Hangar use?

[NimpoCub]

Got this today, any help for him?
(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:

1. 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?
   
2. 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?
   
3. 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.

 

[Darrel Starr]

Leases for Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) owned airports, 6 of them, around Minneapolis-St Paul, MN state that 75% of the hangar must be used for aviation and that no one can live in the hangar (however the FAA allows a flight crew to stay in a hangar before a morning flight).
All very clear. But no rules are enforced so some single guys and occasionally couples live in hangars. Contractors with no planes own hangars full of their machinery & supplies. Some hangars are full of boats or collector cars with no planes or perhaps the wrecked fuselage of a C150 in the corner. I would like to see MAC enforce their own rules but the situation is getting worse not better.
We built & own the hangar building on a lot we lease from MAC.

 

[Chicken Hawk]

Nimpocub,
What is triggering the discussions between municipality & hangar owners? Is there misuse by renters that are creating problems or is there a lack of hangar space?
With General Aviation being what it is, many hangar owners have rented to just about anyone willing to pay rent for the space.
I have a machine shop on one side of me, a vintage motorcycle shop across from my hangar. Neither of them have any aviation blood in them whatsoever. Both are great guys & tenants. (good resources for misc parts & tools when needed) It's also nice knowing someone's always around.
I preffer to see occupied hangars over empty hangars.

 

[Curtis]

I wonder if the FAA NPRM from last summer has something to do with making communities stir this up? I didn't see where this has gone after the comment period.

https://www.federalregister.gov/art...n-the-non-aeronautical-use-of-airport-hangars

 

[NimpoCub]

Nimpocub,
What is triggering the discussions between municipality & hangar owners? Is there misuse by renters that are creating problems or is there a lack of hangar space?

I believe the issue is "all the above".

 

[aktango58]

Lyn deals with this on Alaska airports daily now.

Bottom line: can you as a hanger owner show that what is in the hanger is mostly aviation? Can they put an aircraft in without much effort?

I made the argument that my sleds were for grooming ski strips, and my river boat was for supporting remote strips. Of course, I had pictures to show using them for that purpose, and made sure my plane fit between them

 

[C-FVUA]

Since Mackenzie is in BC and was a "planned" community set up on Williston Lake to take advantage of the vast forest resources there BCRail which was crown owned was granted large tracts of land for terminals and for location of facilities like mills that used the railway. These operations leased land from the railway and used its services, which were reasonably priced thereby stimulating the local economy. Bc taxpayers benefited by receiving a dividend of about $500 Million a year. A great deal all around. So good in fact that CN decided it should have the BCRail and actually made off with the operations side of it in a very questionable and convoluted "deal" involving a co campaign chair of the Premier who got elected promising not to sell BCRail, but did so anyway. After years of court battles 2 mid level civil servants took the fallcosting BC taxpayers another $ 6 Million to keep them quiet. Now in order to "balance the budget" all of the BCRAIL properties have been fire saled making the terminals ineffective for anything rail related or for assisting in large project logistics. Which in northern communities is quite important. I would assume that something like divestiture is in the wind in Mackenzie and only those on the inside of the current party governing will get to know. Having a low cost lease through the railway helped a lot of communities along the railway support facilities like airports, reloads and warehouses. With the government in power in BC now party insider profits trump(no pun intended) distant community benefits every time. Much like with the demise of the Municipal airport in Edmonton.
Apologize for the story, but the situation needs some perspective as we have seen the same sort of things happen in other communities along the track.