Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme request

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Message
Author
jonas
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#26 Post by jonas » Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:16 am

Simpleton wrote:Lol, puts up building without permit...continues through out stop-work orders...screws over companies trying to buy land..


.....and has the balls to come on here and ask strangers to donate cash to fight his legal battle.
Simpleton seems to have a lot of misinformation and is very passionate about spreading it. I have a good idea of who is creating all of his false facts, but I’ll not mention names so we don’t have to worry about the post being pulled again. I assume one of the moderators could shed some light on what happened to the original thread.

For starters, it was the airport manager's Idea to build my hangar right where it is now.


Image


The airport manager has since moved on due to reasons unknown. (read below and you can probably speculate fairly accurately)

Fact 1. The entire hangar was completed from start to finish without receiving a stop work order.

Fact 2. The County of Woodlands Council has spent well over $100,000.00 of taxpayer money on their lawyers trying to devise a way to stop me from, as simpleton puts it “building wherever I want” on my property because of public outcry from a select group of people citing false safety concerns.

Fact 3. A “warning this is not a stop order” letter was received by myself and my contractors May 16 2017, two weeks before construction was completed under the authority of the Municipal government act. (not the federal aeronautics act)

Fact 4. The Hangar construction was completed May 31 2017.

Fact 5. The County of Woodlands Council unanimously voted on June 6 to re-zone the airport, and change the municipal bylaws to try and encompass the airport hangars into the municipal jurisdiction.

Fact 6. June 19 2017, After the rezoning of the airport and 3 weeks AFTER the hangar was completed, a stop order was received, back dated May 12 2017. The registered envelope it came in via Canada Post states it was sent on 14 June 2017, and received by myself on 19 June 2017, which I confirm is the date I received it at the post office.

Now can someone (other than simpleton) tell me why the County of Woodlands municipality would wait until AFTER a hangar was completed on privately owned land zoned as “Airport service district-Airside commercial”, go through all the trouble of rezoning the land the hangar was built on to “Limited Commercial”, rewrite the bylaws to include an entirely new “Limited Commercial” zone, then send a back dated stop work order with a date that matches a “this is not a stop order” document that they issued over a month earlier?


#3 "this is not a stop order" arrives at construction site May 16, 2017
Image

#5 Council minutes Woodlands County June 6, 2017
Image

#6 Stop order sent June 14, 2017. Strangely, it is dated for May 12 2017 a month earlier before the hangar was completed. It is also not possible to comply with any of the conditions because the current acting airport manager was not able to provide written approval, for "unknown" reasons.
Image
Image
Image


Online tracking information for the stop order, Tracking Number RN157774076CA which is also printed on the stop order.
Image

Simpleton wrote:.....and has the balls to come on here and ask strangers to donate cash to fight his legal battle.
Well, I have to ask strangers, I'd come and ask for your support personally but with a handle like "simpleton" it describes a surprisingly large percentage of people at our airport.
Simpleton wrote:screws over companies trying to buy land..
Explain to everyone how I accomplished your accusation. And explain to everyone what someone would do with a 20 meter x 20 meter lot at this airport if they did purchase it. According to your logic they would have to obey the local bylaws and setbacks 10 meters from the front, and 10 meters from the rear of the lot. There are many properties at this airport right now that would have 0 meters of room to build without having to beg or maybe even bribe the municipality for a variance.

Hypothetically speaking, let's imagine a little helicopter crashes into a hangar at the Whitecourt Airport CYZU, ignites and burns down the hangar at, oh, lets say... the local helicopter flight school's location. Insurance covers everything and the pilot miraculously survives uninjured. That smoldering pile of rubble full of melted little helicopters that was once a hangar built to federal requirements is on a 19.81 meter deep x 22.5 meter wide lot.
Let's diligently follow your supposed almighty and flawless County by-laws and build a replacement hangar using the Countys alleged mandatory 10-meter front and rear yard setbacks... You have negative 0.19 meters to build it on. BUT look on the bright side, you have a nice flat piece of dirt to store all of your aircraft on.

Maybe you could just park a camper on it and live in it for a few years like what is being done at this random hangar that may or may not be at the Whitecourt airport.
Image
I'm really surprised with the rampant "I'm Telling" mentality at this "random" airport pictured above, that no one has ratted out the young couple taking up residence in a camper on an Airside commercial zone that has just recently turned to Limited Commercial...
Don't worry, I won't tell anyone, even though that is the one thing that any municipality can easily enforce at an airport.



(refer to the bylaw draft and proposed rezoning below that the County Council frantically drafted while my hangar was legally being constructed.)

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Image
Image
Image
Image
---------- ADS -----------

Simpleton
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:10 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#27 Post by Simpleton » Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:57 am

1) Re-zoning bylaws were in the works for a long time...and you knew that.

2) Your hanger isn't "finished"....it's a pole barn shell that went up in a week

3) You had no permits to build, proceeded to built, got a warning to stop building...continued to build....then got yourself a stop-work order after that.

4) Didn't own a big enough piece of property to build the hangar you want (Hmmm...who's fault is that?)

5) Airport managers don't sign off on development permits...so...weird tangent

6) I hope I get a front row seat to it being tore down...maybe there'll be a community BBQ to commemorate the event.

7) Would still love to know where that old thread went. Funny reading in there, and some nice Jonas posts bordering on libelous.
---------- ADS -----------

North Shore
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5196
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Straight outta Dundarave...

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#28 Post by North Shore » Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:47 am

Looked for the old thread, and can't find it.
---------- ADS -----------
Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?

Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.

crazyaviator
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 671
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:52 pm
Location: Ontario

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#29 Post by crazyaviator » Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:20 am

Jonas, Give COPA a call !
---------- ADS -----------

Diadem
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 633
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#30 Post by Diadem » Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:32 am

I don't know anything about regulations surrounding the construction of hangars, so I'm not asking these questions to be argumentative; I'm just trying to learn more.
Where can I find the federal regulations for hangar construction? I've never seen them before. Who decides whether a parcel of land is considered to be on an airport or not, and therefore whether it would be governed by the federal regs? Does TC make that determination, or is it the municipal zoning board? Are permits required for building on airport property? Who issues those permits, the municipality or TC? The letters attached above refer to a development permit, so did the builder seek and receive a permit from the county? The letters also indicate that permission was granted to build a hangar of specific dimensions, and that the actual hangar is larger than that; did the builder ignore the authority granted in the permit and construct a larger building, and is now citing federal regulations as a way of getting around this?
---------- ADS -----------

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6059
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#31 Post by photofly » Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:44 am

Diadem wrote: Who decides whether a parcel of land is considered to be on an airport or not, and therefore whether it would be governed by the federal regs? Does TC make that determination, or is it the municipal zoning board?
The test is not whether it's an airport or not, it's whether it's use is essential to the purposes of aeronautics, the power to regulate the same being reserved to the federal government.

If you build it at an airport but you put toilets and bedrooms in it, it's not for aviation purposes. If you build it away from an airport but fill it only with helicopters - it is.

I don't believe there's any specific federal regulations about building an aircraft hangar: you can just go ahead and start constructing, no permit necessary.

Here's a case where a boathouse was not allowed to be part of an "aerodrome" and escape municipal jurisdiction basically because the owner was keeping boats instead of airplanes in it:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2 ... c5788.html

It seems very unlikely that a court will apply the various tests mentioned in the several cases on this topic and decide that the structure photographed in the first post, being an empty hangar with a bi-fold door, built at an airport, is not an aircraft hangar and is subject to municipal jurisdiction. A pole-barn shell is just fine, in that respect. Canadian courts have long held - all the way up to the Supreme Court - that zoning and municipal by-laws simply aren't relevant, no matter what they state or when they were enacted.

However if the airport operator is also the municipality then their cooperation in the use of the hangar is still going to be needed, not on the basis of zoning but on an operational basis. Like in maintaining the taxiway up to the property line.
---------- ADS -----------
Control the horizon, control the airplane

Simpleton
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:10 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#32 Post by Simpleton » Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:36 pm

photofly wrote:
Diadem wrote: Who decides whether a parcel of land is considered to be on an airport or not, and therefore whether it would be governed by the federal regs? Does TC make that determination, or is it the municipal zoning board?
The test is not whether it's an airport or not, it's whether it's use is essential to the purposes of aeronautics, the power to regulate the same being reserved to the federal government.

If you build it at an airport but you put toilets and bedrooms in it, it's not for aviation purposes. If you build it away from an airport but fill it only with helicopters - it is.

I don't believe there's any specific federal regulations about building an aircraft hangar: you can just go ahead and start constructing, no permit necessary.

Here's a case where a boathouse was not allowed to be part of an "aerodrome" and escape municipal jurisdiction basically because the owner was keeping boats instead of airplanes in it:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2 ... c5788.html

It seems very unlikely that a court will apply the various tests mentioned in the several cases on this topic and decide that the structure photographed in the first post, being an empty hangar with a bi-fold door, built at an airport, is not an aircraft hangar and is subject to municipal jurisdiction. A pole-barn shell is just fine, in that respect. Canadian courts have long held - all the way up to the Supreme Court - that zoning and municipal by-laws simply aren't relevant, no matter what they state or when they were enacted.

However if the airport operator is also the municipality then their cooperation in the use of the hangar is still going to be needed, not on the basis of zoning but on an operational basis. Like in maintaining the taxiway up to the property line.

Lol, comedy gold.
---------- ADS -----------

Diadem
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 633
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#33 Post by Diadem » Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:50 pm

So anyone can build anything on any piece of land as long as they say it's for aircraft, and it appears that it is? It doesn't have to meet any fire code standards or anything? I could tear down my house and build an ad hoc hangar without talking to the city as long as I say I'm keeping a helicopter in it? Either that's not right, or that's a huge hole in the law.
---------- ADS -----------

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6059
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#34 Post by photofly » Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:59 pm

You might have some difficulty persuading a judge that, being in the centre a of a city, you could think of something essential to aviation to do with your property. You couldn't, for example, land or take off there, that's already established in the CARs. That being the case what essential aviation purposes could you put your property to?

However let's assume for the sake of argument, that you could persuade a judge of the same. Do you think that the only thing that stops city dwellers knocking down their houses to put up aircraft hangars is a municipal by-law?




On the other hand, something that looks a lot like an aircraft hangar - built at an airport .... not really the same thing.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by photofly on Sun Jul 16, 2017 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Control the horizon, control the airplane

tired of the ground
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 311
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:38 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#35 Post by tired of the ground » Sun Jul 16, 2017 1:00 pm

Diadem wrote:So anyone can build anything on any piece of land as long as they say it's for aircraft.
I think you'll find that there would still be a requirement to build to the National Building Code. Municipalities have the option to just adopt the code or amend it as they see fit. If the municipality doesn't have jurisdiction I'm sure the NBC as written would suffice.
---------- ADS -----------

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6059
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#36 Post by photofly » Sun Jul 16, 2017 1:03 pm

tired of the ground wrote: I think you'll find that there would still be a requirement to build to the National Building Code. Municipalities have the option to just adopt the code or amend it as they see fit. If the municipality doesn't have jurisdiction I'm sure the NBC as written would suffice.
Where is the regulation that requires adherence to the NBC? Which building inspector inspects it? Which authority takes action when it's not complied with? I suspect the answer to all these questions is "none".
---------- ADS -----------
Control the horizon, control the airplane

Simpleton
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:10 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#37 Post by Simpleton » Sun Jul 16, 2017 1:11 pm

photofly wrote:
tired of the ground wrote: I think you'll find that there would still be a requirement to build to the National Building Code. Municipalities have the option to just adopt the code or amend it as they see fit. If the municipality doesn't have jurisdiction I'm sure the NBC as written would suffice.
Where is the regulation that requires adherence to the NBC? Which building inspector inspects it? Which authority takes action when it's not complied with? I suspect the answer to all these questions is "none".

Guess what's better than "suspecting".....knowing.
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18874
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#38 Post by Cat Driver » Sun Jul 16, 2017 1:16 pm

I am fascinated to see people who side with the bureaucrats.

Me I side with those who are in aviation.
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.

Simpleton
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:10 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#39 Post by Simpleton » Sun Jul 16, 2017 1:39 pm

Cat Driver wrote:I am fascinated to see people who side with the bureaucrats.

Me I side with those who are in aviation.
Yeah, cause "how you feel about things" will tide you over well in a court room, in front of a judge, who's only concern is law and jurisdiction.
---------- ADS -----------

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6059
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#40 Post by photofly » Sun Jul 16, 2017 1:42 pm

Simpleton wrote:

Guess what's better than "suspecting".....knowing.
I totally agree. But while it's very easy to know about a law or regulation that does exist, it's hard to be entirely certain that one *doesn't* exist. What I can say is that having read carefully through a dozen or so judgements in cases on this topic I have never seen a reference to any national building code that needs to be adhered to, nor any inspectors who visit sites, or who opine on the same. If you can find a department of the federal government that provides those services please post some details!

The very first sentence about the NBC on Wikipedia says "The National Building Code of Canada is the model building code of Canada. It is issued by National Research Council Canada.[1] As a model code, it has no legal status until it is adopted by a jurisdiction that regulates construction." - my emphasis. Which arm of federal government has taken it upon itself to be the regulator, for hangar construction?
---------- ADS -----------
Control the horizon, control the airplane

User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18874
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#41 Post by Cat Driver » Sun Jul 16, 2017 1:45 pm

Thanks for that information simpleton.

However judging by what I have read about this issue I personally hope the hangar owner prevails in court.

Unless of course the hangar owner is a complete as.hole and was just ignoring all the rules.

Obviously you think the latter, correct?
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.

ruddersup?
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 224
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:10 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#42 Post by ruddersup? » Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:52 pm

Jonas,
PM me, you are about to get educated to the good.
---------- ADS -----------

jonas
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#43 Post by jonas » Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:50 pm

Simpleton wrote:1) Re-zoning bylaws were in the works for a long time...and you knew that.
Is that so? How would you know this? Now you are clairvoyant?
Even if your assumption was true, do we now live our lives in accordance to future laws that "were in the works for a long time"?
Not everyone has your imaginary super powers.
Simpleton wrote:2) Your hanger isn't "finished"....it's a pole barn shell that went up in a week
One week? More false statements. I'm beginning to see a pattern in your communications on this forum. The planes are inside. Isn't that what a hangar is meant for? When do we consider a hangar finished?
Simpleton wrote:4) Didn't own a big enough piece of property to build the hangar you want (Hmmm...who's fault is that?)
You never answered my hypothetical question in the previous post. Think about that one for a while and tell me how anyone could build at this airport on any of the 20x20 meter lots.

"Who's fault is that?" Apparently everyone at the airport trying to develop for the last 6 years.
without mentioning names, not including my case, there have been 4 other attempts at building, all requesting variances. I'm not going to post documentation because I don't want this post shut down again.
Simpleton wrote:6) I hope I get a front row seat to it being tore down...maybe there'll be a community BBQ to commemorate the event.
A true aviator we have here, what type of community do you hang out in?
Tell you what, you can come donate your time at our next COPA for kids event we host at my hangar. If you're so enthusiastic about a community BBQ you can flip the burgers at ours.
Simpleton wrote:7) Would still love to know where that old thread went. Funny reading in there, and some nice Jonas posts bordering on libelous.
You and I both. If anyone on this forum knows, please enlighten us to stop this question from diluting the conversation.

Do you mean libelous posts like this one?
Simpleton wrote:Lol, puts up building without permit...continues through out stop-work orders...screws over companies trying to buy land..
Even after reading (or not) the facts and documents to back up the facts, you falsely accuse me of working throughout stop-work orders, and accuse me of "screwing over companies trying to buy land.." I'd love to hear your explanations for these accusations. Please elaborate.


Here's some "funny reading" for you.
Whitecourt Star, Local newspaper that was able to find out the truth with one phone call wrote:Natasha Gauthier, a senior media relations advisor with Transport Canada, would not comment on some of the specific restrictions being set by Woodlands County. But she said aeronautics remains in the federal jurisdiction.

“All aerodrome operators, land owners and levels of government are responsible for ensuring they follow the federal laws and regulations that apply to aeronautics. Recent Supreme Court decisions reaffirm that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over aeronautics. These decisions examined whether or not specific provincial and municipal legislation impaired core federal power over aeronautics. Object setbacks for operational areas of runways and taxiways depend on the level of service and aircraft type and size the airport operator declared when applying for certification,” Gauthier said.
Regulatory documents to read concerning obstruction clearances from apron, taxiway, runway, heliport, and FATOs from the governing power that has exclusive jurisdiction over structures that are core to aviation use are as follows.

Transport Canada's TP312 5th edition

and

Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) Part III - Aerodromes, Airports and Heliports.

It's a sad day for aviation in Canada if any local municipal board made up of non-aviators can completely ignore the above-mentioned regulations and are able to assert that they know better than the federal regulators.

Image





Simpleton wrote:6) I hope I get a front row seat to it being tore down...maybe there'll be a community BBQ to commemorate the event.
It's an even darker day when people like this pollute the aviation community.
---------- ADS -----------

MrWings
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 941
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 10:35 am

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#44 Post by MrWings » Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:25 am

I am enjoying this thread. Thanks for the information. It is a bit confusing at times. Here is my attempted unbiased summary:

1. Jonas buys land to build a hangar.
2. Airport manager approves a reduced setback of hangar construction.
3. Helicopter man thinks the hangar will interfere with his operation. Complains to local Council.
4. Council sides with helicopter man. County changes land use to restrict hangar from being built as planned. Issues a notice to halt construction.
5. Jonas interprets the new restrictions as outside the authority of the local government. Construction is continued. Hangar completed.
6. County is pursuing legal means to remove hangar.

Here is what I see the two issues are:

1. Did the building of the hangar impede the safety and access to helicopter man's property?
2. Are the zoning restrictions set by the County reasonable for airport operations?

The County has determined that the answer to these questions is yes.

If Transport Canada's answer is no, Jonas wins. I'm thinking at least #2 is a no. And based on the previous thread, #1 is likely no as well. From what I recall, it makes is more inconvenient for helicopter man but not dangerous. Although that information presented was one-sided.
---------- ADS -----------

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6059
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#45 Post by photofly » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:01 pm

The zoning restrictions set by the municipality are totally irrelevant over aircraft hangars; they have zero jurisdiction.
---------- ADS -----------
Control the horizon, control the airplane

7ECA
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:33 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#46 Post by 7ECA » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:01 pm

photofly wrote:The zoning restrictions set by the municipality are totally irrelevant over aircraft hangars; they have zero jurisdiction.
Good luck convincing any city, municipality, village, etc, that they aren't allowed and granted absolute control over everything that occurs in their private fiefdoms.
---------- ADS -----------
Honour is a man's gift to himself ~Duke Elegant
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.

Simpleton
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:10 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#47 Post by Simpleton » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:22 pm

photofly wrote:The zoning restrictions set by the municipality are totally irrelevant over aircraft hangars; they have zero jurisdiction.

Lol, thank you for telling a really funny joke. Photofly told a funny joke everyone.
---------- ADS -----------

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6059
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#48 Post by photofly » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:43 pm

7ECA wrote:
photofly wrote:The zoning restrictions set by the municipality are totally irrelevant over aircraft hangars; they have zero jurisdiction.
Good luck convincing any city, municipality, village, etc, that they aren't allowed and granted absolute control over everything that occurs in their private fiefdoms.
That's what the courts are for. It's difficult when the municipality is the airport operator as well though; even if you win a court case you're now on the wrong side of the very people you need be friendly with. You can win the battle, but lose the war, so to speak.
---------- ADS -----------
Control the horizon, control the airplane

jonas
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#49 Post by jonas » Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:02 pm

MrWings wrote:I am enjoying this thread. Thanks for the information. It is a bit confusing at times. Here is my attempted unbiased summary:

1. Jonas buys land to build a hangar.
2. Airport manager approves a reduced setback of hangar construction.
3. Helicopter man thinks the hangar will interfere with his operation. Complains to local Council.
4. Council sides with helicopter man. County changes land use to restrict hangar from being built as planned. Issues a notice to halt construction.
5. Jonas interprets the new restrictions as outside the authority of the local government. Construction is continued. Hangar completed.
6. County is pursuing legal means to remove hangar.
There's a much longer history that I had laid out in a previous thread, but it has disappeared.
I'll try to clarify in point form. But, in an effort to not have this thread removed these points are all "alleged".

1. Jonas allegedly Buys land in "airport service district-airside" to build a hangar 2006

Image

2. Jonas allegedly builds hangar 2007 without the need for building permit under the airport manager #1 instruction.

3. County allegedly drastically changes elevation around Jonas hangar. The hangar is now in a deep hole. Parking aircraft anywhere on the lot is dangerous for aircraft. Discussions take place, promises are made to make it right in a few months when the new taxiway is paved.

4.Jonas finally allegedly receives the title for land after many alleged phone calls wondering how the municipality sold land to Jonas without having it subdivided.

Image

5. Fast forward 8 years later 2015 when the taxiway is finally paved, Jonas allegedly talks to county admin about "making it right"

6. Admin allegedly conveniently forgets conversation about making it right, after alleged reluctant conversation admin takes my expenses to a council meeting and allegedly pass a motion to pay me for a fraction of my expenses incurred from their construction activity. At this point, I am just relieved that they FINALLY built the taxiway. I'm willing to just let it go and start over.

Image
Image

7. Meanwhile, I am out of pocket for my original hangar (haven't received the money yet), Airport manager #3 allegedly says things have changed and I need a permit with a variance request. I demolish the hangar and begin construction on the new hangar in the place where the airport manager recommended. This works out ok because I don't need to spend an extremely large amount of extra money removing my original concrete pad, my new building location allows me to simply bury the concrete and build around it.

8. I fall for the manager #3's alleged requirements for building permit and apply for a building permit with variance in an effort to maintain good relations with the county.

9. Airport manager #3 recommends 1m setback. TC has no objections, Nav Canada has no objections, alleged protest from helicopter man and friends of helicopter man allegedly convince the municipality to deny variance request citing false safety concerns, a permit is approved without a reduction in setbacks (which means denied).

10. I file for an appeal, denied with more alleged protest from helicopter man and friends. I was Allegedly told to meet with the airport manager #3 after the appeal hearing and I should be pleasantly surprised, wink wink, nod nod, with the solution to my problem.
At that point I was offered a land swap (like I had been asking for over a period of many years at this point as an alternate solution to the elevation problem), to another location that was not ready for development, away from helicopter man, but the county was only willing to pay me what I purchased the lot for, and then I could pay the difference for the new land at current land values (much higher), the county could not guarantee the same issue would not happen again at the new location. More alleged discussions were had, where it was allegedly agreed to have the county initiate a third party assesment on my property. This assesment was allegedly never performed. (two years later the land that was somewhat offered in exchange is still not ready to build on)

11. Meanwhile still no payment received for my original hangar replacement expenses that were passed in the council meeting.

12. I wait the required 6 months, and try again. was almost successful, was granted a setback of 6 meters from 10 meters airside, and 5 meters from 10 meters on the side of the access road, and additional conditions that are impossible to comply with. (fireproof walls, helicopter and flying debris proof walls, an additional $20,000+ payment to be made to the county for water sewer hookup.
This slight reduction does not allow the building to be placed over the underlying cement as the airport manager allegedly recommended, and does not function properly for the parking of either aircraft or motor vehicles on either side of the hangar. Can not build the building. Still no payment, allegedly.

13. I applied for an appeal, again and hired a lawyer that specializes in Aviation suggested to me by COPA. Airport manager #4 allegedly suggested 6 and 5-meter setbacks (with alleged permission from administration). The lawyer informs them of the jurisdictional issue making the building permit, board's decision, and bylaws ultra-vires, and urges the board to simply grant the variance to avoid costly court visits in the near future. The county's lawyer allegedly says to the board, "it's not in the municipal development committee's jurisdiction to determine if they have the jurisciction over this jurisdiction." She then goes on to describe how the setbacks are needed along the taxiway to leave room for garbage bin truck access, airplane traffic sight lines, snow removal, etc. She allegedly compared the airside to a back alley in the city. (allegedely.)
Appeal denied. Building permit remains as 6 m airside setback, 5-meter front yard setback, the same conditions that are impossible to comply with remain.

14. I filed to try the case in the Alberta Court of Appeals, as that was the next step in the legal system. The judge determined the Court of appeals could not hear the case due to the Municipal appeal board not having the jurisdiction to determine if they had the jurisdiction. The judge suggested hearing the case in Court of Queens bench. This is what we had anticipated, but had hoped to avoid in the interest of time.

15. I file for the case to be heard in Court of Queens bench, a date is set for a year and a half later in 2018.

16. 2 years allegedly pass from time council voted to pay money to Jonas, money is never allegedly paid despite multiple reminders from myself, and a letter from my lawyer, I have no choice other than to take County to Court due to the statute of limitations. (all other options were exhausted) I hire lawyer #2 to deal with this. I'll keep you posted on the outcome.

17.Aviation Lawyer allegedly recommends to inform county we are ignoring build permit as it is ultra-vires, and I should just build it as it complies with federal regulations.

18.Throughout 2016/2017 winter and spring, construction commenced, Alleged threats were made to issue a stop order from the County, I told the County that my patience has come to an end, I'm not stopping, and if they want the issue a stop order, please do so immediately. Otherwise, leave me alone.

19.Construction of hangar is completed June 2017.

20.Zoning and bylaw change completed, stop work order arrives.
The only feasible conditions on stop work order requires applying for a new permit with airport manager #5's permission. Airport manager #5 allegedly wasn't given permission to give permission. Allegedly no permission was received.

20. Currently, I allegedly have no doubt that the demolition order is allegedly coming, I am patiently awaiting their next move so I can file for an injunction.
MrWings wrote:Here is what I see the two issues are:

1. Did the building of the hangar impede the safety and access to helicopter man's property?
2. Are the zoning restrictions set by the County reasonable for airport operations?

The County has determined that the answer to these questions is yes.

If Transport Canada's answer is no, Jonas wins. I'm thinking at least #2 is a no. And based on the previous thread, #1 is likely no as well. From what I recall, it makes is more inconvenient for helicopter man but not dangerous. Although that information presented was one-sided.
1. Not by a long shot according to the alleged fact that helicopter man has unobstructed taxiway access bordering the property that he allegedly leases. (and does not allegedly need to fly across the public roadway and across my property)

2. The neighbouring property to mine has been allegedly bought and sold 3 times with no development due to the setback requirements. Even the newest subdivision has the first alleged occupant applying for a setback reduction from 10 meters to 3 meters, and they are solely helicopter operators.
---------- ADS -----------

Simpleton
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:10 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#50 Post by Simpleton » Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:01 pm

That's a lot of "alleged's"


....and a disturbing amount of Jonas discussing Jonas in the 3rd person
---------- ADS -----------

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”