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

[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?

[jonas]

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.





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


#5 Council minutes Woodlands County June 6, 2017


#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.





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

.....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.

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.

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.)

[Simpleton]

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.

[North Shore]

Looked for the old thread, and can't find it.

[crazyaviator]

Jonas, Give COPA a call !

[Diadem]

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?

[photofly]

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.

[Simpleton]

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.

[Diadem]

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.

[photofly]

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.

[tired of the ground]

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.

[photofly]

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".

[Simpleton]

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.

[Cat Driver]

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

Me I side with those who are in aviation.

[Simpleton]

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.

[photofly]

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?