Post by bellas on Apr 10, 2016 15:32:34 GMT -4
The FAA, on behalf and at the request, of The Bay Bridge Airport (owned by QAC), has acquired a permanent avigation easement of Broad Creek Cemetery property for the purpose of removing 40+ mature (150 yrs old) trees that 'might' pose a safety issue for aircraft using the airport. They have also retained the right to address the use of the property in the future. Installing lights or beacons within the cemetery, so as not to disrupt the nature of the setting and avoid killing numerous trees in the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area, was denied.
According to a letter sent by Fr. Mark Delcuze of Christ Church KI to the QAC Commissioners (http://www.qac.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/03082016-285, pages 10 & 11), the company which determined the trees to be a possible hazard was retained by Bay Bridge Airport owners, QAC.
The trees are not only in the historic site of Broad Creek Cemetery, they are also established in the Chesapeake Bay critical area. KI citizens of the past are buried there, present citizens plan to be buried there, the majority of this community knows at least one person who was laid to rest there. It seems to 'rest in peace' may no longer an option within Broad Creek Cemetery.
The Bay Bridge Airport IS SAFE AND USABLE AS IS. The recommended changes within the county hired URS Consultants (available at KIHS library) are needed ONLY for the airport to be be guaranteed future federal funding. Future funding for what? Expansion?
At the onset of this airport improvement, in 2003, the County Commissioners signed the Airport Layout Plan, acknowledging that in order to carry it out, The Stevensville Community Plan would need to be changed; at the time it stated that the Bay Bridge Airport would not expand beyond it's present boundaries. The change was signed in 2007. Is the mindset now 'responsible growth unless we can make money'?
As a resident of Bay City for 15 years, I do not want the airport to attract more traffic, as they are unable to keep the pilots currently using it from flying in areas and at altitudes the county assured residents would be restricted. I do not want a cemetery to be victim to disruption in the name of future funding. I do not want our bay's critical area ignored for a buck. The report claims the tree removal would 'have no significant impact'? No impact on whom and what, the airport? Of course that would be their finding, they were hired by the people with a vested interest in the airport. Christ Church, the caretakers of the cemetery, do not have the means to pay for a report that no doubt would prove otherwise. The outcome depends on who is signing the check.
Broad Creek Cemetery, to put it in the simplest of terms, was there first. The trees were also there before the airport. The county KNEW there was an historic, and hallowed site adjacent to where they decided to build an airport. So now they are strong-arming Christ Church to rectify their own lack of foresight when originally choosing the airport location?
The county allows sailboats, with tall mobile (unlike the trees) lighted masts, to manuever and dock close to the end of the airport, but they don't have to leave; allowed the Chesapeake Beach Club with all the possible distraction it could cause to pilots to be built right next to the end of the runway; allowed the current construction adjacent to the airport along with a small hops field, plants which attract fence jumping deer. Not a safety issue? Also, couldn't the birds that the hops 'might' attract cause safety issues? It is a well known fact that birds and planes do not mix.
The man made structures all produce revenue for the county, while the cemetery does not. Christ Church was offered compensation for the trees and like any church could most likely use the money, but their respect for the history and purpose of the cemetery is of greater value than money and they are trying to save the trees. The buildings obviously adhere to height restrictions, or are lighted to address the issue, but lighting the cemetery is denied? Maybe the county should have considered the the maximum height of the trees in the cemetery next to the proposed site before building the airport.
The Bay Bridge Airport is safe(if it weren't it would be closed) and sufficient for it's purpose; to be a small, rural, general aviation airport. Ask any pilot without a vested interest in the airport, and they will tell you that the trees marked to be removed do not pose a threat, that if there was an emergency they would rather have those trees to cushion an impact with the ground.
Bay Bridge Airport only needs to pursue these requirements IF they want to be guaranteed federal funding in the future. They absolutely can still apply for the grants/funding, the process would only be more tedious. The chances are they would still get funding if it is needed to keep the airport safe. Again, why do the county feel the need for this guarantee of funds is greater than the preservation of our community's history?
KI's airport will NEVER compete with Easton Jetport, which IS guaranteed to receive federal grants in the future. Nor should KI residents desire this. Easton can service, accomodate, and store many more, and bigger, aircraft. There is an airplane dealer at the airport. Their operations and services are plenty for this area.
QAC Commissioners, not everything is about expanding and the possible money to be made by doing so. Stop changing community plans to accomodate agendas. Stop hiding behind a report (the authors being who QAC sought out and paid for) claiming over 40, 150 yr old trees that are established on a historic cemetery's property, which is also in the Chesapeake Bay's Critical Area, MUST be removed to be in compliance with the FAA; THEY DO NOT. Removal only needs to be done to be guaranteed future money. Of course, the airport can apply for grants and funding either way if the Board of Commissioners are willing to put a bit more effort towards the process, IF the need arose.
Instead of salivating over future money, how about honoring the history of Kent Island and Broad Creek Cemetery? Respect the first residents of our Island that are buried there. Consider those recently laid to rest within the cemetery and the living who loved them and picked the cemetery for it's tranquil setting. Remember those who plan to be laid to rest there because of the natural beauty of the site. Your actions to secure money in the future could very well impact the cemetery's meager finances. Support Christ Church, the longest continually worshipping congregation in Maryland, who has cared for and rejuvinated the cemetery. Respect their entire congregation; past, present, and future. Do not make that church victim of your predecessor's lack of planning.
Follow the laws in place to protect our bay, the backdrop for our lives, and do not allow the trees in the critical area to be removed so the airport can be sure of money in the future. Light the trees, apply for an exemption of the AIP requirements based on the historic site, bay critical area, and sensitive nature of the property and trees. There is also the option of being content with the current capacity, layout, and service of the Bay Bridge Airport.
KI residents, if this concerns you please make your voice heard by contacting the QAC Commissioners
qaccommissionersandadministrator@qac.org
If not, don't be surprised if years from now the county decides to take the cemetery property to expand the airport. It has happened before and will happen again. articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-28/news/ct-met-ohare-expansion-suit-1228-20121228_1_bensenville-church-county-judge-hollis-webster-cemetery
Thank you to everyone who took the time to read this, please pass it on to friends and neighbors.
According to a letter sent by Fr. Mark Delcuze of Christ Church KI to the QAC Commissioners (http://www.qac.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/03082016-285, pages 10 & 11), the company which determined the trees to be a possible hazard was retained by Bay Bridge Airport owners, QAC.
The trees are not only in the historic site of Broad Creek Cemetery, they are also established in the Chesapeake Bay critical area. KI citizens of the past are buried there, present citizens plan to be buried there, the majority of this community knows at least one person who was laid to rest there. It seems to 'rest in peace' may no longer an option within Broad Creek Cemetery.
The Bay Bridge Airport IS SAFE AND USABLE AS IS. The recommended changes within the county hired URS Consultants (available at KIHS library) are needed ONLY for the airport to be be guaranteed future federal funding. Future funding for what? Expansion?
At the onset of this airport improvement, in 2003, the County Commissioners signed the Airport Layout Plan, acknowledging that in order to carry it out, The Stevensville Community Plan would need to be changed; at the time it stated that the Bay Bridge Airport would not expand beyond it's present boundaries. The change was signed in 2007. Is the mindset now 'responsible growth unless we can make money'?
As a resident of Bay City for 15 years, I do not want the airport to attract more traffic, as they are unable to keep the pilots currently using it from flying in areas and at altitudes the county assured residents would be restricted. I do not want a cemetery to be victim to disruption in the name of future funding. I do not want our bay's critical area ignored for a buck. The report claims the tree removal would 'have no significant impact'? No impact on whom and what, the airport? Of course that would be their finding, they were hired by the people with a vested interest in the airport. Christ Church, the caretakers of the cemetery, do not have the means to pay for a report that no doubt would prove otherwise. The outcome depends on who is signing the check.
Broad Creek Cemetery, to put it in the simplest of terms, was there first. The trees were also there before the airport. The county KNEW there was an historic, and hallowed site adjacent to where they decided to build an airport. So now they are strong-arming Christ Church to rectify their own lack of foresight when originally choosing the airport location?
The county allows sailboats, with tall mobile (unlike the trees) lighted masts, to manuever and dock close to the end of the airport, but they don't have to leave; allowed the Chesapeake Beach Club with all the possible distraction it could cause to pilots to be built right next to the end of the runway; allowed the current construction adjacent to the airport along with a small hops field, plants which attract fence jumping deer. Not a safety issue? Also, couldn't the birds that the hops 'might' attract cause safety issues? It is a well known fact that birds and planes do not mix.
The man made structures all produce revenue for the county, while the cemetery does not. Christ Church was offered compensation for the trees and like any church could most likely use the money, but their respect for the history and purpose of the cemetery is of greater value than money and they are trying to save the trees. The buildings obviously adhere to height restrictions, or are lighted to address the issue, but lighting the cemetery is denied? Maybe the county should have considered the the maximum height of the trees in the cemetery next to the proposed site before building the airport.
The Bay Bridge Airport is safe(if it weren't it would be closed) and sufficient for it's purpose; to be a small, rural, general aviation airport. Ask any pilot without a vested interest in the airport, and they will tell you that the trees marked to be removed do not pose a threat, that if there was an emergency they would rather have those trees to cushion an impact with the ground.
Bay Bridge Airport only needs to pursue these requirements IF they want to be guaranteed federal funding in the future. They absolutely can still apply for the grants/funding, the process would only be more tedious. The chances are they would still get funding if it is needed to keep the airport safe. Again, why do the county feel the need for this guarantee of funds is greater than the preservation of our community's history?
KI's airport will NEVER compete with Easton Jetport, which IS guaranteed to receive federal grants in the future. Nor should KI residents desire this. Easton can service, accomodate, and store many more, and bigger, aircraft. There is an airplane dealer at the airport. Their operations and services are plenty for this area.
QAC Commissioners, not everything is about expanding and the possible money to be made by doing so. Stop changing community plans to accomodate agendas. Stop hiding behind a report (the authors being who QAC sought out and paid for) claiming over 40, 150 yr old trees that are established on a historic cemetery's property, which is also in the Chesapeake Bay's Critical Area, MUST be removed to be in compliance with the FAA; THEY DO NOT. Removal only needs to be done to be guaranteed future money. Of course, the airport can apply for grants and funding either way if the Board of Commissioners are willing to put a bit more effort towards the process, IF the need arose.
Instead of salivating over future money, how about honoring the history of Kent Island and Broad Creek Cemetery? Respect the first residents of our Island that are buried there. Consider those recently laid to rest within the cemetery and the living who loved them and picked the cemetery for it's tranquil setting. Remember those who plan to be laid to rest there because of the natural beauty of the site. Your actions to secure money in the future could very well impact the cemetery's meager finances. Support Christ Church, the longest continually worshipping congregation in Maryland, who has cared for and rejuvinated the cemetery. Respect their entire congregation; past, present, and future. Do not make that church victim of your predecessor's lack of planning.
Follow the laws in place to protect our bay, the backdrop for our lives, and do not allow the trees in the critical area to be removed so the airport can be sure of money in the future. Light the trees, apply for an exemption of the AIP requirements based on the historic site, bay critical area, and sensitive nature of the property and trees. There is also the option of being content with the current capacity, layout, and service of the Bay Bridge Airport.
KI residents, if this concerns you please make your voice heard by contacting the QAC Commissioners
qaccommissionersandadministrator@qac.org
If not, don't be surprised if years from now the county decides to take the cemetery property to expand the airport. It has happened before and will happen again. articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-28/news/ct-met-ohare-expansion-suit-1228-20121228_1_bensenville-church-county-judge-hollis-webster-cemetery
Thank you to everyone who took the time to read this, please pass it on to friends and neighbors.
