The Flagler County Commission is moving toward adopting a long-required ordinance regulating the county airport’s flight-zones approaches. The ordinance applies to land use around the airport, restricting or prohibiting certain structures or vegetation, to minimize risks to and enhance the safe operation of planes. A 2016 sate law requires all local governments with airports in their midst to adopt such an ordinance. Flagler County is late, but finally doing so.
Some residents surrounding the airport who have been objecting to the seemingly perpetual touch-and-go flights of a flight school at the airport, and complaining about the noise, will be disappointed. The ordinance does nothing to address flights or airport use, which is not in the county’s jurisdiction anyway, and nominally addresses noise. In the main, the ordinance ratifies practices already in place.
“This is a a requirement through DOT to preserve the airspace,” Flagler County Growth Management Director Adam Mengel told the County Commission in a workshop Monday. “And so we really shouldn’t be thinking in any other terms other than that. This is something to protect your public investment in your airport itself.”
The ordinance regulates the permissible height of vegetation or structures, the use of land within the noise-regulated zone, the use of land subject to overflights, and other uses that could result in impeding in-flight visual or electronic interference or even aircraft bird strike hazards.
Airport protection overlay zoning primarily concerns obstruction hazards which may impact the vertical and horizontal airspace surrounding the airport. The zoning identifies incompatible uses that should be discouraged or prohibited near the airport-including house construction.
Obstruction hazards “endanger the lives and property of users of an airport and of the occupants of land in its vicinity by reducing the size of the area available for aircraft taking off, maneuvering, or landing, thus tending to destroy or impair the utility of the Airport and the public investment” in it, the ordinance states.
The ordinance establishes two zones: the airport height notification zone, and the airport overflight zone. The two together form the overflight zone. Residential construction is prohibited within a certain length of the runways (half the longest runway’s length, from each runway’s end points). Those distances do extend slightly past Belle Terre Boulevard and a little east of Seminole Woods Boulevard, encompassing some existing residential houses. Mengel calculated that there are existing, vacant lots that could be built on. The ordinance would prohibit construction there.
One of the airport’s runways could be extended from 5,500 to 6,500 feet if there was a need for it, Airport Director Roy Sieger said. The other runway “will never be extended.”
In May 2023 the County Commission, against its own Planning Board’s recommendation, cleared the way for a 240-unit apartment complex beyond the northwest end of two of the county airport’s runways, and east of Aldi, the grocery store. The Planning Board had recommended keeping the general commercial and industrial zoning rather than converting it to high-density residential. The complex would have been in the zone where no residential construction would be allowed.
“Luckily,” Mengel said, “it sounds like we’re out of that business. So it’s going to end up being another big box, the way it sounds.”
“It would be a taking if this was adopted,” Mengel said, meaning that the government would have to compensate the land owners for preventing them from profiting from the land, “because what would happen is new residential construction occurring on those residential lots would be prohibited. Those that exist now would be treated as non conformities.” Residents and homeowners could continue living there. But if a catastrophic event were to destroy a house, that house could not be rebuilt there.
That’s not new. Years ago, Mengel said, the county bought land that had been plated for houses east of the airport, on the west side of Seminole Woods Boulevard. Yet a church and a new Palm Coast fire station are approved or under construction in some of the overlays. Those may be approved through special permissions, as was the case with a cell monopole at Flagler Palm Coast High School and even a temporary construction crane at AdventHealth Palm Coast. “We try to catch them as we can, city and us both working together,” Mengel said. “For the most part, we’ve done a pretty good job, thankfully, and that’s been reflected in the safety of our airspace.”
So how will people know whether their land is under one airport overlay or another? The county would have to develop a database enabling property owners or residents or businesses to plug in an address and know precisely whether they are under any of the restrictions or prohibitions, and what those would be. At least that’s the approach Mengel is recommending.
Local governments may implement the ordinance two ways. One is through a joint agreement (an “interlocal agreement”) between the affected local governments. That would include Flagler County, Palm Coast and Bunnell. If Flagler Beach annexes the western portion of John Anderson Highway that will include the Veranda Bay development, the agreement would include Flagler Beach as well. The second avenue is to create an airport joint planning board. When the administration discussed the approach in 2018, the joint agreement was the preferred route.
Public hearings are expected on March 3 and March 17. Commissioners have no objection to the ordinance, which has been discussed previously–and requested by the commission for two years, according to Commissioner Leann Pennington. It’s not clear why it’s taken this long for it to be drafted.
“I do feel that this zoning ordinance is very important to our airport,” Commissioner Kim Carney said in January. “If we grow as we grow, whatever the situation is the state is requiring it.”
RobdaSlob says
Am I missing something – this has been in Florida Code for over 10 years:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0300-0399/0333/0333.html&StatuteYear=2016
If my understanding is accurate why is Flagler County just now getting around to it?
Derrick redder says
So you bought by or next to the airstrip and now you want to change the place you moved to to the place you left.
This said I see no reason why they can’t fly over the ocean or interstate why buzz the housing 5 miles out and at like at 0600hrs on a Sunday. smdh
Ed Danko, former Vice-Mayor, PC says
Gotta love people that move next to an airport and then complain about the airplanes. Kinda like people that move next to a zoo and complain about the animals, or those folks that move to the beach and complain about the sand and the salt!
XYZ says
This airport overlay ordinance is NOT ALL THAT MEETS THE EYE, and the county
is trying too intensely to get it passed very quickly. Added to this mix the FAA made changes to
this ordinance the last minute, from the middle of last weeks meeting about it to that
same Friday which is why this Monday the FCBOCC had to have another meeting about it.
The city was not given proper notice to learn so that they can properly address this 15 page
or so ordinance and citizens had to inform the city about this confusing rather perplexing
presentation given by Sean Moylan and Roy Sieger. But the county needs an interlocal
agreement to pass the ordinance of which Moylan made a point of saying that the county
does not need the city’s vote but now Flagler Beach is involved due to the possible annexation
annexation of Veranda Bay. The obfuscation of Moylans presentation caused Mayor Norris
and Vice Mayor Pontieri to demand clarification for the affected residents homes and properties,
after all how can you make a bullet presentation claiming that over 9,000 residents will be
affected and not EXPLAIN as to HOW these residents will be affected. It’s asinine and should
be broken down to simplified explanations that the average citizen will be able to understand.
A very important meeting on February 25th at City Hall will be scheduled to clarify residents
concerns and will specify how specific homes in various sections will be impacted by the passage
of this ordinance.If you care about the future of your home and property it is imperative that all
residents attend this meeting.
Jane Gentile Youd says
I addressed the issue,in your headline in person to the board that no mention of ‘touch and goes’ is not part of this ordinance and that they are not prohibited by this proposed Ordinance nor compensation for homes that were built BEFORE FLIGHT SCHOOLS were allowed to start.
RobdaSlob says
“Ed Danko, former Vice-Mayor, PC says….”Gotta love people that move next to an airport and then complain about the airplanes…”.
Sir I don’t know anything about you but I will say this comment is likely why your title has “former” in it. Why wouldn’t a government agency not want to have their constituents bring their concerns to them? If the elected officials are dismissive of those concerns as you have stated then their only recourse is to select new elected officials.
I have been engaged in aviation my entire 60 years of life. Earliest memories were riding in my grandfather’s plane. But while I am a fierce advocate for aviation I fully recognize we must be good stewards to our community. That is the obligation of the aviation community. If someone doesn’t think we are meeting that obligation then the community should listen and make all efforts to address the concern.
The county runs the airport they are obligated to protect the community from any potential harm – whether it is environmental, safety, financial, etc. No different than any other county run facility, park, beach, etc. Obviously it is risk management and our best opportunity to get the pendulum to settle in the middle is to embrace diverse perspectives and that in turn will lead to the best solution.
Don’t count on my vote in the future.
Skibum says
Jane, your comment about the local ordinance not being written to prohibit “touch and goes” seems to imply that a city or other local government where there is an airport somehow has such authority to enact an ordinance that limits or prohibits planes from practicing touch and go landings and takeoffs at airports. Touch and goes are an integral part of pilot training – an absolute necessity for student pilots as well as experienced pilots to practice their proficiency on a regular basis. It would be just as nonsensical to have a community swimming pool and expect a local authority to prohibit diving or jumping in to make a cannonball splash because of the potential for noise. I would love to see ANY evidence where a local governing authority has been able to usurp the FAA when it comes to making rules for plane landings and takeoffs, so if ANYONE can provide such evidence of a local jurisdiction anywhere that has succeeded in passing a local ordinance which has the effect of law and usurps federal authority to regulate planes doing touch and goes at a local airport, please do tell. Then, and only then, will I shut up and cease writing about what I think is absolute nonsensical fantasizing from people who move next to, or close to an existing airport and THEN want to complain and demand that planes stop making noise. Go ahead… make my day. Anyone???
XYZ says
Robdaslob: STANKO! The same person once again talking 2 sides out of his mouth,
the same person who demanded all of the doggie toys be removed when he and
his dog entered the doggie bar because his dog couldn’t play fair, double standard
STANKO, please stop writing former VP Mayor of Palm Coast and holding onto
your loser title, you lost for a reason on a county seat to a unknown we did not
want you!
XYZ says
Skibum: Poor example , jumping into a pool doing a canonball
splash has NOTHING TO DO with over 170,000 touch and go
which ARE NOT TAKE OFFS AND LANDINDS flights over
communities 24/7 does not determine the 65decibals that
these piss ass broken down waiting for an accident to happen
flight school planes exceed to , you are a airport troll
and don’t know what you are talking about once again. Look
up the Supreme Court cases of property ownership which include
airspace rights. The US Supreme Court has made it clear- when
flights enter and use super adjacent airspace, namely that
portion of the airspace so close to the land that continous invasions
of it affect the use of the airspace of the land itself, the landowner
has a claim against the government permitting such use which
sounds in inverse condemination, See Causby v.US328 U.S.256
(1946). Thus,it is indisputable that frequent low level flights over
private land can constitute a taking within the meaning of the 5th
amendment. Fields v. Sarasota- Manatee Airport Auth., 512 So.
2d 961(Fla. 2d DCA 1987) Overflights that are 500 feet or less
above property are particularly likely to lead to holdings that the
property has been taken. Schubert v. U.S. 246 F. Supp 170 (S.D. Tex
1955) . Noise, vibrations, smoke, physical trespass-all of which are
occuring over our clients homes- have been held to constitute a
taking. Batten v. U.S., 306 F. 2d 580 ( 10th Cir. 1962). In Florida,
specifically, Courts have been held either a continuing physical
invasion of property or substantial ouster and deprivation of
the beneficial use of their property. So Skibum now you can as you
say “SHUT UP” and have the day you deserve.
c says
Well I agree that the noise here in Sector Z gets out of hand occasionally, and I will also agree that I knew the airport was there before I moved in .. so …. skipping the noise argument for a minute …
‘”Director Adam Mengel told the County Commission in a workshop Monday. “And so we really shouldn’t be thinking in any other terms other than that. This is something to protect your public investment in your airport itself.”’
After reading this, I realized that I have NO, ZIP, NADA, ZILCH idea of just what ‘public investment in my airport’ means .. or what it does for me, or does for the community. I’m not trying to be anti here, but I realized that I would like a complete explanation of just what benefits (and detriments) and revenues having a county airport such as Executive does for the citizenry balanced against what expenses are entailed whilst performing said benefits/detriments.
I mean, seriously, I can’t think of a thing that the airport does for me, personally (but that’s not necessarily a negative).
RobdaSlob says
XYZ the cases you cite and the point Skibum are two different items.
I won’t go through all the cases one by one but in short they are all centric to establishing that if the government exposes a property owner to substantial noise it is tantamount to “taking” of the property. They also establish the bar that has to be crossed and it is quite high. This is great if one is looking for compensation from the County as a result of the exposure to noise.
Skibum is talking about controlling airport operations (stopping touch and goes). That requires the airport to follow a very prescriptive process. If you want me to sew that rules that govern that process together for you I have in the past..
Skibum says
XYZ, I will readily admit my example was not comparable, but it was the only thing I could think of at the time. However, if the assumed correct court cases were all actually verified as settled case law going back as far as 1946 in your examples above, don’t you think the FAA would have been required by law way before now to limit AND enforce such things at local airports such as ours? Since that is obviously not the case and people are discussing writing a new city ordinance, that tells me immediately that the case law examples you cited are NOT in fact the law of the land, and do not require the FAA to give up their authority to local governments. There has to be something within existing FAA regulations, which are written according to law, to cede authority to local governments regarding airport operations and noise restrictions if you wish to prove your point. Case law is cited all the time by attorneys when trying to get a court of competent jurisdiction to agree to a certain legal theory, but that doesn’t mean that such cites pertain to our local situation, or was even upheld after an appeal which may have been submitted afterward. I’m still eagerly awaiting actual evidence to prove local authority overrides FAA rules.
Rene Webb says
How can you build houses and promote growth with this pending Flagler County Board of County Commissioners airport overlay ordinance? How will residents regain their investment in their homes if they are not allowed to rebuild after losing their homes?
Does Flagler County intend to reimburse home owners after swallowing up their property? Just a few questions I have as a home owner in the intended Overlay Zone.
XYZ says
Skibum: stop being lazy, look up these cases and there are many more won
with no appeals. The key here that you REFUSE to understand that the county
has failed miserably is that the county never obtained AVIGATION EASEMENTS
for planes flying 500 feet and less over people homes and properties, it’s not the
residents faults that the county did not do this when they intended to grow
the airport this turns into inverse condemnation just like Moylan said in his
presentation to the county, it is the taking of residents property rights, a
violation of the 5th amendment, and also the 14th amendment. The residents
need to get together and bring about a massive lawsuit, if you do not have
a avigation easement attached to your deed which we went around to homeowners
to survey and none do they can sue the county, why do you think the county
wants to do this now? Its all part of the plan to protect themselves against
lawsuits as well. Besides these flight school planes are like you said “touch
and goes” not take off and landings. They also created a very unhealthy
environment of the dropping of toxic leaded fuel upon all of PC and Flagler
Beach, there is a reason why leaded fuel was outlawed in the 70’s, this airport
is not a friendly neighbor by any stretch if the imagination, if they were they
would not be using leaded fuel to poison their citizens, the effects of this leaded
fuel is especially harmful to children as their bodies are rapidly growing
lead poisoning can lead to lifelong learning, behavioral, reproductive , heart,
and other problems. It’s what people don’t hear and see that is the most
dangerous, look at Flint, we may have another Flint on our hands since our water
lead levels are increasing yearly, why is that? So It really does not matter
how you feel or what you think, its a matter of a county doing the right thing
for their citizens to protect their health, safety and welfare which is governments
first and foremost duty. Your school of thought condeming thousands of families
in our communities both flooded and surrounding our airport is stunning with
your “JUST MOVE” attitude. You also refuse to acknowlege the 9/11 catastrophe
of the foreign flight school students that was trained at Daytona ER, the other at
Vero Beach flight school who murdered 3000 Americans and many more deaths
occuring years later of the firefighers, police and other front line workers from the
residual effects of that toxic site. So go spew your toxic rants to the families of those
victims.
XYZ says
RENEE WEBB: Tell all your neighbors, all who live ing the Z, LL, K, Seminole Woods,
Hidden lakes, U , Town Center area and all the other areas that are affected , Veranda
Bay with pending annexation, Sieger is also seeking to extend the airport 2000 feet more
and this will fall out into Bunnell and other areas as well, fill the city room on February
25th and the county on March 3rd to learn about the most expensive purchase , your
home ,that you will ever make. An airport should never outgrow its community.
palmcoaster says
Kudos to our brave Vice Mayor Pontieri that brough out this ridiculous intended airport overlay zones ordinance by the FCBOCC intending ignoring the government of the largest stake holder in this county ” the City of Palm Coast”. TY to our Mayor for approving the Vice Mayor request.
Kudos to the residents complaining for years since the schools approved at airport of the danger, noise nuisance and lead contamination generated by these schools including also ER in Daytona. using it. They profit from these training schools touch and goes and rounds and rounds over us all in Palm Coast! An aiport that ends up yearly on the red by a million in 2022, 2 millions in 2023 and God knows how much in 2024 not published yet. Whom do we think funds their losses in the airport enterprise… us the taxpayers. Now they want to further add overlay affecting more residential properties on the ground…preparing for more schools to be housed or served. What do we gain as Palmcoasters from KFIN airport? Zero, to the contrary we are in danger, noise nuisance as airport exempted from Palm Coast Noise Ordinance lead contamination and loss value of our homes. Just take the schools off this airport or take your airport for schools elsewhere. Just leave our executive and national guard airfields. Furthermore this airport and the FCBOCC ask most the FDOT grants for the airport and peanuts for our roads. 2024, 6.5 millioons for the airport terminal lounge “of course for the schools” as we can’t buy a ticket to fly anywhere from it and the city only received 500,000 for the design 4.2 miles extensiong of intended widening of OKR south. Affected neighbors better attend the incoming meetings in this issue as safety, peace and quite, lead contamination and value of your home is a stake.
celia pugliese says
Rene Web: Public hearings are expected on March 3 and March 17. Commissioners have no objection to the ordinance. Numbers count attending! The most directly affected will be those aound Town Center, Seminole Woods, Quail Hollow, K, R Z sections but we have them also in North Palm Coast training their rounds over us late a night. City of Palm Coast is taking up the issue before 2/25 I think. Watch our brave councilwoman Pontieri in the 2/11 council meeting at minute 24.11 https://www.youtube.com/live/AGF-zZucYsA. Better be informed than too late sorry!
Skibum says
XYZ, excuse me, but if you want to speak about being lazy, you obviously didn’t even bother to inform yourself about the scope or impact of the local ordinance that is being considered. I did just that, and from what I learned, this overlay ordinance is a requirement and the entire scope and intent of it is to limit what can be built near the airport and what happens when home owners tear down existing homes in the airport’s approach zones near runways, preventing another home from being built there for safety and noise reasons. It does NOTHING to interfere with FAA regulations or federal authority over airport operations, so each and every one of the examples of case law you spouted are irrelevant. Nice try.
XYZ says
Correction to my comment, it was Adam Mengal who during his presentation
spoke that of a taking of property, when Sean Moyan gave his prior presentation
he made it ONLY sound like it is about height of structures.
Me again says
I’m sorry, I’ve read these comments and it’s clear that no one realizes that this is mandated by the state and was required to be implemented in 2016! It’s state statute and the City of Palm Coast was supposed to put it in too! Therefore, they are the ones who approved houses where it was not allowed to go since 2016. Why? Cause they don’t want to stop development so they waited as long as possible to avoid putting in this state required ordinance. Hello? They wanted almost ten years!!! Vice Mayor Danko, had you done your job and researched this sort of shit you wouldn’t have approved all those homes. Such a loser.
XYZ says
Skibum: It’s a 15 page or so ordinance, did you read it? It’s not only
about height of structures Did you listen to Adam Mengals presentation
where once again you FAIL to understand or ignore where he mentions
that it is a TAKING , meaning if residents cannot rebuild that is a taking!
Therefore, Are they going to pay home owners for diminished use of property
rights (avigation easement) and decrease their property taxes to do this or are
they robbing Peter to pay Paul? Who is paying for that? Where is the money coming
from? How would they compensate seniors on a fixed income if they need to move
(can’t tolerate the new nuisance impact or their house was in a disaster and can’t
rebuild) and would have to spend more on property taxes on a house of equal size
instead of keeping the 3 percent increase on their purchase price? Do they have the
funding for this? If not, a taking without due process and compensation is unconstitutional.
This Ordinance BYPASSES AVIGATION EASEMENTS BY REZONING AND CHANGING
LAND USE MAPS ! Also, side note, why are they expanding before upgrading
tower? Are they still using binoculars?AND if its a public use airport like they claim it
is the flight schools actually make it publicly unavailable.The county attorney’s are not
acting within compliance of their duties. People are talking about a lawsuit against the
county. Mengals bizarre presentation was meant to perplex and confuse people where
the commissioners did not even know what questions to ask, just listen to Pennington she
was speechless. and did not even know what questions to ask except for Carney seemed to
understand some, but WHY NO QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THIS AFFECTS THE 9000
AND MORE RESIDENTS that Mengel had put up in his bullet presentation????? So stop
your nonsense are you a stakeholder at the airport cause you sure sound like one! We still
don’t know your fascination with this airport, and the flight training mills are a busness
and businesses should not be operating over residents homes doing 170,000 touch and
goes which are NOT take offs and landings, stalls and nose dives how would you like a
car body shop opening up next door to your home, it’s not the place for it. So don’t preach
to me above” nice tries”, nor leave out the rest of the ordinance details, the height is one
thing, the TAKING is another and this is where this ordinance is not good for homeowners.
It is the homeowners rights to know everything, every detail, the county past leadership
has done enough harm to its residents and quite frankly we have no reasons to trust them
any further. So “nice try” by you in your attempt to make citizens feel like they are hopeless
we eill fight back if we need to.
-t says
For those of you who ask how the local government would have the authority to ban touch and go operations, see
Flagler County Airport Rules and Regulations:
3.2 AIRPORT OPERATIONAL RESTRICTIONS
a. Unless contrary to FARs, the FCBCC has the power to restrict the use of the
Airport with respect to the following types of operations, including, but not
limited to:
1. Touch-and-go flights;
2. Training flights;
3. Experimental flights;
Grant Assurances/ASSURANCES AIRPORT SPONSORS published by the FAA.
5. Preserving Rights and Powers.
a. It will not take or permit any action which would operate to deprive it of any of the rights and
powers necessary to perform any or all of the terms, conditions, and assurances in this Grant
Agreement without the written approval of the Secretary, and will act promptly to acquire,
extinguish or modify any outstanding rights or claims of right of others which would interfere
Airport Sponsor Assurances 5/2022 Page 6 of 19
with such performance by the sponsor. This shall be done in a manner acceptable to the
Secretary.
7. Consideration of Local Interest.
It has given fair consideration to the interest of communities in or near where the project may be
located.
h. The sponsor may establish such reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, conditions to be
met by all users of the airport as may be necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the
airport.
i. The sponsor may prohibit or limit any given type, kind or class of aeronautical use of the airport
if such action is necessary for the safe operation of the airport or necessary to serve the civil
aviation needs of the public.
If you compare the people complaining about the touch and go operation to the published documents for the airport, they clearly states in the Master Plan, ” then it must ensure the proper land use controls or agreements such as avigation easements are in place to prevent any incompatible land uses. ” The part that people are missing is that they are conducting their touch and gos where the airport has not gained those avigation easements. That is considered ‘taking’ under the 5th amendment. They aren’t using the airport and airspace in the manner that is approved by the FAA and county. It isn’t the home owners who are out of line, it is the airport users.
There is even a map of where they have the right to fly and where they don’t. When they deviate from that, these touch and gos are violating property owners rights by aerial trespass because they aren’t experienced enough to gain enough altitude to enter into legal airspace by the time that they reach those homes. These deviations aren’t ‘necessary’ for take off and arrival because they aren’t in a protected easement. This is bad flight/bad flight training.
This is what is published, this is what is disclosed to those purchasing homes. Flight schools monopolizing such a small airport IMO is in itself is a violation of the Airport Sponsor Assurances because they have to make the airport available for all type of aviation (unless excluded per the county documents per an ordinance) or it is considered discriminatory. They aren’t allowing the previous flight patterns that use to exist. If you look at reviews of the airport on the internet, that becomes apparent.
I encourage all of you to go to the Flagler County Airport web page and read what is published. That is the property owner’s disclosure. That is what is approved and must be abided by via airport operations to stay in compliance with their federal grant (legal contract with the federal government) and that is what the agreement is for the airport users in order to keep permission of use of the county airport. Duty of care is on the aviation users to not negatively impact the community by deviating from these plans. Enforcement is the duty of the airport manager who seems to be in violation of his duties and should be expelled from his position for non-feasance.
Playground arguments (here first, you live near an airport and are complaining) aren’t legal arguments. Look at the context of what is published/approved and look at the behavior of the users. They are giving residents a legitimate compliant that is a liability to the county who can be sued for not getting this under control and puts the airport out of compliance which may disqualify it for future improvement funds from the federal government. Balance between residents and pilots is possible when there is full compliance.
Before anyone yells the word, Voluntary as another excuse, it doesn’t mean optional. This is what the FAA has published:
Voluntary Programs
Punitive legal enforcement actions are an effective deterrent for regulatory noncompliance.
While legal enforcement actions have deterrent value, they do not necessarily include corrective
actions to preclude future noncompliance. Voluntary programs and compliance actions
concentrate on problem solving, root-cause analysis, and effective corrective action. Where
noncompliance is inadvertent, compliance actions provide an opportunity for open dialogue and
information sharing that may result in corrective measures that address the reasons for the
noncompliance. When individuals or organizations are unwilling or unable to take immediate
effective corrective action, the FAA takes strong enforcement action, including, if necessary,
certificate action.
-t says
Minimum Standards States:
5. A Commercial Operating Agreement may be revoked by the Airport Manager for
cause upon five (5) calendar days written notice to the Operator. Such notice
shall be either hand-delivered or mailed by certified mail to the address stated on
the application. Such revocations are subject to the appeal process as stated in
Article 4, paragraph 3. Causes for revocation include, but are not limited to:
D. Any act or omission of the Operator adversely affecting the Airport
operations or posing a danger to the public health, safety, or welfare.
and
a. Aeronautical Activity means any activity conducted at the airport which
involves, makes possible or is required for the operation of aircraft, or which
contributes to or is required for the safety of such operations. These activities
include, but are not limited to: air taxi and charter operations, pilot training,
aircraft renting, sightseeing, aerial photography, crop dusting, aerial
advertising, aerial surveying, air carrier operations, skydiving, ultralight
operations, glider operations, aircraft sales, aircraft services, sale of aviation
petroleum products, repair and maintenance of aircraft, or sale of aircraft
parts and aircraft storage.
So no, just because there is an airport does not give any user permission to endanger nearby residents.
“required for the safety”
Revoked “posing a danger to the public health, safety, or welfare.”
BTW, didn’t they move the runway without getting the easements for it?
XYZ says
Skibum: a couple of more items as a FYI:to “PROVIDE ” such evidence of a local jurisdiction anywhere that has succeeded in passing a local ordinance which has the effect of law and usurps federal authority to regulate planes doing touch and goes at a local airport, please do read below :
https://www.flaglercounty.gov/files/assets/county/v/1/airport/documents/rules-and-regulations.pdf
3.2 AIRPORT OPERATIONAL RESTRICTIONS a. Unless contrary to FARs, the FCBCC has the power to restrict the use of the Airport with respect to the following types of operations, including, but not limited to: 1. Touch-and-go flights; 2. Training flights; 3. Experimental flights;
Airport Sponsor Assurances also backs this up
h. The sponsor may establish such reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, conditions to be met by all users of the airport as may be necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the airport. i. The sponsor may prohibit or limit any given type, kind or class of aeronautical use of the airport if such action is necessary for the safe operation of the airport or necessary to serve the civil aviation needs of the public.
Read https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_assurances/assurances-airport-sponsors
http://www.faa.gov
Skibum says
Thanks for proving my one and only point… that it is the FAA, the federal government, that has the ultimate authority and says local airports can “limit or restrict” certain types of flights (drum roll please) IF IT IS NOT SAFE!!! Well, gee golly, seeing that we have all of these types of flights that have been going on for a long time, are continuing to happen currently, and will undoubtedly continue into the future, THEY MUST BE SAFE! Prove otherwise, and you may get something done, but that hill is a steep one to climb, especially if those around the airport continue to scream about “noise” which has nothing at all to do with safety. Now I’m done with this inane back and forth that will not accomplish any more than the incessant noise complaints.
XYZ says
Skibum: Look how you slitered out of this one! That’s all you
got! If you think that’s is all its about out of the last 3 comments
you are fooling yourself and not us, it’s goes way BEYOND
“safety”, which we all know the touch and gos by students
learning over our homes, gas station, hospital, high school
BJ’S, senior care center. chevy dealership, other businesses,
IS NOT SAFE! the only reasons you are going away is due to
you own insanity and obsession with the airport in trying to make
residents feel hopeless, good luck with living on a inlet soo close
to the ocean after all you should be really worried about Mother Nature
swallowing you up. Stop wasting our time and your bad energy.
XYZ says
Skibum: We have proof of aerial trespasses which is a safety issue,
conducted in NON EASEMENT AREAS where prompt action was
expected by Sieger who did nothing as well as the county
who is guilty of violating FAA orders and so are the flight schools,
Sieger is also guilty of other issues by his own advisory
board, educate yourself ,it’s NOT JUST ABOUT NOISE: as you once
again try to minimize residents valid complaints,
It’s Not Just Noise: Airport Advisory Board … – FlaglerLive
flaglerlive.com/criticism-airport
-t says
Noise is a symptom of a safety issue. The closer the source of the noise to the object, the louder the object. The reason that residents were brought to their attention (the issue of safety/non-compliance) is because of property interference from excessive noise from such low altitude to create obscene/unreasonable nuisance conditions.
Case Law:
“Flight in aircraft over the lands and waters of this State is
lawful, unless at such low altitude as to interfere with the then existing use to which the land or water, or the space over the land
or water, is put by the owner, or unless so conducted as to be imminently dangerous to persons or property lawfully on the land or waters beneath.”
When you have inexperienced (student drivers/pilots) in aircraft not clearing homes (less than 500 feet AGL) in an area that doesn’t have an easement, it is not safe or legal flight. Those altitudes are clearly defined by the FAA and clearly being violated. Perhaps the scope of this airport in its current state is inappropriate for flight training.
According to the state constitution, you cannot just take property rights and you cannot implement retroactive laws/contracts that take either.
https://www.flsenate.gov/laws/constitution
“SECTION 10. Prohibited laws.—No bill of attainder, ex post facto law or law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
SECTION 9. Due process.—No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.
SECTION 2. Basic rights.—All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.”
Didn’t they move the runway and then point the flight traffic where the Master Plan clearly states that they don’t have an easement and they would require one? It sounds like the airport is grossly out of compliance. Maybe instead of fighting with residents, if you cherish the future of aviation, you should use your energy on the airport to take corrective action to fix the problem so that the airport won’t be disqualified for future improvement funds.
celia pugliese says
Here is the intended ordinance last updated: file:///C:/Users/intam/Downloads/20250206-Flagler%20Executive%20Airport%20Overlay%20Ordinance-draft%20with%20line%20numbers%20(2).pdf City council will take this issue at the 2/25 workshop meeting with county officials attending at 9 am, here: https://www.usgbc.org/projects/palm-coast-city-hall
USGBC.ORG
http://www.usgbc.org
-t says
Residents should read the FAA’s publication “LAND ACQUISITION FOR PUBLIC AIRPORTS” and know their rights.
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/airports/airport_compliance/relocation_assistance/land_acquisition_public_airports.pdf
Does the county have the funds to purchase new homes for those that they take and pay relocation? “Just move” comes with a price tag.
PUBLIC LAW 91-646
“This Act (hereafter referred to as the Uniform
Act) is the most comprehensive and equitable legislation in our history
on land acquisition and the associated relocation of displaced persons. Its
main objective is to provide for uniform and equitable treatment of
persons displaced from their homes, businesses, or farms by Federal and
federally assisted programs and to establish uniform and equitable land
acquisition policies for such programs. As prescribed under the Uniform
Act, persons will not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of
programs designed for the benefit of the public as a whole. Information
contained in this brochure applies to federally assisted airport
development and noise compatibility projects authorized under current
FAA enabling legislation. ”
Would it be more fiscally responsible to pay back the federal government for the airport improvements or pay the cost to relocated entire neighborhoods to benefit the airport?
RobdaSlob says
Flagler isn’t the first town to deal with airport noise. The FAA has a well established process.
If one is bored or can’t sleep at night – read FAA Order 5190.6B, Chapter 13 in particular. It explains the history, roles and responsibilities of the FAA, airport sponsor, aircraft operators, etc. What can and can’t be done. Etc.
My take away is the real shortcomings are in how Flagler County / Palm Coast are not managing land use around the airport and I continue to believe it is somewhat intentional item to ignore because it will likely directly impact the value of those lands.
bojangles says
We bought here about 15 years ago, when the airport was just a couple of flights every week, it wasn’t bad at the time and we did not mind watching a couple of planes now and then. We were fully aware when we bought here of the airport since we are on the “belle terre” near tractor supply , overall it was pretty quiet. Back then Palm coast and Flagler county was not as populated as it is now. The core of this story is that the county & city did not accommodate for land restrictions on un-incorporated property when the airport was built back then. This is a huge problem for “backward” thinking officials at the time, thinking this would just stay a retirement area with slow growth and low density development. According to this new “Airport Protection Zone” proposal or translate that to “immanent domain”, means the county knows that it screwed up years ago by not accommodating for population growth within the area. This is a “BIG PROBLEM” now for the elected officials is to protect their original “screw-up” they are digging in their heels with their original decision to “Protect the Airport” at all cost. A class action law suite by the residents is definitely on the agenda with this proposal.
Its horrifying to know the county officials are only concerned with protecting the “planes” and now throw out the one liners “Well…. the residents knew an airport was there to begin with”. Well i guess to the officials planes carrying a handful of people are more important than loyal tax paying residents year round. The bottom line is “the airport needs to go and be relocated”, they did it before from old kings rd to here, its a ticking time bomb, the minute a plane crashes into any of the houses even if its not in its zone, not only the airport will be sued for everything its got, FDOT and the county who approved it originally will be destroyed with a class action law suit!.