Henry County planning commission approves private grass runway after FAA review; neighbors raise noise and safety concerns

The Henry County Plan Commission answered the required findings in the affirmative and recorded approval for Case 2289, a request from DJ Weimer to establish a private grass runway on family farmland north of Knightstown. Weimer told the commission he obtained an FAA airspace study that raised no objection and said the strip would be for private, day‑only use.

Weimer, introducing himself as the applicant, described a 2,600-foot by 120-foot grass runway (roughly seven acres) and said he intends to base a single Piper Cherokee there. He told commissioners his aircraft produces about 80.5 decibels and compared that to common farm equipment, arguing the noise would not exceed existing agricultural noises in the area. “Safety’s the number one priority,” Weimer said, noting regular maintenance, annual inspections, and pilot preflight procedures.

Several nearby residents spoke during the public comment period. Denise Harris asked whether the airplane would be stored at the grass strip or at Anderson Municipal Airport, whether a hangar or fuel/chemicals would be stored on site, whether other types of aircraft or night operations would occur, and whether the strip would affect local TV reception or property values. “We like our silence,” Harris said, asking how hours and emergency response would be handled. Lisa Beaver said she strongly opposed the airstrip, arguing it would “fundamentally change the character” of the rural neighborhood, create a nuisance and safety risk, and was unnecessary given existing nearby airfields.

Commission members and staff pressed the applicant on operations. Weimer said he currently keeps the airplane at Anderson Municipal Airport, intends to build a hangar only after securing approvals (described roughly as a 60-by-60 pole‑barn style structure), and does not plan to store chemicals or operate agricultural-spray aircraft from the site. Staff noted the FAA analysis specified day/visual conditions only (no night operations without lighting) and recommended that certain measures—such as a windsock—be included; a commissioner suggested the commission use mandatory language ("shall") in any conditions rather than advisory wording ("should").

On procedural review the clerk read the three required commission-approved-use questions (zoning district permissibility; consistency with the spirit/intent of regulations; effect on neighboring property and the public welfare). The commission members present responded in the affirmative and recorded an approval during the meeting. The transcript does not list a roll‑call vote tally by member names; staff and applicants were instructed to follow FAA recommendations and applicable permit procedures as conditions of approval.

Next steps noted in the meeting: the applicant may pursue hangar and site‑development approvals if he proceeds; staff indicated FAA-prescribed conditions (day/visual operations, windsock, and other compliance items) should be reflected in permit conditions. The commission then moved to new business.