FAA Regulations - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

(2) Social impact, including relocation prob- lems; Effects of land conversion on existing and proposed community land use and the pro- vision of public facilities; and (4) Relation to local planning proposals in these locations. (3) 64. Land Use Strategies. In the past, the most common approach to controlling land uses has been zoning. Airports and their environs became involved in two types of zoning. a. The first type of zoning is height and hazard zoning, which may protect the airport and its ap- proaches from obstructions to aviation while restricting certain elements of community growth. FAR Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, is the basis for height and hazard zoning which is described in Ad- visory Circular 150/5190-3, "Model Airport Zoning Ordinance." b. The second type of zoning, and the one which is most familiar to planners, is land use zoning. This type of zoning, however, has two major shortcomings. First, it is not retroactive and does not affect pre- existing uses that will conflict with airport operations. Secondly, jurisdictions with zoning powers (usually cities and towns, or in some cases counties) may not take effective zoning action. This is partly because the airport may affect several jurisdictions and coordi- nation of zoning is difficult. Or, the airport may be located in a rural area where the county lacks zoning powers and the sponsoring city may not be able to zone outside its political boundaries. Another problem is that the interest of the community is not always consistent with the needs and interests of the aviation industry. The locality wants more tax base, popula- tion growth, and rising land values, all of which are not often consistent with the need to preserve the air- port environs for other than residential uses. There is also the problem in that zoning vacant land for com- patible uses of an exclusive nature, such as commercial or industrial, may be considered a "taking" if there is no demand for such activity. A possible solu- tion to overcoming the problem of multi -jurisdictional interest in the airport's environs would be to transfer zoning power to a regional authority, which could legitimately be given police powers. If zoning of air- port environs is not feasible for legal or political reason, another approach needs to be tried. Some airport authorities have eminent domain powers, and the purchasing of easements may offer some solutions in this field. If airport authorities were given an 48 adequate source of funds, they could use eminent domain power to acquire development rights over land within noise exposed areas around airports. c. Subdivision regulations offer another method of land use control. Provisions can be written into the regulations prohibiting residential construction in intense noise exposure areas >115 CNR and >40 NEF—and requiring acoustical studies to be made for proposed residences within the 100-115 CNR/30-40 NEF contour. This in effect is not different from those ordinances prohibiting construction within flood plains. d. A fourth alternative in controlling land use is relocation of residences or the use of urban renewal funds and the authority to eliminate existing incom- patible uses. This technique raises many questions, but it may be worth exploring for severe noise ex- posure situations. Substantial additional funding would be required and problems of relocation of residences and neighborhood disruption would have to be handled in terms of benefits to the entire area. 65. Innovative Concepts for Compatible Land Use Development. The following develop- ment presents some examples of innovative concepts that could assist development of compatible land near airports. Other techniques will continue to be re- quired until the problem is solved. a. Joint Airport -Environs Development. A joint airport -environs development approach merits attention and evaluation to determine its applica- bility for developing the airport environs. The joint airport -environs development concept is based on the fact that separation between the noise generated com- ponents of an airport and adjacent land uses fre- quently requires enormous amounts of land which are difficult to keep in a state of nondevelopment often due to the economic growth pressures generated by the airport itself. It would, therefore, be desirable to commit the surrounding land to a more intensive form of development which is compatible with and could be developed jointly with the airport. This would then permit capitalizing on the growth gen- erated by the airport and recovering, through increased land values and the development of income -produc- ing properties, some of the cost of developing the airport proper. There is some precedent for this re- volving fund provision and for the joint development concept in the United States which is presently being pursued in a somewhat different form for freeways and related development by both the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation. • •