Tyler council adopts airport zoning ordinance after heated public comment, denies 30-day delay

The Tyler City Council on May 28 adopted an ordinance creating land‑use and height‑review rules to protect aircraft approaches at Tyler Pounds Regional Airport, while preserving a process for property owners to seek FAA review and city variances.

The ordinance establishes runway protection zone (RPZ) restrictions that treat undeveloped agricultural uses and surface parking as allowed-by-right within the most restrictive hatched areas and creates an administrative height‑hazard permit process tied to an FAA airspace determination. Council member Curtis moved to approve the ordinance; the motion passed after council defeated a separate motion to table the item for 30 days.

City planning staff said the measure codifies existing FAA expectations and grant assurances rather than imposing wholly new federal obligations. “The FAA has 3 levels that they ask…own the property outright, purchase an easement, or, third, have some type of zoning ordinance,” Planning staff member Kyle said, summarizing why the city is adopting the ordinance. Airport manager Steve Thompson told the council: “The airport is an economic engine for the city…we don't want to jeopardize that by allowing some type of development that we could have altered.”

Under the ordinance, a local administrative height‑hazard permit will be required for projects in the city’s defined hazard areas; items shorter than 75 feet (roughly a five‑story building) are generally excluded from that permit requirement but still may require FAA review. For structures or uses not on the pre‑cleared list, applicants must obtain FAA documentation (a determination of no hazard) as part of the city’s review process. Council staff emphasized the ordinance is not retroactive and will not force removal of existing legal nonconforming structures.

The measure created an appeals and review path: the airport manager will consider height‑permit applications; denials can be appealed to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which itself can be appealed to court. “This ordinance would create that structure,” Kyle said during the discussion. The council also considered, and defeated, a motion to delay adoption; Council members later approved O‑1 on a subsequent motion.

The item drew multiple public comments from nearby property owners and developers who said the ordinance could limit commercial development and lower property values in parcels near the RPZs. Real estate developer Justin Carney, who identified himself as working on the Wellington Place subdivision north of the airport, said the proposal “greatly puts a burden on our investment” and asked council to table the measure while property owners appraise potential impacts. Broker Nancy Wright and property owner Charles Reed urged delay and asked whether the city would consider purchasing easements or compensating affected owners. Resident Elario Perez asked whether a home destroyed by storm or fire could be rebuilt; staff responded that if more than 60% of a nonconforming structure is destroyed, reconstruction would require a variance process that includes airport/FAA review.

Supporters on council and staff said delaying codification risks federal grant assurances and future FAA funding for airport projects. One council member warned that without a local ordinance the city could jeopardize future FAA capital grants and even airport operations if incompatible development were allowed to proceed. The council ultimately voted to approve the ordinance, with staff saying the change provides a formal process that aligns city practice with FAA guidance and gives property owners a clearer administrative path to request exceptions or variances.

The ordinance directs staff to notify property owners in affected areas and uses an administrative 10‑day review for the height‑hazard permit when FAA documentation is included. The city and airport staff also said they will continue outreach with the development community to explain the permitting and FAA coordination steps.

The council’s approval ends with formal adoption of O‑1; staff will continue outreach and implement the permitting and appeal processes described in the ordinance.