Guidebook on Effective Land Use Compatibility Planning Strategies for General Aviation Airports (2019)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

F-1 A P P E N D I X F Model Local Airport Compatibility Zoning Ordinance Introduction This appendix is provided as a tool to help airport managers, land use planners, and local governments formulate an Airport Compatibility Zoning Ordinance (AZO) suitable for their communities. Below is an annotated outline of typical ordinance elements, offering a list of elements that should be included to the extent warranted by local circumstances. This appendix does not include sample language. Rather, links to several ordinance models from other sources are provided at the end of this appendix, including a comprehensive model from ACRP Report 27: Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s)’s model ordinance regarding obstructions, and ordinances in use by selected municipalities. An AZO is typically included in the overall zoning code of the relevant jurisdiction. There can be variations, such as a separate code section that deals exclusively with airport matters. In addition, different states structure airport zoning controls in various ways. It is important to know the statutes and regulations that pertain to a specific airport’s location. In some states, airport compatibility permitting is handled at the state level instead of or in addition to local jurisdictions. The model discussed in this appendix relates primarily to ordinances implemented locally—at the city or county level or both depending on which has zoning jurisdiction—as that is the main focus of this report. It is important to note the differences between an AZO and a zoning district that may include an airport. Some zoning ordinances identify an Airport Zone with specific permitted, prohibited, and conditional uses and other typical zoning limitations, but the Airport Zone mainly includes the airport-owned land and possibly some surrounding land in critical areas such as runway protection zones (RPZs). While there are many ways to handle AZOs, Airport Zones do not typically address the types of compatibility criteria reviewed in this study. More commonly, as noted below, AZOs are implemented in the form of overlay zones. The overlay extends beyond the airport property to include all land in the influence area and imposes particular use and review requirements in addition to the use and bulk limitations in the underlying zoning district. Community Context Ordinances can be very basic or quite complex. There is no one-size-fits-all. To gain local support and effective enforcement, the elements included should be those that are relevant to and needed by the airport and community. The right ordinance for a community depends on many factors, including the urban or rural nature of the airport setting, existing or anticipated development pressures around the airport, the extent of land under

F-2 Guidebook on Effective Land Use Compatibility Planning Strategies for General Aviation Airports the airport’s control, and political sensitivity. If the airport has experienced few compatibility conflicts and the airport manager and local planners conclude from the Self-Assessment Checklists in Appendix C that protection from obstructions, for example, is the primary concern, there may be little support by the public and governing body for an ordinance that addresses a broader range of compatibility concerns. If, however, the airport is located in an urbanizing area with strong development pressures, it is likely to benefit from more comprehensive zoning restrictions. For example, an ordinance may address noise and safety issues by identifying permitted and prohibited or restricted land uses in the area around an airport. Geographically, these criteria may focus on just the RPZs and immediate runway vicinity but extending the coverage outward to the runway approaches and traffic patterns should also be considered. At a minimum, guidelines from the FAA—which discourage land uses in RPZs that are places for people to congregate, including residences, schools, shopping centers, churches, and other places of public assembly—should be followed. As described in this Guidebook, most states have adopted statutes that either require or permit local adoption of airport compatibility zoning. In formulating an ordinance, the airport sponsor, local planners, or governing body must include any mandatory elements and refer to any guidance or models provided by the state aviation agency. Certain states also administer state permits for airport compatibility, requiring direct application to the state aviation body for projects within airport safety zones. These may be instead of or in addition to local requirements. Planning Ahead In designing an ordinance, there can be both immediate needs and long-term possibilities to address. Even in areas where there is little development pressure, the airport sponsor may want to look ahead and consider: Are cell towers on the rise? Is development moving in the direction of the airport? Do comprehensive plan land use designations for the vicinity of the airport support land uses that are compatible with airport activity and avoid incompatible uses? Does zoning for areas around the airport appropriately limit development incompatible with airport activity? Advice heard during the research for this study often cited the need to plan ahead and be proactive with compatibility zoning, rather than being reactive and catching up only when conflicts develop. An ordinance may be on the books but may not be compliant with state requirements or provide adequate protections for the airport. In that case, efforts by the airport sponsor, airport manager, and local planners should focus on amending the ordinance to add new sections or codifying specific implementation procedures.

Model Local Airport Compatibility Zoning Ordinance F-3 A comprehensive discussion of safety compatibility issues can be found in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook available on the California Aeronautics Division website. Typical Ordinance Elements Chapter 2 of this Guidebook discusses the primary compatibility concerns that can be addressed by airport zoning ordinances, including: Airspace obstructions from tall structures and vegetation. Wildlife hazards, including uses that may increase the risk of bird strikes. Other flight hazards that may interfere with aircraft operation, such as uses generating electrical interference, glare, and smoke. Safety hazards on the ground, including uses that would increase risks of injury or damage to property in the event of an aircraft accident, typically residential uses or those where large numbers of people congregate. Noise impacts on sensitive uses, including residential uses and such institutions as schools and hospitals. Overflight annoyance from routine aircraft operations, which may result in pressure to limit the airport’s activities. More comprehensive ordinances include a range of sections dealing with all these issues. Others are more limited, focusing in many cases on height limits and obstructions, referring to the FAA’s 14 CFR Part 77 requirements. In general, typical administrative provisions are included addressing definitions, variances, permit programs and appeals. During the project research, conversations with many airport managers highlighted the importance of certain aspects that were either making their local ordinances effective, or are missing, yet needed to make the ordinances perform as intended. These include: Active administration and enforcement. Role of the FAA 7460 notice process. Communication between the airport and land use review officials. Referral of land use applications to the airport. Maps of the area addressed by the ordinance. Real estate disclosure requirements. Addressing temporary obstructions, such as cranes. As noted above, the most common form of ordinance found during the research was an overlay zone in which an airport influence area was delineated and overlaid on a base zoning district, typically an industrial or airport district. The special restrictions detailed in the overlay provide an additional regulatory layer to the base zoning requirements. In general, uses allowed in the underlying district are permitted to the extent they are not restricted by the specific requirements of the overlay zone.

F-4 Guidebook on Effective Land Use Compatibility Planning Strategies for General Aviation Airports Below is an annotated outline of typical ordinance components with descriptions of each element. This should be viewed as a menu rather than a mandatory list. The airport manager or land use planner can select which elements are most appropriate given the community context and critical airport compatibility issues. Typical Components of Airport Zoning Ordinances Opening Sections Purpose This section states the rationale for the ordinance. It should name the airport (or airports) that is the focus of the ordinance and establish the airport’s importance as an essential transportation facility. Typically, this section declares that prevention of hazards to the navigable airspace is a matter in the public interest both to safeguard life and safety of people on the ground and occupants of aircraft, and to preserve the viability of airport operations. Authority This element states the statutory authority underlying the ordinance. This would commonly be the state statute authorizing or mandating airport compatibility zoning. Statutes providing the power to plan or zone in general can also be cited, particularly in the few states where airport compatibility zoning laws do not exist. Applicability This component notes the area and land use activities subject to the AZO. It states that the provisions of the ordinance only apply to the overlay or other defined area. The section should reference a map of the overlay zone. The overlay zone map can be a separate map or shown on the town-wide zoning map. For most general aviation (GA) airports, the delineation will be based on the dimensions established in accordance with 14 CFR Part 77 imaginary surfaces. The airport’s Airport Layout Plan can be a source for identifying these areas. Consulting expertise may also be necessary to produce the overlay. Some ordinances provide a simple mile radius from the airport and others indicate specific dimensions of the overlay zone and its subzones. For example, Maryland’s regulations, which define a state permit program, establish a 4-mile radius from Baltimore-Washington International Airport and 3-mile radius from Martin State Airport as the review area. Activities governed by an AZO usually include the proposed use of land, construction or reconstruction of structures, or growth of natural vegetation within the overlay area. It is important that changes in land use, even when not requiring a site plan approval, be subject to review under the AZO. If there is a proposed change from a compatible to an incompatible or hazardous use, it should be captured by the AZO compliance requirements. This is discussed further below. Definitions While zoning codes typically contain a section of definitions, airport zoning ordinances often specify definitions unique to airport compatibility issues. These can define structures and runways and even trees as well as noise impact areas and noise day-night sound level contours. Most importantly, the definitions should address the overlay area and its subzones, including definitions consistent with the Part 77 approach

Model Local Airport Compatibility Zoning Ordinance F-5 zones, horizontal zones, conical zones and transition zones, and other safety areas, such as RPZs. Any area regulated by the ordinance should be clearly defined. Compatibility Criteria Airport Zoning Overlay Map As noted above, clear graphics are important for both the administrators of the ordinance and the regulated community. In particular, if different regulations apply to subzones within the overlay area, they should be delineated on the map. It should be of sufficient scale to identify properties that are included and excluded, and landmarks such as roadways and waterways. The local planning office can maintain a map that shows the overlay boundaries relative to lot lines for more detailed review by affected property owners. Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping is excellent for this purpose in that it can show the entirety of the overlay zone area yet enable the user to zoom in to see which subzones affect individual parcels. See Figure F-1 for an example of Airport Overlay District Zones for the City of Frederick, Maryland. Height/Obstruction Restrictions In many AZOs, limiting the height of structures is the central function even if other aspects of compatibility are addressed. Every airport, regardless of its urban or rural setting, must prevent obstructions that can cause hazards to aircraft operations. Ordinances generally reference the Part 77 surfaces and restrict the height of structures so as not to penetrate this airspace. Many use language provided in the FAA model ordinance, issued in 1987, to describe the surfaces and approach zones and the pertinent height limitations. The height restrictions apply to man-made structures, such as buildings, chimneys and cell towers, as well as trees, limiting the height of allowable growth. No such structure or tree should be permitted if it penetrates the airspace protection surfaces. During the course of project research, several airport managers pointed out that temporary structures often do not receive the same scrutiny as permanent structures, and the managers are not often advised when, for example, cranes are planned to be installed for a construction project. The ordinance should address this situation, requiring permits and referral for temporary structures that may cause an airspace hazard. The Naples, Florida, Airport Overlay District ordinance, for example, specifies that notice to the FAA via FAA Form 7460-1 is required for any temporary or permanent building or structure, including construction equipment, cranes, balloons, and the like whose height is proposed to exceed 200 feet above ground level at the site or would have a height above a surface having “a slope increasing 1 foot vertically Source: City of Frederick, Maryland, GIS map, 2005. Figure F-1: Example Airport Overlay District Zones

F-6 Guidebook on Effective Land Use Compatibility Planning Strategies for General Aviation Airports for every 100 feet horizontally for a distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway of the airport” (10,000 feet at a slope of 1:50 for runways 3,200 feet or less in length). Other Hazards to Flight Tall objects are not the only land use features that can present hazards to flight, either causing or directly contributing to the severity of aircraft accidents. Others can be grouped into three general categories: physical, visual, and electronic. Principal among physical hazards are wildlife strikes, especially by birds. Land use features that attract birds and other species of concern to the airport environs should be avoided. Common restrictions include limits on landfills within a certain distance from the airport and management practices for stormwater impoundments. The FAA provides extensive guidance on these topics. – FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports (provides guidance on types of attractants to be avoided). – FAA AC 150/5200-34A, Construction or Establishment of Landfills near Public Airports (sets guidelines on proximity of these facilities to airports). Another form of physical hazard comes from thermal plumes. These can be invisible to pilots yet produce highly unstable air that can send an aircraft, especially a small GA aircraft, out of control. Visual hazards are ones that produce smoke, steam, glare, or dust. Lights that can be mistaken for airport lights can also be hazards. These conditions can be particularly dangerous in locations close to the runway ends where aircraft are flying at low altitudes. Electronic hazards are any types of transmissions that can interfere with aircraft navigation or communications. Depending on the source, the need to avoid these uses can extend over a wide area. Safety Hazards A comprehensive approach to airport compatibility zoning should recognize the value of avoiding high- intensity and other high-risk land uses in airport safety zones. The principal goal is to reduce risks to people on the ground in the event of an aircraft crash, but to increase survival for aircraft occupants is also important. Risk reduction is primarily achieved by limiting the number of people in airport environs that historical data indicates have the greatest potential of being involved in an off- runway aircraft accident. Additionally, certain land uses can present special risks regardless of the number of people present. Among such uses are: Ones having vulnerable occupants (schools, hospitals, and nursing homes, for instance); Places where hazardous materials are stored; and The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2011) published by the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics provides a comprehensive source of data on where GA aircraft accidents occur near airports.

Model Local Airport Compatibility Zoning Ordinance F-7 Critical community infrastructure (power plants, electrical substations, public communications facilities and other facilities, the damage or destruction of which would cause significant adverse effects to public health and welfare well beyond the immediate vicinity of the facility). With regard to land use measures that can increase survival for aircraft occupants in aircraft accidents, the most common is to maintain as much open land near the airport as is possible. Open land areas need not be particularly large—the size of a football field will suffice—but need to be relatively level and free of structures, poles, large trees, and other such obstacles. Typically, land use limitations are applied to a set of safety zones defined with respect to the varying degrees of risk. The most critical areas are RPZs situated immediately beyond the runway ends. The FAA has criteria for these areas encouraging airports to own the land or, at a minimum, take steps to prevent all but very-low-intensity uses. Locations beyond the RPZs also have accident risk exposure, albeit to lesser degrees. Land use development restrictions, decreasing with greater distance from the runway, are appropriate in these areas as well. AZOs vary widely in the level of detail for land uses. The model ordinance provided in ACRP Report 27, referenced above, shows options for, on one hand, detailed charts of permitted uses and densities in several defined zones or, on the other, more generally permitted and prohibited land use categories. The former approach may be appropriate in developed or developing areas of diverse land uses and has the advantage of clarity in specifying uses. It may not be the best fit for all airports or communities, as it can make an ordinance quite complex. In those cases, a listing of categories of permitted, prohibited, and conditional uses may be adequate. Uses discouraged usually include multi-family residential development along with schools, churches, and other areas of public assembly or high intensity. Noise Impacts Noise is an integral part of compatibility in that noise impacts to the surrounding community can generate opposition to airport operations and potentially result in limits to those operations, thus affecting viability. Not all ordinances address this issue, particularly when airports are in rural areas with few noise-sensitive uses nearby. Noise is typically a concern in more developed or developing areas. Therefore, to minimize future noise issues, limiting development of new noise-sensitive uses is especially important in growing urban areas. Some communities have delineated noise impact zones based on average day-night level noise (DNL) contours, prohibiting sensitive receptor land uses in high-noise areas. Noise standards, delineation of noise contours, and identification of land uses permitted or to be avoided in those areas can be addressed as part of an AZO. Another alternative to addressing sensitive land use receptors beyond the airport is a separate Noise Overlay Zone. Perhaps most valuable, though, is for the community’s comprehensive plan not to allow development of new noise-sensitive land uses, especially residential uses, in locations significantly impacted by airport noise. In any case, noise contours should not be the basis of an Airport Compatibility Zone by themselves, but function as a supplement to the overlay based on Part 77 surfaces. Airports and communities that have completed Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 studies have the data to delineate these contours. Again, in the case of Naples, Florida, noise impact zones were delineated on the basis of 75, 70, 65, and 60 DNL contours. A chart of uses is typically included in the Part

F-8 Guidebook on Effective Land Use Compatibility Planning Strategies for General Aviation Airports 150 studies and shows permitted, prohibited and conditional uses in each contour zone. Generally, residential development and sensitive receptors such as residences, schools, hospitals, and churches are not permitted in higher noise zones. Sound attenuation can be considered in review of conditional uses. Procedural Topics Permitting As noted above, an AZO is generally part of the overall zoning code and subject to the various legal and procedural parameters governing the code as a whole, except where specifically distinguished by the AZO. States can differ with respect to the authority delegated for zoning and permitting, so it is important to review that statutory background when composing an ordinance. Typically, AZOs include a program requiring applicants intending to build, reconstruct or substantially alter a structure within the regulated overlay zone to obtain a permit for construction. This allows for review of the proposal to determine compliance with AZO requirements. Ideally, this would be a separate permit apart from standard building or zoning permits but, if not, should at least be a distinct component of the latter. This distinction encourages a detailed review according to the hazard criteria by a knowledgeable administrator. Further, while not all structures or applications require site plan review, if applicable, an AZO permit should be required in addition to site plan approval administered by the local Planning Board. The AZO should be integrated into the site plan approval process, with an AZO permit specified as a site plan application requirement or a condition of approval. Application Requirements Submission requirements should include sufficient information for the administrator or planner to determine whether the application meets the criteria of the ordinance. The permit program can be integrated with the site plan approval process so that a copy of the site plan application also serves as the permit application. However, certain information beyond typical project characteristics would need to be provided, to determine compliance, such as population intensity of proposed uses and structure height measured in terms of elevation above mean sea level so that the relationship to the Part 77 airspace protection surfaces can be ascertained. Few zoning ordinances reviewed during the study included detailed permit application requirements or forms. Defining these requirements is strongly recommended as it expedites administration of the AZO from the perspectives of both the jurisdiction and the regulated parties, clarifying what is required for a complete application. It is important to note that notification to the FAA according to Part 77 procedures (see Appendix G) should be part of site plan approval review when the activity requires such review, so that it is considered early in the process, rather than when applying for a construction permit. Airport Referral Depending upon the institutional structure in a particular state, the local permitting process may require review by the state aviation agency. Certain states, including Maryland and Kentucky, require direct application to the state agency. Most importantly, review by the airport manager or airport sponsor is recommended as a requirement for a permit decision. Many ordinances reviewed during the project research did not have this element. As a result, airport managers were not always informed of proposals that could affect airport operations. Some managers felt obliged to examine

Model Local Airport Compatibility Zoning Ordinance F-9 Planning Board or other agendas to learn of development proposals or to rely on personal relationships with land use officials. FAA 7460 Notice Ordinances can vary in their treatment of the FAA’s Part 77 Aeronautical Study notice process. Some ordinances reviewed during the project research required a copy of the FAA 7460 determination or a finding of No Hazard to obtain a permit. Others only required a copy of the 7460 notification as part of the application prior to a hearing or final permit decision. Still others required the notice only for a variance application. It is recommended that copies of the notice and determination be provided to the local jurisdiction in either case. However, the FAA’s determination, while important to the review process, should not necessarily be the final word in a permit or variance application. There may be local land use issues and other concerns, apart from obstructions, that are not addressed by the FAA process but still need local review. Administration Permit programs are generally administered by a zoning code official or designated Airport Zoning Administrator, who can also be the zoning official. In either case, training is necessary to ensure an educated review of the permit application. Code official review should be supplemented by the airport manager or aviation authority director, as appropriate. Obtaining the permit should be a condition of any site plan approval in the overlay area. The local planning office should also review the application with respect to compliance with the ordinance. Variances As with standard zoning codes, AZOs should contain provisions allowing application for a variance from ordinance requirements. Approval of a variance requires a finding that the application meets criteria set forth in the ordinance. Typical criteria include: The strict application of the ordinance would cause undue hardship or practical difficulty due to unique characteristics of the project or its site. The variance would not cause a hazard to navigation or public safety. The purposes of the ordinance would be better advanced by the proposed variance than by strict application of the ordinance. The variance would not cause adverse impacts to public airports or aviation operations. This is not a definitive list. Some ordinances list detailed criteria, such as the Naples, Florida, Airport Overlay District Ordinance. This AZO includes 14 review criteria, including impact on the minimum descent altitude, land use density, comments from the airport authority, and cumulative effects of existing and proposed structures. The local Board of Zoning Adjustment should conduct the review and render a decision, with input from the airport manager or airport authority. In certain states, the State aviation body may also be required to review variance applications. Airport compatibility ordinances typically require, as a condition of variance or permit approval, that the owner allow or be responsible for installing and maintaining markers and lights to indicate potential

F-10 Guidebook on Effective Land Use Compatibility Planning Strategies for General Aviation Airports obstructions to aircraft pilots. An FAA determination of No Hazard pursuant to the 7460 notification process should also be a condition. Applicants seeking approvals regarding activities in noise impact zones may also be subject to conditions such as sound insulation to reduce noise intrusion. Nonconforming uses Existing uses that predate the adoption of the AZO are typically permitted to remain. Removal of existing structures, uses or trees is not required. Such structures may be subject to the requirements of marking and lighting as noted above and are restricted from expanding in a way that would cause an increased hazard. There can also be a requirement that, if these existing structures are damaged or abandoned, they cannot be reconstructed in a way that violates the ordinance criteria. One other concern that ought to be addressed is change in occupancy of an existing building. Sometimes a building is proposed and built for a low-intensity use that is compatible with the airport, but the use later changes to one that is high-intensity and incompatible. Often such changes are not reviewed with respect to an AZO or zoning permit, particularly if the change is only internal to the building and does not require site plan review. However, the new use would almost certainly require a certificate of occupancy and review by the zoning office. The AZO should require that proposed changes of use within the overlay zone be subject to review by the designated airport zoning administrator and airport manager. Appeals This section allows any applicant or other person affected to appeal decisions made under the ordinance that are purported to be an improper application of the code. Reference can be made to general language contained in the applicable code regarding appeal procedures that may be made to the Board of Adjustment, the governing body, or the courts. Conflicts/Severability This section establishes that, where the AZO conflicts with any other portion of the zoning code, the more stringent requirement will govern, and that, if any portion of the ordinance is found to be invalid, the remainder of the ordinance will remain valid. Enforcement/Penalties During the project research, many AZOs were found to not include specific enforcement procedures and penalties for violations of AZO provisions. Such provisions are important and recommended AZO elements. If no office is responsible for enforcement, it is unlikely to happen. Similarly, if there is no downside for noncompliance, there is little incentive to take the ordinance seriously. Some model ordinances provide language calling for fines of $200 or more per day for violations. Daily fines can accumulate quickly, and the threat can render noncompliance too risky. The lack of procedures and responsibilities for permit review and enforcement were found to be a major issue in AZO effectiveness. When there is no clear office or individual identified, review often slips through the cracks. Model ordinances typically identify the building code or zoning code official. Sometimes an Airport Zoning Administrator is named who can be a separate individual or a separate role for the zoning code official. The responsible official, regardless of title, should be familiar with the intent and details of airport compatibility zoning and have the expertise to review permit applications and identify violations.

Model Local Airport Compatibility Zoning Ordinance F-11 Avigation Easements and Real Estate Disclosures Avigation easements and real estate transaction disclosures of airport proximity and flight paths were identified by airport managers as important tools for reducing compatibility conflicts. These provisions, however, do not always appear in AZOs. Avigation easements are recorded agreements that become part of property records. The easements run to the benefit of the airport and provide a right of unobstructed flight in the airspace above the property. This tool provides protection to the airport against future legal action by property owners. The easements can also be expanded to contain a covenant not to sue the airport or land use jurisdiction. Granting of an avigation easement can be required as a condition of development or redevelopment in an airport hazard or land use compatibility zone. However, to avoid potential challenges that an avigation easement would constitute inverse condemnation, a clear connection between the easement conditions and the compatibility conflicts that the development could pose must be demonstrated. Most communities and airports that require granting of avigation easements limit the requirement just to locations relatively close to the runway ends. Requirements that airport proximity and flight paths be disclosed to prospective purchasers of property can also be noted in the AZO as a condition for development approval. The requirement could apply to both sales of new development and existing property. Disclosure for resale of existing property may have to be codified in other parts of the jurisdiction’s code or a board governing real estate sales practices. Integration with Land Use Approval Process As discussed in Chapter 3 of this Guidebook, the most important element for an AZO to be effective in carrying out its purpose is active implementation and enforcement. Specifically, the land use review and approval procedures of the pertinent planning board or planning commission, as well those of the zoning office, should refer to the AZO and require review by the planner and designated zoning administrator for compliance with the AZO. The procedures should also require referral to the airport manager for comments. The procedural framework should be codified in the jurisdiction’s land use code as well as in the AZO. Review and referral requirements should be formalized in the zoning and site plan application forms and checklists for application completeness. Applicants should indicate whether the project is within the airport overlay zone, show the location if it is, provide appropriate height and location information, as in the City of Frederick example above, and the nature of the proposed land use to determine if any hazards would be generated. Application checklist items should include a copy of the FAA 7460 notice, if required, and proof that a copy of the application was sent to the airport manager for review. Less formally, frequent communication between the airport manager and land use officials is also critical to effective implementation of an AZO. Trust and cooperation can identify and resolve issues early in the process, before the application has advanced or the matter has become a political issue.

F-12 Guidebook on Effective Land Use Compatibility Planning Strategies for General Aviation Airports References 1. California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, October 2011. www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/.../AirportLandUsePlanningHandbook.pdf 2. City of Frederick, Maryland, Land Management Code, Airport Overlay District. Accessed September 2018. https://library.municode.com/md/frederick/codes/land_management_code 3. City of Naples, Florida, Airport Overlay District. Accessed September 2018. https://library.municode.com/fl/naples/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH58ZO _ARTIIISPOVDI_DIV4AIOVDI 4. County of Henderson, Kentucky, Henderson City-County Airport Height Regulations. Accessed September 2018. https://library.municode.com/ky/henderson/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=ZO_APXAZO_A RTXXVIIIHECIUNAIHERE 5. Iowa Department of Transportation, Office of Aviation, Iowa Airport Land Use Guidebook, Appendix Q, Airport Land Use and Height Overlay, Zoning Ordinance Outline, January 2008. https://iowadot.gov/aviation/airports/iowaairportlanduseguidebook2008 6. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Louisiana Airport Managers Handbook, revised April 2007. http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Multimodal/Aviation/Pages/Airport- Managers-Handbook-.aspx 7. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Office of Aeronautics, Airport Compatibility Manual, September 2006. www.dot.state.mn.us/aero/planning/landuse-compatibility-manual.html 8. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Division of Aviation, Model Zoning Ordinance Language for an Airport District Overlay. Accessed September 2018. https://www.penndot.gov/Doing-Business/Aviation/Planning%20and%20Zoning/Pages/Airport- Zoning-and-Compatible-Land-Use.aspx 9. Texas Department of Transportation, Aviation Division, Airport Compatibility Guidelines, Appendix B, Airport Compatible Land Use Zoning Regulations, January 2003. ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/d/.../Airport_Compatibility_Guidelines.pdf 10. Township of Doylestown, Pennsylvania, Airport Zoning Overlay District. Accessed September 2018. https://ecode360.com/10730849 11. Transportation Research Board, ACRP Report 27: Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility, Volumes 1 – 3, National Academies, Washington, DC, 2008. http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/163344.aspx