>> AIRPORT DISPUTE
An expansion project at the Baldwin County Regional Airport has drawn the ire of nearby residents as well as what could be the possibility of a legal stumbling block.
The public-private partnership of the construction of two new hangers on the East apron of the airport has been in the county’s plans since 2017, and a federal grant of just under $1.5 million has been approved—with nearly $600,000 already in hand—for all site work necessary for two hangers.
The cost of the two hangers will be borne by a private entity, which will own the structures but lease the real estate at about $600 per year from the county.
Nearby residents have said they became aware of the expansion when most of the pine trees on the airport land, which was adjacent to Lakeshore Circle, were removed. Complaints led to a halt to the cutting at the direction of District 4 Commissioner Henry Craig, but not before most of the buffer was gone.
Residents met with County Manager Carlos Tobar and airport advisory board member Jim Wolfgang recently, but, getting no positive results, attended the Board of Commissioners called meeting last Friday to speak on the non-agenda item.
Ten residents addressed the county commissioners with a limit of three minutes each to speak. The short presentations were varied, dealing with the noise, smell, and light effects of nearby jets, lack of notice, significant decline in property values, possible traffic safety concerns, lack of buffer, jet fuel emissions, and overall effect on everyday life.
However, the second speaker may have given the county a reason for concern. The county may be in violation of its own regulations.
Brett Ward was the only resident whose main argument was of a legal nature. He cited the Baldwin County Code of Ordinances, first talking about the general purpose of the regulations. He referred to Section 16-73, titled Special-use performance standards.
“‘This code is concerned with minimizing the adverse effects on adjoining property of marginal types of land and structure uses rather than designating specific areas in which these uses may locate,’” Ward read. “‘Therefore, special performance standards are hereby established for these marginal areas to ensure that the adverse effects characteristics of each type of use are minimized.’” Ward then cited 16-73(f), which pertains to airports.
“Airports. No building or structure, including runway surfaces, used in connection with an airport shall be located closer than 500 feet to any property line and no part of a clear zone or transitional surface shall extend beyond the boundaries of the property of which the runway is located.”
Ward asked the commissioners to look at an enlarged photo he had which, he contended, clearly shows the proposed hangers too close to the residences.
“Why is the airport trying to build on a tract of land that clearly violates Section 16-75(f) of Baldwin County code of ordinances? Do they have any special approval?” Ward asked the board.
Craig said Tuesday the board is aware of the issues Ward presented.
“We’re carefully considering the legal aspects that they’ve presented. It’s an emotional issue for a lot of people, and it’s legal in some ways, and we’re going to evaluate those issues through our attorney,” he stated.
County Attorney Brandon Palmer was at the Friday meeting but said Tuesday he was not prepared to comment on Ward’s references to the code of ordinances.
“I have not been able to dig into that at this point,” he said in a phone interview. “I’ve got to look at the facts and look at how the code applies to the facts.
“To do that,” Palmer continued, “I have to speak to some of the folks in the county. I haven’t had a chance to do that yet, and after I am able to do that and gather more of the facts, I think I will be able to get a better idea of the applicability of that code section.”
The attorney said the code does have a provision that may be favorable for the county.
“That code section would allow the county to give itself a variance. So, that’s one option.”
Craig, meanwhile, would not speculate on the possibility of the relocation of the hangers.
“I don’t have enough data to answer that yet,” Craig said. “In conversations with the county manager and further likely discussions with our attorney, I am not sure what legal agreements there are at this point. And” he added, “What legal agreements there are for other interested parties at the airport? That is something I have asked our county manager and our county attorney to review for me.”