Stetsonville water tower gets county OK 
by Brian Wilson
The Star News
February 11, 2010 —  A proposed 177-foot tall water tower for the village of Stetsonville got the green light to proceed from the Taylor County Airport Committee Tuesday morning.
The water tower is planned as part of the multi-million dollar installation of a water system for the village to replace private wells, some of which have become or are projected to become contaminated as a result of a plume of petroleum spreading beneath a portion of the community.
The water tower had originally been planned for near the Stetsonville Elementary School on the village's northwest side, however, that location was deemed to be a wetland and the proposed tower needed to be relocated. The current location for the tower puts it within the flight path for planes landing at the north to south runway at the Taylor County Airport located approximately two miles north of the village.
The county has zoning height limits for structures around the airport to prevent possible collision with low flying planes. The height limits are set by the Federal Aviation Administration which oversees all general aviation airports such at Taylor County's. An aeronautical study was completed by the FAA and on January 28 a ruling was issued determining there was no hazard to air navigation from the tower or from a 277 foot tall crane that will be used to build it.
While the proposed water tower would extend about 9 feet higher than the height limit, airport committee member John Werner III said he did not object to it being built since the FAA agreed to the height of it.
“I don't want to deny Stetsonville this water tower, they have enough problems,” said airport manager Jim Wood. Wood said the height of the tower would not be an issue for the small turboprop planes that fly in and out of the airport because it is far enough away. However, he raised the concern about jets flying into the airport and explained that the approach route to land on that runway requires pilots to circle the airport to the north and turn around near where the proposed tower would be located.
According to committee member Gary Machon, a former commercial pilot, jets making that approach would be between 300 and 400 feet off the ground at that point and traveling about 150 knots (about 172 mph). Because of its angle off to the west of the main flight path, Machon said it should not interfere with planes.
Committee member Roger Emmerich noted, since the FAA did not have a problem with the height of the tower, the county should not stand in its way. He called for the approval of the 177 foot tower. In addition, he also made a motion to request Stetsonville consider putting a beacon light on the top of the tower so that pilots would be able to see it especially at night or in low visibility conditions. It was noted the FAA's ruling on the tower was that it did not require the lights, however it was believed they would be helpful, especially for small aircraft. The committee agreed and forwarded the request to Stetsonville.
Wood noted the sport pilot license exam still suggests that pilots who are unsure of their location find the nearest water tower and circle it since many times the name of the community is on the tower.

Hangar application
A proposed ordinance to clarify the airport committee’s authority in enforcing leases for airport users will move to the full county board following approval by the airport committee.
The ordinance requires all new commercial or non-commercial leaseholders to file an application with the county prior to constructing hangers or conducting any commercial or non-commercial activity at the Taylor County Airport. The ordinance also sets up a form that must be used to apply for the application.
According to Werner, the new rule helps give the airport more control over what happens on airport property and covers the county by giving the airport committee the authority to review requests to say if they will be a go or a no go.
The committee also approved two application forms, one for non-commercial leases and the other for commercial leases. Wood explained in the language of the ordinance, commercial leases would be for businesses who operate a fixed base operation (FBO) at the airport, whether they provide services such as repair or maintenance of aircraft to other airport leaseholders or they provide services to the general public. For the purposes of the ordinance, those operating corporate aircraft out of the airport are considered under the non-commercial leases.
In other business, committee members:
´ approved proceeding with repairs of the cracked liner in the 100 octane low lead fuel tank. Wood explained the tanks are required to be cleaned and tested every five years and the jet fuel tank passed the inspection without any issues. The aviation gasoline tank had cracks in the liner and areas where it was flaking, and repairs will cost approximately $5,000, which will come out of the airport’s equipment maintenance account. The work in the sealed tank cannot take place until the temperature is at least 50 degrees.
´ Discussed the status of money owed to the county for the airport. Wood said they have a judgement against a driver who destroyed a road barrier on a closed road south of the airport property, but that the barrier has again been destroyed by a driver. However, that driver left the scene leaving behind several beer cans. Woods showed the damage done to the barrier and estimated repairs to it at about $1,000.
´ Discussed location of a new terminal building. The ongoing airport improvement plan calls for the eventual relocation of the terminal building to be east of the existing hangar areas. Wood suggested it would be better if it was closer to the existing hangars, however, Machon and Emmerich disagreed noting the airport would be better able to accommodate growth with the original plan. They suggested the people in the hangars could use a vehicle to travel the distance between their hangars and the terminal. While part of the overall expansion project, the relocation of the terminal building is toward the end of the list and a planned $700,000 fence around the airport to increase security and keep out wildlife would come first. As with any projects at the airport the lion’s share of the funding comes through the state and federal government.

Return to main
Go to next story