OMB Rockfort Hearing for January 19th, 2010

Town of Caledon Witnesses: Andre Scheinman, Caroline Marshall:

• Andre Scheinman: CV Founding member of Heritage Professionals, 29 years in Heritage Preservation; Cultural Heritage Landscapes, very interested in landscapes that have evolved over time, studied the Mennonite areas, been asked to look at the Dunlop observatory lands by the Ontario Government.  For the Town of Caledon he was asked to develop a criteria for cultural landscapes and in doing so study the Rockside area. First part of a broader exercise to look at areas across Caledon.  Accepted as an expert witness.
• Caroline Marshall: worked as Landscape Planner since 1988, Full status in the Ont Planners Institute; focus on large scale planning and in particular in the last 10 yrs in Cultural Heritage.  Accepted as expert witness.
• Based on the work completed we feel there is a cultural landscape in around Rockside and Rockfort is one of the key elements of that landscape. The proponents measures are insufficient to save the context of the cultural Heritage in and around Rockfort and in and around the pig farm.
• Westervelt farm has been somewhat undervalued. Demolition of barns not acceptable nor is moving the house acceptable.
  
• Also concerned with the fact that associated loss will not be lost
  
• Landscapes do comply to the early landscapes outline
  
• Loss of landscape will have an impact on the larger Rockside landscape
  
• Proponent’s plan will not adhere to the Provincial Policy
  
• Also lack of concern for impact of haul route on cultural heritage
  
• Further development of the 9a area will have devastating affects on the cultural landscape
  
• Evolution of Cultural Landscape goes back to the 1920s ie: Imprint of man on the landscape
  
• By 1962 there was concern by Unesco about the loss of cultural landscapes
  
• Parks Canada involved in the preservation of Cultural Heritage
  
• 1996 Provincial Policy introduced policies to protect Cultural Heritage
  
• Relative Policies: Provincial 1996  #2.51 Significant is defined as important
  
• NEC Policies: speaks to maintain cultural Heritage Features, Rockside appears as a place name on NEC map
  
• Greenbelt Plan also speaks to protecting Cultural Heritage.
  
• Town of Caledon has been particularly aggressive in protecting these areas, very progressive. 1993 recommended a policy framework
  
• OPA 173 adopted in 2003 and these policies are now part of the policy framework
  
• Town has long recognized Cultural Heritage
  
• Intent to commit to an inventory of archeological sites and landscapes
  
• Each individual application for development will have to undertake a cultural heritage impact assessment
  
• Retention of the building on site is encouraged wherever possible
  
• Town has continued to move on with inventory of cultural landscapes
  
• Section 5:11 242 Policies of the mineral resources, cultural heritage survey must be taken and there must be no unacceptable impacts 5:11 244
  
• Policy speaks to the need of looking at the haul routes, must be adequate investigation of cultural landscapes and there must be no unacceptable impacts
  
• Looked at 6 different criteria for evaluating landscapes
  
• Does the area connect to any key themes?
  
• Does the area have close association with key individuals?
  
• Does the area have connection with a key people?
  
• Does it manifest a close tie with the domestic landscape?
  
• Will the area yield artifacts?
  
• Lastly are there any ties to a First Nations group?
  
• If they meet any or all of the criteria then must look at integrity.
  
• Statement is then made of the cultural evaluation of the area
  
• Identify boundaries of area
  
• Study was reviewed by Town Council and was accepted
  
• Character defining elements must remain in tact
  
• What is acceptable change? Criteria of remembering the historic theme of the place
  
• Looked at original settlers of Rockside, main family was the MacDonald family
  
• Had meetings with the residents in the area, all the criteria were well met.
  
• The subject property: Both properties were the basis of the character defining elements of the Rockside landscape, both farmsteads are relatively in tact. Earliest settling family, barn complex, all part of the historical aspect.
  
• Concerns re application: would seriously denigrate the Rockside cultural landscape, mitigation does not speak to the integration of many different elements. Has a great deal of difficulty with moving the Westerveld buildings
  
• From the 1850s, it is the earliest dwelling on the site.
  
• Also the northwest barn is unique and looks like it could come from an earlier period. – has to be a larger consideration to uniqueness and history of these places
  
• Have to look past all the layers of finishes that have been put on and in this building.
  
• Establishment of quarry on the site does denigrate the total cultural landscape
  
• The associations have to be much clearer than just having a plaque there instead of the actual building
  
• Caroline concurs with Mr. Scheinman – continual assumption by the applicant that as long as just the buildings are conserved than everything is fine. Must not bury all these historic features in an industrialized quarry. Issues were raised originally by the Ministry. Acknowledgement of all sorts of impacts on the adjacent areas and individuals.
  
• Actual road attributes have historical significance, ie rolling features
  
• 9A HPMARA –there are a number of properties in the subject lands that would be affected if there were additional aggregate applications.
  
• Would cultural heritage inventory prevent quarrying everywhere in Caledon ? Rockside was one of many locations to be studied. Looked at other identifiable cultural landscapes. 14 cultural landscapes identified in total- small proportion of land base of Town. Status of Inventory 2009- Town is planning on consulting with the community re their findings.
  
• Consultation with the Ministry, very long period of consultation, with applicant, peer reviewers, etc. requested that the applicant’s consultants acknowledge the significance of the stone walls, (rubble stone walls with wood shims) and other historic features. However the Ministry disagrees and suggests that the building could be moved and signed off that there were no more concerns.
  
• OPA 211 to endorse and entrench the Rockside area in the official plan.
  
• Ministry then supported OPA 211
  
• Madam Chairman made the statement that the Ministry of Culture has left it up to the OMB to sort out the conflict ie having signed off on the issue and then sending a warm and fuzzy letter endorsing Caledon for their policies

Cross Exam of Mr. Sheinman and Ms. Marshall on Cultural Heritage for the Town of Caledon

By Mr. Tzekas (JDCL):

• Looking at the Caledon High Potential Mineral Aggregate Area (CHPMARA), did you state that this area should never be developed for extraction?
  --Answer by Sheinman: If the question had been asked at the beginning of the process, should we proceed with a quarry here, given the significance of the cultural heritage on the site it might have been decided not to proceed.
  
• Looking at the Town Plan it states the need to balance aggregate resources with other resources (including cultural heritage resources)?
  --Correct
  
• You are not qualified to make that balancing decision?
  --Correct, but we were asked to make an assessment of the significance of the heritage.
• When you speak about the conservation of these heritage resources what is the definition for that? Did the language come from the Town's policy? The PPS of 1997?
  --The language comes from the Town Plan and the overarching policies that have evolved over the last 10 years.
  
• It was the Town's intent to move the Rockside Cultural Heritage Study through to an OP?
  --Correct

A 2006 letter is produced from the Region alerting the Town that they must balance the Cultural Heritage with other resources signed by S. Banz.

Another letter is produced from the Region reiterating the policy.

• What is your assessment of the Region's position?
  --I would prefer not to comment on that as the Region's planner will be a witness and they can explain what they meant.

Handed out a document; an executive summary of a study done in 1993: (A background document for moving forward and the importance of built heritage, archeology etc). It was one of the drivers of moving policy forward in this area.

• The document states that documentation and recording is one of the ways to deal with cultural heritage?
  --No, I would interpret that it is not a recommended way, but rather when you have no other choice.
  
• Looking at the abandoned quarries in the Forks of the Credit that have become an interesting cultural landscape of some real significance in this Municipality?
  --Yes.
  
• Would you agree that quarrying went on throughout Caledon?
  --There were some areas, but I would not say that it went on throughout. There were some local small pits for local building along the Escarpment, but not extensively in the Rockside area.
  
• William Crichton is mentioned as the leader of the settlers, but you didn't mention him? –Yes, that report didn't do further research which showed that the McDonalds' and Kirkwoods' were the Patriarchs of this group of pioneers.

A Technical report was handed out of Built Heritage and Cultural Environment in 1998 (ESA).

• In those reports the Rockfort house and barn were characterized as "exceptional" and the Westerveld buildings were characterized as "ordinary" and "moderate"?
  --Yes.
  
• There is nothing indicated here that would show that aside from these characterizations, no one was suggesting that there was significant cultural heritage at this time?
  --This document was not meant to be for cultural heritage, it was for an ESA on the roads.
  
• So there was nothing in the studies done in the late 90's that precluded these lands from extraction because of cultural heritage?
  --Agreed.
• During the process of developing the aggregate policies for the Town (CCRS), did they consider Cultural Heritage something to be considered?
  --Agreed.
  
• Do you see where there are exclusionary constraints for aggregate sites?
  --Yes
  
• Do you see that heritage is something to be considered, but it's not something that would exclude a site?
  --That's correct.
  
• And Rockfort is not a designated site?
  --That's correct.
  
• While the CCRS was going on, the Rockfort application was on going and the public was aware?
  --We were not aware of that.
  
• In 1998 you did a site visit with Mr. Sweetnam?
  --Yes.
  
• You set out some concerns re built heritage and a further study of the land areas?
  --Yes.
  
• You state that the cultural landscapes are incomplete and you had concerns?
  --It was a long time ago, but my recollection was that the information came all in a lump along with the site plans. The documentation was mitigative rather than doing more studies about the cultural heritage.
  
• But you were not stating at that time that the quarry should not go in this area?
  --No, but you have to understand we were being asked for our comments about the Plans at this point; we were not hired to advise if the extraction should go forward here.
  

A document is handed out about the Town's Staff comments on Cultural Heritage issues in the CCRS recommended by Mr. Huming.

• Does it not state that the conservation of these resources could be satisfied by documenting or moving the resources?
  --Yes, but it is the balance of the significance of the heritage.
  
• The staff bullet shows that the staff were accepting the recommendations by Mr. Huming, is that fair?
  --I'm not sure that's the case.

Looking at the May 1999 Phase 4 of the CCRS:

• In this study the Town and Region went through a balancing process for the resources, correct?
  --I don't know about the process the Town went through to balance. We were not asked to comment on the CCRS document.
  
• As I understand it that culture and heritage were one of eight factors the Town looked at when considering CHPMARA areas?
  --I would say that the document indicates that studies needed to be done and the process that needed to be done.  For Rockfort, going right back to the very beginning, we commented on the cultural heritage and how more details and studies needed to be done on the site.
  
• The Rockfort site was mapped in the CHPMARA?
  --Yes
  
• In June 1999, the CCRS and the Rockfort application were going on simultaneously?
  --Yes.
  
• Sally Drummond stated in her report for Dillon (of JDCL) that the Rockfort landscape was of ordinary significance.
  --Yes.
  
• You respect Ms Drummond's work and it was very complete?
  --Yes, we agreed with the process but we didn't agree with the conclusions.
  
• Following your peer review didn't the Town hire you to inventory the cultural heritage landscapes?
  --Yes, but the comments were about the criteria, not to do the inventories.