Fairfield hearing focuses on whether West Desert Airpark can use a business license to sidestep zoning

A hearing officer in Fairfield heard competing legal arguments on whether West Desert Airpark’s business‑license renewal was properly denied after the airport designated itself public use.

Hearing officer David Stevenson opened the proceeding, described the hearing schedule and said he would issue a written decision in about two weeks. Jamie Blakesley, counsel for the town, told the hearing the appeal raises an administrative licensing issue but that the underlying question — whether public‑use airport operations are permitted at the site — must be resolved through the town’s land‑use process. "Land use entitlements just need to be enacted through the front door, not through the back door," Blakesley said.

Counsel for the airport, Amy Wofford, and airport witnesses said the airport has long operated under town permits and that federal and state aviation determinations and UDOT support show it has been a public‑use facility since 2018. Jared Esselman, a former state director of aeronautics who spoke for the Airpark in opening argument, said, "Only the FAA has authority to approve a public use aviation asset." Wofford emphasized the airport’s master site plan and a runway permit the town issued when describing the property’s approvals.

Town witnesses described different concerns. Mayor Holly McKinney said the town had issued construction permits but "did not authorize public access" or grant zoning that would allow unconstrained public‑use operations; she said increased touch‑and‑go traffic and resident complaints prompted closer review. Town recorder Stephanie Shelley testified she reviewed the Airpark’s application materials and noted the renewal listed activities including runways, hangars, fuel storage and "public use."

Airpark managing director Alina Pringle testified the master site plan and engineering drawings filed with the town show a proposed 5,200‑foot runway and references to public‑use activities; she said the airport received the FAA/UDOT designations and that a runway permit (number 2024‑0009) was signed by the town on Sept. 3, 2024. Pringle also testified the Airpark’s public‑use designation in FAA records dates to 2018 and that the Airpark applied for the business‑license renewal with more extensive disclosures for 29 buildings and related infrastructure.

In cross‑examination, town counsel pressed witnesses on whether the town’s code distinguishes private and public use and on the adequacy of public road access. Pringle said Aviators Way provides access and that easements and master‑plan entries reflect public use and town roadway planning; the town said ownership and prescriptive‑easement questions remain unresolved and are relevant to land‑use review.

Town counsel argued that FAA and UDOT actions concern airspace and federal/state aviation policies but do not confer authority to displace local land‑use regulation. Blakesley cited the Utah Airport Zoning Act and FAA guidance language that a Form 7481/official determination "does not constitute FAA approval or disapproval of the physical development involved in the proposal." He urged the hearing officer to affirm the licensing denial so the town can address on‑the‑ground impacts through its legislative zoning process.

Airpark counsel countered that the Airpark complied with the code provisions that existed when the runway was expanded, that master‑plan approvals and the runway permit were obtained, and warned that retroactive zoning changes could raise nonconforming‑use and property‑rights issues. The airport’s closing noted a claimed $2,300,000 state investment for runway expansion.

No final ruling was made at the hearing. The hearing officer allowed a brief rebuttal and said he would issue a written decision within 14 days. The decision will determine whether the town’s denial of the business‑license renewal should be affirmed, or whether the Airpark may proceed under its submitted business license.