The constituent and the Councillor – how one gets served by the other – but then the wheels fall off the wagon.

 By Pepper Parr

During an interview with Ward 6 Councillor Blair Lancaster on the afternoon of July 2^nd, 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 15^th, 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 15^th, 2013.

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 15^th 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 2^nd 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 13^th (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 13^th.

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 13^th (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 13^th.

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 18^th (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

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 4^th , 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.