Norman Helgason / norman@thereflector.com
Neighbors are concerned about a potential future shutdown of Cedars North Airpark if the City Council rezones Battle Ground’s airpark district.
Following a heated debate among council members at the June 17 council meeting, more City Council members announced their inclinations to rezone the airpark, which has heightened residents’ fears.
The City Council will consider rezoning Battle Ground’s 78.67-acre airpark district following a request from a developer working for the Lawson family, who owns approximately 27 acres north of the airstrip in the airpark district zone.
The airpark zone includes a privately owned, public-use airport and permits detached single-family homes. Currently, seven homes are located in the airpark. Only certain businesses supporting airport operations, including restaurants, repair or storage operations, are permitted for development under current zoning. Proposed alternatives would allow for light-industrial use or “R-3” zoning, which permits three housing units per acre, enabling higher-density housing for development adjacent to the airstrip.
Most airpark property owners believe rezoning could jeopardize the airpark’s operations and prefer to keep the area zoned as is, and told the City Council in May that higher-density zoning is incompatible with airport operations. Owners are especially concerned that allowing more residences would lead to new neighbors demanding the city shut down the airport.
“If they put high-density housing, which is anything greater than two and a half acres [per unit], which was the agreement … it’ll probably shut down the airport, which is a story in itself, how airports die like this,” Cedars North Airpark manager Stuart Davis said after the June 17 meeting. “We recognize they have a right to sell their property … but high-residential is an airport killer.”
To try and solve the issue, the city previously formed an Airpark Steering Committee composed of stakeholders, including property and business owners, which met in January to consider zoning changes for the airpark. The committee failed to reach a consensus, however, and made no recommendation to the council. The city’s Planning Commission, a separate advisory body, however, recommended that the council adopt a higher-density residential option, citing a need for more housing.
Last week, the City Council voted 4-2 to give the Airpark Steering Committee an additional 60 days to reach a consensus. Afterward, the council will take a final vote on how to zone the district. Council member Tricia Davis abstained from the vote, as her husband manages the airstrip.
The City Council indicated at the meeting, it would take some kind of rezoning action regardless of the airpark stakeholders’ preferences.
The council and Mayor Troy McCoy indicated that if the stakeholders cannot come to an agreement to allow more light-industrial use, the council will rezone the acreage in question for higher-density housing, regardless. Airpark residents stated the council’s decision is an ultimatum to force an industrial agreement.
“That’s something that the owners figure out. The city doesn’t go in and solve one owner’s problems against the majority of the other owners. That’s just wrong on many levels,” Davis said.
McCoy suggested, however, a compromise of rezoning the acreage light industrial, which would allow more businesses to operate adjacent to the area. McCoy believes the zoning would better protect the airport’s operations and city priorities. Should the council decide to rezone the airpark, city staff will conduct a legal review before a vote is called.
“This town has struggled for employment. I mean, our excess value is $2 billion below cities of our size. That’s why the tax burden is so high on the citizens. When it comes to schools and when it comes to cities, we’ve always struggled on this,” McCoy said.
Councilors Eric Overholser and Victoria Ferrer expressed concerns that rezoning the airpark for higher-density housing could jeopardize the airport’s future operations. In a heated debate, Councilors Shane Bowman and Adrian Cortes argued in favor of rezoning.
“The message that this sends by the two new council members [Ferrer and Overholser] says that Battle Ground is not open for business, and you will have a hard time engaging in economic development in our community,” Cortes said.
Ferrer said the council should listen to the concerns of the airpark zone property owners who shared their fears of a potential airport shutdown. Allowing developers to change the surrounding environment of Battle Ground residents’ homes is a concern, she stated.
“It seems like there is a clear message that we have two council members [Cortes and Bowman] who don’t seem to care about the citizens and their concerns,” Ferrer retorted. “We had several people come here and speak on what we’re debating about.”
One airpark resident, Kathy McAleer, pointed out that the airport serves as a training ground for many new pilots and believes the city’s grass landing zone is a valuable resource to have.
“Our son is 17 years old [and] he’s getting his pilot’s license… [His] instructor said that the grass landing is the hardest thing to learn. It gives the opportunity for youth and more to learn, and we have so many [pilots] training here. It’s developing future pilots,” McAleer said after last week’s City Council meeting.
Potential roadblocks
At the June 17 City Council meeting, McAleer said that the airpark property’s covenants, conditions and restrictions clause (CC&R) restricts property owners from establishing most light-industrial buildings. The City Council cannot change CC&R restrictions, which are private agreements similar to homeowner association rules and are not governed by city councils.
After the meeting, McAleer specified that the CC&R additionally restrict residential-housing development to no more than one unit per 2.5 acres. McAleer warned that property owners would challenge any attempt by the city to invalidate the CC&R. Additionally, the Lawson property owners are bound by a court settlement from 20 years ago to develop no more than 2.5 housing units per acre. However, the CC&R could be revised to permit certain industrial uses, subject to discussions with developers.
“I think if there’s things that the property owners want to add … if they want to adjust the airpark’s [CC&R] rules to maybe add a few more uses, we could talk about that, but generally speaking, we want compatible uses with the airport,” McAleer said.
Under Washington’s Growth Management Act, Battle Ground’s City Council is required to submit a plan to accommodate the next 20 years of projected residential and employment growth. However, a letter from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) sent on May 17 informed the city’s Community Development Department that areas zoned for airport use are an exception. Higher-density residential zoning is incompatible with airport use, according to WSDOT’s Aviation Division.
“This decision is contrary to the Growth Management Act (GMA) that recognizes public-use general aviation airports … as essential public facilities and requires cities and counties to discourage incompatible land uses adjacent to them through their comprehensive plan policies and development regulations,” WSDOT aviation planner David Ison wrote. “The encroachment of incompatible land uses upon Washington State airports diminishes their ability to function as essential public facilities and often leads to operational impacts and closures.”
Ison wrote that if a decision by the City Council limits or prohibits airport operations from continuing, the action would oppose state law protecting airport use. Furthermore, he suggested that airpark stakeholders seek judicial review should the council rezone the airpark district. McAleer stated she would request a judicial review and a stay of action in accordance with state law if the airpark’s stakeholders fail to reach a consensus for a second time and the airpark is rezoned for higher-density residential housing.
