The owner of a large, mothballed building adjacent to Peachtree City’s Falcon Field Airport is suing the airport authority to enforce an airport access agreement so the property can be sold.

Hunting Aircraft, Inc., which formerly operated at the site, contends its current “through the fence” agreement allows it to assign its access rights to the company that wants to purchase the property. But the agreement also requires the authority to consent to the sale, and the authority has not cooperated according to that agreement, the lawsuit contends.

In the suit, Hunting says the authority must approve the sale and assignment of access rights to the purchaser, Chippewa Aerospace.

The authority voted 5-0 to reject Hunting’s request to approve the sale so the airport access rights could be transferred. Airport Manager John Crosby said the authority’s position has changed on allowing such “through the fence” agreements, which he said are typically frowned upon by the Federal Aviation Administration, which provides grant funds for airport improvements.

The suit also claims that Crosby told a Chippewa official that the authority wants to buy and control the Hunting site, and it could drive down the price of the property if it withheld consent to the sale for the access agreement.

Crosby said Thursday afternoon that the authority does not intend to buy the Hunting facility, although the real estate agent for Hunting offered it to the authority a while back for $4 million.

In fact, the authority has steered other persons inquiring about the Hunting facility to Hunting officials, Crosby said.

“Why would we do that if we were interested in buying the property?” Crosby said.

The authority cannot prevent the sale of the property, Crosby added.

“We have nothing to do with the sale of the real estate,” he said.

The suit argues that without the access to Falcon Field, the property’s value is greatly diminished.

“The authority refuses to consent, refuses to give Hunting an explanation and refuses to cooperate with Hunting so it can obtain consent,” the suit states.

The current agreement with Hunting and the authority runs through 2015 and can be renewed through 2040, the suit indicates. The agreement calls for the authority to be paid certain fees, including 2 percent of gross receipts and 5 cents per gallon of fuel delivered to the site in addition to a per-aircraft charge varying from $600 to $2,400 for each plane “regularly based” on the property by being present seven or more days each year.

Hunting has not operated on the site since 1999. But Chippewa Aerospace Inc. wants to purchase the property and relocate its corporate headquarters to Peachtree City, which would employ 50 people in the first two years of operation, the suit states.

The suit also claims that the authority violated Georgia’s Open Meetings Act by meeting in closed session Oct. 13 to discuss the Hunting request. The authority then adjourned into open session and voted 5-0 to reject Hunting’s request.

Crosby said the authority attorneys on the matter, from the Atlanta firm Powell and Goldstein, said they did not violate the open meetings law when they took up the matter in executive (closed) session.

The suit was filed Thursday in Fayette County Superior Court. Hunting Aircraft is asking the court to void the clause of the contract requiring the airport authority’s approval and to rule that the authority violated the agreement and failed to act in good faith. If the clause isn’t voided by the court, Hunting is seeking damages of up to $2 million.

The site in question is actually two separate parcels totaling more than 12 acres.

Specifically, Hunting’s lawsuit accuses the authority of trying to duck the existing “through the fence” contract to avoid a stipulation that caps the increase of fees for the property at 10 percent each year.

According to the contract, if the authority does not consent to any sale or lease of the property, Hunting can be ruled in default of the contract, allowing the authority to immediately terminate the airport access agreement and may even barricade the access point if necessary.

Part of the authority’s objection may extend from Chippewa’s intent to sell fuel at the site as part of its operations. Currently, the authority is the only entity selling fuel at the airport, which accounts for a significant part of its income.

The authority also gets a large share of its income by leasing on-airport property for hangar space to businesses and individuals. The authority only leases the ground space, with the person assuming the lease responsible for building the hangar and any other related improvements.

The authority is charged with managing the airport and making improvements to the facility, the latter of which is often accomplished with grants from the FAA.