Fairfield planning commission recommends repealing airport overlay, delays final action on Airpark zoning

Fairfield Planning Commission members voted on March 19 to recommend repeal of the town's Airpark Overlay Zone but stopped short of forwarding the companion Airpark Mixed-Use Zone (AMUZ) to the Town Council after lengthy public comment and legal concerns.

Town attorney Brad Christopherson opened the discussion by describing the AMUZ draft as a work in progress intended to balance airport operations with surrounding property rights; he said the ordinance is "a draft and not final, and that changes are expected before it is considered by the Town Council." The commission opened the public hearing to hear residents, landowners, airport operators and legal counsel.

West Desert Airpark manager Alina Pringle strongly disputed several of the ordinance's recitals, calling portions "factually false, misleading, and legally incorrect," and told the commission the airpark has held FAA public-use designation since 2018 and has operated since 2002. Multiple commenters, including landfill counsel Dan McDonald and Church counsel Dan Dansie, urged clarity about the legal scope of an overlay and urged protections for existing conditional uses and church-owned parcels.

Speakers representing residents emphasized noise, low-altitude overflights and what they described as increased aircraft activity; some urged limits such as a proposed annual cap on operations. Pilot-advocates and other speakers framed the airpark as providing community benefits, including training and emergency access, and warned that some draft provisions could conflict with federal aviation authority.

On formal motions, Commissioner David Riet moved and Commissioner Jamie Mascaro seconded a motion to forward Item #3 to the Town Council with a positive recommendation to repeal the current overlay and not replace it; the motion passed unanimously. A separate motion to forward the AMUZ (Item #2) to the Town Council with the condition that all public comments be given equal weight failed 2—3 (Riet and Butterfield in favor; Taylor, Fisher and Mascaro opposed).

The commission scheduled a follow-up meeting for March 23 to allow staff and legal counsel time to review written and verbal comments and prepare a revised draft for further consideration. Commissioners and counsel emphasized the desire to balance competing property rights and to "get this right" before making a final recommendation to the council.

The meeting record shows the commission closed the hearings and adjourned at 8:41 p.m. The Town Council remains scheduled to consider ordinances after the commission's further review.