Jacksonville Ordinance 2006-543-E

[DanH]

Do we have any list members in Jacksonville FL? Yesterday I learned of an
ordinance (2006-543-E) enacted by the Jacksonville City Council on June
13th. The ordinance prohibits the "Repairing, testing, operating,
constructing, modifying, or altering..." of aircraft and airboats in all
residential districts. The ordinance is clear; it includes construction in
an enclosed space.

A URL for the actual ordinance:

http://citycirc.coj.net/coj/COJBillL...Bill=2006-0543

Jacksonville is about the 15th largest city in the nation. This sort of
thing means trouble for everyone.

Initial research indicates that the council action was in response to
a single individual who insisted on his "right" to rebuilt/resell/store
older homebuilts in his front yard. His neighbors didn't agree, and the
usual nuisance ordinances were inefffective.

A bio for the city councilman listed as the sponsor:

http://www.coj.net/City+Council/District+1/default.htm

The sponsoring Councilman's name is Lake Ray. I have placed a call to Mr.
Ray's office, and I am promised that he will return the call. In due
course I will report back here. There are two sides to every story. Let's hear what Mr. Ray has to say before we wheel out the cannons.

My experience with local politics is that a bill can be rescinded
as easily as it was created (more so really), IF the original sponsor
makes the request. Sometimes a baseball bat is required, but it is
usually better to listen, then persuade.

Can someone local supply a background report please?

Dan Horton

[Rick_A]

As a former and potential future Jax resident this caught my attention. I read the Bill Summary and the restriction is for "out-of-doors". It states that they must be in a "completely enclosed space". So as long as you are working in your garage this Bill is not a concern.

[rv8ch]

Originally Posted by Rick_A

As a former and potential future Jax resident this caught my attention. I read the Bill Summary and the restriction is for "out-of-doors". It states that they must be in a "completely enclosed space". So as long as you are working in your garage this Bill is not a concern.

I guess that means no test fitting of the wings in the driveway or backyard, no engine starts at home, and you can't roll the fuselage out in the driveway to clean the shop.

Seems like a pretty draconian response to a dispute between neighbors.

[Low Pass]

Originally Posted by DanH

Do we have any list members in Jacksonville FL? Yesterday I learned of an
ordinance (2006-543-E) enacted by the Jacksonville City Council on June
13th. The ordinance prohibits the "Repairing, testing, operating,
constructing, modifying, or altering..." of aircraft and airboats in all
residential districts. The ordinance is clear; it includes construction in
an enclosed space.

I'm no lawyer, but I bet a good one could get this law turned over as conflicting with the Air Commerce Act of 1926. All it takes is $$$$$$$$$$$$!

[Mike S]

Just a bunch of parts UNTIL signed off.

I would love to go to bat on this one, the Federal reg will take precidence over any local ordinance.

Mike

[DanH]

Gentlemen,
Part 16 Definitions: "Flying craft means any vehicle designed for navigation in the air or through outer space, including but not limited to airplanes, helicopters, and hot air balloons"

The operative word is "designed". Remember, the ordinance was written to address a problem with a guy who had a bunch of parts. You might argue the wording, but I assure you as to the intent.

Second, the paragraph one reference to unenclosed spaces is for "parking or storing flying craft and airboats". It is paragraph two where they prohibit aircraft under construction, and the words are "anywhere on a residential lot". Again, the only interpetation that counts is the one held by a zoning inspector and the city attorney behind him. You get your opportunity to argue the wording after you have already been ticketed.

Ok, a report. I logged in here because I just got off the phone.

First call received was from Councilman Ray's executive assistant. We had a nice conversation. As suspected, the ordinance is the result of a protracted problem with a single individual, a Mr. Kraut of Mayapple Rd in Jacksonville. I did not debate the wisdom of a sweeping ordinance to address a single idiot. My goal was to gather information and get a handle on the feelings behind the actions. My impression is
that Mr. Kraut has handed aircraft builders an uphill battle.

Second call was mine, to Randy Hansen at EAA HQ. I've passed along all I know about the problem. Randy was already aware of the issue. A member of EAA's Legal Advisory Council has volunteered to take up the matter with the City Attorney, and will report, in person, at Oshkosh next week. Any action taken will be after the Convention.

I strongly suggest that we all be on our best behavior. Do nothing to aggravate anyone at the City of Jacksonville, or you may make the problem worse.

Dan Horton

[Kaycee]

I just read the ordinance, and I think , unless I misiunderstood what I read,
Section 656.420 says Repairs,Testing,Operating, CONSTRUCTION, Modifying or Altering is PROHIBITED ! !
correct me if I'm wrong and I hope I am.
Harold Kovac, RV9A Rotary, Fuselage

[mdredmond]

Originally Posted by Mike S

Just a bunch of parts UNTIL signed off.
Mike

I agree.

The ordinance definitely applies to 'flying craft', which means a craft meant for flying, not one that is actually capable of flying. It is very clear that construction isn't allowed, even in enclosed spaces (656.420(b)).

But who's to say that your plane isn't a piece of sculpture or yard-art until it's signed off?

[DanH]

<<a piece of sculpture or yard-art until it's signed off?>>

I cannot confirm that it was Mr. Kraut, but apparently someone very similar took that exact tack......a fiberglass sculpture of a bending human, cheeks to the street....

It only takes one to foul our nest.

Dan

[RV7Factory]

I think a lot more information is needed before opinions are formed. DanH, you seem to be on the right track.

The Bill Summary States...
The bill amends and adds to Chapter 656 (Zoning Code) to prohibit flying craft and airboats from being stored, parked, repaired, tested, operated, or constructed out-of-doors on any residentially-zoned property. The bill also defines flying craft as a vehicle designed for navigation in the air or through outer space.

I too am curious to hear more about the out-of-doors provision. As pointed out, there seems to be some conflict in the wording here.

I think that this bill might be somewhat discriminatory in that it singles out aircraft or airboats, but does nothing to address the similar issue of someone with a car, motorcycle, or boat being worked on out-of-doors (e.g. driveway). The city might have a seperate ordinance for that, but if not, they may find themselves in hot water by prohibitting one form of an activity but allowing others.