Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Helistops topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Huntersville denies text amendment to allow private helistops in residential zones; board directs staff to study special-use-permit option
Summary
After a lengthy hearing and detailed applicant presentation, the Town Board denied a proposed zoning text amendment that would have permitted private helistops in general residential districts and instead directed staff to research and draft a special‑use‑permit pathway for helistops.
Huntersville — The Town Board voted Dec. 16 to deny a proposed text amendment that would have permitted private helistops in the town’s General Residential (GR) zoning designation and to ask staff to develop a special‑use‑permit (SUP) pathway that would allow case-by-case review.
Planning staff and the November planning board had recommended denial of the text amendment as written, saying the application was too broad to allow helistops “carte blanche” on any GR property. Staff urged that, if helistops are to be considered at all in residential areas, the town should create a special‑use‑permit category that allows site-specific, quasi‑judicial review and enforceable conditions.
The applicant, Todd Hirschfeld, presented on his property and said he had engaged neighbors and adjusted his proposal in response to concerns. He described noise testing and downwash demonstrations, compared helicopter decibel readings to yard equipment and said the operations would be brief and predictable. "I fully agree that special use permit is the appropriate and responsible path forward," he told the board.
Mr. Hirschfeld also cited federal flight rules, saying on the record that 14 CFR 91 permits helicopters to land on private property when operations are not careless or reckless. He proposed enforceable operational limits — such as time-of-day restrictions and flight-path requirements — and said he would accept conditions if the town established an SUP process.
The board debated two competing motions: one denying the text amendment while directing staff to research an SUP pathway, and a substitute motion that would have denied the text amendment and also instructed staff not to pursue an SUP category. After a tied vote on the substitute motion the mayor broke the tie and allowed the original motion (deny and direct staff to research an SUP) to proceed to a vote. The original motion passed with the same outcome: denial of the TA25‑10 text amendment and direction to staff to draft potential SUP language for future board consideration.
Commissioners who supported directing staff to research an SUP cited the planning board’s recommendation and the need for site-specific safeguards, including limits on hours of operation, altitude or setback restrictions and tree-preservation considerations. Commissioners opposed to creating a path for helistops emphasized concerns about noise, neighborhood character, and safety in a small, quiet cove.
What happens next: Staff will research SUP frameworks and draft a potential text amendment for the board’s future consideration; any SUP option would require a separate public hearing and no SUP approval is guaranteed.
Authorities and citations recorded on the public record included the Huntersville 2040 Community Plan (as background policy) and a reference on the record to federal flight rules (14 CFR 91). The transcript recorded differing views among commissioners about decibel levels and future drone testing, but the board’s direction was to pursue a regulated, case-by-case path rather than a general zoning allowance.
