OMB Rockfort Hearing, Wed Dec 9/09

This is the last hearing day before breaking for Christmas. The hearings will resume January 11th, 2010 at 9:30 AM.

In the preliminary discussion, it was decided that April 12th, will be the afternoon and evening hearing date for the public. The hearing will sit from 1-4 PM and 7-9 PM, to offer the public a more convenient time to give testimony statements to the Chair. It is normal practice that speakers will be sworn-in, in this judicial setting. They will keep May 3rd as a reserve date for the public, in case it is needed. It will be held at the Caledon Community Complex with a good speaker system and plenty of room. Security may be present.

Cross Examination of James Parkin for JDCL on Planning:

By Ron Webb (for CCC)

• Did you receive the peer review from Warren Sorensen (CCC expert)?
  --Yes.
  
• Did you refer to that peer review of in your witness statement or your reply?
  --I was aware but did not specifically reply.
  
• Looking at the Sorensen witness statement; he states the area around the site is of notable attractive and scenic character – is that an accurate description of the area?
  --I don't think I would agree that it is notable
  
• Do you agree with the statement of the overall environment?
  --Yes
  
• Do you agree with "the character of Olde Baseline Rd is of a low volume, scenic country road"?
  --Yes, physically it is.
  
• Olde Baseline is not a designated haul route at this time?
  --Agreed
  
• Will the required reconstruction of Olde Baseline change the character of that road?
  --Yes.
  
• And will that change the character of the area?
  --Yes.
  
• Sorensen feels that that change will be equivalent to a large open industrial use. Are there other industries nearby?
  --Yes, Brampton Brick.
  
• Do you have any information on the Brampton Brick site?
  --I'm not sure how many trucks and believe the site has more reserves to develop long-term.

Looking at the witness statement of Peter Homenuk for the Coalition (social impact analysis):

• Did you refer to this report in your witness statement?
  --No, I did not receive it until June, 2009.
  
• In the witness statement, he states that quarries can cause social impacts, do you agree with that?
  --Yes
  
• Was his methodology appropriate?
  --I would agree with it.
  
• Would you agree with the on-site appropriate criteria?
  --I disagree with it.
  
• What in particular are you saying is inappropriate?
  --That It is not based on predictable, measurable effects listed in the CCRS.
  
• In the site vicinity, disruptions are looked at, as impacts--does he not refer to the very matters you raise?
  --Yes, but you are looking at potential effects, whereas CCRS definition is different.
  
• Mr. Homenuk describes effects 1km, 2km in the community – are those appropriate?
  --Agreed
  
• His description of the existing social conditions, would you agree with that?
  --Agreed
  
• The debate is about the impact of the quarry would have on the community?
  --Agreed
  
• After Mr. Homenuk interviewed people, the overwhelming number mentioned the peace and quiet was the highly valued quality?
  --Agreed
  
• He lists various clubs he interviewed; did you interview all those same people?
  --No.
  
• Were your findings in the objection letters you received, similar to the concerns expressed to Mr. Homenuk?
  --That is a general question; generally some things, yes.
  
• Did you do a similar study as Mr. Homenuk?
  --No.

Looking at Mr. Sorensen's statement:

• He quotes OMB Chair Krushellnicki’s statement in the OMB decision, about good planning, do you agree with that statement?
  --I fundamentally disagree.
  
• Do you believe that mitigation is essential for the successful operation of the quarry?
  --Yes.
  
• Is monitoring an essential component of that success?
  --Yes.
  
• As of this date, your client has not negotiated with landowners about allowing monitoring wells on private property?
  --No, but there have been discussions with agencies like MNR as to alternatives.
  
• An alternative plan has not been proposed, if access agreements don't happen?
  --Road allowances could be used subject to permission
  
• Don't you think it would have been wise to come with specific agreements or alternatives before the Board?
  --No, I think it should be after the Board decides.
  
• The quarry shipping hours would be allowed from 6 AM to 7 PM?
  --Yes.
  
• Operations from 7AM to 7PM Monday to Friday and the occasional Saturday shipping?
  --Yes.
  
• Your understanding is there will be trucks there ahead of 6 AM?
  --Agreed.
  
• Can you estimate the number of trucks at or before 6AM?
  --You'd have to look at the traffic report estimate.
  
• Did the Coalition assist the process by helping to acquire access to private properties?
  --Yes.
  
• Did they assist in the CBSES public meetings?
  --Sometimes.
  
• Was the Coalition overall, helpful?
  --Yes.
  
• Did the Coalition overall assist?
  --No.
  
• Was a health risk assessment done?
  --Water quality was assessed.
  
• Was there a rehab plan for after Phase one, if the quarry is not allowed to go ahead?
  --No.

Re-cross Exam to Mr. Parkin by Mr. Tzekas (lawyer for JDCL):

• What did you mean by prescribed conditions?
  --These are set by the provincial standards in the ARA that are part of the requirements for all operations that are licensed.
  
• The Board makes the decision as to the license, but the Minister of Natural Resources may be able to change conditions if he/she feels they are not consistent with the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA).
  
• The levy fees per tonne that are set by the Minister, do they have anything to do with the rehab fund called the superfund at TOARC?
  --No.
  
• Regarding the fiscal impact model to the Town, were you ever asked to do this?
  --No.

This ends the Evidence in Chief by JDCL.

Hearing returns Jan 11, 2010 at 9:30 AM where we will hear from MNR followed by 6 weeks of evidence from the Town and Region.