Written by I stated below that Charlie Conner’s temporary helicopter use permit (issued last year) has been overturned by our Hearing Examiner. The permit was tossed mostly on procedural grounds, based on a determination that the administration had erred in allowing a temporary use that was arguably not allowed by ordinance. The fact that city codes do not address helicopter use in residential areas, while allowing them as conditional uses in other zones, is interpreted to prohibit them in residential areas under the current laws.
However, I should have mentioned that a new ordinance allowing limited residential helicopter operation, as a conditional use, is coming to city council in the coming weeks or months. This ordinance would lay out terms for the keeping of helicopters in residentail areas when allowed by FAA. As a practical matter, the new ordianance and current FAA rules would only allow helicopters at a few properties on the lake. And, any personal heliport permits would have to be presented to the Hearing Examiner (the same one mentioned above), who would hear public testimony and could impose additional specific requirements on the use as part of the COnditional Use process.
So, council will weigh in on this, and depending on the outcome, possible turn Mr. Conner’s helicopter permit question BACK to the Hearing Examiner.
Since this is going to council, I wanted to raise a question I’ve been pondering. What are the chances that we are arriving at the future, where personal air travel may in fact become more commonplace? It’s possible that in coming years some of these companies working on new light-weight helicopters, and “flying cars” (lightweight aircraft that don’t require special skills to fly.
If so, do we leave it to the FAA, or do we do we attempt to prepare for the future in today’s city codes…?
I would love to hear your thoughts!
Popular Mechanics, 1951
Clearly, the inspiration for the Space Needle
don’t go down that slippery slope
Or we’ll be establishing city code for appropriate zoning for cloned pet ownership, permits for teletransportation portals, and licensing for non-resident extraterrestrial aliens.
alternatives
Can we prepare for the future by protecting our neighborhoods- limiting helicopters to airport facilities- like the majority of nearby cities have done?
The Hearing Examiner is, as usual, applying the law as warranted by the facts. He is constantly overruled by people bowing to political pressure, which does not make him any less correct.
As long as FAA rules are met, I say knock yourself out. I don’t think we need even more government restrictions on what we do with our property.
I told you so
I’ve sat by on this one for weeks before I decided to comment. The City got caught with it’s pants down. I understand Mr. Conner builds homes in Renton. He adds to the tax base. That and that alone bought that conditional use permit. I have said all along that this thing stinks. Even when a certain council member took a joy ride and that got posted on this web site, it stunk even more. Flying rotary winged aircraft from personal property is an accident waiting to happen. Since the days of the Jetsons if flying from your home made sense, it would have happened a long time ago. If the council bends over backwards to change the zoning text to allow helicopter use from residential areas then it’s because Mr. Conner has cashed in some of his chips.
RM
Randy – look at the cost of gas – the miles-per-gallon in personal aircraft are not going to support them as a significant future means of personal transportation. It’s hard enough for the Cessna pilots to pay the bills these days. Only a few of the rich can afford the toys you refer to above. It looks like we’re all going to be more interested in mass transit options as gas continues to up.
If the Council is going to pass an ordinance to allow heavy machinery (helicopters) in residential neighborhoods (really dumb with the airport a mile away), the least you all can do is give us an ordinance with some teeth in it, so the pro/con forces don’t have to battle it out so much in front of you each and every time this might happen. There are some very reasonable conditions that belong in the ordinance (for starters, even Mr. Conner agreed that a limit on size of helicopters would work). An empty ordinance on helicopters (which says we have to wait for the CUP process to sort out all the conditions), makes as much sense as an empty ordinance on dogs and dealing with them individually. An ordinance with some of the basic and obvious conditions brings more certainty to the process, gives both pro & con sides less to have to worry and fight about, and keeps the worst of helicopter possibilities away from our homes.
Mark Hancock
re zoning
The proposed text changes allowing helicopters in private homes opens a pandora’s box! Do we want our section of Lake Washington to become a Mecca for rich people and their expensive toys??? Does this benefit the communnity??I don’t think so!!! This change benefits one person and that is Mr Conner!!!Just because he has contributed to the coffers of City Hall ,which by the way ,he gets back from the sales of his mega homes, doesn’t mean that the City should lick his boots!!! As tax paying residents we should demand that City stop wasting our tax dollars on such trivial and partisan proposals. If they want to improve Renton then they should be pursueing a much needed Grocery Store in the Landing project.