We are in the process of creating a “Meadowmist Property Owners Association” and were wondering if you had any copies of by-laws for such organizations?
Best Regards,
Harvey

We sure do. You can check them out in our CC&Rs area of the Living With Your Plane website. If anyone associated with an airpark would like to offer up information for this section, please email us.

It seems obvious that different FAA regions and local offices read and interpret the material in different ways and hopefully we can get an FAA-wide clarification on the issue. We know of several thru-the-fence projects that have been developed on public airports which have received FAA funding. The latest of which we are aware is Sandy’s Farm at the Clermont County Airport in Batavia, Ohio.

Here’s Krahmer’s letter:

I have been recently trying to find a public airport where I could develop a residential airpark. When talking to the city administrator of Buena Vista, CO, I ran into a hitch. He said that his contact at the FAA said that they would not support a residential TTF agreement.

I talked to the FAA, and got the attached information. Unless policy is reversed, this means there will be no more residential airparks allowed at any public airports where FAA funding is involved. I would ask that you make a post on your site regarding this issue.
Thanks,
Brian Krahmer

Letter from FAA to Oregon Airport Commission

Following is the FAA letter to which Krahmer is referring. It was sent to Gerry Meyer, the executive director of the Port of St. Helens, Oregon, and no date is shown on the letter. It reads:

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the FAA’s policy on residential airpark development. We understand that the Commission is considering a proposal for an off airport residential airpark development with a through-the-fence access on to Scappoose Industrial Airpark.

The FAA is on record opposing the development of residential airparks with through-the-fence access to public-use, federally obligated airports. In fact, FAA has denied future funding to airports that have permitted airfield access from off-airport residential airparks. Such developments can conflict with Title 49 USC-47107(a)(10), Grant Assurance 21, Compatible Land Use and possibly other grant assurances. A federally obligated airport must ensure, to the best of its ability, compatible land use both on and off airport. An airport sponsor will not be successful in defending its airport from incompatible residential development if the sponsor is also promoting residential airparks on or next to the airport. A residential dwelling with an attached hangar is still a residential dwelling and once introduced can lead to additional residential encroachment.

Since 1983, FAA has invested over $4,328,502 in Airport Improvement Program funds to improve and develop the airport as a part of the National Airport System. Residential development adjacent to the airport undermines the federal investment.

FAA does not oppose residential airparks at private use airports. Private use airports are operated for the benefit of the private owners, and the owners are free to make any change to the airport’s operation, including imposing restrictions on aeronautical activity. A public use airport receiving federal financial assistance is different. It operates for the benefit of the public and in no way should become subordinate to the private interests of airpark residents erecting residential structures whose value is tied to the airport. The two interests, public and private, are not compatible in this case.

Finally, and more importantly, if an airport sponsor elects to promote or permit through-the-fence access on to the airport from an off-airport residential airpark, it is possibly jeopardizing receipt of all future Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant funds. The FAA strongly recommends that the Commission not compromise the future funding of this public asset by permitting through-the-fence access to the proposed residential airpark.

Sincerely,
Charles Erhard
Manager, Airports Compliane Division
FAA Office of Airport Safety and Standards
Washington, DC

Finally, here’s the 1989 circular from the FAA:
In 1989, the FAA issued a notice concerning through the fence operations, explaining how they are to be treated and the manner in which they should be considered. Although the circular is aimed at airports which have received federal grants or expect to receive them in the future, the comments are still valid and can be of value to anyone looking at such possibilities.

    Many state agencies fail to take into account the differences between public and private airports in regard to such through the fence operations and as a result private airpark operators sometimes have a hard time explaining the issue adequately.

    The FAA circular, order 5190.6A, is reprinted in its entirety:

    6-6. AGREEMENTS GRANTING ACCESS TO LANDING AREA FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY (THROUGH-THE-FENCE OPERATOR). There are times when the owner of an airport will enter into an agreement which permits access to the public landing area by aircraft based on land adjacent to, but not a part of, the airport property. In some cases, special taxiways have been built for this purpose. This type of an arrangement has frequently been referred to as a "through-the-fence" operation even though the perimeter fencing may be imaginary. In reviewing a lease or contract which proposes this type of arrangement, the following guidelines should be followed:

       1. Rights and duties of the airport owner. The obligation to make an airport available for the use and benefit of the public does not impose any requirement to permit access by aircraft from adjacent property. The existence of such an arrangement could place an encumbrance upon the airport property unless the airport owner retains the legal right to, and in fact does, require the off-site property owner or occupant to conform in all respects to the requirements of any existing or proposed grant agreement.
    

      2. Practical considerations. The owner of an airport is entitled to seek recovery of initial and continuing costs of providing a public use landing area. The development of aeronautical enterprises on land uncontrolled by the owner of the public airport can result in a competitive advantage for the "through-the-fence" operator to the detriment of on airport operators. To equalize this imbalance the airport owner should obtain from any off-base enterprise a fair return for its use of the landing area.
      

    3. Safety considerations. Arrangements that permit aircraft to gain access to a public landing area from off-site properties complicate the control of vehicular and aircraft traffic. Special safety operational requirements may need to be incorporated in the "through-the-fence" agreement.
      

    4. Agency position. As a general principle, FAA will recommend that airport operators refrain from entering into any agreement which grants access to the public landing area by aircraft normally stored and serviced on adjacent property. Exceptions can be granted on a case-by-case basis where operating restrictions ensure safety and equitable compensation for use of the airport. Examples include:
            

        1. Where a bonafide airport tenant has already leased a site from the airport owner and has negotiated airfield use privileges, but also desires to move aircraft to and from a hangar or manufacturing plant on adjacent, off-airport property. In this case actual access will be gained through the area provided by the airport owner.
            

        2. Where an individual or corporation, actually residing or doing business on an adjacent tract of land, proposes to gain access to the landing area solely for aircraft use incidental to such residence or business without offering any aeronautical services to the public. This situation is commonly encountered where an industrial airpark is developed in conjunction with the airport.
      

    5. Determinations. The existence of arrangements granting access to a public landing area from off-site locations contrary to FAA recommendations shall be reported to regional Airports divisions with a full statement of the circumstances. If the regional Airports division determines that the existence of such an agreement circumvents the attainment of the public benefit for which the airport was developed, the owner of the airport will be notified that the airport may be in violation of his agreement with the Government.

Recently we got responses from different parts of the country – California and Washington State.

A California resident responded:

“In our county (the larger hangars commonly referred to as commercial buildings) are not too much of a problem … at least not yet,” reported Ralph Eschenbach of Woodside, CA.

“All of the hangars here are bigger than 2,000 square feet and we have had no compliance problems. The only issue is when there is living space above the hangar in which case they require a 2-hour fire wall … two layers of drywall.” He went on two describe hangars with living spaces they are designing. They will feature prestressed concrete floors so the firewalls won’t be an issue.

“The commercial building business seems to have started with the insurance people who want to control everything. In some cases, as I am sure you know, homes with hangars in rural areas are called barns! Funny how that makes a difference eh!”

At the Sequim, Washington Discovery Trail Farm, Dave Le Roux says “plans for the first hangar were recently submitted to Clallam County’s Building Division. The hangar is greater than 2,000 square feet and taller than 20 feet. According to the international Building Code, a residential hangar is defined by its height and square footage. If it is larger than 2,000 square feet or taller than 20 feet, it is not considered a residential hangar.

“Like many counties, Clallam County has its own fire protection standards. If the hangar’s use meets the IBC definition of residential (size and height), then the county’s fire protection policy does not affect the structure. According to county building officials, if the hangar does not meet the residential definition, the owner has a variety of fire protection options including: sprinklers, 24-hour monitored fire alarm system, structure compartmentalization, fire resistive construction that will reduce or contain the fire until emergency response arrives and building setbacks.

“For this hangar,” Le Roux continued, “the architect has kept the hangar 30 feet from the road and property lines, designed a 2-hour firewall where the hangar connects to the house and specified the hangar be constructed with exterior 1-hour firewall material. According to the architect, this type construction is adding about $5,000 to the cost of the hangar.

“The bottom line for people building hangars is the interpretation and policy of the local jurisdiction in which they are building,” Le Roux concluded.

DECLARATION OF EASEMENT AND RESTRICTIONS

This Declaration, made on the date hereinafter set forth
by________________________
______________________________________________, hereinafter referred to
as “Declarant”,

WITNESSETH:
Whereas, Declarant(s) is the Owner of certain
property in Denton County, State of Texas, which is more particularly
described as:

SEE EXHIBIT “A” ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE FOR ALL PURPOSES

Now, therefore, Declarant(s) hereby declare(s) that all of the
properties described above shall be held, sold and conveyed subject to
the following easements, restrictions, covenants, and conditions, which
are for the purpose of protecting the value and desirability of, and
which shall run with the real property and be binding on all parties
having any right, title or interest in the described properties or any
part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall inure to
the benefit of each owner thereof.

Article I
DEFINITIONS

Section 1.    “Association” shall mean and refer to Hidden Valley Airpark Association, Inc., its successors and assigns.

Section 2.    “Owner” shall mean and refer to the record owner,
whether one or more persons or entities, of a fee simple title to any
Lot or Tract which is a part of the Properties, including contract
sellers, but excluding those having such interest merely as security
for the performance of an obligation.

Section 3.    “Properties” shall mean and refer to certain real
properties, collectively referred to as being within, or part of,
Hidden Valley Airpark, Shady Shores, Texas, and such additions or
improvements thereto as may hereafter be brought within the
jurisdiction of the Association.

Section 4.    “Lot” shall mean and refer to any plot of land shown upon any recorded subdivision map of the Properties.

Section 5.    “Tract” shall mean and refer to any plot of land shown on any unrecorded subdivision map of the Properties.
Section 6.    “Declarant” shall mean and refer to the Owner(s) of the property described hereinbefore in Exhibit “A.

Section 7.    “Aircraft” shall mean and refer to any contrivance now
known or hereafter invented, which is intended, used, or designated for
navigation of, or flight in, the air.

Article II
AVIGATION AND HAZARD EASEMENT

Section 1.    Creation of the Easement.  The Declarant, for each Lot
or Tract owned within the Properties, hereby covenants and agrees to
the acceptance and placement of a perpetual Avigation and Hazard
Easement upon the entirety of each such Lot or Tract.

Section 2.    Purpose and Scope of Easement.  The purpose and scope
of the Avigation and Hazard Easement shall be for providing free and
uninterrupted right-of-way for the passage of all Aircraft by
whomsoever owned and operated, in the air space above Owner’s Lot or
Tract above a mean sea level (MSL) of 600 feet to an infinite height,
together with the right to cause in such air space above the surface of
Owner’s Lot or Tract such noise, vibration, fumes, odor or visual, and
all other effects that may be caused by the operation of Aircraft
landing at or taking off from, or operating at, in, above, around, near
or on Hidden Valley Airpark airport, its successors or assigns.

Section 3.    Use Restrictions.  During the life of such Avigation
and Hazard Easement, any Owner of any Lot or Tract shall not erect,
permit the erection or growth of, or permit or suffer to remain upon
any property under Owner’s control, any building, structure, tree, or
other object extending into the airspace above said Lot or Tract above
a mean sea level of 650 feet MSL.  Additionally, any Owner of any Lot
or Tract shall not hereafter use or permit or suffer the use of Owner’s
property in such a manner as to create electrical interference with
radio communication between Aircraft or between any radio upon said
airport and Aircraft, or as to make it difficult for flyers to
distinguish between airport lights or others, or to impair visibility
in the vicinity of the airport, or as otherwise to endanger the
landing, taking off or maneuvering of Aircraft.

Section 4.    Duration of Easement.  The duration of the Avigation
and Hazard Easement is perpetual or until said Hidden Valley Airpark
airport shall be abandoned and shall cease to be used for airport
purposes.

Article III.
GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 1.    Enforcement.  The Association, or any Owner, shall
have the right to enforce, by any proceeding at law or in equity , all
restrictions conditions, covenants, reservation, liens and charges nor
or hereafter imposed by the provisions of this Declaration.  Failure by
the Association or Owner to enforce any covenant or restriction herein
contained shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so
thereafter.

Section 2.    Severability.  Invalidation of any one of these
easements, covenants or restrictions by judgment or court order shall
in no wise affect any other provisions which shall remain in full force
and effect.

Section 3.    Attorney’s Fees.  If any party retains an attorney to
enforce this Declaration, the party prevailing in litigation is
entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and court and other
costs.

Section 4.    Choice of Law.   This Declaration will be construed
under the laws of the state of Texas without regard to choice of law
rules of any other jurisdiction.  Venue is in the county or counties in
which the Property is located.

In witness whereof, the undersigned, being the Declarant herein, has
hereunto set its hand and seal this ___________ day of
___________________, 200__.

By: ________________________________________

By: ________________________________________

STATE OF TEXAS           §

COUNTY OF DENTON    §

Before me, ____________________ on this day personally appeared,
known to me (or proved to me by Drivers License) to be the person(s)
whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged
to me that he/she/they executed the same for the purposes and
consider-ation therein expressed.

Given under my hand and seal of office this _____ day of ___________________, 200__.

________________________________________
Notary Public, State of Texas

After recording return to:            
Hidden Valley Airpark Assn., Inc.       
P. O. Box 50652               
Denton, TX 76208   

While the measure has been assigned to a committee, no hearings have been scheduled and none are expected. But, the bill has been introduced and that means it can be pulled out and adopted in relatively short order.

Our idea in putting together a self-certification program for residential airparks was to take the high ground. In other words, if residential airparks can show that they have looked at themselves for security problems, there’s no need for legislation and all the rules and fees that come with them.

Please take a new look at the self-certification program that’s already posted and then look at your airpark and see how you can meet some requirements. In the not too distant future we intend to finalize a self-certification program and offer it to airparks. When the airpark management meets certain criteria and pledge that they have done them, we’ll issue a certification that hopefully will head off legislation.

In addition to the self-certification program, we’ve also posted the proposed legislation so you can take a look at it, too.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 21, 2005

Mr. SWEENEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security a bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to enhance security at general aviation airports in the United States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `General Aviation Security Act of 2005′.

SEC. 2. GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT SECURITY.

(a) In General- Subchapter I of chapter 449 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 44926. General aviation airport security

`(a) Definitions- In this section, the following definitions apply:

`(1) GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT- The term `general aviation airport’ means an airport that serves the operation of civilian aircraft for purposes other than commercial passenger transport, including personal, business, and instructional flying, and that the Secretary of Homeland Security determines, by regulation, is subject to the requirements of this section.

`(2) PRIVATE-USE AIRPORT- The term `private-use airport’ means a general aviation airport used exclusively by the owner of the airport and persons authorized by the owner.

`(3) PUBLIC-USE AIRPORT- The term `public-use airport’ means a general aviation airport available for use by the general public without a requirement for the prior approval of the owner or operator of the airport except as may be required by Federal law or regulation.

`(b) Registration-

`(1) IN GENERAL- In order to enhance the security at the general aviation airports of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall require a person desiring to operate a private-use or public-use airport to register with the Secretary within one year of the date of enactment of this section.

`(2) INITIAL REGISTRATION-

`(A) PERIOD OF EFFECTIVENESS- The registration of a private-use or public-use airport under this subsection shall be effective for a period of 3 years.

`(B) FORMS- The registration shall be submitted on forms provided by the Secretary. Such forms shall contain the following information:

`(i) The physical and mailing addresses of the airport.

`(ii) The telephone number, facsimile number, and e-mail address of the airport.

`(iii) The name or names and telephone number or numbers of one or more 24-hour security contact persons, as designated by the airport.

`(iv) A map showing the location and general boundaries of the airport.

`(v) Such other information as the Secretary may reasonably prescribe.

`(3) SECURITY PLAN- The registration also shall be accompanied by the written security plan required under subsection (c).

`(4) RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION-

`(A) PERIOD FOR RENEWALS- A private-use or public-use airport shall renew its registration with the Secretary every 3 years.

`(B) FORMS- Requests for renewal shall be made on forms supplied by the Secretary and shall not be accepted unless accompanied with an updated written security plan as provided in subsection (c).

`(5) FEE- The Secretary may impose fees to cover the costs of incurred by the Secretary in carrying out registrations and renewals under this subsection, and shall ensure that any such fee is reasonably related, as determined by the Secretary, to such costs.

`(c) Written Security Plan-

`(1) SUBMISSION TO SECRETARY- The Secretary shall require each private-use and public-use airport to document its security procedures in a written security plan that is consistent with the most recent security guidelines for general aviation airports published by the Transportation Security Administration.

`(2) UPDATES- The Secretary shall require an airport that submits a plan under paragraph (1) to submit to the Secretary an updated version of the plan every 3 years with the airport’s renewal application for registration under subsection (b).

`(3) SECURITY ENHANCEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS-

`(A) CONSIDERATION IN DEVELOPING WRITTEN PLANS- In developing a written security plan, an airport shall consider the applicable security enhancement recommendations contained in the most recent security guidelines for general aviation airports published by the Transportation Security Administration.

`(B) DESCRIPTIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS- A written security plan shall include a description of how the airport has addressed each applicable recommendation of such guidelines and a justification for not adopting any applicable recommendation suggested by such guidelines for the airport’s security characteristics.

`(4) USE OF SELF-ASSESSMENT MEASUREMENT TOOLS- Applicable recommendations from such guidelines shall be determined by an airport by using the airport characteristics self-assessment measurement tool available in such document and any other self-assessment tools subsequently issued by the Transportation Security Administration.

`(5) SUBMISSION TO LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES- In addition to submitting a written security plan to the Secretary under subsection (b), a private-use and public-use airport shall submit a copy of the plan and all updates of the plan to local law enforcement agencies having jurisdiction over the airport.

`(d) Additional Requirements-

`(1) PRIVATE-USE AIRPORTS- In addition to the other provisions of this section, the Secretary shall ensure that private-use airports meet the following requirements:

`(A) Require all aircraft to be double-locked, with one lock internal to the aircraft, and one lock external to the aircraft, when such aircraft is not in operation.

`(B) Provide that all hangars be locked when not in use.

`(C) Provide adequate fencing for secure areas.

`(2) PUBLIC-USE AIRPORTS- In addition to the other provisions of this section, the Secretary shall ensure that public-use airports meet the requirements of private-use airports set forth in paragraph (1) and the following additional requirements:

`(A) Require verification of the identity of all aircraft passengers by the aircraft crew.

`(B) Maintain a log of all transient aircraft for a minimum of 5 years.

`(C) Develop a written list of emergency contacts and telephone numbers, to be available to airport personnel.

`(D) Restrict the access of unlicensed persons and student pilots to aircraft keys.

`(E) Require persons renting aircraft to present government-issued identification, which identification shall be in addition to any pilot’s license.

`(F) Post airport security warning signs and advisories where appropriate.

`(G) Create an emergency locator map, which may be hand-drawn generally to scale, identifying areas such as runways, ramp areas, fence lines, gates, and sites and provide copies of such map to emergency response agencies serving such airport, to law enforcement agencies having jurisdiction over such airport, and appropriate airport personnel. Whenever there is a physical change involving such areas, such map shall be revised and resubmitted to the such emergency response and law enforcement agencies and airport personnel within 60 days of such change.

`(H) Familiarize local law enforcement with the airport and consult with them in the airport’s development of appropriate security procedures.

`(e) Statement on Confidentiality- The map required under subsection (c)(2)(G) and the written security plan required under subsection (c) shall each prominently display the following statement: `This document may contain information that if disclosed could endanger the life or safety of the public, and therefore this document is to be maintained and used in a manner which preserves the confidentiality of the information contained herein in a manner consistent with law.’.

`(f) Limitation on Disclosure of Information- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither the Secretary, nor any agency receiving information from the Secretary, shall disclose safety or security related information obtained from airports under this section if the Secretary finds that withholding such information from disclosure would be consistent with the Secretary’s safety and security responsibilities.’.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The analysis for subchapter I of chapter 449 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`44926. General aviation airport security.’.

The violations of the CC&Rs can be extremely minor or they can be dramatic.
For example, if the CC&Rs require setbacks and someone builds a structure without abiding by these requirements, does the homeowners association make the person tear the structure down?

How about the CC&Rs that forbid low passes and someone insists on performing them?

Another issue that seems to pop up all the time is how to collect an assessment that has been levied by the association from those who refuse to pay?

There are lots of additional issues that people ask us about at every forum we present. How are issues of CC&Rs violations handled at your airpark?

Please share information with your fellow residential airpark residents. You can include your name and address if you want or simply include the state in which you reside.

Pleas to the rule violator were ignored and the airpark homeowners association was on the verge of trying to obtain a court order against the person violating the rules and thus try to force him to live by the rules.
“We don’t want to go the lawsuit route,” the airpark spokesman said. He explained that he suspects it will not only cause hard feelings all the way around, but it will result in a lot of legal fees that they could better use in other aspects of the airpark.

What else can be done?

In our conversations with others we’ve discovered that short of legal action, there is little that works against a person who so flagrantly violates all the established rules and regulations.

Among sources of help that we’ve heard have been local building departments and fire departments. The building permit department often can step in where the issued permits are not followed, such as building too close to a property line or exceeding height limitations or similar situations.

Sometimes a fire marshal or fire department will take an interest in a problem if they find there is a risk of fire. Unfortunately, often times this results in other fire inspection actions and a result can be that the fire marshal might determine a situation that is perfectly safe from logical standpoints is considered a fire danger when observed through the various chapters of the National fire Code.

We’re heard of liens being slapped on the property of violators and other legal steps taken to correct the problems.

Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any single, good answer of which we are aware.

Do you have a solution? Were there problems at your airpark with CC&R violators? Are you still experiencing problems? How did you resolve your issues or what actions are you now taking?