By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON. May 17, 2013. According to a usually reliable source, there is “a big story developing in rural north Burlington and it will be going to council this Tuesday. “Burlington Airpark has been in existence for about 50 years and has lots of planes / hangers there. It was a relatively benign part of the community.
“In 2007 ownership was purchased by Vince Rossi and the objectives of the business changed significantly. A significant amount of fill began to be deposited on the site and resident concerns began to register with local Councillors.
“During 2012, local Councillor Blair Lancaster facilitated two meet and greet festivities inviting residents to meet the ownership, enjoy a corn roast and enter a draw to get some free flights. She personally told me “there was no real reason for community concern as the owners had no money to expand the operation and that the current fill was simply to support improving existing operations”.
Fill has been going into this part of the Air Park for many months. Residents say the traffic has reached the 1000 trucks of fill a day level.
“Fast forward to today. Approximately 1000, that’s right 1000 trucks arrive every day dumping loads of fill. The traffic on Appleby has become dangerous as there is no turning lane into the site and the road itself is treacherous due to debris and mud on the road especially after a rainfall. The owner receives a fee for every load as any developer wishing to get rid of debris has to send it somewhere and pay fees. Do the math…..I’m speculating but at even $ 50 per load you’re looking at close to $ 50,000 per day. Nice business to be in.
The trucks were certainly coming from all directions. These pictures taken at 2:40 pm, Friday May 17,when a total of 9 trucks came and went.
A truck would roll in, dump its load, get a piece of paper from someone in a hard hat and leave the area. Then the next truck rolled into place.
“The loads arrive from all directions. I’ve watched them coming from a variety of directions. Does anyone know the source of the fill? Does anyone know the content and whether it is toxic free? Apparently there are documented dumps at hours after midnight. It`s not unreasonable to assume that those loads can`t be dumped anywhere that is inspected, so what`s in them. And the ultimate insult.
“On May 03 the City of Burlington issued an order demanding a stop to filling until some of these questions could be answered. But the filling has continued despite the order as the owner states that only the Federal Transport Department has authority over an Airpark. I don’t know those legal details but I find it hard to believe that thousands of trucks of fill can be deposited anywhere without examination, knowledge of source and without determination of effects on watercourses etc.
Bulldozers would level the earth dumped, and it wasn’t always earth, sometimes shale and small stones and then a grading roller would level out the bumps. This is no small undertaking – the equipment has been working over a large area for many months. This ain’t no cabbage patch.
“This is going to be a HUGE issue in the rural north. Some, but not the majority, of what I have stated above is based on rumour, conjecture and reports to me from others that I cannot verify. I can verify the remarks of Councillor Lancaster last summer that seem so incorrect. She was either very fooled by the owners of the airpark or will require another explanation for her actions.”
There you have it. It will be interesting to see how this breaks at the Council meeting on Tuesday.
Here is what Councillors will be dealing with:
Appleby Line is seen on the left. There is a lot of fill being dumped into the property – residents want to know why and the city says it has to stop – it’s illegal. Let’s see how this one works out. Something is certainly going on.
An application has been submitted for a consent to sever for property known municipally as 5431 Appleby Line. This property is located directly north of the existing airport lands, and has frontage on both Appleby Line and Bell School Line, with a total area of approximately 35.25 ha. The consent application was received by the City on January 22, 2013 and was circulated to the public, City staff and external agencies in accordance with the Planning Act and regulations, and City procedures. 5431 Appleby Line is not currently owned by the airport, and the application was submitted by a representative of the airport, on behalf of the property owner. Currently, the application proposes to sever an approximately 12.95 ha portion of land from the easterly portion of the site, so that it can be combined with the airport lands to the south. The current airport owner has stated that the airport wishes to lengthen the existing north -south runway by approximately 1000 feet (305 m), which would be almost the entire width of the property to be severed. No specific details of a runway or airport expansion have been provided with the application, other than to state that the proposed use of the severed lands is “Airport”. No other changes are currently proposed for the retained lands (i.e. remainder of 5431 Appleby Line).
The current consent application is subject to the full range of provisions under the Planning Act, as well as current provincial and municipal planning policies, including:
Provincial Policy Statement
Region of Halton Official Plan
City of Burlington Official Plan
Conservation Halton Regulations and Policies
City of Burlington Zoning By-law
Currently, the application is on hold in response to comments submitted by Conservation Halton. In those comments, a deferral was requested so that
Conservation Halton staff could visit the site and examine a watercourse and wetland feature to determine the significance and possible regulation of these features. It was also indicated that the applicant may need to prepare various studies to confirm on -ground conditions and delineate the features, regulated areas and any required buffers.Should the application proceed, it will do so in accordance with the Planning Act requirements and provisions for land division. Staff have been advised by the Clerk of the Land Division Committee that a public meeting will be held to decide on the applications as at least one letter of objection has been received from a member of the public. Notification of the meeting would be provided in accordance with provisions of the Planning Act, which require a circulation radius of 60 m from the property boundary.
In addition, a notification sign would need to be erected on the site at least 14 days prior to the hearing date. The meeting would be a public meeting under the Planning Act and could be attended by any member of the public. In addition, any decision made by the Land Division Committee would be subject to appeal provisions of the Planning Act, which state that any person or public body can appeal the decision of the Committee within 20 days of the giving of the notice of decision.
At least 100 small aircraft are stored in hangers at the Air Park. In the evenings they can be seen landing on the field, one after another. Kind of nice to watch.
At present, Planning staff have not provided formal comments on the applications to the Land Division Committee. Staff’s position on the applications will be provided to the Committee through these comments, to be considered by the Committee in conjunction with comments from other agencies (i.e. Region of Halton, Conservation Halton, etc.),the applicant, and members of the public.
The Ward Councillor contacted the Engineering and Planning departments for assistance in responding to ongoing concerns expressed by residents regarding the
deposit of fill on the airport site. Based on advice received from the Legal department, City staff advised the airport owner that the City’s site alteration is applicable and by -law must be complied with. This information was communicated to residents at a meeting held on May 1, 2013.
As a result, on May 3, 2013 the Engineering Department issued an “Order to Comply”,related to the City’s Site Alteration By-law 6-2003, to the Airport owner Mr. Vince Rossi. The serving of the Order to Comply was done in person in a meeting with Mr. Rossi. The Order to Comply included instructions that the current dumping and filling operations were required to stop and that the owner would be required to apply for and obtain a Site Alteration Permit in order to continue the dumping and filling operation.
It used to be a small, sleepy little airport – then ownership changed hands – and something is going on. The current owners argue they are regulated by the federal government; the city argues that have some control and the residents think their Council member has had some wool pulled over her eyes.
The owner was contacted again by phone on Monday, May 6, 2013 and the Order to Comply was reconfirmed and that the dumping and filling operations were to be stopped immediately. Also that the Order to Comply would require the owner to apply for and obtain a Site Alteration Permit in accordance with the Site Alteration By-law in order to continue the filling.
Escarpment residents seem to feel their Council member has misled them. Did she?
The owner has since advised the City that they do not agree that the City has jurisdiction on their operations and thus have instructed their contractor to continue thedumping and filling operations. The Order to Comply required compliance to be achieved (in this case meaning a permit to be obtained) within 10 days (in accordance with our by-law). The owner indicated that he would not apply for a permit. The 10 day period to comply expired on May 13th, and on this date a Notice of Violation was served to the owner. This Notice is the next step in the “Order to Comply” process.
It set out the potential penalty (up to $50,000 for a first offence) and required immediate attention to avoid the laying of charges. The Airport owner has communicated that he is not interested in acquiring a Site Alteration Permit, however he has expressed that they would be cooperative and meet with the City “without prejudice” to discuss the typical conditions required under a Site Alteration Permit. The owner indicated there are approximately 2 months of filling operations remaining at the current fill location.
A meeting with the Airport representatives was held on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 @ 1:30pm at Burlington City Hall. This meeting was held “without prejudice” to the Burlington Executive Airport’s right to assert that it does not require a site alteration permit, and also “without prejudice” to the City’s right to assert that the Burlington
Executive Airport does require a site alteration permit and may be charged for the contravention.
The Airport representatives will convey the typical conditions, as discussed at the meeting, and required under a Site Alteration Permit to the owner for consideration.
It will be an interesting council meeting. The Air Park web site shows their latest newsletter dated April 2011 – not all that communicative are they?
Andrew, you want “a discussion conducted on the basis of actual facts”. Great!
So, we have the issues as they’ve been thoroughly researched and formally presented by the Rural Burlington Green Coalition to the City staff and residents of Burlington.
Now it’s your turn. Please define for all of us which claims you have adamantly asserted as being “apparent factual errors, rumours, wild speculation, innuendo, guesses, and exaggeration”.
Really appreciate your help in understanding these.
regards,
Stephanie Cooper-Smyth
I suppose I could say that the name-calling has begun by people who make unfounded claims of criminal behaviour while not revealing their real names, hiding like cowards behind the supposed anonymity of the Internet. If you want to call people names like “bully” to their faces, “Jake”, at least have the simple courage and decency to do it in the open, with your real name. Some of us are trying to have a civilized, fact-based discussion here. Others, apparently, are more interested in hiding behind pseudonyms and taking anonymous pot-shots at what they see as an easy target. It’s so easy to vilify without taking the trouble to understand or to listen.
Real accusations have been made here. You should not expect, if you are one of those people, that you don’t have a responsibility for what you say, or that there will be no consequences for being a jerk just because you’re doing it onlihne. I don’t know Mister Rossi well, but I do know that I don’t see a schoolyard bully here. What I do see is is a mob mentality: a bunch of of people calling names, making unsubstantiated accusations of criminal behaviour, and piling on, all without having the simple decency to even tell everyone who they are.
I think that’s quite enough, don’t you?
Ps
Kurt bear in mind that this was all started by a lady with an axe to grind with the airport, read my comment in previous reply, She will have Her day in court.
The schoolyard bully has been called out and predictably responds with threats.
Reply to [ KURT SAYS ]
Kurt we are not so much concerned in the number of loads, as most of the fill is required by the airport to finish the proper airport grading based on required grades.
Fill is brought in in exchange for some of the work and improvement needed by the airport, things like paving,of runways, taxiways,future roads, in to the airport,as well as future extension of the north south runway and the apron at the future terminal.what We are careful with is that all soil brought in is provided with proper analysis
Thanks for your suggestions, at least You asked prior to commenting like the rest of the know it all’s scare mongers and
People that would like to turn back the cloak to the 16th century and have all of Us travel with horse and buggy’s.
thank You much apreciated
I am always more likely to believe the negatives when it concerns the rich getting richer– history has proven that they only get richer by exploiting the land , the resources, the ‘common’ people – everything — Trump has not made his zillions on being an advocate for the world- he’s been an advocate for Trump!!!!!… Sadly…..
Hello,
I have a few questions for the lovely lady that disseminated all of the lies, half-truths, and the fear-mongering nonsense about Burlington Executive Airport.
1. Recently, this person renovated her entire residence. Did she apply and obtain a building permit?
2. She rebuilt the old barn. Did she apply to the city for approval from the fire department etc…?
3. She imported large amounts of materials- asphalt grindings, stone, and fill. Did she obtain soil analyses for such materials?
4. There were tandem truckloads of grindings on Bell School Line- which is half-load restricted road. Did she obtain city approval for these large trucks to travel on Bell School Line?
5. Did she apply for and receive city permission to alter the elevations of her property and place asphalt grindings on agricultural land?
If all of these permits were obtained, would she be so kind as to make them public so that everyone can see how much of a law-abiding citizen she is? It is a requirement of the city that permission must be granted prior to the altering of elevations- especially on agricultural land!!! Is it legal to board other people’s horses as a for-profit business in the greenbelt on agricultural land? If any of these items require city permission that were not obtained, would she be so kind as to publicly apologize to the very same people who she unjustly mobilized against a law abiding corporation?
We are Burlington Executive Airport- committed to improve the airport lands for aviation safety and airport development. When construction is completed, the airport will be a jewel that will be appreciated by all people, including city of Burlington and Halton region staff.
Yours truly,
Vince Rossi
I am shaking my head in reading all the fabricated nonsense that one person can possibly invent, especially that same person that was a user of the airport until recently, [is this some kind of payback for having been caught by the airport connecting to the airport hydro grid without permission or paying for it?
I leave this up to all of You to decide, at the end of the Day it will all come out, and that person may just have a slander lawsuit to deal with.The airport as all the soil analysis as well as meeting all requirement to the proper governing regulatory authority.
Mr Rossi,
Please make all the soil testing results available to the public. You could post them on your web site, so we could all read them and have our fears about toxins and other contaminants put to rest. As a law abiding citizen you could also keep a running count on the number of truck loads and cu meters, of fill dumped at the airpark, updated daily on your website.
If the locals are concerned about soil and waterway pollution now they will be outraged with the noise pollution when the biz jets start coming and going.
I find a number of things about this article rather odd. First, there are many apparent factual errors, rumours, wild speculation, innuendo, guesses, and exaggeration. Second, there has been no attempt that I can see to get the other side of the story from the airport management: it’s mostly a re-hashing of rumours, some of them quite inventive, and unsubstantiated claims. Third, why the “anonymous source”? My guess is that you have a common problem here: a resident who bought property right next to an airport which has long been in operation and suffering buyer’s remorse. I suggest you reveal your source, or retract the claims.
I’m note sure what I’d call this article – incitement? muckraking? fear-mongering? – but it’s definitely not journalism, and I hope that anyone reading this article will be intelligent enough to recognize that. Public service and journalism are based on facts and fairness. I suggest you go back to the beginning and start there.
By way of self-disclosure, as an example to you, let me say this: that I am involved in aviation, that I know people involved in the management of the airport as well as a number of the airport’s neighbours, and that I have no financial interest in the expansion of the air park. My interest in this is that the discussion should be conducted on the basis of actual facts rather than hysteria.
If it is operated at a federal level? Just my guess but the Forest Conservation Act, and Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, Enviornmental Protection Act, Enviornmental Protection Assesment Act come to mind. This is just my opinion, I don’t know any facts but I wonder if….
Did they divert any waterways, pollute them, will the fill used pollute the water table or adjancent farmland? Have drainage patterns been changed. The fish pond on the South East corner with the turtles should remain I think. The area forests aren’t they home to bald eagles, newts, owls and salamanders. I myself would not want to see any trees cut down.
I don’t know, but these are the questions I have.
Any federal acts come into play?
It is my experience that there is little that towns/cities are prepared to do to stop this type of development and protect our environment. They say ‘stop’ but don’t back it up or really investigate until it is too late. There is a horse boarding facility on Derry Rd just East of Appleby. The initial application said they would not use for training yet each day since completion there is training, what appears to be shipping containers have been brought in to use as more stalls but worst of all are the loads and loads of fill that have been been brought in to level areas (initially they were told they could not change the grade). They have even filled in an area of a stream so they could make a ATV road Complaints to the Town of Milton are a waste of time and effort.
Good Luck to Burlington with this. By the way the flashing beacon at this airpark is also a royal pain, never mind all the traffic.
This is just a comment based on the assumption Vince Rossi has been making profits from dumping fees he is charging. Quite simply; if he has not complied with the regulations he will be fined. Regardless if he is found guilty; I would hope the judge hearing the case would claw back all the fees he charged minus his costs to spread the fill. i.e. the remaining profits. Especially if it is apparent he was using the Airpark’s designation with the Federal Transport Department regulations as a tool to make money and really going beyond any necessary improvements. If the effects of this behavior require more landscaping and planting to minimize the environmental impact then, the profit dollars taken back should cover the cost of plenty of beautification and naturalization here and in other areas of North Burlington.
This issue has been on going for years. People of Burlington need to no that the beautiful rural north where they cycle, hike, ski, canoe etc is at risk. As a resident we have spoken directly to our past and present councillors with no indication of concern and with no regard to our concerns.
Please let your voices be heard. We put protection measures like the Green Belt in place for a reason – to maintain some vestige of nature in a burgeoning world of development.
Teri
Holy crap- Let’s face it , the powers that be want to destroy us and our planet- if it’s not destroying the green belt, or trying to genetically modify/destroy real food, or forcing so called ‘green’ wind farms ,etc,etc,…. The filthy rich just want to get more filthy rich at any cost—-
I’m only one person but I’ll stop crying in terror and I will help make a difference- I have to believe that we can do it!!!!
Wanda
Roger writes:
The stories on the Burlington Executive Airpark are now starting in the media. I’m sure there will more.
We need public awareness of the issues and problems surrounding this unacceptable assault on rural Burlington and on the “protected” Greenbelt.
Starting with stopping the illegal dumping of unknown fill; the identification of possible contaminants in the already landfilled material; correction of adverse negative impacts on the environment and adjacent properties; and enforcement of truck traffic safety standards on Appleby Line, at the Airpark entrance.
The members of the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition are committed to rectify this ecological travesty.
The planned expansion of this Airpark / Jetport will come at an unacceptable cost to the Greenbelt, the environment and the rural residents.
We look forward to delegating to Council on May 21.
Roger
One interim solution; do not allow left turns into the property & request HPS to strictly enforce the No left turn.