Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, council spar over airport fence, access and fees
Summary
A resident pressed the Lock Haven City Council to resolve an access dispute at the municipal airport, citing FAA guidance and a claim of prescriptive easement; council members discussed fees and contract language but did not take formal action.
A city resident urged Lock Haven City Council to resolve a dispute over access to the municipal airport and a proposed fence, saying federal Aviation Administration guidance supports the neighborhood's position and that long‑standing public use could create a prescriptive easement.
The speaker, identified in the meeting as Craig (resident), said the fence and associated contract language would “lock 5 people out of the airport” and that following FAA guidelines and earlier, correctly drafted agreements would have left the city financially ahead. “Agreement can be shown from words, conduct, and in some cases, silence,” Craig said, adding that some neighbors have used the access for “23 years” and others for “over 50 years.”
Council members asked clarifying questions during the public comment period about specific fees and contract terms. One council member asked whether the city had removed “tie down fees” and whether the fee structure had been converted to a daily charge; the resident replied that the FAA guidelines list tie‑down fees as part of an agreement. A council member answered, “We convert it to daily,” in response to the question about the fee structure. No formal vote or directive was recorded during the exchange.
The discussion as recorded in the meeting focused on whether the city solicitor's input and prior drafts matched the parties’ understanding and on the possibility of legal doctrines such as prescriptive easement under Pennsylvania law. Craig said legal advice he had seen indicated an enforceable access right after 21 years of “clear and open use,” and urged the council to resolve the matter.
The exchange took place during the public comment portion of the July 21 meeting. Council members acknowledged the concern and indicated they would review prior drafts and legal advice; the transcript does not record a formal council motion, vote, or a staff assignment with a deadline.
The matter appears to remain open: the resident urged quicker resolution and offered to be available for further questions. The city did not announce a next step or schedule for council action in the meeting record.
