Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Aviation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bluff holds public hearing on state-required aviation overlay; no vote scheduled
Summary
Bluff Town Council held a public hearing Oct. 7 on a draft, state-mandated aviation overlay ordinance for the airport influence area. Two online commenters — a resident and the volunteer airport manager — praised the draft; the council will wait for written comments through Oct. 17 before voting.
Bluff — The Bluff Town Council on Oct. 7 held a public hearing on a draft aviation overlay ordinance intended to regulate land use in the town’s airport influence area, but the council did not vote and will take up the ordinance after the public comment period closes Oct. 17.
Town staff opened the hearing at 5:49 p.m., saying the ordinance was prepared by “the Hansen group” in coordination with the town’s planning and zoning and citing 'Utah code section 72-10-403' as the legal basis for adopting an airport overlay. Written comments are being accepted until Friday, Oct. 17, at 5:00 p.m. and may be emailed to ann@townofbluffutah.gov or delivered to the town office, staff said.
Two members of the public participated online and offered support. Marcia Hayden Belt, who identified herself on the record, said she spoke for herself and that reviewers at her PNC meeting were "very pleased" with the draft; she characterized the overlay as a state-mandated protection for airspace and said the draft "looks good." Jim Hook, who identified himself as the volunteer airport manager, also endorsed the ordinance, saying "the plan looks just the way it should" and thanking planning and zoning for their work.
Council members agreed not to vote at the Oct. 7 meeting. Staff and the host discussed scheduling — including a possible special meeting — but emphasized the need to wait until the written public comment period ends Oct. 17 before placing the ordinance on an agenda for formal action.
The meeting concluded with a procedural motion to adjourn, which was seconded and approved unanimously. The record shows no formal votes on the ordinance at this hearing.
