Laserfiche WebLink
<br />b. The subject property appears to be located witbin tbe boundaries of <br />tbat area proposed for airport acquisition. <br /> <br />c. The Applicant sbould approacb tbe FAA for airspace approval for <br />tbe proposed use. <br /> <br />20. Tbat tbe Applicant is presently operating a commercial bituminous <br />aspbalt plant approximately 2 miles east of tbe subject property. <br /> <br />21. That tbe Applicant bas stated tbat be feels tbe subject property is a <br />better site for tbe proposed aspbalt plant than tbe existing site due to <br />adjacent uses, zoning and transportation considerations. <br /> <br />22. That tbe subject property currently is occupied by concrete debris left <br />by tbe previous occupant. <br /> <br />23. That tbe FAA bas reviewed tbe Applicant's request and on November 13, <br />1987 determined tbat tbe proposed plant is not identified as an obstruction <br />under any standard of FAR, Part 77, Subpart C and would not be a bazard to <br />air navigation. <br /> <br />24. That tbe Planning and Zoning Commission bas received several comments <br />regarding tbe potential odor from tbe proposed site and existing odor at <br />tbe existing site. <br /> <br />25. That tbe Applicant bas a private access from tbe subject property to <br />U.S. Higbway 10 from tbe subject property; tbis access to U.S. Higbway 10 <br />is uncontrolled. The Applicant also bas access to U.S. Higbway 10 from tbe <br />subject property via County Roads 116 and 57; tbe intersection of U.S. <br />Higbway 10 and County Road 57 is controlled. <br /> <br />26. <br /> <br />27. <br /> <br />28. <br /> <br />4 <br />