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

[jonas]

This hangar was built in compliance with all federal regulations in direct contradiction to the County of Woodlands bylaws. The County of Woodlands councillors reaction was to unanimously vote on re-zoning the entire airport including the privately owned land the hangar sits on AND rewrite the bylaws in an effort to take over jurisdictional control. After the new zoning was passed the County of Woodlands is now attempting to order the removal of the hangar.

Legal Battle ensues.

Visit the Gofundme page if you want to help me out.
Any proceeds left over when the legal dust settles will be evenly distributed to the COPA freedom to fly fund and the Local COPA flight flying club.

https://www.gofundme.com/woodlands-coun ... dom-to-fly

[Simpleton]

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.

[Black_Tusk]

I'm not going to donate anything, but Simpleton having read the last thread and done a bit of my own research here Jonas IMO is in the right. It's his land, built to federal standards for airport property. If the city of Whitecourt wouldn't issue a permit because they were trying to enforce code and restrictions that does not apply. I would have likely done the same thing. If this goes to court, I hope he wins.

[Simpleton]

Lol, I just want a front row seat when the bulldozer arrives.

[rookiepilot]

From a read of the other thread, certainly seems to show corruption is certainly not limited to the developing world. No cash but think Jonas has a real case here.

[Simpleton]

Where is the original thread anyway?....can't find it anymore.

[Cat Driver]

Jonas should win for sure.

[skymarc]

Its all federal juridiction, there was no need for any local permits.

[hoptwoit]

...screws over companies trying to buy land...

Having followed this very closely as I am also a land owner at the Whitecourt Airport, this has been the narrative of the County and a very vocal opponent of mine and Mr Bolls development. The County of Woodlands has made a decision to stop selling land at the Whitecourt airport because "We can't just let people do whatever they want".
Mr Boll has adhered to all federal standards In accordance with TP 312 5th edition, Alberta and federal building and fire codes, Transport Canada and Nav Canada have issued permits and have no objection to Mr Bolls development. Mr Boll is not just doing whatever he wants. He is adhering to federal standards that apply at an airport. That should be the end of it.
I suggested a gofundme page to Mr Boll as way to bring people, aviators together, and resist the current trend of municipalities continually overreaching themselves where they have no authority and little expertise in the area of aviation. This is coming to an airport near you and maybe sooner than you think. I give Mr Boll high praise for taking this legal challenge on and firmly believe that he is in the right.
The fact is that this is a battle over who has the authority to regulate an airport and nothing else. I can guarantee you if the shoe was on the other foot Simpleton would be forced to do the same thing if he was trying to develop at the airport.
There has been a lot of back and forth on this issue and the last thread was taken down for some reason. The bottom line is that the regulator that knows best when it comes to airport development is Transport Canada, and under the aeronautics act they are the federal arm that has sole jurisdiction over aeronautics.

The latest activities of the airport operator has seen the airport lands except for the runway and taxiway alpha rezoned into a "limited commercial" district that happens to be located next to an airport. This means, the ramp, aprons, the hangers and the taxiways are no longer part of the airport and therefore subject to municipal bylaws.
This is the definition of an airport from the CARs. under the aeronautics act.
Aeronautics Act, s. 3 (1) “Aerodrome” means any area of land, water (including the frozen surface thereof) or other supporting surface used, designed, prepared, equipped or set apart for use either in whole or in part for the arrival, departure, movement or servicing of aircraft and includes any buildings, installations and equipment situated thereon or associated therewith.

This type of action is not only irresponsible it is dangerous. If people don't think it can happen to them at there airport, think again. The best way to keep airports running as functional airports is to support Mr Boll in his legal battle, verbally or financially. The more these cases stack up the more the municipalities will understand that while they are the airport operator, they are not the regulator when it comes to matters of aeronautics. Mr Boll and myself have had many conversations with the airport operator and they disagree. With that in mind Mr Boll sought legal advice and has led him down this path. It is Mr Bolls right as a citizen to take this issue to court and I believe that he will prevail.
I do agree with Simpleton on one thing. Mr Boll has balls to take this to court. It is the equivalent of putting your money where you're mouth is! It cost a lot to do this which is why you don't see these challenges more often. Hats off to you sir!

[Simpleton]

"Transport Canada and NavCanada have issued permits"

Would love to know what permits those are.....

[crazyaviator]

Where is COPA in all this? Should be the top file for preservation of our rights under FEDERAL jurisdiction

[Cat Driver]

You seem to be upset by this simpleton.

Why?

[JasonE]

Where is COPA in all this? Should be the top file for preservation of our rights under FEDERAL jurisdiction

Agreed. It is this type of thing they should be helping to support growth of airports.

[RatherBeFlying]

The airport operator has rights as landlord and has absolute discretion over buildings on its property, subject to any agreements with tenants.

Access from adjoining parcels is subject to the discretion of the operator, subject to any agreements.

That said, adjusting boundaries and changing zoning has to exempt preexisting compliant uses.

[Simpleton]

You seem to be upset by this simpleton.

Why?

I'm not upset.....I find it hilarious

This is going to be so entertaining to watch.

[BGH]

This same issue may arise at Pitt Meadows Airport as the airport authority has decided to give the local mayors & council full control of pretty much anything that has to do with the airport,including the enforcement of the cities development rules.
Simpleton I don't understand why you find this issue hilarious,it could mean the end of investment at local airports if someone has to meet two different standards for building at their local airport & not meeting federal standards may mean no insurance for the buildings,or anything stored in them.

Daryl

[Simpleton]

Trick question.....

Who owns Whitecourt Airport, and what are these "Federal Standards" for aircraft Hangars....would love to read those

[7ECA]

This same issue may arise at Pitt Meadows Airport as the airport authority has decided to give the local mayors & council full control of pretty much anything that has to do with the airport,including the enforcement of the cities development rules.

Daryl

Yep, pretty scary what the "Board of Directors" decided to do. Goes to show you that an unelected and unaccountable board will do exactly what their masters (the Cities) tell them to do - the airport and her users be damned.

PMAS Resolutions - 06.28.17.pdf

(85.07 KiB) Downloaded 136 times

[hoptwoit]

The airport operator has rights as landlord and has absolute discretion over buildings on its property, subject to any agreements with tenants.

Access from adjoining parcels is subject to the discretion of the operator, subject to any agreements.

That said, adjusting boundaries and changing zoning has to exempt preexisting compliant uses.

To be very clear Neither Jonas or myself are "tenants". We hold title on the land and own it outright. It makes a big difference. We are not adjacent to the the airport we are right on it. My land and his have airside access, and have planes parked all over them. The zoning change has moved every hanger currently or future at the airport with airside access off the airport on paper.

[hoptwoit]

It is sad that Simpleton cannot understand the ramifications this has for the Whitecourt airport and all airports.

Trick question.....

Who owns Whitecourt Airport, and what are these "Federal Standards" for aircraft Hangars....would love to read those

Trick answer. When you get an impaired driving a car and are prohibited from driving in all provinces yet you can still fly a helicopter or an plane. Then you will understand what these "Federal Standards" are. They are the same federal standards that gave you a pilots licence, and the province cannot take away a federally issued licence. Airport standards and regulations are the same idea. Federal.

Hope this helps.

[Simpleton]

It is sad that Simpleton cannot understand the ramifications this has for the Whitecourt airport and all airports.

Lol....ramifications like people not doing what ever they want? Sorry to break it to you princess, the issues you've created for yourselves in Whitecourt are your own doing, and you'd be going through the same thing at any other airport for doing what Jonas did.

Since you weekend warrior hobby pilots don't deal with regulatory issues well, let me give you a hint...

1995, and a Federal Divestiture program

[Simpleton]

It is sad that Simpleton cannot understand the ramifications this has for the Whitecourt airport and all airports.

Trick question.....

Who owns Whitecourt Airport, and what are these "Federal Standards" for aircraft Hangars....would love to read those

Trick answer. When you get an impaired driving a car and are prohibited from driving in all provinces yet you can still fly a helicopter or an plane. Then you will understand what these "Federal Standards" are. They are the same federal standards that gave you a pilots licence, and the province cannot take away a federally issued licence. Airport standards and regulations are the same idea. Federal.

Hope this helps.

Got it.

You can't cite any federal standards on hangars so you deflect your lack of knowledge by going off on a weird tangent about impaired driving...well done Johnny.

[MrWings]

the issues you've created for yourselves in Whitecourt are your own doing, and you'd be going through the same thing at any other airport for doing what Jonas did.

I have to agree. Just like the Parkland airport controversy has added a new set of regulations.

Thinking you can do whatever you want without permission of the local authority is not going over well.

[hoptwoit]

I think just about everybody sees whats going on here and I will leave it to them to make there own decisions. The previous thread contained ALL the information. As for you Simpleton, nothing I can tell you or show you will ever convince you of anything I say. That is why we have courts and that is the process Mr Boll is proceeding with.

[Simpleton]

Where did that thread go anyway? Did it get nuked, lol?