Norfolk staff propose ordinance to restrict drone takeoffs and landings on city property

Deputy City Attorney Christopher McClellan presented a draft ordinance at a Norfolk City Council work session that would regulate only the takeoff and landing of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) from city-owned property, not flights once airborne. The city plans to advertise the proposal for the two-week state notice period and seek adoption at the June 9 general council meeting.

McClellan said the ordinance uses a two-pronged approach: a blanket prohibition for properties deemed incompatible with takeoff/landing (examples cited include the zoo) and a permit process for other public properties. “We’re proposing the hobbyist level, which is just someone going out…we’re proposing that have a $10 permit fee,” McClellan said, adding a $50 application fee for commercial operators. He said proposed fees would be funneled to the city’s general fund and that staff would post maps of regulated properties on the city website.

Detective Pugh of the city’s UAS unit described the operational need behind the proposal. “We currently have 24 FAA certified pilots. We have about 9 aircraft…This year, we’re set to have about a 150 missions flying in Norfolk,” he said, listing uses such as search warrants, missing-person searches and accident reconstructions. Pugh warned that drones taken off or landed inside crowds can fail and strike people: “They can cause lacerations and also damaged property.” He also cited concerns about weaponization in other contexts as part of the public-safety rationale.

McClellan emphasized the limits of local authority: once a drone is airborne, regulation of flight paths is an FAA matter; the city’s authority is limited to designating where takeoffs and landings on city property are allowed. The draft is tied to Chapter 30 of the city code (parks and recreation enforcement) and proposes that violations be a class 2 misdemeanor under that chapter.

Council members raised several issues during the question-and-answer period. One member asked whether school programs (high-school drone teams or college aviation programs) would be required to apply for permits; McClellan said exemptions are carved into the ordinance for operations under the city’s purview (examples given included law enforcement and routine school roof inspections) and that staff would revisit language to clarify whether educational programs should be explicitly exempt. Another council member asked whether the permit would be event-specific or longer-term; McClellan said staff were leaning toward event-specific permits (single-day approvals) to simplify notification and monitoring but would explore multi-day or location-specific options with state regulators.

Members also raised concerns about media access—local outlets that use drones for event coverage—and whether the ordinance could unintentionally limit press coverage at school-sponsored events. McClellan said staff would evaluate how to accommodate permitted media operations and would compare the city’s proposed fees with FAA-related fees and peer cities’ charges.

McClellan and police said the timing of the ordinance is intended to allow the city to have controls in place for large gatherings, citing Harborfest as a motivating example. The ordinance has been shared with multiple city departments and, McClellan said, has been reviewed by the Virginia Department of Aviation. Staff recommended the council provide comment now so that adjustments can be made before the scheduled June 9 adoption vote.