Winnsboro airport board discusses potential airpark, land swap with nearby church; no formal approvals

The Winnsboro Airport Board discussed steps to pursue an airpark (a flying community combining residential and commercial aviation uses) near Winnsboro Regional Airport and options for resolving a property conflict with an adjacent church, but took no formal development actions.

Board members spent most of the meeting reviewing preliminary outreach and research on potential developers and neighboring airports. Mary, a board member, reported she had met with Steven Murley, the current owner of a hangar that neighbors church property, and said, “Steven is very interested in what we're doing here. He grew up here and has fond memories and would really like to come back.” She told the board Murley indicated it could be about a year before he is ready to move because of items stored in the hangar related to his late father’s estate.

The board reviewed contacts at nearby airports and developers who have built residential and commercial airparks in East and Central Texas. Carl, a board member who researched other airports, said Wills Point and Wood County airports were “wide open to conversations” and could share lessons learned about renovation and funding. Board members agreed that developers generally will engage only once the town has a clearer plan, a zoning path and an offer of specific land or incentives.

Discussion covered several specific topics board members identified as prerequisites for developer interest: confirming zoning for the parcels adjacent to the airport, clarifying who would lead development (the board emphasized it is advisory and cannot obligate the city), preparing examples or slide decks of preferred airpark models, and answering typical developer questions about revenue sharing and who would advance initial capital. Board members said the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) and city council should be involved once the board compiles concrete recommendations.

The board considered a possible land swap to move a problematic structure away from operational areas. One board member described a concept to relocate part of the church facilities southward onto the board-controlled 99-acre tract so airport operations and the church would be “mutually not bothering each other.” Board members flagged practical questions — who would pay for any building relocation, whether the church would agree, and how such a swap would affect parking and circulation — and said those items would need to be worked out in meetings with church representatives.

Board members also discussed technical and infrastructure priorities for increasing airport capacity and credibility with prospective pilots and developers: extending the runway (discussed targets included 4,000 feet and longer), installing an AWOS (automated weather observing system), adding hangars and improving taxiways and surface work. One board member referenced Gilmer’s recent master plan changes as an example of phasing runway and facility upgrades.

Several participants recommended acquiring example through‑the‑fence agreements used elsewhere and consulting TxDOT and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on fee parity and compliance. The board noted that an existing through‑the‑fence agreement had expired in May and that staff should follow up with Michael (staff) and with TxDOT for sample agreements and guidance.

The only formal actions during the meeting were procedural: the board approved the minutes from the prior meeting and set a placeholder follow‑up meeting for June 3 at 3:00 p.m. to continue the airpark discussion. No rezoning, land swaps, contracts, or commitments to developers were authorized; board members repeatedly emphasized the board’s advisory role and the need to present proposals to the EDC and city council for any binding decisions.

Board members directed staff and volunteers to collect sample developer slide decks, local examples of airpark master plans, through‑the‑fence agreement templates, and TxDOT/FAA guidance, and to pursue a small, informal meeting with nearby developers and airport operators to gather options. The board agreed to invite the church to a smaller‑group conversation to explore land‑swap or relocation possibilities before escalating the matter to the city or EDC.

The board adjourned after setting the follow‑up meeting; no additional votes or formal commitments were recorded.