITNESSETH: THAT the said party of the first part, for and In consideration of the sum of ONE ($1.00) DOLLAR, and other valuable considerations to it in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has given, granted, bargained and conveyed, and by these presents does hereby give, grant, bargain, and convey and confirm unto the said party of the second part, Its heirs, successors and assigns, forever, all that certain tract or parcel of land lying and being in Bingham Township, County of Orange, and State of Nc Carolina, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a concrete marker, said marker being located North 79 degrees 00 mins. West 7.50 chains and North 8 degrees 00 mins. East 9.05 chains from the point of Intersection of the centerlines of N. C. Highway 4i54 and N. C. Secondary Road 01958, said point of intersection being located 8.5 miles West of Carrboro, North Carolina as measured along N. C. Highway 4)54 and running thence from the aforementioned concrete marker, the beginning corner, North 19 degrees 12 mins. East 20.69 chains to a concrete marker; thence North 55 degrees 34 mins. West 5.98 chains to a concrete marker; thence North 2 degrees 32 mins. West 22.36 chains to a concrete marker; thence North 0 degrees 51 mins. West 2.77 chains to a concrete marker; thence South 83 degrees 26 mins. East 13.94 chains to a concrete marker; thence North 6 degrees 34 mins. East 12..84 chains to a concrete marker; thence South 83 degrees 26 mins. East 16.02 chains to a concrete marker; thence South 6 degrees 37 mins. West 26.50 chains to a concrete marker; thence South 5 degrees 55 mins. West 34.38 chains to a concrete marker; thence North 84 degrees 30 mins. West 23.94 chains to the beginning, containing 142.80 acres mcre or less, and being the same tract of 1 nd surveyed for Riegel Paper Corporation, now Federal Paper Board Company, Inc. , In November 1963, by Sidney V. Credle, Registered Enginscr, plot of which survey is on record In Plat Book 13, Page IS, In the Orange County Registry. Xis° the same tract conveyed to Riegel Paper Corporation, now Federal Paper Board Company, Inc. , by deed dated December 30, 1963, recorded in Book 196, Page 527, in the Orange County Registry.) TOGETHER with and subject to the terms of the right-of-way agreement entered into between Federal Paper Board Company, Inc, and Jack W. Crawford, Executor of the Estate of Lula Wilson Crawford, dated September 8, 1976, recorded in Book 266, Page 373, In the Orange Counly Registry. r— ,r----"'"47:7* tr 1-11.: I tTOR„ri oil Ft- 2..4.J...37,7j-2-7,r. 4.43 IA d 7",.;•z-r14_,..7i 22, BucKM TACE 373, STATE Ok,NORTH CAROLINA RIGHT-OF-WAY GRANT couNry.OF ORANGE 1PR7S THIS MUTUAL ILIGAT-OF-WAY GRANT,made and entered into ":"?'• this ..."'""' day of September, 1976,by and between JACK W. CILAWFORD, az Executor of the Estate of Lula Wilson Crawford of Orange County,North Carolina, party of the Simt part,and FEDERAL PAPER BOARD COMPANY.INC., A New York corporation with a principal pla-e of business at Riegelwood. North Carolina party of the:second part. WTENESSETH: THAT,WHEREAS, the pa-rtles hereto are adjoining property owners, the nap of the Janda of the party of the Brat part being recorded in Plat Book 25, Page 197,and the lands of the party of the aecond part being recorded in Plat Book 13,Page 119. all of the Orange County Registry, AND,WHEREAS, the party of the aecond part has requested the party of the first part to grant an easement for roadway and necessary drainage along the eastern edge of Tract No. 2 as shown in Plat Book 25, Page 197,to the lands of the party of the second part; and the party of the Brat part has requested that the party of the second part grant unto the Estate a right-of-way across the • lands of the party of the aecond part continuing northwardly to Tract No. of the • , party of the Brat part which at this time does not have accesa; and the parties have agreed to grant to each the necessary right of way for access. NOW,THEREFORE, the party of the first part, AD Executor of the Estate,under the last Will and Testament of Lula Wilson Crawford, and pursuant to the Power of Sale therein expresaly granted to the party of the first part,does hereby give and grant unto the party of the aecond part a thirty (30)foot AD AM en t Lox-the purposes of maintaining and constructing a road with necessary drainage, said thirty (30) foot strip being immediately west of and running with and along the eastern boundary line of Tract No, 2 as shown on Plat Book 25, . . 228 • • c� 7 S0G%2 PAGE ail Page 197, said beginning point being the southeast corner of Tract No,Z as shown upon the Crawford Niap, and being located South'78 degrees 30 miss.30 1I L L seconds East 1.113.0'1 feet as measured along the centerline of Highway No, 54 . ,1 from its intersection with Secondary State Road No. 1958, and North 7 degrees 3D mins. 14 errands East 60 feet from eald point in maid centerline, said right-of-way - and oasement barring a g thirty (30)foot strip immediately Wrest of the proper:l.line of the party of the first part and running an even width of thirty (30)fret west of the following line from said beginning point, running North 7 degrees 30 mfes. 14 second East 690.79 fret to the southeast corner of the lands of the party of the second part. And the party of the second part,In coneideratlorr of the foregoing grant by the party of the first part.hereby gives and grants a thirty(30) ' foot easement unto the party of the first part,its successors and assigns,the carne, beginning at the termination of the first hereinabove granted right-of-tray, the party of the second part's Southeast corner, and running thence,an even width of thirty(30) foot went of the following line,North 7 degrees 10 rains, 94 seconds Taut 817.83 feet to a point in the westm-n line of Tract No. 1 of the Crawford map,60 feet north of the ssuthwoat corner of said tract.. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto both of the parties hereto, the foregoing described rights-of-wa,,, and their heirs,s;:cceasora and aaaiigna, IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED that the party of the second part wil'_ be responsible for the construction of the fist hereinabovo d escr'bed roa':wey • and the,party of the Brat part will bo responsible for the construction of the •'•r second hersinebovo described right-of-way, The road shall bo for the mutual use of both of the parties hereto, their agents, servants end independent contractors. • U either party, by ib use of said road, shall render the same . 229 i t:. 1 . -- ennx C ti6D PAGE 235 u::aassabie, it shall be the respoosiblity of such party to restore the road to Its :`.I forcer usable condition, at its,or their, expense. ^,= IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the party of the first part has caused this ;f Right-of-Way Grant to be executed under the Power of Sale contained in the ,Y Will of Lulu Wilson Crawford by her executor setting his hand and seal on the M year and day first above written,and the party of the second part has caused M this instrunnent to be executed in its corporate name by its Vice President, attested by its Assistant Secretary and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed. ,. all on the day and year first above written. .. 1'. r.\ wa. tr,-ca . cs. (SEAS.) :"," W GAAWFORb,Eacecutor of the Estate a Lula Wilson Crawford 1t: _. FEDERAL PAP , ROARD,CONPA3it,INC. ATTEST: BY M _ T. ht. .. fe t'] / .,." a Pre ...en , '";.9 A,smis ata utl Se rotary apt. t"''n -Y� . :. 23C t. Boo,406 ?AGE 336 4 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF I. ta‘jTr a Notary Public in and for tho State and County ator.i. d do horeb ;certify at JACK W CRAWFORD personally appeared hero a soo this day‘lcd acknowledged the duo execution of the foregoing instrument an Executor of the Estate of;via_Wilson Crawford. C WITNF-55 my hand and official seal this 4X—thy of September, 1976. •• .4":"- • - • Not, Pu.11 c pr.: • \Z, . My commission expires 7 /1'7) • .•• • STATE OF /tied feRseY COUNTY OF 6Eece-4 I. „Ten Tr,- 67„ .bp.„5,9A,17:5 ,a Notary Public and for the state and county afort•said,do certify that 5ibit/Ey Po Pe personally came before me this day and acknowledged that he is AssistantSeeretary of FEDERAL PAPER BOARD COMPANY, INC,, a New York corporation •and that by authority duly given and as the act of the corporation, the foregoing instrnment 1223 signed in its name by its Vico President,sealed with its Corporate, Seal, and attested by himself as its Assistant Secretary. _ WITNESS my hand and official seal this the A044 day of SF P7anirka,z,, 1974. • _• 41 • No My coliir expitiaLy:Public ,„ salon r ifliEnt G. DE Mt= NOTARY NOM OF JErm• . • trr raloosocrt man 1L3C,L r • e-t-05 • STATE JP MORTIS CASKS,.MA—ORA/SOS COUNTY TM Dotty L. Crawford and Jenette !r on•aoli4a CEOTIPICASO 01 OP FILED G. De San-ti • too:1266e4Z.6 373 NOTAIII2,1 IU c0,000, PLSC Of 1,4e OSS.or.vrea 00 11N.IHrAW.ra t,aas,CSMTIPISO TO PS • 27th September +Ho.THR OAT OP . 76 A Su 27 10 1113 VP7S 0/774.JON4 HAYES.440,21TOM OP 01170-3--7-7,4 •••■ I'LL/WI Of ITT JUNE HAYES REGISTER OF DEEDS AsvaTkErrair risTurm. Gem-trz-E OISTIZI4 OP OS/1171 ORANGE COUNTY,H.C. fia 8 ' &/7p tf 4 VO3cr �' ' ��1 . � ___ . �Q� ~"u a.a. peloquin aia' ' i kmn'meh�r a' ,a' ' peloquin associates p.a. glen r,lehmann aj'a. architecture planning design/build route 4'box 174B chapel hill, n.n27S14 (919)929-7168 June 30, 1982 . ^ � � .. . Orange County Planning Department Hillsborough, NC 27278 Re: Midway Project #81--116-U To Whom It May Concern: 1. We are resubmitting the site plans showing the loop road at the south end of the runway for low volume access to the hangar areas. In the opinion of Bruce Matthews (DOT Aviation Specialist) this is the preferable method of crossover versus our previous crossover method. z. We are resubmitting the miicra[t and vehicular traffic calculations based on new information supplied to us by Horace Williams — Airport and Bruce Matthews. Our old calculations were based '' • on misinformations by the University. Sincerely, "� 0u� _ ,°^",_, - Lee N. Mehler, AIA Principal, Peloquin Associates, P.A. . ' members of the american institute of architects ' 2~~ Appendix A MIDWAY AIRPORT 'TRAFFIC GENERATION Hangared aircraft Phase one = 87 units = 87 units tot [ Phase two = 90 units + 6 units = 183 units total Phase three = 87 units + 6 units = 276 units total From Horace Williams Airport records rnxhnaudy 900 flights per month = 1800 o erations/mmndh including based, transient, and training aircraft for 50 based aircraft From Talbot Cox and Associates (Wilmington, N.C. and Columbia, S.C.) General Aviation Airport consultants Rule of thumb standards: 2.3 occupants per /ancling/takeuff 1'3 vehicules per landing/takeoff 15 hours of operation/day average From Department of Transportation: 54 has 5000 trips per day From FAA master records estimation for Horace Williams for the twelve month period ending February 15' 1982: 25'000 operations per year = 500 operations per based aircraft per year Phase one 87 aircraft @500 operations = 3625 operations/month divide by 30 clays = 120 operations/day average 15 hours per day = 8 operations/hour times l.svnhic|cs/land|ng = 10'4 vehic}es/uour dmes15 hnurn per day = 156 vehicles/day Phase two 183 aircraft @500 operations = 7*25 operations/month divide by 30 days = 254 flights/day average 15 hours per day = 16 operations/hour times 1.3 vehicles/landing = 20.8 vehicles/hour times 15 hours per day = 312 vehicles/day Phase three 27* aircraft @500 operations = 11'500 operations/month divide by 30 days = 383 operations/day ' ' 233 _~ Appcndix A ` Midway Airport Page z Phase three cont..; ■ average 15 hours per day = 25 operations/hour times 1'3 vehicles/landing = 32.5 vehicles/hour times 15 hours per day ~ 487 vehicles per day 4 . _ ^ . - ~ ^ 234 ' �J�� ` a'a. paloquin�a.La' / 1 ) lee n,mehler aJ'a' �oa p.a. glen r.�hmavn oi'o' eUnquln associates architecture planning design/build route 4'box 174B chapel hill, n.c.275?4 (919)929-7168 June 17, 1982 �� ` ^� �~� Orange County �Cu Pianhlng Department ' '' Hillsborough, NC 27278 ` „ Re: Midway Project #81-116-U . .� � � . ` To Whom It May Concern: : This is to clarify or answer questions regarding the tcd drawings and specifications submitted to the County for Midway Airport. .` � '� . 1. We are adding to the aerial photographs supplied to you that stopped at the Alamance County line. The aerial photograph requirement in this case is disproportionate with the information imparted to the viewer and the area is not in your jurisdiction but we are supplying it anynay- � 2. We are adding the isosonic contours below NEpsu although these -- noise levels are so small as to be non-existant' The State and Federal government doesn't consider these to be important and you had defined that noise above Nepso wvnimpurtant^ There is none of this noise generated by this facility so we are adhering to the letter of the law as defined by you. 3. The number of planes to be housed here will be 276 units as shown on the drawings. These may all be in T-hangars as ` shown or be in tie down areas shown at the option of the ' developer: This figure is an estimate. Traosientairplane traffic cannot be estimated accurately and will not appreci- ably add to traffic for this facility. This traffic is taken into account for the traffic calculations included herein. Z . All runway/airport lighting will adhere to FAA standards and Orange County zoning requirements. s' Screening or buffer shown shall be provided by existing growth or distance in excess of 500 feet from strvctures, or in the case of less than 500 feet screening shall 13e 6 foot high above grade within three years of planting, or solid fencing, or berm. 6. We will have control of all required FAA zones and safety -' areas. Since Orange County zoning Ordinance does not define these zones it is assumed that the FAA requirements will be sufficient. This makes logical sense for safety and practical reasons. members of the american instituta of architects , ' • ��%� �� . � . Orange County June 17, 1982 • ° - 7. The crossover vehicular situation defined in our documents is safe and efficient, It is acceptable to DOT-Aviation and adheres to FAA standards' V. A letter is being written by Ed Johnson-Orange Grove Fire Chief regarding fire safety. We are agreeing to the following ditUons in that document [since this doucment is not yet finalized by them, we will reserve the right to change our reaction until such time) : 3 punulng areas for water supply with 30,000 gallon capacity automatically feed by welt, all weather access 200 gallons of foam equipment on site 2 foam nozzles for and af" line 50 lb. dry chemioal on site no open flame heaters or loading fuel in T-hangars ' -- fire safety information in airport manual ., + radio or phone hookup of FBO hangar to fire department. Sincerely, 4fhlutiV Lee N. Mehler, 8l8 Principal, Peloquin Associates, P.A. . ' -trz- .t if,t. -0-; -411 ..,-4,..] .. i =. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 25201 RALEIGH 27611 JAMES B.HUNT,JR. MVMMNOFAVIATI GOVERNOR (919) 733-2491 June 29, 1982 WILLIAM R. ROBERSON,JR. SECRETARY Mr. Jim Polatty Orange Cou9ty Planning Dept. 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborogtih, NC 27278 Dear Mr. P latty: In reference to our telephone conversation of June 25, I have discussed with FAA their requirements for ownership or control of the apprioach surfaces for runways. FAA advises that their guidance relative to ownership is contained in Part 152. 9 and 152.11 of the Federal Air Regulations (copy enclosed) . The - __ pertinent 1:arts of these regulations are: 152. 9 (A) "Whenever funds are allocated . . . the Sponsor must own, acquire, or agree to acquire, runway clear zones. " _ . (B) " . . . a runway clear zone is an area at ground _ . ._ level that begins at each end of the primary surface . . . and extends with the width of the approach surface . . . to terminate directly . . . where the slope reaches a height of 50 feet above the runway end or 50 feet above the terrain. . • " 152. 11 (A) "In projects involving grants-in-aid . . . a Sponsor must own, acquire, or agree to acquire property interest in clear zone areas . . . " (B) "On new airports, the Sponsor must own, acquire, or agree to acquire . . . runway clear zone areas . • . " (h) " . . . An airport owner is considered to have an adequate property interest if it has an ease- ment . . . giving it sufficient control to rid the clear zone of all obstructions" p. Mr. Jim Polatty June 29, 1982 Page 2 With respect to obstructions in general we, call _your attention _ to Part 77.21 (c) of the Federal Air Regulations (copy enclosed) which states: "the standards in this subpart apply to the effect of con- struction or alteration proposals upon an airport if, at the time of filing notice . . . (1) (the airport is) avail- able for public use and is listed in the Airport Directory. . . " After reviewing these regulations, it is my opinion that 1. The requirements for approach zone control and owner- shi are mandatory only for airports receiving federal aid funds. 2. Even for airports for which compliance is mandatory, the requirements requirements extend only to the outer end of the cle zone as defined in 152. 9 (b) . 3. The Irequirement for reporting and review is applicable only, on new construction or substantial alteration, at the time of the construction. In conclusion, it appears that if Midway Airport were a federal aid airport, it would be required by statute to concern itself only with Obstructions in the clear zone. It would, therefore, seem appropriate for Orange County to only require Midway Airport to have sufficient land interest in the areas defined as "clear zone" . If I may be of further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, E Bruce E. Matthews Airport Deelopment Specialist BEM/by cc: Mr. Fred Hazzard, Buck Mountain Development Co. Mr. Howard Robinson, FAA Atlanta ADO Rirre-• F.• ...... Not, 1.,7 •4 :4.gx;9 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 25201 RALEIGH 27611 JAMES B,HUNT,JR- - - MVISIOMOFAWATI GOVERNOR (9191 733-2491 June 30 , 1982 WILLIAM R ROBEFiSON,JR SECRETARY M . Jim Pollaty Orange County Planning Dept. 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC Dear Mr. Pollaty: Per the request of Rick Cannity on June 29, I am pleased to provide the following information with respect to aircraft operationsland ground traffic expected at the Midway Airport. AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS The projection of aircraft operations is a highly inexact art dependent 4pon a number of factors unique to each airport. FAA generally recommends consideration of 500 to 1000 annual operations (an operation is a takeoff or a landing) per aircraft permanently based at the airport, with an average of 750 used for preliminary review. This figure is inclusive of all operations including transient traffic. In North Carolina, we find that actual annual operations per based aircraft at the at public general aviation airports range from a low of 131 at Lexington to a high of 1737 at Wilson. The average is approximately 850. Lee Mehler has indicated that he would e the current figure for Horace Williams Airport, which is 500 annual operations per based aircraft (25,000 operations 50 based aircraft = 500) . Mr. Mehler believes the local airport use is indicative of future use of Midway Airport. I agree with him that a figure of 500 operations appears reasonable for planning use. Highway Trrffic Generated: We have discussed with our Division of Highways the figures they would use to estimate generated highway traffic. They . Mr. Jim Pollaty June 30 , 1982 Page 2 use two different figures depending upon their analysis of potential airport use. One figure is that each aircraft operation Would generate 2.5 one-way highway trips. The other figure is that each based aircraft would generate 5. 8 daily _ one-way- highway trips. Calculations for-Midway Airport result. in the folOwing figures. A. Based on Operations 500 annual ops/based aircraft x 276 based aircraft = 138,000 annual ops. ; 138 ,000 annual ops x 2.5 high- way trips/op = 345 ,000 annual vehicle trips; 345 ,000 annual vehicle trips i. 365 days = 945 vehicle trips 1 per day. B. Based on Based Aircraft 276 based aircraft x 5. 8 highway trips = 1600 vehicle trips per day We understand that the Division of Highways is most comfortable with figures based upon annual operations. Thus , we tend to accept the 945 vehicle trips per day as being the most appropriate fa-Chis study. This conclp.des our comments. Please advise if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Bruce E. M tthews Airport Development Specialist cc: Mr. Fired Hazzard, Buck Mountain Development Co. Mr. 406ward Robinson, FAA Atlanta ADO 236 r G 7-7- -427. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O.BOX 25201 JAMES B.HUNT,JR RALEIGH 27611 DIVISION OF AVIATION GOVERNOR 1919)733-2491 July 1, 1982 WILLIAM R.ROBERSON,JR SECRETARY Mr. Jim Polatty Orange County Planning Dept. 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Dear Mr. Polatty: It is our understanding that Orange County intends to require developers of privately owned airports in the County to own or control all of the land lying under the FAA-defined "approach zone". We believe that such a requirement is unreasonable and unfair to the private citizen who is using his own funds to provide vital air transportation access for the County. We are particularly concerned that the County may be going fax beyond FAA standards in its requirements for private airports. As Bruce Matthews pointed out in his letter of June 2B, FAA requires ownership or control of only the clear zone. Any controls beyond the clear zone normally takes the form of a height restriction zoning ordinance. Such an ordinance is clearly beyond the ability of a private citizen and should be a County responsibility. We recognize that Orange County shares our goals of the maximum possible operational safety for North Carolina's airports, both public and private. We encourage the County to develop a cooperative program with private airport owners to ensure safe facilities. Such a program would require the owner's control of land underlying the clear zone, while a county zoning ordinance would provide protection against hazardous objects being erected or allowed to grow beyond the clear zone. 4 We recognize the need for counties to develop and maintain adequate land use controls to benefit and protect the general public. However, we believe that Orange County's requirements for private airports go far beyond that necessary for reasonable public safety and exceeds even the rigorous standards established by FAA. 237 ve, • Mr. Jim Polatty July 1, 1982 Page 2 We appreciate the interest of the Orange County planning staff in using the resources of the Division of Aviation on this matter. If we may be of further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely, k71// Willard G. Plentl, Jr. , P.E. Director cc: Mr. Fred Hazzard Mr. Howard Robinson • 238 ORANGE GROVE VOLUNTEER FIRE CO ROUTE 3.HILLSBOROUGH.NORTH CARD!.INA 27278 To: Orange County Commissioners From: Edward Johnson, President Date: June 24, 1962 Re: Proposed Midway Airport The first Midway proposal presented a considerable fire exposure consisting of warehouses and office buildings. We focused our comments last February on the problems presented by this portion of the proposal and devoted rela- tively little attention to the problems presented by the landing strip. This was not because we thought there were no problems presented by the aircraft operation but simply reflected our state of ignorance at that time concerning fire protection for airports. We have attempted to correct this deficiency in these comments. In preparing these comments we have relied on the advice and information provided by the FAA North Carolina Division in Atlanta, the Aviation Section of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the fire chief at RDU. In addition we have sought out the location of a com- parably-sized private airport so that we could inspect their fire protection facilities. Unfortunately we found there is no private airport of this size "this side of Houston, Texas." We continue to be concerned about our ability to provide adequate fire pro- tection to the proposed airport. One concern is that the nearest access to the airport is over 4.5 miles from our station which means that response time will be in the 7-10 minute range. Second, we may not be able to turn out sufficient manpower during the middle of the day. Third, we are presently untrained in coping with the firefighting problems presented by an airport. Presumably, this third concern can be overcome by locating instructors to provide us with the necessary training. Lastly, we are concerned about the size of the project. The plans indicate hanger space for 276 planes. This is five times the number of planes based at Horace Williams Airport, Pre- sumably, the potential for accidents will be five times as great. Our concern is heightened by the 3 plane crashes that have occurred near Horace Williams airport recently. All involved the presence of fire depart- ments and at one crash 3 departments were called and firemen remained on the scene throughout the night. Nevertheless, Orange Grove will provide fire protection for Midway but urge the County Commissioners to give serious consideration to the following recommendations. Water Supply We have been advised that we should have available a reliable water supply capable of furnishing 250 gpm for 2 hours. This 4s a 30,000 gallon capacity. In consulting with the Midway architects, we have agreed that this requirement can be met with three ponds that can be constructed sequentially as the various segments of the airport are constructed. The first pond would be 600 feet north of the phase one F.B.O. Hanger; the second pond would be 600 feet north of the phase 2 maintenance hanger.; the third pond would be 400 feet northeast of - 3 5 r - 2 - the phase 3 maintenance hanger. All ponds must be capable of supplying 30,000 gallons of water over a 2 hour period. The water level of each pond should be maintained at a prescribed level by wells that are auto- matically activated when the water level falls below this level, Drafting stations will be located and constructed to our specifications with all- weather access provided. We suggest to the County Commissioners that they determine whether or not it is feasible to construct these ponds and maintain a sufficient water supply by surface run-off and wells before any permits are granted. The above ponds and drafting stations will put us within a 600 foot hose lay of the principal fire exposures: The fueling areas and the maintenance hangers. We would operate by stationing our pumper at the nearest pond and laying hose to the fire scene. For fires in the T-hanger area, on the runway, and in the areas beyond the ends of the runways, we would have to set up a water' shuttle. A pumper and portable drop tank would be stationed at the fire scene and another pump at the nearest pond would supply water to one or more tanker trucks. We presently have one pumper and one tanker and are investigating the feasi- bility of acquiring a second tanker to meet the needs of our growing fire district. We request that this water supply be made available to us for fire fighting in this part of our district, We also request access for periodic training exercises. Equipment Flammable liquid fires are difficult to control with water alone. We, therefore, request that Midway supply us with 200 gallons of 6% AFFF foam, A portion of this shall be kept on our trucks and the remaining foam shall be available to us at all times at the maintenance hanger. We also request a supply of up to 20 gallons per year for training purposes. We request two foam nozzles and eductors, one for a 1 1/2" line and one for a 2 1/2" line. We request that Midway keep and maintain at each of its three sections two portable 50 pound dry chemical fire extinguishers, one stationed at the fueling area, the other stationed in the T-hanger area. As indicated above, adequate fire protection for Midway would require our being able to supply tanker trucks with water. In the original Midway proposal water was to be supplied by a combination of wells, pumps, storage tanks, and hydrants capable of flowing 1000 gpm. In the present proposal, water is to be supplied by ponds and must be pumped out in order to supply our tankers. We, therefore, request that Midway assist us in acquiring a pump in an amount not to exceed $10,000 (payable on demand as soon as con- struction permits are issued). The pump will be mounted either on a trailer pulled by our brush truck or be mounted on a separate truck. 24C r? . - 3 - Safety Features 1. The T-hangers must contain no open-flame heaters. 2. No loading or unloading or storage of fuel can be permitted in any hanger area. 3. These regulations are to be prominently displayed in the hanger areas and are to be incorporated into the Airport Operating Manual, 4. In view of the possibility that Midway may come under public ownership, we strongly suggest that all FAA safety requirements pertaining to construction and operation that would apply to a public airport of this size be imposed on Midway. Access We continue to suggest that access to Midway via Teer Road would cut our response time in half. It would also provide us access to a densely wooded area where take-off and landing crashes may occur. Communications We would like to be in close communication with the Midway F.B.O. control room in the event of a fire call. This can be done by a two-way radio able to use our frequency. Another possibility would be to work out a procedure for using the 911 phone link running through Orange Central, Summary Our investigation of potential fire fighting hazards at Midway is still going on. Although we feel that we have covered the most important points in our comments above, we reserve the right to add to them or amend them as we become more familiar with providing fire protection to airports. Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Company is obligated by contract to provide fire protection to all citizens and property within its district. Midway is no exception. We are certainly far from enthusiastic about the possibility of a major airport being located in our territory because it presents fire fighting problems that are outside the range of our experience. However, if the County Commissioners impose the above recommendations as requirements that must be met before Midway is allowed to operate, then we feel that we will be able to provide adequate fire portection. The above statement was discussed and approved by the Board of Directors on June 22, 1982. Please note that we had requested, that Peloquin and Associates provide us with a narrative description of the Midway proposal for our June 22 meeting of the Board. The document was not provided to us. Since our deliberations were based upon limited information we must reserve the right to amend or supplement the recommendations in this document if and when the requested information is provided. 1 7 (57 ( 5 Edward S. Jehnson, President 241 ; t) Richard Whitted, Chairman County Commissioners Office County Court House 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N,C. 27278 July 5, 1982 Dear Mr, Whitted, I am writing to express both my objections and dismay over the developments regarding the proposed Midway air port in Bingham Township. I am requesting that this letter be made part of the record for the public hearing on Ally 8, 1982 Just a few months ago a hearing was held, and the airport and the industrial park needed to support the air port was turned down. Both the political support and the long range needs of Orange County required the decision rendered by the Commissioners However, you then neutralized this decision by encouraging the Buck Mountain group to come in with another proposal, When I called the Commissioners to object this apparent reversal, I was told that if it was opposed, the Commissioners might be sued. The reasons for opposing the Midway air port proposal continue to be compelling ones: First it is not an appropriate location since better sites are available; foremost near Hillsborough where the needed indulstrial development has already begun andialere adequate highway access is available Secondly the Buck Mountain developer, Mr. Hazzard, has not had a good track record for fiscal responsibility. He has already gone into bankrupsy once, and too many people in CHapel Hill have been dissatisfied with his development methods Unless his group is required to post a sufficiently high bond to assure financial responsibility, his group will be in a position to force the Commissioners into the gradual industrialization of the air port, in violation of our newly passed zoiing ordinance. Thirdly, I have been in the process of selling some farm land within a two mile radius of the air port site, but several buyers hithdrew their offer and interest because of the threatened air port. I understand from my attorney, if the airport is apporved and my land values continue to be depreciated, I have a good case for suing the County I urge you to withhold appooval of the commercial air port and development and to uphold the zoning which is in the best interest of Bingham Township and the long range development of Orange County. Sincerely, v--,_ Eric Schopler Morrow Mill Road Bingham Township Please make a copy of this letter available to each member of the Board of County Commissioners 252 . . ,. .,).•'..;!.; :e •X.:.-^:•=;rtUs.,41. ‘,, . , . a'r -'''''A.: ..,--e 4l•r:11,.L:1$ ‘;, 1" i"";:',. .^14='‘'•,-- ...v--;'.;,':'-'`'•2z,ze;"'s,"'''r..-e ■','-',..e,F•+:, ''.'.:'.. ifl.,;1 lt,')%trii.11:k4,70..A1V4,,.t'''3',4,.; A- t;!: '':,1'7),,',.,,,,,,. .:`';',.;:,::411..:;'f' ...':''''''''rq'.-73'-'''''...-''''''....4..A.,1-■'''"1"rit.i.,;/,,,,'1,'f'. I.: ri- 7-. 411kii4=?.-;',14"'L-t',-,-',,''' ''''411.,.;—,,,,m,,,0*,, :.:,..,:::;..ip..,!,,,1 , c.,..,,.- :,_.,.... „ ..,-,...-,-,,,,,,,.'..4.,I,--'g•*, 1,. I.„ •„ 7 ;';.1.?1,(' ,L )'.,,,.'._z,,'...:, ,,n77,-,1,',1`:".!;,:.,,...:,;" ;■:';;:r1...:517,Rri.7.. 3'.'1::ri.,,f.?,,;14li't-.?...:;/'=,:;. ..7-71F-7.:'"::-: '7''''':''''."--$.9'"2-.`krik''''-i4,7) '::.g 1:.').V!.'"1/1:tig*..:c="f-'1'4,". - Yi'Z''24.;-.":„ , =. ....:t.::!,4::4,'"Ottgi 47 '1E1 cr.. .7-1 .. ,f577-r. 1 q• , ,,,,-. ,::;:-.,„-ri.,:,4.1.,-,0, -.),,,-,,,,,I,J,,,,,,:.1..a:. ....4;-=?.,,:e.e.,.,,------ ,...-.,.:-.../i.i.,,,, ,c.,,,,,...,-;,,,m7-0. ',--6.,....,.p., ,-if", '.'';'-'"e:i4,-,';'-Cr::.:.:'',,,;.:7.;■:c,:.,4:::i.; ..,.4■ 4 Ec.:.. ,.,41-.... ; 0,1 1 ..;,,Z7'....11, ',.:',•,!.!..-?:!:,,,','.4"7'.,-..7z:.4.- - r.,.,...,,-.'.',,,;,,,,... ":•,..- .,,k"',7177,..,, . ,",.'" ;',.. k.:;;;34;_r,...,,•7:...i.7 4;;:z...:•?..;,...,r4:1:4:ef ' 1:r4",'.7..: 1,...;',..;`a7.5",,,,.;711"..7.,',.?;.;,,4:: 44,7".;A7r,,,72-:;:1-4,-4...•.",;.'"2,;*:.!." - I,t r:,..''':''',.■- -,-- ,,•:-- . -.7'....,-- ?,•, 7.••••-'"-::': r ;..'1 ,:•••,, ,,1,311.0,-a-..:1,=7r-r.:v..„=„.. .. MOUNTAIN view ESTATES-HILLSBOROUGH Brick/ FARRINGTON RD Elegant brick 5-BR home.2 hill&2 h •, e . - ::.•,";!-:Frarne ranch.2BR, study, LR ydfireplace, family'room w/ baths.Lit,DR.large den wifireplace Master suite Yr/fireplace& ' p, private balcony Unlimited potential uses&conveniently located r !:woods-tove on main level.basement,with unlimited potential for .! to Chapel Hifi.RIP,Durham&Durham Co.Schools.1 OAN ::■•.;.'expanding.Beauttfutiy landscaped:privater:fenceAback yard. S MABLE-OWNER FlNANCIPM.$129„009. .0;• :-.71":';:4-i•li...:";.::i',Ii'''';',:,..,:•...,:::: - 's I f,;:::... 1;, 5,r- .. •;,,,:-.•',, ;• •^. . ::,, :.:,.., :,.• .,, i..,;.‘i: ;.,..-, ;,...,;.;,..,:,....,,..r.„:.,,,..... t -,c.A74/1;',--''.4, 7‘..:;;: : •'••'' '''..';.""' i:1;;.• .-..•; 'fi"., ••••;4;''''''" .:-'''''':,."' ;''''..''''. , ';‘ '• "'..,:. ' ' ''''•'-:'";''''''"•:',' • 1,1::;;••••7 ; II, , •■-•;‘,..r. ff:.: 3•..4;;T.•: I;-....,-,...-...i.j. ..j .. 1112... ;;;,. ..21;' FI/LISBORODGli.Walking disC.ii; ;'•:::: "q CHEEIS TOWNSHIP-',-137 acres;, , '' ' ••!!• ' ''!.:! '!!'1'''.::!"''!!' I!i!' HOMESITE ON 2 ACRES-coirie.r,1: • , 10 GradY'Browrr.Eleiri:School.Passive -'';- ' frontage.on 1-85,,Buckhorn Rd &SR t ;10.,:i!,■`'Solai contemporary `rtiatom designed 'I: „ 115.Fantastic commercial or industrial lot 4 miles east of Chapel Hill Level it: ..' Great rooncwith ' !. site. OWNER FINANCING AVAIL, hardwoods&pens $13.000- f Wboditove,large studio:2 bedrnorns, „/r ABLE.$279:140.$2741,160 ' .,, . -. • • . - - srudy:2 bathsdecks.plus many energy :V.,. ::.:. , ':, . :i:- - : • • ASSUMABLP- LOAN-on , ';'-i'.•';' saving:features.Some owner liner:long, IV:' _,.._-'ri.! ',''.-,!-' .:''''.7'' .."...' ' ..6+.''.' .' ' Is+ .6,0„,.." didin.7awnship !.! $77'000.:. : `."",,'•, "--.....',:w:;':S.•:.--',,••■••.. WOODED VISTA-from this parte- . •.%:::,,;a:+.',.:74,'...1.`-''A ly open hillside suitable for passive solar. tOrpn-:-. - :reer Rita,jStatel 1 . .. .., . Shire'one he'll I. : •4••••• HISTORIC HILLSROROUGlf.- :,.:,1,,,.' FP__,,Vstructia,„ '1'°!1a2'?, c1..,512.Prev..„.Rt..9 '''' ' ! .A-Avner-wilt li ' :!!!!,.!?ylagnificent Cr:ninny estate 4exdellent':. ',V!..;: 'Fr4", ''''...--''..'..!: !'.'"' ".."•..7_,.'",,,-r' '• 1:.1.'.:71•;.',....,;-- i; , liar.horse-hum.Over 13.0 acres.ilper.,!;,''.';":".''..,-;,:.!:•:.'.:2"!:'7.`.::.'",!.Lf.!'r.,".-•.•:'-"..;'''''i'''T . , .. ;r.,•..,-,.,.t•'clawed)20gc hurt on EnaRiver Hogk ,,,;•'r„- ,, •i -7. .''!. ;. .4 •.••,'.'?••'"/ ; Kome Pkiiddiionat hoae hewtani 15 36 ACRES ON STX Road d (Farringtori. .?..-!...+:2:10.,',,i.:1;-.7-';',",!!:,:!...•!!;.!,;..:::,:::,,,,,,,.94:;:;;:if.,.....,:,,,-,-..,!,:;.",..hardwoods,Ow" ' : il.,.;-: !!!... .,.` :'''•r rgan Creekta mile frOrt . !!":".1.!!!_!-;',•:,--'..';',..--T.'„,,,4:1!...11.,4.:!':,■.!.2f,P,` :.;'!",!'.!.:•,j':„2, or back..,s1,- !. :'r, :. . i .. .::-..• 500 per actg..: '. 11-1E HEART OF HILLSBOROUGH .•'71: '$35,•-gr, - •'•:::' '.. - - ;-b, • -,'• ,: ' .- :. .:•,., - The-historic Torner,Poyd::houte;`. t•:;:..-.r' . .„ . , ' lovingly• - • d• ! i i i .,,'.;.,*. : • ' '. - restore , magra icen,ceo er.,, :- :, „..,,, , ., . , - , ,, „:` COLE ST,-Residential loi-7,.... hall/wideplank pine-floors.:.11.7../.4 ceil?:!• ,-. - ..: ' ,: . : •': .,, ' . . ....,,,,.. ::!In established*neighbotte .;ings,841rgpl4ces.,Allilough If.:;.hjsu•'!:.,,..; , ' ,' -..,--,.., . ,..!::. -!!--. ! '-': ::-town,$6500 ......,r-Pas.. . .. .. ',..:, thii-houselias the space and , ~ .... ::..r.:' :., -7.,;:;'. 't . d iron.„ • '7,.. ir ; ?,. ;'.'. ' . A ■,^^a gradpgslaMilOorne. !'".... , .-.-'.± ".:!,--= '!,:--... .- .!: '''i! „one$15.00-0''F;-''''', I.. .' . .1:':Vatfts.. .. .;...,, f.":1,1. ''::-t., :'-:*•::::..:-:' ' '. . :'': ' 07:Pe; ,...,-: . ., - • - '=CA=C1:77 j..'""' j..,',-;%I.,•:■•.•;,.'.•;•;:r:"PP.:•'"'' .:-• :•:"';4 ;--;•:•,''''':; ; ■•: . ; ' ..tt5, ,,-•- . ;- : . ' ' 'i . 4 ■;',•-•:,J.'"•:,,,;:re:t..!' : .,'!:;',:-.....:•,.vs..., .7;.-..,,-. .-t--' '• 0;.0. ...." :,.. , -• ! 7 I. , ": ''' .'. . 1)1 "`:,."..-,''.''''."':.". ^1' .-•1,.'`''''.,:. ,•''..•'. .," p>.'' ..<11,1 ST';.,—Duplex lot on • --!.. .-' CALL,' ' • '!! •• ii cRSsuec'GRBoiliGdRi,...... II St.with water&sewer avail; .. . .!„'. . -!.:. ;:''4.:::-'..!.':..:•.'t''''+';'•-f-kX■e' „Aire, $10,000. •:-DURHAM.;--11). •I,•, ,\.' 4 ,.. ..;:r. ..: . ,•,' i- ;,:.;.!,.:..-.7_ 7.:"'''%;,;:, ::' r, . r I, . mebuitrEng in N `.,1,:,.:4..:,.....-,:...-,..lit,:,',-: ',"..- ,...-7:-.r, . •.,. .:"-'' - 1,•:".' 929-2550 - . 10 .;,- .onebetiroorn apai1/4 '' 4.4r;4eiirii: ,:":DEVELOPERS DREAm-100 acres : . - 1, "..! tenams.,Owner,,,,,in k .f.,;:,:.5,o'jtji.35%t., .. , *',Fronting on Culbreth Road and 15- Rosemary Munger .. '.: down. '•: :. -- •:,2...1:.:415,0„Deo,.=.--r 501.Sewer and water on site 942-7421 .,,,,..... .,. .,'-':,...". _:), ,i,.";• .,•„.:, ,j' ' "'"'" ..'.. ..,::' `.:•"'.: .'.",' :';'...,,, . . . , _ -4,..,...' 1'; ..'•:i.1"':'...;:.,- ,.I'F'.:',:',"•:!1:1'.. ..iii..•;;;;.:;'.._;',...:.:..;"...,..,' I f..,.FRONTING OLD HIGHWAY 86- '. . . . ,.,.. ,... • ., i .r ::...'1'r '',:.:4.,Tp;,4.,.,'... •4 f.'::,,:',.......,''•:,e.;• .."';];",:i. „,; l acre 1-..with ina'andeting stleam run- ;- • OTHER ASSOCIATES (V, ,,,.. . . '.,. ring through perked rolling.wooded ! 1:1 ''''::' '' ''''.: :' . '1116419 4'" • -- `!=.!--, Li4P1 '' . ,lot ready to build on 57.500 •,:-.:: '-' - . • . rt c:. l.;•' .. L:.. '.. Nanette FieldS.GRI . .::. „ .......-= •: ..... -. =: , '7' .:1- • ' - 7, LINIEW LISTING,....-Lovely wooded?;,' WOLF'S POND-;Beautiful homesite " i ' 942-1038 if •..' I2,6acres with strrusm naafi of Hillsbor-'•' -- just waiting for your new home.Over 2 • Myra Waucl.GRI 1= ough off.SR 1545..(Saw Mill Road..', .-.. acres with hardwoods, LIP. AND , 9294935 :t West),already Perked In country sub-,) , OWNER FINANCING AVAIL- Ada Lucas .= ictivision of large tracts,.$21,500, ABLE.318.500. ....:-:: ,'4 1-..:-. . 942-6694 t .. . . . ..,. . . - . .,. ■i , .. - ,-,,,:',.i.'',J,,,; ,..;,:,,'..."".- -e, .;,..;:i.:': -.'.,-.:, ..,f;f:' ...,,,;7.. :''';',..,. •:-;'' ";:..' . tr; ' .1.7,.;!. '.i'.; .`.7' (1) S . .. ., • '1 :1::',"':;;,..r.,,..!„. '.%:::., .....:3 ,.;,.., , 1. • . . ' . ., nklin Street " - -1 544- /651 '' _ .Hili rq c ,., • . ,..-- : --.... -., ...... ... .........-........." 1 * If ,.. . . .t. 253 Remarks Prepared For Midway Airport Hearing July 8, 1982 ;alph M. Warren t. 1 Box 149C Chapel Hill , N. C. I have three issues to raise this evening. Two are procedural and have a bearing on the validity of whatever decision may be reached following this hearing. First, can reapplication be made for this special use permit within one year of the previous ruling? While Article 8.4 of the Zoning Ordinance does not include a specific time interval before reapplication for a Special Use permit, I believe that Article 20 provides such coverage. The procedures governing application for amendment, under Article 20, and those governing Class A Special Use applications under Irticle 8.4 are the same, both requiring action by the Zoning Officer, :he Planning Board, the Board of Commissioners, and a public hearing. Article 20-10 specifies a one year minimum delay between denial or withdrawal of a petition and the next submission of the "same or sim- ilar" application. In the absence of a specific statement in Article 8 and in view of the identical procedures, the same time period require- ments should apply to Class A Special Use applications. The second procedural point is the Planning Staff presentation of "findings of fact" and recommendations before the public has been heard. It is possible that significant points will be raised by the citizenry which the Planning Staff has not considered. A recommendation by the planning staff before all evidence is heard may apply an unfair bias to the deliberations. These two points could provide grbunds for a legal challenge to any change in the original Midway Airport decision resulting from these hearings,,. 254 My final point addresses the question which I have heard raised as to the amount of discretion allowed the Board of Commissioners in weighing factors beyond the purely techincal issues of an airport installation. Not only is the Board allowed to consider such nontech- nical concerns as public health, safety, and general welfare; effect on surrounding property values; and compliance with the general devel- opment direction of the area; but Article 8.2.2 requires that the Board find these factors to cause no negative impact from the proposed Special Use. I think that these issues I have raised all support the denial of the present application for a Special Use approval for the proposed Midway Airport. Thank you, Ralph Warren , ' 26r ORANGE CO-UNTY PLA.Nr1NG DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH NORru CAROLINA 27275 17 4. 9. IOINSHIP ADVISORY COUNCIL FE3.1 , 1979 The Y.A./.17ham Township Advisory Council held its regular monthly meeting in the Orange Fire Station at 7:30 P17,. Jimmy Foust presided. ! embers present were: Raeford Thompson Josoh_SuF77-s Jimmy oust Ed Johnson Lindsay Tapp Evelyn Teer Quentin Patterson ir. roust requested members of the council be sent copies of a map distinguishing townships and their boundaries. ' He fe, this was imperative once the council began discussing the extension of zoning into 27,im.-ham 'Iownshdp. This extension was briefly discussed by Jim Polatty. to inform new members. A Community Problem Checklist (attached) , created by previous members of this council, was categorized as Planni. - Issues: which were used to identify County-wide and Township Foals. Council members expressed their views on the followinE Issues and subtopics (abstracted from the Problem List) : Agricultural Land Preservation -Protection of farms -conflicts between farming and other uses Growth -too much development -too little development -enou,711 commercial areas -enough industry Community Facilities -police protection -Tarbage collection -fire Protection -location of schools Water Pollution -water Pollution from urban storm water runoff -soil erosion into streams and lakes -water pollution from poor wastewater treatment -water pollution from fertilizers and pesticides 261 in7ham 'tAC i'Anutes cont'd. 2/i5:79 -quality of housin,T -enou,Th low and moderate income housini7 .?actors that Control 3rowth -investment from other sourcos -hin-hway access to LinRham -policies adopted by Chapel Hill (county and town should work together) P:r. Faust discussed the need for a nor diverse membership. Perhaps the y-Laws are in need of renewal. Emphasis placed on attendance. i)leeting adjourned 951D 26% Community Problem Checklist Ranking of Results Bingham Township No 1 - Protection of farms No. 2 - Conflicts between farming and other uses No. 3 - Too much development - Conflicts between residential areas and other uses No. 4 Road litter No. 5 - Adequate sewage treatment for towns and communities - Police protection No 6 - Location of schools No. 7 - Soil erosion into streams and lakes - Water pollution from fertilizers and pesticides No. 8 - Proper location of commercial areas - Water pollution from poor wastewater treatment - Enough good jobs No 9 - Adequate drinking water supplies No 10 - Proper location of industry - Adequate roads in developing areas No. 11 - Enough commercial areas - Community recreation areas - Fire protection No 12 - Too many commercial signs - Distance of jobs from home - Quality of housing - Enough low and moderate income housing - Enough recreation area in subdivisions - Community recreation facilities No. 13 - Garbage collection No. 14 - Too little development - Local flooding - Transportation to jobs and shopping areas No. 15 - Enough industry - Water pollUtion from urban stormwater runoff 2C,S .597 Township and County-wide Goals Identified by the Bingham Township Advisory Council February 15, 1979 Agricultural Land Water reservoirs Should be kept out of Agricultural areas. Bingham Township should try to retain its agricultural character. Protection and preservation of farming should be given top priority in any land use plan. Growth Agriculture is Bingham Townships main industry and other industry should be discouraged. 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. Host commercial and industrial development should occur in Chapel Hill and in other townships that want it. A few high-density growth areas should be identified. High density development in the rest of the township should be discouraged. Housing_ The construction of apartment buildings, low-cost federal housing and trailer parks should be discouragadin Bingham Township. Apartment building construction that does occur should be in designated areas close to Chapel Hill. Construction of residential subdivisions should be guided to areas where land is less suitable for agriculture. The minimum lot size should be larger in agricultural areas of the township. Community Facilities Need an elementary and junior high school in the township. Increase police protection in the 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. Bingham Township � Goals continued Page 2 February 15, 1979 Water and Sewer Water and sewer should not be encouraged in Bingham township since such facilities bring development. Water Resources Buffer strips around streams should be considered. Alternative wastewater systems should be encouraged so as to allow development on land unsuitable for agriculture. Better soil conservation practices should be encouraged to reduce erosion. Bingham Township Goals continued Page 2 February 15, 1979 Water and Sewer Water and sewer should not be encouraged in Bingham township since such facilities bring development. Water Resources Buffer strips around streams should be considered. Alternative wastewater systems should be encouraged so as to allow development on land unsuitable for agriculture. Better soil conservation practices should be encouraged to reduce erosion. 26 r.tJ 'iilfi I.I,VI\'liltSill t)1: NC)hllt CAitclitl.A 111 ill 1 11111 .1)t: l (WI It] Iii 1111 I:11A.t 11 l tilt till St 1t1111 t11-11 t,ISC,U1}4 n ih'II I.t)..y April 17, 1981 Thu Honorable .Joseph L. ."Jaso;l1 Mayor, "town of Chapel Hill JOb N. Columbia Street Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Hear !ir. We are nwure, as you are, of tlic ciir.cus171en abcntr the uprr;t,ion of the Horace Williams Aitport by tilt tut ivur<,iiy, IlrtltL" to provide it pub] I. :.I,ttoct itt rd. III LI I I:'i!y'ii pent iutt .tnj to respond as affirmatively ;.:; pu,;:tible tt, lhr.n wln, ur. deeply t:,u- ccrntcl About the airport, wa ofiet the f-,lluwin,;: (1) flu Uttivetnity .:'l:anistr'auiun and its Iru!.[rn:; ii i ii? ir,dii :t; ill,- It lvrr):ity'.: wili-- In;;nosh to ph.r;t; out oil non.,univr-rnILy one u! it l:;ca Ii i i ivat;; Airl,nl l hy.• not ItLer than .lit] nc-9, !;ubjt't.I. to u .r Iou..iit :r,r:; ;;r,lt. 'I 1 . 1rr: (_') We further. agree to clone the .tirpmrt it its entirety, Incindi!u; If:,ivctiiity nper.tti:)rt , not hart. than 6;I> I, I , Ui, :t.vidvd that .:n ceptt! le aitllrlllLive ;,arpult fori1ity Iii;.: !tt , tt r'rovidr•1 within rt:nnctl- pr,.,5:]1:Iit; to C:I:.tpel, 1111 1. ('l) Wr apt ce , ar r:•ii rat in,; t l r, 1.11-;ein., eit .Furl r,lu!tin;; of hu t-lce LIIili;nu:> Ail pot Ail :;tcuplad,l._ .IiIp'tlt ac:lity _'.; provided within tuaeunabh pr-unitni!; to Chapel Hill tattier. thin July I , 1'-- i9 date, and IL natiniochirily :nett:: the needs of I/..! Ilt Ivt1 ;iiy'r: airr'tafi. It ntu::t he undt:rnt.utnl that in t:ntI;Itt those :;t;ttItucul::, the Univer•:ity is doing no on the as a:utpl iun tlrtt :'nail faith t I furl:: ::i.J l !., :nclde to br lilt; into being an alternate ;li rpnrL facility ;tttd that i fat ; ;t f ti_ ility :)111 bt- provided, l'hn llniventity .I11ti1 [virat]rilt and it:; Iltetrd of 'frunihl!S rl:nerve the right to r:'coo::i,iiu an thrr' :;iut'rtt-nt eitnitld an .I,„C,'ptohie ;1ltern:ltt,e airport lac:flit j' not i1' AI rral ity rill ] t lot t' .luly 1 , I l:flt, I sllun!d ru;rlc.0 ii vicar, I'ir. Pl;lyor, Ihat III. Univrrail, dun:: :Jr..; Insider it is our responsibility to ptuvi.l • or tubsi'li•r, to :tltt:rn '1 i airport facility to the Ilor ce '.dilliinns Airport . ;?r -I,t lit:::. v.. r, !;t::l Ids t o t icip t a t te Iml work. tai 111 lib,' Itt: u;; 1:ii 111,1 d i 1 I tt. I C Itt!),-r.. i111 111 :u1gU C1,111lt1y or' any ntliet Ippl rip rintI'Ip I ',II : fI•t!t I ; ,t,..;, , i:,;.. a !PAUL i u t to di 1l: prt,hit'at I hupc h:It it i : t Ic t: I t"s. lit Irttt!r that the University ;Al alainf::ll ion And it:: iru:a t. ,; ;;, t : is ); t„ nod thcr use o f iho nirpm I .I:; i n:t:cat cd t.i 1- :1 -lot .I I .:I ;..I,I^• I t - i t t t i`t! t i t;l i i t c in :I i t.` i I t y h I'r t.1 1,11- "I r t 1.c , ', t.n t I:G .1 I a .. . 11 ' N !Il 1.1 •..,.trill, •;tilt 266 _ . . i Houorahle lwaTh I „ Mayor, town of Chapol Mill April 17, 1981 lire 2 ;jr .1.pp rOC. ate the opport tin Ft> in t.orl with yon, nod I' 1r t.. you kiwi., chit t1iL lvt tt'i n providt.11 itt Lhe i r;L 1.11 nip t-iijnnt wi Lit Lint Town of Chnpt.41 Hill fr,11 CFn ciri4owr: it LliIiin'a. hope chat OK: icn:un con ullimaccly ho. rclIolvcd in tho at ti,!,:lactin of all, tflucort7,1,, Chci:Jophul. C. I t dhau;, Ill Mr. II irpi niv hl,nwltn, r. UaitmAn, Boa:d n I Trio-ttPos Vin.c—Chalwellr Inlirt L. p In • _ 17 If? lI\1\ I RSII1 Ol 'tllt III t \1a II I'.\ \I (11 11'I I l ill Ill li-r 1'(the Ily-I,.., li...I\,:'ll r lIr1,.:11.11•■ IIII,Int•• an,ll Ill.lilr. nOtitill I:lli: March 8, 1982 Mr . Richard Whitted, Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners Dear Mr. Whitted: On April 17, 1931, 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 lettei°, 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`inot 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 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 OF stth::iclie 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 wane dimensions of Horace Williams Airport, berths , taxiway, ramp, fuel availability, qualifiitd mechanic , security area, hangar, etc ; 268 Mr. Richard Whitted Page Two March 8, 1982 2) adequate safety provisions including runway lights, rotating beacon, instrument approach provisions, etc. ; 3) adequate proximity 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 positionofbeing 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, John L. Temple Vice Chancellor _ - 274 • ' 1 , t. i t. i • kt' . . ‹. < '... 'tt t. C. C c .._ . _ . , . . ... ... .. _ . . . ...._. _ _ . . ... _ . ..._. ' , ,.•_ .'i...,..".T..\''.':: • •, r.t. i . . . ... . . . .. . . . .. .. . __ .___. ; .. .•.?;,, t:,,,., ..,..k../....e. 7 .:(---?... O - ... ./ ) 1 . 41. ---- - , .: .',, 4,•:., ) . raz,e".6.44,_..0, - „,........, . r o'49 ro ' .....---— • --- i i e.:.&..__ Yr ie_o __...... .... 4.0 A • .`- . ..‘ .... ... ...„.. _ .. .,._... .. . .._. __..,____ 1-.-----... , . , . .... ''L... ...:7, i. , 0 . .. . ..........._ MI. (/ . __ . ... _......_ _..._..... _........_....._„._________._......_........... .., _. a' ' i 'A• . .. . . . . . _ IV v.t• ,. I . ' • 1 1'' 41 4. ,.■•": '• -___. t ' a........„,---- .. _ .... „. . _. .. . . .... _ .- .. . .. . . 27Z SrLeriA, 7, / P 7; Ws/-4&,-ee, a.k. e4-- _ ? 3 a g ..cLei_ //ea• 2-La-Cr cZo ? '1.72-Z--6-Le 4%7- LL2.- L7L, ,-9 E. ' r-e -4e-a • 27E ROBERT C. FISHER Route 1, Box 162C Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 7 )11-crit-v-- Itte- 4,14.41 61 / r • 61/A1 J. j6ivv- CAA • -L 24.? SIMPSON 1 LADES AND GENTLaIEN: NAME IS BLAND SIMPSON. MY WIFE AND I ARE RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY MINERS ON MORROg MILL ROAD IN BINGHAM TO.,INSHIP. WE COME FERE TONIGHT III OPPOSITION TO THE NEW PROPOSAL FOR MIDWAY AIRPORT AND URGING DENIAL OF THE', BUCK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPERS' REqUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE THAT AIRPORT. I AM ALSO CARRYING A LETTER TO THE MDIBER. S OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FROM kE FRIEND AND NEIGHBOR ERIC SCHOPLER, ALSO IN OPPCSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL: DOCTOR SCHOPLER AND HIS WIFE LIVE ON MORROW MILL ROAD AND OWN OVER ONE HUNDRED ACRES OF FARM, TIMBER, PASTURE AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN BINGHAM. DOCTOR SCHOPLER WISHES THIS LETTER ENTERED INTO THE noon OF TONIGHT IS - PROCEEDINGS . . ZONING ORDINANCE 8.2.2: STATES, IN PART "WHERE THE BOARD FINDS A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE TO INDICATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL STANDARDS, SPECIFIC RULES GOVERNING THE SPECIFIC USE AND THAT TIE USE COMPLIES WITH ALL RJ1JIRED REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS, TIE APPLICATION MUST BE APPROVED UNLESS THE BOARD SHALL • ALSO FIND, IN SOME SPECIFIC MANNER THAT: a) THE USE WILL NOT PROMOTE THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL '..;ELFARE: b) TEE USE WILL NOT MAINTAIN OR ENHANCE THE VALUE OF CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY: • ( r SIMPSON 2 c) THE USE IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT OF TIE COUNTY AS EMBODIED IN THESE REGULATIONS OR IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, OR PORTION THEREOF, ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS." THIS SECTION OF THE LAW GIVES THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS THE DISCRETIONARY POWER TO EXAMINE THOROUGHLY TIM SOCIAL, ECONOMIC,AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF A PROJECT REZUIRING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, A PROJECT SUCH AS MIDWAY AIRPORT. THE PROPOSED MIDWAY AIRPORT PROJECT MUST BE REVIEWED WITH REGARD TO ITS COMPLIANCE, OR LACK THEREOF, WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE LAND USE PLAN. IT IS THE RIGHT AND THE OBLIGATION OF THE PLANNING STAFF, THE PLANNING BOARD, AND, ULTIMATELY, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO WEIGH AND ASSESS THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED HERE WHICH FALLS OUTSIDE THE DOTTING OF "I'S" AND CROSSING OF "T'S" ON BUCK MOUNTAIN'S MAPS AND APPLICATION BLANKS. FAILURE TO DO SO WOULD MAKE A MOCKERY OF THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS AND WOULD VIOLATE THE LEGAL RIGHT OF EVERY CITIZEN HERE TO DUE PROCESS UNDER THE LAW IN THIS MATTER. IN THE MATTER OF ENHANCEMENT OR MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY VALUES (SECTION 8.2.2 b), 'CONTINGUOUS PROPERTY' MUST INCLUDE THE SURROUNDING AREA IN THE CASE OF AN AIRPORT DUE TO THE VERY NATURE OF ITS STOCK IN TRADE: THE AIRPLANE. 1' THIS PROJECT WILL VIOLATE THIS SECTION OF THE LAW. PUT CONSIDER THE REMARKS 244 r. .) : SIMPSON 4 T FROM LESPEDEZA, RED CLOVER, WHITE CLOVER, FESCUE AND ORCRARDGRASS IS HIGH . . . THIS SOIL HAS MODERATELY HIGH POTENTIAL FOR &ROAD-LEAVED AND NEEDLE-LEAVED TREES . . . THE POTENTIAL FOR MOST URBAN USES IS LOW." TABLES 4 and 5, PP. 60-65 GIVE CEO? YIELDS AND TIMBER SITE INDEXES FOR THESE SOILS. I ASK YOU TO EXAMINE THIS SURVEY, THE VARIOUS SOILS AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS. I ASK YOU TO EXAMINE THE VOLUME AND THE VALUE OF THE TIMBER HARVESTED BY THE OJNER PREVIOUS TO BUCK MOUNTAIN. THE SOIL AT THE MIDWAY SITE IS SUITABLE TO PRODUCE A WIDE VARIETY OF CROPS: IT HAS BEEN AND COULD AGAIN BE PRODUCTIVE TIMBERLAND. I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT REMOVLNG THIS LAND, 232 ACRES, FROM PRODUCTION OF ANY SORT IS IS CONFLICT WITH GOAL TWO OF THE LAND USE PLAN, ENTITLED "THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN ORANGE COUNTY." AND STATING, IN SECTION 2.1: "MAINTAIN AND PROTECT LAND WHICH CONTAINS VALUABLE RENEWABLE RESOURCES SUCH AS PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL AREAS, MANAGED FOREST AREAS AND POTENTIAL RESERVOIR SITES BY DIRECTING INCOMPATIBIE DEVELOPMENT AWAY FROM THESE AREAS." WHAT WOULD THE EFFECT BE ON OTHER PRODUCTIVE LANDS IN THIS AREA IF THE AIRPORT USE IS ALLOWED? I CITE THE NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL LANDS STUDY, A FEDERAL SURVEY INVOLVING THE PARTICIPATION OF NINE CABINET DEPARTMENTS, THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND THE WATER RESOURCES 246 SIM PSON 5 COUNCIL. ON PAGES 34 AND 35 OF THE VOLUME ENTITLED "THE PROTECTION OF FARMLAND, A REFERENCE GUIDEBOOK FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS" THE STUDY HOLDS THAT WHEN SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT IS INTRODUCED INTO A PRIMARILY RURAL AREA, A PHENOMENON CALLED "IMPERMANENCE SYNDROME" RESULTS. I QUOTE DIRECTLY: "THE REMAINING FARMERS -.. AND THEY USUALLY STILL 0•!N MOST OF THE LAND -- MAY BECOME CONVINCED THAT THE AREA IS INEVITABLY CHANGING. THIS 'IMPERMANENCE SYNDROME' LEADS TO A REDUCTION IN ONGOING INVESTMENT IN LAND IMiPROVE1ENTS AND FARM STRUCTURES AND INCREASES THE INEVITABILITY OF THE END OF AGRICULTURE . . . AS FARMERS SELL OUT, THEIR LAND IS OFTEN NOT DEVELOPED IM'ME'DIATELY. FREQUENTLY, IT IS PURCHASED BY INVESTC•RS WHO HOLD IT AWAITING THE RIGHT CONDITIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT. OFTEN THE LAND IS RENTEL TO OTHER FARMERS WHO CONTINUE TO FARM] IT. OFTEN, TOO, IT LIES .IDLE AND REVERTS TO SECOND GROWTH. IT HAS BEEN ESTIMATED THAT FOR EVERY ACRE DEVELOPED ANOTHER ACRE IS IDLED." THIS ESTIMATE CONS TO THE NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL LANDS STUDY FROM THE REGIONAL SCIENCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF PHILADELPHIA. USING THIS ESTIMATE, WE FIND THAT NOT 232 ACRES BUT TWICE THAT, 464 ACRES, WILL BE DIRECTLY AND INDIR.. CTIY REMOVED FROM AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION OR ITS POT NTIAL. THE BINGHAM TOWNSHIP PLAN (3.11-2 and "i_11-3, Table 3-15) STATES THAT BETWEEN 1955 AND 1977 THE CROPLAND BASE IN THE TCWNSHIP DIMINISHED BY 16%. ALMOST 1400 ACRES OF CROPLAND WERE CONVERTED TO NONFARM USES DURING THIS • 247 SIMPSON 6 PERIOD. I SUBMIT THAT THE PROPOSED MIDWAY AIRPORT, IOCATED IN THE HEART OF OUR PRECIOUS DA1RYL!LND, WILL HAVE THE EFFECT OF REMOVING FROM OUR CROPLAND BASE IN ONE FELL SWOOP AN AREA OP LAND EQUAL TO ONE-THIRD OF WHAT WAS LOST IN A PERIOD OF TWENTY-TWO YEARS. THE PROPOSED BUCK MOUNTAIN MIDWAY AIRPORT IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN ASIT APPLIES TO BINGHAM TGUNSHIP, IN CONFLICT WITH GOAL FIVE, WHICH IS ENTITLED "THE MANAGEMENT OF GRO4TH SO THAT TO IS DIRECTED TO AREAS WHERE GROWTH IS DESIREABLE AND CAN BE ACCOMMODATED" -- I URGE YOU TO CONSIDER GOAL FIVE, SECTIONS 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3, WHICH STATES: "DIRECT INTENSIVE LAND USES . . AWAY FROM AREAS WHICH ARE SUITABLE FOR CONTINUED AGRICULTURAL USES AND/OR WHICH ARE PROTECTED AS WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS," AND TO CONSIDER SECTION 5.10, WHICH STATES: "DESIGNATE LAND IN AREAS WHERE THE PREVAILING LAND USE ACTIVITIES CONSIST OF AGRI* CULTRE AND FORESTRY AND WHICH SHOULD CONTINUE IN THESE USES AS 'AGRICULTURAL REST* DENTIAL.'" WE HAVE BEEN SO DESIGNATED IN BINGHAM, BUT THE LOCATION OF THIS PROPOSED AIRPORT ON NC 5.I IN BINGHAM, FOR REASONS STATED ABOVE AND BECAUSE OTHER PRIVATE DEVELOPERS AND LOCAL CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE WILL COME FORTH WILL INEVITABLE PRESSURE TO DEVELOP INDUSTRY ALONG NC 5L BETWEEN CHAPEL HILL-CAREBORO AND THIS 48 SI1•1PS c?I 7 AIRPORT SITE, THE ORGANIZING CONCEPTS FOR PLANNING BINGHAM TOINSHIP'S FUTURE (PARTICULARLY L), 2), 3) and 5) PP• 3.11-1 and 3.11-5) ARE THREATENED WITH BEING UNDONE. LIIEWISE, I URGE YOU TO CONSIDER THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN LIGHT OF GOAL SEVEN, ENTITLED: "THE CONTINUED USE C[' AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE MAINTENANCE OF THE FARMING WAY OF LIFE IN RURAL AREAS AS A VIABLE PART OF THE COUNTY'S ECONOMY," PARTICULARLY, SECTION 7.1, WHICH STATES: "PROTECT AND MAINTAIN THE PUBLIC ECONCR4IC, SOCIAL AND ENVIROIRIENTAL BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A VITAL FARMING COMMUNITY." IF OUR FARMING COMMUNETY BECOMES AFFLICTED BY "IMPERMANENCE SYNDROME", WE WILL NO LONGER CALL IT VITAL. AND SECTION 7.2, WHICH STATES: "MINIMIZE THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PUBLIC PROJECTS ON FARMING OPERATIONS AND ON HAS THE IMPACT OF PRODUCTIVE FARMLAND." THIS AIRPORT /M BY ITS VERY NATURE A MAJOR PUBLIC UTILITY. AND SECTION 7.8; WHICH STATES: "ENCOURAGE MORE EFFECTIVE FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES." THIS )RT WOULD WITHDRAW ONCE AND FUTURE TIMBERLANDS FROM PRODUOTION. IN THE MATTER OF ACTIVITY NODES, THE NODE CLOSEST TO THE PROPOSED AIRPORT IS A'RURAL RESIDENTIAL ACTIVITY NODE' APPROPRIATE FOR SIiALISCALE COMMRC.IAL USES, SUCH AS EXIST THERE NOtI. THIS AIRPORT IS NOT SMALL SCALE, I WOULD LIKE Ncm TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF THE HORACE WILLIAMS AIRPORT 245 SIMPSON 6 AND TO BEGIN BY EXTENDING NY HOPE AND SUPFDRT TO THE CONCERNED CITIZENS OF CHAPEL HILL WHO WISH TO SEE IT CLOSED. IT SHOULD BE CLOSED. THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, HOWEVER, HAS REMAINED FIRMLY UNCOMITTED TO THE IDEA OF CLOSING HORACE WILLIAMS AIRPORT IN alDER TO MOVE ITS OPERATIONS TO MIDWAY AND USE THAT FACILITY9 MOULD IT NOT BE A BITTER IRONY IF MIDWAY WERE CONSTRUCTED AND THE UNIVERSITY CHOSE NOT TO BASE ITS OPERATIONS THEME? INSTEAD OF PROVIDING RELIEF FORIHE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, MIDWAY WOULD THEN BECOME THE VEHICLE FOR PROLONGING THE PROBLEM OF HORACE WIFLYAMS INDEFINITELY . • • AND ORANGE COUNTY WOULD THEN BE SADDLED WITH TWO UNSATISFACTORY AIRPORTS Mn) NO HOPE OF RESOLVING THE DILEMMA. IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT ANOTHER PRIVATE DEVELOPER WOULD STEP FORWARD TO BEGIN A THIRD AIRPORT. FURTHER, THE CHANCE OF PROCURING FEDERAL OR STATE AID IN THE FUTURE FOR A SUITABLE-LOCATED, COUNTY-OPERATED MUNICIPAL AIRPORT WOULD LIKELY BE OBLITERATED. SINCE THE UNIVERSITY IS UNCOMITTED IN THE MATTER OF MIDWAY, I ASK THAT ALL REFERENCES IN BUCK MOUNTAIN F3 APPLICATION TO "UNIVERSITY USE OF MIDWAY AIRPORT" BE STRICKEN FROM THE APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THESE BODIES. THIS IS NO SMALL OPERATION. AN AIRPORT OF THE SIZE AND SCOPE THAT THE BUCK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPERS ARE PROPOSING WILL DIRECT THE COURSE OF AIRPORT PLANNING 4. 25G SIMPSON 9 IN THE FUTURE FOR AIL OF ORANGE COUNTY. THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE SITES TO MIDWAY. SITES 19 AND 20 FROM THE PLANNING STAFF1S AIRPORT SITE STUDY ARE UP IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF EFLAND ALONG I-85, WHERE, ACCORDING TO THE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN, INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ARE ANTICIPATED AND INTENDED. THE AIRPORT SITE STUDY FINDS BOTH OF THESE SITES SUPERIOR TO MIDWAY (SITE 13) WITH REGARD TO CONFORMANCE TO THE LAND USE PLAN. THERE IS ANOTHER TRACT, ADVERTISED HERE IN A RECENT SUNDAY EDI'!.: OF THE CHAPEL HILL NEWSPAPER, IN THE II]EDIATE VICINITY OF SITES 19 AND 20: 137 ACRES IN CHEEKS TOWNSHIP FRONTING ON I-B5 AND BUOICHORN ROAD, I CITE LAND USE POLICY, GOAL TWELVE, 12.6, AND URGE THAT THE STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS BE CONTINUED, THAT THE PLANNING STAFF AND PLANNING BOARD AND BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATE THIS SITE AND ANY OTHER SITE ALTERNATIVES IN THE I-B5 CORRIDOR WHICH WOULD CONFORM TO ADJACENT AREA LAND USE CATEGORIES AND THE GOALS OF DIRECTING COI.M ICIAL AND INDUSTRIAL GROWTH AWAY FROM FARMING AREAS. I URGE THAT THIS COUNTY SERIOUSLY CONSIDER, AS PERSON COUNTY 15 DOING, A COUNTY GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CVNED AND OPERATED BY THE PUBLIC, FINANCIALLY ACCOUNTABLE AND FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE. C t 251 SIMPSON 10 IF MIDWAY AIRPORT WERE TO BE CONSTRUCTED: A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF FARMLAND MOULD INEVITABLY BE REMOVED FROM PRODUCTION: AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL LAND VALUES CONTIGUOUS TO AND NEAR THE AIRPORT WOULD SUFFER SERIOUSLY: AN IMPORTANT WATERSHED, CANE CREEK, WOULD BE THREATENED: AND PRESSURE WOULD INEVITABLY ARISE TO ALTER LAND USE CATEGORIES AND ZONING RESTRICTIONS REGARDING LANDS ALONG NC 54 AND TO ALIThJ INDUSTRIALIZATION AROUND THE AIRPORT AND STRIP DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THE AIRPORT AND CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO: IT IS CLEAR THAT A NUMBER OF THE GOALS OF ORANGE COUNTY, AS DEVELOPED AND SET FORTH IN THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN, WOULD BE VIOLATIZD. ORANGE COUNTY DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY "NE" BUCK MOUNTAIN OR ANY OTHER DEVELOPER A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AIRPORT. THERE ARE GROUNDS APLENTY, UNDER ZONING ORDINANCE 8.2.2 a0 a), b), and c), TO DENY THIS REQUEST, AND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HAS THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DO SO. I ASK THAT YOU UPON CONSIDERATION OF ALL EVIDENCE BROUGHT FORTH ON THIS MATTER, VOTE TO DENY BUCK MOUNTAINIS REQUEST, AND THEREBY EARN FOR ORANGE COUNTY A SPECIAL PLACE IN THE HISTORY OF THE PROTECTION OF NORTH CAROLINAIS AGRICULTURAL LANDS. THANK YOU. **BLAND SIMPSON . _ . • . 1 Before I go into the particulars of the request for a Special Use Permit 0 . by SucN:Nbuntain Development Company there is some )1.aCkground 14.ermation that will be helaul in understanding the process this developiwn,t ,46.1 will go through before a decision is made by the Board of County Cdpmissioners. • In the Orange County Zoning Ordinance there is a permitted table. This table contains all of the various zoning districts and a listing of different types of land use. There are three categories of uses, permitted uses, non-permitted uses and Special Uses. , • Permitted uses are uses that are allowed in a particular district; non- permitted use are not allowed under any conditions and Special Uses are allow,- ed in a particular district if certain precribed Criteria are met. Special Uses because of their inherent nature, extent and external effects require • - , . greatbrcare in the control of their location and methods of operation, than permitted used require. The ordinance states that before any application for Special Use shall be approved: a) The applicant shall have the burden of establishing, by competent material and substantial evidence, the existence of the facts and conditions which this ordinance requires for approval. It • shall be the responsibility of the applicant to present evidence in the1 form of testimony, exhibits, documents, models, plans and the like to support the application for approval of a Special Use. The Board of County Commissioners must make written findings certifying the applications compliance with the specific rules governing the Special Use, that the use is permitted in the zoning district and complies with all requirements of Articles 5 and 6, and other required regulationSlche application must be approved, unless it is also found that in some specific manner that: mmilmmimmo 2 1 1 1 a) The use will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted; b) The use will not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unle0S the use is a public necessity, in'whichcase'the use need' not - maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property) ; c) The use is not in compliance with the general plan for the physical develOpment of the county as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof , adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Anyone opposi4g approval of the application on the grounds that the use will not promote tile public health, safety and general welfare, will not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property or is not in compliance with the general_plansIfor the physical development of the County shall have the burden of establishing, by competent material and substantial evidence, the specific manner in whic1 h the proposed use does not satisfy the requirements for approval of the application for a Special Use. In addition to the required conditions that must be met by the applicant the Board of County Commissioners may impose such reasonable conditions upon approval of a 'SFecial Use as will afford protection of the public health, safety and general welfare, ensure that substantial justice is done and treatment provided. 774 ,Lne)corAmi,411Ch conditions shall run with the land and the use, and shall be binding .:e.Orfiee7 f,"A"-Lt4 on the original applicant (s) as well as all successors, assigns and heirs. Other iHportant information for your consideration: The definition of general avaition Airport is a public airport serving avaition other; than commercial airlines. The facilities includes any runway, land area, or 'other structures designed or used for landing, or taking off of 1 3 1 . i of small aircraft. (,0:4 A basic rtility Airport which is equivalent to the Midway proposal would accomadate about 95% of the propeller Airplanes 4=12,500 lbs. Some definitions that have to do with the physical layout of the airport and the air *faces around it. OAP , t , (,00s)De.,,- 1) ' I i; ., - __ Primary surface. A surface longitudinally centered on a runway. When the / runway has a speciallY prepared hard surface, the primary surface extends 1 200 feet beyoitd each end of that runway: but—when-the-runimay- ca.. r. -i- - y 1 prepared hardIsurfaceplanned-haff3-sttrface, _.- . '...,.... „., ., ..,c ,... _ . . I sac t -AA. I. -4. • . - , The elevation of any point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline. ipraltzsc, LfIIrI )oirp+ 15 The width of a primary surface is: CO 250 feet for tittilityrunways having only visual approaches. I Approadhisurface. A surface longitudinally centered on the ext§leded runweSruenterline and extending outward and upward atilt each end of the priiarY surface. An approach surface is applied to each end of each runway based upon the type lof approach available or planned for that runway end.. (1) The inner edge of the approach surface is the same width as the pri- mary surface and uniformly to a width of: 2,000 feet for that end of a utility runway with a nonprecision instru- ment approach: (2) The approach surface extends for a horizont,11 distance of: k:04 5,000 feet at a slope of 20 to 1 for all utility and visual runways: runway 1 clear zone is an area at ground level that begins at each end of the primary surface . . . and extends with the width of the approach sur- face . . . to terminate directly . . . where the slope reaches a height of 1 1 50 feet above the runway end or 50 feet above the terrain.„. The folio ji ing information is taken from a letter by Bruce Matthew dated 1 June 30, 1982 . c:1 the Orange County Planning Department. , , - 4...:-...67.-:-.,--, 1 4••■•••■11 4 The pro3ectior of aircraft operations is a highly inexact art dependent upon a number of factors unique to each airport. FAA generally rep:amends con- 1 ; sideration of! 500 to 1000 annual operations (an operation is a takeoff or a landing) per aircraft permanently based at the airport, with an average of 750 used for preliminary review. This figure is inclusive of all operations including transient traffic. In North Carolina, we find that actual annual operations per based aircraft at the public general aviation airports range from a laa of 131 at Lexington to a high of 1 737 at Wilson. The average is approximately 850. Mr. Matthews goes onto say is would be reasonable to as*me 500 operations/ My year for ach based aircraft at PldwaAVIZY.=, Highway Traffic (enerated: lie have discu4sed with our Division of Highways the figures they would use to estimate generated highway traffic. Theeuse two different figures depending .;: upon their analysis of potential airport use. One figure is that each aircraft operation would generate -5 one-way highway trips. The other figure is that 7 each based aircraft would generate 5.8 daily one-way highway trips. Calculations 7 / ' for Mid-iay Airport result in the following figures. A. Based on Operations 500 annual ops/based aircraft x 276 based aircraft =': 138,000 annual/ . ' (_,...-_- : __ 2/. ops.; 138,000 annual ops x 2.5 highway trips/op = 345,000 annual vehicle trips; --4> 345,000 annual vehicle trips I-, 365 days = 945 vehicle trips per day. B. Based on Based Aircraft - - . 276 based aircraft x 5.8 highway trips = 1600 vehicle trips per day ) Be says N.C. DCW is most comfortable with the figures based on anniik operations. He suggests the 945 rotor vehicle trips/day is most reasonable. M 0(6 Highway 54 currently has 0,000 motor vehicle trips/day. -The number of transient aircraft will typically be 15%-20% of the number of based aircraft. The State feels that the numbers of transient aircraft 1 5 at Midway will exceed this amount because of the university traffic. This proposal is substantially the same project that was submitted. pre- ; .) viously. The Planning Staff's recaraTendations on the project remaingl 001,D essentially th es s e.4 'r same- wzo4 4J)fAt 2,r.K. renTratte,v_oggisoce 531,1E... to*, a.)4.4.4f, ukAA5. SIttaffS recom=ionsOn imposed oonditions are on pages 13 & 14. There should be an additional condition imposed. Airport cOnstruction will be started within one year of final approval and all constriction will be completed within two years of its initiation. Phase one will be complete 90 days after completion of the runway. Phase two will be started within 6 months after the start of construction of Phase one. Phase three will be completed within two years of the completion of phase two. . : .. . 255 ..,,,..;.,.. 1 1 .N-` •.i --"" • 1 ..--- ci-k ---■- o 14\,:,\-k,-eq.,,,c, ...-_ ,-I-1 r.,, i (S ..".--?__. I „.... '„.• 1,....../c...v,c,, -,---'c". :.----,)---_ r . / /'1 7 4 evr.,:....... i if. 714 e7 c c>.- c,/,... co/-1 1 (/ A 2'7 6 p /3.--n.,c_s 14, 7---- 3 7/ue n. -1-4 p.4-74-2- .- covvt . ,., \ 6 p-,-, i e .-r? : (CokiYee 4u , /71 prp c, /0.10...h , c....*p /y y 1- -ni<._,/;..71 L:r. ,-....,,- • ky *--. .-?0 6,-,,t, 6 3 s c. ., / . ?--- -..--e, c- .r.„,.•-t o v sr -,e, .. Sc, PI ni;-/ Vcfs- ?..,. c. .; .5 all 1..C.--1 J .?.? s r-sr: -7 g."/ i- /2 1 l 5 7ict-:c) /c-,,/c) 5y0 7/ 6 7 Cio 7‘ • (6 MA)) /1/1.11 way 5/0 65 lib) . .. f.. c."--, i 5 0 lyoc 6 AZ c.. ,,,..:t.--; RA-eci G., ,o__..,///),-1;-/KA 72 _.„....-. --,71. ,.., 41.7,;--5 ai C......-. I- c-,;!4" he.. ,4__/In ,T; - c,..1.....,.n. cu,..,..:e._' C-1>r/1/7r ec-71 ,c?.-4 ii>;77/;4 iz--/3-cd r-e .../<_? 4/c}„,,,, ( 7 __„.,,c.(:„ i e1 0. 9'2 e::, <-., ---i-7- 2W,..- 4e;"; ai-;-.t. /‘7<ad ' 6'' `5 vr 1-1/.:7, 13---..c 7,.,---;,--) iitc4-, ,e/ex2z.l. -; I c'Y /7; . / ./ F ...X. ,..„, a ___-Lee ,4 c--Gt./ /,,•'r /_.5 /-S --,a 4,,,i are p/ t--, illy 1,..-r-er■ ., Sce- iq' , e 7 1E7' 7 5 c,n'l/nag 7 ;7 .77,-.-,/ ...-4.ez.. 0,,. ..7, .--),J" CO Cf--'1 4/1-CrZ, "4/144.A-1 ft I ...-: .. , 25€ k----(3--- // (-CI h —4111C16-)cs? 4 ,...) l 2,...Fi- -y C 4"/r/L1- ;.../ /4.. 6e-7e 7,1.,-.7, 77,,-s s-/r)4-e t r. .1. . e /r ------(7 --)--4 L.,7t..,.,h; i c(epx---nce.9-,,,i - - /1767 I ( - /- Te --.)..---, f-g2-C2-5 ■ ,-- '5-CI p-P---,...,....11, _s....y......,.,./..% -Q-6 1..L. . :,.. ,.....,„.-as ; fr." z cc) 3, ,„.4.. / r /"..:4( ./.n_c-L.-,,,c,.r..4,., 1-.7 3 C.Accl ti 6 Illic-,--nc—e- (Sciu-,•ce /-2.- A. ,-/40, ..3,6 li-7',,,,,4 /Z ( /1's c.....r.77 7r, c-,o./i? a,,,,,,e- 5-4,Z-t7 1 // ‘."...4:, r ,.„...& . ...... . •,...., ,,- r- , .,..,,,. or- e-.../....iy....re- ..,-/c);4 44 at< ce.tAicki ( %a 4--;145, 5 It il 7,t/ce-c. , Z L.; i ) / I . f/ .... ..- /. ,, i,..)4..e.,/ ....,-.,..d (pvt s 7), fs-z-,v4 , paiA-75.- LJ SE cl, vc,-Le / rl' / /.c.c., sr.:D ( o ... .5 ., .. _ . 2b7 LA1 5- ..;„5 cep. 72... - 4c_ty-, Jets "y73,-76-&//c ures 6 e k7,5- c 1,,, c7i.c 5ciuNrce 41.-4es e- -77 c,rrt •i Sc:i(-Pt Ce. c"• &P--)//ki4415 L5-0 (c-•/7•77 77',L77 b L?C) /0 /69 •[272e45 6.-•;c7-4 ) (co ,Z., ei,ati P :// 7c- X e 7L1 50Z ),1 Art7L p 04-70-6 ct-L1 3 30 "72 ed2i e c5 / ie 13' .44 . eg.2 /s-A-'rz,- A 174 772 ,-5/2C1 CCJC, A-az /VS c„)• ; 6*". ..--/-% /2--011- - (5fCt 258 D (-7 4 57J /) d ?se,- - - , ,),-A- 7c77:1. inc --44.z 2, Sr? x c,c,o --: $ '7c) 000 / / 4L via-.1.7 r-r-di.....s :. .4/7 5 ,.,4.,„a c.„.cv / ,„ .., , es7;niad S-70 006' .e._,,( /de ...4a. 7t, t , .. ..._ 6.°V V ecAl 4 es . Cit-r-. a ...e.s-4,---,. ./ c,.,._cr` / 72. . . AQ /6-.. / 27c2. cA- 7--- 4c-frel,ia 45 .5-c,K C I ' , r .1/ _24 7-- - lici-e-,7 /)--)-cc,-...-n-E, ,, ,..„,,,y 7( ,.. ._, ,,___,. .,__...-..-r; „.5 , e is'-/..r. /1::--cy'r- A doo c•-70 i0i tia-A_i_eil. ra 6-....-''4-Fe ."--• 4i7:11-1/.-a-a 7:--ph....._7f. 77(..p.,,, ,,,_, -fl ....,Z,, /2,i/ 4.1. ..5-2:1/57-a: filtie",52:4;y- ,_L. 7 / /1 i 259 . . _ ___... „....._......, _ . \'-- - c-- i r i - / (...t.:;// C c4e)se c --,--,FI ,de...s 71 c/c- .. _., 7A 4146r? P lio-,A4 ../... t-3 - , E .7- e7 ,-),.', -i -- .ee,. . 0 e4..,.. c, V. ,,-7- e 7 cf c L-0 r? c....a 4 C)126?cr&ib Zz( '' cz:V 71.F.' pc,)'ail, /- .4;1,4 c vie,/ 7?e .,...-i-1 /Det7 7_54 j---,-7.- -,-<‘'le-c...1 7c--; .. .0/71- or ---7--... /.. ,d_....,..-.E.--.., — "Li "---'‘--rstsuini— °V\ 7„- L.-, , , ,C / AJ .,..A. .. . ) ,,,,--,) 770,, 77.„, 5, -.."--- 47- `.,-- ' .......,,. -`-i-c'7''.&- ?c - :.4 Li i -a- . if. ,rhj 110.44\ i (.....„? ..:, 0.e,-c,0-5-e 7Z, 4-771 c_.).c...e , /c/I-r\ c-*--1.1/ C,... 21 5 --)is I - -7 2. 7 / bin), if: , ---. (i-I- • / 1 '' 7 7 ' /10..„ , 1 il 1-- , i-yie)t}'1 e, I"c.,,,'T li•.). ..!..",(/.14 CY 1.1.;Ill 7tC7"li b.0 C4-. 4 4•1 Y 4--T -6, 77, c;fri:7 t„...,/ s r)."(CI -c•---,,G( cl_s is,,i re"( (is Z, cY C057 • ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF CO:q..IISSIONERS Action Aaezda Item ACTIC4,1 AGEMA ABSTRACT •heeetG DATE 7/8/82 Subject: Request by Fred & Elizabeth Cates for Rezoning from Residential-1 (R-1) to Residential - 8 (R-8) r„...,-tmane: Planning j I Public Hearing: X yes no • orm Attachment(a) Application forms - pd 1-4 Inf ation contact: Jim Polatty Location rap/tax map pg.5,6 Phone lArdoer: 732-8181 EXT. 342 PURPOSE: To receive input and coments concerning an application for rezoning from Residential-(fl-1) to Residential-8 (R-8) NEED: The applicant has requested high density residential (R,B) designation for property located in Hillsborough Township off Orange Crcae Road, just south of 1-85 the property is P/0 Lot 28 block B Nap 38 and is sham on Tax tap 42, Hillsborough Township. The total tract is 115 acres, about 40 acres of which lies south of 1-85. Property to the east and west has been developed by the applicant with 43 apartmat units on 6 acres of land. Hillsborough Ton water and sanitary sewer service is available to the site. 111PACT: The rezoning request is in general conformance with the Orange County Land Use Plan. However, the high 'elensiti,development allowed under the R-8 designation will have adverse impacts on the existing development in this area. The rezoning request does not address the following irmportant concerns: 1. Fire protection for the existing units and for those proposed. Development at this density should have fire hydrants no further than 500' by road from every unit. 2. There are no recreational facilities existing on the site, there are none proposed. If approved there would be a total of CO units with no recreational area 3. There is no provision for central services, with the number of units there should be some provision for laundry facilities and central trash disposal. 4. There is no pedestrian circulation system linking the units to me another, to trash disposal sites and to the rain roads. 5_ streets ray not be hard surfaced nor adequate to handle the amount of traffic generated by the miralr of units allowed. 6. Parking would have to be provided according to the Zoning Ordinance. However, the existing parking spaces back directly out into the travel way. This is an unsafe situation and will become worse if the rezoning is approved. 7. With a rezoning the building to building setbacks are governed by section 6.12 but there will be no landscaping recuirements. The applicant has provided minirel landscaping around the existing units. The site is presently grown up in lobolly pine. - 2,78 F.0 8. There will be no overall development plan to insure adequate provision of access, and other urban services. Piecemeal development such as proposed costs more in the long run for both the County and the developer. RECOMMCNDATION: In general there is no way to impose any requirements to ensure these factors will be addressed with a rezoning. Staff recommends denial of the rezoning request. A Planned Development- 1276 rezoning would allow the County to impose conditions that would protect the public health safety, and welfare addressed in the above conditions, Staff recommends the applicant reapply for a Planned Development in one year. 27 S Pg. 1 APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION DATE April 1, 1982 The Honorable Board of County Commissioners Orange County, North Carolina COMMISSIONERS: The undersigned request that property located on Tax Map Number 38, Block number . . , Lot number 28 , Shown on'the accompanying plat, which is presently in a R-1 District be rezoned to R-B for the following reasons: To enable residential development tpa density equivalent to the adjacent . existing apartment development.. City water and sewer are available and access to the site is good, so higher density development is reasonable on this site. • Signed '/ Address: /ISM) 112 Nest Union Street • 0/906 S. 'TES Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 • • . 28C Pg. 2 REZONING REQUEST CHECKLIST OWNER'S NAME: FRED S. CATES ADDRESS: 112 West Union Street, Hillsborough, NC 27278 Current Zoning: R-1 Total Number of Acres: 4.01 Current Land Use: Vacant Type of Rezoning Requested R-8 Proposed Land Use: Apartments Tax Map No. 38 Block No.. B Number of Lots 28 Proposed Water Supply: Public x Community . Individual Proposed Sewage Treatment: Public x Community Individual Septic Tank Access onto State Road 1006 Avg. Daily Traffic Count on the S.R. Describe Critical Areas: Flood prone areas None Poorly drained areas None Streams Nene Other sensitive areas None Describe Land Uses in: General Area Apartments/Single Family Res/Vacant/ Interstate Adjacent parcels of land . 1-85, Cates Lands, Orange Grove Road, and John W. Dickerson Lands Fire District: Hillsborough V.F.D. 281 1 .4 Pg. 3 JUSTIFICATION APPLICATION FOR CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA CATES FARM APARTMENTS, ORANGE GROVE ROAD Application is hereby mole to rezone from R-5 to R-8 a 4.01 acre tract of land adjacent to Cates Farm Apartments on Orange Grove Road in Hillsborough Township, Orange County. The following materials are presented in support . of this application, as required by Section 20.3.2 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance: a. A map of the area proposed for rezoning is attached. b. A legal description of the area proposed for rezoning is attached. c. The error in the zoning ordinance is as follows; The subject property was zoned in mid-1981 to a R-$ classification. At that time, Cates Farm Apartments were being developed on adjacent property at a density of 8 units per acre. The site has City water and sewer available and good vehicular access. There is a demand for low cost housing in the area. The site is particu- larly well suited for higher-density development, and should have been zoned in that way initially. d, The changing conditions: Reference is made again to the high demand for low cost housing, and to the fact that at the time zoning was imposed on the subject property the adjacent land was developing at an 8 units/acre density. The general welfare of the area would be promoted by this amendment by enabling the continued development of low-cost housing. e. Compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan: The site is located in an area which, in the Comprehensive Plan, is designated as "10-year transition" for urban use; thus high- density residential development is compatible with the Plan. PREPARED BY: THE JOHN R. McADAMS COMPANY, INC. Consulting Engineers Chapel Hill, North Carolina FOR: FRED S. CATES ! 282 Pg.4 DESCRIPTION OF A PORTION OF FRED S. CATES LAND NEAR HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA, BEING SUBMITTED FOR REZONING (SEE ATTACHED DRAWING OF CATES FARM REZONING MAP) That certain tract of land situate, lying and being in Hillsboro Township, Orange County, North Carolina, being bound on the north by 1-85, the east by Fred S. Cates Lands, the south by Fred S. Cates Lands and the west by Fred S. Cates Lands, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the southern right-of-way line of 1-85, thence along and with said right-of--way line North 89° 25' 52" East, 297.74 feet, thence 226.96 feet along the arc of a simple curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 11,273.85 feet to a new corner, thence South 350 54' 46" East, 106.35 feet to a new corner, thence South 52° 40' 23' West, 150.00 feet to a new corner, thence 35° 54' 46" East, 165.58 feet to a new corner, thence South 52° 40' 23" West, 188.44 feet to a new corner, thence North 37° 22' 27" West, 60.00 feet to a new corner, thence South 52° 40' 23" West, 100.00 feet to a new point on an existing 60 foot wide right-of-way serving Cates Farm; thence along and with the eastern right-of-way line South 87° 20' 11" West, 24.79 feet, thence North 32° 08' 35" West, 280.93 feet, thence South 89° 25' 52" West, 122.92 feet to _ anew point on said right-of-way, thence along a new line with Cates property North 00° 34' 08" West, 200.00 feet to the BEGINNING, containing 4.01 acres more or less. 1 :. 283 ..;.. . Pg 5 cn t I rn J rill C0 l > g . . ,,,1 (-) ;M 7 CO 1 rn i m " iiill .=1 \-\\I 7.:1 • / \10 '. 0 f RI \061 1 \ % .,4,, ...I -- .5_, ,..,.p .9, . .\111, c73 T. _ g m cr) 4.., r-,......:,, Lie ri 2:4- i c7 cc'al k A 1 ) , . . . .7: T.:\ ■.„,__, 77..''::-. .■',Y 1,7;.::::,:::•:,:,-;*.;7::::::*.::.,,M--;:ifP...,.. ..L.,,,:t:-t;,;,...:,-.:;:'.:;:::::, D —c' i..,:,,..:.::,:::::::::,:::::::::.;:y.*::::v.::::::::::;::.w.:,::ii::::;:;::::::.,::;::-..-„,_ ..•-.. M:::ii::::::MIV::1.":::::',.::::;N:::]:, :4:-..,:;... .;:,,:m.:,; .:. Cn IN3 .... ...............,....,......,.................,..,....„.,„.„......I . xr.t ..c::::ina .MM.RW,Milt - c3 414 . ',:...,,:d.,;; ,..,"---".-4;4p.idf,.:,:.:;,.' Fr)- 73 , it lf ..„),„......._p ND R .,- 2 ut • . .. .,284 I 1 Pg 6 6. ■a dl 5602 ' i•k■ , 51 75 0 0 13 65i1Aa. 14 12 AC 1.0 co . i \ . \ / / \\\ --6— 1-1 ;: 1 \ A \ '0' ■ P/0 42-A-5 R \ \ 4■52. .. ' . .V. . ..t -J -, -• -.. . i- r. / // ..■. \ \ .7 •a , '.-----""\.\ ( \ ,_ v , . t w \ \ -.1 /1 i 1 • . < H Vo\ .-).. ,t ,. c I \ \ (4D j 5-54 AC , . \-7\ . 0211 1.-,. 1 I H ,G- \ ., -P a 11 c.c■\ V-' •8\ . 11 `170 I 1 \\\ 1E01 \\ 11 1-+ cj-i 0 -,_J.:.,,.... .. Pg 7 AREA TO BE FIEZoNED l'et A3 401 AC ± ..... 4` t ...,' 4 \ \c..... , •. N., 'N. \ '''V*‘4• r---, is •7, ____---- \ ...---. '----, e 1, \ / o„a,,,-,z, io • \. 2414 ..... \ N•t, NN,..,.••••-•,,.., ( \ \ 4..• .....A-N. \ \ ;37"2 crtit,W \ \ / 1 1> A \ \ N 71. c*.,.."., N. . • ...,) / C\ i \/ ‹i / i \ ' --.4 , ,,,, -,,,,,\ ,... 1, ,, / r C •\ — -.... I... ,.." ..T. . .z. ,...\ J ,.... e' \ 1 ,-------- ',.. 7., rr \ I N.. ■ 1,.. \ '.-..- .• Si .. \ , ,,r, ei / ■ „, -r. \ ....... EXtSTING .„--- , / / -,, 0,-.., 40 AC 6Z 0,1 tT6 „,..".. ....."' 4....,--.. '....t ...., ....' ...., s , .....,' ....."3-. .../- , ....-"" rr''' 's \ .,' ' .... ... 3 7" / . . .7 " ..„,..," ...., ..,'' , ..,' ■ ' OINtP '. 0 N7 i ' ..' ' .. ,..".... .../ • .., LI '''' . T .e.''''' ...' .••• . s ,... ....- \ 1 ,r,....A • ....- -., 1..„.. . ,...-7 I • ' t , J ,- . „,,,,...” _v."- -,' , ...--- . , ....--'- — . v ... 0 \ .. .../". ., ." '7" ,.." jr.... . Far...Z=1 ,.."...."" ,r'-' ...." r r ...." .,..""' _ __ _ ' . ' fve,PcP(fi'vr,,a2f/si--- ` - - - .. -, ' _ - '-___ . __--_ __ -' . - - . __ � _ -■ - -- ------~~ w-°�--- ' ' ^ ---' ,°�� ~ / / ~ � ~ ' N� of �^� ^�� ' ' ' \ / ~'�- �`~ ' - � -°' ~-- - ' - - - - ----'— � ' �'_ � ^� • � � � ' / � - - _ - _ ' ' _----. `-- , - - wv� � . 40 - r-..;t '�°- fr '_ '~ _ - - _ __ ' �w�r ~ �- -~- v - � ' - -�- v*1 _ _ & - - ' - - _��w, ~ ~ ~�� - 'If r'-°~~�rw~�� ~-�- �� °- ~-~i^r t- dw'or=~��z��-/~ wv@�mu�" �� -__'-_-----_ ____ - _ -- - ''�___-_-__ - ' a /, / - ---�' -- . -- -- -�p -~-^ -- - - - �' v^ 1 ,�� ". f e•� --------- v~==-=-�`�� - _ x • ^ - - _~�-__ i -� - �� ^~ 1 �= , , x° r � . � . __'_ '_______ -_--_ - - __'____'__-___ . | �__. _- _�----___---__- _-- '' ____--__- - _- _-______-__ - . | �_ . _- � ___�___�-_- -|....._-. _ _ ___ _______ ___ _ _ _ ____ _ __ __ __________ -__ -- _' ---_ _ ' - ___-___-___- . | !~- ---- - — -- — — � , ' - ' ---- ----- '-- . _ - - . - � - , , . . - _ - . _ � - - '_ _- - . . _ _ - .. — - - . _ _ / ' -— _ ' � - - -------_-__-' - _-- � . - . . _ _-___ - . � � � - __ -_ ---_ - , . . _ _- ___-- - 1 ___-__ .-__ _ - ' r., • 2g€ C?2,).:CE-: COUNTY E03L.RD CaTIESSIOS Action Item No. AcrIoN ACZNO...; i11:17STAT rtcC DATE July Of 1‘.332 Sub oz -: Public Hearing to nave 48 Public Non-State Maintained Ponds n.; Pdc')1.1.c I. 2..ng y eS 110 . - Attach:neat CS)2 List. for Non-State TV/03.1701::I.Orl. Contact:- poiatty Plai'ntained Roads 1CILITbar: Ext. 342 z I PURPOSE: Public Hearing to receive public input on proposed naves for 48 Public Non-State Maintained Roads In order to continua the work star.ted in naming roads, 70;174C has proposed naming 48 Public Non-State Naintained roads. Dy clari.fying the naves on these roads service by emergency personnel should be easier, TtIPACT:- The naming of Public Non-3 Late Dlaintained roads is sormvinat mere cIi ficult than naming State maintained roads. ;le are sometires nubl to ascertain whether or not a road is public. rf..`ne naming of the roads will be useful to emergency services and in helping citizew.; find addresses. . . .o;a(slArIATIou (s) ; That the roprlq be named as recoieended. 12,2:CT: 28 S .1. ROAD NAPE RECOMMENDATIONS-PUBLIC NON-STATE MAINTAINED MACS The Orange County Road Naming Advisory Committee reconuends the folluding names for the County's Public non-state maintained roads: BINGHAM TO4NSHIP (7 roads) Recommended Name Description Coach Way off SR 1102 (The Trails) Summerwind Road off SR 1102 (The Trails) Partridge Run off Coach Way (The Trails) Outrider Trace Court off Cbach Way (The Trails) Esther Drive SR 1103-Dead Ends Monson Court off Foxfire Drive (which is off SR 1005) Tripp Drive off SR 1005 (east of SR 1005) CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP (8 roads) loommendedNarre Description Scarlette Mt. Road NC 86:S-Dead Ends Cheyenne Drive NC 86 S-Dead Ends Storey Lane NC 86 S-Dead Ends Winterberry Drive NC 86 S-Carmine Court Carmine Court Winterberry Drive-Dead Ends Sweetbrier Lane Wisteria Drive (SE of SR 1731)-Lead Ends Crabapple Lane SR 1880-Dead Ends Chestnut Lane SR 1880-Dead Ends . . CHEEKS WWNSHIP (4 roads) Recommended Name Description Marie Loop Loops west of SR 1343 Cherry Loop Loops east of SR 1343 Cain Drive SR 1400-Dead Ends Electric Road SR 1303-G.E. Plant ENO TOWNSHIP (9 roads) Recommended Name Description Horseshoe Circle Craig Road (Durham Co.)-Saddle Drive Big Oak Drive SR 1567-Dead Ends Greenglen Drive off McDermott Drive (Brigadoon) Dunkeld Way off Renfrew Drive (Brigadocn) Greenbriar Drive SR 1710-Dead Ends Seven Springs Road LS 70 E-Dead Ends Carriage Trail SR 1710-Buckboard Drive 288 ENO UMNSHIP OCNTINUED Recommended Nam Description Buckboard Drive SR 1710-Surry Trail Lendeau Drive SR 1710-Dead Ends HIN.SBOROUGH TOWNSHIP (9 roads) Pecounended Naze Description Governor Burke Drive NC 86 N-NC 57 Rocky Lane NC 86 N-NC 57 Joyce Road SR 1588-Dead Ends Gwen Road SR I588-LS 70 W Loop Road Old Hills.-Oxford Road (off SR .1002)- River Road (off US 70 E) Fletcher Road NC 86 S-Dead Ends Dixie Avenue SR 1395-Dead Ends Riddle Avenue SR 13957-Dead Ends Honemont Avenue SR 1395-Dead Ends LITTLE RIVER TOWNSHIP (11 roads) Reconuendad Naze Description, Coltsfoot-Drive SR 1579-Dead Ends Sweet Drive NC 57-Colts foot Drive Deerfield Road SR 1575-SR 1003 Devora-rod Road SR 1575-Dead Ends Bromley Road SR 1003-Lead Ends (into Durham Co.) Riverboat Road Bromley Road-Dead Ends Landsale Road SR 1575-Island Road Island Road Landsale Road-Dead Ends Russell Circle Island Road-Lead Ends Acorn Drive SR 1548-Dead Ends Willow Ridge Drive Fawn Brook Drive (Durham Co.)-Dead Ends •