Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fairfield council splits on airport overlay; asks state for clarifications on easements and boundaries
Summary
Councilors debated whether to adopt an airport-overlay map now or require the airport sponsor and the state to produce the official overlay and associated easement documentation. Members asked staff to seek state guidance and to continue discussion at a follow-up meeting.
Fairfield’s Town Council spent more than an hour debating whether to adopt an airport overlay and the map that would trigger special land-use and easement requirements around the West Desert Airpark.
Several council members said the state and the airport — not the town — should drive the overlay process and pay for any easement acquisitions the sponsor must obtain under its grant agreement. Others said state law (cited by town counsel) requires municipalities to adopt an overlay and that the council must act so development applications inside the “influence area” trigger the statutory easement and notice provisions.
Mayor McKinney and council members said they were concerned about the overlay’s real-world impact. If the town adopted a larger, more restrictive overlay, it could force the airport sponsor to offer aviation easements to nearby property owners — including large operations such as landfills and an adjacent industrial park — after those properties had been developed. Councilors said that outcome could impose substantial costs and legal conflict for people who have already invested under the town’s existing development rules.
Town Attorney Todd Sheeran told the council the applicable statute requires a municipal overlay related to airport-influence areas and explained the overlay triggers a developer’s obligation to offer an avigation easement to the airport owner at fair market value as a condition of plat or building permit approvals. Several council members asked staff to request clearer guidance from the state on the statute’s technical details, including the precise method for measuring the influence area and how the statute’s protection triggers apply to previously developed land.
The council discussed the state grant signed by the airport sponsor — the grant language directs the sponsor to acquire rights or adopt zoning that protects the runway approaches. Several councilors said the state should be accountable for ensuring the sponsor fulfills those terms because the state awarded the grant that funded the runway extension.
No new overlay map was adopted Wednesday. Instead councilors asked staff to contact state aviation officials to clarify which set of technical criteria the town should use and scheduled follow-up work so planning commission and council can consider the clarified information. Council members chose to continue the topic at a later meeting and asked planning staff and counsel to bring back a clear, defensible recommendation supported by state guidance or definitive engineering analysis.
Ending: The council paused the overlay effort pending additional state guidance and asked staff to convene planning commission and the airline/airport stakeholders for a clear technical recommendation.
