Marion County hears first public hearing on proposed rules for private airports and ‘‘fly‑in’’ communities

Marion County commissioners heard the first of two public hearings on proposed Land Development Code (LDC) amendments Tuesday evening that would add definitions and new review procedures for private airports and ‘‘flying’’ (fly‑in) communities.

Staff described three draft changes: adding five definitions to Article 1; creating a private‑airport section that would require a special‑use permit (SUP) for new or expanded private airports; and requiring new or expanded flying communities to come through the planned unit development (PUD) process. Tom O'Donnell, a civil engineer with Kimley‑Horn and Associates, told the board that ‘‘you see in one airport you see one airport,’’ underscoring his point that each airfield’s operations and impacts must be evaluated case by case.

Why it matters: staff said the package is intended to provide greater predictability for future airport or flying‑community proposals and to give the public clearer information about runway layouts, buffers, uses and proposed operations. The changes would give the county explicit zoning review leverage — for example, by requiring site plans, zoning‑compatibility analyses, and community rules or policies for flying communities when applicants seek PUD or SUP approval.

What was proposed: staff displayed redlines comparing Land Development Regulation Committee (LDRC) language and staff edits. Among the differences: LDRC recommended defining a flying community as more than 10 residential units; staff proposed lowering that threshold to more than five units (six and up). For hangars, existing code caps accessory hangar height at 30 feet; LDRC recommended 50 feet, and staff proposed 35 feet, with the option for applicants to seek exceptions through the SUP process. Staff also inserted a ‘‘without fee’’ phrase in the private‑airport definition to try to limit unintended commercialization; staff and the consultant agreed the county could review commercial‑type operations during SUP review.

Public reaction: public speakers split along familiar lines. David Tillman, chair of the LDRC, disclosed a conflict of interest and urged clearer drafting, saying two definitions in the staff version had not been reviewed by the LDRC. Residents and stakeholders from Jambal Air and nearby flying communities packed the hearing. Supporters praised recent investments and veteran programming at the Jambal Air facility: ‘‘The place is phenomenal,’’ said Scott Holman, who said he has worked on the property for years. Several speakers, including Kenneth Davis, warned that vested rights are crucial and said the county should not unintentionally strip existing airports of rights developed under past approvals; Davis said ‘‘$35,000,000 has been poured into Jambal Air’’ and asked that existing approvals and master plans be respected.

Residents also flagged ambiguity in the draft. Multiple commenters asked staff to clarify what ‘‘without fee’’ would cover (e.g., HOA dues for runway maintenance versus commercial hangar rentals), to identify which existing private airports are considered vested, and to publish a list of known private airports so owners and neighbors are properly notified. Bernie Little suggested the county maintain a list of lawfully established private airports and pointed staff to the state listing of private airports (which uses GPS coordinates and does not always provide a street address).

Legal and process questions: the board heard a cautionary note from county counsel and staff about legal exposure. One staff attorney referenced the possibility of claims under Florida land‑use case law and the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act (often discussed as ‘‘Bert Harris’’ claims). Staff said SUP and PUD review remain the primary tools for the county to evaluate intensity, commercial uses and compatibility, and the county would continue to ask applicants for zoning‑compatibility analyses and detailed operating rules.

Next steps: commissioners unanimously voted to schedule the follow‑up (final) public hearing for March 23. Staff said they will continue to refine language, research historical variances and vested approvals, and meet with stakeholders before the next hearing.

The board adjourned after setting the March 23 date.