Action in the northern part of the city over the Air Park shenanigans. Road accesss suspensions might be invoked.

The Airpark is providing information to the City on the basis that it does not attorn to any jurisdiction that the City claims it has that would require the Airpark to obtain a site alteration permit.  The City is reviewing the information without prejudice to its position that it may require the Airport to obtain a site alteration permit and may pursue any legal remedies it may choose should the Airport not be able to satisfy the City’s concerns.

The city understands that Transport Canada’s position is that local authorities (City and MOE) may choose to impose standards and permitting processes regarding fill, if it does not impair the core aeronautic function.   City staff are seeking clarity on Transport Canada’s position with respect to local by-laws and activities at the privately owned airpark lands. 

City staff want to  know, does Transport Canada take the position that the current filling operations are related to aeronautics?  If the airpark wishes to expand its facilities (i.e. lengthen runway, increase air traffic, attract larger planes/jets, build new terminal and hangars, etc.) does Transport Canada support these plans?

The airpark has stated that it has no intention of becoming certified, but City staff seek clarity on this process to understand when/how it would happen and whether there is any opportunity in that process for municipal input.  Staff would like to know exactly how an aerodrome becomes certified and what certification means from a regulatory and monitoring perspective; does certification mean a greater involvement and monitoring by Transport Canada?

The city would like to know if Transport Canada would be willing to conduct an inspection/review of the current airpark filling operations and construction activities?    Is it possible for the Municipality or a resident to request Transport Canada to inspect the airpark?  Can Transport Canada require the submission of expansion plans for review?  Answers to those questions were promised by June 7th.


The trucks just keep coming.

The Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) –advised the City that in the early stages of the filling operations (approximately 2007), Environment Canada determined that the filling operations were not under Provincial Jurisdiction (MOE).  The City has not advised the MOE that there are off-site impacts as the City does not have any documentation demonstrating this.  The City has advised the MOE that a new storm sewer outlet was installed that drains into the regulated watercourse.

 Conservation Halton, another player in this game was asked: Did the owners of the Airpark have to obtain similar permits and if so, why weren’t the residences of the area notified of the impending work and where were the public meetings?  They replied that the Airpark has not obtained permits from Conservation Halton for the filling activities that have occurred on-site.

Does Conservation Halton have inspectors in the field checking as to what is going on?

Conservation Halton staff said they have been inspecting the property in light of the filling activity.  A small portion of the Airpark property is located within their regulated area as defined under the Development, Interfere with Wetlands and Alterations to Watercourses and Shorelines Regulation 162/06.  These regulations are implemented in order to protect life and property from the adverse effects of flooding and erosion, to conserve land and water and to prevent pollution that may result from activities within river systems, lake systems and wetland areas.  An ongoing investigation into this filling activity at the Airpark is occurring.  It is not clear if Conservation Authority has walked the grounds of the Sheldon property to determine if any rules have been broken.

The Conservation Authority investigates unauthorized activities (i.e. works that have occurred without approved permits under the noted Regulation).  to determine if violations under our jurisdiction have indeed occurred.  If so, Violation Notices to the property owners are provided and staff work to rectify those violations with the property owners.  Sometimes violations are resolved outside of court; sometimes, they are resolved through court proceedings.

 City Staff attended a site meeting at the airpark on June 6, 2013.  This meeting was also attended by representatives of Conservation Halton, the Region of Halton, King Paving, Mr. Marko Radisic (owner of 5431 Appleby Line) and airpark representatives.  The meeting was coordinated by Conservation Halton staff based on preliminary comments they submitted regarding the active consent application for 5431 Appleby Line, immediately north of the end of the current runway.  ????

This application is currently on hold, but proposes to transfer a 12.95 ha portion of land to the airpark.  Staff examined some of the filling operations, the crossing of a hauling route over a watercourse feature, and the lands at 5431 Appleby Line.  Conservation Halton staff primarily inspected the watercourse feature but did not offer any formal opinions on any impacts to this feature from the filling operations.   

In addition, City and Region staff inquired as to whether the airpark and the owner of 5431 Appleby intend to proceed with the consent application.  The airpark owner indicated that he is still going to proceed with the application and that should he be able to acquire the lands he would initiate the proposed runway expansion, but that there were no formal plans prepared (i.e. site plan or survey sketch) indicating the location or length, etc.

The Region of Halton is another player in this game.  A memorandum from Mitch Zamojc, P.Eng,. Commissioner of Public Works for the Region shed some  light.  “Trucks bringing fill into the Airport are enter the site from three accesses to the site.

The first, northerly, access is a permanent rural commercial access with a municipal address of 5351 Appleby Line constructed under a permit issued by the Region in July 2008. This access is currently in use. The permit for the construction of the north access was issued to the Burlington Air Park as a commercial permit, and was not associated with a development application or any other application. At the time the permit for the north access was issued it was anticipated that it would be a permanent entrance which would initially be used for truck access for a period of approximately one year.

The second, middle, access is an existing farm field access with a municipal address of 5351 Appleby Line. This access does not appear to be in use.

The third, southerly, access is an existing farm field access with a municipal address of 5260 Bell School Line (fronting Appleby Line). This access has been improved and is currently in use. The improvements to the southerly access were constructed in 2011 but no permit was issued by the Region for the work.

In reviewing the current use of the southerly access it appears that there is significant truck traffic entering and exiting the site via this access.  Site lines in the area of the south access are limited and an evaluation of the access is required to ensure that it is safe. Accordingly the Burlington Executive Airport is being requested to submit an application to “Modify an Existing Entrance”.

As part of this application the owners will be required to submit a traffic impact study and safety audit, addressing the use and configuration of the access, for review by the Region. This study is to be prepared by a consulting engineer acceptable to the Region. Until such time as the application process is complete and any recommendations implemented, all vehicular movements into or out of the south access will be suspended.  Ouch!

Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Pages: 1 2 3 4

2 comments to Action in the northern part of the city over the Air Park shenanigans. Road accesss suspensions might be invoked.

  • Alidë Camilleri

    The airport is not only affecting the lives of the residents along Appleby Line, but also those living on No. 2 and No.4 Sideroads. We have all complained to the city, and the Ward 6 council reps, past and present, without any results. Ms Lancaster used the corn roasts for pure publicity among residents south of Dundas as she announced the roasts at the airport at meetings to her constituents in that area, but never advised those actually affected by the airport. I am not stating anything here that I have not told her myself. I am certain that the City, Region, and Halton Conservation can do more than they have done so far, but the will to do so appears to be lacking.

    • stephanie cooper-smyth

      I just watched the video of last nite’s Council meeting, in which Barbara Sheldon (again and accurately) nailed Councilor Lancaster for her obvious loyalty to the Airpark owner and not to the Constituents who actually live in her Ward.

      Ward 6 DEFINITELY needs a new Councilor.