Quote:
Originally Posted by CrestedSaguaro
Still a little confused on that. It looks like they denied the request because they stated it exceeded the zoning height by around 140' which was incorrect. It may have exceeded the zoning height by 14' but not 140'.
|
Here's how they get that (from the FAA):
Quote:
ยง77.17 Obstruction standards.
(a) An existing object, including a mobile object, is, and a future object would be an obstruction to air navigation if it is of greater height than any of the following heights or surfaces:
(1) A height of 499 feet AGL at the site of the object.
(2) A height that is 200 feet AGL, or above the established airport elevation, whichever is higher, within 3 nautical miles of the established reference point of an airport, excluding heliports, with its longest runway more than 3,200 feet in actual length, and that height increases in the proportion of 100 feet for each additional nautical mile from the airport up to a maximum of 499 feet.
|
Part 2 is important - the site is what - 5 miles from the end of north runway? If so that's an additional 200ft min (additional 100ft for each additional miles from the airport) - which brings us to 400ft. Then the building height as proposed is 541ft - minus 400ft - there's your 140ft above 'zoning'.
Again the 'zoning' is FAA rules - not CoP height zoning rules.