Marion County adopts land-development rules for flying communities and private airports, sets 40-foot hangar limit

Marion County commissioners voted to adopt revisions to the county Land Development Code governing "flying communities" and private airports after a lengthy public hearing that included testimony from airport owners, aviation consultants and neighbors.

The adopted changes set a 40-foot maximum for accessory hangars, establish that new or expanded private airports require a special‑use permit, and set a five‑residence threshold for designating a development as a "flying community" that generally will require review as a planned unit development (PUD). Commissioner Brian Bryant moved to approve the three staff items with the changes discussed; Commissioner Curry seconded the motion and the board voted unanimously to adopt the revisions.

Why it mattered: the revisions aim to balance the rights of existing airport owners and vested developments with neighbors' concerns about noise, safety and land‑use compatibility. Attorneys for several established airparks asked the commission to preserve vested easements and access rights in the new definitions; residents urged stricter limits and stronger mitigation requirements.

Staff proposal and key edits: Ken Weyarco of Grove Services, presenting staff’s redline, said staff removed language that would have required flying communities to be "operated exclusively for residents of the community" and clarified that flying communities are expected to proceed through the PUD process. The draft set out compatibility analysis items — taxiway and vehicle interaction, lighting at PUD boundaries and draft community rules showing who maintains infrastructure — to be included with applications. Weyarco said the changes were intended to make application requirements predictable and to avoid imposing new restrictions on vested airports.

Hangar height and consultant guidance: Richard Bush of Kimley‑Horn advised the board that FAA guidance and local examples supported a 40‑foot hangar height for accommodating turboprops and some light business jets. Bush told commissioners, "40 feet would be a reasonable number in our opinion." Commissioners debated keeping the existing 30‑foot ceiling, raising it to 40, or leaving a pathway for waivers; the board coalesced around 40 feet and agreed any increase above the adopted height should require review.

Vested rights and easements: Attorneys representing Leeward Air Ranch and other established airparks urged the county to preserve existing vested rights and easement holders. Attorney Truett Gardner asked for explicit language protecting property owners who hold recorded easements to access private airports and read proposed wording to preserve those rights. Staff agreed to add clarifying language that a new definition should not "defeat or supersede any existing lawful easement or rights of access." Gardner argued that, without such protection, long‑standing master plans could be read to restrict uses that were earlier approved.

Private airports and FDOT interplay: The ordinance treats new private airports and geographic runway expansions as special‑use permit matters; staff also proposed a safety carve‑out allowing limited, non‑runway‑lengthening safety improvements to proceed without an SUP at the Growth Services Director’s discretion. Commissioners asked staff to tighten the "de minimis" language and to require county administrator sign‑off in ambiguous cases. Staff and attorneys discussed preemption and noted that FDOT/FAA approvals can affect what the county may regulate.

Public concerns: Several residents urged tighter rules. Brian Donnelly asked the commission to require independent economic‑impact studies, arguing low‑flying or loud aircraft can depress nearby property values; he cited an estimate that properties within three miles of Jambal Air represent $2 billion in value and said noise can reduce value by roughly 15%. Neighbors and horse‑farm owners said routine operations and larger events can disrupt businesses and daily life; several asked the board to make best practices enforceable in PUD agreements.

Event permits and heliports: Commissioners debated whether fly‑ins or public events at private airports should require special‑event permits. Staff said airshows and airport operations have different permitting contexts; the board agreed to address special events with separate special‑event permit language before folding event rules into the LDC. On heliports, commissioners asked staff to clarify whether smaller urgent cares or outpatient facilities would qualify for the hospital exemption; staff recommended tying exemptions to a clear hospital definition or certification and noted some state standards had changed.

Votes at a glance: the board approved the three staff items as modified (motion by Commissioner Bryant, second by Commissioner Curry; recorded as unanimous), and later approved moving an April 14 hearing to April 22 at 9 a.m. (unanimous).

What’s next: staff will insert language protecting lawful easements and refine the "de minimis" safety exception and FDOT‑expansion wording; commissioners also asked staff to bring separate special‑event permit language to clarify when public events at airports require county permits. The adopted code changes will be incorporated in the county’s LDC order and applied to future private‑airport and flying‑community applications.

Representative quotes: "40 feet would be a reasonable number in our opinion," said Richard Bush of Kimley‑Horn. Attorney Truett Gardner urged protections for easement holders, reading proposed text to preserve rights "pursuant to a common plan of development that provides legally enforceable access to a private airport." Resident Brian Donnelly said, "If an applicant wants to impact our value, they must be prepared to compensate the people they are hurting."