[CrestedSaguaro]

Originally Posted by azliam

I emailed the FAA specialist regarding this and he responded:

The FAA uses the Part 77 standards for determining an obstruction. Just because something is an obstruction, however, doesn’t mean it’s a hazard. It means we need to look at it more closely and many times we find we just need to add aviation safety marking and lighting to the structure.

Local zoning jurisdictions can create their own height limitations for construction but this is always completely outside the scope of Part 77. Local zoning can be more restrictive than Part 77 but cannot be less.

For example, the FAA can issue a favorable determination for a structure at x height, but if the city has a restriction that is less than that height, they can enforce that lower height.

In this particular building’s case, it is identified as an obstruction by the listed amounts. The FAA is not calling it a hazard, we are looking to the public to offer aviation based comments as to why it might be objectionable. If we don’t receive anything solid, then the building most likely will receive a favorable determination at the original height proposed. The city can still put a limit on that height, but that is outside the scope of Part 77.

Link to Part 77

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id....1.2.9&idno=14

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'.