Laserfiche WebLink
<br />b. The subject property appears to be located within the boundaries of <br />that area proposed for airport acquisition. <br /> <br />c. The Applicant should approach the FAA for a~rspace approval for <br />tbeproposed use. <br /> <br />20. Tbat tbe Applicant is presently operating a commercial bituminous <br />aspbalt plafitapproximately 2 miles east of tbe subject property. <br /> <br />21. Tbat tbe Applicant bas stated tbat be feels tbe subject property is a <br />better site for tbe proposed aspbalt plant tban tbe existing site due to <br />adjacent uses, ~oning 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. Tbat tbe FAA bas reviewed the Appl icant' s request and on November 13, <br />1987 determined that the proposed plant is not identified as an obstruction <br />under any standard of FAR, Part 77 t Subpart C and would not be a bazard to <br />air navigation. <br /> <br />24.Tbat 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. <br /> <br />26. <br /> <br />27. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />It) <br />