What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Jacksonville Ordinance 2006-543-E

DanH

DanH

Legacy Member
Mentor
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/COJBillList.asp?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My experience with local politics is that a bill can be rescinded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
 
Working in enclosed space allowed

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.
 
More restrictions

Rick_A said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
DanH said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 $$$$$$$$$$$$!
 
Dont forget WHEN it becomes an airplane

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
 
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
 
Jacksonville

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
 
Mike S said:
Just a bunch of parts UNTIL signed off.
Mike
Click to expand...

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?
 
<<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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
I'm in Duval County

Hey Dan,

I live in Neptune Beach. I bought a flying RV-6a, but will certainly ping my councilman about it when the time is right.

Please keep us updated.

Thanks

James Raymond
N436JE
RV-6A
 
Could this really be about noise?

I was originally thinking this was being prompted because the property was becoming an eyesore. Now I am wondering if this is more about noise in a residential setting since planes and airboats are singled out. I have to admit the thought of some guy cranking up Lycomings to redline all day would get old. J-Ville does have noise ordinances but I seem to remember them being enforced only after 11:00PM.

A little consideration for your neighbors goes a long way towards their enthusiasm for your project.
 
RV7Factory said:
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.
Click to expand...

So much for this.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=9134&highlight=diamagnetism

Poor guy can't catch a break...
 
RV7Factory said:
I think a lot more information is needed before opinions are formed.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Opinions can and should be formed now. The government is attempting to restrict the rights of everyone in Jacksonville because one guy annoyed them sufficiently. What more information is possibly needed?

A simple noise/chemical ordinance should be sufficient. If you don't like what your neighbor has on his/her property...that's what Home Owner's Associations are for. It's not the government's business what hobby I'm engaged in on my property as long as it does not endanger my neighbors or infringe on their rights. If you don't have an HOA, don't expect the government to act as one for you.

What part of the word 'liberty' do these people not understand?

edit:

Oh yeah...it's not just Jacksonville. My county (Gwinnett, one of the most populous in Georgia) passed an ordinance recently that said that no one could park a car or trailer of any size on grass anywhere in the county. Ironic thing is the Superior Court has overflow parking on a grass lot. I don't know what the status of that is now, but that's a perfect example of government over reaching, probably due to relatively very few complaints.
 
Last edited:
Jamie said:
Wrong. Opinions can and should be formed now. The government is attempting to restrict the rights of everyone in Jacksonville because one guy annoyed them sufficiently. What more information is possibly needed?
Click to expand...
"Wrong" Jamie?

How can my desire to learn more be "wrong"? How about the the facts Jamie? Your reponse appears to be based soley on what little we know so far. Do you know specifically what happened to cause this? Maybe there have been issues over the course of time that lead to this. It sounds like this guy wanted to run a business in his front yard. Maybe, just maybe, he brought this on himself. I don't know, hence why I am not formulating an opinion just yet. I certainly don't like the look of this anymore than anyone else, but that doesn't mean it is time to start lobbing grenades (yet), and certainly not at anyone for trying to remain objective.
 
Last edited:
Brad, you're on the right approach to this issue, but something else you said struck me as 'wrong'. I agree with you here:

"Equal Protection" under the Constitution means that one man's project (plane, boat) can't be prohibited while another's substantially similar project (car, motorcycle, refrigerator...) is allowed.

If I lived in JAX, I'd approach this by insisting that ALL maintenance of ALL vehicles be prohibited otherwise I'd file a Federal lawsuit using Equal Protection as a cause of action. See how long the ordinance lasts after that.

All it takes is one plaintiff (any homebuilder lawyers out there?) working the suit pro se and the city will fold under million$ in legal bills...

But I disagree with this:

How can my desire to learn more be "wrong"? How about the the facts Jamie? Your reponse appears to be based soley on what little we know so far. Do you know specifically what happened to cause this? Maybe there have been issues over the course of time that lead to this. It sounds like this guy wanted to run a business in his front yard. Maybe, just maybe, he brought this on himself.
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter what the 'facts' are - all that matters is what the bill says. "What we know so far" has no bearing on anything. That's like suggesting that what happened in the five minutes preceeding Rodney King's beating had anything to do with cops beating him once he was on the ground, subdued and submissive.

If he was running a business, outlaw that. If he was dumping alodine into the sewer, outlaw that. If he was pounding rivets at 2 A.M., cite him for a noise violation. But the law as written reaches WAY too far.

The bill is plainly unfair and likely unconstitutional. It is an overreaction and the reasons for its passage don't matter. It needs to be rescinded & a properly worded bill that addresses the actual problem should be introduced, if need be.

Jamie, I agree with your position (mostly) but don't get me started on HOAs (I had to sue mine. They're the same busibodies that ran the show in high school - except now I can make them pay me money for being idiots - I did!).
 
Last edited:
Sorry Brad. My response was a little harsh.

My gist is that no matter what one person does, it does not require a knee-jerk reaction restricting the rights of others who are completely respectful of their neighbhors. Trying to not be too political here, but restricting what people do in their private homes is no business of the government (I think most would agree here). That was why I implied that there was nothing to be objective about. There's nothing unknown about the content of the ordinance. The text is there and we can read it. It's the text I have a problem with. The events leading up to it are irrelevant.

Courts have ruled time and time again that municipalities may not restrict residents from running a business in their home if that business does not cause excess noise or traffic. I see no reason why the same courtesy should not be extended to any other aspect of a person's life.

Again...not trying to be too political...but I work for a company that's based out of Puerto Rico and consequently we work with a lot of Cubans, most of whom escaped from the island and were given political asylum in Canada or the US via the wet-foot/dry-foot policy. One of the 'ordinances' my colleagues talk about is how in Cuba it's illegal to have more than two tables in your house. The reason? They're afraid you're going to run an illegal restaurant. I used to think that was patently absurd. Suddenly it doesn't seem all that foreign. The phrase 'slippery slope' keeps coming to mind.
 
Gang, I know the individual involved. He has a neighbor widow who complains on him every day about something. At one time, he got the log of her complaints and it was beyond discription. She didn't like the color of his fence paint. He did have a fuselage and wings stored at the side of his house, in addition to one in his enclosed garage. The fight started when the city issued citations based on it's current code. He fought back and challegened their codes in court and has won, I think, 3 suits. One for example is the "airplane" thing. He won based on it's not an airplane until it has an N number. The current code allowed him to move his project, that he was not working on, into the back yard. When he was going to haul those parts to the airport, he put them on a trailer. He parked the trailer on the driveway and went inside his house. Another complaint and citation before he could walk back out and drive off to the airport. Yes, it is one individual and he may be picking a fight with the city but if you knew his side of the story, no he is not running a business, you just might get ticked off also. AOPA has told him they can do nothing. It's not the junk issue, it's not the noise issue, it's the overreaching of the city to a problem with one individual that should be handled with a rifle and not a shotgun. They have taken the shotgun approach. It's the enclosed garage thing gang, they are telling you what you can do in your enclosed garage. Wonder if I can build an ESTES Rocket in my den???
 
DanH said:
<<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
Click to expand...


That was not Mr. Kraut, that was a guy in central Florida.

We did have an issue in Orlando about 20 years ago when a city or county inspector cited a guy for building an airplane in his garage. Several of us local EAA types assisted and supported the builder in making his case against the city/county and obtaining a favorable ruling in the circuit court. He was sucessful in defending his position, resulting in precedence being established in Orange County Florida. The facts of that case are probably specific to the ordinance in place at the time, although there may have been constitutional implications. Even if it is directly on point it would not be controlling law since it is from a circuit court other than the circuit in which Jacksonville is located.

I will see if I can find that case and if it may assist the Jax folks as "persuasive authority" in their case, I will make it available to them.
 
Last edited:
<<if it may assist the Jax folks as "persuasive authority" in their case>>

Tony, thanks for the confirm/deny on the fiberglass sculpture. I was praying that it wasn't in Jacksonville.

Persuasive authority is precisely why this is a problem for those of us who don't build airplanes in JAX. When an ax-grinder starts demanding new code in his hometown, the first thing he does is demonstrate that it has already been done elsewhere ("Sure we can do it...they did it in Jacksonville!"). Court is a two-edged sword, and Mr. Kraut already has an upcoming court date. If the ordinance is tested and stands....

As I previously mentioned, a member of EAA's Legal Advisory Council has volunteered to take up the matter quietly with the JAX city attorney. We should let him do his thing.

In the meantime, I'd suggest that Mr. Kraut should back down. Fact: He has escalated an entirely mundane case of neighbor complaint into an anti-aircraft fabrication ordinance in the 15th largest city in the nation. He may be "right", but has he exercised good judgement? Read between the lines. In a city the size of Jacksonville (huge), 16 councilmen don't slam dunk new legislation just to deal with a single individual unless they are pissed. How do you figure that happened?

City Councils control almost all the airports in this United States, not to mention all the zoning. They respond to voters (as they should), and the huge majority of voters are not pilots. My point is that we (pilots and builders) are just plain stupid if we **** off city officials. Even when wrong they hold all the cards. The cards are called votes, and we are a tiny minority.

Dan Horton
 
DanH said:
<Court is a two-edged sword, and Mr. Kraut already has an upcoming court date. If the ordinance is tested and stands....

Dan,

I believe Brian's court date was a prior complaint not dealing with this ordinance. His attorney seems to think they could "defeat" the new ordinance at a tune of 10K, which Brian does not have after fighting them previously. He is not on this list.

Yes, I agree Brian has probably pushed them to the limit and "forced" them to take the above action. I camped with Brian last SNF and listened to the whole story. He is certainly to blame for some of the complaints but he also felt an obligation to counter the actions of the city based on their current code. He even got a court order that specifically stated he could build an airplane at his residence. He has ticked them off but he also stood for what he thought was correct. He is not some nutcase.

Agree, disagree, I think both sides have some merit but not being able to quietly work on a project in your garage is beyond me.

Just thought I would interject a little first hand knowledge into the fray:)
Click to expand...
 
Fight the fight

I just hope the guy pushes this until they resend this ridiculous rule. There are so many social and moral issues being challenged these days by typically small groups and they are winning because the majority is complacent and lazy. They are the only people making noise therefore they get these ridiculous rulings and then it?s twice as hard to get them reversed.

Not trying to start a religious or political debate and won?t respond if someone tries but my child is always welcome to pray and the pledge of allegiance will always include the phrase one nation under God as far as I?m concerned and I will build in my own garage!

The only reason I say this is that everyone should be concerned about these types of rulings. EAA, AOPA, and anyone else that can help should be notified. I hate it the guy doesn?t have the 10K to fight this. I would certainly consider donating if his lawyer thinks he can win. This could quickly spread to other communities and it might be yours.
 
Matt and Jamie, you are correct, the written law is to some degree all that really matters. My poorly written post was not intended to imply that the actions of the city are in some way acceptable to me based on the prior actions of the builder. My point was simply that before I start throwing mud on the Jax city council, I want to know more about what drove them to take this ridiculous action. So yes, I think the facts are important as they provide a context in which we might better understand the situation, and with which we might argue a more appropriate solution.

Regards,
 
There are two sides to every story...

I love a good fight and it sounds like there is a good one going on in FL.

The issue with the following has more to do with when that line was inserted in the pledge. I grew up saying it this way and didn't have an issue with. In discussing this with my mother she said it wasn't in there when she learned the pledge in the 40's. If the pledge had always had the line in it, I would say, leave it in but since it was a modern McCarthy era addition, take it out. I know in my heart what I feel and with or without the words.

(Just adding my 2 gallons of gas on the fire.)
praterdj said:
the pledge of allegiance will always include the phrase one nation under God as far as I?m concerned
Click to expand...
 
<<the majority is complacent and lazy. They are the only people making noise therefore they get these ridiculous rulings and then it?s twice as hard to get them reversed.>>

Ya'll do realize, that like any new ordinance, this one did not spring forth full grown?

The ordinance process started with a public reading at a City Council meeting on May 9th. From there it was referred to the zoning committee for their May 16th public hearing. It was read again at the next Council meeting (May 23rd), the floor was opened for public comment, and it was then rereferred back to zoning. The zoning committee held their next public hearing on June 6th. It then went back to the Council for the June 13th meeting, public comment was invited one last time, then the council members voted 16-aye.

Let's not forget the multiple publishings in the local newspaper of record.

Dana already told us Brian related his story in April at S&F, so clearly the battle had been raging for a while. It seems unlikely that Brian's entire EAA chapter was unaware of ongoing affairs.

Ok, let's get some additional information. Anyone that attended ANY of the above public meetings, raise your hand and tell us how it went.

Dan
 
Last edited:
I live in Jacksonville, Florida. My mailing address is Orange Park, but I reside in Duval County, which is part of the City of Jacksonville. This ordnance applies to me.

I am surpised by this ordnance. As a resident, a commercial pilot and CFI, this is the first I have heard of it. I have started an RV-6 in my garage. I can sort of understand some areas or neighborhoods in Jacksonville wanting an ordnance like this, but where I live, this would be ridiculous. I have adouble lot in a low density residential neighborhood where the smallest lots are 1/2 acre. Across the street and two houses down is an FAA approved seaplane port (Gary Gale 0FL8). I'll bet my neighbor has not heard of this ordnance either.

Jacksonville already has an ordnance (Sec. 656.410) addressing the storage of non-operational vehicles over 10 days. It also prohibits major repair on vehicles if not fully enclosed. It seems like the 10 day rule applied to aircraft would have the desired effect of eliminating airplane junkyards while still allowing builders to test fit their wings and leave the aircraft outdoors while cleaning, painting or otherwise working on the garage.

I have drafted a letter to Councilman Lake Ray addressing my disappointment in his sponsorship of this bill. I will contact my neighbor after I get home from work and flying tonight.
 
Gang, here is the guts of the proceedings leading up to this current code. Brian had one airplane in his garage and one airplane covered in his side yard. He got cited for building an airplane in a residential area. The judge stated in his findings that what Brian was doing was not in violation of existing Jacksonville code. Brian moved the side yard airplane into the privacy fenced in back yard anyway. He then bought another project that he subsequently sold to an individual, I think, in Washington. He parked the trailor in his driveway in preparation to transporting it to his workplace where trucking would pick the airplane up. He was cited again for the airplane on the trailer. He fought this one showing an ordinance that you could have a private trailer on your property. It didn't state whether you could have anything on it or not. Splitting hairs, maybe, maybe not but the judge again ruled in his favor. Brian bought a Pitts project at SNF and had it parked on the trailer in his side yard, thinking he had a favorable ruling previously. He was cited under this newly enacted provision, which was unknown to him. Upon checking the complaint log, it once again was this same neighbor but it had a strange twist. The complaintant stated in her complaint, the codes enforcement officer told her to call in the complaint. Seems Big Brother is using the little ol lady as a go between. Brian is going to post a website this evening documenting the entire process. I'll post it and let you decide. He's getting screwed and so are we.
 
Fight fire with fire

When I was a kid there was a guy a few blocks away that got a ticket for letting his grass grow a bit long. The rest of the year he was very obedient about keeping the grass cut and the yard always looked nice.

When spring rolled around the following year he dug up his entire yard. By "entire yard", I?m talking the front yard, side yards, the back yard, and the little bit of grass between the sidewalk and the street. He then proceeded to plant sweet corn on every square inch of dirt in his yard.

Turns out the city didn?t have any a garden ordinance.
 
Last edited:
BlackRV7 said:
He was cited under this newly enacted provision, which was unknown to him. Upon checking the complaint log, it once again was this same neighbor but it had a strange twist. The complaintant stated in her complaint, the codes enforcement officer told her to call in the complaint. Seems Big Brother is using the little ol lady as a go between. Brian is going to post a website this evening documenting the entire process. I'll post it and let you decide. He's getting screwed and so are we.
Click to expand...

I am not sure that is the correct interpretation. It may be, and probably is, the case that the little old lady originally talked to the wrong person on the last complaint and was referred to call the correct agency to file the complaint before the code enforcement officer would go out and issue the ticket. I wrote software to help the City of Miami Beach code enforcement agency do their job. We were never asked to cover a scenario like this. In Miami Beach the code enforcement officers never needed a complaint to be filed, nor were they afraid or reserved about writing citations that they just happened upon. They actually go out and patrol neighborhoods/zones. If anything, the code enforcement officer probably thought is was BS and wanted to discourage the lady. Of course that is just speculation on my part. I eagerly await further details, as this directly affects my neighbors and me.
 
I agree the response is inappropriate and excessive, even given the fact that the neighbor probably feels she was multiply wronged. I'd kick in $50 for the lawyer. If 200 RV'ers did that he'd be covered. This is a free country? Bill
 
letter to the Mayor of Jax

Maybe I shouldn't have, but I was so disgusted with Jax, I had to write.
I suggested to the Mayor (copies to the Florida Times Union, and the councilman)
The gist was,that as a former Jax resident, I was dismayed by the action in the Ordinance before him. I suggested that before he signs it, send it back for revision, wondering why someone working in his garage is harming anyone, the Odrinace be amended to include swamp buggies, race cars, any maintenance work on any vehicle, licensed or not. (Allow car washing)
Allow no construction of any vehicle, whether watercraft, aircraft,wagon,bicycle, scooter or any other type of conveyance. And while you're at it allow no sculpture or art work since these might involve working with metal, fiberglass, wood or stone as these might produce a mess and possibly a little noise.
I finished with the hope that he would allow children to make paper airplanes and boat. I trusted that in his infinite wisdom he might see the light.
Harold Kovac,
Ocala
 
<< finished with the hope that he would allow children to make paper airplanes and boat. I trusted that in his infinite wisdom he might see the light.>>

Oh no!

Harold, with all due respect, sarcasm with a city official is exactly the wrong way to approach the problem.

Dan
 
Jax ordinance - long

Guys in my past life I was (as much as I try to deny it) an elected local official for close to 15 yrs ending with 6yrs years on the city council as Trustee (Alderman) and finally 4 yrs as Mayor.

Please, I'm just Jim not some big egomaniac power nut, I had the attitude I served the people not the other way around (I even hated having my picture taken or geing called by the title) so please don't think I'm jumping in here to defend politicians or condemn them. I just hope to give some "inside" perspective and hopefully a way to defeat this ordinance easily.

These ordinances are almost always a reaction to a problem not because somebody having a cold one had nothing better to do than flex their new "power" (unfortunately I have known, and fought, those types too so it does happen but it's rare).

They are usually not targeted or well thought out. As much as they may think they have they will usually run into problems relating to this type of fall out when they begin enforcement.

I recently had to testify (I left office in 2001 so thing sat unused for a long time before anyone new it was a problem waiting to be abused) on behalf on an elderly lady in her 80's who I annexed into the Village at her request. I advised her not to but she wanted in.

She got cited for feeding BIRDS! She ran a bird rehab center outside of town for over 40yrs and was ticketed after I left office by the next administration using the same Village Attorney that drafted her annexation documents and her "grandfathering" of her old uses of her land.

We had assured her she was protected by these documents and we paid for her annexation as she was doing the Village a favor by coming in for reasons too long to go into.

Bottom line, the new neighbor called and called and harrassed the **** out of her and the city until they cited her under an OLD unused rule. It went to court and thank God we had a very creative Judge but technically we(she) lost and was cited and ordered to stop feeding the birds. Think of how sweeping this ruling could be, NO ONE CAN HAVE A BIRD FEEDER? That was in no way the intent of what we had left but all it took was one moron, OK a couple, to cause her this problem.

A bunch of us donated to her legal, I testified for her and against the City even pointing out the irony in the City Attorney prosecuting her when he wrote her documents that were to protect her but were told that because we and the Attorney left one specific phrase out of her papers she was not Grandfathered and was guilty as charged due to a photo of her feeding the birds. Punishment - 90 days "probation", I think a $20 fine (which I paid for her because I felt responsible for her plight and powerless to change it since I was no longer in office) and "you bahave yourself young lady (with a wink, smile and suggestion we go after the City to amend the ordinance).

Great advice straight from the Judge's mouth.

Bottom line, politely, professionally and not sarcastically get involved in attending meetings if necessary and asking politely to get it revised or it will bite the next person who's neighbor has an excuse to use this ordinance against them as pay back. It amazed me how neighbor disputes were worse than ex wives or divorces in how nasty and protracted and expensive they can get. One in our town was over a small fence and well over $100K was spent by the two neighbors over it. It was in my opinion ridiculus and I tried as hard as possible (and did ok with that) to keep the City out of it until the Judge made his ruling.

The best thing a City can do is not get involved in these types of disputes and refer them to Civil Court as individuals. Unfortunately they usually feel "obligated to act" as they were elected to govern and read that too losely sometimes. (They take an oath to protect and defend just like the one I took in boot camp and think they "need" to do something everytime there's a problem. THEY SHOULDN'T but they often do usually with the wrong outcome like this one.)

If we don't like this, and from what I've read so far it doesn't sound like a good ordinance and probably could be attacked in court (expensive) but I think with some local faces (outsiders, read that as non residents or non local voters need not apply as the face to the local council as they will get blown off most of the time) we can approach City Hall with logic and a solution by offering an alternative ordinance that is both enforcable, fair and lasting but protects the rights of builders like us and neighbors from those rare builders or individuals who also abuse (and can make us look bad just like overflying DC after 9/11) the system.

I would be glad to offer help on that front as I think it will get us where we want to be percieved.

As professional, intelligent pilots and hobbyists that respect the community and everyone's right to quality of life as they interpret that it as long as it doesn't grossly infringe on their or our rights or put someone else at risk.

Just a reformed politicians view of how we can win, correct this and prevent it from spreading and maybe, just maybe, without making it worse or spending a ton of money that could go to getting more planes in garages flying:)

Hope it helps. Good luck.

Oh, the little old lady has quietly begun taking care of her birds again making sure SHE uses those same ordinances to protect HER until it can be changed or removed.

The NEW Mayor who replaced the one (after me) who let them do this has so far found more important things for the City to spend it's time and money on.
 
jimpappas said:
These ordinances are almost always a reaction to a problem not because somebody having a cold one had nothing better to do than flex their new "power" (unfortunately I have known, and fought, those types too so it does happen but it's rare).

They are usually not targeted or well thought out. As much as they may think they have they will usually run into problems relating to this type of fall out when they begin enforcement.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the insightful response. I received a reply email from Lake Ray's office. He states that the change was in fact "in response to a nuisance issue associated with building, repairing, starting the ignition, of an airplane on residential property". His office also stated, "He did even go back to initiate a floor amendment to the bill, to exclude people that have some form of seaplane/air boat(that is supported by a docking facility). " In fact, the ordinance amendment does not include seaplanes, but does include airboats. Evidently, the ordinance has already been passed. The email frther states,
"However, as a result, the current ordinance was passed in an attempt to keep incompatible activities from occurring in areas that are not appropriate for such use, as is the proper role for zoning restrictions and regulations."

It looks like wildly misguided enthusiasm is not limited to my sailing club board of directors and officers.
 
Jacksonville

Here I am again, this time with an answer (such as it is) from the councilmans asst. and my reply. It hasn't been sent yet, I await comments prior to mailing it...soon.
Letter as received from the councilman

" Good Evening Mr. Kovac,

Councilman Ray is currently out of the city on business, but asked that I reply to your email with his response. He is aware that there is some concern from the aviation community regarding the recent amendment to the zoning code, but he would like it to be expressed that his decision to amend the code was not to infringe upon anyones constitutional right to indulge in a hobby such as building aircraft. The background of the ordinance change was in response to a nuisanse issue associated with building, repairing starting the ignition, of an airplane on residential property. The individual who was bothering his neighbors with the work, was issued a citation by City inspectors. That citation was challenged and the reviewing judge determined that the violation was not properly identified in the ordinance, necessitating a dismissal of the City's citation. In response to this nuisance situation, Councilman Ray requested the General Counsel's office and representatives from the Zoning Code Enforcement to draft an amendment to the code to properly address this situation and remedy the incompatibility of allowing this type of activity to continue to recur in residential areas. He did even go back to initiate a floor amendment to the bill, to exclude people that have some form of seaplane/air boat (that is supported by a docking facility). However, as result, the current ordinance was passed in an attemt to keep incompatible activities from occuring in areas that are not appropriate for such use, as is the proper role for zoning restrictions and regulations.

I hope this information helps to explain why the legislation was initiated.

Thank you,
Bridgette Green, Assistant to councilman Lake Ray III"


Dear Councilman Ray & MS Green,
I received your letter and can see that nothing has changed and that you are defending a flawed Ordinance. In my reading of the Ordinance, It appears to me that it is squarely aimed at the aviation community.

My reading of 656.420, b. is clear in that it only mentions flying craft and airboats

Section 656.420
b.
Repairing, testing, operating, constructing, modifiyingor altering flying craft and airboats shall be prohibited in all residential districts...........
.
It appears that this ordinance has been initiated on the basis of a dispute/disagreement between neighbors. This seems to be a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Does this mean that Atlantic,Jacksonville, and Neptune beach are immune from this onerous legislation?
Does this mean that I can construct a race car, repair, alter ,test, or modify it at my home in a residential neighborhood?.
If so, then why not an aircraft.
Then again I could do sculpture or other artwork, using the same materials as an aircraft or maybe create a stone sculpture with hammer and chisel.
Why would these projects be compatible, and not an aircraft.
This legislation clearly discriminates against grass roots aviation. Who knows, the next major innovation may come from this community.
According to Mr. Ray, if I had the wherewithal to live on the St Johns, I'd be legal to own or store an airboat or seaplane. Then I could afford to rent a warehouse and build there, and daily use extra Middle Eastern oil to commute to the project.
The way the ordinance was written, Model Aicraft, Some of which are more than half the size of conventional aircraft, can be outlawed.
I believe a man's/woman's home is one's castle and if you have this ordinance passed, what's next, the home project police checking to see if an aircraft is being contructed?
Why should any project in ones garage be subject to any legislation unless it poses a hazard.
The hazards I can think of are, gasoline for the mower, edger,string trimmer etc, Oil paints and thinner.
Weed killers and insecticides should also be on the list. Then there's high nitrogen fertilizers..flammable.
For the furniture woodworker hobbiest circular saws and planers are hazardous ....and the list goes on.
That being said this, the last I heard is not a totalitarian state/nation.
As I stated in my previous communication, I have no problen with disallowing a project in a carport or back yard...but if it's screened from view, but what harm?
If the house/property is maintained in a manner consistent with the neighborhood, why does the councilman have a problem? Is he anti aviation?
Also, I suspect there are many aircraft projects in the county of Duval. Is this legilation intended to lawbreakers of them all?
This doesn't affect me personall, but it outrages me to think that one man, who didn't research the problem thoroughly, can adversly affect so many.
To single out any group, aviation or otherwise with this kind of legislation is anathema to me. Were it someone building a boat or race car or whatever, I'd feel the same.
While this does not affect me personally, to think the one group/class of people can be subject to this type of harrassment.
This proposal should have been give wide distribution before it came to a vote.
If it was, I wonder what obscure publication it was posted.
This should be withdrawn and written not exclude groups of people from the enjoyment and use of their property.
Harold Kovac
 
That was the exact response I got from Bridgette Green. While the response says seaplanes are allowed, the actual ordinance, as amended, does not allow seaplanes, only airboats.At least that is how I read it.
 
Jax

Hi Rob,
It appears to me that they are ducking the issue, political doublespeak. What scares me is if they succeed, some other pol will attempt the same thing. The losers running Marion County here have no regard for aviation. If a runway needs repair, close that portion and make it shorter. This was a gift from Uncle Sam after WWII. As far as I can tell, don't preserve an asset sell off property, Take profits from fuel sales and tell the voters we're lowering your taxes, but not saying at what cost.
I'm beginning to lose confidence in pols of all stripe. With the possible exception of the current Sherriff who took over from a corrupt one. He actually improved the dept.....would that we had all our pols with a level of competence such as that..
If I don't hear any more comments, I'll send that along to the councilman, with copies to the Mayor & newspaper.
harold
 
Kaycee said:
[Councilman Ray ] is aware that there is some concern from the aviation community regarding the recent amendment to the zoning code, but he would like it to be expressed that his decision to amend the code was not to infringe upon anyones constitutional right to indulge in a hobby such as building aircraft.
.
.
.
He did even go back to initiate a floor amendment to the bill, to exclude people that have some form of seaplane/air boat (that is supported by a docking facility). However, as result, the current ordinance was passed in an attemt to keep incompatible activities from occuring in areas that are not appropriate for such use, as is the proper role for zoning restrictions and regulations.
Click to expand...

So... basically it was not his intent up infringing upon anyone's constitutional right to indulge in a hobby but he went ahead and did it anyway. It looks to me in the above excerpts that he realizes that the ordinance is unconstitutional. EAA had better be all over this. I can't imagine they wouldn't be. This is their whole reason for being.
 
Harold,
NO, do not send that letter. There are a great many reasons why. I promise I will list them a little later this evening, late for an appointment. Please, "position and hold" for now.

Dan
 
Ok, that list.

First, realize that councilmen in big cities don't open the mail. His assistant does that, and most tabulate yea or na if the letters relate to a specific issue. Beyond that, the huge majority go in a file. The councilman is unlikely to ever see it.

You will make an impression on the assistant. You don't want to make her mad. She is the doorway to the councilman, and a big part of her job is to block the door. Including her as an addressee almost guarantees she will take personal offense, and you (or your representative) won't get return phone calls. Hard to make progress with somebody when you can't talk to them.

A good letter to a councilman goes like this:

Dear Councilman XXXXX,

I am strongly opposed to Ordinance 2006-543-E. Please find a solution acceptable to all as soon as possible.

Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXX

Simple, unoffensive, and short. You don't tell him your affilliation with any group, nor your race, creed, or national origin. You don't share your belief system or your views of the Constitution. You certainly don't tell them you're an airplane person. You want to be a mystery citizen. You might be a regular non-airplane voter. If they are not sure, they dare not discount the tally results.

Too meek? Think about it. There is only a tiny likelyhood your letter will reach the councilman's own eyes. There is a near 100% certainty that the letter will tabulated. If a councilman's office gets 1000 unoffensive no-clue letters opposed to the ordinance, and only 20 in favor, the pendulum swings. Because we didn't insult them (in particular the assistant), calls are returned and letters flow.

An EAA attorney (a Legal Advisory Council member) is in the "first contact" phase right now. Why make his job harder, when it is both fast and easy to pave his way?

Dan Horton
 
Last edited:
I'm in complete agreement with DanH on this. This kind of stuff sucks so hard I can't even put my feelings into words, but in order to prevail we gotta play it the right way.
 
I know this is more in the EAA's areana but shouldn't Phil Boyer and the AOPA be involved as well. Please don't make assumptions that this only applies to experimental airplanes. How many people are probably restoring old cubs, taylorcraft, pitts, and many other certified aircraft in their garages. This is a ding against GA not just Expertimental builders.
 
Food for thought

Overreaction on the neighbors part and the city council? Probably?

However, after reading the information in the thread, it appears to me that this gentleman was more than just a casual airplane builder - one in the garage, one on the side, moved to the back, then a Pitts. It seems to me that airplane builders should have the common sense to keep thier hobby low key in a residential area -- one project in the garage, noisy work done during reasonable hours, parts in the driveway only occassionally, this is reasonable. Multiple projects stored on the property and other projects coming and going will only result in these types of complaints. IMO this gentlemen, should have moved his "airplane factory" (in the eyes of the neighbor) to an airport facility or at least to a self storage facility.

Whether it be a city ordinance, zoning code, deed restriction, or home owners association covenant, these types of restrictions are legal and if this one is not totally upheld, will certainly challenge a person's financial stamina in the court system. There are all kinds of regulations on similar issues including parking recreational vehicles, boats, unlicensed cars, etc. on residential properties. Frankly, I like them because they protect property values. They are, however, typically less specific than this one.

And frankly people do not do a good job of policing themselves. I have had neighbors working on race cars in their driveways and revving engines at 7:30 AM on a Sunday morning. I don't file a complaint, but I certainly will walk over and talk to them about it. We had one really nice guy who did oil changes for neighbors. He was so highly thought of that every weekend he had a row of 4-6 cars parked on the streets around his house. It created a traffic jam and a nuisance, his immediate neighbors complained and he was ordered to shut down his quicklube. I have had neighbors who thought it was perfectly OK to store their antique car project in their driveway under a tarp. People think it is OK to park their boats or recreational vehicles in their driveways, in front of their houses, or between houses for extended period of time. People do all kinds of crappy things to their yards and properties that do create eyesores and mess up property values. Yes this ordinance addresses a specific issue, but the intent is probably valid. And unfortunately this is how the political process works.

This neighborhood in question is obviously not a deed restricted community run by a homeowners association. Therefore, the remedy for homeowner complaints is through the city council, city ordinances, and zoning code. I to believe this code reaches too far and is poorly written, but I do not challenge the cities authority to manage such matters. This gentlemen and whoever else gets involved may be able to amend the ordinance, but I don't see it being totally thrown out. I may be totally wrong, but I find it sad that it has come to this point. This gentlemen could have probably avoided the entire situation by being discrete with his hobby, keeping it behind closed doors, and being a friendly neighbor. Maybe the lady is a nut case, but my experience with these types of issue is that they start out small and then escalate into a wizzing contest. Then, as this case indicates, everyone loses.
 
airport communities?

Does this effect any residential airport communities? If so in what way, does it mean I can not build an airplane in my hanger. (Moving to N Florida next year and I know these things can spread).
 
John,
Currently, not unless the residential airpark is within the JAX city limits. As for spreading, well, that's what we're hoping to stop. A lot depends on the nature and outcome of Mr. Kraut's next court date. One source says it is for a citation under some older statute, another says under the new ordinance.

Dan
 
<<The citation is under the new code.>>

Thanks Dana. Do you know the court date?

Dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top