San Juan County Commission tables Sky Ranch Phase 2 after renewed safety and legal questions over private airstrip

San Juan County commissioners on June 3 tabled consideration of the Sky Ranch Phase 2 subdivision after an extended public hearing in which residents, technical experts and the developer debated whether the private airstrip that runs through the development can be operated safely with new homes nearby.

The decision came after attorneys for both sides said Judge Torgerson remanded legal questions back to the county because the administrative record does not clearly show whether safety was meaningfully considered when the county previously approved parts of the project.

The dispute centers on a paved, privately operated runway that was widened and repaved in December 2017 and later realigned and extended onto adjacent property. Opponents say the altered runway, its slope, local winds and the proximity of planned lots create an unacceptable hazard; the developer and an aviation consultant said the runway can operate safely as a private airstrip under the conditions proposed.

Why it matters: the county’s ruling will affect whether about 50 additional residential lots and roughly 30 more potential lots around the runway can proceed as platted, and the county could face further litigation if it issues findings the court deems unsupported by evidence.

The record and remand

Jim Anderson, counsel for adjacent property owner Carl Spielman, told commissioners the district court remanded the question because “the record itself does not show that the evidence was produced in order for the commission to make a finding of safety.” Anderson said the remand was limited to two questions: whether the airstrip lies within the subdivision boundary and whether the record supports a finding that the airstrip and surrounding development can be operated safely.

Johnny Miller, chief executive officer of the Utah Counties Indemnity Pool, told commissioners USIP had been asked for research and guidance during the earlier county review and that his office had provided material to help the county evaluate liability and safety questions. Miller said his involvement dated to before the 2021 county decisions and that the county had asked for background information to consider potential lawsuits.

Competing technical opinions

Carl Spielman, who owns 72 acres adjacent to the Sky Ranch plat, described long-standing concerns about the runway’s configuration and use. “In those six years, I have not lied to the county nor exaggerated the hazards associated with designing an airport,” Spielman said, adding that the runway has been altered without required permits and that the county’s subdivision ordinance requires hazards be identified and eliminated prior to approval.

Justin Matkin, attorney for Sky Ranch, said the runway has been in use for decades as a private airstrip and that federal aviation filings dating to 1984 and later contacts with the FAA show the agency raised no objection to the runway’s “safe and efficient use of the airspace.” Matkin said Sky Ranch improved the runway to increase safety margins and later secured an amended Phase 1 plat and that owners and lot buyers have relied on that configuration.

Larry Williams, a retired FAA aviation safety inspector engaged by Sky Ranch, told the commission his reviews and FAA signoffs show no FAA objection to continued private use. Williams described a displaced threshold and said many built-up public airports operate adjacent to roads and buildings and still meet FAA airspace criteria.

A second technical study admitted in the record — identified by opponents as a safety report — concluded the site presents “particularly challenging environment” conditions for light aircraft because of high density altitude, rising terrain, gusting and crosswinds, and a runway slope; that report noted the developer’s design proposed a 3,700-foot runway with a 250-foot wide buffer and said that recommended FAA/UDOT guidance for comparable public-use protection zones would be substantially wider (reports in the record refer to guidance suggesting a 5,000-foot runway and a larger runway protection footprint).

What commissioners heard from residents and stakeholders

Nearby property owners and a developer who is building directly south of the runway urged the county to independently verify the legal status and safety of the airstrip before approving additional residential lots. Jim Schnapel, a developer with Gardner Plum, said he had not found any recorded navigation easement over his project area and urged the county to retain a specialized firm to evaluate the airstrip’s legal and safety status. Randy Day and other mining-industry commenters encouraged housing tied to local employers but emphasized safety concerns around the runway.

Sky Ranch resident Sean Ramsey told the commission he built his home and hangar with the expectation the airstrip would continue to operate privately, and he said lot owners would care about safe operations and private enforcement of rules. Ramsey said he routinely denies requests by non-owners to land at the airstrip.

Commission action and next steps

Commissioners voted to table consideration and requested time to review the competing reports, obtain clearer aerial imagery and consider options including: (a) forming findings supported by the record, (b) ordering an independent safety review by an expert contracted by the county, or (c) referring specific tasks back to planning and zoning with a clear scope. The motion to table passed without a roll-call vote recorded in the meeting minutes; commissioners said they would bring the item back at a future meeting (the commission announced it would revisit the matter at its next regular meeting cycle).

Discussion versus decision

Discussion: Commissioners and participants repeatedly described the matter as legally and technically complex; several speakers urged independent review and stronger documentation. Attorneys on both sides urged clarity so that the county, and if necessary the court, can reach a durable conclusion.

Directions: Commissioners asked staff to provide clearer aerial imagery, a consolidated set of the safety reports in the record, and a written offer from the developer describing any voluntary operational limits, so the commission can determine whether to commission an independent review or make findings based on the submitted material.

Decision: The commission formally tabled the Phase 2 approval and did not approve or deny the subdivision at the June 3 meeting.

Ending

The Sky Ranch dispute illustrates a recurring local tension: private aviation enthusiasts and developers asserting property-use expectations versus neighbors and public-safety advocates asking for modern safety documentation and zoning enforcement. Commissioners said they will seek to build a clearer record before taking a final action so any decision is defensible on both technical and legal grounds.