Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/2005

Home

Page 2 -- September t0, 2005 Ordinance -- Town seeks to close private heliport Owner argues heliport regulated only by federal law Citation: HoagIand v. Town of CIear Lake, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 04-4045 (2005) The 7th U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and Wiaconsin. INDDANA (07/18/05) -- Hoagland owned a heliport in Clear Lake, Ind. He used it to commute by helicopter to his job 60 m/les away. The town wanted to get rid of the heliport, and it amended its zoning ordi- nance to make it applicable to landing strips and to require that the use of all pree~sting unapproved landing areas be discontinued within 5 years. Hoagland made his opposition to the town's actions known by posting a homemade "No Trespass"isign warning that "this land is privately owned by an American national, with sovereign rights of God the Creator," and that "vio- lations of the owners Is/c] Private Christian, or property rights ... shall be as- sessed a civil penalty of one m/Ilion dollars in U.S. dollars for each violation" as well as "up to ten years in prison." In addition, Hoagland sued. The court ruled in favor of the town. Hoagland appealed, arguing the Clear Lake ordinance was preempted by federal regulations. DECISION: Affirmed. The Clear Lake ordinance was a Iand~use ordinance, not a flight-pattern regulation. Congress did not mean to take the siting of airfields out of the hands of local officials. The siting of an airfield -- so long as it did not interfere with existing traffic patterns -- remained an issue for local control. When siting an airfield, under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regu- lations, the FAA would conduct an aeronautical study and issue a determina- tion, considering matters such as the effect of the proposed airfield on existing traffic patterns of neighboring airports and the effects, on'the existing airspace structure. However, a determination did'not relieve a proposed airfield of re- sponsibility for compliance with any local law, ordinance, or regulation, or state or other federal regulation. Implicit in the regulation was that the F,~ would determine if it had any objections to a proposed site, and if it did, the conditions set out in its objec- tions had to be met. On the other hand, if the FAA had no objection, before it could build an airfield, the developer had to comply with local laws. In other words, the FAA left land-use issues pr/madly to local governments. Thus, Clear Lake could require Hoagland to shut down his heliport. see alao: Boomer v. AT&T Corporation, 309 F. 3d 404 (2002). see also: Nesev. Julian Nordic Conatr[~ction Company, 405 F. 3d 638 ~2005). 204 © 2005 Quinian ?ubtisning Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048.