2005-040 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Resolution 2005-040 Page 8 of 61 As such, the ALUC did not identify any facts to support the premise that this project would result in any interference with the long-range development plans of JWA at either the January 15, 2004 or the March 18, 2004 meetings. Although the project exceeds the FAR Part 77 obstruction standards, the FAA conducted an Aeronautical.Study of the proposed project and found the project poses no hazard to air navigation. (Exhibit A.) (1) d) (3) On March 18, 2004, the ALUC reconsidered the conditional approval of this project. Once agein, the staff's recommendation was that the project is consistent with the AELUP, "providing the project complies fully with all conditions required by the FAA," and "provided that a Notice of Airport in Vicinity is provided to all future occupants as specified in JWA AELUP Section 3.3.6." "With all due respect to the Commission and the action it took at its J"nu",ry 15, 2004 meeting to amend the staff recommendation of consistency, staff continues to believe the appropriate recommendation is a finding of consistency with the appropriate FAA conditions relating to lighting and subsequent notice and the state mandated notice of airport in vicinity. . .." (4) On March 18, 2004, the ALUC voted to find the project inconsistent with the AELUP. Not only was this finding of inconsistency contrary to staft's recommendation, it was also contrary to ALUC's January 15, 2004 decision that this project was conditionally consistent with the AELUP. The ALUC's March 18,2004 decision was not supported by any findings of facts within the record. (5) The FAA Aeronauticai Study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arriv"l, departure, and en rOMte procedures for aircrqftoperatingunder both visual flight rules (VFR) and instrument flight rules (IFR).