Council Tackles Drone Use in Ocean City

With two councilmen suggesting a closer look at specific policies, another suggesting expansion of the proposal, and the mayor expressing his desire for a “zero tolerance policy,” Ocean City Council unanimously approved an ordinance on first reading to ban the use of drones in airspace within five miles of the Ocean City Airport Thursday night.

“I feel that public safety and privacy is more important than anything else,” Mayor Jay Gillian said. “I know people love to use drones, but we have an airport and safety comes first. I know they can be used for some good, but the good doesn’t outweigh the bad in this instance.”

The proposed ordinance argues that drones. also known as unmanned aircraft, present an unreasonable and unacceptable threat to the rights of individual privacy and safety in Ocean City, as the unmanned aircraft have the capability to monitor people’s cell phone use.

The ordinance also states that drone technology is developing so rapidly that potential impacts on the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure is difficult to predict, and that the state and federal governments have yet to catch up with the technology.

The administration argues that drones also present further threats, as Gillian cited the case of a student in Connecticut who weaponized a drone for a college class and a drone falling into a seating area at the U.S. Open tennis tournament in New York last month as instances that gave him pause when it comes to allowing drones in Ocean City.

A drone was recently seen hovering around a football game, and one resident testified that a drone followed her adult son home from the boardwalk when he came to visit over the summer.

“He wants to come visit, and I want him to feel safer and freer when he’s here,” she said.

Councilmen Michael DeVlieger and Anthony Wilson agreed with the proposed ordinance in essence, and were both part of the 7-0 vote in favor of moving forward. However, they each expressed a desire to make modifications.

“There is day-to-day value,” DeVlieger said, citing the possibility of using them in search and rescue situations and for use by Real Estate people when documenting a house for sale. “Maybe police don’t always want to send in a dog. I think we should consider the various uses they’re good for.”

He proposed allowing permits for specific situations.

“They have benefits and I want to make sure we do our research before second reading,” Wilson said, echoing DeVlieger’s statements about permits allowing drone use for specific situations.

“We need to have something in place, and we need to be careful when we talk about adding an hour here and an hour there,” Gillian said. “I really prefer a zero tolerance policy on this.”

He said in the case of using drones to document the outside of a specific home, he was concerned about the wind blowing a drone away from the home it is permitted to document and into the area of another home.

In what appears to be a similar incident, Middle Township resident Russell Percenti has been indicted on various charges after allegedly shooting down a drone that was flying in the area of his home last year.

The person who was flying the drone said he didn’t intend for the drone to come near Percenti’s home.

Gillian also clarified that the proposed ordinance only applies to external use. People can still use drones inside, and owning a drone will not be outlawed altogether in Ocean City.

Five residents spoke during the first public comment portion, voicing their satisfaction with Ocean City considering this ordinance.

“I know I don’t have the privacy I used to,” resident Loretta Geary said. “They can be good, but I’m afraid they will be abused.”

“It’s a way to protect us from surveillance and danger,” resident Georgina Shanley said.

“This is the first real ordinance I’ve seen that shows concern over privacy and the rights of citizens,” said Dr. Steven Fenichel, who has been a vocal opponent of unfettered drone use. “ … Localities have a role to play in national issues because they take an oath to uphold the Constitution.”

Councilman Peter Guinosso also spoke in favor of the legislation, suggesting it should be expanded.

City Solicitor Dorothy McCrosson said the airspace within five miles of the Ocean City Airport covers the whole city, but Guinosso said there are still some areas of the city that would be left uncovered with that language. He suggested a city-wide ban, and approaching the county about similar legislation.

The Federal Aviation Administration has a set of guidelines concerning drones, but no concrete legislation. More definitive legislation is expected by the end of the year.

It does have a list of what people who own drones can and can’t do. That list can be found here.

Gillian didn’t want to wait for legislation from the federal or state governments. He wants to see Ocean City pass something sooner than later, and said that legislation can be revised after the federal and state governments act.

Anyone who violates the proposed ordinance would be subjected to a penalty of no more than $500 for the first offense and no more than $1,000 and/or 30 days in prison for each subsequent offense.

The public hearing and second reading is scheduled for the council meeting on Thursday, Nov. 12, 7 p.m.

The attached image is a Patch file photo