Residents challenge West Desert Airpark overlay as council reviews draft zoning language

Engineers working with Fairfield presented a draft airport overlay and zoning language on June 18, detailing height limits and runway protection zones associated with the airpark’s new runway. The presentation prompted extensive public comment, with many residents urging the council to restrict or rescind the overlay and to protect private property rights.

Brian Carver, land‑use planner for JUB Engineers, explained that the overlay is drawn to federal and state guidance and that it extends roughly 5,000 feet in an arc around the runway centerline. Within the area shown, the draft limits maximum structure heights in stages (the council packet and presentation cited a 150‑foot maximum in the immediate overlay inside the green area and progressively lower permitted heights closer to the runway). The draft overlay also identifies runway protection zones extending about 1,250 feet beyond the runway ends; the most restrictive protection area is shown as a “no build” zone in the presentation materials.

Carver and aviation lead Neil (last name recorded as Rayer in the packet) emphasized that the overlay is intended to coordinate local zoning with federal/state runway safety surfaces (Part‑77 style surfaces were cited in the discussion) and to improve the town’s information about where aviation safety zones affect adjacent parcels. Council members and staff repeatedly stressed that the presentation was informational and that adoption would require the town’s formal public‑process steps.

Public commenters raised strong objections. Multiple residents said they were not told previously that the airpark would seek or claim a public‑use runway classification and that the overlay would effectively limit what they can do with their property. Several residents argued the overlay amounted to a de facto “taking” of private property and said the town should resist imposition without compensation. Northpointe Landfill representatives asked technical questions about whether their operations fit the overlay and who would be liable for wildlife strikes. Other speakers who identified themselves as affiliated with West Desert Airpark, flight school operators, or the airpark ownership urged the council to work with the airport and recommended mitigation measures such as noise protocols and complaint forms.

Councilmembers heard legal and planning clarifications from the consultants: the overlay does not automatically prohibit all development, but it creates height limits and land‑use compatibility considerations (for example, discouraging wildlife attractants, smoke‑producing uses, or light that could affect pilots). Staff and the consultants said the state and FAA processes differ for privately owned airfields that are open to public use; those distinctions affect what powers the town can exercise. Several residents asked whether the council or the FAA had reviewed or approved the runway before it was advertised as public use; meeting comments allege limited oversight prior to that classification.

The council did not adopt any ordinance at the meeting. Council members opened the item for public questions and comment, and the presentation will return for formal public hearings if the town proceeds with ordinance drafting and adoption.