1. The Town has a Legal Responsibility and a Moral Duty to Protect Residents in the Runway Protection Zones (RPZs). 

Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) should really be called safety zones. They are areas defined by the FAA at the ends of the runway for "the protection of people and property" in case a plane landing under-shoots or a plane taking off over-shoots. The FAA says that they should be kept empty of “unacceptable, incompatible land uses such as residences, office buildings, stores and roads.” Over the years grant assurances signed by the Town, upon receiving capital grants, specifically number 21 have promised to do just that but have been ignored, and these areas are now unacceptably populated.

A HUD report writes "Finally the airport owner must strive to attain compatible zoning around the airport in order to prevent incompatible land uses that could cause sufficient conflict that endangers the airport,  cause it to be closed or require substantial remedial investment to purchase conflicting developed property".

RPZs are an important part of FAA Airport Design Standards when planning at the Airport. The Plan Page shows the required size of the RPZs, tand the increase in size that would be required at the South and North ends of the runway to accommodate straight-in approaches. However the FAA clearly states that: "It is FAA policy to object to incompatible land uses that are proposed for property within the RPZ whether or not the airport owns the land, and such objection should be anticipated. In particular, when we receive a proposal for an airspace study under Part 157 for the RPZ, we will object when that proposal conflicts with an airport planning or design standard or recommendation.”
The following land uses outlined in an FAA Memorandum all require "coordination"
  • Buildings and structures (Examples include, but are not limited to: residences, schools, churches, hospitals or other medical care facilities, commercial/industrial buildings, etc.)
  • Recreational land use  
  • Places of public assembly
  • Public roads/highways
  • Vehicular parking facilities
  • Fuel storage facilities (above and below ground)
  • Above-ground utility infrastructure eg electrical substations)
  • Any type of solar panel installation.
Any proposed change to the Approaches at the Airport such as Alternative 2 outlined in the AMPU, will increase the required sizes of the RPZs. The specifics are described below if poor visibility approaches are introduced, and if straight-in approaches are introduced.

2. Runway Protection Zone on the South Side of Airport
There are 2 RPZs at each end of the runway. One Approach RPZ in case of aircraft undershoot, and one Departure RPZ in case of overshoot by a departing aircraft. In the case of Chatham Airport these are currently identical and superposed over each other. The photo shows them superposed on West Chatham. They include homes, stores, offices, a gas station and busy state highway 28, which are all unacceptable incompatible land uses in that area The zones are 1000ft long but start 200ft away from the runway.
3. Runway Protection Zone on the North Side of the Airport
The photo shows the RPZs superposed on Agnes Lane and Old Queen Anne Road. This also includes homes, and a road, declared as unacceptable incompatible land uses in that area.  
Any proposal with lower visibility using the dimensions in the table below, requires much larger impossible RPZs and these are drawn for both the South and North ends of the runway. Therefore poor visibility landings cannot be approved in Chatham.
4. The Dimensions of an RPZ varies with Visibilty Limits on the Approach

Visibility Minimums*               Visual ≥ 1 Mile                 ≥ 3/4 mile             < 3/4 mile  

 RPZ Length                                   1000'                         1700'                    2500'  

RPZ Inner Width                             250’                           1000’                     1000’  

RPZ Outer Width                            450’                            1510’                     1750’  

RPZ Area                                      8 acres                       49 acres                79 acres  

*For small aircraft. Taken from FAA AC 150/5300 – 13A 

5. Displaced Threshold
The FAA advocates moving both the approach and departure RPZs, identical in the case shown in the first diagram below, out of an area containing "Unacceptable Land Use" This will move it up the runway as shown in the diagram below. This displaces the threshold, beyond which planes are required to land, and shortens the landing distance. Planes taking off start from the original threshold at the far end of the physical runway, but the take-off distance is only up to the displaced threshold. This would work as shown in the second diagram below showing how landing and takeoffs in a northerly direction would work. 200ft is required between the threshold and an RPZ.  
6. Displaced Thresholds Are the Solution

This  proposal is a solution similar to the  AMPU 6.3.1 No Action Approach Clearing Alternative.  This requires displacing the thresholds and doing nothing else, which has major benefits in resolving the current arguments, and may actually be necessary now because it appears that vegetation is already penetrating the required 20:1 glidepath. 
 1.    Would exclude existing unacceptable land use from the present visual RPZs by removing all residences from the RPZs and increase the safety of the residents now living in those zones. 
 2.    Would mitigate years of Town zoning negligence. 
 3.    Avoids multi-million dollar destructive and intrusive avigation easements, because the glide-path 20:1 surfaces would start displaced along the runway, and the surfaces would be higher above the trees. 
 4.    Displacing the thresholds would exclude all vegetative obstructions from destruction, because the glide-path 20:1 surface would start displaced along the runway. It may even be necessary right now.
 5.    No environmental Impact by not requiring clearing 2.4acres of wetland vegetation and 3.7acres of vegetation on and off Airport property. 
 6.    Would likely require charter flights to use properly equipped Cape Cod Gateway Airport in nearby Hyannis with two 5000ft+  runways and a control tower.
 7.    Prevent (risky) non‐precision (straight‐in) approaches by charter flights. 
 8.    The shorter runway should prevent charter planes such as Pilatus from using the Airport.  This would obviate a requirement for a 500ft wide obstacle free area around the runway, and removing ~10 acres of woodlands and the  bike path. 
 9.    Planes using the Airport would be limited to smaller planes, landing further down the runway or leaving the runway  earlier, so they would be flying higher on both approach and departure. 

10. Displaced thresholds would lead to reduced landing and take-off distances for both runway directions, but should not affect use of the Airport by light aircraft.     

This list above highlights what is needed to counter the reasons for broad community protest of the Airport, the AMPU and the AMPU process. This could all be realized in a flash, by the Airport Sponsor, namely the Town’s elected representatives. It only requires an understanding of what is not possible at the Airport based on FAA standards, and realizing what is possible and desirable for the safety of the residents and the character of the Town. This proposal would have major attractive consequences for the broad Chatham Community. Moving the RPZs would increase safety for residents and shoppers and even motorists on route 28. Eliminating turboprops would eliminate a major source of noise and fear, remove the prospect of commercialization of the Airport, and avoid all the unlikely multi-million dollar proposals associated with providing poor visibility instrument approaches, jet-fuel etc. primarily for the benefit of charters. It would mean doing nothing at the Airport, other than having the thresholds displaced as described above. The FAA only has jurisdiction of airspace, which does not include ground level property. Runway thresholds have been successfully displaced at other Airports, and is mentioned by Gale Associates in the AMPU section 6.3.1 as an alternative, so this approach can and should be seriously considered.

7. Avigation Easements
A simple definition of an  'Avigation Easement' is a legal agreement to allow the FAA/Airport to cut down any tree that is restricting airspace on a property.  

However Avigation Easements are are much broader than that. The legal agreements are used by the FAA  to  force property owners to cede air-space rights over their property from the ground up to the FAA. These agreements restrict owners from building above a specific height, and waives their rights to file a suit against owners and pilots of low-flying aircraft, and limits the liability of aircraft operators for causing a nuisance.

Some other heinous restrictions are shown in a sample of an FAA avigation easement agreement that a property owner would have to sign, and would be filed in perpetuity with the Property Deeds. 

"..... The Grantors agree to waive all damages and claims for damages caused or alleged to be caused by the Grantors violation of any aspect of this easement document. The Airport has a perpetual right of ingress/egress in the easement area and the right to remove any new structure or vegetation that is not specifically mentioned above as “accepted.”

"…..The Grantors agree to allow the unobstructed use and passage of all types of aircraft in and through the airspace at any height or altitude above the surface of the land. The right of said aircraft to cause noise, vibrations, fumes, deposits of dust, fuel particles, fear, interference with sleep or communication, and any other effects associated with the normal operation of aircraft taking off, landing or operating in the vicinity of Airport. As used herein, the term “aircraft” shall mean any and all types of aircraft, whether now in existence or hereafter manufactured and developed, to include jet, propeller-driven, civil, military or commercial aircraft; helicopters, regardless of existing or future noise levels, for the purpose of transporting persons or property through the air, by whoever owned or operated. The Grantors agree that during the life of this easement, they will not construct, erect, suffer to permit or allow any structure or trees on the surface of the burdened property. The Grantors may not permit any places of public assembly or gatherings within the easement area…….. "

Now the FAA does require that the property owner receive some compensation for the property's loss of value, but a real estate developer made it quite clear at an Airport Commission Meeting,  that an avigation easement is "the kiss of death" to a property's value". The Town would also be required to pay some of this compensation, but a much larger cost would be implementing the actual agreements over owner's objections, which would likely cost millions of dollars, according to a lawyer familiar with the process. 
8. Plane Accidents
Plane accidents fortunately are infrequent, but they do happen, and mostly close to an Airport. Many accidents are the result of the pilot error or mis-judging conditions, as exemplified in the following description of an accident in Chatham.

On Thanksgiving morning November 27, 1997, a pilot tried to land on runway 24, but was forced to abort. The plane rolled 90° and impacted on the north-west side of the property at 1610 Main Street. The pilot and his girlfriend were killed, although two teenage daughters survived. The pilot had been warned of high winds and low-level wind-shear before departing from Baltimore. A safety report is available at https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/37757 and a press cutting at https://www.capecodtimes.com/article/19971212/news01/312129930

 Another accident in the 1991-5 time frame led to 2 serious injuries, and was caused by an 80yr old attempting to be re-certified. More recently a  plane crash into Lover’s Lake occurred when a plane ran out of fuel, and a plane landed on its wingtip in the trees beside the runway.

Records show that there have actually been 7 reported accidents and at least 3 unreported ones in Chatham.  Over almost 50 years, there have been 425 reported plane accidents in Massachusetts, but there may be many others, particularly those without fatalities, which are not required to be reported. The list can be found in https://planecrashmap.com/list/ma/#google_vignette   

 
Dramatic and Tragic Accident just outside North Perry Airport, FL on March 15th 2021
This recent accident is a very graphic illustration of having roads and residential homes situated at the ends of runways and in or near  the RPZs. This accident occurred when a plane failed to gain height on takeoff, and crashed directly into a car killing a young child passenger and the two occupants of the plane. A graphic video that happened to be captured by a Ring doorbell camera is available at https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/small-plane-crashes-near-north-perry-airport-in-pembroke-pines/2405854/ North Perry Airport has been allowed to develop in an unbelievable way. There appears to be 4 runways 3000ft or less in length and there are roads, residences, restaurants on all 4 sides at ~1200ft from the runway thresholds at the limits of the RPZs. A satellite photo shown below illustrates this. A frightening photo of the accident from the video is shown below. This is a situation not only waiting for accidents to happen, but apparently there have been 14 in the last 5 years, which is leading local residents to call for shutting down the Airport. 

 Is this going to be the model for Chatham? 
4 runways at North Perry Airport  surrounded on 4 sides within ~1000ft by roads and homes
Plane viewed diving  into car before hurtling down road and bursting into flames near homes
Pilatus PC-12 crashed near Mesquite Airport TX in 2020