The Leighton Township Planning C
ommission was deadlocked in a 2-2 vote Wednesday night on whether to accept or reject a resolution on a proposed air strip near the corner of 144th Avenue and Kalamazoo Avenue.
John Hooker, who represents the Township Board on the commission, told his colleagues Thursday night that the vote was tied and another will be taken next month with hopes the full board will be in attendance at the March 8 meeting.
Leighton Township Supervisor Steve Deer, who is a partner with developer Clark Galloway in the proposed project, will not be voting on the matter. He has steadfastly excused himself to avoid any appearance of impropriety.
Galloway first presented his proposal more than a year ago and since then has revised his plans scaled down from the original. His first revision reduced the size of the air strip and the most recent one, Dec. 14, was an attempt to avoid having planes disturb nearby residents, particularly a horse farm.
Neighbors of the former air strip, owned by Bill and Rita Martin, have been persistent and vocal in their opposition for safety and noise reasons. They also have contended the old Martin property had been abandoned for some time and wasn’t used for private planes any more,
Some Planning Commission meetings have drawn as many as 100 citizens, though not all of them opposed to the project.
Many at the Dec. 14 Planning Commission meeting said they still believed plane engines’ noise from 6 a.m. to about 10:30 p.m. seven days a week during warmer weather is excessive.
Kate Scheltema, owner of the nearby horse farm, has disputed the promise that planes will be fly as much as 800 feet above the ground.
The first plan submitted about a year ago included 15 home sites on a 3,000-foot airstrip for use by as many as 25 planes. Galloway’s second proposal scaled it back to four housing lots and a 2,100-foot grass airstrip, with a maximum of five planes on site.
The most recent proposal scaled the strip down to 1,800 feet and an attempt to avoid Scheltema’s horse farm.
I would like to clear up a few items in the article about the Planning Commission. The vote was 2-2. There were 5 members in attendance but 1 recused himself because of influence by a relative. He will not be part of any future votes on the issue. The Planning Commission will revote at whatever meeting has 5 voting members in attendance, probably not until April when one of the commissioners will return from his winter vacation.
Thank you, Madame Clerk. I was not aware of this information until now.