 BY Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON. July 18, 2013. Our MP, Mile Wallace, was in an environment that suits his personality. Flipping burgers and talking to people for Mike Wallace is a very good one-on-one politician. He listens, he usually has a smile for you and his sense of humour prevails.
So there he was on the lakeside lawn of the Waterfront Hotel, flipping burgers and doing his political thing. Later in the day they let him have a microphone to answer questions from his audience – it was a sold out crowd.
 There is usually a smile on Mike Wallace’s face. He enjoys life and has a good time. This summer it is his intention to run in a marathon in every province. During the Q&A Wallace expressed some dissatisfaction with the fact that the current government was not being lauded for the great job that was being done and that instead people were quibbling about minor issues. When asked to comment on what these issues were, he felt that a disproportionate amount of time was being spent on the Senator Duffy matter and not enough time on the big issues both within Canada and internationally.
When I was going over the copy from a correspondent who covered the event for us I had to call and be sure that those words came from Wallace for I was stunned. He did not appear to have any sense as to the gravity of the Duffy matter that had the Prime Minister’s Chief of staff writing a personal cheque to Senator Duffy so that he could repay expenses he claimed and was not entitled to.
Prior to the public learning where the money came from Mike Duffy was on television telling audiences that he and his wife had decided to do the right thing.
Bruce Anderson, a highly;y regarded political analyst said on a CBC program that “issue is far from over, even if it’s not as prominent right now as the shuffle and even if people aren’t paying as much attention to it right now because it’s summertime. I think that the documents that emerged make it even more difficult to believe that the Prime Minister knew nothing about this, make it easier to come to the conclusion that he seems to have something that he wants to hide. It looks as though they are hanging Nigel Wright (Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff) out to dry, that he’s the only person who dreamt this idea up, the only person who ever really knew about it, the only person who didn’t understand that it was wrong, which doesn’t really square with the fact that there were a few days where people called him honourable for doing this and said that he was going to stay and he had the full confidence of the Prime Minister. So I think the police investigation and the opposition research that’s going on mean that this issue is going to come back with a vengeance in the fall.”
Peter Mansbridge, CBC’s senior television anchor then asked Andrew Coyne, columnist with the National Post what he thought. “The payment of $90,000 dollars to a sitting legislator, for whatever purpose,” said Coyne, “ would appear on the face of it to run you at least into jeopardy of several different illegal acts. We know, if these statements made by his lawyers are true, we know that at least three people in the Prime Minister’s Office, plus Irving Gerstein, the head of the fundraising arm, (for the Conservative Party) knew about these potentially illegal acts and apparently did nothing or, certainly in the Prime Minister’s story, didn’t tell the Prime Minister of this. That’s extraordinary. Even if he didn’t know about it, and that’s certainly still possible, but it suggests nevertheless that a tone and an expectation and a set of values were established in the Prime Minister’s Office where you just kind of look the other way at this kind of thing. That’s deeply troubling.”
 Mike Wallace, Burlington MP, takes a closer look at art work at the Burlington Art centre. But for Mike Wallace on a lovely sunny weekday afternoon this was “quibbling about minor issues” when what he wanted people to do was laud the government “for the great job that was being done”.
There are people in Burlington who understand the gravity of what was done when Senator Duffy was given $90,000 and perhaps at some point one of those people will stand up and speak some sense to the MP. In the fullness of time and when the RCMP completes their criminal investigation, the public will learn the truth. Will it make any difference in Burlington?
 By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON. July 18, 2013. The city’s team managing the problems with the Burlington Executive Air Park were to meet today with the lawyers retained by the Air Park. That meeting was cancelled by the Air Park.
Not the best of news for the city but understandable given that the city does not have the Ministry of Environment as on side as they had hoped.
 What was once a small local airport with a grss runway is now in the process of becoming something close to a Regional airport with plans for a helicopter operatation as well as hanger space for very large aircraft that can’t find or afford space at Pearson in Toronto. The development of this much larger operation sort of crept up on everyone – this is what happens when the bureaucrats take their eye off the ball and then the ward co7uncillor is aligned with the air park operator instead of the resident. The city wrote the MOE last week saying:
The Airpark is not in compliance with the regulations made pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act, specifically O.Reg. 153/04 and O.Reg. 347. I have attached the report for your immediate review. From the information we have, you will note they are not in compliance with your regulations. We insist that you take immediate steps to order them into compliance including issuing an immediate ‘stop work order’ on existing filling activities. Further, out of an abundance of caution, for the protection of the health of the residents, we would expect the MOE to exercise its authority to order testing on the groundwater and wells in the vicinity of the park, and any other testing you deem appropriate to provide answers to other potential off-site impacts.
Can you confirm if you have a record of ‘Site Conditions’ in your registry for this location?
We will be presenting the results to our Council Monday evening here at City Hall at 6:30pm. Can I ask that your staff be in attendance to answer questions on your actions as this will also help with the communications to the residents who will want to hear how you intend to force the owner into compliance and manage the potential safety issues arising from what amounts to operating an unlicensed landfill site.
The MOE people were not able to attend the city council meeting; they had had less than a full working day to review the documents and get themselves up to speed.
 The Ministry of environment has to decide if this kind of landfill dumping is permitted under the provinces rules. They also have to decide if the consultants the city hired to advise on what was done by the Air Park have got the story right. The Air Park, understandably, does not agree with the city’s consultant. The MOE decided they would talk to the Air Park people before taking a position. See that as bureaucratic butt covering; what will matter is the position the MOE takes after meeting with the Air Park people.
The MOE has advised the city that they will meet with Burlington General Manager Scott Stewart and brief him on their conclusions sometime next week.
The decision to cancel the meeting is a bit of a bump for the city and a major concern for the residents of north Burlington. Should everyone be alarmed? Not alarmed but concerned.
The Air Park has a lot riding on the outcome of this matter; if they lose, they lose everything, so expect them to use every legal tool available to them. They have advised the city that they intend to take legal action of their own. See that as legal posturing.
What has to be kept in mind is that the problems with these small airport operations are not limited to Burlington – these situations exist across the country which means every municipality with a small airport wants to be at the table. Mayor Goldring is working closely with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities who do the lobbying with the federal government. Burlington’s outside legal counsel has a very strong understanding and a firm grip on how things work at the federal level.
 Newly minted federal Minister of Transportation Lisa Raitt, who is the MP for north Burlington thinks the air park is “not a bad piece of infrastructure” but she wants it to operate within a “social license”. The real concern is a comment made by Halton’s MP, Lisa Raitt, bow the Minister of Transportation who is reported to have said that she realizes small air parks are an issue across the country and that there is some confusion over the rules that apply. Of concern is the comment that the airpark is “not a bad piece of infrastructure but it has to be operated within a social license.”
Is the Minster’s view of a social license similar to that of the residents in north Burlington?
Raitt plans to open lines of communication with the residents, the city and the Air Park people. “it is important” said the Minister “to bring everyone together and to work with each other.”
It is going to be a long hot summer. The city is on top of what is turning out to be a horse that is bucking like crazy. Vince Rossi will not be taken out easily.
 By Staff
BURLINGTON, ON. July 18, 2013. While not hazardous, the water in Lake Ontario at the Burlington area beaches is described as “not safe to swim in”.
During the summer months, the Health Department monitors water quality at selected recreational beaches in Halton. Beaches are selected for testing based on their use for swimming and other water sports. Monitoring is done once a week or more if necessary. A pilot project is being undertaken at Beachway Park for the 2013 beach sampling season to examine potential factors influencing water quality. Therefore, Beachway Park will be sampled more frequently.
- A beach is considered unsafe to swim if water tests show high amounts of E. coli bacteria.
- Conditions posted are based on samples taken from the previous day.
 By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON. July 17, 2013. There are usually three of us at the Media table in city council chambers and from time to time we run something by each other – to clarify or to ask what the heck’s going on.
 Councillor Jack Dennison with his election winning smile. One of those asides took place at the city council meeting on Monday when Ward 4 Councillor Jack Dennison declared an interest in a report that was going to be accepted by city council.
What had my colleague Joan Little and I wondering was: How does a Council member declare a conflict of interest on a report that was giving council members a quarterly litigation update in a closed session of Council? Can you do that we wondered. We agreed to think about that and decide what if anything we wanted to do.
In the world of journalism one gets phone calls – some are to complain, some are to advance an interest, and some are to pass on information.
 Councillor Jack Dennison property on Lakeshore Road for which he is seeking permission to sever into two lots. Permission to do was denied by the city’s Committee of Adjustment and it now being appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. Is the city going to have to hire outside legal council to fight a case where the council member is choosing not to adhere to the Official Plan? A caller earlier in the day wanted to know why were weren’t writing about the city’s plan to hire outside legal counsel for an upcoming Ontario Municipal Board hearing on an appeal Dennison has filed over a Committee of Adjustment decision not to grant him the severance he was seeking to create two lots out of the one he owns on Lakeshore Road.
Now the picture was clearer. In the Litigation Update, and all we are doing here is speculating because the content of that document is not public, some mention would have been made about the forthcoming Dennison OMB appeal. The office of the city solicitor, Nancy Shea Nicol, will either have to arrange for a staff lawyer to represent the city or arrange to hire outside council.
Our caller wondered how a member of council can have taxpayer funds used to defend the decision made by the city’s Committee of Adjustment. Isn’t the council member in place to ensure that the rules in place are upheld?
Little and I then talked about what took place and looked carefully at the province’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, where the rules are clearly set out. A person who has a conflict of interest “shall, prior to any consideration of the matter at the meeting, disclose the interest and the general nature thereof;”
Dennison did disclose his conflict but that is all he did – he said nothing of the “general nature thereof”. Many in the community believe that Dennison has put the city solicitor in an awkward situation where she has to use part of her budget to hire outside counsel to defend the decision made at Committee of Adjustment.
We have a concern with this on several levels. At some point the citizens of the city and specifically those in Ward 4 are going to want some clarity on just what their council member is doing with the tax money they send to the city each year. Is it being used to hire lawyers to fight hearings at tribunals brought about by a Council member who does not want to adhere to the city’s official plan? He voted for that Official Plan.
Do the citizens of Ward 4 have to wait until the next election before the dump their council member?
How does a Council member do what Dennison did without so much as a peep publicly from any other member of Council? Is there no limit to the confidentiality of closed hearings? At a minimum any Council member could have made a remark and expressed at least some concern over the way certain conflict of interest matters were being handled.
Why didn’t the Clerk ask Dennison to elaborate on why he was declaring a conflict of interest? The Clerk is there to ensure that the city’s procedural bylaw is followed: would that not extend to how someone slips around the edges of provincial legislation?
There are processes that can be followed to put a stop to this kind of nonsense.
The decent thing to do would be for Dennison to resign but that would call for a by-election which would probably cost the city more than hiring a lawyer to defend the Committee of Adjustment hearing.
This is a mess.
Premier Kathleen Wynne says the law used to keep Ontario’s mayors and other municipal politicians in line needs work. Former justice Douglas Cunningham, who led an inquiry into conflict allegations against Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion, recommended alternative penalty options such as a 120-day suspension or formal apology. Suspending Dennison for 120 would suit the people of Ward 4 just fine.
 By Staff
BURLINGTON, ON. July 17, 2013 It wasn’t quite what a Mississauga motorcycle driver expected Monday evening when he buzzed through a 60 mph zone and got clocked at 128 km/h.
At that speed the HRPS officer doing radar enforcement in the area of Walkers Line and New Street wasn’t able to catch the offender but was able to make further observations, including the motorcycle accelerating to a speed of 155 km/h as it travelled northbound on Walkers Line from New Street and out of the officer’s sight. This portion of roadway is a posted 50 km/h zone.
The officer methodically travelled up Walkers Line and near Harvester Road discovered the motorcycle and driver attempting to hide between two parked cars.
A 28-year-old Mississauga man faces several charges including: Racing, Speeding and Using Plates Not Authorized. He is to appear in Burlington Court on August 20, 2013.
A little patience and a slow steady search for the offender should keep him on public transit for a spell.
 By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON. July 16, 2013. To say the report was damaging would be putting it mildly. It was the disaster too many people thought was probable and now they had the evidence of some of the sloppiest record keeping on just what was in the landfill dumped on air park property during the past five years.
Vanessa Warren, the founder of the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition who summed it up with some very tough language.
“The Burlington Airpark has lost their right-to-operate. Every time I have delegated to council, the RBGC (Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition) has asked that the Airpark fill site be immediately shut down – now. WHAT What else is in the ground, and where? How safe is our drinking water? How and when will you and the appropriate provincial bodies close the site, test the soils and groundwater’s, and re mediate the damage? How will we re-claim the green in our greenbelt?”
 I have also repeatedly asked “when does an airpark become a dump” – and now we know the answer: according to Terrapex, the consulting firm hired by the city, the airpark is “an unlicensed waste disposal site” – it doesn’t get much more succinct than that.”
Warren knew that “It’s about to be summer break, and this afternoon the tail gates were still banging at the airpark. The neighbours inform me that they understand Mr. Rossi is now selling tickets at $85.00 a truckload, and there are concerns he is accepting flood waste sludge from the City of Toronto.
“We are extremely concerned for the neighbours of this Airpark; Rossi, and King Paving and Aecon have dumped contaminated waste on our Greenbelt protected countryside, and potentially contaminated our prime agricultural soils, our streams, our groundwater, and our drinking water wells.”
“What else is in the ground, and where? How safe is our drinking water? How and when will you and the appropriate provincial bodies close the site, test the soils and groundwater’s, and re mediate the damage? How will we re-claim the green in our greenbelt?”
“We can’t talk about expansion, we can’t talk about economic benefits, we can’t talk about Cessna’s or jets – all we can talk about now is that the airpark is a dump in the middle of our protected countryside, and now, its everyone’s problem.
 Warren thanked the city and added that,” regardless of how damming and horrifying this report is, the City, and its wonderful staff, deserve a huge amount of credit for the way in which it has aggressively faced the airpark issue since our very first meeting in May. This is a devastating report, and it is what we all feared, but it is so much better out in the light of day than buried under hundreds of cubic metres of waste.
“This toxic waste disposal site and adjoining lands and streams must be decontaminated. Neighbouring wells must be immediately tested. The damages done to the environment, the lands, the waters, the neighbours must be corrected, and properly and fairly compensated.”
Warren thanked the city for the work it has done to date, now, she said your job is to keep communicating.
During a presentation to city council Scott Stewart laid out the agenda. He meets Today or on Wednesday with Ontario Ministry of the Environment staff to hear their comments on a report they were given Friday of last week. Stewart and the legal counsel the city has hired meet with the Air Park people on Thursday.
The air park, now defined as a dump in a report given to the city last week, will either be closed by the end of the week or the city will be in front of a judge asking that it be shut down.
Somehow however one wonders if it is going to be that easy.
 By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON. July 15, 2013. The report that tells city hall just how bad the fill that has been dumped on Air Park lands has been leaked. It is not a pretty picture. Representatives from the Rural Burlington Green Coalition are both sick to their stomachs and dancing for joy because now there is, they believe, more than enough evid ence to shut the site down and begin the process of removing the landfill.
The Terrapex Environmental was hired by the city to provide an opinion of fill quality within the framework of applicable federal and provincial regulations. Approximately 500,000 cubic meters of fill has come to the Airport between 2008 and present.
Terrapex has taken the position that because the federal Aeronautics Act “is silent on matters of fill placement at airport sites” and further that if a site is “not owned by the federal government, regulatory evaluations automatically default to the applicable provincial regulations, and in some cases to applicable municipal regulations.”
Up until now Burlington Executive Air Park has taken the position that their project comes under federal regulation and they don’t have to comply with municipal, Regional or provincial regulations.
Terrapex says that Ontario Regulations made under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act (EPA), as well as regulations governing waste management, both apply. These regulations govern movement of waste from shipping sites and transportation of waste on Ontario roadways . Contaminated soil is considered a solid non-hazardous waste.
Should this prove to be the case both the Air Park organization and King Paving become liable under the regulations.
 Terrapex analyzed 56 documents (shipping sites) covering 323 samples (2 indicated material that was rejected; 2 provided no chemical data) thus 52 reports had data to be reviewed; the majority from 2010 and 2011. The Terrapex report suggests “either much of the fill was not tested or all of the data was not available or provided.”
The provincial regulations require that chemical analysis of soils to be received is one sample per 160 cubic metres for first 5000 cubic meters and one sample per 300 thereafter. To comply with these regulations 1700 samples would have been needed for the Airport. The sum of samples was 52 reports covering 323 samples. Thus, Terrapex concluded “the sampling frequency was inadequate.”
Only one of the 52 reports provided any rationale for expected contaminants of concerns at the shipping site, therefore Terrapex cannot conclude that appropriate analyses were completed at the remaining 51 shipping sites. Thus the adequacy of the sampling programs to determine potential contamination “cannot be assured.”
The report differentiates between Table 1 data and Table 2 data. The difference is: Table 1: Full Depth Background Site Condition Standards. (Everything about the site)
Table 2: Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Potable Ground Water Condition.
Terrapex explains that only materials meeting Table 1 Site Condition Standards are appropriate for the use of fill at the site. Only 134 samples (41%) from 13 of 52 sites met the Table 1 Site Condition Standards (thus, by projection, at best 200,000 or 500,000 cubic meters meets the standard). 17 of the 39 sites yielded failing samples, and “indicated exceedences of Table 1 standards for parameters such as petroleum hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and/or metals such as cadmium, lead, antimony and zinc.”
The report has the Air Park owner screening results to ensure fill met Table 2 standards. Only 244 of 323 samples met Table 2. Halton Region has said Table 2 standards “are not appropriate for the site due to the presence of environmentally sensitive sites proximate to the Airport lands.” 
What does all this technical language mean? If the report is valid, and there is no reason to believe it is anything but valid, then the Air Park has been dumping what is classified as waste.
The deposit of waste at the Airport site has essentially resulted in the establishment of an unlicensed waste disposal site, which may have ramifications for not only the receiver but the various shippers and haulers of the waste.”
 John Hutter in the foreground along with Ward 6 Councillor Blair Lancaster, Carey Clarke from the city’s Engineering department and property owner Carl Cousins inspect the landfill at the edge of the Cousin’s farm property and the flooding of the farmland. The city now knows that much of the landfill is really waste. It gets worse. Over the weekend Halton Liberal candidate Indira Naidoo-Harris toured the Cousins property on Appleby Line and observed the dumping of what everyone watching said looked like sludge. Was this material from the flooding in Toronto and does anyone know what was in those trucks?
 By Staff
BURLINGTON, ON. July 15, 2013. Halton Regional Police, Burlington-3 District Strategic Support Team, arrested Christopher BAILEY- 23yrs of Burlington, after he sold cocaine to another male, Joshua CARD-23 yrs, also of Burlington.
That arrest led to police obtaining a search warrant that had police carrying out a Controlled Drugs and Substances Act search at a residence on Pear Tree Lane in the City of Burlington.
Seized, as a result of the arrests and search warrant was;
• 112 grams of Cocaine (approx. ¼ pound)
• $480.00 in cash,
• a digital scale,
• packaging material,
• and a cellular phone.
How many customers will pop up on that cell phone? Might be some knocks on doors soon.
Christopher BAILEY was charged with Trafficking a Controlled Substance (Cocaine) and Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking a Controlled Substance (Cocaine) and released on a Promise to Appear. Joshua CARD was charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance (Cocaine) and was also released on a Promise to Appear.
Both are to appear in Milton Court in August 2013.
 By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON. July 15, 2013. Liz Benneian made it pretty clear – you need a private tree bylaw that applies to everyone, and as she explained, everyone includes the developers. For it is the developers, according to Benneian, that are a very large part of the problem.
The debate in Burlington has been focused on individual rights – the “you can`t tell me what to do” point of view. What the city failed to twig to was the role developers have played in the clear cutting that was taking place.
BurlingtonGreen recently pointed us to a situation back in October of 2011 where trees taken out in the Orchard, had residents up in arms and the council member calling emergency meetings. Jeff Paikin, operator of New Horizon Homes, explained at the time that this was just the way things were done by developers. You bought up several properties, assembled the land, clear-cut the trees you didn’t want and then you took your site plan application to city hall.
The trees were gone – and never was there just the one tree cut down.
Benneian argued that that was the problem. If there were a private tree bylaw the developer would be treated just like any other citizen. There is no difference, she explained to city council, between a developer who owns a piece of property and the individual
Paikin had clear-cut century-old trees that filled the lot behind several Tydman Way properties, and caused an outcry from the Orchard community. At the time Paikin said it was all within his company’s rights as a property owner. And that was perfectly true.
 At the helm of the New Horizon team are hands-on owners Jeff Paikin, President and Joe Giacomodonato, Vice-President. Paikin is quoted as saying: “This is a routine function of the development process that we have done on every site we’ve ever owned… so it’s just a little frustrating.”
“There has been no meetings with residents in the area,” Orchard neighbour Larry Daigneault said in an e-mail sent to Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman. “We were told by our local Councillor that we would be updated regarding any new developments before anything could be done to this area.”
Paikin takes the position that since no official application has been submitted to the city regarding developing the land, New Horizon Homes did not need to alert neighbours before the clear cutting took place.
At a public meeting Paikin met with property owners “… to introduce ourselves… and show them the kind of development that we do and the kind of thoughts we had for that property.” “While that was underway, as part of the regular process, the trees were removed.”
Sharman is reported to have said: “It was just last week that the developer called me to confirm that they had acquired the last property that was critical to their project. He did not say that he was in the process of cutting the trees down.”
 Paikin was asked if there was a legal requirement to call the Councillor or neighbours and alert them they intended to cut down the trees and is reported to have responded: “Would you call the Councillor if you were cutting a tree in your backyard?” asked Paikin. “There is no requirement, it’s not contrary to any bylaw… it’s absolutely within our rights…. This is just the world as it relates to development in 2011. It’s a necessary part of the process…. I’m sure when they clear-cut the trees to build the Orchard (community) our neighbours didn’t mind at all.”
 Sharman’s reported comments back in 2011 don’t square all that well with the position he took at the Community Services Committee meeting last week where he said the problem really wasn’t clear cutting – it was intensification. People didn’t like intensification” he said, suggesting that the clear cutting is the result of the need to intensify – that is build more houses on the space we have.
Sharman chose to completely ignore his own experience in his ward. The position he took at the council committee meeting was a complete crock.
Unfortunately there isn’t anything the city can do about the intensification taking place; there is a provincial government policy that sets out the level of intensification Burlington must undergo.
City council meeting as a committee either didn’t hear what Liz Benneian was trying to tell them or they just didn’t care. Or – they didn’t really have the courage of their convictions and were not prepared to do the right thing for the city. Or perhaps the developers in this city do own city council. They certainly don’t have the Mayor or Meed Ward in their back pockets – those two did the right thing and voted to both educate the public and at the same time develop a bylaw that would prevent the needless clear cutting that is legal now and develop a reasonable bylaw that gives residents the exemptions they need to fully enjoy the property they own.
During the debate a couple of facts came out. People in the urban tree business believe a city should have about 30% tree canopy. Burlington has 27% – close. However, the rural part of the city has 24% – south of the QEW the number is 17%. Ouch!
Councillor Sharman who had direct experience with the approach developers take to clear cutting – didn’t say a word about his experience during the debate. For a guy who goes on about the facts and the need for data before making decisions Councillor Sharman failed his constituents and was less than honest with himself.
People tend to remember this sort of thing.
The issue will come up again at city council this evening – hopefully council will pull itself from the edge of the cliff they were about to go over.
 By Walter Byj, Correspondent.
BURLINGTON, ON. July 15, 2013. Burlington’s MP, Mike Wallace has decided to see Canada on a ground level and is planning on taking part in a marathon in each of Canada’s provinces. He stopped long enough in Burlington to flip some burgers at the Chamber of Commerce’s Business and Political BBQ Forum last Thursday.
In his usual folksy manner, Mike said he was not expecting a phone call from the Prime Minister to become a member of the Cabinet.
 Mike Wallace said he was not expecting a call from the Prime Minister to join the Cabinet. Smart move Mike. As a middle-aged, uni lingual male, he said he relishes his current position as a MP which allows him the time to do the most good for his constituency. When asked during the Q & A if he would turn down a cabinet post, he replied that it would be an honour to be a minister and he would accept.
He did express some dissatisfaction with the fact that the current government was not being lauded for the great job that was being done and that instead people were quibbling about minor issues. When asked to comment on what these issues were, he felt that a disproportionate amount of time was being spent on the Senator Duffy matter and not enough time on the big issues both within Canada and internationally.
Wallace lamented the fact that manufacturing jobs have disappeared not only nationally but also here in Burlington. This initiated a statement and question by Nick Bontis from McMaster who stated that Obama is pushing hard for more manufacturing in the US, but the same does not appear to be happening in Canada. Wallace agreed that the programs are not working as efficiently in Canada and efforts are being implemented to streamline the system.
 Burlington’s MP Mike Wallace takes questions during the Chamber of Commerce Business and Political BBQ Forum. Suggests that too much time is being spent on the Mike Duffy matter Wallace explained that each department in Ottawa has their own software program and that they do not speak to each. The other problem appears to be an accountability issue. He feels that as more people are accountable for the actions, they tend to delay decisions so as to “cover their butts”. Would some of this has to do with the autocratic rule of a certain Prime Minister?
Wallace felt that the Harper initiative to tighten up the housing market is about done and does not foresee any major housing crisis.
Being the co-chair of the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group, he felt that Canada was getting close to a free trade agreement. He said the same back in January of 2012, so don’t hold your breath.
As for Burlington and his constituents, the major issue seems to be dealing with the Canada Revenue Agency. He does not know why this is one of the major issues for his constituents and is not certain if this is above normal for a community.
In concluding, he re-emphasized that he wants to use the leverage he has in Ottawa to help any group or person in his riding that needs some help. “By all means” said Wallace “go through the proper channels, but permit him to use his expertise in expediting the process.”
Wallace added that he will probably be running in the next election.
 By Pepper Parr.
BURLINGTON, ON. July 15, 2013. It was going to be a quiet slipping into the summer season Council meeting – but then a couple of things changed.
Much to the surprise of many the Private Tree Bylaw went off the tracks during the Community Services Committee meeting. While the staff report didn’t satisfy anyone, there were those who felt that good debate would flush out what the issues were and that the right decision would get made. That didn’t happen – Council voted 5-2 to basically shelve the matter. So expect to see significant debate on the Private Tree Bylaw decision that will come out of the committee report.
The major item should be the announcement the city made on Saturday – that there is a report from Terrapex Environmental Ltd. That will be released at the Council meeting.
 City hall has wanted to know just what is in this landfill. A report to city council this evening is expected to reveal all. Was a smoking gun found? Terrapex was hired to review the soil test reports that were submitted by Burlington Executive Air Park. Many thought there was something lacking in both the number of reports that were made available to the city and the content of the reports. The results of the review were sent to the city Friday afternoon. In the municipal world things tend not to happen very quickly – that wasn’t the case with this one. As soon as the city had the report they decided to bring it before Council and let the public know what the city has learned.
It should prove to be an interesting report.
The rate and level of development at the Air Park facility on Appleby Line wasn’t showing up on the city’s radar set but when Vanessa Warren appeared at a city council meeting to delegate on the problem the wheels were put in motion very quickly and the city has been all over this issue. They brought in the consultants needed to get details and hired very eminent legal counsel to guide them through the process of brining a developer to heal. The speed with which the city has worked on this is very impressive.
Terrapex describe themselves on their web site as: “a dynamic and fully integrated Canadian engineering and geosciences company, providing specialized environmental consulting services. Established in 1995, Terrapex has grown to a staff of more than 50 with offices in Toronto, Burlington and Ottawa, Ontario.
“Our primary areas of expertise include: site assessment, facilities decommissioning, contaminant management, environmental regulatory compliance and management systems, air quality services and waste management. Since inception, Terrapex has completed thousands of engineering and environmental projects for a wide range of private- and public-sector clients.”
 Just what is underneath that piece of heavy equipment? Where did the landfill come from and was it properly tested?m Has the city finally got a solid grip and can now get some control over what happens at the Air Park? Being located in Burlington was a plus – these people will know a lot about the local environment; where landfill comes from who the ‘no- gooders’ are and the tricks that get used to slip around the rules and regulations.
The city, for reasons that have not been explained, is not going to release the report until it gets presented to Council. It would have been useful for north Burlington residents to know what the report has to say and also have a chance to think about what is reported and prepare some thoughts. Local people will have wanted to delegate.
Is this report the smoking gun the city needs to clamp down hard on the Air Park people? Or is it just a lot of consultant type baffle gab that fills pages to justify the invoice the consultants will send the city.
The meeting Monday evening is the last for this Council until September 3rd. It would have been very easy for the city to keep the report under wraps and let it come out when everyone is back from vacation. For this – kudos to city hall. They are actually engaging and informing their citizens. Having access to the report would have been nice. As one wag on Appleby Line put it: “there is a council member who will have been on the phone to Rossi the moment the report was in her hands.”
In emails sent to anyone the city thought would be interested city hall said: “Burlington City Council will hear a presentation on the review of the available environmental testing reports of fill materials at the Burlington Executive Airport. Copies of the report will be available at the meeting. The council meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers on the 2nd level of City Hall, 426 Brant St. Burlington.”
Should be an interesting meeting; the city certainly wants you to be there.
 By Staff.
BURLINGTON, ON – July 11th, 2013. BurlingtonGreen is dismayed to report that the majority of city council voted on July 8th to take a pass at learning more about a private tree protection by-law for our city.
At the onset of the meeting, council members clearly stated that no decision would be made until the fall because controversial issues are not dealt with during the summer when so many citizens are unable to participate and provide input. Although the Mayor stated “no decision will be made” in a news bulletin he sent out to the public on July 5th, after a few hours of delegations and discussions, Committee Council proceeded with a 5 to 2 vote that essentially “killed” the opportunity to explore options regarding a private property tree by-law for Burlington. Only Mayor Goldring supported Councillor Marianne Meed-Ward’s motion that would have kept the issue alive for a fall discussion and vote.
 Burlington Green believed the city was going to take a serious look at a Private Tree bylaw; one that would allow for plenty of exemptions and respecting individual property rights but at the same time protecting everyone from irresponsible people. That didn’t happen last Monday. Maybe next Monday – this battle isn’t over yet. The crime say the BurlingtonGreen people is that it is a battle at all. Results of the City’s recent feasibility study on the issue revealed the majority of Burlington residents believe more needs to be done by the city to protect trees and would comply with a practical by-law. BurlingtonGreen is concerned and disappointed that city staff provided a recommendation to Council to not support a private tree by-law as their understanding was that staff was to report back on the feasibility study findings only.
There is controversy on the issue in large part due to a misinformation of the facts. Residents from Oakville shared their experience and how their tree by-law is not onerous to the homeowner and does allow for the removal of trees for reasonable purposes. The by-law is supported by their Town’s Council as they recognize that a key purpose of the by-law is to prevent developers from removing property trees before they apply for a building permit. BurlingtonGreen expects that more trees will be threatened in Burlington due to increasing infill development where developers are looking to remove mature trees in order to build larger homes on existing properties.
Burlington’s Urban Forest Management Plan that was earlier endorsed by Council states that “Protecting existing trees, particularly larger specimens, prior to and during construction has been shown to be more effective in sustaining the provision of urban forest benefits than planting new trees.” “This further exemplifies what we believe to be a contradiction of what was conveyed by staff and the results that transpired on July 8 at City Hall”, said Mr. Brock.
 By Ray Rivers.
BURLINGTON, ON. July 12, 2013. Five by-elections on August 1st. Tim Hudak is betting on Mr. steady-as-he-goes, Doug Holyday, to plant the PC flag in Etobicoke-Lakeshore. Very early polls had shown Liberal candidate Peter Milczyn with a healthy margin, but that was prior to Holyday entering the race.
Five by-elections is a very gutsy roll of the dice for the new Premier Wynn. It’s mid-summer and PC supporters will be out there, as they always are, but a lot of the other voters won’t. Also, sitting governments are usually strategically disadvantaged when it comes to by-elections, since voters use these occasions to vent. And, Kathleen’s government is still reeling from the gas plant cancellations ordered by her predecessor. Nothing upsets an electorate more than thinking their government wastes their money for political expediency.
Dalton McGuinty’s boldest moves were in the environment. Ending Oak Ridges Moraine development, banning toxic lawn chemicals, creating a Green Belt for southern Ontario and phasing out dirty coal plants were highlights. The plan was to replace coal with wind and solar energy, backed-up by natural gas. Ontario would lead the country in developing renewable energy technology and creating green jobs. And the plan was in place, working and gaining momentum. Thousands of new jobs have been created and wind now produces as much electricity as coal. Then, in the face of a ‘not-in-my-backyard’ revolt in the last election, McGuinty broke with his energy plans and cancelled the half-built gas plants.
So energy will be a topic in these by-elections. Premier Wynn is slowing and moderating the energy program, but staying the course. And, she is generally supported by the NDP’s Horwath, promoting an even greater shift to renewable energy and conservation. But the PC’s Hudak doesn’t agree.
He would turn back the clock, fire up the coal plants with new vigour and wipe green power from the face of the province. And, Hudak is pretending that he can cancel the iron-clad renewable energy contracts, already in place. He’d have as much luck as McGuinty had, trying to cancel Harris’ 407 give away to that Spanish consortium.
In any case the renewable contracts amount to a tiny fraction of our energy costs – far less than the debt on the aging nuclear plants we pay for with each hydro bill. Plus, the Liberals have had to make up for the years of Harris’ neglect of our energy system. So it is little wonder that energy costs, like gasoline prices, are rising and will do so under any political party.
Hudak’s energy policy is false, half-baked and out-of-step with energy policies everywhere – pure wishful ignorance. Don’t believe me? See what the other media say. Going back is not really moving forward, especially when your only plan is burning coal again. That is not being a conservative, it’s being a contrarian. Still, not every voter pays attention to the policies of the party they end up voting for, and the PCs may win one or more of these by-elections.
 And former Etobicoke mayor Holyday may well be one of them. He is so well-known and liked that he didn’t even need to campaign in the last municipal election. And voter recognition is a big part of getting elected to anything. Some might call him on his hypocrisy, leapfrogging to a higher level of government after having so harshly condemned others (Olivia Chow), but that won’t deter those voters who keep electing him.
Doug Holyday is a true conservative cut in the moderate mold of conservatives of his generation, as opposed to those on the extreme right, like Mr. Hudak. So, in some ways he could be a moderating voice, to keep Hudak from acting like he is leading the Tea Party. Some would admire Holyday for his blind loyalty to the mayor, as his deputy, through all the troubling days and childish antics of Rob Ford. But if I lived in Etobicoke-Lakeshore, I’d want to know why.
Why did Holyday never challenge Mayor Ford on his conflict of interest – on the crack-cocaine video, and all those other issues he must have disagreed with? And what does that tell us about him and what he would do at Queens Park? Is he ethical but just afraid to speak up? Will he be his own man, represent the best interests of his constituents, or will he go-with-the-flow like the other desk thumping seals? And will he challenge Tim Hudak on energy, so his party can come to a sensible policy?
 Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat after which he decided to write and has become a political animator. Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington where he ran against Cam Jackson in 1995, the year Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution swept the province.
 By James Smith
BURLINGTON, ON. July 11, 2013. After years of talk, Burlington City council decided not to join the rest of the GTA and enact a Private Tree bylaw in favour of an education campaign. Perhaps this education campaign can start by informing the city what one can and cannot do in other cities where they employ a private tree bylaw.
Some people would have us believe that the government has no place in the backyards of the nation. This foolish notion is not how we govern ourselves, rules and standards are how we agree to operate, and in theory anyway, minimize conflicts and punish folks who act like jerks. Some people argue, that their property is theirs and nobody can tell them what to do with it, and if I want to plant 10,000 rose bushes, or kill every living thing with 2-4-D and pave it over that’s my god given right.
But there are limits, as the floods in Calgary and Toronto can attest to, there are issues that regulate such things, so you can’t build within a flood plane for example, and the Ontario Building code will protect you for the most part from folly and stupidity. Burlington’s zoning and planning rules will further limit how big a château you can plunk on your lot, and how big your driveway can be and you will need a permit to demolish that old shack.
But a mature tree that doesn’t grow overnight? No protection, we can cut em all down with not so much as a smile and a nod. Take for example the dying elm that I removed from my front yard 15 years ago, it was more than 125 years old, and removing it changed the look of our street. If I had taken the opportunity to cut the two healthy mature oaks in my front yard at the same time, I could have done so. But even if I planted 10 more trees in their place the nature of our neighbourhood and why people like to move here would have been changed for at least 75 years. We are stewards, not merely owners of these trees. As a community we need to weigh the costs and the benefits of any project that changes the nature and look of our streetscapes.
I’d like to help educate people in Burlington about what a Private Tree Bylaw can do, so let me share some of my experience working in far off and exotic lands that employ such a thing. As a designer, I often work on projects in the city of Toronto where they’ve had a private tree bylaw for some time. Toronto’s bylaw only comes into force if a tree is greater than 300mm (one foot) in diameter measured 1.4 Metres (4′-7″) above the ground. The bylaw does not forbid cutting larger or sick trees down, nor does it forbid cutting trees for construction, but protects significant trees from destruction and protects the urban forest from clear-cutting prior to site plan approval. The following are a couple of examples of how a tree bylaw works in Toronto.
- This is a photo looking west towards of the former SS Peitro Paulo Italian United Church on Ossington Avenue in Toronto you can see the large Spruce Tree in the front yard. The project’s goal was to transform this underused building into an affordable housing project. This spruce tree was one of the very few examples of a substantial tree of any species on Ossington Avenue south of Dupont Street. As the project developed, for a number of reasons, the Spruce tree was going to have to be removed. Before this tree could be removed, several things had to happen. Firstly an arbourist was hired and evaluated the tree, secondly the arbourist wrote a one page report as to the health, size and importance of this tree and third the report was submitted with a permit application to “injure or destroy a tree”.
 The transformed building, now named Monaco Place (Architect: Ellen Vera Allen Architect, Landscape Architect: Scott Torrance, Client: Saint Clair West Affordable Housing) . As you can see an inclined walkway for accessibility has replaced the large spruce tree. The permit was approved to “injure or destroy” this particular tree. Part of the permit process was to submit a landscape plan that called for additional tree plantings to make up for the loss of the Spruce tree. Some of the replacement planted trees can be seen to the left of the walkway, and in the foreground on the left. One may also note the large asphalt parking lot has been replaced with a much smaller lot and the surface has been replaced with semi permeable pavers, retaining some storm water. While not clear, the downspouts are no longer connected to the storm sewer but to rain barrels. The front lawn has also been replaced with shrubs & perennial plants further reducing runoff.
 Another project, the Malvern Public Library (Architect: Phillip H Carter Architect, Landscape Architect: Scott Torrance, Client: Toronto Public Library ) this view looking west prior to the construction of the Youth Challenge Fund sponsored S.P.O.T. (Success Power Opportunity Teamwork) Centre Addition for young people in this priority neighbourhood in Toronto’s East End. The two spruce trees on the left, and the ash on the right were all subjects of a permit to “injure or destroy a tree” as was another Spruce tree whose shadow can be seen on the left foreground. These trees were proposed to be removed; in the case of the spruce trees for the new Malvern public square, and the ash to make way for the addition of the S.P.O.T. Centre.  The completed S.P.O.T. addition (the rounded colonnade to the right of the photo) and the new Malvern public square. As part of the application to remove the trees, a site plan agreement stipulated the one spruce tree be protected, and additional plantings were added to the project. On the right a Rain Garden was built with native species of birch and to retain storm water. The preserved spruce tree features dry stack limestone seating wall around the raised bed protecting the tree’s root system. (photo copyright David Smiley 2013)  Looking to the east at the preserved spruce tree in the Malvern public square. In addition to the dry stack planter bed and retaining walls several examples of native species of oak & maple have been planted to assist in retaining the embankment seen on the right side of the photo.
In both of these examples, permits to “injure or destroy a tree” were accepted, but in one case of a tree, permission was denied. In both of these projects, the intent of the projects was respected, the administration burden was low, and the additional cost was minor. The client’s timetable was respected, and these projects proceeded without significant delay. I would argue that having a Private Tree Bylaw actually helped to focus attention on parts of the landscaping that otherwise may have been neglected, and the result was better and more handsome projects.
 Burlington Horticultural Society President Joyce Vanderwoude, City Forester Rick Lipsitt and Jane Irwin with the plaque. Two years ago, the Allview Oak, that is thought to be more than 300 years old was preserved as an historic tree. This was a significant achievement and to the many present, and those who read about it, it was a connection to those who first founded Burlington. How many other living connections to our past do we have that we can enjoy for so many reasons? It is a pity that the many city Councillors present did not use this as a moment to educate themselves on the importance and significance of trees to Burlington. Perhaps we can educate our next council enough to see the error of this one and correct it. Otherwise, this may be one of the last of these kinds of photographs for a long, long time.
The opportunity to do something before this council slips away for the summer isn’t lost yet: Councillor Meed Ward is understood to be preparing a motion that will breathe some life into the idea. Council committee chairs continually advise the public that committees just do the talking; that the final decision is made by Council.
Get those cards and letters in – and let us at least have staff preparing a draft bylaw that sets out the exemptions that would be part of the bylaw. No one wants to take away individual rights – the “tree huggers” just want to keep as many trees as possible.
Perhaps we can educate our next council enough to see the error of this one and correct it. Otherwise, this may be one of the last of these kinds of photographs for a long, long time.
 By Staff
BURLINGTON, ON. July 10, 2013 – They are out of school, underfoot and looking for things to do. Crawford Lake is worth a visit where the past comes alive at the Conservation Area, with the annual Dig In and Discover Archaeology event! this Sunday, July 14 from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m.
 Turtle clan longhouse at Crawford Lake. The staff in the Turtle Clan Longhouse will be doing demonstrations of traditional fire starting techniques and storytelling. Visitors can explore the Iroquoian village, view fascinating videos, and make a clay pot to take home. Be sure to participate in a discovery hunt and win a great prize.
 The Turtle Clan – part of the Mohawk Nation. Take part in a simulated dig at the Crawford Lake site. Learn how and why archaeologists do what they do and find out more about fascinating artefacts and Ontario’s First Nation’s.
After visiting the village take a guided hike at 2 p.m. through Crawford Lake’s beautiful woodlands and learn more about the history of the area.
Entry to Dig In and Discover Archaeology Day is included with your regular park admission fees, Halton Parks Members only need to show their membership for admission.
Crawford Lake is located at the corner of Guelph Line and Conservation Road (formerly Steeles Avenue) 15 km north of the QEW, and 5 km south of the 401 in Milton. The pristine waters of Crawford Lake have drawn people to its shores for hundreds of years. The rare lake, with surrounding boardwalk, is nestled in lush forests atop the stunning Niagara Escarpment where visitors can watch soaring turkey vultures glide through the Nassagaweya Canyon.
You can step back in time and explore the 15th century Iroquoian Village that has been reconstructed on its original site at Crawford Lake. The spirits still sing in the longhouses where tools, animal hides and the smell of smoke let you experience the rich history of Ontario’s First Peoples.
The Crawford Lake operation is part of the Halton Regions recreation and education program.
 By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON. July 10, 2013. When asked how he felt things were going at a meeting of residents at LaSalle Pavilion who were talking about a Private Tree bylaw Mayor Rick Goldring said he didn’t feel he could go wrong; “half the people want one the other half don’t”.
 People pay a premium to live on streets like this. while most of these trees are on city property there are hundreds in back yards that are private. They add to the value of the property, the health of the community and the sheer enjoyment of live. The Council he leads didn’t see it that way and voted 5-2 to receive and file a lengthy report on what people thought about a Private Tree bylaw. City hall staff recommended doing nothing –other than educating the public. This Council had no appetite for taking on a problem that is out there – a private tree bylaw is not popular because of ignorance and misunderstanding.
 While Liz Benneian made a number of strong points during her delegation to Burlington`s city council – she could not convince them to work towards creating a Private Tree bylaw. Liz Benneian, former president of Oakvillegreen Conservation Association and the person that led that organization during the time it was advocating for the creation of a private tree bylaw in Oakville.
She was delegating to Council to talk about the Oakville experience.
“The Urban Forest” she said “faces many challenges including poor quality compacted soil; salt exposure; little natural regeneration; invasive species and pests and development.
“If we want to have a healthy urban forest and reap all the benefits that trees provide including increased property values and improved air quality, then local Councils must enact a suite of measures to protect and plant trees.”
Benneian explained that in Oakville developers would buy land and clear the lot first and then submit a site plan. It’s at the site plan stage where municipal staff has some input on what trees must be preserved. But by the time the plans went to site plan, there were no trees left on the lot.
“So this is the critical issue, that I don’t believe it has been made clear during your public consultation to date: developers, who own property, and homeowners are exactly the same under the law. There is no distinction; both are private property owners. And if there is no Private Tree Bylaw, then developers can clear all the trees off a property if they like.”
“But if there is a private tree bylaw then developers can no longer buy up land, strip it of trees and then take a site plan to a planning department.”
 Trees are a community asset maintained Benneian, and their loss affects the quality of life of the neighbourhood. And that for at least half of Burlington is the rub- far too many people have yet to buy into the argument that trees are communal. We still have people who feel that the tree is on their property and they can do whatever they want whenever they want.
“Getting a tree bylaw passed was not easy in Oakville” explained Benneian. “A small but very vocal property rights group sprang up. Their fundamental argument was that no one should have the right to tell them what they could and couldn’t do on their property. That argument is quite ridiculous. We have many laws that restrict what property owners can and can’t do: For instance, I can’t decide to have a bonfire in my backyard, I can’t dump hazardous waste on my land and I can’t tear down my old garage and rebuild it without a permit. But despite their weak argument they raised a lot of noise at the time and spread a lot of misinformation,” said Benneian.
Many of the people who spoke at Oakville’s Council said things like “we agree developers should be controlled but leave us alone” – clearly not understanding the fundamental problem that developers and private property owners were the same under the law.
Oakville looked for a way to find common ground. They formed a committee that included the most vocal anti-tree bylaw. Oakville’s Council considered the suggestions made by that committee and enacted a compromise bylaw, which Council has amended once to make it stronger and will be amending it again soon.
Benneian pointed out that vocal property rights group has simply faded away. “When the first set of amendments were made not a peep was heard from them.”
“While homeowners may cut down a tree here and there to put in a pool or expand a driveway, their impact on the urban canopy is minimal. As your surveys suggest, individual homeowners are not a significant problem in tree loss. But developers are. So the trick is creating a Private Tree Bylaw that won’t unduly infringe on homeowners while it will stop developers from clear-cutting.”
Benneian added that “just because it’s tricky, doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Your telephone survey demonstrates that your citizens understood that – 90% suggesting various exceptions to the bylaw that would allow for tree removal in certain cases. It’s important to note that only 10% of respondents said they would not be in favour of a private tree bylaw despite exemptions.
Burlington is in much the same situation as Oakville, all the big Greenfield developments are complete or fully planned. Now that we are at build out, development will come through infill and this is where the challenge to protect our urban tree canopy in our most established and beautiful areas becomes critical. These are also the areas with the largest and oldest trees that are providing the most community benefits. Their loss will be greatly felt by your entire community.
After all the public consultation, City of Burlington staff are not recommending a private tree bylaw at this time. Instead, the focus of staff efforts should be on public education and awareness.
This was hard for Benneian to understand as Burlington’s current and future tree loss (aside from the ravages of Emerald Ash Borer) will mostly be due to infill development. She explained that when you are trying to deal with a problem, you must choose the right tool set.”
To chuckles throughout the Council chamber Benneian declared: “Developers are immune to “education and awareness”. The best, and I would add the ONLY effective tool to prevent clear-cutting by developers, is a bylaw.”
Benneian used the survey the city had done and pointed out that a majority of Burlington’s citizens clearly place City Council as the agency responsible for protecting the community’s trees. In fact, in that survey, more residents choose “Pass Bylaws to protect trees” than any other response at 22%. “Maintain and protect trees” followed at 21% and “Oversee development to ensure trees are protected” came in third at 20%. If you add in “Enforce bylaws/issue fines” (8%), “protect older mature trees” (4%), “Prevent clear-cutting (3%), “Require a permit for tree cutting (3%); “Slow/halt development” (2%) then 83% of respondents were clear that development was the problem and a bylaw/permit system was needed.
“Public awareness and education is all well and good, but it will not stop developers from cutting down trees and it will only have limited success with homeowners”, said Benneian.
Burlington has decided to go the “education and awareness route. Benneian pointed out just how ineffective this approach has been in the past. “Despite a decade of education on the life-saving benefits of wearing seatbelts it wasn’t until legislation was introduced in 1989 that seatbelt use climbed in the U.S. from 21% to 70%.”
 If these were all private trees and they were all cut down – it would certainly be a different looking place to live – and the value of the houses would plummet. “Results of your own online survey” Benneian pointed out, “suggest that education alone isn’t effective at impacting people’s tree-related behaviour. In your online survey you asked people who had ash trees on their property if they had treated them for emerald ash borer, and despite all the publicity to date, 76% said no.
The one outstanding feature of the information gathered during your public consultation”, explained Benneian, “is the citizens of Burlington, like the citizens of Oakville, appreciate the value of their urban forest.”
The task now is to find a way to get this issue back on the agenda in Burlington. That 5-2 vote to receive and file meant it is off the table.
 By Pepper Parr
During an interview with Ward 6 Councillor Blair Lancaster on the afternoon of July 2nd, before city council met to be introduced to the legal counsel the city had hired to advise them as to the process they should follow in their attempts to resolve the differences with Air Park owner Vince Rossi, Ms Lancaster said she first heard of residents’ concerns on March 15th, 2013
At that time we asked Lancaster why she had not worked with her constituents on the problems they were having and she replied: I didn’t hear about the problem from anyone until March 15th, 2013.
 Ward 6 Councillor Blair Lancaster inspecting property on Appleby Line July 2nd, flooded by drainage from the Air Park next door. Lancaster said she learned of the problem for the first time on March 15th Carl Cousins said he sent Lancaster an e-mail saying he could not get on his field last summer (2012) to do the hay. He can’t remember exactly, but thinks it had to have been late summer or early fall of last year. This would have been well before the March 15th date Lancaster was so emphatic about.
Vanessa Warren is at this point not immediately impacted by what is being done at the airport however if Vince Rossi proceeds with the plans he tells people about there will be a runway ending about 100 yards from a riding ring she is building at her Capstone Farm on Bell School Line.
Ms Warren, like most of the other people directly involved in this issue no longer trust their Ward Councillor and have been very free with documentation they believe refutes much of what Lancaster says publicly.
 The community feels that Ms Lancaster has chosen to side wit the commercial interests rather than those she was elected to serve and, further that she feels she can be re-elected without the support of the people north of the Dundas/Hwy 407 line that delineates north Burlington.
Ms Warren knew that she needed to alert her community and keep them informed as to what was being done and at the same time delegate to everyone that would listen.
Set out below is some of the correspondence between residents involved in the dispute with what is being done at the Air Park and Ward 6 Councillor Blair Lancaster.
The following is the first response Ms Warren had from Ms Lancaster – the date is as full month and a half earlier than Ms Lancaster stated in her July 2nd interview.
The email set out here allows one to follow the thread and the communication between a Council member and a constituent on what is currently the biggest problem that city faces in terms of its development future.
From: Lancaster, Blair [mailto:Blair.Lancaster@burlington.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 5:41 PM
To: ‘info@ridetheranch.com’; Harris, Michelle
Subject: Re: Burlington Airpark Runway Extension (and current application to sever 5431 Appleby)
Thanks for your comments Vanessa we will keep you informed so that you will have an opportunity to give you voice to the appropriate authority along the way. Blair
From: Vanessa & Cary @ The Ranch [mailto:info@ridetheranch.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 05:18 PM
To: Lancaster, Blair
Cc: info@burlingtonairpark.com <info@burlingtonairpark.com>; Krushelnicki, Bruce
Subject: Burlington Airpark Runway Extension (and current application to sever 5431 Appleby)
Hello Blair.
Further to my voicemail, I wanted to electronically introduce myself in lieu of meeting you in person at the Burlington Airpark Open House on February 13th (unfortunately, my husband and I had previously scheduled our one week a year off-farm J).
We are the owners (of 3 years) of Capstone farm, at 5556 Bell School Line. My husband is a pilot (and, in fact, just sold his plane), so we are no enemies of the airpark, but our farm property is separated from the airpark by a small buffer; the narrow strip of acreage at 5431 Appleby Line.
 We just received notice in the mail of the Open House, and as we will be out of the country, I called and spoke with Tim Crawford about the “exciting changes� mentioned in the notice. I was alarmed to hear that the owner of the Airpark, Vince Rossi, has entered into an agreement with the owner of 5431 Appleby Line, and plans to sever the property and extend the Runway by 1000 feet – basically as close to our property line as Federal Aeronautical setbacks allow.
You can imagine how devastated we were to hear this news. We have spent a lifetime as tenant farmers to finally afford a farm of our own, and the last three years developing our property as an equine facility. An additional 1000 feet of runway, and the low-flying increased traffic this would attract (including jet traffic, which the airpark currently cannot accommodate), would be devastating to our developing business and our future.
I was also fortunate enough to speak briefly with Bruce Krushelnicki, Director of the Planning and Building Department, and he informed me that the allowance or disallowance of the severance was the ONLY input that the municipality would have into the Airpark’s expansion, as all future plans would be federally controlled under the Federal Aeronautics Act and the Canadian Air Regulations. That is why I am reaching out to you now, and why I will continue to follow the progress of this application very carefully.
Cary and I are reasonable people, and while I understand that all infrastructure runs into “not in my backyard� opposition, the Airpark is not a public utility and is therefore, a business just like our farm. I sincerely respect Vince Rossi’s right to run his business, a business that both my husband and I have patronized and that contributes to our community as all Burlington businesses do. However, I am also deeply committed to protecting my own farm business, and hope that the City will be carefully considering the impact of this expansion before relinquishing its one and only opportunity to control the nature of a key rural area.
I look forward to meeting you in the near future, and hope that the community is well represented on February 13th.
Best,
Vanessa Warren
From: Lancaster, Blair [mailto:Blair.Lancaster@burlington.ca]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 11:05 AM
To: ‘info@ridetheranch.com’
Subject: Re: Burlington Airpark Runway Extension (and current application to sever 5431 Appleby)
Ok thanks for the explanation
From: Vanessa & Cary @ The Ranch [mailto:info@ridetheranch.com]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 10:19 AM
To: Lancaster, Blair
Subject: Re: Burlington Airpark Runway Extension (and current application to sever 5431 Appleby)
Hello Blair, and thanks for following up.
Unfortunately, google has mis-placed our farm on it’s maps. If you check the lots on the City of Burlington’s interactive mapping system, you’ll get the correct location of 5556; 2 lots North of the Airpark on Bell School Line, directly adjacent to Marco’s property.
Our barn and riding arena are directly in the 32 flightpath. I’d be very happy to show you around the property after we return on the 14th.
Thanks again for investigating further. It is truly appreciated.
Best,
Vanessa Warren
On 2013-02-07, at 2:44 PM, “Lancaster, Blair” <Blair.Lancaster@burlington.ca> wrote:
Hello Vanessa,
I’ve taken a look at the map that depicts the airpark in relation to your property and it appears that you are about 3 km away with Britannia Road in between. Is this correct? Or is there another property that you are referring to?
https://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&sugexp=les;&gs_rn=2&gs_ri=hp&cp=33&gs_id=3k&xhr=t&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42080656,d.aWc&biw=1024&bih=621&wrapid=tljp1360265475823077&q=aerial+view+5556+bell+school+line&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x882b6507656020cf:0xecbbcf495e6d19d6,5556+Bell+School+Line,+Milton,+ON+L9T+2Y1&gl=ca&t=h&sa=X&ei=FQEUUdzjPI6WyAHYpIHwDA&sqi=2&ved=0CDYQ8gEwAA
From what I can see, the airpark’s proposal should not have change any impact on your property at 5556 Bell School Line.
I’d be happy to discuss this with you further.
Blair
From: Vanessa & Cary @ The Ranch [mailto:info@ridetheranch.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 5:18 PM
To: Lancaster, Blair
Cc: info@burlingtonairpark.com; Krushelnicki, Bruce
Subject: Burlington Airpark Runway Extension (and current application to sever 5431 Appleby)
Hello Blair.
Further to my voicemail, I wanted to electronically introduce myself in lieu of meeting you in person at the Burlington Airpark Open House on February 13th (unfortunately, my husband and I had previously scheduled our one week a year off-farm J).
We are the owners (of 3 years) of Capstone farm, at 5556 Bell School Line. My husband is a pilot (and, in fact, just sold his plane), so we are no enemies of the airpark, but our farm property is separated from the airpark by a small buffer; the narrow strip of acreage at 5431 Appleby Line.
We just received notice in the mail of the Open House, and as we will be out of the country, I called and spoke with Tim Crawford about the “exciting changes” mentioned in the notice. I was alarmed to hear that the owner of the Airpark, Vince Rossi, has entered into an agreement with the owner of 5431 Appleby Line, and plans to sever the property and extend the Runway by 1000 feet – basically as close to our property line as Federal Aeronautical setbacks allow.
You can imagine how devastated we were to hear this news. We have spent a lifetime as tenant farmers to finally afford a farm of our own, and the last three years developing our property as an equine facility. An additional 1000 feet of runway, and the low-flying increased traffic this would attract (including jet traffic, which the airpark currently cannot accommodate), would be devastating to our developing business and our future.
I was also fortunate enough to speak briefly with Bruce Krushelnicki, Director of the Planning and Building Department, and he informed me that the allowance or disallowance of the severance was the ONLY input that the municipality would have into the Airpark’s expansion, as all future plans would be federally controlled under the Federal Aeronautics Act and the Canadian Air Regulations. That is why I am reaching out to you now, and why I will continue to follow the progress of this application very carefully.
Cary and I are reasonable people, and while I understand that all infrastructure runs into “not in my backyard” opposition, the Airpark is not a public utility and is therefore, a business just like our farm. I sincerely respect Vince Rossi’s right to run his business, a business that both my husband and I have patronized and that contributes to our community as all Burlington businesses do. However, I am also deeply committed to protecting my own farm business, and hope that the City will be carefully considering the impact of this expansion before relinquishing its one and only opportunity to control the nature of a key rural area.
I look forward to meeting you in the near future, and hope that the community is well represented on February 13th.
Best,
Vanessa Warren
From: Lancaster, Blair [mailto:Blair.Lancaster@burlington.ca]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 4:49 PM
To: info@ridetheranch.com
Cc: Harris, Michelle
Subject: RE: Radisic/Rossi Consent Application and follow up to our discussion on March 14th
Hello Vanessa,
Thank you for your email invitation and information for consideration. Unfortunately there was no attachment regarding a meeting. Please note however that Monday is our Council meeting, which I must attend.
As you are aware the Airpark is regulated by the Federal Government. Since my election to municipal government, I have been in constant support of my residents in the rural area in order to facilitate communications that support good relations between various levels of government on rural issues including the Airpark.
During our conversation yesterday, you referred to the dumping of fill at the Airpark which I have no authority to regulate. However by building a good relationship with the owner, he now sees good value in cleaning the roads regularly.
There seems to be a great deal of bad blood between residents and Airpark and my role in this regard has been extremely challenging. I have been working at mending bridges which were created in my opinion because of a lack of communication and understanding.
 When the Airpark owners recently spoke to the city indicating their plans to lengthen the runway, I personally recommended they hold a public meeting on their own to communicate their intention to the residents early on. I realize you were not in attendance at this informal meet and greet. Following the resident meeting the Airpark did submit an application to the committee of adjustment. The committee of adjustment is a separate process from council. Once an application has been made, a Public meeting is held for the residents, which is the appropriate time to discuss the application. The Halton Region and Conservation Halton staff also have an opportunity to comment on the application. Due to preliminary comments by the above the Airpark has decided to withdraw the application. If the application comes back to the city, the process will include a city led Public consultation process. My role in this matter is to ensure everyone has an opportunity to address their concerns throughout the process.
Blair Lancaster
Councillor Ward Six
From: Vanessa & Cary @ The Ranch [info@ridetheranch.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:48 PM
To: Lancaster, Blair
Cc: Harris, Michelle
Subject: Radisic/Rossi Consent Application and follow up to our discussion on March 14th
Hello Blair, and thank you for your time on the phone today.
I am writing to clear up a few bits of misinformation; I have research to the contrary and don’t want incorrect information disseminated, particularly by an important local politician who will have an impact on this process (no matter how adamantly she argues otherwise).
1. A 4800 foot runway (or a 1000 foot runway extension) is not necessary for “safety”. Transport Canada sets no such limits, other than the distances published by various aircraft manufacturers. Here are the maximum distances currently needed by, for example, all of the airplanes currently operated by Burlington Airpark’s Spectrum and DB Airways:
|
|
Takeoff Distance (ft)
|
Landing Distance (ft)
|
|
Cessna 172
|
1825
|
1280
|
|
Piper Warrior
|
1650
|
1160
|
|
Piper Seneca (twin piston)
|
2180
|
1143
|
|
Piper Super Cub
|
750
|
800
|
|
Piper Cheiftain (twin piston)
|
2780
|
1880
|
As you can see, the current runway length of 3800 feet is more than adequate for safe use by the aircraft that currently populate the airpark.
Conversely, the light and medium body jets that currently use Buttonville and Toronto Island Airport’s 4000ft runways need the following distances:
|
|
|
Takeoff Distance (ft)
|
Landing Distance (ft)
|
|
Porter Airlines:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bombardier Q400
|
4600
|
4221
|
|
Bottonville (common Jet traffic):
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cessna Citation
|
3080
|
2465
|
|
|
Beechjet 400A
|
3950
|
2730
|
|
|
Learjet 40
|
4330
|
2324
|
I hope that this data will convince you that “Runway Safety” is NOT the incentive behind the runway expansion, and that the ability to expand the airpark’s capability to handle jet traffic is the obvious motivator.
2. I am concerned by your assertion that this is not an airpark expansion. You proposed during our phone conversation that this “non-expansion” would not encourage increased air traffic and would contain “no buildings”… but also a one story lounge?!?! It is deeply concerning to me that an elected official who is supposed to represent all her constituents, and who purports to not have an opinion as to the merits of this expansion, should, at the same time, engage in this type of political doublespeak.
I am curious what a business-person’s motivation for runway extension would be if not for increased traffic and the subsequent increased revenue generation from landing and hangar fees, fuel sales etc.? Surely it is recklessly naïve to assume that we can maintain the relative harmony of a small recreational airpark in a residential and farming community with a jet-sized runway.
3. I do not think for one moment that Mr. Rossi will extend the airpark’s runway and build hangers etc. (or a lounge) on leased property, nor do I think he will opt to purchase the entire Radisic property as you suggest. Of course, these are always possibilities – as is the possibility that this might all “just all go away” – but I do not think those possibilities justify inaction now.
We know from Mr. Rossi’s long history that increased land = increased fill operations = increased income = increased land and development, and we have a rural heritage to protect. I’m certain that all of your constituents would feel a strong pull towards a councilor that is willing to fight for maintaining Burlington’s green spaces and agricultural inheritance.
 Therefore, I would like to invite you to our resident’s meeting on Monday, March 18th (I have included the details in the attached document). It would certainly prove to a large group of local residents that you are taking a reasoned and balanced approach to the issue – particularly in light of your attendance at the Airpark’s information session – and it would be a good opportunity to gain perspective on the damage this expansion (let’s call it what it is), will cause. If you are unable to meet with us on Monday, perhaps you would consent to meet with a smaller group of representatives to hear our case.
I have been involved in planning disputes to protect precious greenbelt before, and have won disputes at the OMB level in critical partnership with municipal and regional government intent on maintaining control over planning and rural lands. We have a singular opportunity to keep this land from federal control – and worse – from a steward who has repeatedly proven abusive. I know how vital political support will be in this dispute, even if informal. I also know the power of a resident’s group to create great change, particularly on a municipal level.
What a wonderful and unique opportunity to engage with your constituents…after all, Municipal elections are a mere 19 months away.
Best,
Vanessa Warren
From: Lancaster, Blair <Blair.Lancaster@burlington.ca>
Date: Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:10 PM
Subject: FW: Burlington Airpark Information
To: Burlington Airpark Residents Association <burlingtonairparkresidents@gmail.com>
Dear Vanessa,
Please find attached a response received from Lisa Raitt’s office. Blair asked me to share this with you.
From: lisa.raitt.c1b@parl.gc.ca [mailto:lisa.raitt.c1b@parl.gc.ca]
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 4:54 PM
To: Isada, Jackie, Subject: Aerodrome
(Ms Isada is Mayor Goldring’s chief of staff)
Dear Jackie,
Thanks again for contacting our office in regards to federal regulations on aerodromes.
The Burlington Airpark is a “registered aerodrome”, which means that it is an aerodrome where the operator has provided its aeronautical data to Transport Canada and it is published in the Canada Flight Supplement (CFS).
The federal government, through the Aeronautics Act, has sole jurisdiction over aeronautical matters, which includes aerodromes and all related buildings or equipment at aerodromes used for aviation purposes. The federal government’s exclusive mandate extends only to matters integral to aeronautics. However, the laws of other jurisdictions may still apply. Aerodrome operators need to identify and comply with all applicable legislation.
TC’s (Transport Canada) role varies depending on the type of aerodrome; certified, registered or un-registered.
This case is with respect to a registered aerodrome. Therefore, TC’s role in this expansion is to verify that the information contained in the Aeronautical Information Service (AIS) related to this aerodrome is updated, which is done after the expansion takes place. If the runway expansion raises safety issues, then TC would get involved.
Given it is not a certified aerodrome, there is no certification involved in expanding this aerodrome.
Transport Canada encourages aerodrome operators to be aware of other jurisdictions, which might include other federal or provincial legislation or municipal by-laws, where the elements in question are not integral to the operation of the aerodrome. The question of the application of environmental laws however, is not a question that Transport Canada can determine.
Burlington Airport/Airpark is neither owned nor operated by Transport Canada. As stated, our jurisdiction is only related to aeronautical matters (safety regulations etc.) Consequently, we have no information on soil contamination at the Burlington Airport/Airpark.
Any concerns regarding soil contamination due to drainage into a local creek would be the concern of environmental regulatory agencies. In this case, the Ontario Ministry of Environment would likely be the responsible agency. Their public information number is 416-325-4000.
Additional contact information can be found at: https://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/main/contacts/index.htm
Once again, thank you for contacting our office. Should you have any further questions, comments or suggestions in the future please do not hesitate in contacting us.
Best Regards,
From: Lancaster, Blair <Blair.Lancaster@burlington.ca>
Date: Fri, May 24, 2013 at 3:27 PM
Subject: RE: Regarding some of your comments and questions at Council, May 21st
To: ruralburlingtongreenbelt <ruralburlingtongreenbelt@gmail.com>
Vanessa,
Thank you for sharing your perspective on how you understood my comments at the meeting. Please know that I am listening to you intently and supporting you in every way that I am able. My lens is quite broad and must take into consideration all aspects of our community.
The Staff Direction’s that I have brought to Council were a beginning, for me they were away to start a conversation between the residents, The Airpark and The City. In my view neither the City nor the Region was willing to participate in any type of discussion. Being told over and over again “It’s not our jurisdiction” was very frustrating. The first staff direction was not perfect in my opinion but I agreed to modify it in order to get it passed. One cannot expect to climb a mountain the first time out.
It is imperative as we move through this process that we are honest with each other and that everyone has an understanding of all the facts. Please know that I am very appreciative of your perspective, the questions you have raised, have caused the City to take a second look at the situation and that is why we are here today.
I must inform you that Jets have been a part of the business of the Airpark for many years. The fact that residents do not know they are there is a testament to how quiet they are. According to our files, noise complaints have always been directed at the Recreational portion of the facility, the Flight School.
Please understand I must now refrain from comments regarding the on-going legal matters until they are resolved. Be assured our legal team is actively pursuing legal action at this time.
Blair
From: Lancaster, Blair <Blair.Lancaster@burlington.ca>
Date: Tue, May 7, 2013 at 3:14 PM
Subject: response to your questions
To: Vanessa Warren <burlingtonairparkresidents@gmail.com>
Vanessa,
I am responding to the following questions from your recent email.
In moving forward, and as mentioned yesterday, we would like to formally request an addition to the agenda for the May 27th Development and Infrastructure Committee. We would like to bring forward a proposal for changes to the current site alteration and fill by-law (6-2003) using the Township of Scugog’s model by-law as a template.
Anyone may delegate at a committee meeting. You must register with the clerk. Usually the chair prefers that the delegation would be speaking to an item on the agenda. At our meeting, the concept of a staff report put forth for discussion at a future Committee meeting was discussed. It is not possible to get a report on the May 27 D&I agenda. In my view you have made your point at the city and have had positive results. My suggestion would be that you delegate to the Region and ask them to participate in the discussion.
Secondly, we request that the City contact the Ministry of the Environment regarding testing fill that has already been dumped on airpark property. The photographs that I provided yesterday clearly show that refuse/construction waste has been dumped on this land, and we don’t see a path forward that does not involve independent testing of that unregulated, and possibly polluted fill. Surely, we cannot proceed to build any kind of future foundation at the airpark, figuratively or literally, until we know that ground we stand on is clean
At the meeting the City made it clear that it would be in your best interest to make a citizen complaint to the Ministry of the Environment. The City has asked the Airpark to provide their soil testing reports. The Airpark owner has indicated that soil testing information is available for some of the existing fill, and he will provide this to City staff. Soil testing information would also be provided for new fill being brought to the site as part of the site alteration permit process, which we are applying on a go-forward basis.
Lastly, we would like to request that City Council take an official position on the Burlington Airpark and its expansion plans vis-a-vis it’s own official plan for rural Burlington and the vision outlined at the City’s Rural Summit. We would ultimately request, just as it has recently done regarding the Niagara to GTA highway, and on Enbridge Line 9, that this official position be stated, in writing, to all levels of federal and provincial governments. Again, we are happy to delegate wherever needed to see this achieved.
An analysis of the airpark could be done as part of a staff direction and subsequent report resulting from any discussion at Committee, including the hiring of an independent aviation consultant to inform and provide direction to this process. The goal or aim of this analysis would have to be clearly articulated. Grouping the airpark with the OP review could mean a longer time horizon, since the OP will not be presented to Council in its entirety for some time. Ultimately the OP does not control aeronautics and it may not be the appropriate mechanism to state a position on the airpark. However, the OP could be used to also look at land use around the airpark as well. In addition, any staff report and council resolution on such a report could be forwarded to various levels of government as part of process of the City outlining its formal position on the airpark. Please note also that the city has informed the Airpark that no further dumping can occur until a permit is issued. This includes previously issued tickets.
Blair
From: Lancaster, Blair <Blair.Lancaster@burlington.ca>
Date: Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:06 PM – Subject: Staff Direction
To: Vanessa Warren <burlingtonairparkresidents@gmail.com>
Vanessa, FYI, I was successful in this staff direction regarding the Airpark. Link to the Council report is provided.
https://cms.burlington.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=20580
CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES:
Committee of the Whole meeting of February 27, 2012
DIRECTION TO REVIEW NEXT STEPS FOR BURLINGTON AIRPARK Direct the Director of Planning and Building and Director of Transportation to work with relevant agencies to review the status, role and future direction of the Burlington Airpark in relation to the City’s growth and economic prosperity in the context of both the Official Plan Review and the next review of the Transportation Master Plan, and propose appropriate City policy with respect to the long term future of the Airpark. (Councillor Lancaster) (SD-8-12)
From: Lancaster, Blair <Blair.Lancaster@burlington.ca>
Date: Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:03 PM
Subject: Staff Direction – AirPark.docx
To: Vanessa Warren <burlingtonairparkresidents@gmail.com>
Vanessa,
I have been in meetings but thought you would be interested in this. Over a year ago I tried to bring this staff direction to the Region. I thought it would bring some attention to the Airpark so that the Region would have to at least pay attention to what was going on there. I was not successful. This is for your information.
Blair
 Fill from the Air Park tumbles down a slope and rests against the property line fence of the Cousin’s farm on Appleby Line. Water run off has flooded parts of the farm.  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. Many thought the overnight parking of the equipment overnight was intimidating From: Lancaster, Blair <Blair.Lancaster@burlington.ca>
Date: Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: Our Thanks & Moving Forward
To: “burlingtonairparkresidents@gmail.com” <burlingtonairparkresidents@gmail.com>
Thanks Vanessa I am away from the office today and will respond to all your comments next week. Since our meeting I have had lots of discussion with staff and have informed the Airpark of what is to come and everyone is cooperating. I believe the site plan alteration letter is going out today. Looking forward to more great results.
Blair
On July 4th , we received the following from Vanessa Warren:
” Following emails in February and March (i just forwarded from my business email), and many many phone calls in April requesting and then demanding a meeting with senior members from planning, engineering and legal (I wanted to press the Scugog issue, but kept getting told by staff that Blair was my access point), the newly fledged RBGC met with Blair and staff on May 1st.
Following that, communication has been scant. She generally does not reply to my emails.”
It is not a pretty picture.
 By Staff
BURLINGTON, ON. July 9, 2013. Despite some very strong arguments Burlington’s city council was just not ready to approve a by law that would regulate what a person could do with trees on their private property.
Data be damned, the council members voted 2 for 5 against which meant that case was lost.
Some in the room were stunned; Burlington Green can’t believe this happened to them but the sentiment just wasn’t in the hearts of those who were making the decision.
The 2 for were Mayor Goldring who wasn’t ready for an actual bylaw but wanted staff to begin drafting something. He was joined by Councillor Meed Ward – a pairing we are seeing more often.
More details on the why and the different arguments for and against a private tree bylaw in a future story. Burlington does have an issue that at some point they are going to have to face. The city has a tree canopy that is significantly below what it needs to be if the shade canopy we now have is going to be maintained.
 By James Smith.
BURLINGTON, ON. July 8, 2013.
James Smith usually goes on about transit or waxes eloquently about the Freeman Station which he is in the process of saving. Over the weekend he apparently stumbled across a city staff report about trees and – well he kind of lost it.
Guelph has one.
So does Oakville.
Toronto? Check.
Burlington? Nope.
I could be speaking about any number of things like reliable, well-funded Transit but in this case it looks like we won’t be getting a Private Tree Bylaw either if one reads the Private Tree By Law feasibility study about to go to council. Burlington it seems is keeping to its long and proud tradition as depicted on our Coat of Arms
 This tree canopy on Belvinia in the Roseland community is a large part of what the older part of the city is all about. Beautifully shaded streets with trees that add value to every house on the street. Most of these trees are on city owned property. To be fair, council has started, if it’s not too much of a bother, the process of maybe, possibly, sometime looking at a private Tree bylaw. Rather than ask staff to craft a tree by-law Council asked for a feasibility study, and in May they told City Staff “no recommendations”, instead we get “options”. The report spills a lot of ink on background, you know, like why trees are important, applicable statues, methodology, numbers of trees cut down every year by Arborists, (about 1,800) and the results of surveys and consultation. Oh, we’ve been consulted, we’ve been telephoned and online surveyed, research firms hired, and public meetings held. City staff tell us they have 71,571 “Touch Points” (- frankly I don’t like the sound of that term at all). 71,571 sounds like a big number until you read that 68,000 of these “Touch Points” come from the City’s version of Pravda- AKA- City Talk- the thing that only wonks like me, & high school civics students (reluctantly) read.
 Did I mention consultants? Burlington LOVES her consultants, Forum Research provided 31 pages of survey data that supports the community’s view that Trees are important!! Fifty Nine percent suggested more needs to be done to protect trees. A one page spread sheet and four paragraphs are included in City Staff’s portion of this feasibility study that superficially addresses what other cities do and do not do to protect trees on private property. What towns have them, number of times amended, number of annual infractions, fines, staff required, number of permits issued and fees, exemptions and a one word answer if the by law is effective.
Did I say we had meetings? Burlington city hall loves its meetings almost as much as it loves its consultants. Burlington carries on its proud tradition of meetings. Talking and meetings, give the impression that work is actually being done. One may point to all the meeting minutes, and reports and addenda produced from which a report is dutifully presented. It all looks like an issue is being tackled, decisions being formulated, and our staff resources put to good use.
Poppycock.
Here are City Staff’s Options:
Decide against implementing a Private Tree Bylaw
Direct Staff to Draft a Private Tree Bylaw
Increase Public Education and Awareness
Enhance public Participation and Involvement
Identify Partnerships with the community to Enhance Tree Planting Programs.
Delegate Responsibility for the protection of woodlots between 0.5 ha and 1.0 ha to Halton Region.
Wow, what did this cost in staff time and consultants? Furthermore, staff recommends all of these options, with the notable exception of actually crafting a tree by-law. Really. Burllingtonians, 59% of us want more tree protection, but City staff who were specifically asked not to included recommendations, opine that they don’t support a Private Tree By-Law! Out of whole cloth and with little or no back-up this statement heading appears: ” Support for a bylaw regulating trees on private property is low” In my book 59% is still pretty good, given that Don’t Support, and Don’t Know/Don’t Care are about equal.
 Every tree on this street is on private property. Every property owner has the rigght to cut down the tree on their property. If one comes down – so what? If five come down will those five people have lessened the value of the properties on the street? If they all come down – would anyone want to buy property on this street. That’s what a Private Tree Bylaw is about. So where does this statement come from? Could it be the many members of vested interests who made their way into the public meeting on the subject? Could it be the way the on-line questions were asked to give a desired result? One example: The on-line survey did not ask WOULD YOU SUPPORT A PRIVATE TREE BY-LAW but rather cunningly asked: “If the city of Burlington was considering a household tax increase to preserve and protect the urban forest, for which of the following initiatives would you like to see the funds allocated?” and seven choices were presented. Funnily enough, 47% replied they will not support a tax increase for any reason. I wonder how these folks feel about the $300,000 for taking the memorial out of Joe Brant?
 Lets look at this a little more critically, the city of Oakville have staff of exactly one person to run the tree by-law, Guelph has 4. if part of the reason staff have drawn the conclusions they have is a result of little support for taxes increased to be spent on one position, can we not find the money in existing programmes? What about permits and fines? Surely this can be a self funding office,! I would argue it could generate a surplus to fund some of the other wacky stuff city staff actually want to do. My conclusion is, for some reason, city staff don’t want the headache of an office that actually does stuff, but would rather play with Adobe Suite making marketing plans that the people of this town really don’t give a squirrel’s tail about. Otherwise why would they have devised a process designed to produce these results? Make no mistake, one just has to make it through the report and read how the on-line questions have been asked, to come to the same conclusion. It is either that or one must ask if city staff is up to the task.
After who knows how many staff hours, and work by well paid consultants, Burlington City council once again is set to live up to their tradition by abandoning anything close to a vision of what kind of city we should build. Heck, we can’t even follow good examples from other cities in the GTHA. Meanwhile mature trees are set to be cut down trees on Ghent Avenue, and through out the city.
Oh, and Burlington’s Coat of Arms? Why by now you should know that our Motto below the Shield reads: STAND BY
 By Ray Rivers
BURLINGTON, ON. July 6, 2013. We are all Albertans in this time of their crisis. Some called it a thousand-year flood but it’s enough to say it was unprecedented. And if you are looking for the blame game, there is lots to go around – building houses in a flood plain, failure to implement a flood management plan, timely reaction to weird weather and, of course, global climate change. Researchers with the US Department of Agriculture, half a decade ago, predicted the onset of extreme rainfall events for prairie grasslands. Isn’t that exactly what we just witnessed in Alberta?
By now you’d think that every informed person would understand the relationship between greenhouse gases (GHG) and climate change. According to Canada’s latest emissions inventory Alberta generates over a third of the country’s emissions, up by a half since 1990, and far more than any other province. As an aside, Ontario’s emissions have fallen over that period thanks, in part, to Dalton McGuinty’s energy plan.
Canada accounts for only a small percentage of global GHG emissions, though we are among the biggest culprits given our population. Once upon a time Canada supported the Kyoto protocol, the international treaty on emission reductions. We had committed to reduce our emissions by 6% but were failing miserably. When our emissions sky-rocketed by 19% Mr. Harper finally pulled the plug. Why make promises you have no intention of keeping?
Most of Canada’s GHG emissions come from fossil fuels and the second largest source is oil and gas production, which is spiraling upwards as Alberta develops its tar sands. According to James Hansen, one of the most credible climate change scientists on the planet, there is twice as much carbon in the tar sands as in conventional oil. It’s like burning a second barrel of oil just to get the first one.
The tar sands reserves are huge, but remote and thus barely developed, since the bitumen needs to get to a market. Building the Keystone XL pipeline to refineries in Texas would solve that problem and add a million barrels of production a day. So, Hansen is a fierce critic of the pipeline. He believes that the building the pipeline would be “game over” for the environment and has urged US President Obama not to approve it for that reason. Obama has expressed his concerns about climate change but the betting is split on whether he’ll approve it or not.
The PM, like me, was trained as an economist. However, I suspect he missed the lecture on externalities – the law of unintended consequences, a concept that goes back to Adam Smith. The toxic slag heaps, the poisoned and dying wildlife, and the warming of the planet are all unintended consequences of developing the tar sands. The profits from the tar sands go to the oil companies but the unintended consequences fall on the rest of us.
Mr. Harper has spent over a billion new dollars on the military since he came to office, yet on this topic, he turns a deaf ear and a blind eye. Back in 2010 he was warned by senior officers that “Climate change has the potential to be a global threat of unparalleled magnitude and requires early, aggressive action in order to overcome its effects.” But Stephen Harper has been a climate change denier and out of touch with this reality. And in a vulnerable northern nation, like Canada, that is scary.
Climate change is global, The consequences could happen anywhere but the stars aligned to make it Alberta this summer. Albertans are like most other Canadians and care about the risks we take with the environment and the legacy we leave our children. But Mr. Harper is a transplanted Albertan, maybe that accounts for his attitude, beliefs and prejudices. So don’t expect the PM to move proactively on an environmental issue he doesn’t believe in. Rather, Canada will have to wait for the US – for Mr. Obama’s decision on the Keystone pipeline – before it get’s worse.
 Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat after which he decided to write and has become a political animator. Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington where he ran against Cam Jackson in 1995, the year Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution swept the province.
|
|
