'SLOPPY' AERODROME REGULATIONS A PROBLEM: TMLA PREZ

IT'S NOTHING AGAINST PLANES ON THE LAKE, SAYS ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT - IT'S THE POTENTIAL TO CIRCUMVENT BYLAWS

A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet, but is the same sentiment true for aerodromes in Canada?

The Three Mile Lake Association indicates that it is the purpose of the aerodrome that matters and not the name, and acting president Linda Newnham said she will continue the discourse with Transport Canada until the regulations on water aerodromes are amended.

"The planning department of every town council plays a very significant role in protecting the health and safety of our lakes," said Newnham, noting residents may not always be happy when

the township denies a project.

"All of the bylaws and regulations are put in place for a reason," she said. "And that is to protect our environment, to protect the lifestyle that we have chosen by the purchase of a cottage and to

keep everyone thinking about each other."

When it comes to the concern of water aerodromes, Newnham said she's concerned it provides a loophole for individuals to bypass a municipality, as aerodromes fall under federal jurisdiction.

"Transport Canada makes it absurdly easy for anyone to register their dock as a water aerodrome without making it mandatory to consult with local authorities as part of the registration process," she said, emphasizing she and the lake association are not against hydroplanes on the lake.

These loopholes generate tension, conflict and mistrust, she explained, and create potential for mixed-use docks and boathouses to be built under the guise of a water aerodrome like the case in Seguin Township.

Almaguin News asked Transport Canada on average how many aerodromes are approved each year and was told Transport Canada does not approve aerodromes, but aerodromes are registered with the department and can be certified — a process where Transport Canada certifies that an aerodrome meets airport certification standards.

"Transport Canada's involvement in the building of an aero

drome is through the regulatory requirements stated in section 307 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations, to ensure that proponents consult with those likely to be affected by such development," wrote Hicham Ayoun, senior communications adviser for Transport Canada, in an email.

"This is conducted to improve communication, among interested parties and proponents, in advance of construction and allows for concerns to be proactively raised and mitigated, while promoting a consistent process for development."

Transport Canada defines an aerodrome as "any area of land, water. including ice surfaces or other supporting surface used, designed, prepared, equipped or designated for the arrival and departure, movement or servicing of aircraft. Includes all associated buildings, installations and equipment."

The Canadian Owners and Pilots Association's (COPA) Guide to Private Aerodromes states water aerodromes are a "special case."

"In the case of water aerodromes, seaplane owners should expect no special privileges as compared with power boats," the guide reads. "If bylaws restrict to one dock, then you should not expect to install two docks for your float plane."

"You cannot claim federal jurisdiction gives you the right to install an additional dock."

COPA's guide also states that in order to qualify as aeronautics and fall under federal jurisdiction, it is imperative for the facility to be strictly aeronautics and not mixed use.

"A hangar will not necessarily get the protection of federal jurisdiction if it is also used as a residence or used for storing nonaeronautical equipment such as boats, RVs, ATVs," as stated on page 33 of the guide. " ... if discovered as storing non-aeronautical equipment, the municipality can require a permit and if the design would not qualify for a permit, the municipality may insist that it be torn down."

Newnham said she

would like to see Transport Canada's regulations for water aerodromes match COPA.

"The onus is on Transport Canada to prevent situations like these. A simple amendment to the current policy on water aerodromes is necessary and expected," said Newnham. "Lake residents and municipalities should not have to pay the price for sloppy regulation."

"We will pursue this aggressively to protect our lake and all lakes in the Province of Ontario," she added.