Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/1995

Home

Z.B. August 1995 -- Page 3 Special Exception Airport Owner Objects to Nearby Private Airstrip Patterson v. Utah County Board of Adjustment, 893 P. 2d 602 (Utah) !995 Smith. and Buttars were in the process of buying 180 acres in Cedar Valley, Utah, on which they wanted to build two homes and a private airstrip. Smith was a pilOt. They applied for a special exception to build and operate the air- strip. Before holding a hearing on the application, the county Board of Adjustment sent notice to five neighboring property owners. At its hearing, the board reviewed the application, a report from the zoning administrator's staff, several other documents, and several witnesses' testimony. One issue; it considered was how close the airstrip would be to a private com- mercial airport owned by Patterson (who did not attend the hearing). The county planner to'stified that the airstrip would not pose a hazard -- it was far enough away from the airport and would see only minimal use. Buttars estimated the two famil~ies would use the airstrip only two to four times a month. Smith's wife testified that they wotild monitor airport landings and take-offs by radio and communicate their own plans the same way. The board also heard evidence regarding approaches around a nearby moun- tain, potential effects on local residents, winds, and converging flight patterns. The boardconcluded that the airstrip would not endanger anyone, and approved the specia'l exception based on a finding that it would promote public health, safety, and welfare. Patterson asked a court to review the board's decision, claiming it was arbi- trary and would create an inherently unsafe condition. He said the board should not have approved an airstrip two miles away from an existing airport without proper information about the airport's activities. Patterson also said the airstrip would violate a section of the zoning ordi- nance governing airport turning zones, which were the two-mile radius around an airport's landing strip. The regulation prohibited buildings or structures taller than 150 feet in an airport turning zone. According to Patterson, the airstrip's placement, would violate the ordinance because a large mountain was to the airstrip's immediate east. The court overturned the board's decision.,, finding it to be arbitrary and illegal. The court agreed that the mountain would interfere with airplanes"turning radii. Smith and Buttars appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The board based its decision on substantial evidence, and the airstrip would not violate the ordinance. Ample~ evidence supported the board's conclusion that the ai~rstrip would promote public health, safety, and welfare, It considered the location, design, and operation of the use, any dangers to residents, and any infringements on competing property interests. The special exception made good zoning policy because it ~Would contribute to the community's orderly development. In fact, the board was specifically authorized to grant special exceptions for flying fields in certain zones.