Witness: Greg Sweetnam, JDCL

• Information about the company: 3rd largest employer in Caledon - manufacturer of equipment - well respected manufacture - non-union company - happy work force.

Slide Show introducing Official Plan- Sept /98

• Large number of appeals rec’d – over 100 appeals.
• CCC was a party, landowners, NEC, CVC, Town, etc.
• Actual application for Rockfort was Mar 4/98.
• All parties negotiated a settlement; resources were protected for future use… Final HPMARA map included Rockfort.
• Major Roads and their planned function remained unchanged.
• People were aware of the application – held meeting for the public in 1997.
• Properties were purchased after the initial Rockfort purchase — first Westerveld, then VanDersmissen.
• Joined the 2 properties together, then Hutchison property in 1998, and in June 2001, Westerveld house sold, and finally large acreage north of VanDersmissen.
• CCRS – CAG met monthly (citizen’s group for the CCRS).
• Went thru constraint exercise to narrow down where aggregate exists, planners introduced concept of phasing, worried that the Town would constrain access to aggregates for other regions – Sweetnam did not agree with this.
• Felt that CCRS did not do a good breakdown of the supply/demand situation.
• Thought that Caledon should have been a bigger producer of crushed stone.
• IVI report – reduced the areas to actual number of tons available – 9 % restraint extremely small compared to what the industry actually faces.
• CCRS – bedrock areas 5A, 5B, 9A – not good land use planning – this is from the aspect of an operator.
• Area 6B is then described by Mr. Sweetnam, South of 24 and East of 10, most of this area extends into the NEC and is therefore protected. Quarries not permitted within 200 metres of the brow of the escarpment.
• The above information was not in the witness statement therefore was not allowed,
  Resource area 5B – watching this resource area for many years at intersection of Highway 136 and Highway 24 – redrawn in 2009, which eliminated a large portion of available rock, otherwise Alton village takes up most of the area.
• Substantial decrease in overall area of available rock – what remains of this area according to Mr. Sweetnam is minor compared to what was originally estimated.
• Objection from Mr. Barnett – testimony is inappropriate; i.e., that 5B is inappropriate and full of constraints and that there was no indication that this was going to be part of Mr. Sweetnam’s witness statement.
• Madame Chair agrees that it is not appropriate for Mr. Sweetnam to go down this road.
• Issue of written agreements: never attended any property without the permission of the land owner. Later on more formal permissions – Letter from Webb to Hindson – owner could be in attendance and there had to be 48 hours notice.
• Re: Ms. Richardson’s complaints of Caledon Sand and Gravel conveyor – Kennedy Road was closed about 2000. They dug the road down but had to be careful about the fiber optics. There were discussions and letters with the Town re the time that it was taking, and complaints from neighbours as well. The topic was resolved.
• The Erin pit complaints by Ms Richardson:  Re problems with this pit – at this point Mr. Garrod from the Region objects to this line of evidence, and it is decided with the Board that the topic of the Winston Churchill matter will not be discussed at this point as a settlement is near completion.
• Has your company received any complaints at any of your pits?
  --Not in the last 12 months apart from the Dolime Quarry. Usually we address these matters. We do get blasting complaints at the Guelph subdivisions surrounding the pit there.
• Concerns re trucks showing up early at the site: Dick controls the majority of the trucks that would be hauling. Dick sets policies and sets sanctions on those drivers that are FOB truckers.
• Regarding the heritage designation of the property: It is currently not designated but they are planning on making the stone barn designated.
• Regarding financial assurances: Currently, rehabilitation done through TOARC with a super-fund for rehab on sites where licenses have been abandoned or revoked (producers insurance can be topped up with a levy to the producers) and the risk is shared. Note there was provision set up in the Town or Region’s OP to set up a fiscal analysis. The company has offered assurances -- specifically in a letter Sept 2003.
• Regarding Town of Caledon OP: we are prepared to take on reasonable off-site costs and negotiate road improvements agreement.

Cross Examination of Greg Sweetnam (JDCL) by Mr Garrod (Region):

• You were pleased with the negotiations/settlement with the community group called "CRATER" re Caledon Sand and Gravel in 1996?
  --Yes
   
• You were pleased with the negotiation settlement with the Regional OP?
  --Agreed
  
• Let's look at Mr. Allen's (Region planner) reporting of the events: He quotes the Board congratulating the resolution of the Peel Plan. The CCRS was allowed to carry on for the Town's OP process. All the major parties, including the APAO supported the resolution of the Peel OP (Fall of 97-Spring of 98)?
  --Yes 
  
• You filed as part of your reports with the application; Harden Environmental in 1998?
  --Yes
  
• Andy Hims and Trevor Carter (Region’s peer reviewers) filed many detailed questions to Harden in their peer reviews within the year, filed Dec 1998?
  --Yes but there was a limit in the amount of meetings allowed with Mr. Hims. 
  
• Pardon?
  --Yes they were limited.
  
• They met?
  --Yes, I believe once.
  
• They did a site visit?
  --Yes.
  
• There were further discussions about what needed to be done?
  --Yes
  
• Then JDCL decided to have CRA take over the lead role?
  --Yes, because of engineering focus needed.
  
• The Regional peer reviewers provided you with responses to the new work done in 2000, in January 2001?
  --Yes
  
  
• A letter was entered in evidence from the Region to DFO of June 2001 – copied to all parties.
• In a letter two weeks later from Mr. Murphy why he did not reply to all those parties noted in the letter from two weeks prior, from the Region?
  --I believe it was responded to, later.
  
• It was six months later that the Region finally had a response on this matter?
  --Agreed – 5 ½.
  
• So in 2003 and 2005 the Region did additional peer review work?
  --Correct
  
• With the exception of the written response by Harden, in 1998 and with the exception of two memos, there were no written responses until 2009?
  --We were always trying behind the scenes, to meet with staff.
  
• So you were saying that you didn't want a written response, because you prefer face to face?
  --Yes, we like to narrow issues face to face. 
  
• In 2003, the matter came before Regional Council and the final recommendations were accepted by Council – several points were laid out clearly. which included risks, hydro-geology, roads, financial assurances, etc?
  --Agreed
  
• And that there was insufficient information from the applicant?
  --Yes, and we expected to have meetings and discuss.
  
• Are you suggesting that not enough meetings occurred to satisfy you?
  --Yes 
  
• Here is an email sent to Mr. Buhlman from Mr. Garrod regarding this matter: This long email lays out that the peer reviewers had unrestricted meetings without lawyers from Nov to end of Feb?
  --Agreed
  
• Let's look at 2003 – we were planning to go to a Hearing in spring of 2004. Then, that process got derailed because of the Board decision?
  --Yes
  
• And your company decided to go forward with the CBSES?
  --Yes
  
• You submitted your new application in July of 2008?
  --Yes
  
• You had five years to provide new written responses on the peer reviews, but you didn't?
  --Disagreed.
  
• At times you seem to be blaming the Region and other times you are indicating other things?
  --We’ve always been pushing for meetings.
  
• The Council directs staff to discuss and determine if the applicant is able to provide answers?
  --Agreed.
• At this point The Chair suggests to Mr. Garrod that there is a failure of process between the Region and the applicant.  Mr. Garrod moves on:
• You agree that ARA licenses are transferable?
  --Agreed
  
• However well intentioned that JDCL may be, but they might not be the owners for that full length of time?
  --Agreed but the terms would still apply.
  
• Dufferin Aggregates is owned by Holmic and they are much larger than JDCL?
  --Yes
  
• In terms of TOARC, that is for the rehabilitation of pits?
  --Agreed
  
• Do you agree with me that the operation of pumps is not included in rehab?
  --Disagree, it might involve it.
  
• Do you agree that the ongoing commitment of the monitoring is an operational requirement, not rehabilitation?
  --I think it's all part of it.
  
• Do you agree that the grout curtain is part of operations and not rehab?
  --Agreed
  
• So you are suggesting that all the mitigation system would be covered?
  --It's likely.
  
• The letter you sent to the Town, in Sept 2003, regarding financial agreements, did you include the Region?
  --No
  
• Do you have any Public Authority to run the pumps, run the mitigation system for 80 years?
  --I don't think we need to be.
  
• And have you provided a proposal to the Region?
  --Not in writing, but we're open to discussions.
  
• Chair asks – has the company quantified an amount they are prepared to put forward? Answer – We have calculated a dollar value per tonne to put aside, through the life of the quarry until rehab, at which point the money goes back to the proponent.

Cross Exam by Mr. Barnett (Town of Caledon):

• With regards to TOARC – it's the body responsible for rehab of pits that were abandoned prior to 1979?
  --Yes, there are two classes (one for abandoned pits called MAAP programme and for revoked licenses for rehab) 
  
• There were 10's of millions of dollars available?
  --Yes.

Mr. Barnett hands out information on the TOARC trusts.

• It was set up around 1990. The purposes of the trusts are listed here and none of those purposes relate to operations of pits and quarries?
  --Agreed
  
• In the annual TOARC report, in both in 08 and 09 you are a director and Chair of the Board?
  --Agreed
  
• In the 2008 MAAP report, the rehab is mainly earth moving and low intensity and costs that go from $100 to tens of thousands of dollars and not very large amounts?
  --Agreed
  
• The total value in the rehab funds is $12 million?
  --Correct 
  
•  At one time the fund had more than $50 Million, which was returned back to the industry?
  --Correct.
  
• Your statement that TOARC could somehow be involved if the quarry isn't completely dug out when there is a problem – would that include the operating pumping and mitigation?
  --It would be likely
  
• What are the costs you have been provided for the 82 years?
  --The max cost, rehab-wise will be from Phase 5 and will be $18 million dollars to run everything.
  
• And that cost is well beyond what TOARC has in its fund?
  --Agreed.
   Looking at the policy plans that were going on when you bought the property:
  
• Looking at the Regional Plan, it directed the municipalities to do various steps. There was specific direction to Town of Caledon to follow certain criteria on social, economic and environmental matters, so the Peel Plan directed these be considered for new applications?
  --Agreed
  
• Peel directed the Town about the CCRS to recommend new policy and management directions?
  --Yes
  
• So you signed-off and agreed there would be a process undertaken where environmental and social considerations would be included?
  --Agreed, although there were certain moratoriums during the CCRS.
  
• You sat on the advisory group (CAG) to the CCRS?
  --Yes
  
• The CAG formed in 1996?
  --Correct.
  
• This was prior to your purchasing the Rockfort Farm that the wheels were in motion for the CCRS?
  --Agreed, around the same time.
  
• The direction was clear that it was to be a balance of social, economic and environmental needs of the TOWN?
  --Agreed.
  
• Constraints: groundwater and surface water impacts, social and political, transportation, growth, are all considerations to a site-specific application?
  --Yes.
  
• The CCRS evaluated those constraints and recommended prioritized areas?
  --Yes, the producers were very concerned about the word 'Phasing" in that section.
  
• The macro level policy from CCRS indicated that site-specific analysis was important? –Correct.
  
• The mapping (that you agreed to) and policy (that you agreed to) evolved into OP161? –Agreed.
  
• So we can see that there were Town wide objectives in extraction that flowed out of the CCRS?
  --Agreed. 
  
• So until you get a green light in all the test requirements of this Town plan, you can't go ahead?
  --Agreed.
  
• You propose that your plan won't have any unacceptable social impacts, but you agree that the Board has to decide that there are no unacceptable impacts?
  --Agreed.
  
• Same for cultural heritage, noise and dust, water impacts, land use planning. At the end of the day, unless all these tests have been met in the eyes of the Board, it can't go ahead?
  --Agreed.
  
• In the course of your work, you are aware of the Melancthon proposal of 2,400-acre application of crushed stone to be transported by rail to the GTA?
  --Yes.
  
• There is also a Flamborough proposal for crushed stone?
  --Agreed.

Cross-examination of Mr. Sweetnam continues tomorrow.