City Council balked Thursday at approving a permanent ban on the use of drones in any airspace at any height over Ocean City, NJ.
Council instead gave final approval to an amended ordinance that bans all drones until Sept. 8, 2016.
The “sunset clause” on the ordinance is a compromise.
Mayor Jay Gillian, the majority of public commenters and a minority of council members argued that a full ban is the only effective and practical way to control the devices, which can be a nuisance, an invasion of privacy and a threat to safety.
But five of the seven council members ultimately voted to make the ban temporary to give council time to consider an ordinance that might not punish all drone users for the sins of some.
“I think there needs to be some balance to it,” Councilman Pete Madden said in proposing a short-term ban with a sunset clause.
“There are 100 different positives that they do on a daily basis,” Councilman Mike DeVlieger said of drones used in photography, marketing, emergency searches and other areas. “The essence of what we’re trying to do here (protect privacy and safety) I entirely support.”
But DeVlieger called the proposed full ban “half-baked” and an “incomplete document.” He argued for tabling the measure but said he would support the sunset clause if it bought time for a more thorough public discussion of the issue.
Council passed the first reading of an ordinance that included the full ban in a unanimous vote on Oct. 22. But on Thursday night, council voted 5-2 to amend the ordinance to add the sunset clause.
Council President Keith Hartzell, Madden, Councilwoman Karen Bergman, Councilman Antwan McClellan and Councilman Tony Wilson voted in favor. Councilman Pete Guinosso (who supports an outright ban) and DeVlieger (who pushed for an earlier sunset date) voted against.
The temporary ban then passed in a 7-0 vote (though DeVlieger later said he had intended to vote no).
Hartzell said he hopes to form a council committee that includes members of the public — both in favor of and against a ban on drones — to research options for regulating the devices.
The temporary ban and the work of the council committee could become moot if the federal government, as it has vowed to do, comes up with laws that regulate drones before Sept. 8. Any local ordinance would have to be consistent with federal law, City Solicitor Dottie McCrosson said.
THE ORDINANCE
The ban approved on Thursday will take effect on Dec. 2 and expire on Sept. 8, 2016.
The ordinance bans drones “from airspace within five miles of the Ocean City Airport.” That radius includes all of Ocean City (and will be enforceable only within the boundaries of Ocean City).
Violations will be punishable by a fine not more than $500 for a first offense and a fine up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment up to 30 days for each subsequent offense.
Recreational drones — small and light battery-operated devices that typically include multiple helicopter-shaped rotors — are increasingly common sights, and they typically carry cameras. They cost anywhere from $100 to $5,000 with high-priced models carrying more sophisticated cameras and flying for longer periods of time over greater range.
The ordinance lists the following threats presented by drones:
- “The capability to watch individuals and groups without notice and without their permission in an unprecedented way.”
- “The capability to monitor cell phone and text-messaging.”
- “A potential threat to aircraft, which is of particular concern in Ocean City because it operates a public airport frequented by small aircraft.”
- “An unreasonable and unacceptable threat to the rights of individual privacy and safety.”
- “Potential impacts (because technology is developing so rapidly) on safety, privacy and Fourth Amendment rights that are difficult to predict.”
In public comment, Ocean City resident Al Keleher asked, “What is a drone?” He asked if it might include the radio-controlled model airplanes that fly at the annual Ocean City Airport Festival each September.
The ordinance addresses “unmanned aerial vehicles also known as unmanned aircraft systems,” McCrosson said, leaving open the possibility that the model planes could be considered drones.
But McCrosson said the local police department would have discretion to enforce the ordinance and would not likely interfere with such controlled demonstrations or with any potential search operations by law enforcement or public safety personnel.
SUPPORTERS OF THE BAN
Several members of the public spoke in favor of the ban.
Cynthia Hart, a Surf Road resident, said a young family member was at the beach with her girlfriends when a drone hovered near the group. They got up and moved, but the drone followed them. They finally just left the beach after it happened many times, Hart said.
Gail Davidson, of the 2100 block of Asbury Avenue, said she’s personally been followed by a drone and seen one crash on the beach. Other commenters shared their personal experiences with drones.
Ocean City resident Steve Fenichel showed a holiday advertisement for a drone that costs less than $100 and includes and optional live-view feature. He refuted points made by Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-2nd) in a pitch for drone regulation and permitting.
“Anybody with mal intent isn’t going to participate in anything like that,” Fenichel said.
“There’s no better time than now, because the FAA has not gotten its act together,” Georgina Shanley said.
Mayor Gillian provided some of the strongest support for the ban after hearing Hartzell note the massive number of people who had viewed and shared a drone video of the Gillian’s Wonderland Pier on a beautiful spring morning.
He said the video was offensive to him with the drone operating near an $800,000 piece of equipment and flying over the home where the Gillians were living at the time. He said a drone did crash at the amusement park during the season. And he raised the possibility of a drone crashing into electrical transformers and disrupting power at any of the boardwalk amusement centers packed with summer visitors.
Guinosso said, “I still believe we need to ban it, period.”
He raised the prospect of trying to require pre-teen drone users to hold permits.
“I don’t see it,” Guinosso said. “I had four boys. There’s no way you’re going to be able to control it.”
OPPONENTS OF THE OUTRIGHT BAN
Ocean City resident Bill McAllister, who said he’s not a drone owner and never intends to be, called the ban “a massive over-reaction to a problem that doesn’t exist and probably never will exist.”
“I don’t think banning drones is the way to go,” Ocean City resident Dave Hayes said.
Hayes said that in the same way “bad guys are going to get guns, bad guys are going to get drones.”
Councilman DeVlieger asked the administration how the city intends to police the ordinance — “a task force with nets?”
McCrosson responded that it would be at the discretion of the police department.
Hartzell said he considered it a personal rights issue.
“People who want to use drones properly should have that ability,” Hartzell said.
SUNSET CLAUSE
After Madden proposed it, much of the subsequent discussion centered on when a sunset clause should expire.
He had originally suggested Jan. 1.
But with the ordinance not taking effect until Dec. 2, that would make for a 30-day drone ban, McCrosson said.
And if Council hoped to make a permanent ban or propose a different ordinance after the expiration of the sunset clause, it would require City Council to act about 34 days in advance of the expiration date (with two readings of a new ordinance two weeks apart, followed by a 20-day period for the ordinance to become law).
Gillian ultimately recommended a September date for the sunset clause — with council and the administration preoccupied by budget discussions in the early part of the year and later by the summer season.
So from Christmas until Labor Day, the use of any drone will be illegal in Ocean City.
