Boulder County Commissioners Deny Land Use Permit

[BigMikeH77 0]

The Boulder County commissioners meeting ended this afternoon after denying Independent Skydive Company's application for a land use permit to allow jumpers to land on a large parcel of agriculturally zoned private property, claiming mainly their concerns that there was no 100% guarantee that every single skydiver would land on target 100% of the time. Also at issue was the sanctity of a nearby Burrow Owl habitat.

the DZO of Independent bent over backwards to do everything in his power to minimize impact to adjacent landowners, even so much as to restrict his operations - and pointed out that balloons and aircraft are not held to a 100% standard but in this case HE is.

The main opponents to the permit were our usual suspects, despite the commissioners, zoning staff, and legal counsels acknowledgement that noise impact could not be considered... Every single voice in opposition was one of the local cronies, and many focused on bashing an entirely different dropzone than the one in question.

I think Boulder County is walking a very fine line between land-use and economic discrimination, but that's just my opinion. Although the DZO was advised to continue to find another "more suitable" area in which to use as a landing area... They did not, however, specify what characteristics would define "suitable".

[BluesCity 0]

The DZO went above and beyond what he needed to do. I didn't hear any of the "usual suspects" guarantee that they will never run their cars off the road. Same thing in my mind.

[topdocker 0]

Sounds like the county has de facto taken up regulating when and where skydiving activities may occur. The FAA has been adamant that only they can do that and I am sure they would be willing to talk to someone at the county about it.

Sometimes the feds are on our side.....

top

PS. There is no guarantee that every horse or cow will stay on their property either!

Jump more, post less!

[councilman24 36]

The Feds protect us on airports that receive federal funds. And they control airspace use. But I don't believe that they overrule local zoning/land use regulations and decisions. We (local city council that I've been a member of for 16 years) got to make ordinance regulating heliport siting under our zoning code.

That being said I can't comment on the reasonableness of the decision. We don't have facts of size, adjacent uses, other permitted principle and special uses. There very well maybe misinformation or prejudices involved in the decision but if something isn't a principle permitted use then special use permits are at the discretion of the body.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[BigMikeH77 0]

It seemed pretty apparent that the #1 reason the application was denied is because of the "100% on target landings" argument. That, IMO, is a very weak argument because as the DZO/applicant pointed out, the county commissioners are holding the DZ to one standard while the rest of the general public seemingly is being held to another.

[aeroflyer 0]

What can I do to help? I live in Boulder. The letters weren't enough I take it?

[turtlespeed 212]

aeroflyer

What can I do to help? I live in Boulder. The letters weren't enough I take it?

Since they are running out of pot . . . they have ear-marked that landing area as agricultural and din't want to let the cat out of the bag until the legislators get their kickbacks.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[councilman24 36]

Unless you were there for the discussion you don't know what went on. News reports are not reliable.

Looked up the site on satellite map. Country road with 6 or 7 houses and what looks like one or two large farm operations. Subdivisions 1/2 to 3/4 mile to the SW and NE But between them fields. Site for permit was 5.6 acres. About 6 football fields. If is is a perfect circle and there are NO hazards (fences, lines etc) it is still smaller than the clear 100 meter radius required for students and novices.

From SIM

"DROP ZONE
REQUIREMENTS
1. Areas used for skydiving should be unobstructed, with
the following minimum radial distances to the nearest
hazard:
a. solo students and A-license holders—100 meters"

100% landings on the property is not be a reasonable requirement. But in the absence of an emergency it should be close. But this doesn't meet USPA requirements. Now the adjacent land would make it big enough but that wasn't what they had. Being a skydiver my approval would have depended on why he only had access to 5.6 acres of the larger site.

No doubt that unrealistic complaints about noise etc. may have swayed commissioners. Between airport and landing area is largely developed housing. But the site he was asking approval for really wasn't big enough if he was running students into this site.

I'm all for access but I also have dealt with the government side of requests for over two decades. This was not a slam dunk on unbiased criteria. You have to know the way both staff and elected officials look at these kind of discretionary requests.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[stratostar 5]

I think it is a tdm only op, there for 50 meters to nearest., more then enough to meet the BSR.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[councilman24 36]

They advertise IAD.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[stratostar 5]

thx, I didn't see that.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[skybill 18]

Hi Big Mike,
'Guess they were "Really!" afraid of Skydivers causing,"Irreversible soil compaction!!!!!!"

SCR-2034, SCS-680

III%,
Deli-out

[FreefallSnoopy 0]

stratostar

I think it is a tdm only op, there for 50 meters to nearest., more then enough to meet the BSR.

It's not, I've jumped out there before. Not a big group of fun jumpers, but definitely a group of em. There's nothing around that whole LZ other than a couple of houses. If you land out there, I'm not seeing much of a problem. Especially considering that MH has a probably smaller LZ with many more obstacles around (fences, cows, buildings, neighborhoods, power lines, etc.)

[BigMikeH77 0]

skybill

Hi Big Mike,
'Guess they were "Really!" afraid of Skydivers causing,"Irreversible soil compaction!!!!!!"

I THINK I know where you're going with this, Stuart..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xuvcpjf1JU

[normiss 622]

I like you Stuart.

[BigMikeH77 0]

councilman24

Unless you were there for the discussion you don't know what went on. News reports are not reliable.

Looked up the site on satellite map. Country road with 6 or 7 houses and what looks like one or two large farm operations. Subdivisions 1/2 to 3/4 mile to the SW and NE But between them fields. Site for permit was 5.6 acres. About 6 football fields. If is is a perfect circle and there are NO hazards (fences, lines etc) it is still smaller than the clear 100 meter radius required for students and novices.

From SIM

"DROP ZONE
REQUIREMENTS
1. Areas used for skydiving should be unobstructed, with
the following minimum radial distances to the nearest
hazard:
a. solo students and A-license holders—100 meters"

100% landings on the property is not be a reasonable requirement. But in the absence of an emergency it should be close. But this doesn't meet USPA requirements. Now the adjacent land would make it big enough but that wasn't what they had. Being a skydiver my approval would have depended on why he only had access to 5.6 acres of the larger site.

No doubt that unrealistic complaints about noise etc. may have swayed commissioners. Between airport and landing area is largely developed housing. But the site he was asking approval for really wasn't big enough if he was running students into this site.

I'm all for access but I also have dealt with the government side of requests for over two decades. This was not a slam dunk on unbiased criteria. You have to know the way both staff and elected officials look at these kind of discretionary requests.

I actually was there for what went on, via live streaming. The only part I didn't hear was the closed executive session between the commissioners and legal counsel - and NO-ONE got to listen in on that. The #1 reason the application was denied was because there was no ironclad, 100% guarantee that every jump would land on target every time... followed by reason #2, over-intensive use of the agriculturally zoned land, and #3, the burrow owls. I can't recall much discussion over the USPA radial distance hazard recommendations, although it was mentioned no fuss was made.

[Boogers 0]

BigMikeH77

reason #2, over-intensive use of the agriculturally zoned land, and #3, the burrow owls.

If skydivers can't land there because of owls that live in the ground, then how come it's zoned agricultural which would allow tractors to till the soil over top of the owl's burrows? Seems to me the skydivers would do less damage than a giant tractor pulling a roto-tiller behind it.

[BigMikeH77 0]

Boogers

*** reason #2, over-intensive use of the agriculturally zoned land, and #3, the burrow owls.

If skydivers can't land there because of owls that live in the ground, then how come it's zoned agricultural which would allow tractors to till the soil over top of the owl's burrows? Seems to me the skydivers would do less damage than a giant tractor pulling a roto-tiller behind it.

That's a good question, Truman!

[Boogers 0]

BigMikeH77

****** reason #2, over-intensive use of the agriculturally zoned land, and #3, the burrow owls.

If skydivers can't land there because of owls that live in the ground, then how come it's zoned agricultural which would allow tractors to till the soil over top of the owl's burrows? Seems to me the skydivers would do less damage than a giant tractor pulling a roto-tiller behind it.

That's a good question, Truman!

All owls in favor of the skydivers, say "Whoo".