Anyone have some advice for this guy?
(thanks)

Here in Mackenzie, at the municipal airport, a group of us individually own hangars on land that we lease from the municipality who in turn have it deeded to them by the owner, BC Rail. Apparently there is a stipulation in the BC Rail agreement with the municipality that the land be used 'for aviation purposes only'. In turn the municipality has always had a clause in the lease agreement with the hangar owners that their hangars be used 'for aviation use only'.

In a meeting today between the hangar owners and the municipality the term 'for aviation use only' was hotly discussed as some of the hangar owners do not currently own aircraft. I am new in town but apparently this has been a sore point between the parties for years.

What I am hoping to find out are:
What would the basis be of the stipulation 'for aviation use only' in the master agreement for the land between BC Rail and the municipality? Would this be coming from Transport Canada regulations perhaps? If so, what regulation?
Is there any common understanding through the aviation industry of what 'for aviation use only' means? Clearly parking an airplane in the hangar is covered, but what about storing aircraft parts and if that is ok, what about storing raw material such as wood that could conceivably be turned into an airplane in the future?
Is there any forum out there of hangar owners where this is a topic of discussion?

Any information that you can provide would be of great assistance.

I was just talking to a guy that has a hanger in Grand Forks. He keeps his ski boat in the hanger during the winter and the plane in the hanger during the summer as he lives in Langley and does not go to the cabin on Christina Lake during the winter. He has done this for years. The GF airport has the same aviation only rules and the new manager is enforcing those rules to the letter. Langley Airport has the same rules but they do use some common sense in the enforcement of those rules. I have also seen hangers full of motorhomes , snow machines and atv's and not a plane to be seen in the hanger and a 10 year waiting to get a hanger for your plane. I guess it is based on the hanger contract and how the current manager wants to enforce things.
Sign here first sir and we will talk about the future later.

I can see where it's a rented hangar thing and a long waiting list to get one-- those should be enforced aviation use only. But if there's no demand, or in the case of a privately-owned hangar, it should be nobody's business what you keep in your hangar. In the OP's scenario, it should be don't ask don't tell.

The ground lease for my condo hangar states for aircraft storage only-- this is the airport rule for all hangars, private or rented. But the airport operator (a public agency) is renting one of their hangars to a guy who's keeping a trailered boat & a bunch of crab pots in it. They used to have quite a waiting list but these days, in between a lot of private hangars having been built and the lackluster state of general aviation, not so much. But I would hate to see somebody with an airplane waiting for a rental hangar but doing without because of the boat/crab pots guy.

Most of the airports in the US which accept FAA funding are required to include "for aviation purposes only" clauses in their ground leases for private hangars and in their airport-owned leased hangars. How strictly the airport management enforces those provisions varies from one side of the meter to the other. For instance, at GXY, I'm OK with old filing cabinets, furniture, tools, boats, and other stuff, etc., so long as I also use it for my airplane. Consequently my hangar is pretty cluttered with stuff, but it does hold my airplane. But management won't allow hangar use for other things without also storing an airplane, as there is still a waiting list for hangars.

But I'm aware of other airports which allow only airplanes, nothing else. The FAA has been pushing airport managements all over the country to be more restrictive. Whether that's having any effect is hard to say. But I wouldn't be surprised if I were to get a missive from my airport manager that I'd need to clear out some if not all of my non-aviation stuff.

Since you're asking about BC, though, it's hard to say where that started, whether it's a Transport Canada requirement or just a local issue.

Cary

NimpoCub wrote:Anyone have some advice for this guy?
(thanks)

Here in Mackenzie, at the municipal airport, a group of us individually own hangars on land that we lease from the municipality who in turn have it deeded to them by the owner, BC Rail. Apparently there is a stipulation in the BC Rail agreement with the municipality that the land be used 'for aviation purposes only'. In turn the municipality has always had a clause in the lease agreement with the hangar owners that their hangars be used 'for aviation use only'.

In a meeting today between the hangar owners and the municipality the term 'for aviation use only' was hotly discussed as some of the hangar owners do not currently own aircraft. I am new in town but apparently this has been a sore point between the parties for years.

What I am hoping to find out are:
What would the basis be of the stipulation 'for aviation use only' in the master agreement for the land between BC Rail and the municipality? Would this be coming from Transport Canada regulations perhaps? If so, what regulation?
Is there any common understanding through the aviation industry of what 'for aviation use only' means? Clearly parking an airplane in the hangar is covered, but what about storing aircraft parts and if that is ok, what about storing raw material such as wood that could conceivably be turned into an airplane in the future?
Is there any forum out there of hangar owners where this is a topic of discussion?


Any information that you can provide would be of great assistance.

Your first paragraph pretty well answered your first few questions. If BC Rail owns the land, and they lease/loan/permit the municipality the right to use the land for an airport, and in that provision/lease, there is a provision that all the land be used for aviation use only, then why would you question it?

In the US, as Cary explained, we have a similar situation with any airport which accepted FAA AIP funds. The FAA requires a few things there, like that the airport has to continue in use as an airport--this is the only thing that's kept Santa Monica Airport open for the last 30 or 40 years, actually, which is a good thing.

But, what constitutes "for aviation use only" could have (and often does) a lot of meanings. The strictest interpretation of that is that a hangar must house an operational aircraft at the very least, and pretty much nothing else that isn't generally there to support that aircraft.

The FAA came out with an interpretation of this some time back that an aircraft in parts or a homebuilder constructing an aircraft kit are NOT an operational aircraft, and thus wouldn't meet that standard. To me, that's BS, but.....

I see a LOT of hangars that have a motor home stored in them, in addition to an airplane. Who cares? Not me. Or a boat, or??? But, if the hangar really isn't being used for aviation purposes (it's being used as a condo, or a car repair facility, or a storage unit, or???) then I think the lease needs to be reviewed. We had a case like this in rental hangars at an airport I worked at. One guy had leases on three hangars. All three were filled with auto parts, and airplane parts. No airplane was ever stored in these three leased hangars. The airport manager, after consulting with the airport board, informed the tenant that he would have to demonstrate that he actually owned a functional airplane (as opposed to a data plate), or his leases would be revoked. The guy forfeited all three hangars and moved all his junk to a warehouse in town. The net result was that three airplane owners on a wait list were able to lease hangars for their aircraft.

It gets a little more fudgy when a tenant owns the hangar, but the verbiage on the land lease tells the story there. You don't get to sign a contract because you want something, then decide to violate the conditions of the lease just because you don't like them.

Like it or not, whoever manages the airport may wind up being pretty picky or really pretty loose on these covenants. Personally, I like someone who's kind of in the middle--not real anal, but willing to drop the hammer on someone who's running a totally non aviation enterprise out of an aircraft hangar....assuming the airport covenants are quite clear, that is.

But, again, if you sign a lease, it's assumed that you read the covenants/conditions, etc. and agree with those prior to signing.

MTV

I lived in a hangar for awhile, backed my travel trailer in the corner, plugged in, used the hangar shitter, routed my trailer shower water to the drain. I was cheap airport security. Plus had my airplane and airhead bmw to tinker with after work! Loved it! Then got married...

The State leans on us too. I replaced all of my windows with the mirrored glass because I got tired of snoopers. I keep all my toys in my hangar with my airplane I don't think we'd be able to have a motorhome, a boat, or jet skis in this country if I couldn't store them out of the sun and cold, The big thing is to have an airplane if anyone starts asking, and keep the extra stuff ready to move out for a day or two while the federallies do their once every 10 year check.

my local airport seems to be turning into a "Store and Lock" over the last few years...many hangers rented for storing "stuff" by non pilots

The hangar use issue, isn't a Transport Canada thing, down here, in Chilliwack it is a city zoning thing. Our hangar is zoned AP, which allows us to do certain things in this hangar (run a hotel, light machine work, office space and a bunch of other stuff that aren't really aviation, but can be classified as being aviation supported/supporters.) The new hangars are zoned AP1, which the city created because of 1 hangar purchaser, deciding to turn his hangar from ever being useable as a hangar, into a storefront for a plumbing/heating business. AP1 restricts the new hangars, and the ones that get new leases to less things (can't run a hotel, no light manufacturing, and stuff like that).

Here is the real kicker at our airport. So we have 2 commercial companies that purchased hangars, the 1st one, caused the ap1 issue. The second one, bought a $800,000 hangar, about 2 years ago, (well after the creation of AP1, (which also requires that upon selling your hangar, the zoning changes to AP1) (so they are zoned AP1.) They've decided to open up a Skunkworks type of automotive parts business. Not aviation related at all.. The city, won't do anything about it, and the Airport Manager won't.

My dad's companies hangar (the company used to do aerial spraying, but now is the hangar, and airplanes), is I believe, the longest standing business on this airport (other than maybe the airport coffee shop). We are getting harassed, by airport management, because we have too many airplanes on our property, and we are getting harassed, because my dad moved his accounting business into the front of the hangar, with the city, and the airport managements permission.

To make matters worse, our 25 or 35 year lease renewal comes up in 3 years. The airport management signed an estoppel agreement, stating that we were entitled to first rights of renewal, upon mutually agreeable terms, and if terms couldn't be met, we would go to commercial binding arbitration.

The airport management has sent us a letter stating that they are not going to renew our lease. We believe their reasoning is because in the leases that everyone originally signed with the city it states that upon completion of the lease the buildings and land revert back to the city (even though we built the building) (it does not say this in the new leases that were required to be signed when the new management took over the airport, it says something along the lines of, "if an agreement can't be reached that the property reverts back to the city".

The reasoning "greed." Now they can take over the building for free, and lease/rent out the building and land, at the value of building and land, not just "land", which is what our signed estoppel and previous lease agreement stipulates.

We obviously are going to have to go to court, to force management to honour the estoppel agreement that they signed. My dad and I are lucky though, as we at least have the estoppel agreement. I feel bad for our neighbors, that have 5 years left, and 10 years left on their leases, and didn't have the foresight to see that this new management, was bad news, and didn't get any form of legal protection for losing their properties.

So the companies that have made this airport prosper for the city, brought jobs to Chilliwack, and paid taxes, are getting screwed because of a sweet heart deal between management and the city. The city gave over management rights for 50 years to the management company for a mere 2.5% of the leases. They screwed up in the writing of the head lease of the airport, and the operating agreement of the airport, to the point that they can't get rid of management, (not even for safety, gross negligence, etc). All the city says is "our hands are tied." (and it's funny, because their hands are tied because of their own stupidity. They've had at least 2 opportunities to fix the head lease and the operating agreement, so that they had some authority, and they knew about it.)


Abbotsford airport went through a phase like this about 15 years ago. What did it do to the Abbotsford Airport. It killed the airport. They are just now, starting to come back to life. What does the management at that airport say. They say "We would never take another companies building like that, again." It was terrible business practice, and set them back years. It killed General Aviation and commercial businesses at that airport. Now there is only 1 company that maintains smaller aircraft, and if it wasn't for Cascade/Conair, and UFV, there would be nothing at that airport.

You have to understand that all "city leases" state that upon termination of the lease that title reverts back to the city. But no one would believe that the city would stick to that clause unless they absolutely needed your building because, at least you are paying taxes, keeping the airport, aviation related, keeping citizens employed, etc., and you paid for the building. False Creek (a major leased area of Vancouver with lots of residents) is going through this. Is Vancouver, going to be stupid enough to take away all those residents homes? At least they have enough political clout that, most likely Vancouver wouldn't even think of it, because it would be political suicide for any councillor/mayor/city staff that approved it.

Just wait... The coffee shop, at Chilliwack airport... You know the one "fly for pie". Has been owned and operating at this airport for years, first by barb, and now by judy and her sister. In the next few years, you may not even see it, but I believe that it will be owned, by either the airport management, or else one of their friends or family. The management at this airport is bad news. They don't care who they screw. The city, is bad news. The city staff, is just trying to cover their own asses, and not let any of this information get out to the public. And of course, the general public, just wouldn't understand because of the normal persons belief of "you must be rich because you have an airplane," and no one feels bad for a "rich guy".

What would I like to see happen.
1st I'd like to see management meet their word, on the fact that they would renew our lease.
2nd I'd like to see management realize that they can't just take peoples property, because it just isn't right.
3rd If those 2 things can't be done, I'd like to see the city take back the airport, and the control of the lease negotiations.

All of which I don't believe will get done. I would like to see airplane people come to this airport, and go to the coffee shop. Eat Pie, spend money at the businesses here, but DO NOT BUY GAS, DO NOT RENT PARKING STALLS, as these are the only other 2 sources of income for the Chilliwack airport management, because they own the pumps.


Sorry about the thread drift, I've been stressing about this for the past year (only stressing about my dads, and my issue for about 3 months, but the coffee shop, before that, and the "Super Dave issues" before that.), I know that all we can do is go to court, and get a judgement. Knowing the people we are dealing with, even if we get a judgement, they are going to appeal it, because they have deep pockets, and that is how the new management has always done business practices (If you google the owners name, and other company names you will see the same).

I've had to get this off my chest for ages, and needed to write it out. My wife doesn't even understand, why I'm so stressed about it. It's not my problem, it's my dads. But it is my problem, because I'm also one of the owners of the hangar with my dad, and I don't want to see my dad lose the hangar, that he has worked his ass off, to own (I don't care about my part of it, because I only got ownership from blood and sweat, not actual cash). My dad is at the point in his life, that he should be retiring, and relaxing in his golden years, and shouldn't be having to deal with these types of things. He just wanted to retire in his hangar, and stare at his airplanes, for the last 10-15 years. This was his retirement dream. And because he was in aviation almost all his life, he doesn't have much else. (other than a cabin, and a hunk of land at the Texada airport, which just happened over the past 2 years.) but if he was to move up there permanently he won't get to see his kids/grandkids, as often as he'd like. (my older brother is mentally handicapped, diabetic, and epileptic, so my dad really tries to see him as often as possible, because we all believe that my dad will outlive Doug.)

Then I have to look at it with rose coloured glasses, at least the management gave us 3 years to take this to court, if they were smart, they would have waited until 6 months prior to the expiration of our lease to bring the renewal issue news to us. That way we wouldn't have time to formulate a strategy, and fight this, before the expiration of our lease.

Most commercial land leases seem to have that "improvements will revert to landowner at the end of the lease period" clause. The city of Renton took the Cedar River Condo hangars at KRTN from the owners about 10 years ago when they decided not to renew a lease similar to yours (renewable upon mutual agreement). We got a 50-year lease for the ground under my hangar, 35 years left to go, similar "renewable upon mutual agreement" clause. I think the best bet is to get a lease extension long before the end of the lease, otherwise when it starts getting close the landowner starts smelling ownership and then the greed you're referring to sets in. Unfortunately the end of your lease is right around the corner, so too late for that strategy.

[quote="mmartin1872"][/quote]

Dude that's brutal. So when I come down there can I rent a hangar space from you? And buy gas? Don't want anything to do with the airport...

Rules are all over the map on this, but I'm glad that "aviation use" is the priority for airports here in the States.

As an illustration of where I'm coming from, this is what the local airport of my youth in Sweden looks like now. It used to be the most active grass roots aviation airport in Stockholm. The city wanted land for housing, and now it's a suburb.

I agree with Oregon180. Here at IDA the management is cracking down. One guy, who's lease was just renewed, is moving and selling the three connected hangars that housed his shop and never flown 182. The new lease would not allow him to keep using it as a wood shop but the management allowed him to renew the lease so he could sell the hangars to someone who would use them for aviation. The long term plan for IDA is to remove one of the runways so that more hangars can be built Luckily the AOPA liaison here is really active and is rallying the GA pilots to hopefully prevent this. We tried to help the management see that if non-aviation uses are removed from airport property then there would be plenty of room for more hangars without demolishing a runway.

A1Skinner wrote:

mmartin1872 wrote:

Dude that's brutal. So when I come down there can I rent a hangar space from you? And buy gas? Don't want anything to do with the airport...

If we don't have any planes parked in the hangar, no problem. We do have lots of grass in front of our hangar that you can park in for free.

Gas, if you are ok, with mogas, I have tons of jerry cans, and Shell, carries 94 octane no ethanol added.. Wish I was allowed to have avgas on the property, but that is a stipulation in our hangar lease also. that way we can't compete against the airport management.

Mike

hotrod180 wrote:Most commercial land leases seem to have that "improvements will revert to landowner at the end of the lease period" clause. The city of Renton took the Cedar River Condo hangars at KRTN from the owners about 10 years ago when they decided not to renew a lease similar to yours (renewable upon mutual agreement). We got a 50-year lease for the ground under my hangar, 35 years left to go, similar "renewable upon mutual agreement" clause. I think the best bet is to get a lease extension long before the end of the lease, otherwise when it starts getting close the landowner starts smelling ownership and then the greed you're referring to sets in. Unfortunately the end of your lease is right around the corner, so too late for that strategy.

The one good thing we have going for us, is the signed estoppel agreement. With that, as long as it is enforceable, which is what we will have to go to court over, then the management has no choice, but to sign another lease, or have a commercial arbitrator bind another lease. The management is, right now, just pretending that this estoppel agreement does not exist... But the sad thing is, it doesn't help any of the other tenants that are in the same boat as us, because none of the other tenants went and got management to sign the estoppel agreement, when the "new management" took over.

I think the only thing that the airport tenants can do is a class action law suit against the city for not protecting the tenants that signed lease agreements with the city (not with the management). But that of course costs money, and lots of time. The other thing is political, if we can make the airport management issue a political topic, because of how f'd the hole thing is because of city staff, council and mayor, and get the local people to agree with us, then the politicians would step in and make it right, because they don't want to lose their positions in the city.

Such great times at this airport.

whee wrote:I agree with Oregon180. Here at IDA the management is cracking down. One guy, who's lease was just renewed, is moving and selling the three connected hangars that housed his shop and never flown 182. The new lease would not allow him to keep using it as a wood shop but the management allowed him to renew the lease so he could sell the hangars to someone who would use them for aviation.

That seems like the right way to handle it.

No matter where you go, there are often airport problems associated with hard-hearted management, conflicts with non-aviation interests, etc. We've had several discussions here about such things.

The starting place always is to make sure you know what your documentation actually says. Over the many years I practiced, I would often get calls from people wanting me to give advice on some contractual matter. I would ask if they had read their contract. Often, they had no idea what their paperwork actually said, or if they thought they knew what it said, they were often wrong. Typically that was because they had a misunderstanding about legal terminology, or they had been told by someone else what it meant, but they'd never admitted their lack of understanding to themselves enough to hire an attorney to explain it to them.

I would never build a building on someone else's property. Even the 99 year leases that cabin owners have on government property eventually come to an end, and there is no guarantee of renewability. I have personally taken a risk by improving office space at my expense, but when the lease wasn't renewed as I anticipated it would be, I lost my improvements. Fortunately I had a long enough lease originally that I enjoyed the benefits of the improvements, but it was still painful to have it cut shorter than I thought it would be.

Cary

I'm afraid I would give the city nothing but a smoking hole in the ground prior to the termination of the lease. Ain't static electricity a bitch sometimes??

Oh, you can count on that.. If we lose the court battle, we will be getting a demolition permit.. The bulldozing company that owns one of the unlucky hangars that is coming due for renewal (they operated a Navajo or two) is willing to donate the demolition, because the city screwed him big time.. He has a million dollar hangar, he had a sale for it, but the sale fell through because of the zoning change requirement. And now he stands to lose his hangar, in ten years.

At least our hangar is only worth 200,000ish I think...

Is there language in the lease that says the building cannot be disassembled/moved? That seems like something some experienced lawyer for the land owner would suggest in lease draft.

Metal building kits aren't cheap but neither is construction labor. If you have to take your ball and go home, some thought should be put into how best to do it to your advantage. Selling as is will allow you to keep your value-add of the building assembly.