Schaefer v. Oregon Aviation Board

725

On respondents’ Aurora Airport Improvement Association, Bruce Bennett,

Wilson Construction Company, Inc., Ted Millar, TLM Holdings, LLC,

Anthony Alan Helbling, and Wilsonville Chamber of Commerce petition for

reconsideration filed June 30, and petitioners’ response to respondents’ petition

for reconsideration filed July 7; reconsideration allowed, former opinion modified

and adhered to as modified August 4; petitions for review denied December 9,

2021 (369 Or 69)

Joseph SCHAEFER,

City of Aurora, City of Wilsonville,

1000 Friends of Oregon, and

Friends of French Prairie,

Petitioners,

and

CLACKAMAS COUNTY,

Intervenor-Petitioner below,

v.

OREGON AVIATION BOARD;

Oregon Department of Aviation;

Aurora Airport Improvement Association;

Bruce Bennett;

Wilson Construction Company, Inc.;

Ted Millar; TLM Holdings, LLC;

Anthony Alan Helbling; and

Wilsonville Chamber of Commerce,

Respondents.

Land Use Board of Appeals

2019123, 2019127, 2019129, 2019130;

A175219

492 P3d 782

Wendie L. Kellington, Kellington Law Group PC, and

W. Michael Gillette, Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt PC, and

Eric S. Postma, Bittner & Hahs, P.C., for petition and reply.

Joseph Schaefer pro se, Emily Gilchrist, Andrew Mulkey,

and Barbara Jacobsen for response and sur-reply.

Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge,

and Aoyagi, Judge.

726 Schaefer v. Oregon Aviation Board

PER CURIAM

Reconsideration allowed, former opinion modified and

adhered to as modified.

Cite as 313 Or App 725 (2021) 727

PER CURIAM

Respondents Aurora Airport Improvement Associa-

tion, Bruce Bennett, Wilson Construction Company, Inc., Ted

Millar, TLM Holdings, LLC, Anthony Alan Helbling, and

Wilsonville Chamber of Commerce (jointly, private respon-

dents) petition for reconsideration of our opinion in Schaefer

v. Oregon Aviation Board, 312 Or App 316, 495 P3d 1267

(2021). We allow reconsideration, modify our prior opinion

as described below, and adhere to the opinion as modified.

In their petition, private respondents contend,

among other things, that our statement that “[t]he FAA does

not use the term ‘class’ to describe airplane sizes,” Schaefer,

312 Or App at 340, is factually incorrect. They point out that

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) defines its group-

ing of planes into Airplane Design Groups as “[a] classifi-

cation of aircraft based on wingspan and tail height.” FAA

Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, Airport Design (2014), at

3 (available at https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/

Advisory_Circular/150-5300-13Achg1-interactive-201907.

pdf (last accessed July 16, 2021)).

That definition of Airplane Design Group as a clas-

sification system may render our statement about the term

“class” misleading. Accordingly, we allow reconsideration

and delete the sentence, “The FAA does not use the term

‘class’ to describe airplane sizes.” We also modify the next

sentence, “As set out above, however, the FAA groups air-

planes in several ways; as relevant here, it groups them by

weight as well as by wingspan or tail height,” Schaefer, 312

Or App at 340-41, by removing the word “however.” With

those modifications, we adhere to our prior opinion. We

reject private respondents’ remaining contentions on recon-

sideration without discussion.

Reconsideration allowed, former opinion modified

and adhered to as modified.