HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 07-07-1982- d1 CRAZZL CM-N--Y
i
BQa.2O 07 CM4ISSIO.IS'S Action Agenda
ter Item. No.
=MNG DATE September 7, 1982
I
i
Subject: Buck Mountain Development request for General Aviation Airport
Class A Special Use Permit
Dec nt:
Planning Public FMaZ711g: g no
AttBd=mnt(S): Planning Board's Finding-, lriformes Cont=c=t: Fred Luce
Planning Board's imposed conditions;
Planning Department's imposed conditions Phone h13rb=: 732-8181 ext. 346
PUTCSE: For the Board of County Commissioners to consider the issuance of a
Class A Special Use Permit for Buck Mountain Development's proposed
general aviation airport.
The Planning Board has reviewed the evidence supplied by the applicant
in the submittal request and held public hearings July 8 and July 19, 1982.
the Planning Board wade the following findings at its meeting on August _16, 1982,
The chairperson presented the Board's finding at a'coatinnation.of the public hearir
held on Aug4st 23, 1982. The findings of the Planning Board vary in several
respects from those of-the Planning Staff.
In particular the Planning Board found:
1. It is not clear in the record what areas are included in the development
proposal, particularly the land of Leslie Walton.
2. The 91 lans do not show approach-departure zone easements, or ownership.
I
3. All F;FA standards are not met because the applicant does not o%,n all
the clear zone or any of the approach zone.
4. There! will be adverse affects on adjacent existing land uses, particularly
land Ivalue and agricultural land use.
S. 9herelwas no evidence that the applicant controls sufficient land for
approach zones.
6. The applicant has not provided evidence of adequate fire protection.
7. There, a.-e incompatible land uses located within the approach zones.
S. The request will not promote the public health, safety and general
welfare. (see ;3 and 6 above).
9. The (quest will not maiatai,n or enhance adjacent property values.
(see i#4 above)
10. The request is not in compliance with the general plans for the pizysica'
development of the county. (see :and use Plan goals 2,5, and 7 and 4,
and 7above)
Based on these, the Planning Bcar3 recommends dental because it finds t-e
applicant did not meet the conditions for approval as set forth in the Zoning
Ordinance. J7 voting to deny, 1 opposed)
The Planning Lepa-_=nt ,ecomm:ndation, on the other hand, is for approval
subject to conditions as it :eels the applicant has substantially met the
Ordinance requirements. As to ?lancing 3oard's findings, the Planning
Department f gels that:
I
!
1. The area under consideration for a Special Use Permit was shown
on 'the plans and described in the deeds submitted by the applicant.
Z. The iplans show the existing and proposed road rights-of-way and there
are 'no existing or proposed utility or drainage easements. Any
necessary easements or rights-of-way for approach zones or clear
zones can be handled as an imposed condition.
3. The lapplicant can meet all applicable FAA and state requirements; it
maybe necessary to slightly modify the site plan to do so. This can
be an imposed condition.
i
4. The (Iopinion of Wallace Kaufman about property values had valid points;
howe',ver, there were not sepcific numbers given to support the idea of
decreased values. In spite of the existence of Horace Williams Airpor
land! development has continued around that facility.
S. The applicant can provide land sufficient for a clear zone and thereby
assuze aircraft operator safety. There is no evidence that the applic t
can ''own or control the land uses or height of- Objects in the approach
zones and thereby protect residents from adverse impacts associated wi h
the lairport or protect the aiz-port operations from adverse impacts fro
adjacent uses.
6. The Orange Grove Rural Eire Department provided a letter that stated eir
ability to provide adequate fire protection if certain requirements we e
met.' They also made suggestions for improved services which would
enhance their ability to provide protection.
7. There are several residences located in the approach zones for the ai ort.
This'number is relatively small and further residential development s uld
be discouraged. other compatible land uses generally would not be all wed
in the approach zones because they are not allowed under the present
zonings therefore, agricultural use of the land may continue.
8. Conditions imposed on the applicant can prevent or alleviate many of the
concerns for public health, safety and general welfare.
9.. The Land Use Plan does not specifically address the appropriate location
for an airport. The Zoning Ordinance allows general aviation airports in
the Agricultural-Ftsidential district, with a Special Use Permit. The
General Aviation Airport Need and Sites study indicated that this location
was on an above average site within the County. The Planning Departme t
acknowledges that there are other better sites for such a facility if the
County were to construct an airport.
i
MV ACT: Approval of this request would allow the construction of an airport.
COMMMATION: The Planning Board recommends denial of the request_.
tie Planning Departmeant recommends approval with imposed conditions.
I
i
The following is a list of the Zoning ordinance requizm-ents for the issuance
of a Class A Special Use Peumit for a general aviation airport. On the left side
is the standard of evaluation; on the right is a space to answer yes or no. If
the answer is jxes, list the evidence heard to support that point of view. If
the answer is no, list lack of evidence to support the point.
No Yes �
1. North point scale and date. X contained an application
2. Extent of area to be developed X It is not clear in the
record what areas are
included in the develop-
rMt proposal, par'ticul ly
the land of Leslie Waltar
(pg. S line 12-14)
MM 6-2)
3. Location widths of all ease- X Tim plans as submitted are
vents and rights-of-way with- deficient because they
in or adjacent to the site. do not show the approach
departure zone: easement
or rights-of-way.
(VOTE 4-1-3)
4. Location of all existing or X
contained in application
proposed structures on the
site
I
I
5. Location of all areas on X contained in application
the site subject to flood
hazard or inundation as shown
on flood maps or soil's maps.
6. Lxatiosn ok all water courses X contained in application
on the sate, including direction
of flow.
7. Existing topography at a contour-. X contained in application
interval of 5' based on mean level
datum
S. Proposed of existing fencing, X contained in application
screening,;gates,park ng,
service and storage areas.
9. Access to site including X contained in application
site distances on all roads
used for access.
10. Elevationsof all structures X contained in application
proposed to be used in the VC11£ (4-2-2)
development.
I
11. Names and adr=cses o` X c retained in application
owners and applicants.
12. A fee, as set by the X paid by applicant
Orange County Board of
Commissioners.
The following speciffic standards sna?: be jsed rn maJi.ac findings of fact for
t^m approval orjde-"Ual of this class o£ use.
a) All F.A.A. and State-- - X The Boat found tte cz-
regulat- are rout a5 plicant did not suppl-
a xndition of approval evidence that they own au
the a--ea within the cl
zone and dial not own or
control any of the area
as t!7a approach zone.
(VCR'E0-2)
i
b) The site and its operation X Evidence i.'1 Faces 15-18
will not adversely affect of the July 8 minutes
existing adjacent lanai uses. indicates that there will
be adverse affects cn
adjacent property'.espL*,-' iv
the testi mny of Wallace
2..
I
NO YES EVM)Mxm
b) X Kaufmn zcmoerning
estate values, and M
Simpson concerning the aff
on agricultural land
(VCTF 6-1-6)
c) Land sufficient to provide x Applicant nas not provided
approach zoms and overrun
areas is ow: or controlled evidence that they control
tt� the applicant. sufficient land for the
approach zones.(v1T- 6- Y
d) equate land area is X contained in appli.cati
provided for;all of the (VOM 5-3)
Proposed uses, buildings
and storage areas.
I
e) Screening ofiBuildings, X omtained in applicati
storage. and maintenance
areas is prof tided front
adjacent residential
Land.
i
f) Letters f=, approm,riate X Applicant has not .rapt
fire and res ue agencies the requ raeent for to
that protectLve services fire protection as evi ceci
can be prow W at an by testimony of Dr. as
adequate level. Grimm on pg. 13=14 J. y
81 1982 miaautes, and 1 ter
dated June 24, 1982 by
.
reward Johnson (VCJi'E )
,"c
g) Access shall,be directly X contained in applicatim
onto. a State maintained
road.
I
h) & a3tible land uses are x Appl I cant. has not presem ted
located in the final evidence that canpatibl
approach areas of the ]anal uses are located in
airport, approach zones. The
testimon_ of Bruce Matt!ets
on July 19, 1982 Co .7
line 32-35) indicates
homes should be exclude
fran tim aErproach zone f
an airport. (IM.E. 5-2-1
8.2.4 In addition to the Cw=al
Statidards stated in 8.2
the fcllowinc Specific
Standards sna;l be
addressed by the applicant
before the isfuance of
a Special UseI'Pa=it:
a) Method and
adequac( of X The applicant has -em ssed
provision of sewage dis- the questicn of sewage and
ponal facilities, solid solid waste disposal and
waste, and water. water supply. Tfieree is
concern that storm wate
runoff will =_ect adja nt
property (see 7g. 19-1:.,es
30-33 July 8, 1982 minutes)
N=E1 8-0)
b) ,+",eLhod arO ad adequacy cf X Applicant has :.ot net
police, fire and rescue requiranent for aGerzLk3
squad protection. fire prvte�a cn as evi' ced
by tesstinmy of Dr. Thcras
Griggs on pg. 13-14 JuI4 3,
1982 minutes, and lettei
dater? :me 24 by Dr- r "'d
NO
YES E'VIEX'E
c) Method anduacy of X contained in applicant
vechicle access to the and testimory (1= 4 3-1)
site and traffic
conditions around
the site.
8.2.lb) The Board sY#al.l make
written findings certifying
oouipliance with the specific
rules gove g such individual
Special. Use and that the use,
winch is listed as 3 Special
Use In the district in which
it is m. Wosed to be located,
cmplies with all required
regulations and standards, in-
cluding the Iprovisi:ons of
Article 5 ar$d 6 of this
oxdiaace, iailess greater or
different regulations are
contained in the individual
standards for the specific
Special Use: It shall be
the responsoility of the
applicant to present evidence
in the form iof testimony,
exhibits, documents, models,
plans and the like to
support the j apply cation
for Vprova4 of a Special
Use.
8.2.2 Metre the Board finds a pre-
ponderence of evidence to
indicate copli.ance with
the general standards,
specific rules governing
the specific use and that
the use cauplies with all
required regulations and
standards, the application
must be approved unless
the Board shall also find,
in score specific manner
that.
a) 71e use will, not promote a) X Evidence shows that the
the public hlealth, safety use will not prorate the
and general welfare, i public health, safe*_y arld
located wLti7eLti' proposed general welfare, :, -1ca11
and developqd according in twv areas :l) fire ro-
to the ;plan las suhrtitted; tection, and:2) ^sue: an
State regulations (see
speci-fic find_-rqs cn s
1'(a) acid page 2 .(c) & (f)
4 (b I. (GtT"%' 6-2)
b) The use wiL not main- X Evidence shows the u---e i11
tain or enhance tL,e not maintain or enhance the
value of contiguous value of .anti .,,..,us D_.. r,:!
property (unless the S:�
Specifically See the f: pines
use is a public necessity, on page 2(b) he Vests y
in winich :zee the use of Wallace Kaufman and lane
need not maiintain or erlbance Simpsonin ttie july 9, 3902
the value Or cm-Ligucus pro- m-irLtes.
perty);
C) The Use is hat in ecapliance
with the general plans for
the physical develc mnt
of the County as eribodied
in these xec_�lations or ir.
the Cat�reh : ive Plar:,
or portion t hereof,
i
I
i
No YES EVIDENCE
c) adopted by the Hoard of X Evidence shows the use is
County Canu�ssicners. not in compliance with
general plans for the de lop-
ment of the Count- spec' i-
cally the adopted goals o the
Land Use Plan (Goals 2,5 d 7),
the adverse ixpace the de lop-
meet could have on the cul-
tural land uses in the am k
(See page l (b)},and that
compatible land uses in th
approach zones for airpormare
not compatible with the current
zoning around the propose
airport. (see page 2 (h))
(Vote 5-3)
QMICN - 'L`ie Planning Board recamwids denial of this special Use Permit
because the aavQlicant failed to meet the conditions for the permit required by
Zoning Ordinance as evidenced by these findincss. (VO M 7-1)
The Planning Board understands that ta board of Ccmvssioners may approve
the request for the Special Lim permit. if the permit is grantee.,the following
conditions should be imposed on the developer:
1. That there be no based jet aircraft permitted.
2. That the applicant own or control the area knave as the clear zone. 'fie
clear!zone starts 200' from the end of the runway and rises at a 20:1
slope ito a height of 100'. -The length of t'ne clear zone-shall be-200b..
3. That "re be no co mrcial. uses associated with the airport faiclity
such as restaurants,motels, or shops. The sale of fuel for aircraft,
maintenance service and flight training classes shall be permitted.
4. That tihe number of based aircraft be limited to 200 hangared or tied-
dam Manes.
S. that all of the requirements and suggestions from the orange Grove Rural
Fire VApa.rbent be meet, including the construction of a fire access
road to the property from Teer load.
6. That the construction schedule outlined on page 4 of the July 8, 1982
minut67 be adhered to by the applicants.
7. That a be convering the cost of construction of all rnublic improvemesi
and the runway, fire ponds and fire fighting equipment, plus 10% be
approved b<y and supplied to orange County.
8. '1nat r4ght training operations not exceed 50$ of the total operations
for the facility.
i
9. That any Planning Staff reca:mendations omsistent with these ccnditic:s
be incorporated.
i
I
I
I
I
(
i
I
i
5
The Planning Staff finds that there is a perporu3erence of evidence to
indicate SU�ta�ltial coupliance with the General Standards and SpeC1f1C
rules
9overningll;the request by Buck hbtmtain Development Co. for a Class
A 5121—al Use Permit under Section 8.8.8 of the orange County zoning Ord-
inance. The Planning Staff rends approval of the Special Use Permit
with the following imposed condition:
1. . That the final site plan and narrative of the project
incorporating all changes, deletions and additions
throu94 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 aril narrative
be on file with the Orange county Planning Department. All
9.mprovements as indicated on the site plan or stated in the
narrative sha11 be constructed according to the construction
schedule, set up on the final site plan.
2. That ttie 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 its plus 10%. The amount shall be
determined on the basis of fully executed construction contracts
or cez ification by a registered engineer erployed 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 inprovements are completed in
Bch Phase, that phase and a corresponding amount of money may
be released from the security inst=rents or the security ins-
trumrnts may be renegotiated based on the unconstructed portion
of the iiR=n'0nents.
3.. That security shall be provided for the grading, clearing,
paving 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 developamt shall be provided at no cost to the utility
provider.
5. All plans for drainage, soil erosion and sedirent..ati.on control
shall be rear eked and approve;4 by or?;ge County. In addition,
Orange County shall inspect the inst-ilation of control devices and
the cn going work for the total project. T.he project Shall at
all tires meet the re= rements of the orange C unty Soil Erosion
and Sedimeataticn Control Or'..in,ance.
6. T7i2t dense evergreen screeninc be provided =or any bui.ldIngs that
are notlat least 500' from the property line. This screen *acerial
shall be of sufficient size to provide a 6' :sedge withir. 3 yeas-s of
planting. Also acceptable as a screening material is a 6' burn
or solid wood fence.
I
I
I
I
I .
i
6
7. that the developers provide a 24 hots/day vehicle will be provided for
security, fire fighting and maintenance purposes. 'This vehicle wiu
be outfitted with master keys, radio system, turnout gear, portable
fire extingt�her, fire fighting foam, and airpack.
8. That any lighting of the nsnway or other parrs of the airport nec-
essary for sefety 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 asters association is to be foamed and be responsible for
any of the approved public Lq:rovements, all such documents and
orgainzat=al material: be approved by the Orange County Attorney.
10. that the developer build a 20' wide hard surface access road along
the soutihem property line westward to service the "t'" hangars on
the vast side of the rhshway.
U. That there be no based jet aircraft at the facility and that the
Airport /Facility Director published by the U.S. Dept. of Cam-arm
(N.O.S.) s441 specify that the project is not intended for jet aircraft.
12. 11 at the developers own or have control over the height of objects in
an area at e0ch end of the rmwW which is know as the approach - de-
parture zone, The dimensions of this acne are shown in the diagram
below. If the developers do not own this area, the easements rights
they negotiate with each property aner 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 easement
agreements.
4/11/78 AC 150/5300-48•CHG 2
Appendix 6
APP=11 6. RUNWAY aZAR ZONE DIMSIONS
Ay�roaen 9a__ace ,{7 `�'
6`nSaea S:-:x
3tcwa9
�uara+ 30' clam Saga
I
I
I