Airport consultants present expansive development concept; board urged to reprioritize CIP

Consultants for the Plymouth airport presented an expansive concept for future development — including multiple large corporate hangars, clusters of T‑hangars, classroom and administrative buildings, and dedicated maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) areas — and asked the board to weigh in as staff prepares the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) capital improvement program (CIP).

Mark Walpert, the consultant who led the concept review, said the scheme shows where FAA‑eligible and privately funded development could fit on existing airport property and described detailed cost estimates that include utilities, professional fees and contingency. Walpert said the plan divides the field so students and business activities can be separated operationally and that development could proceed in phases as demand and funding permit.

The concept calls for two 100x150 hangars and about 8,000 square feet each of classroom and administrative space on the far west side, duplicate hangars near the T‑hangars, a central cluster of light corporate hangars (60x60 units), and larger MRO‑type hangars with substantial apron and landside parking. Walpert noted that some options on the far east would require additional property acquisition and that landside development (parking for hundreds of employees) is necessary to support large MRO operations.

Board members discussed how the concept relates to the current Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and master plan. Walpert and staff said the airport’s ALP can accommodate several early phases as pen‑and‑ink refinements, but a full ALP/master plan update would likely be required for larger, substantive changes — and that improvements not shown on an approved ALP are not FAA‑eligible. "A master plan is the narrative document that justifies need, demand and improvements for the next 20 years," Walpert said.

The consultant recommended the board digest the materials, provide comments to staff, and consider a short CIP workshop in the next month or two so project priorities can be refined before the FAA’s next funding cycle. Curtis Gash (engineer) recommended the board re‑prioritize capital projects to focus limited FAA funding where it would enable early phases of development.

The board did not take formal action at the meeting; Walpert asked members to review attachments and suggested a CIP workshop late this month or early next month to finalize priorities for the upcoming federal fiscal year.