 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 Staff
BURLINGTON, ON. July 10, 2013. – The Burlington Bandits, will play a new double-header against the Brantford Red Sox this Saturday, July 13th. They are hoping to pull themselves a little higher in the league standings – and there is hope.
 Holders of the bottom rung of the league ladder the Bandits are not in 8th spot in an eight team league. The team has won two in a row and might be on a bit of a roll.
The double-header will start at 1:00pm. Both games will be seven (7) inning games, where the second game will commence twenty minutes after the first.
All fans in attendance are invited to stay for the second game free of charge.
Saturday’s double-header will mark the Burlington Bandits BOMBA Youth Baseball Night. All BOMBA members and any children wearing a youth baseball jersey will receive free admission and $2.00 off for family members. Get to the park early as Bandits staff will be giving away Bandits seat cushions while supplies last.
The bandits go into this double-header with a 10-4 win over Toronto; a game shortened by rain to just five innings Sunday afternoon at Dominico Field at Christie Pits.
Kyle Morton homered, had three hits and drove in four runs as the then last place Burlington Bandits mauled the Toronto Maple Leafs 10-4.
Leading 10-2 and with the skies threatening again after rain interrupted the game for 29 minutes in the third, Burlington (6-19) made a pitching change and had several trips to the mound for conferences during the inning, despite needing just three outs to make it an official game. The Leafs scored twice before the third out of the inning, a strikeout by Rob Gillis, was made in a torrential downpour, with the game immediately stopped after the out.
The close call with the weather was the only thing close about this one, as the Leafs lost for the second time to the Bandits at home, and have now allowed 58 runs in their last 32 innings at the Pits.
 Still room in the season for the Bandits to climb a little higher in the standings – to the top? Starter Jason Rubenstein went 4 2/3 innings, allowing four runs – two earned – on seven hits with one strikeout and four walks. But he helped cost himself the win when he couldn’t close out the fifth, with his two-out throwing error keeping the Leafs at bat. Matthew St. Kitts relieved him and faced just one batter – Gillis – in what was by then a driving rain, and got credit for the victory with his one strikeout.
Peter Bako and Nick Studer both had two hits and two RBI for the Bandits, who had 12 hits. Ryan Clarke also had two hits and scored twice for the winners.
Toronto starter Marek Deska was roughed up again, allowing six runs – five earned – on nine hits in just four innings, striking out two and walking four. Reliever Adam Garner allowed the final four runs – all unearned – in the fifth, as the Leafs made three costly errors and allowed eight stolen bases in the five innings.
Jon Waltenbury had a double, a walk and scored twice for the Leafs, who managed seven hits.
Earlier in the month the Bandits recorded their second back-to-back win on the road with a 5-3 win against the Barrie Baycats (16-13).
 Bandit tags a Baycat – was he out? The Bandits tied the ballgame up 1-1 in the fifth inning when Jeff MacLeod scored on a RBI single from Ryan Clarke.
Darryl Pui broke the tie in the sixth inning, sending Peter Bako home on RBI, putting Burlington up 2-1. The Baycats would then again tie up the contest 2-2 in the seventh with a sacrifice fly out by Brandon Dhue to advance Ryan Asis to score.
The Bandits would take a commanding lead in the eight with runs scored by Kyle Morton off a double by Darryl Pui while a double by Nick Studer scores Darryl Pui and a single by Jeff Macleod scores Nick Studer bringing the score to 5-2.
The Baycats would score one last time in the bottom of the eight with a run scored by Jeff Cowan off a sacrifice fly out by Kevin Atkinson to bring the final score to 5-3 after a scoreless ninth inning.
Jeff MacLeod closed things down in the ninth inning for his 1st save of the season. Jack Dennis (1-0) picked up the win with five scoreless innings.
 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.
 By Staff
BURLINGTON, ON. July 5th, 2013. The most recent report on lake water conditions from the Region doesn’t have much good news for those who want to swim.
People visiting Burlington’s Beachway Park will see water-testing equipment set up on the north beach this summer.
The City of Burlington has partnered with Environment Canada’s National Water Research Institute, Western University and the University of Waterloo on a research project to better understand how groundwater quality contributes to test results at Great Lakes beaches.
Burlington is committed “to providing beaches that people can use for swimming and other recreation to contribute to an active, healthy lifestyle,” said Chris Glenn, director of parks and recreation.
This new testing will be in addition to water-quality testing conducted by Halton Region. During the summer months, monitoring is done once a week, or more if necessary. Beachway Park will be sampled more frequently due to the pilot project.
 By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON. Jul5 5th, 2013. We know about the damage the land fill being piled up on the site of the Burlington Executive Air Park has done.
What is it all in aid of? Are they really building a bigger airport out there? And if there is going to be a bigger airport does the wider community not have some say in what takes place?
Yes, airports are regulated by the federal government – there are very good reasons for that. But methinks the Air Park people have really bent those rules and using them as skirts to hind behind.
The Air Park has never really had a business plan or at least not the kind of business plan that would keep city officials happy. There had to be some kind of a plan to keep their bankers satisfied when they got a $4.5 million mortgage but other than knowing there is a mortgage on the property not much more is known.
 This was the market Vince Rossi wanted to attract to his airport. As what has now become a city problem works its way through the various departments at city hall it is becoming clear that Rossi and whoever is advising him never did know how to approach city hall and talk up their project.
 The more of these, the better was the mission – the idea had merit but the team assembled didn’t have the smarts to pull it off – then the city found out and that may have been the begining of the end to the dream. Rossi did have one meeting with Mayor Goldring. He was intrigued but told Rossi at the time to come back with a much more detailed plan. He never came back. At the time Goldring wasn’t sure if Rossi was looking for financial support or if we he was just getting a briefing.
At the time, Goldring was still quite new to his job and may have failed in not red flagging the project and keeping a watch on it. He didn’t. His former chief of staff Frank McKeown would have had some very clear thoughts on the project assuming he sat in on the discussion the Mayor had but McKeown is no longer on staff.
Rossi was dumping landfill at that time and he just continued doing just that. And for the past number of years, since 2008 at least, Vince Rossi has been getting away with it – and it is going to take some effort to bring a halt to what he is doing and then to clean up the damage.
The “airport crowd” those people who rent hangers, own light aircraft, like to fly and follow the rules appear to be a very decent bunch of people. They are being tarred with the brush that many want to use on Mr. Rossi.
When Glenn Grenier, legal counsel for the Burlington Executive Air Park, appeared before council to state his client’s case, his objective seemed to be to scare the city by telling them what they were up against and he couldn’t seem to understand why the city didn’t read his 10 page plus letter and then just fold.
The city manager, on three different occasions, advised the Mayor to move on with the meeting and dismiss the lawyer. He has nothing for us stated Jeff Fielding – he represents the interests of his client.
When advised that he had just five minutes to delegate he told council that he would need more than five minutes – he didn’t get it.
The city knew next to nothing about what is going on out on the air field. The only source of information was what the locals can pass along and according to Blair Lancaster, ward Councillor for the north Burlington community, they weren’t telling her anything. Lancaster says she didn’t hear anything from the local people until March 5th of this year.
During the Q&A portion of the council meeting Grenier did say that the Air Park’s plans were on their web site. Councillor Lancaster commented that what she saw on the web site were not plans – “not much more than a wish list” from her point of view. Meed Ward, ever the techie. added that the web site was no longer on-line. Grenier said there were technical difficulties. He could also have said they were experiencing some air turbulence.
At the end of the council meeting the Mayor said this was serious stuff and the city would be moving quickly to get something done – even though at the time they really didn’t know what they could do.
 Both the Region and Conservation Halton bought the argument that they had no jurisdiction but Rossi appears to have kept them informed. It wasn’t until Vanessa Warren went public with a delegation to Burlington that the fat was in the fire. Above is one of the early site plans he submitted The issue would get taken up at the Regional level while the city scurried about to meet with the residents and hopefully get Vince Rossi into the room as well.
Vanessa Warren spoke to a Regional government committee and heard nice words and real, genuine concern from members of that Council.
Burlington took three weeks to determine what its strategy should be. They are in a very tricky situation and have to deal with someone who cares not a whit about the community he does business in.
In the middle of all this Rossi announces that the company doing the landfill work has a contract to dump asphalt stripped from the 407 and will be doing so all night long as well. Everyone was astounded at the news. That contract appears to have gone somewhere else.
Tim Crawford appeared before Regional Council to delegate against the decision to have the southern gate to the project closed and was mauled by a number of Regional Council members. (Every member of the Burlington city council is also a member of the Regional Council.)
Oakville Mayor Rob Burton explained to Crawford that the one thing Halton had going for it was its “livability” and they weren’t about to see that lost.
In an interview after his Regional delegation he talked about how he got involved in the air park development. He, like just about everyone involved in this project, is a pilot. He saw great potential for the air park and knew that the Kovachick family wanted to sell the property when Vic Kovachik died.
 Rossi has always had a big picture and as his plans matured he bought up the pieces of land he needed. There was always a plan – what was missing was the capacity to execute on the plan. Crawford had an idea and pulled together a meeting of some 60 pilots and pitched them on the idea of forming a group that would buy the property. Of the 60 people it turned out less than ten were prepared to write a cheque. One of the ten was Vince Rossi who at the time was just another pilot with hanger space.
He seemed to be able to raise the funds and eventually bought the property from the Kovachik family – then quickly learned that the operation was a money loser. Rossi, scrambling to find something, anything that would produce revenue, looked into storing thousands of cars on the site as part of a used car auction operation.
That deal didn’t work out.
 The helicopter training operation was going to go in the location in the lower left corner of this drawing. It would have been 75 yards from Barbara Sheldon’s front door. Given the air port is a federally regulated operation – the city’s bylaws had no impact. Then there was a potential contract to train hundreds of Chinese pilots how to fly helicopters. That contract never got signed.
Then there was going to be a cell phone tower that Rogers wanted to put up; that opportunity created huge resistance in the community and after considerable public resistance and a noisy public meeting at city hall in January of 2009 the proposal to build a 65 metre (213-foot) cell tower on a piece of the Burlington Airpark in the north end of the city was withdrawn” and the company looked for and found a different location.
Crawford talked of his meetings with the Burlington Economic Development Corporation which didn’t go very far. “We met with them but all they seemed to want to do was sell us a page of advertising in a publication they were involved in”. Crawford went on to say that he and Rossi couldn’t get any traction with the economic developers but added that they did buy a page of advertising.
Vince Rossi was able to catch the ear of Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion. News that the Buttonville airport was going to close was known by everyone and, as Crawford explains it, “the distance between Burlington and Toronto is basically the same as the distance between Buttonville and Toronto – that made a Burlington operation a natural business opportunity. And an airport in Burlington would be seen as a plus for Mississauga.
Problem with all this thinking, according to Monte Dennis, one of the original participants in the POP (People or Planes) fight that stopped the Pickering airport plans back in 1972, is that “small airports don’t make any money”; something Vince Rossi is learning. So far he has financed his operation by being paid to have landfill dumped on the site. Many think that the game is really to make money from landfill and when that comes to an end to walk away from the project. Those who know Vince Rossi will tell you that he is passionate about this project and does want to see a bigger airport built.
In a presentation document used by Burlington Executive Air Park the following information is set out:
An estimated $30 Million funding project will provide the airport with, but not limited to the below enhancements that will emphasize the importance of the airport to not only the community, but to all of the GTA.
Further land acquisition to enhance the main runway
Construct a new terminal building and associated aircraft movement area
Complete construction of a new West side taxiway servicing the main runway
Service and construct the west side infrastructure
Enhance safety and protect airspace surrounding the airport
Provide services for Transient aircraft
Construct hangars and office space for GTAA Small and medium business’s
Also in the same presentation document:
 It was a great idea that is about to become mired in an expensive court case. It didn’t have to be this way. Burlington Airport is in transition in an effort to provide the current vital transportation and social services we currently offer, as well as move the airport to the next necessary level to meet the growing demand. As a privately owned business, the financial assistance provided for infrastructure to the municipal owned airports is unavailable, yet we serve the community in the very same manner. Of course, positioning the airport for the future requires focus, precise planning and funding. To date all the funding has come from the Airport Owner, Mr. Rossi, but the ability to meet the future service demand will need other sources of infrastructure funding. Mr. Rossi has invested near 4 Million dollars into infrastructure listed below to enhance the facility.
Rossi has been consistent since the year he bought the airport – his operation is federally regulated and he does not have to comply with provincial, regional or municipal rules or regulations.
The Region and the Conservation Authority appear to have bought into that line of thinking and they have done next to nothing, until Vanessa Warren delegated to Burlington’s city council June 10th. Rossi has run up against a city administration that is determined to be both informed and involved.
The determination of this difference of opinion could we decide what happens to northern Burlington – it will also determine what Vanessa Warren and her husband are able to do with the equestrian school they want to develop – the planned runway extension will be yards from the riding ring they are currently building.
 By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON. July 4, 2013— For a document that was to have been available the day after city Council met on Tuesday but didn’t see the light of day until late Thursday afternoon – the statement put out really don’t reveal much.
All we know is that the three lawyers met and agreed to disagree. What took place was that three legal warriors got a chance to look each other over and get a sense as to where each was coming from and then return to their offices to figure out what to do next.
In an agreed upon statement – here is what we have been told:
“Mr. Blue and Mr. Grenier clearly stated their respective legal positions on the applicability of the city’s site alteration bylaw to the airport but agreed to reserve that legal issue until they and representatives of the city and the airport can meet to discuss a possible agreement to address the concerns raised by the city about best management practices for fill at the airport. If an agreement cannot be reached within a reasonable time, the legal issue will be revisited.”
Air Park owner Vince Rossi released a document at the Tuesday city council meeting in which he set out what he was prepared to do and what he needed in return. Basically he said I will do some things you want me to do but you have to agree not to sue me.
What is troubling about the Rossi memorandum is that it came out of a meeting between Rossi, and his associate Tim Crawford and Ward 6 Councillor Blair Lancaster.
Why is Lancaster hammering out an agreement with a business person the city is having serious problems with? Lancaster is seen by many in north Burlington as already seriously compromised. They see their ward council member as being in the pocket of the owner of the Air Park.
 Vince Rossi and Ward 6 Councillor Blair Lancaster sit beside each other at community meeting which many found offensive given that Rossi is the person damaging local property. Lancaster explained later that she needed to sit in a chair with a good back because she had been in a very minor auto collision and that Mr. Rossi chose to sit beside her once she was seated. The view through the large barn doors is to the property onto which Rossi wants to extend his airport runway. Lancaster clearly has a close relationship with Vince Rossi and both meets and speaks with him far more often that she speaks with the north Burlington residents. She did tour three properties on Tuesday and then sat through a CLOSED session of Council at which lawyer Ian Blue set out what the issues were as he saw them. Given the nature of the relationship with Rossi, should Lancaster have taken part in a closed session where strategy is being determined?
In the past Lancaster has stepped away from the Council table when issues related to the downtown core were being discussed; she is the owner of a business in the downtown core.
 Former Beauty Queen still knows how to pose for the camera. Ward 6 Councillor at an Air Park picnic last summer which she turned into a constituency meeting. Lancaster has held community events at the Air Park which we have attended. We were of the impression that Lancaster was holding her constituency event at the Air Park, which we thought was a neat idea – great place for a photo –op and we took a number of pictures. The fact was Lancaster was tagging along at an annual open house the Air Park holds each year. That was never made clear to media people.
 King Paving’s John Hutter in the foreground along with Ward 6 Councillor Blair Lancaster and two city hall staff look at the landfill next to the fence line on the Cousin’s farm property. Hutter said that the drainage culvert that dumps onto the Cousin’s property runs across the full width of the airline property at this point. Had the city had site plan approval this would never have been permitted – and where a drainage culvert runs has nothing to do with the operate of an airport. The culvert is 20 feet + beneath the surface. Do we have a situation where Lancaster is closer to the person the city is close to taking legal action against than she is to the residents she was elected to represent?
Lancaster pointed out in an interview that she got less than 100 votes from north Burlington in the 2010 election. She will be lucky to get one vote from that community next time out.
 Ward 6 Councillor Blair Lancaster trudging through tall grass on the way to look at the landfill dumped on the Cousins Appleby Line far, Many thought Lancaster should have made the trip months ago to see the damage done. Lancaster did not visit the properties that have sustained the damage until July 2nd and maintains that she did not hear a word from any resident until March 5th of this year. Several residents were aghast when they heard this and are in the process of scowering their records to put forward evidence that refutes the statement made.
Barbara Sheldon didn’t think the statement the city put out was “as strong and aggressive an approach as I had hoped it would be.” “Every day” she added Rossi continues to bring in truckload after truckload – today there had to be a couple of hundred trucks. Now he’s got carte blanche for at least another two weeks. Sheldon believes the meeting on July 17 or 18th “will be stalled by Rossi’s people until early August, if not later.”
Burlington city hall tends to shut down for much of August.
The city has hired Toronto lawyer Ian Blue to work with the city’s legal team. Blue met July 3 with Glenn Grenier and Brent McPherson, the lawyers representing the airport, and will meet again with airport representatives on July 17 or 18.
Blue is Ian Blue, the lawyer Burlington has hired and Grenier, is Glenn Grenier, a Burlington resident and a pilot and the lawyer the Air Park has hired. Vince Rossi has beefed up his legal team with an additional lawyer from the same firm: Macmillan. It will take two lawyers to one-up Ian Blue.
City council has seen Grenier before when he over-reached to impress Council with all he knew about things aeronautic and basically saying the city didn’t have a hope in hades of winning so give up now.
City manager Jeff Fielding wasn’t buying that and on three separate occasions during the Council meeting advised the Mayor to dismiss Grenier and send him on his way.
What has Burlington totally ticked is the way the Air Park people have handed the situation. At that meeting Councillor Craven asked Grenier: “Why is your client such a lousy neighbour”.
The city’s legal strategy will have been determined – we will see very little of that strategy – these guys are great poker players. “Burlington” said the city media release ” is moving forward with a legal strategy to address concerns regarding noise and fill activities related to construction at the Burlington Executive Airport on Bell School Line.”
Blue will look for ways to chip away at the “federal jurisdiction” the Air Park has been relying upon the thumb their noses at the city, and make no mistake about this, the very senior level of city hall is furious with the way they are being treated.
 To see a piece of construction equipment this close to your kitchen window was seen as a deliberate and provocative attempt to intimidate property owner Barbara Sheldon. The Mayor is taking a softer political line with statements suggesting that can all be worked out through dialogue and compromise but people like Barbra Sheldon don’t see much compromise when there is a massive piece of machinery parked less than 50 yards from her kitchen window on a hill of landfill that she doesn’t think should be there in the first place.
Most in the community see the parking of that equipment as a deliberate and provocative intimidating act on the part of Vince Rossi.
Mayor Goldring called the damage done appalling when he first saw it.
The city arranged for a meeting of the Rural Burlington Green Coalition as a first step – which may be the only step between the community and the air park owner. Vanessa Warren believes a community wide meeting needs to take place to explain to a wider public the seriousness of this problem. Should there even be an airport in north Burlington and if the answer is yes – then how big should that airport be?
Many believe this is a decision the city and Region should be making and not an individual entrepreneur who has found a loophole in the law that allows him to bypass any city involvement.
The city has hired Toronto lawyer Ian Blue to work with the city’s legal team. Blue met July 3 with Glenn Grenier and Brent McPherson, the lawyers representing the airport, and will meet again with airport representatives on July 17 or 18.
The work being done now came out of a direction from city council June 10th, to develop a legal strategy. It was among the seven recommendations approved by City Council, which include:
The city’s legal staff will develop a legal strategy to address the concerns expressed by City Council and citizens regarding issues with the Burlington Executive Airport and report back to City Council on July 2, 2013
The city’s director of engineering will, by September, review and update the city’s site alteration bylaw 6-2003 to reflect best practices
Mayor Rick Goldring and City Manager Jeff Fielding will jointly contact the federal Minister of the Environment to request soil testing of the Burlington Executive Airport property
Mayor Goldring will work with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to lobby the federal Minister of Transportation and other relevant ministries to develop a process to allow municipalities to have input on airpark land filling operations and expansion plans
The city’s director of finance will arrange a meeting with MPAC representatives and the affected property owners beside the airport property regarding current property value assessment
The general manager of development and infrastructure will request the owner of the Burlington Executive Airport to provide the city with a complete site and grading plan that minimizes impacts on neighbouring properties and will request that the owner modify existing grades to minimize impact on neighbouring properties
The director of planning and building will have staff enforce the city’s dust suppression bylaw 50-2008 that requires consideration be given to neighbouring properties when construction processes generate dust. Staff will also enforce the provisions of the nuisance and noise control bylaw including after-hours enforcement and issuing offence notices as necessary.
The city is grinding away with the limited regulatory tools it has while legal counsel looks for chinks in the Air Park armour.
The Air Park continues to dump landfill on the site.
The residents fume.
 By Staff.
BURLINGTON, ON. July 4, 2013. Shortly after 4:30 p.m., yesterday afternoon, an off-duty Halton officer was shopping in a grocery store in the area of Appleby Line and Upper Middle Road, Burlington, when he observed a man attempting to purchase pre-paid credit cards with what appeared to be a counterfeit credit card. After several attempts to complete the transaction, the man was unsuccessful and left the store.
The officer observed the man get into a waiting vehicle containing two other occupants and flee westbound on Upper Middle Road. The vehicle was stopped by responding officers in the area of William O’Connell Boulevard and a quantity of fraudulently obtained merchandise, counterfeit credit cards and associated documents were found within.
The three men face a multitude of charges including: Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, Possession of Property Obtained by Crime, Personation, Possession of Counterfeit Credit Card, Possession of Counterfeit Mark (two counts) and Fraud Under $5000 (two counts).
ACCUSED:
Azki MOHAMED (21 years) of Burlington
Nisanth VISITHTHIRAMOORTHY (20 years) of Toronto
Mithunan VAMATHEVAN (19 years) of Woodbridge
 By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON. July 3, 2013. Imagine! A city Councillor with more than 20 years at the Council table asking you for your opinion on what gets you excited about living in the rural area?
John Taylor represents Ward 3 which takes in that part of rural Burlington on the west side of the city limits over to Walker’s Line then from Derry Road down Dundas with a patch that reaches down to the QEW. This is John Taylor country – and it is served very well.
 John Taylor has been at the business of municipal politics for a long time. He once thought of seeking higher office – but that time has past. He work diligently for the people of ward 3 and now wants their opinion on living in the northern part of the city. Taylor is seldom at a loss to give you an opinion on whatever happens to be crossing his mind – even if you don’t ask for that opinion.
Burlington publishes City Talk, a news magazine, three times a year filled with “fluff” for the most part but it does serve as a link from city council to the wider community. Waste of good paper from our point of view but that doesn’t mean they are going to stop publishing the thing.
Each council member gets some space to put in whatever they want to tell their constituents – just the good stuff though. You will have to look very hard to find anything the least bit controversial or provocative between those covers. Pure vanilla – paid for with your tax dollars.
 The ladies love him. He charms them and he listens to them; never patronizes them. That’s why he gets smiles like this one from Georgina Black, the consultant who led the then new city council through its Strategic Plan back in 2011. Taylor is taking a slightly different approach to his part of City Talk – he wants to know what it is about living in rural Burlington that gets you excited. He has a number of reasons for asking the residents of the northern part of the city what gets them excited about – there is currently something to get very excited about – the attempt on the part of an entrepreneur to build an airport with little, if any, input from city hall or the economic development corporation.
Taylor is looking for your opinion. This is an excellent time for everyone in the city to tell a council member what is important about the rural part of the city.
 Lot of hay taken off these fields – but not very many cattle out there. There are those within the political go on about the agricultural industry – there is no such things as an agricultural “industry” in rural Burlington. There are a couple of very successful fruit operations and the equestrian people have made that part of the city a great place to operate. Don’t expect to very many cattle in that part of the city. Couple of places where there are some chickens and a several that have a couple of pigs. Some fruit operations but for a stretch of land that is pretty good from a soil perspective – we don’t really exploit that opportunity.
A lot of hay is taken off those fields but you will seldom see any soybeans and not a lot of corn. Farming in north Burlington is a bit of a stretch. Nice place to live – well not if you are on Appleby Line with all those trucks trundling load after load of land fill into the airport development.
So – what is there to be excited about north of Dundas/Highway 407? Councillor Taylor would certainly like to hear what you have to say.
Several months ago the city`s planning department held a half day Saturday session during which people gathered to talk about rural Burlington in what was billed a Rural Summit. What was very interesting, and revealing, was that the problems surrounding the dumping of landfill on the airport property didn’t get mentioned.
Perhaps this appeal for the things that excite people will bring more to the surface.Put your thoughts together and send them along to his very able assistant Sheri Wainman.
 By Debra Pickfield.
BURLINGTON, ON. July 2, 2013. They were doing something right.
It was 9:30pm on Friday night at the 7-11 at Guelph Line and Prospect St. First day off school, long days of sunlight, the weather cooling off after a few warm days.
Teenagers were in the store collecting their snacks for parties and I happened to stand beside three 11-12 year old boys with long-boards, trying to decide what drinks to buy with the little money they collectively had.
 Carmelita, cashier at the 7-11 convenience store at Guelph Line and Prospect, knows the three boys who were in her store. we’d like to know who they are. Can you help? They raced over to the refrigerator to pick their drink and in their haste were a little too clumsy and before you knew it a drink was on the floor leaking away.
What happened next totally surprised me. Fully expecting them to leave the bottle or hide it and then take another one, the leader of the three boys said “OK – we’ll have to pay for this one – let’s pick it up and tell them what happened.” Not one of the friends disagreed or complained.
They did exactly what they said they would do, and I was trying to suppress a grin that desperately wanted to come out. These kids did what I struggle with – taking accountability for their actions even though no one was looking.
I wish I knew who they were – their parents/guardians/teachers need to know what an exceptional job they are doing raising three great young boys.
Carmelita, the cashier at the 7-11, knows the boys well since they are often in the store. She put it well – “they are always honest about how much candy they buy – some people try to sneak more – but these boys always play it straight”
Thanks guys – you couldn’t know how good you made me feel to watch that scene unfold the way it did. In my world you absolutely rock.
 By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, JULY 3, 2013) For the second year, Art in Action presented a scholarship to a Halton Region High School student intending to pursue a full-time, post-secondary education this fall.
 Samples of the work on display during the Art in Action studio tour – always during the first weekend in November. Art in Action is a self-guided studio tour that takes place every year on the first weekend of November in Burlington. If art and craft appreciation mean anything to you – note the dates. The tour will introduce you to new art and get you out of the house and meet really interesting people. This year will be our third and we wouldn’t miss it.
 Darlene Throop, Art In Action, Michelle Nguyen, Scholarship Winner and Regan Heffernan, Principal, Robert Bateman. This year’s winner Michelle Nguyen, a student at Robert Bateman High School, received a scholarship of $1,500.00 as well as free admission to participate in the Art in Action November Studio Tour.
Nguyen intends to pursue her artistic and design interests and the University of Guelph in their Landscape Architecture program in September,
Burlington public and catholic schools were invited to participate by putting forth an applicant and including three digital images in the application. The turn out this year was less than promising, (shame on those schools who didn’t dig a little and encourage their students to take part). The Art in Action group feels there will be a better response next year. Let us hope they are right.
There are very few privately funded groups that use their own funds to provide scholarships for promising students. Things like this need to be both encouraged and responded to.
For additional information contact, Teresa Seaton at tmseaton@cogeco.ca
|
|
