Written by Mark Hancock, who adminsters nojets.org, and Charlie Conner, Kennydale lakefront resident with a helicopter, have been working productively to reach a mutually acceptable aggreement on lakefront heliports. (This has been a huge topic of discussion on earlier blog entries)
The city will look seriously at their joint recommendation. I’m delighted to see that a solution may be at hand.
Here are some of the emails on the topic.
____________________________________________________________________
From:
Mark Hancock
[Add to Address Book]
To:
<econkling@ci.renton.wa.us>, <gzimmerman@ci.renton.wa.us>
CC:
<cfc@connerhomes.com>
Subject:
Helipad proposed conditions
Date:
Wednesday, February 06, 2008 3:14:26 PM
[View Source]
Hi Erika & Gregg –
Charlie Conner has kindly spent time with me exploring a win-win solution on the heliport situation, and we would like to share our initial thoughts with you per his note below. Given the City’s pursuit of this ordinance, it would seem helpful to try to find language that will work for the helicopter homeowner and also protect the neighborhood and City.
The ordinance draft conditions that were presented to the Planning Commission in their last meeting were sparse and very open-ended, and hopefully you all can add language that more clearly conveys the situation:
Namely, that the heliport is being allowed for the private use by the homeowner, for occasional use, mostly during the business day, and mostly over the lake. This seems to work for nearly everybody – Charlie and most of the neighborhood.
I believe Charlie will be a good neighbor, but I think the ordinance needs to be more clear about the City’s intent, so that anyone else who thinks they can come to Renton with a helicopter understands they need to be “neighbor friendly.” While it would seem that this situation may not occur again (or rarely), there is still a very real possiblity since most of Lake Washington waterfront does not allow helicopters, so we will literally be welcoming them to Renton. Also, by limiting them to the Lake (which is better than all over town), we are concentrating them in/over one neighborhood, which would not be so good for Kennydale. (And the 6 lakefront lots that now have room for them could be increased by combining other lots – quite doable for someone who can afford a helicopter)
I appreciate Charlie’s suggestions below. Certainly the City does not intend to allow commercial use of a private helipad, and would want to limit permits to smaller helicopters only. For flying restrictions, I understand the sensitivity about FAA authority, but since this permit is entirely at the option of the City, the City can certainly require some “neighbor friendly” conditions, and/or exact some “fly-friendly” commitments, from a helipad applicant. If the applicant doesn’t agree to them, then they don’t get the permit (just like any other permit). And they can always keep it at the airport a mile away. I appreciate Charlie’s willingness below to agree to those conditions, and they should work well for nearly all of the neighborhood.
The City and neighborhood also need a stonger ordinance, so that if there is a problem with a helicopter there is some sort of way to deal with it. The current ordinance only says one aircraft, in a heliport that is built to FAA standards. How will the City deal with someone who becomes a problem (e.g. too frequent flying, too low flying, too much flying over our homes, bad hours, etc. etc.)? Will the noise ordinance apply? (doesn’t look like it is written for this) Under what terms can or will the City pull the permit? Saying that the FAA won’t allow the City to restrict flying behavior is no excuse for continuing an otherwise optional permit by someone who is causing significant problems to the City and/or neighborhood.
One other area of concern that I have, is that the heliport should only be for the use of the onsite homeowners (no leasing or sharing with other aircraft or pilots, which really do belong only at the airport), and the permit should expire when the helicopter is changed, retired, or the house is sold. Nobody but the original homeowner applicant and original helicopter should be able to use the heliport under the permit, and anyone else who wants to would thereby be required to come to the City and present their intentions and apply for their own permit. They need to be accountable.
Hope this helps – thank you again for considering my thoughts.
Please include this letter in your package to the Planning Commission tomorrow.
Sincerely
Mark Hancock
(9-year Kennydale resident)
From: cfc@connerhomes.com
To: Mark Hancock
Subject: Helipad proposed conditions
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 10:59:43 -0800
Mark,
I spoke to Erika about this subject this morning. If you are in agreement please send this off to the city, Erika has to have input today so she can prepare and deliver her staff report tomorrow. She did tell me that some of these proposed restrictions are already covered by city code and she would not repeat them and that one might conflict with FAA authority.
Erika,
In response to the concerns of some in the Kennydale community Charlie Conner and Mark Hancock discussed the following potential permit conditions. We understand there may be some overlap with current code so they may not be added for the sake of preventing redundancy and potential conflict however we are in agreement that they address many of the communities concerns.
1. At the hearing the city clarified that a heliport had to be an incidental use to a dwelling, adding language that a heliport cannot be used for a base of operations for a commercial operation where the public can go to hire a helicopter may be appropriate.
2. 70% of flights would take place between 8 am and 10 pm, currently you are able to perform construction activities from 7 am to 10 pm so that would be fairly consistent.
3. Limited Helicopter gross weight to less than 6,000 lbs.
4. Departures and arrivals could be limited to not less than 45 degrees to the shoreline with that corridor extending to 300′ from shore.
Thank you,
Charlie Conner
Flying High
Is this to say that Mr. Conner can not hire out his helicopter to his business partners or others that would help offset the expenses. Is the helicopter intended for recreational use? I believe Mr. Conner has admitted that he uses the helicopter to find property to develop. He could fly every day and alternate back an forth between each use and the neighbors would never know what each flight is for. Recreational use great! Business use, that may be a different story. The question is? Does he right off the use of the helicopter as a business expense on his taxes? Enforcing any restrictions would be as difficult as enforcing construction hours. The difference between each use is tremendous. To fly occasionally fine. But under these terms he could fly every day and there wouldn’t be a thing anybody could do to halt it. Every one knew the city would give him the permit. Pandora’s box has been opened.
Boat Loop Hole
You need to get something in quick!
Paul Alan built a custom “boat” for his Mercer Island home that’s basically a floating helipad to get around Mercer Island’s restrictions.
I can see his fat bloated carcass flying to his Sea Hawk training camp if you don’t get an ordinance in quick.
Be sure to close the “boat” loophole!
This article mentions the floating helipad, and the harassing manor that Paul’s hired thugs behave on the lake.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2007-09-05/news/paul-allen-accused-of-treating-lake-washington-as-his-own-private-pond.php
It’s great to see these groups/people come together to work out a good, feasible plan that they agree on. It’d be way too easy for the City to just put together a policy, pass it with the standard public comment, and develop something that works for neither party. Admit it — it’s happened that way on more than one occasion.
This plan, however, will ensure that a plan that both sides see as agreeable gets used as the baseline while developing the final policy recommendations.
We live in America, the land of the free, yet everyone wants to take this man’s freedom away. I see a lot of jealous people here. I can see time restrictions, but that’s it. If someone can afford that type of lifestyle, he should be allowed to exercise it. He shouldn’t be treated like an outcast because he has a helicopter that makes a few minutes of noise. The owners of seaplanes take off frequently from their homes on the lake, and I don’t hear a lot of complaining about that. A Dehavalland Beaver makes more noise than a helicopter.
Give and take
Dude… we live close together.
Connor seems reasonable and sane, but it’s the next copter that we need to worry about.
Specifically, Paul Allen and his Sea Hawk training camp. It’s bad enough that grown men bent over in tights need such a large facility to play a children’s game, but having Paul Allen’s fat-ass ferried back and forth in his huge copter would really suck…. Unless you we bad of sight and mistook it for a clay pigeon. Repeadidly. Then it would be fun!
Why should Mr Conner be able to excercise his right to fly his helicopter at the expense of other people who have the right to peace and quiet and safety in their homes???