City wins Airpark court case: details to follow.

November 14, 2013

By Staff

BURLINGTON, ON.  The city was right.  Justice John Murray thought about it and wrote a decision that ruled city’s site alteration bylaw applies which means the Burlington Executive Airpark has to follow the rules like everyone else.

Earlier this week King Paving removed the equipment it had on the Burlington Executive Airpark site and said they were not going to be doing any more work for the airpark people.  King Paving was the company that trucked in the tonnes of fill that resulted in massive changes to the geography of the airpark.

The question now is – will the Airpark appeal?  Will the private aircraft pilots who were funding a large part of the court case continue to put up the money?

And, more importantly what will happen to the development of the Airpark.  Those who have land abutting the airpark are experiencing significant flooding.  Suing Vince Rossi, president of the Airpark would be worse than throwing the money down a well.

The task now is – how does the city go about forcing the Airpark to comply.

It was a court case the city, and the Region, even though they didn’t put up a dime to help out with the costs, had to win if they were to have any hope of running their city.

Return to the Front page

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

4 comments to City wins Airpark court case: details to follow.

  • Andrew Forber

    There is at least one serious error in this article:

    “The question now is – will the Airpark appeal? Will the private aircraft pilots who were funding a large part of the court case continue to put up the money?”

    None of the private pilots have put a dime towards funding the court case. I don’t know where you think you may have gotten this “information”, but it is false.
    Editor’s note: Our information was that COPA – the Canadian Owners & Pilots Association had funded the Application that resulted in a Judge saying Burlington did have the right to require the Airpark to adhere to its site bylaw. We are seeking clarification.

    • Mr. Wonderful

      The serious error rests solely with the city. Motions and appeals at this stage are irrelevant to what has taken place. The only concerns dealing with funding should be how much this city is going to throw away after having dropped the ball five years ago; that is a huge error that will continue to grow.

  • Stephanie Cooper-Smyth

    God bless Vanessa Warren – this wouldn’t have happened without her.

    Can the folks in Ward 6 convince her to run for Councillor?? Aside from the fact that they’ve absolutely got to get rid of that ignorant and incompetent Lancaster, Ms. Warren has exactly what it takes to be a stellar representative of the citizens: smarts, vision, common sense and a genuineness that people gravitate to. Just like Marianne Meed Ward.

  • Mr. Wonderful

    This would never had been a court case, had the city’s council and staff been on the ball. The property owners surrounding the airport adversely affected by the careless fill activities may actually now have a case against the city for its mismanagement of the situation. I could not believe the city’s stance all along was it had no jurisdiction on the matter, and that it was a federal issue; god help us with the intelligence of this city’s council and staff. Zero accountability, and once again hiding behind lengthy legal involvement.