JLUS Background Report sj_br_report_sm - Page 240

Another element of this law that could benefit from improvement is the applicable geography stipulated in the law . Currently , the geography is a five mile area around the military installation . Five miles may be greater than necessary for notification of some land use changes and projects since some of the military influence areas may be more defined such as the airfield safety zones and Approach‐Departure Clearance Surfaces . These areas are relevant within a finite area off each end of a runway . The safety zones extend out to a distance of nearly three miles , while the Approach‐Departure Clearance Surface extends from each end of a runway nearly 9.5 miles . These are examples of two different footprints that do not discreetly fit within the prescribed five mile boundary from an installation . It is important to be concise with the area affected in these laws so as not to create a perception of over‐regulation or unnecessarily burden the military or county or local governments in the review process .
• In House Bill 254 , the blanket approach of does not account for the unique military i over‐regulate and overburden the review
• In House Bill 433 , the at‐grade elevation is measurement of the height of structures , result in miscalculated impacts on a milita
House Bill 433 : Session Law 2013-206 House Bill 433 establishes state regulations and permitting for tall buildings and structures including cell towers and antennae . The concern with this law is that in the definition of what a tall building is , the law indicates that a tall building or structure has a height more than 200 feet . The measurement ; however , starts at the top of the foundation of the building or structure and goes through the uppermost point of the structure , building , or unit . There is a discrepancy with this measurement since the at‐grade elevation is not factored in the definition . A 200‐foot structure may not be a vertical obstruction or an issue for the military if located at a site below sea level ; however , this same structure located on a site with an at‐grade elevation of even 100 feet would result in a structure that is 300 feet AGL which could be a vertical obstruction to navigable airspace surrounding a military airfield .
Findings
• In House Bill 254 , the official notification to the military is less ( 25 days ) than the total amount of days ( 30 days ) offered to the military to provide comment to the local government .
Page 5.15‐6
Another element of this law that could benefit from improvement is the  applicable geography stipulated in the law.  Currently, the geography is a five  mile area around the military installation.  Five miles may be greater than  necessary for notification of some land use changes and projects since some  of the military influence areas may be more defined such as the airfield  safety zones and Approach‐Departure Clearance Surfaces.  These areas are  relevant within a finite area off each end of a runway.  The safety zones  extend out to a distance of nearly three miles, while the Approach‐Departure  Clearance Surface extends from each end of a runway nearly 9.5 miles.   These are examples of two different footprints that do not discreetly fit  within the prescribed five mile boundary from an installati ۋ0]0\[\ܝ[0pۘ\p]0p\XpYXY0[\p]\0ܙX]pp\\[۰ٰݙ\$Y[][۰ܰ[X\\[p\[pZ[]\pܰ[pܰ[0ݙ\Y[[p]Y]\˰00k[\p[0 M 0p[]0\X0ٰp x$Z[pYX][۰\Xp\0X[0ܰp[\]YpZ[]\p[Y[p\X\[0[ݙ\$Y[]p[0ݙ\\[p]Y]\˰k[\p[0 0p]8$ܘYp[]][۰\0ۜY\Y0[pYX\\[Y[0ٰpZY0ٰX\\0Z[[0ܰ[]X0[\[0[Z\[[]Y0[\X۰pZ[]\pY0Z\[ۋ0\H[ Έ\[ۈ] LL \p[0 \X\\]pY[][ۜ[0\Z][ܰ[0Z[[[0X\\[Y[[0\[0[[YK0pۘ\]0\]\]0[pY[][۰ٰ]0p[0Z[[\0p][X]\]0p[0Z[[ܰX\p\pZY0[ܙp[ 0Y] 0pYX\\[Y[]\0\]0p0ٰp[][۰ٰpZ[[ܰX\p[0\Y0p\\[0[0ٰpX\K0Z[[0ܰ[] 0\p\p\ܙ\[p]0\YX\\[Y[0[pp]8$ܘYp[]][۰\0XܙY0[pY[][ۋ0p 8$0X\pX^p0pp\X[0؜X[۰ܰ[\YpܰpZ[]\pY]Y0]0p]p[Xp][]\0\[YpX\p]Y0۰p]p]0[]8$ܘYp[]][۰ٰ][ L 0Y]0[0\[0[pX\p]0\ 0Y]0Q0X0[0pp\X[0؜X[۰]YXpZ\Xp\[[pZ[]\pZ\Y[ 00[[»k[\p[0 M 0pٙXX[0YX][۰pZ[]\p\\ p^\p[p[0[[[0ٰ^\ 0^\pٙ\Y0pZ[]\pݚYp[Y[0p[0ݙ\Y[ Yp KMx$ Xܛ[0\ܝ0