Middleton Airport Commission votes 3–2 to add RPZ‑relocation alternatives to airport layout plan amid safety objections

The Middleton Airport Commission voted 3–2 on June 6 to incorporate alternative configurations into its airport layout plan (ALP) that would relocate the southern runway protection zone (RPZ) from adjacent Airport Road parcels onto Middleton Municipal Airport property.

The vote, taken after a technical briefing and extended discussion, followed public comments from longtime airport users and flight instructors who said moving the RPZ could shorten the usable landing distance for Runway 1 and impair safety. Tanya Cunningham, who has used the airport since 1975, urged commissioners not to take action before the next airport master plan is finalized, saying, "I am not in favor of shortening the approach to Runway 1" and asserting the "protected approach area is necessary for normal airport operations." Flight instructor Neil Robinson told the Commission he "would not want it any shorter" because it would make training "unpleasantly marginal."

City staff framed the Commission’s vote as a decision to add a possible configuration to the ALP for review, not an immediate physical change. Brian (city staff) said the image before the Commission shows how the RPZ could be shifted and asked Mead & Hunt’s Greg Stern to respond to technical questions. Stern said the RPZ is a two‑dimensional, trapezoidal ground area intended to protect people and property on the ground and that its depiction on the ALP would be shown as an "interim condition" pending FAA review of declared distances.

Commission discussion focused on safety and long‑term implications. Commissioners and pilots said that even if current practice results in most grass‑runway touchdowns north of the paved runway, formally shortening a declared landing distance could affect how the FAA views the runway’s utility in the future. Rich (airport staff) and several commissioners said they are reluctant to shorten any runway but framed the ALP alternative as a response to adjacent landowner requests. David Schwartz asked whether the plan would change glide path or traffic patterns; staff said the traffic pattern would largely remain the same though landing to the north could be made more challenging in practice.

The motion to incorporate the alternatives passed on a roll call: Commissioner Randall — Nay; Lohrmann — Aye; Hamilton — Nay; Jackson — Aye; Schwartz — Aye (tally: 3 Aye, 2 Nay). The Commission recorded the vote for the minutes and directed staff to include the alternative(s) on the ALP submission, which the presenter described as an interim depiction that will undergo FAA review and state review as part of the ALP process.

Next steps: staff will include the adopted alternative(s) on the ALP submittal and await the FAA’s technical review and any guidance on declared distances. The Commission did not adopt any immediate physical changes to runway pavement or markings at this meeting.