By Staff
September 19, 2106
BURLINGTON, ON
The Gazette slipped a little on this one – the city issued a media release early in August; it took a little time to get caught up.
Here they go again – the Airpark has decided to appeal the Judgement handed down by Justice M. R, Gibson who, on June 30th sided with the city that asked the Court to compel the Airpark to comply with a city bylaw that required them to file a site plan.
The Airpark has dumped tonnes of landfill on the 200 acre air park property as part of a process to level out the land for future development.
The city had been battling this situation since 2013 when the Gazette first brought to city halls attention that trucks were rattling up and down Appleby Line with loads of landfill that was being spread on the property.
Trucks loaded with land fill that no one really knew where it came from worked for months without any intervention from the city. A Gazette story put the issue on the front burner.
At the time the Air Park argued that they came under federal jurisdiction and did not have to comply with municipal bylaws. That argument got shot down when Justice Murphy said that the Airpark did have to comply with city bylaws on those part of the Airpark that were not runway or taxiway features.
The Airpark appealed the Justice Murphy decision – that appeal lasted less than an hour – the Airpark appeal was dismissed and they were required to pay the city’s legal costs.
Heavy construction equipment parked on a 30 foot + hill 50 yards from the kitchen window of the Sheldon property on Appleby Line next door to the Air Park landfill operation.
The next step was for the city to chase the Airpark to have them file a site plan. The Airpark hired consultants to prepare the document but they never did file what Justice Murphy and the Court of Appeal said they were required to file.
Many months later the court case asking the court to compel the Airpark to file took place in one of the smallest court rooms one can imagine. Members of the north Burlington community and just about the complete executive of the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition, squeezed into the room where lawyer Ian Blue, acting for the city, marshalled all kinds of court decisions – most which, it appeared, counsel for the Airpark didn’t appear to know anything about.
Justice Gibson handed down a decision that wasn’t quite as clear cut as the Justice Murphy decision. It was complex.
That appears to have been enough for the Airpark to appeal that decision as well.
This Regional government map shows what the plans were for the Airpark. The Region had bought into the Vince Rossi argument that the Airpark was federally regulated.
The City of Burlington is now going to discuss next steps. We looking at another 18 to 24 months for a decision from the Appeal Court.
The appeal, asks that the Gibson judgment be set aside and judgment be granted declaring City of Burlington By-Law 64-2014 to be ultra vires, or inapplicable to the operations of the Appellant, Burlington Airpark Inc., and in particular to the placement of soils in and about aircraft runways and aircraft taxiways at the Burlington Airpark (the “Airpark”) prior to April 27, 2013.”
The City of Burlington site alteration bylaw 64-2014 regulates the placing, dumping, cutting and removal of fill or the alteration of grades or drainage on a piece of land. Individuals doing this type of work must first submit an application to the city for a site alteration permit.
Vince Rossi, president of the Burlington Executive Airpark and believed to be the sole shareholder of the private company, met with north Burlington residents. He took all the comments made “under advisement”..
On June 30, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled in favour of the City of Burlington’s application to compel Burlington Airpark Inc. to submit an application for a site alteration permit to comply with the bylaw. With the court ruling, the Airpark was required to file an application for a site alteration permit for the fill deposited between 2008 and 2013 before Aug. 31, 2016. The court has also ordered the Airpark to pay the city’s court costs.
It is that decision that is now being appealed.
“The city will be looking at its options, and will update the community as soon as more information is available, “said Nancy Shea-Nicol, the city’s solicitor and director of Legal Services. No date has yet been set for the appeal.
A favourable Appeal Court decision is vital to the Airpark. Once all the appeal option are exhausted the air park is expected to have to file a site plan – and that is when their fate is in the hands of the planning department.
There was no love lost between the Airpark and the Planning department who feel they have been jerked around by the Airpark.
Airpark dumped more than 30 feet of landfill without a Site Plan. Owner of the adjacent property stands on her property line and wonders why anyone can build a “small mountain” next to her property without getting approval. She is also terrified over what the hill is doing to the value of her property and what the leaching out of the landfill is going to do to her well water.
One possibility is for the city to demand that some, if not all of the land fill – some of which is believed to be below the required standards – be removed.
That has the potential to put the Airpark out of business – at which point investors who are believed to be waiting in the wings will make an offer for the property.
Isn’t the piled high soil meant to used as leveling material and not be as suggested as a manufactured mountain.
IF, in fact, there are potential investors “waiting in the wings”, one could only hope that they would treat the immediate residents and others, with a little respect and dignity that anyone situated near any development deserve.