Fairfield council opens formal review of airpark overlay after sharp public debate

Fairfield — The Fairfield Town Council on April 2 voted to begin a formal review of the town’s airpark zone and airpark overlay, triggering a planning‑commission review and direction to obtain outside technical review. The vote followed more than an hour of public comment and internal discussion about whether the overlay as drafted affects adjacent property owners, required easements and the legal scope of town authority vis‑à‑vis the Federal Aviation Administration.

Why it matters: The airpark overlay defines permitted uses, building setbacks and safety easements near airport runways. Changes to the overlay can affect neighboring landowners’ ability to develop property, require purchase of easements, and alter requirements for notifying pilots and the FAA.

Public commenters and owners

Owners and supporters of West Desert Airpark pressed the council to retract or amend language they said mischaracterized their operations and their compliance. Lena Pringle, identified in public comment as associated with the airpark, said she “consistently and properly disclosed my conflict of interest while serving on the planning commission” and that the overlay was adopted by the council before some of her tenure on the commission. She asked the council to reject the resolution and instead investigate, saying the town’s attorney has confirmed the overlay was properly approved. Another speaker, Matthew Kong, who identified himself as a veteran and small‑business owner, said the airpark “is a vital asset” that provides access to emergency medical services and argued the draft resolution “launch[ed] a campaign of misinformation” against the airpark.

Neighbors and other residents urged the council to proceed with the revision. Multiple speakers said the draft overlay as written lacks definitions and clarity and could expand the overlay footprint because the airport has a newly extended runway. One resident said the town should “stop” and determine what the overlay map means for adjacent properties before development moves forward.

Council discussion and process

Town staff and the town attorney told the council the notice of pending ordinance is the correct legal mechanism to pause immediate approvals while the town fixes definitional gaps and clarifies the overlay map. The town attorney explained that a pending‑ordinance notice allows time for the planning commission to review code text amendments and for staff to obtain necessary technical analysis; the attorney characterized the notice as a temporary measure that “goes away” once the ordinance is revised and adopted.

Council members discussed a timeline and mechanics: the draft notice includes a 45‑day planning commission review window, with a statutory maximum of 180 days under state law if needed. The council directed staff to obtain an overlay map from the applicant/developer (the record indicates a firm called Lochner will prepare or revise mapping), then to send that map to a reviewer with aviation experience so the town can determine whether the overlay as drafted would legally and practically impose easements or limit adjacent development.

FAA, easements and state guidance

Speakers on all sides referenced the FAA’s jurisdiction over navigable airspace and state law that governs airport overlays. A public commenter referenced “advisory opinion number 37 from the property rights ombudsman” in arguing that denial of applications in an overlay is justified only when an emergent, unmitigable public interest exists. Council members and staff emphasized that while the FAA controls airspace, the town controls land‑use regulations on the ground.

Quote

“This is not about enforcing regulations. It’s about selective enforcement targeting 1 business and me,” said Lena Pringle during public comment, characterizing the dispute as personal and asking the council to investigate the town’s handling of permit and agenda requests.

What the vote did and next steps

The council approved the notice of pending ordinance (R2025-04) by recorded vote, initiating the planning commission review and directing staff to secure third‑party technical review focused on aviation safety and easement impacts. The council and public repeatedly discussed that any required easements would need to be purchased or negotiated with affected landowners; the notice itself does not impose easements or bar development while the commission performs its review.

The planning commission is expected to receive the overlay draft, and the council asked staff to provide an outside reviewer with aviation expertise before planning‑commission deliberations. The council also discussed the possibility of shortening or lengthening the planning‑commission review window, and multiple council members said they expect to amend the notice language to remove any personally identifying or inflammatory language before final adoption.