Either Definition Still Means That Grant-Valkaria Is Rabidly
'Anti-Aviation'
The ever-so-anti-aviation Mayor of a Florida community is doing
a little back-pedaling to TRY to get out of the hot water his
administration is in due to their having undertaken an attempt to
illegally limit the freedoms of flyers on, over or near their
community. The current definition is not as drastic as that put
forth previously... but if you want to conduct flight training or
similar business on this airport, this town seems to want to
put you out of business. Still, FAA's AIP funding restrictions
usually demand that the operator discriminate against NO category
or class of user... so we're wondering how this explanation is any
less illegal than that discussed previously.
In previous ANN coverage we reported that Grant-Valkaria
was attempting to pass an ordinance that stated, "...PROVIDING FOR
LIMITATIONS ON ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED AT AIRPORTS LOCATED IN THE GML
(Government Managed Land) ZONING DISTRICT; PROHIBITING FLIGHT
TRAINING/INSTRUCTION SCHOOLS..." The text of the bill prohibits
specific flight instruction activities. For instance the bill
states no flight training/instruction or flight
training/instruction schools shall be allowed to be operated from
or in the GML zoning district, and aircraft based at any airport
located in the GML zoning district shall be used for flight
training. The bill defines flight training/instruction to mean the
giving or receiving of instruction in learning to pilot an aircraft
or for recurrent training, and flight training/instruction school
shall mean any person firm, corporation or other entity that
provides flight training/instruction.
Responding to an email from a
constituent, Mayor Del Yonts claimed:
The one thing that seems to be missing in many of the
comments from both sides is the exact intent of the ordinance.
Because of this apparent mis-interpretation, I believe the wording
needs to be clarified.
The articles you provided as reference all deal with "use"
of the airport.
That issue is the reason I was not for the proposed
ordinance in January 2009. I felt there were many legal questions
of what the Town could and could not do or even should or should
not do. It dealt almost in its entirety on "use", and the Town
Council asked the town attorney to take another look at it. At this
point, that ordinance is still in review, but I am expecting a
response from the attorney as to his findings fairly soon.
That is not this ordinance. My understanding of the proposed
ordinance is not about limiting or restricting "use". Certain types
of businesses (flight training/instruction and/or flight schools)
would not be allowed in GML zoning. We are not restricting usage of
the airport, runways, airspace, nor are we limiting who can and who
cannot fly at the airport. That is the authority of the FAA and to
a smaller degree, the owner (Brevard County) of the airport. This
ordinance will not in any way impact the current flight schools or
training that is being conducted at the Valkaria Airport, as they
are either not based at Valkaria Airport (FIT, Flight Safety, etc.)
or would be grandfathered in (Club aircraft used for training).
This would only restrict what type of business may locate in the
subject zoning in the future.
Like any property in Grant-Valkaria, what zoning is applied
to a property and what is allowed in that zoning is determined by
the Town Council, just the same as you do in Palm Bay. (Our expert
legal council has advised us accordingly.)
Bolen Gives Congress a Rare Thumbs-Up
See All