The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLN 04-15 00 Report to - =-- _ Planning & Development Committee PICKERING Report Number: PLN 04-15 Date: May 11, 2015 From: Thomas Melymuk Director, City Development Subject: -Infrastructure Ontario Class B Environmental Assessment for the Demolition of Structures Located in the Seaton Urban Area and the Hamlet of Whitevale Recommendations: 1. That Report PLN 04-15 of the Director, City Development, regarding the Infrastructure Ontario Class B Environmental Assessment for the demolition of buildings located in the Seaton Urban Area and the Hamlet of Whitevale be received; 2. That Council, in response to the Infrastructure Ontario Class B Environmental Assessment object to the demolition of buildings located at 825, 1130 and 1450 Whitevale Road, 3440 Brock Road, and 2865 Sideline 16 which is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, 3. That Council endorse the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee to designate 825, 1130 and 1450 Whitevale Road under Part IV, of the Ontario Heritage Act; and that Staff be authorized to prepare the appropriate materials and report back to Council at a future date; 4. That Council not object to the demolition of buildings located at 3185 Brock Road, 3540 Country Lane, 1710 Whitevale Road and 325 Hwy 7; 5. That Council request an extension of another 120 days to the commenting deadline to allow the City to expand the Preliminary Reports to Full Heritage Assessments for the buildings located at 1050 Whitevale Road, 3280 Sideline 16, 3490 Brock Road and 1740 Fifth Concession, and to complete the Full Assessments already underway for 498 and 650 Whitevale Road; 6. That Council express its strong dismay at the Province for its disregard of significant heritage resources in Seaton through the lack of maintenance and occupancy of such resources, in contravention of the Provincial Policy Statement, and request the Province to restore and reuse these structures; 7. That, if the Province continues with proposed demolition of significant heritage resources, Council request the buildings be recorded in the form of photographs and/or measured drawings, the documentation of the buildings be provided to the City, and exterior or interior heritage features be made available for salvage to interested parties prior to any demolition; and 138 Report PLN 04-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessment for the Demolition of Structures in the Seaton Urban Area and Whitevale Page 2 8. Further, that a copy of this Report and Council's Resolution be forwarded to: the Premier of Ontario; Infrastructure Ontario; the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure; the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; and the Whitevale and District Residents'Association. Executive Summary: Infrastructure Ontario (10) is undertaking a Class B Environmental Assessment for the demolition of buildings on 15 properties in the Seaton Urban Area and the Hamlet of Whitevale. Based on Staffs preliminary review, 10 of the 15 properties required a heritage assessment to adequately evaluate the properties against the criteria of the Ontario Heritage Act to determine their cultural heritage value. The City retained a qualified heritage consultant, Christopher Borgal of Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd. (GBCA) to undertake the heritage assessments. The Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee (HPAC) reviewed and discussed the recommendations by the City's Heritage Consultant for 8 properties. The following is a summary of HPAC's recommendations to.Council: • Object to the demolition of 825, 1130 and 1450 Whitevale Road and designate these buildings under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act • Object to the demolition of 2865 Sideline 16 (Walter Percy House), which was recently designated under Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act by Council on April 22, 2014 • Request the City's Heritage consultant to expand the Preliminary Reports to Full Heritage Assessment for the buildings located 1050 Whitevale Road, 3280 Sideline 16, 3490 Brock Road and 1740 Fifth Concession To provide additional time for the heritage consultant to complete the full Heritage Assessments for the above-noted 4 properties and for 498 and 650 Whitevale Road, which are currently underway, an extension of another 120 days to the commenting deadline is required. Most of the properties are located in the Seaton Urban Area and are subject to the policies of the Central Pickering District Plan (CPDP) and the City's Official Plan Amendment 22. In addition, some of the properties are also located in the Hamlet of Whitevale and form part of the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District and protected under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. These buildings are valuable resources to the City and the demolition of these buildings would be a significant loss of the City heritage resources. The City is concerned that the Province is allowing the buildings to fall into such a state of disrepair that there is little option but to demolish them. This "demolition by neglect" is unacceptable and contrary to the Provincial Policy Statement. The City strongly recommends Infrastructure Ontario restore these buildings so that they can be used for appropriate residential, commercial or community purposes serving the City. If the buildings cannot be protected in-situ, they should be relocated and integrated into another area of the Whitevale Hamlet or the Seaton Community. 139 Report PLN 04-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: • Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessment for the Demolition of Structures in the Seaton Urban Area and Whitevale Page 3 Financial Implications: The cost to undertake the heritage assessments was funded through the Seaton Development Application Revenue reserve. 1. Background 1.1 Infrastructure Ontario intends to demolish buildings on 15 properties located in the Seaton Urban Area and the Hamlet of Whitevale An environmental consultant, ECOH, has been retained by Infrastructure Ontario (10), to gather background information for the preparation of a Class B Environmental Assessment (EA) for the demolition of buildings on 15 properties in the Seaton Urban Area and the Hamlet of Whitevale (see Location Map, Attachment#1). The City was requested to provide information on the heritage status of these properties within 30 days of receipt of the notices, which were received in November 2014. Staff requested, and received, an extension to the commending deadline to the end of May 2015. Based on Staffs preliminary review, 10 of the 15 properties required a heritage assessment to adequately evaluate the properties against the criteria of the Ontario Heritage Act to determine their cultural heritage value. The City retained a qualified heritage consultant, Christopher Borgal of Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd. (GBCA) to undertake the heritage assessments. 1.2 The City's Heritage Consultant has completed four Full Heritage Assessments and four Preliminary Assessments but two Full Assessments remain incomplete The four properties located at 825 Whitevale Road, 1130 Whitevale Road, 1450 Whitevale Road and 3440 Brock Road are identified as being "Heritage Lots" in the Seaton Neighbourhood Plans. Since these properties have been identified as being a significant heritage resource, full Heritage Assessment reports were completed. The full Assessments include a historical review of the building and property, evaluation of the heritage features of the building, an evaluation against Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act, a draft statement of significance and a recommendation by the City's Heritage Consultant (see Building Heritage Assessments, Attachments #2, #3, #4 and #5). Preliminary Assessments for four properties located at 1050 Whitevale Road, 3280 Sideline 16, 3490 Brock Road and 1750 Fifth Concession were completed given that the City had minimal heritage information on these properties. The Preliminary Assessments include an assessment of the value of the heritage resource including intact heritage features and the current condition of the building. The reports also include a recommendation and determination whether 140 a full heritage assessment is warranted. Report PLN 04-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessment for the • Demolition of Structures in the Seaton Urban Area and Whitevale Page 4 Two full Assessments are also underway for 498 and 650 Whitevale Road. The City's Heritage Consultant has indicated that further analysis is required, including an interior evaluation of the properties. Accordingly, these Reports are not yet complete. 2. HPAC Recommendations to Council At the April 15, 2015 Special Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting, Christopher Borgal presented his recommendations to the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee (HPAC). The Committee reviewed and discussed the Consultant's recommendations for the eight properties for which Reports were completed, and provided the recommendations to Council (see Excerpts of April 15, 2015 Special Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Draft Meeting Minutes, Attachment#6). The Committee did not consider the two properties for which the Full Assessment reports were not yet completed. 2.1 HPAC recommends Council object to the demolition of four buildings The following tables summarize the current heritage status, recommendations of the City's heritage consultant GBCA and the HPAC, and Staff's analysis and recommendations for the properties located at 825, 1130 and 1450 Whitevale Road, and 3440 Brock Road. 825 Whitevale Road and 1130 Whitevale Road Current • 825 Whitevale Road is located within the Whitevale Heritage Heritage Conservation District which is designated under Part V of the Status Ontario Heritage Act • Both properties are Listed on Municipal Heritage Register • Both properties are "Heritage Lots" in the Seaton Neighbourhood Plan GBCA Recommends Designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Recommends Act by the City of Pickering (see Building Assessment Reports, Attachments #2 and #3) HPAC That Council object to the demolition of the houses located at Recommends 825 Whitevale Road and 1130 Whitevale Road; and to Council That Council designate 825 Whitevale Road and 1130 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Staff Analysis The Heritage Assessments establish that the buildings are interesting examples of their kind and type particularly due to the design and materials, and recommend that the buildings are significant built resources and should be photographed, recorded and preserved. 141 Report PLN 04-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessment for the. Demolition of Structures in the Seaton Urban Area and Whitevale Page 5 The HPAC concurred with GBCA's recommendations that the properties be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by the City of Pickering. In addition, given the location of the proprieties along Whitevale Road, there is an opportunity for the re-use of the structures in the future and the integration into the Seaton neighbourhood plans. Staff That Council object to the demolition of the houses located at Recommends 825 Whitevale Road and 1130 Whitevale Road; and to Council That Council designate 825 Whitevale Road and 1130 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. 1450 Whitevale Road • Current • Listed on Municipal Heritage Register Heritage • "Heritage Lot" in the Seaton Neighbourhood Plan Status GBCA Recommends the house should continue to be included on the Recommends Municipal Heritage Register (see Building Assessment Reports, Attachment#4) HPAC That Council object to the demolition of the house located at Recommends 1450 Whitevale Road; and to Council That Council designate 1450 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Staff Analysis The Heritage Assessment prepared for 1450 Whitevale Road finds that the building is an interesting example of a modest farmhouse from the late 19th century and is only modestly • significant. The consultant does recommend that continuance of its current listing or designation of this building would be appropriate to retain this farmhouse. It is also recommended that the building should be photographed, recorded and preserved. The HPAC recommended that 1450 Whitvale Road be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by the City of Pickering. In addition, there is an opportunity for the re-use of the structures in the future and the integration into the Seaton neighbourhood plan. 142 Report PLN 04-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessment for the Demolition of Structures in the Seaton Urban Area and Whitevale Page 6 Staff That Council object to the demolition of the house located at Recommends 1450 Whitevale Road; and to Council That Council designate 825 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. 3440 Brock Road Current • Listed on Municipal Heritage Register Heritage • "Heritage Lot" in the Seaton Neighbourhood Plan Status GBCA Does not recommend Designation under Part IV of the Ontario Recommends Heritage Act by the City of Pickering (see Building Assessment Report, Attachment#5) HPAC That Council object to the demolition of the house located at Recommends 3440 Brock Road; and to Council That Infrastructure Ontario restore the building to its original . appearance and livability and find an appropriate use and tenant for the house. Staff Analysis The Heritage Assessment prepared for 3440 Brock Road finds that this house is of typical design and material for its period and that this building is not a significant heritage resource; however it was recommended that the building be restored and a good and appropriate use be found. For that reason, the HPAC recommends that Council object to the demolition of the building and recommends that Infrastructure Ontario restore the building to its original appearance and livability and find an appropriate use and tenant for this house. Staff That Council object to the demolition of the house located at Recommends 3440 Brock Road; and to Council That Infrastructure Ontario restore the building to its original appearance and livability and find an appropriate use and tenant • for the house. 143 Report PLN 04-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessment for the Demolition of Structures in the Seaton Urban Area and Whitevale Page 7 2.2 Staff recommends Council Object to the demotion of 2865 Sidelinel6 A summary of the heritage status and recommendations for 2865 Sideline 16 are outlined in the chart below: 2865 Sideline 16 Current On April 22, 2014, Council designated 2865 Sideline 16 under Heritage Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act Status Staff Analysis The building located at 2865 Sideline 16 (Walter Percy House) was recently designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by Council on April 22, 2014 and therefore it is recommended that Council object to the demolition. Staff That Council object to the demolition of 2865 Sideline 16 Recommends designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. to Council 2.3 Staff recommends Council not object to the demolition of 4 buildings 2.3.1 A summary of the heritage status and recommendations for 1710 Whitevale Road and 325 Hwy 7 are outlined in the chart below: 1710 Whitevale Road and 325 Hwy 7 Current No heritage status Heritage Status Staff Analysis Del Management Solutions, on behalf of Infrastructure Ontario notified the City in 2013 of its intent to demolish buildings located at 1710 Whitevale Road and 325 Hwy 7. The properties were not listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. The City retained Christopher Borgal of GBCA to prepare a heritage review of the properties to assess the heritage features and historic value of the buildings. GBCA found that these properties were of diminished heritage interest and it was not recommended that the properties be listed or designated. The HPAC on January 9, 2014 concurred with the recommendations. Staff That Council not object to the demolitions Recommends to Council 144 Report PLN 04-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessment for the Demolition of Structures in the Seaton Urban Area and Whitevale Page 8 • 2.3.2 A summary of the heritage status and recommendations for 3185 Brock Road and 3540 Country Lane are outlined in the chart below: 3185 Brock Road and 3540 Country Lane Current No heritage status (20th Century buildings) Heritage Status Staff Analysis The properties are 20th century structures and have no heritage value. Therefore, staff recommend that Council not object to the demolition of these buildings Staff That Council not object to the demolitions Recommends to Council 2.4 The HPCA requested 4 Preliminary Assessments be upgraded to full Heritage Assessments 2.4.1 The following chart outlines the current heritage status and recommendations for 1050 Whitevale Road, 3280 Sideline 16, 3490 Brock Road and 1740 Fifth Concession: 1050 Whitevale Road 3280 Sideline 16 3490 Brock Road 1740 Fifth Concession Current • 1050 Whitevale Road listed on Municipal Heritage Register Heritage • Other properties have no heritage status Status GBCA Does not recommend listing on the Municipal Heritage Register Recommends HPAC That Council request GBCA to prepare Full Heritage Recommends Assessments to Council Staff Analysis The Preliminary Assessments prepared for the buildings located at 1050 Whitevale Road, 3280 Sideline 16, 3490 Brock Road and 1740 Fifth Concession were presented to the HPCA. GBCA's analysis of the buildings did not recommend listing any of the buildings on the Municipal Heritage Register and staff recommended that the Committee not object to the demolition. 145 Report PLN 04-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessment for the Demolition of Structures in the Seaton Urban Area and Whitevale Page 9 HPAC requested further information be prepared by GBCA including an interior analysis of the buildings, site history and an analysis against the Ontario Heritage Act Regulations 9/06. Therefore, the HPCA requested a deferral to the comment deadline provide Council with a recommendation on the buildings following an upgrading of the Preliminary • Assessments to Full Assessment reports. Staff That Council request an extension of another 120 days to the Recommends commenting deadline to allow the City's Heritage Consultant to to Council expand the Preliminary Reports to Full Heritage Assessments . 2.4.2 Full Heritage Assessment being prepared for 498 Whitevale Road and 650 Whitevale Road The following chart outlines the current heritage status and recommendations for 498 and 650 Whitevale Road: 498 Whitevale Road and 650 Whitevale Road Current Located within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Heritage which is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act Status GBCA Currently evaluating the properties including an interior Recommends evaluation and a full heritage assessment will be prepared Staff analysis The City's Heritage Consultant prepared preliminary assessments for 498 and 650 Whitevale Road and recommends further evaluation of these buildings including an interior evaluation to determine the date of construction, etc.. The scope of the report would be expanded to a full heritage assessment. Staff That Council request an extension of another 120 days to the Recommends commenting deadline to allow the City's Heritage Consultant to to Council expand the Preliminary Reports to Full Heritage Assessments 2.5 Another extension of 120 days is required to the commenting deadline to allow the City's heritage consultant to complete full Heritage Assessments An extension to the commenting deadline of another 120 days is needed to complete the full Heritage Assessments for: 1050 Whitevale Road, 3280 Sideline 16, 3490 Brock Road, 1740 Fifth Concession as requested by the Heritage Committee, and 498 and 650 Whitevale Road which are already 146 underway. Report PLN 04-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessment for the Demolition of Structures in the Seaton Urban Area and Whitevale Page 10 • This time is required to allow the heritage consultant to research the history of the properties, coordinate with Infrastructure Ontario to access the buildings and conduct interior evaluations of the buildings, and update the reports. Subsequently, the full Heritage Assessment reports will be presented to HPAC and the recommendations will be presented to Council at a future date. 2.6 Heritage Designation of Provincial Land Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act allows municipalities to designate properties, but is not enforceable on Provincially-owned lands. Accordingly, should Council pass a Designation By-law for any of all of these properties, the Province would not be obligated to comply with the By-law. However, if a property is sold, the private property owner would be obligated to comply with the Designation By-law. 3. Comments and objections received from Whitevale and District Residents' Association and area residents Correspondence was received from the Whitevale and District Residents' Association and a number of area residents (see Whitevale and District Residents' Association Comments and Area Residents' Comments, Attachment#7). The following is a summary of the key comments and concerns identified by the community: • the homes are valuable pieces-of Pickering and Ontario's history • demolition of built heritage assets should only ever be considered as a last resort • the Central Pickering District Plan (CPDP) and the City's Official Plan provide for the protection of significant heritage resources • concerned not only about the immediate loss of these built heritage assets, but also about the potential for future losses of other Provincially-owned homes • several of the properties being considered for demolition already have some form of heritage protection under the Ontario Heritage Act • private landowners, other than the Government of Ontario, would be obligated to maintain and protect these buildings • concerned if the houses are deemed to be derelict; it has not escaped residents' notice that the Government of Ontario'has been the landlord for over 40 years. 147 Report PLN 04-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessment for the Demolition of Structures in the Seaton Urban Area and Whitevale Page 11 4. Conclusions The majority of the properties are located in the Seaton Urban Area, and are subject to the policies of the Central Pickering District Plan (CPDP) and the Pickering Official Plan (as amended by Amendment 22). Key objectives of these documents are to restore, rehabilitate, protect and conserve significant cultural heritage resources and integrate them into the new neighbourhoods. The demolition of buildings in Seaton, particularly those located on significant heritage properties identified as "Heritage Lots", is not in keeping with the vision of the Province and the City to integrate these resources into the new development. Moreover, heritage assessments undertaken by the City have concluded that a number of the properties should be preserved and there are opportunities for the re-use of the structures in the future. Some properties are also located in the Hamlet of Whitevale and form part of the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District and are protected under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. These buildings are considered to be valuable assets to the Whitevale Community and the City, and to demolish these buildings would be a significant loss of the City's heritage resources. Another property is already designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and should be renovated and used. It is strongly recommended that Infrastructure Ontario invest in the community by restoring the buildings so that they can be used either for a residential, commercial or community use the City. If buildings could not be protected in-situ, they should be considered for relocation and integration into another part of the Seaton Community. There is a great concern that if Infrastructure Ontario fails to take proactive restoration, maintenance and tenanting of the significant buildings, the fate of the structures will be "demolition by neglect" regardless of whether the Province officially resorts to demolition. This lack of action is unacceptable and contrary to the Province's own Policy Statement, section 2.0, Wise Use and Management of Resources, subsection 2.6, Cultural Heritage and Archaeology, which states "Significant built heritage resources ... shall be conserved." Finally, despite all efforts, if Infrastructure Ontario decides to demolish any of the buildings that are of heritage significance, it is recommended that the buildings be recorded in the form of photographs and/or measured drawings and the documentation of the buildings be provided to the City. Furthermore, prior to the demolition, exterior or interior heritage features should be made available for salvage, and that any interested heritage organizations, the City or other interested parties be able to coordinate the salvage of any materials. 148 Report PLN 04-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessment for the Demolition of Structures in the Seaton Urban Area and Whitevale Page 12 Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Building Assessment Report, 825 Whitevale Road 3. Building Assessment Report, 1130 Whitevale Road 4. Building Assessment Report, 1450 Whitevale Road 5. Building Assessment Report, 3440 Brock Road 6. Excerpts of April 15, 2015 Special Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Draft Meeting Minutes 7. Whitevale and District Residents' Association Comments and Area Residents' Comments Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: r' Cristina Celebre, MCIP, RPP Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner— Development Review Chief Planner & Heri :ge ,ei Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Thomas Melymuk, MCI a, ' ' Manager, Development Review & Director, City Development Urban Design CC:Id Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council (iP4,1)81e Afij 27 2045 Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer 149 • (O 00 -.I .Q) Ui W N -. 20,. 1 91 .- W N.1 O 1 II ■�=�,��Ilk •', CO W N 03 CO CO 1 --` W Q) .p CO O ■ 00 0 r7„,, I'1 Ou A co 0) ..p (CO .Wp. 1 •P O N o CO N v r`�= (n w cn co o au w `� � � N < , U1 0 0 010 0 0 00 o O = \ "■ 111 t• 0 E. a 0 0 .a4-) 5 8- ci) « < * cn a i r 3 r-.1.' o = _L __L o o 1- co. o co co -.4 [al MI I a.CD O) •W a a n MI 7J XI JJ 0. OO.. 0_ 7 0 • m aaaa I I_6 o . O '� m �i�� Iwo. I y; m - G - , - ALTON• ROAD .;��\1? ��_�,\`;,�`� PPIA SIDELINE 1 .•0 z 5 E i• a1 \ a_.�f ►.� °o▪ m Z I �!%y(�P f `�`I..i 1\�& 2.*ri\1 NOR 1y� lin ..__�� { � \le °• O O •OAD � l 1',��•-i�id '� �` �� NORTH Li g. 1 • or co �`�.O••'' U.:400 I Pliiiii! to 0 5. \ ' ' igristijejliiiiirlikollPilikON 1:S, t d\...._al",41..At 44'..',.,...A 6 11110 JIM C". -11141‘-'71k.;14 1 1 . J".) -.... -11:1 )1111immiallillil III 2 Per lila ■ 26 \\+W=\ 1 SIDELINE 1 Milli �r'1♦_�I 1.11111111 •-_ Z r O �,1AA, SIDELINE O SID •1►l ■ _ �, SIDELINE `LINE 22 • SIDE CO •�y — �f� r -< I r.... =, - =� _�" . . _ SIDELINE ' II. \um's...TA ilitid 111 t: 30 _- 06110:::::.0"■VAAKM MI 417 F''' ' - \ - ■:".:!.t• :•:•W:+:• ••••E 3 ill I Will I 0 -r .- .• :.�.� a�- IIIYn"i,�'�1111111\■ ii 1 F r • \ ROAD ♦�P�O�:.. i a1.41 3 O p 'l'1'1'j', 00•.00•......00❖.•i 0 O ■ i0•:::::::::%%iii 1x^ a•w ► •O�•i Oii�i W (p = O O 000 •i•OO -+o = m D •• , a❑• �'(Q " _ I D ELI N E ∎•�•�•�•%�i!tr!�!.......... ' '�` -ZI N Al (D O - _ - _ 16 - - - - - - ` qt. -O --I-I a' co m 1 _._ O CD 0 r.) c .Z i . \ L _< 7 ! • N 0- 0 I \ 0. I • C 0 • Attachment#2 to Report PLN 04-15 Building Assessment Report 825 Whitevale Road 151 , . .6 .0c0 , •I{tt, k i ' j D '...i t ' , rtt- .. - • 0_ i- ... Bpi - 'tagAssessment \ lie, .,% \ t4t t 77 - m . `i a. ;'fit • I , ! .. 44 1 ` ` . • }}R to• `l.. I 11 I1i . i } l.* r?"a..,..�-. ..�.- t4 c i .,1 1 1•k l' Goldsmith Borgal �� `i &Ccrnl�angLtd. 825 Whitevale Road, Architects Pickering, Ontario i 362 Davenport Rd. for .k Suite 100 Toronto.Ontario City of Pickering `� M5R 1K6.Canada ° 6 April 2015 ��= < 1'416 929 65561 _ ` F 1169294745 1 www.gbca.ca ; • i t 1 152 l Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 General Parameters Goldsmith Borgal & Co. Ltd.Architects (GBCA) was requested in early 2015 to prepare an assessment of the property listed as 825 Whitevale Raod, Pickering, Ontario. A study has been deemed to be required to determine the heritage importance and condition of this structure and to its recommended disposition. The site was visited on 28 February 2015. This report is partly informed by a 2004 Report prepared by C. Bray and is augmented where additional information has been collected. 1.2 Assumptions General assumptions for the scope of our work included the following: • Investigations were limited to visual inspection.We did not conduct any destructive testing nor was the examination done in detail. • Conservation mitigation work that we may propose is intended to conform to the highest conservation standards and result in the retention of as much historic building material as possible. • Where we suggest that some of the building elements may be removed or significantly changed, we recommend that the general arrangement of the features be recorded and documented in a manner that documents the evolution of the overall structure. • We were not permitted to enter the building and thus some of the material related to dating of the structure may be open to conjecture as interior areas, including the basement and attic, could be visited to date original assemblies. However, some images of the interior from earlier reports were used in the current study. 2 153 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 2. SITE BACKGROUND 2.1 History The subject site (red circle) is documented in the J.J. Beers & Co. Ontario County Atlas, Pickering Twp., of 1877 to the east of the hamlet of Whitevale seen in the image below (red arrow). The property is listed by the municipality as the "Thomas Stevenson House" and its development is stated to be c1855.Typically, only the residential structures are illustrated in the County Atlas—outbuildings were not generally indicated. m16 • i 5 v ' • 2. S k ; `s y - j ' , * i t ' L `` l 9 1 L .: t ac s I I, : 4 't E 3.;€ {' t R w t, L i ��i,.1 .. z 1 t. it i t IN ' 0 i t I i1 s }a • 1 ry k . . . .- a �.-_- -� ■ { .I i. i' 1, ' ;II' 1"I..i +t, ■ . I t 1 . Est o . . ' .1I*i4 s q ! h t s V 0. _ i R , t• t ° ac -'t k .4I ,� s F.°1. i 71 i L �t ' '4. 1 Ik } - 1. C Y 4 , s 4 7 S r 1 :j. " ;. 1 S' ' k . g -C i - ; {{ , k }} , A Y r_ 1, .i 3 II 1„r: ,, Al _ . I, _ ''.* 1,f..rik, .t.., ,- 1 . !-, , - ,;_i iri3'1,;`, 1, t. ..,, z(;•. , 71,i. ,- , 1, ,.,t,:, ---LI, 7 '1,-;— i 11 ` ~ . e '1 — v 4.,.• 4 5.—,'!� ar ' ' ' t. s . ..A i « i c 3 s ' � y t v . # 7• - , _ - _ x 24 I+. L� 6 �: II 1 g z. L ti = i i • n 3 154 • Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 t ,ft 4.4 Illustrated on this page is a copy of an 1867 map of Pickering and a detail. In both cases,Whitevale is circled in red and the subject site is located with a red arrow. _4 g , - 1867 1967 Lie IT t , pooh. A A tA k , , : Dr -Z ■ t 4 155 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 2.2 Location The building is located on the south side of.Whitevale Road (A)east of Whitevale(B) and south of Hwy 407 (C), in Pickering, Ontario(see oblique view looking NW- north is indicated). The site is illustrated in the upper image with the subject wood framed house (1) constructed c 1855. t tog 1 .i5'. f • f • F a r • • ice • .r r k- zu. x 3.166,44, 5 i56 Building Heritage Assessment - For the City of Pickering 825 White vale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 2.3 History In the original land dispositions after Pickering was surveyed, a considerable area was given over to Clergy Reserves of which this property, Lot 27 Concession IV, was one. By an Order in Council dated 6 August 1816, the property was leased to Levy Von Kleek who, along with Phillip Staats (the lessee of Lot 20 Concession IV in 1817) and others, were a part of an influx of Dutch Settlers to the area. Asa Matthews applied to purchase the property from the Crown in 1829 and this appears to have been subsequently subdivided. Seventy acres of the eastern half of the property was in the hands of Thomas Stephenson by 1853. A 1-1/2 storey frame dwelling was constructed on the lot between 1853 and 1860. In that year, on the Tremaine Map, the house is noted as "The Grange"which set it aside as something out of the ordinary. The property was in the ownership of the Stevenson family until the late nineteenth century at which time it was purchased by the Pughs whose original homestead was located directly across the sideline and who, by 1877, also owned land to the south of the Stephenson property. -;-/eiVW.. _10 4 f� T'C1 ( � it i • -4 F�it ,' 4 c' . _. 'i r"t..mot.' .. 4. T .� • Photograph 1-View of the subject house from Whitevale Road in winter. The porch visible to the right of the bushes is not an original feature. Chimneys are also missing from the house and its addition. 6 157 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 3. GENERAL DESCRIPTION 3.1 General Comment The original house is what is now its western half. It was originally constructed perpendicular to the road in a manner that, apparently, was to take advantage of the sloping site.This allowed the south wall of the basement to exit at ground level. In this case, and common for Georgian Revival houses of this size and type, it was common to have the main kitchen located in the basement. With Stephenson's arrangement,the kitchen would have its own exterior exit to the south porch which would have treated.a very agreeable environment. Other commentators have suggested that a second floor was added to the original house c18751.We could not verify this as access to the interior was not granted. However, it is clear that the west wing was added at a date ranging form the late 1870's to the 1890's based on the evidence visible from the exterior. u Photograph 2-View of the subject house from the northeast. The porch visible to the right of the bushes is not an original feature. Chimneys are also missing from the house and its addition. 1 Bray et Al,2004. 7 158 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 • ..4 ' - ,ten-- • 11 Photograph 3(above)-View of the subject house from south. Note the imposing quality of the building when viewed from this side. PI? 14 Photograph 4(right)-View of the south and � � 'r west walls of the wing. � 8 159 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 j . ' I `S� -z T 9,,. e 4., 6 , 4(1 9.1,01,,,,. , , : . ' - - t t .,.r. s Photograph 5(above)-View from the northwest of the front wall of the new wing and west wall of the original house. Photograph 6(right)-detail of inside corner. Note the upper sash of the original building — '°' - is 6 paned. The upper sash of the window to L.—__r• the left of the door in the new wing is 2 sash pattern. Also note that the window in the _`°" :sa upper storey in the original wing is slightly larger than the window below.Aluminum ", door and storm windows,and the porch are all mid to late 20th century. 9 160 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 White vale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 4. DETAILED EXAMINATION 4.1 Foundations The foundation is constructed of native fieldstone. The pointing and setting details of the newer wing are easily seen (refer to photograph below). In both instances, the stones are laid roughly fitted and bonded with lime- based mortar. Typically, the core of these walls is composed of smaller rocks between the larger face stones.Also typically, the inside face of the foundation in basements of this vintage are painted with lime-wash which both provided a better level of light and reduced the development of mould. 1;. (St, Photograph 7-View of the foundation corner of the original house(foreground)and foundation of late nineteenth century addition at rear. Note the difference in stone size and setting arrangement. Field stones were split in a variety of ways. In some cases, striking the stones with a chisel along a grain line, where present, could cause an immediate fracturing of the stone and a clean split. Plug and feather methods saw holes drilled at either end of a stone, then a round set of wedges installed and an iron plug hammered into the hollowed faces between the plugs. Early methods also included the use of the flat wedge process where a groove was chiseled along the grain line and then wedges hammered into the groove between shims of sheet iron. Later in the 19th century (c 1878 and later), the plug and feather method was amended with 10 161 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 holes drilled every six to eight inches along the proposed fracture line and smaller plugs and feathers used to split the stone. Stone foundation walls ended after the WW I with the higher availability of poured concrete which was easier with which to build. The basement under the main house would have provided an area for the storage of root vegetables and fruit during the winter months and, in this instance, was probably the location of the original kitchen. 4.2 Exterior Wall and Roof Framing We could not access the interior of the house and could not confirm the framing. It is probable that, given the age of the house, the original portion was framed with pegged timbers with wood studs set between to allow for nailing on of the exterior siding and interior lath and plaster.The later additions, given the dating, are most likely of cut studs and planks in a manner that is similar to modern construction. The addition would most likely use "balloon framing"where the studs extend from the sill plate to the • top of wall without the intervening second floor platform used today. 4.3 Roof The roof is of a medium pitch, approximately 1: 2 ratio, hipped over the original wing and gable-ended over the new. The soffits in the new wing are horizontal while the ones in the new wing follow the slope.There is minimal decorative moulding at the eaves. Wood planks would have been installed over the roof framing(rafters). These would be typically 1" thick rough sawn pine of 8" to 12" in width (this type of lumber was typically used to sheath roofs and was also commonly used to sheath the walls of barns - it is still called barnboard). They would be typically installed with a small gap between each plank to provide ventilation to the underside of the shingles. Shingles would be locally made of eastern cedar, typically approximately 16" long with a minimum of three layers at each shingle (roughly a 5-1/3" exposure resulting from the overlap). Shingles on the existing roof are asphalt and are not original. 4.4 Windows Windows on the original building are 6/6 format while those in the new wing are 2/2 -where not replaced with more modern units. It is interesting to note the change in size of the windows on the second floor over the original wing which is a clue to the vertical addition when seen from the exterior. 11 162 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 Original shutters are found on the building, particularly the north elevation, or front, wall. They include cast iron hardware at the lower floor. They appear to be in good condition. 174- rr r f T Photograph 8-South windows on east wall. Note that the upper • r window is not aligned with the lower,which would be unusual if _ the house was originally , constructed as two storeys. Note also that the window trim of the lower,older,portion has a beaded inside edge while the upper trim is flat.The lower sill is also considerably more weathered than j - the upper. However,in this case, is --f` the lower window is a modern replacement while the upper is early. 12 163 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 • r 1 at 44 Photograph 9-original shutter pintle, i of cast iron,on the window edge of the / a{1e east window of the original building on the north wall. The corresponding shutter hardware would be called a - gudgeon. 4/. t Photograph 10-Operable shutter on north wall,upper floor,east window. Note the beaded meeting rail which suggests it certainly dates to the second floor addition but may be earlier.The louvres in this shutter probably were constructed to be operable. As there is no"keeper"to hold the shutter back,it has probably been fixed in place. p1 W ...1 gar 13 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 White vale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 4.5 Exterior doors Unusually, there are two early doors leading into the original wing. While it is possible that the door dates to the 187O's, it's design is more akin to the 185O's and is likely an original door. windows in the house have been replaced with modern doors dating to the 196O's and 198O's. They have minimal heritage value.The front door is framed with sidelights and a transom light(see Section 4.2 below) which remains, although damaged. Unlike houses of an earlier vintage, the front door and frame is placed flush with the exterior wall rather than being recessed into the stone from the outside. � r 'y^5 g r Photograph 11(at left)-The north main door. The �. - — detailing of the door and • j -surround and hood appear to s. be of 1850's vintage. - k -- r 14 165 • Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015• r ■,4 4 1 I Ii r-- I A Photograph 13-The east door. Sidelights and simple trim suggest an early date but the door itself is a four panel door which would suggest it is contemporary with the 1870's work. 15 166 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 4.6 Chimneys The only visible chimney is of 20th century vintage. Without access to the house, we could not determine the location of fireplaces which would have been apparent in the original wing and thus locate the original chimney locations. Although the original house would have been heated with fireplaces, by the time of the later additions the house would have been heated by stoves - round breachings in the interior walls would illustrate the location of the stoves and the chimney locations by that time.. 4.7 Porches Porches on the east and north walls are not original However, there is a porch roof over the entrance to the basement on the south elevations. Decorative trim under the porch, and the posts, suggest a date prior to the 1870's-the porch posts may be original, or imported from elsewhere as the roof is framed and sheathed with modern materials. \r - t` ` - y , .2' ' 4�_y i r l : i -' -4.--, a weir L :-..-.4...V.-:; 1' ."i • MEM a' A4* :' '� 'L� .c'Y. Ili a":_. ,g_ {., t� a Photograph 14-View under north porch. The posts and trim appear to be early but the roof is frames with modern studs. Note the unique brickwork at the right which is done in a style found throughout the area with tuckpointed joints-most certainly a repair.. 4.8 Interior Interior access was not granted by the Province for our inspection.Therefore we were unable to evaluate the interior for integrity nor to date the interiors by examining trim, fittings, and'attic and cellar framing. 16 167 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 5. Heritage Evaluation 5.1 General Comments There is sufficient information to permit, at some time in the future, a restoration of the building to its original appearance. A good and appropriate use should be found for the house. 5.2 Evaluation We have analyzed the subject building in accordance with the matrix required by the Ontario Heritage Act(0. Reg. 9/06)to establish recommendations for its significance. In the tables below, our opinion is followed by an analysis for each of the points flagged in the tables. Design or Physical Value Our opinion i. Rare example of a style&type displaying a high degree of Yes craftsmanship ii. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit No iii. Displays a high degree of scientific or technical achievment No Rare example of a style &type displaying a high degree of craftsmanship— The original structure at 825 Whitevale is a representative example of an early Georgian-style house. This was created just after the Georgian period and hence, as it should not be classed as a "Georgian Revival". It has Provincial rather than local interest for its age and the increasing rarity of examples of this period and type.The additions to the house are unusual and display changing attitudes to the approach to the design of rural houses. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit—The building was constructed in a manner that exhibits a reasonable level of craftsmanship for its period while also telling a story of the need to work within a budget. Of particular note are the door surrounds and hoods visible at the exterior main doors. However, the building has only moderate artistic merit. Displays a high degree of scientific or technical achievement-The building exhibits no specific technical achievements. 17 168 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 Historic/Associative Value Our opinion i. Direct associations with a theme,event,belief,person,activity, Yes organization or institution that is significant to a community ii. Yields,or has the potential to yield,information that contributes to an Yes understanding of a community or culture iii. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect,artist, Unknown builder,designer or theorist who is significant to a community Direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community -The building is directly associated with the earliest settlement of this area. Yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture-This building contributes to the understanding of the culture connected with the development of the local community. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect,artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community—While the designer and builder are unknown, the execution of the building illustrates interesting and unusual features that are worthy of note and preservation. Contextual Value Our opinion i. Important in defining,maintaining,or supporting the character of an Yes area ii. Physically,functionally,visually or historically linked to its Yes surroundings iii. Landmark Yes Important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area and Surroundings—The structure is one of several buildings that contribute to the character of Whitevale Road which, by any measure, is an early remaining settlement area in Ontario. Physically, functionally,visually or historically linked to its surroundings— The building is prominent when viewed from Whitevale Road and illustrates the pattern of settlement and early prosperity of its locale. It is located on the site in close correlation to that depicted on the 1877 atlas. Landmark— By virtue of its location on a knoll overlooking Whitevale Road, the building is a local landmark. 18 169 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 5.2.1 Summary This house is an early and interesting example of its kind and type- particularly due to its design and modifications. Such a building is increasingly rare as development spreads across the region. While some of the key historical elements are missing-particularly the original chimneys- the house is essentially intact and capable of being retained and restored as an historical reference. While only one criterion of the provincial matrix for evaluation needs to be met to trigger the designation of a property, this building meets several.The Provincial Policy Statement requires that"Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved." In respect to this structure, it is our opinion that the building is significant. and that it should be photographed, recorded and preserved. 5.3 Current heritage status The house is currently listed in the City of Pickering Heritage Inventory and Designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as a part of the Whitevale Seaton Heritage Conservation District.There are no associated outbuildings. It is also listed in the Official Plan Policy as a "Heritage Lot" in the Seaton Neighbourhood Plan (OPA Section #22). 5.4 Statement of Significance The following can be used as a Draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value for 825 Whitevale Road: The cultural heritage value of 825 Whitevale Road lies in its design, associative and contextual value.The building comprises an 1855 house which was subsequently added to in the 1870's and c1890's. 5.4.1 Design Value The building is a somewhat unusual but very complete example of mid- nineteenth century domestic architecture. It's designer is not known but is presumed to be a local building using pattern books as an inspiration. The house is of high-quality design and good quality materials. It features careful and fine details its exterior and interior.The informality of the additions documents a change in attitude to the design of the original house as the 19th century progressed. 5.4.2 Historic/Associative Value The house was not considered in previous evaluations to be of Provincial Significance as determined by criteria for Provincial Heritage status. However, it is our opinion that the Stevenson/Pugh property is of Local Significance for the following reasons: - the property has a long association with the development of the community dating to the Van Kleek leasehold prior to 1820. 19 170 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 - the original structure is early and additions are representative of later architectural approaches to design - the unusual position of the house on a hill-side creates a walk-in cellar kitchen and creates a three story house on its south side. The massing of the house allows it to be prominent when seen from Whitevale Road. 5.4.3 Character-defining Elements The building is very much unchanged from the time of its last addition in the late 19th to early 20th century. Character-defining elements are: - the overall massing of the structure and its height and prominence - the roof slopes - hipped over the older portion and gabled over the newer • - the Georgian proportions and style of the original house and its second storey addition - the rear entrance to the cellar and its associated veranda which is contemporary with the original house - the original clapboard siding and beaded corner boards and the shiplap siding on the addition - the original 6/6 windows on the original wing and the 2/2 windows on the addition - the main entrance with its hood and surround and the Italianate arch- panelled door - the secondary entrance on the east side, with its hood, trim and door 5.4.4 Contextual Value The subject house maintains and supports the rural heritage character of Whitevale Road. It represents some of the last remaining farm houses on the rural road running between Whitevale and Brock Road. 5.4.5 Interior The interior could not be evaluated due to lack of access at the time of this Draft but will be accessed in early April 2015. 5.5 Recommendations It is our opinion that the house should be Designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by the City of Pickering. Reference to the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada should be made for any modifications or updates to the building. Such standards do not preclude changes to the building- rather the standards should guide 20 171 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 any work done to repurpose the building while retaining the memory of heritage features. Work should also be done to secure the site to ensure that water, vermin and vandals are kept out and the foundations do not heave. A use should be found for the property or a rental agreement reached to ensure its continued use and occupancy. This is the best means of preserving properties of historic value for the future.Where development takes place, incorporation of the building within a new community is one of the best means by which a dwelling of this type can be preserved -this means that the planning of a proposed subdivision should be done in such a manner that the lot containing the proposed house, as well as the profile of the land around, is carefully considered and incorporated within proposed future development. While the loss of heritage structures is regrettable, not every structure can be retained. In the case of the subject site, however, there are interesting and unique features in terms of its design, materials and particularly its early age and associations with the original settlers of Whitevale Road. Re- use of this structure for a future use is possible. Properly stabilized,the building could support municipal or park functions or provide, for example, a low cost rentable site for private schooling or an NGO. It can'also be used as a residence if incorporated into a residential development. Therefore, designation of the site would be appropriate to retain this excellent example from the mid-19th century. 21 172 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 6. Closure This report has been written by the Consultants (Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd.Architects (GBCA)for the benefit of the client to whom it is addressed. The information and data contained herein represent the Consultants' best professional judgment in light of the knowledge and information available to the consultants at the time of preparation. Except as required by law, this report and the information and data contained herein are to be treated as confidential and may be used and relied upon only by the client, its officers and employees. The Consultants deny any liability whatsoever to other parties who may obtain access to this report for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, or reliance upon, this report or any of its contents without the express written consent of the Consultants and the client. The Consultants have prepared this report in accordance with the Scope of Services agreed with the Client. If you have any questions regarding the information contained herein, please contact the undersigned. Yours sincerely Golds, ith Borg. : o. Ltd.Architects Christopher Be ga OAA MRA AHP Principal • 22 173 Attachment#3 to Report PLN 04-15 Building Assessment Report 1130 Whitevale Road II 174 • Draft Report. Building Heritage Assessment doh JIB !,- P9o• *_1. • • -1,17 --+ L.— 4.4; j,i• at Goldsmith Borgal .1130 Whitevale Road Pickering, Ontario &Company Ltd. • Architects for 362 Davenport Rd. Suite 100 City of Pickering Toronto.Ontario M5R 1K6.Canada 6 April 2015 1 416 929 6556 F416 929 4745 www.gbca.ca 175 li Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 General Parameters Goldsmith Borgal & Co. Ltd.Architects (GBCA) was requested in early 2015 to prepare an assessment of the property listed as 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering, Ontario. A study has been deemed to be required to determine the heritage importance and condition of this structure and this information will determine its recommended disposition. The site was visited on 28 February 2015. 1.2 Assumptions Assumptions for the work: • Investigations were limited to visual inspection.We did not conduct any destructive testing nor was the examination done in detail. • Conservation mitigation work that we may propose is intended to conform to the highest conservation standards and result in the retention of as much historic building material as possible. • Where we suggest that some of the building elements may be removed or significantly changed, we recommend that the general arrangement of the features be recorded and documented in a manner that documents the evolution of the overall structure. • We were not permitted to enter the building and thus some of the material related to dating of the structure may be open to conjecture as interior areas, including the basement and attic, could be visited to date original assemblies. However, some images of the interior from earlier reports were used in the current study. 2 176 . Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 2. SITE BACKGROUND 2.1 Historical Mapping The subject site (red circle) is documented in the J.J. Beers & Co. Ontario County Atlas, Pickering Twp., of 1877 to the east of the hamlet of Whitevale seen in the image below (red arrow). The subject building is located on the property indicated as being owned by A&E Hastings. The property is listed by the municipality as the "Hastings property" and the house is said to have been constructed between 1835 and 1840.Typically, only the residential structures are illustrated in the County Atlas–outbuildings were not generally indicated. Note that a church appears to have been shown on the property at the southwest corner (although no visible remains exist and there is minimal local knowledge, if any, about it). a j f, ., ,i . ... 1 z. • 4 1. , e_ k -. ,.... -. .6: :( is- ) z - 1,, . ; fix. . . �'. a r c€ z1--1 ' i•Ad :.. .,mw-_ rs••_!1_,__*, ' r ' -4 r 1'. 1 . i • ` E .i F.. , i°1 .4 . • r O y, , ti 1 `I I 1 J' F .= ■ k" NT R t a � ' ! ? alp - I+L; _�■° ..4 t:i. —1. ; f ■ ;r, -ii: ) I f to 1- • : w \ ,.h. _ �, I 4 ire .G I r N..i 111 r... - ii .t t *.•E ,*t( 4 = 4 1 ». t z 1 t. l ) ,i k.N.,,,,,r,,,...., .1,.,,..,1{ A l 44 i \ . I� l 4. t 16 ,t,,,=,1 Jr,- ` �{ • \ � ■ Yr ay r_. 1 ``+ 4•�+ I i s. I C a C ■ 3+v' - f b 1 € a a x it! -;.:1 c << ti C f i y i . y o- }i ; a i a I ! 4 a ------1-;47,,, ■ — A k' t t 1 A z R t h , 1 I C 1 t 't S y -. 4 t. r ,e-4j ._„k tr` �;o # ~ '.,Y �iif= ."4 ^e' —yk – 1f Zit t 143'1 ^ '}. !S P.Y. _ ' { ■ ■ " ,• a .r ffTTT .f = I ► fL%`, �' ` i e, I 1 ; ; ; ..p Z s .. al }q z4 3 177 • Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 ''s' ' 411 14114, ' l'icilltitIM:4:1 1"•4 - MI;7 4 1 1. , I , .. .. ! . ,, ___ , • Illustrated on this page is a copy of an 1867 _ •, map of Pickering and a detail. In both ,, __________ cases,Whitevale is circled in red and the subject site is located with a red arrow. Note that in this plan the owner is indicated as"E , Hastings". . . - t I 4, - -____-__..., 1 - I 1. • 1867 t'eniennial Souvenir 1967 at t't S,',.1 ‘' CI' , . , .. a,■,.. 44- 4.:'. I .. . ,, a, 1 v■ •• ' - )-1, ,.. —„ I— -1 ..: '. "'' . 1 1- " . . .a. , F OM 1-('''` ,, -' ' : ., ...::' W.* •k4' N I'f. „,,., .., ,. 1 r — 0 L. ., . . —Or 1 'a ;-; , ,-_ "" ; Sellor ■ cct i- I '';J; —al , 4 178 1 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 2.2 Location The subject building is located on the north side of Whitevale Road (A)just east of of 24th Sideline (B) and south of Hwy 407 (C), in Pickering, Ontario. The site is illustrated in the upper image and includes: • the subject stone �4r: house (1) constructed • c1835-1840. • the main barn (2) - , now demolished (photodates to 2009). y . ..4^., 1 i J 179 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 2.3 History The original grantee of lot 24 Concession V(Whitevale Road)was Isabella Hill, who was an absentee landlord of an extensive area. It is reported that she sold off most of her property along the concession to Amos Griswold between 1828 and 1832. Nathaniel Hastings was registered as the owner of Lot 24 in 1833. Hastings is stated to be of United Empire Loyalist parentage and moved to Pickering around 1828 from York and settled on Lot 24 at that time, apparently prior to purchasing the property. The only house in the area listed in the 1851 census as of stone construction, it was occupied by the Hastings family for over a century. The son,John, constructed a small stone house on Lot 20 further to the east, which still stands, on property acquired and owner for a considerable period by Nathaniel'. That property also remained in the Hastings family well into the 20th Century. . ‘114Nlikt4 Ys 4.. alr i ,.,.mss.. « IV r '1 ... , _ Photograph 1-View from the north of the rear of the house. The wood additions are early,and likely date to just after the construction of the main house. 1 In the 1867 map,the site is indicated under the ownership of"F Hastings"which may have been a son. 6 180 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 3. GENERAL DESCRIPTION 3.1 The House - General Comment The house is of 1-1/2 storeys and constructed of stone with brick voussoirs (window arches). There is a tail constructed of both stone(kitchen) and wood (summer kitchen) of varying periods which includes a verandah. A frame woodshed and English barn once occupied the site but these had been demolished as of the date of the current report. Although most early houses in this area were of frame construction, the more prosperous properties constructed stone houses as far back as the mid 1800's. The source of the prosperity may have, in the earlier buildings, been the result of the establishment of a farmstead by an already prosperous individual while the later sites were the result of a reasonably successful farming operations passed down to descendants. Although by the late 1800's, wealthy farmsteads were constructing much larger homes than earlier dates, particularly where they were required to house larger families and using the wealth created by prosperous farming operations, it is of interest that the subject property is, in itself, a large residence for its period. Creation of a stone house can be the result of a desire to express one's heritage, as is typical of Irish and Scottish settlers whose homes tended to be of stone when this material could be afforded. .J . _ Photograph 2-View from the south of the front of the house facing Whitevale. Note the proportions of the windows, the 3/4 sidelights by the front door,the brick voussoirs,the basement windows,the single chimney,the heavy corner stones(quoins)and the variable size of stones-all discussed in the text below. 7 181 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road,Pickering 6 April 2015 3.2 The House Of the remaining houses on Concession V, this property is of early construction, c. 1835 -1840. It is noted to be a fine late example of the Georgian style(also described as "Anglo-Palladian"). A five bay(two flanking windows on each side of a central door) home of this design is typically associated with the late 18th Century and early 19th Century. Stonework has been well-placed, despite its being of fieldstone, and is more in the English rather than Scottish tradition -bands of larger stones were sorted and placed among smaller stones for structural integrity-with quoins, or corner stones, carefully selected and squared.Window and door arches are of red pressed brick. While this material is easier to work than stone, the gauging(rubbing bricks'to shape them for the arch)of the bricks to conform to the arch requirements is somewhat crude(see photographs) and suggests that the mason was more used to forming arches of alternative materials although they are of a complex rowlock construction. �.-rte r H•' eY - (I i Y t � 7/rrf } rr 4 I� r+ ° Yet 9 � 1 ,�y : ��' �,�/ .�y-... �.V+" .e J y ,F^ (�� I 7T1, Photograph 3-Detail of the front stonework. The arrow points to an insert of"gauged"or hand-profiled brick that forms a wedge to create an arch over the window. The highly variable pattern of stone suggests that stones were carefully sorted but not cut(to reduce the cost of construction). The brick voussoirs and the quality of the stonework suggests a very competent artisan but a builder rather than designer who editorialized a Georgian facade possibly using a pattern book for inspiration but adjusting the execution to fit within the means of the owner. This is likely why the windows,typically larger and more grand on a facade of this type,are smaller with their spacing adjusted from what might be expected with grander houses of the type. Window panes in the upper and lower sash of each window would have likely been the size of the panes in the transom over the door which,with muntin bars added, would have meant that the original glazing would have been 6 over 6 design,typical for the period. However,as window panes came in standard sizes and were shipped in wood boxes overland from Lake Ontario(probably made in Montreal or the U.S.),the smaller overall size of the windows would have been less costly due to the smaller glass sizes.Bricks are hand pressed and could have been made locally from local clays. 8 182 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 i F Y .- =,ti ,,;.-,g... -4.,Aier ■tv,_,, ,- :".. .•••::: z ' 11" - ' ..\ , :\°:' ' .::: „ , r El _ -,,....0,..•„„,i_ ;... ... . . . ,..1.., . ; n. . ....4.,:l. 1 1 11 .. ,...._ ,, 1 4.,‘ , . . „14,,,,,,i , . , , .........ro,...„ . _ , ._ Photograph 4-General view of east elevation. The larger windows at the main floor are typical of the style. The stone tail comprises about 1/2 of the length of the tail with the nort h end of timber frame. ii may 11 .. `�..il 1 ,;, i il , rioiii.4,,,„_, , . 1 ,Fi , A r i 1 •� p + w /1 , '.1+%)...dp . , c.77-7 r' .= poi,f j"Nw• (tiii'u. ,. Photograph 5-Detail of the east stone wall of the tail. Note the variability of the stone. The stone base for the post is not original and probably replaced a rotted post bottom. 9 183 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 V ' ,, , -%..'.. ry ..y' � �'�4r.} ifs 8 � � .._,......_ .. 1 ri .M t- -' w. Photograph 6-View from the north of the rear of the house. As noted above,the wood additions are early,and likely date to just after the construction of the main house. ,1_,:,,,` it- , , 1 w �� , l - ° o Ij �.�� rtS, i, +.... �i 1 .va....rmam...... . -.2%.., 1 i.,;:_ . .„_.1 , :.„ _.. ......* 44. , , _ ., , rye , 40,,„9 .' ,v �'"'..: ..�1`,-,d. _ '` , Photograph 7-View of the west side of the tail.The heavy timber framing can be seen through the missing clapboards(arrow). This puts the date of this addition at between the original date of constrution to the mid-1850's. The shed to the left is clad in vertical boards which suggests a later date-possibly the 1860's to 70's. 10 184 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 %.,.. .61'kr s - 7 r 1 k.'‘4,;, '' - - _ 4 w., 4 U-..E.,t.0 gatimmoin, miimmin.,_ Photograph 8-View from the northwest showing the west side of the tail and the rear and west wall of the main house. Note the heavy quoin stones at the corners of both the main house and the stone tail. Also note the lower sill heights of windows in the tail which is set lower than the main floor. A central door on both sides of the stone tail was common for cross-ventilation of the kitchen area. Chimneys are deteriorated and are contructed of modern brick and have replaced the originals save for a missing chimney on the east end of the roof ridge(arrow). Field stone was readily available in southern Ontario as it is typically mixed with the native soils as a result of glacial deposition. During the winter, particularly in the early days of farming the area, the winter frost would push these rocks to the surface and would have to be regularly removed to permit ploughing and used for building materials, perimeter fences or simply disposed of. The material, scraped from rocky outcrops by glaciers during the ice age, is composed of a wide variety of rock and, typically, only the hardest, was used as building stones. This material includes gneiss, granite, and quartzite and typically sized for handling by one or two workers.As they were rolled and tumbled in the glaciers, they are typically rounded in profile. In high end houses, stone is feathered (split) into suitable sizes which is an expensive process. In this case, the stones are highly variable in size and were sorted prior to laying up. The result is a strong, but varied, pattern with the random size of the stones used to ensure good tight joints between stones. In many cases, stone buildings of this period were intended to be stuccoed which would have concealed the appearance of random stone sizes- in that case, the larger stones would have been picked to provide a key for the stucco, a process which is not evident here. 11 185 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 The house sits on a slight rise and would have originally had a good vista to Whitevale Road and the entrance to the property. Given that Hastings acquired the property in 1833, but occupied it from 1828, it is likely that the current house was preceded by an earlier, probably log, structure. The 1877 Atlas shows a residence closer to the road than the approximate location of the subject building and may be indicative that the 1877 records show the original log structure;which was likely closer to the road allowance than the subject building. Hastings must have commenced construction of the stone house soon after acquiring the property which indicates the success of his farm. A.Pf I 9'1 .rty.,a Ml -2160 Photograph 9-View of house in landscape. 12 186 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 4. DETAILED EXAMINATION 4.1 Foundations The foundation is constructed of native fieldstone. The stones are laid roughly fitted and bonded with lime-based mortar. Typically, the core of these walls is composed of smaller rocks between the larger face stones. Also typically, the inside face of the foundation in the basement, if used, would have been painted with lime-wash to provide a better level of light and reduced the development of mould. The basement would have provided an area for the storage of root vegetables and fruit during the winter months. 4.2 Exterior Wall and Roof Framing As noted above, the walls of the main house are constructed of fieldstone with a thickness of from 1 to 2 feet.Within the interior face of the stone walls, thin horizontal wood battens are typically installed with a spacing of approximately 2 feet. To these nailers, square wood studs would have been installed onto which horizontal lath would have been installed which, in turn, would have carried the interior plaster. Timber framing for the ground floor, typically round barked or unbarked logs with their tops shaved flat, would have been set into the pockets in the stone walls to carry the main floorboards. A hewn wood "plate" would have been set onto the top of the stone walls which would support the roof rafters. At the time of construction, a house of this quality would have used either sawn or hewn rafters which would have tapered from the low end forming the eaves to the roof ridge. Roof rafters would extend over a knee wall at the north and south sides of the second floor and extend down to form the roof eaves. A collar tie would be installed to form the ceiling over the second floor and brace the rafters. It is highly likely that the rafter pairs would have been pegged and dowelled at the ridge. Further detailed investigation and record keeping is highly recommended. The tail of the house, forming the kitchen, would be of similar construction although only of one storey. Typically the kitchen floor would be placed lower than the main floor almost on grade unlike the main house which would be raised over a basement. 13 187 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 ci t, : i , .. , , , , ., , ck , , , , ■ ‘;‘ t l' , i i rl i ,i , ,,O;',1';v:.I.i-:11 :/:''? 'P Al'fi / ': ' ; " t. 11#14‘''Mhtk,* -' . :-.'..-;*- . 1ps •,. fit .' , .1 w a Photograph 10-View of east gable end of roof showing roof eaves returns(circle)which are typical for houses of this style and vintage. They are damaged and lack some of their profiled trim pieces. 4.3 Roof The roof is of a medium pitch, approximately 1: 3 ratio, includes moulded returned eaves at the east and west elevations (see photograph). A wood frieze below the eaves completes the Georgian aesthetic.Wood planks would have been installed over the roof framing(rafters). These would be typically 1"thick rough sawn pine of 8"to 12" in width (this type of lumber was typically used to sheath roofs and was also commonly used to sheath the walls of barns - it is still called barnboard). They would be installed with a small gap between each plank to provide ventilation to the underside of the shingles. Shingles would be locally made of eastern cedar, typically approximately 16" long with a minimum of three layers at each shingle (roughly a 5-1/3"exposure resulting from the overlap). Shingles on the existing roof are asphalt and are not original. 14 188 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 4.4 Windows Original windows in the house have been replaced with 2/2 windows of modern design and which have a pattern which does not match the original tradition for a house of this vintage. As noted above, these can be seen in the photographs and, based on the dating of the house, the original window pattern would most certainly have been double hung sash with each sash having six panes (known as a 6/6 pattern). Window panes were available in standard sizes and the window panes can be calculated using the standard pane size in combination with the probable dimensions of the muntins • (spacers between panes), stiles (vertical elements) and rails forming each sash. The sills were most likely constructed of wood and are generally still present, although clad with metal and could not be observed. 4.5 Exterior Doors The front door is surmounted by a rectangular transom with small window panes and 3/4 sidelights, which are unusual, on either side of a the door which has been replaced but was likely a 6 panel door. This simple and elegant configuration is typical of the Georgian style, although the sidelights typically extend the full height of the door frame.The original door would have had no exterior knob and was likely decorated with a thin "bead" running down its centre to suggest a pair of doors. 4.6 Chimneys A single chimney is located at the west end of the main roof ridge, although it has been reconstructed. A chimney would have also existed at the east end of the ridge with the two chimneys completing the elegance of the original Georgian composition. A third chimney is located at the rear, or north end, of the kitchen tail. The current chimneys are of modern brick (rug facade, probably about 50 years of age or newer) and of simple profile while the originals would have been constructed with a wider base, narrower shaft, and corbelled top to drip water away from the base. 4.7 Interior Interior access was not granted by the Province for our inspection. However, some information was available from the Carl Bray 2004 report on the house and interior images are used to illustrate the following discussion. • The interior of the house has a centre-hall plan with major rooms, typically four in number, accessible to the left and right when entering from the front door. The hall would have extended to a door on the north wall of the main wing into the kitchen which would have been set one to two steps lower than the main floor. The north end of the kitchen would have included a large hearth. Fireplaces would also be located on the north and south walls 15 189 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 of the main wing, in the parlour and dining room. Rooms to the north of the dining room and living room would have been narrow"slip" rooms. It is reported that the fireplace in the parlour is surrounded by scalloped mouldings at the pilasters which is appropriate for the assumed construction date. I • • Y X Photograph 11-Image from the Carl Bray report(2004)of a fireplace.The fine hand-run(rather than machine-made)moulding profiles,and the the general detailing of the hearth are characteristic of late 18th and.early 19th century trim as are the deep baseboards. Because of the thickness of the walls, paneled embrasures are created to extend from the interior trim to the window frames-these are typically installed at an angle. Until the advent of drywall construction, wood trim was installed around doors, windows, and bases after the installation of studding and lath but prior to plaster application -the plaster was "trued" up to match the location of the trim which is the opposite of current practice. 16 190 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 A main stair is located in the central hall. Its balustrade and newel are reputed to be the earliest example of the style associated with several other prestigious houses in the area. • I i/ti.Trr 11Ga Photograph 12-Photo at d' :�-r right from the Carl Bray r a (2004)report illustrates the banister and newel posts at r the top of the main stair. y. l' ` The design of the newels as f' well as the square pickets, w `�I_" which are moriced into the ' trimmer at their base,are -. typical of early 19th century stair details. ' ■ * ili i I il . ) , • I 17 191 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 5. Heritage Impact 5.1 General Comments There is sufficient information to permit, at some time in the future, a restoration of the building to its original appearance. A good and appropriate use should be found for the house. 5.2 Historical We have analyzed the subject building in accordance with the matrix required by the Ontario Heritage Act(O.Reg. 9/06) to establish recommendations for its significance. In the tables below, our opinion is followed by an analysis for each of the points flagged in the tables. Design or Physical Value Our opinion i. Rare,unique,representative or early example of a style,type, Yes expression,material or contruction method ii. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit Yes iii. Displays a high degree of scientific or technical achievement No Rare example of a style&type displaying a high degree of craftsmanship— The structure at 1130 Whitevale is a representative value of an early Georgian-style house. This was created just after the Georgian period and hence, as it should not be classed as a "Georgian Revival", it has Provincial rather than local interest for its age and the increasing rarity of examples of this period and type. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit—The building was constructed in a manner that exhibits a high level of craftsmanship while also telling a story of the need to work within a budget. This is exemplified in the building's proportions, the use of gauged brick voussoirs and the use of sorted rather than cut stone. Displays a high degree of scientific or technical achievement-The building exhibits no specific technical achievements. 18 192 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 Historical or Associative Value Our opinion i. Direct associations with a theme,event,belief,person,activity, Yes organization or institution that is significant to a community ii. Yields,or has the potential to yield,information that contributes to an Yes understanding of a community or culture iii. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect,artist, Unknown builder,designer or theorist who is significant to a community Direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community -The building is directly associated with the earliest settlement of this area and was in the consistent ownership of one family or their descendants for almost a century and a half. Yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture -This building contributes to the understanding of the culture connected with the development of the local community. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect,artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community—While the designer and builder are unknown, the execution of the building illustrates interesting and unusual features that are worthy of note and preservation. Contextual Value Our opinion i. Important in defining,maintaining,or supporting the character of an Yes area ii. Physically,functionally,visually or historically linked to its Yes surroundings iii. Landmark Yes Important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area and Surroundings—The structure is one of several buildings that contribute to the character of Whitevale Road which, by any measure, is an early remaining settlement area in Ontario. Physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings— The building is prominent when viewed from Whitevale Road and illustrates the pattern of settlement and early prosperity of its locale. Landmark—By virtue of its location on a knoll overlooking Whitevale Road, the building is a local landmark. 19 193 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 5.3.1 Summary While only one criterion of the provincial matrix for evaluation needs to be met to trigger the designation of a property, this building meets several.The Provincial Policy Statement requires that"Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved." In respect to this structure, it is our opinion that the building is significant and that it should be photographed, recorded and preserved.The house has been evaluated in previous heritage studies as being an Important Heritage Resource2. We concur with this statement. 5.4 Current heritage status The house is`currently listed in the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register and as a "Heritage Lot" in the Seaton Neighbourhood Plan.There are no remaining associated outbuildings. 5.4 Statement of Significance The following can be used as a Draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value for 1130 Whitevale Road: The cultural heritage value of 1130 Brock Road lies in its Anglo-Palladian (Georgian) design, and associations with the early settlers of Whitevale Road.The building is comprised of a structure and tail built from 1835-1840 and represents a fine late example of its type. 5.4.1 Design Value The house is one of the few five bay residences built at this early period of settlement of the area and includes its main door with unusual 3/4 sidelights flanked by two windows on each side, its stonework of variegated fieldstone of various sizes, its brick window and door voussoirs of complex rowlock design, its original tail composed of both stone and wood construction, and its roof gable treatment complete with "return"typical of the time and style of construction. 5.4.2 Historic/Associative Value The house is associated with the occupancy of the site by Nathaniel Hastings, of United Empire Loyalist Parentage, who purchased the property from Amos Griswold who acquired some of the extensive lands granted by the Crown to Isabella Hill, one of the original absentee landlords of the area. among the earliest of the Loyalist settlers in the area.The house was listed in the 1851 census as being the only one constructed of stone in the area at that time.The Hastings family occupied the site for over 100 years. 5.4.3 Character-defining Elements Should a statement of Significance be prepared for the house, we consider its character-defining elements to be: - the overall massing of the structure and its height and proportions 2 Seaton '04, Built Heritage Assessment,Bray et.Al. 20 194 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 - the "T" shaped floor plan with the kitchen tail characteristic of early farmhouses in the area - the five bay front, with central door and transom and 3/4 sidelights - the roof slopes and characteristic gable returns of the style - the skillfully executed stone work of varying sizes and variegated material and coloring. -the setting on a slight rise overlooking Whitevale Road 5.4.4 Contextual Value The subject house maintained and supported the rural heritage character of Whitevale Road. 5.4.5 Interior The interior could not be evaluated for this Draft Report due to lack of access but does appear, from other reports, to include a considerable amount of original trim and details characteristic of the early 19th Century.Access to review the interior will be conducted by mid-April 2015. 5.5 Mitigation The subject site exhibits interesting and unique features in terms of its design, stonework and particularly the its early age and associations with the original settlers of Whitevale Road. Re-use of this structure for a future use is possible. Properly stabilized, the building could support municipal or park functions or provide, for example, a low cost rentable site for private schooling or an NGO. It can also be used as a residence if incorporated into a residential development. Therefore, designation of the site would be appropriate to retain this excellent example of a Georgian stone farmhouse from the early-19th century. While the loss of heritage structures is regrettable, not every structure can be retained. Should it be determined that the building is not sufficiently valuable to retain or designate, it is our opinion that it is essential to mitigate the heritage impact of its loss to the City of Pickering. This could be done by recording the building by drawings in accordance with known documentation standards, photographs keyed to the drawings, and salvage of important structural components for display and interpretation in the community. 5.6 Recommendations This house is an early and interesting example of its kind and type- particularly due to its masonry work. Such a building is increasingly rare as development spreads across the region. While some of the key historical elements are missing- particularly the original windows, and chimneys, the 21 195 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 house is essentially intact and capable of being retained and restored as an historical reference. The house should be Designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by the City of Pickering. Reference to the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada should be made for any modifications or updates to the building. Such standards do not preclude changes to the building- rather the standards should guide any work done to repurpose the building while retaining the memory of heritage features. Work should also be done to secure the site to ensure that water, vermin and vandals are kept out and the foundations do not heave. A use should be found for the property or a rental agreement reached to ensure its continued use and occupancy. This is the best means of preserving properties of historic value for the future. Incorporation of the building within a new community is one of the best means by which a dwelling of this type can be preserved-this means that the planning of a proposed subdivision should be done in such a manner that the lot containing the proposed house, as well as the profile of the land around, is carefully considered and incorporated within proposed future development. 22 196 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 7. Closure This report has been written by the Consultants (Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd.Architects(GBCA) for the benefit of the client to whom it is addressed. The information and data contained herein represent the Consultants' best professional judgment in light of the knowledge and information available to the consultants at the time of preparation. Except as required by law, this report and the information and data contained herein are to be treated as confidential and may be used and relied upon only by the client, its officers and employees. The Consultants deny any liability whatsoever to other parties who may obtain access to this report for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, or reliance upon, this report or any of its contents without the express written consent of the Consultants and the client. The Consultants have prepared this report in accordance with the Scope of Services agreed with the Client. If you have any questions regarding the information contained herein, please contact the undersigned. Yours sincerely Golds ith Borg.. Co. Ltd.Architects Christoph: :•rgal OAA FRAIC CAHP President 23 197 Attachment#4 to Report PLN 04-15 Building Assessment Report 1450 Whitevale Road 198 :+ Draft Repçrt: ,.f . �� : 3 •111 to ti . ;. • a te.•- i �� ..tr.. ,•. • 4 11 wilding Heritage M 4 ' .... : ' , . .1 % ' . 44 P xji ti'1 ..4'..----- tt i r el>, y Assessment .4`7 4 )1":04..,t = ' .- ...„„irt ,� .• - r■ , .,4;+� •�f 4.t...,•.}..... i r* t. x y+3� �_ •a;�`40010-, sA• ' # ` ..'4 = '4 ':!d ` 111 iii!';4`` .t k•-: i +. ' , v i.•, . I at 1450 Whitevale Roa Pickering, Ontario • ter• for ,• 'a+m �� .: City of Pickering �, , x -;ti v , -�:.- . 6 April 2015 . i= v Goldsmith Borgal &Company Ltd. Architects 362 Davenport Rd. Suite 100 Toronto.Ontario N:SR 1KG.Canada T 416 929 6556 F 416 929 4745 ww-ww.gl ca.ca 199 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 General Parameters Goldsmith Borgal & Co. Ltd. Architects (GBCA) was requested in early 2015 to prepare an assessment of the property listed as 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering, Ontario. A study has been deemed to be required to determine the heritage importance and condition of this structure and this information will determine its recommended disposition. The site was visited on 28 February 2015. 1.2 Assumptions Assumptions for the work: • Investigations were limited to visual inspection.We did not conduct any destructive testing nor was the examination done in detail. • Conservation mitigation work that we may propose is intended to conform to the highest conservation standards and result in the retention of as much historic building material as possible. • Where we suggest that some of the building elements may be removed or significantly changed, we recommend that the general arrangement of the features be recorded and documented in a manner that documents the evolution of the overall structure. • We were not permitted to enter the building and thus some of the material related to dating of the structure may be open to conjecture as not all interior areas, particularly the basement and attic, could be visited to date original assemblies. 2 200 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 2. SITE BACKGROUND 2.1 Historical Mapping The subject site(red circle) is documented in the J.J. Beers & Co. Ontario County Atlas, Pickering Twp., 1877 to the east of the hamlet of Whitevale Y g P � seen in the image below (red arrow). The subject building is located on the property indicated as being owned by L&G Linton 1877. The property is listed by the municipality as the "AsherWillson/ Francis Linton property" and its development is stated to be between 1857 and 1861.Typically, only the residential structures are illustrated in the County Atlas—outbuildings were not generally indicated. ' '17= .: ' ' , :-.. 4.J1': :,. ....! ''. "-s- i'„ .. r . c ' x-41 • ' I _ t 1 w ■ t l ti ` fr - c _ i '• '— 'r3= - i` - • ■ I _ 3 201 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road,Pickering 6 April 2015 nxn 41 ■ Illustrated on this page is a copy of an 1867 map of Pickering and a detail. In both cases,Whitevale is circled in red and the subject site is located with a u t� red arrow. Note that in this plan the owner is indicated as"C. Phillips" which suggests that Linton did not have . the property for long or re-acquired it z 1867 ('cutcunii S ■uycuir 1967 ^! t•:..aen ,AWA r • •J I!! 4 b tl s # —'■ .. Sept! • _ 3# 4 202 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 2.2 Location The subject building is located on the north side of Whitevale Road (A)just west of Brock Road (B) and south of Hwy 407 (C), in Pickering, Ontario. The site is illustrated in the upper image and includes: • the subject small • wood framed house (1) constructed c 1861. � ..�-' ! 2 • the main barn (2) - ‘ now demolished. ` ` t. • garage/drive-shed ` �. (3) 4. T 4 - now demolished. `5 s , . . 4,. 1 • a 20th century r F,, , , �1/2* ' �! (possibly mid-1960's) portable school �� classroom (4) - now e demolished. —..r" ,•c r S C :- + t' sr- • a0 ., .1- ,: t. ..r ' I '..,. t \\\,.-k. I ' -;It' .—;-' '-- ' , \ 11h i 203 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road,Pickering 6 April 2015 2.3 History The original grantee of lot 21 on Concession V(Whitevale Road)was listed as King's College. It was purchased in 1848 by Asher Willson who was born in Connecticut in 1788 and who, with a friend Amos Griswold, married daughters of loyalist Casper Stotts in the Brockville area. Both families made their way to the Pickering area with Asher entering the records as a witness on two deeds in 1817 and who purchased a part of Lot 22 in 1832 from Griswold. Asher Willson was a founding member of the Christian Church in Brougham in 1824 and was the Church Moderator by 1828. He, with his family, eventually owned several properties along Concession V. However, he sided with Mackenzie in the 1837 rebellion and, with sons Joseph and William, was arrested in December of that year. By the Agricultural Census of 1851, only Asher's son Joseph was listed as farming lots 21 and 22. Asher, at the age of 65, conveyed part of lot 22 to his son in 1853 and only Asher was assessed for lot 21 that year. In the personal census of 1851,Asher is listed as a widower with an extended family including Joseph, his other children and their spouses, grandchildren and a "bonded girl" Hannah Major in a 1-1/2 storey house on one of the properties. Lot 21 was sold by Asher Willson in 1857 to Francis Linton. Linton is apparently recorded as having a log house in the 1861 census which could be a house on lot 21 or another dwelling-a Moses Linton was assessed 10 years previously for a log house. As noted in 2.1 above, the property by 1877 is listed as L&G Linton, which may be the sons of Francis. However, the 1867 map shows the property owned by a C. Philips thus suggesting the need for further research. k� ,, "�•."ter ill t 1 s � .* . • _° a 'der., Photograph 1 -House at 1450 Whitevale from the northwest showing the tail and side porch. The proportions of the tail suggest an earlier date of construction than the main house. 6 204 Building Heritage Assessment • For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 I I . i I 11 q _ • , 7 1 .. RI,_ ,i ,.• ,___ , __....F -" --------............„ .... _ ..--r------7-7 4� Photograph 2 above-Front elevation. The door is offset to the west which suggests that there is a central post in the front wall framing. Profiles of the front windows do not match earlier examples on the side walls. Photograph 3 below-the main house and the rear wing are probably the same vintage while the leanto porch likely infilled an original porch. in, Ati'L ' ' s , 1 ..t '' ,"--- ,. --- - p la r ' * g 1 r 4: 205 Building Herita:::,.,t5,essment For the City of Pickering ive 1450 Whitevale d,Pickering 6 April 2015 -fie,..40.4.-4- 4`;;;;':11.robvt,* tv ...N.seglit .7 /;r0;4-41sw--41*-' - . . i M a iix r'.t-'� �/ ;, V gib. - t r -,—:.-.�, - `?. �_: ,r;'-�V• _ `' s,..'.:\s., r:' _4 4 " ;� _ ,'Y _ ' +��`_ '-/'r,� 1,.''�''. —c .,,t't t y,-tlg d 'i.. 'mot; V,�� ..� .a,; t'. * e it a .dy�pa,„.. °? i!' ti 1 ,,$.4-4;,-,R •7 a 7 Yr ; z.� _ _ Via. 7, Photograph 4 above-View from the southeast of the east and south walls. Note that the tail is roughly centred on the building-typically porches were installed on both sides of the tail in this configuration. Photograph 5 below-View of west elevation. Y 0 4 MAI% l'alr b1/4 r, r _ , iri., .., ........„ f • , 1160.7.411160. w . 8 206 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 3. GENERAL DESCRIPTION 3.1 General Comment The main house is of modest size and is a three bay(front door and flanking windows) front with one and a half storey kitchen wing or "tail" at the rear. The ridge of the main gable roof runs east/west while that on the tail runs north/south. While a detailed investigation of the house does not form a part of this current report due to lack of access to the interior, we have described the exterior features in the following portion of the report. As the house was probably constructed by the middle years of the 19th century, a considerable amount of wood would still have been available from land clearing operations for use as a building material.While some reports suggest that the house is log with sheathing, it is in fact of frame construction and clad in clapboard siding.The presence of a mill in the area to make the siding and framing materials, most likely in Whitevale, confirms a fairly developed local economy several years after initial settlement. Based on its construction and window patterns (2/2 window style)we suggest that a dating of c1870 to 1885 could normally be appropriate but the window sash currently there may be replacements for earlier 6/6 sash.While the tail of the house has proportions and features which suggest the earlier vintage, 1850's to 1860's, records suggest that at that time Linton had a log house which this is not.Therefore, the house may have been built by Linton at a later date-certainly after 1861. Given the settlement period of this area, this could therefore be the original house on the site. The 1877 Atlas indicates a residence in approximately the same location as the subject building is found. While the building may have been extant as early as that date, the details we observed could represent a building built at any time up to the turn of the twentieth century. Our historical research is included in the next section, and conclusions are drawn using this material as further evidence to date the structure. 9 207 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 4. DETAILED EXAMINATION 4.1 Foundations • The foundation is constructed of native fieldstone but is essentially hidden on the west wall by the placement of the wood skirting at the base of the walls. More exposure can be seen on the east wall. It is probable that more was originally visible but, typically, ground levels rise by approximately 150mm per century with the . The stones are laid roughly fitted and bonded with lime-based mortar. Typically, the core of these walls is composed of smaller rocks between the larger face stones.Also typically, the inside face of the foundation in the basement, if used, would have been painted with lime-wash to provide a better level of light and reduced the development of mould.There were certainly basement windows and an outside access stair which indicates materials were stored in the basement during winter months. Stone foundation walls generally ceased to be used after the WW I with the higher availability of poured concrete which was easier with which to build. �.. ^...� Yom. �k v• Photograph 6-Base along west wall of main wing-ground level has reached the sheathing-it was originally likely 300 to 450mm below this point. 10 208 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 Neta ' Photograph 7 above-Exterior cellar entrance.This suggests that the basement was used to store garden crops,such as potatoes,during the winter months. Photograph 8 below-Basement window under the south wall. Basements were not typically constructed under log houses. sir /0/ 11 209 Building Heritage Assessment ,For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 4.2 Exterior Wall and Roof Framing The walls are of frame construction. Given the probable date of the structure, it is likely that the side walls of the main house are of hewn timber construction pinned with wood trunnels (tree nails) and braces at the corners. Wood studs would have framed the end walls. This is evidenced by the thickness of the walls (thicker on the side walls). Evidence can also be seen of the end wall frame where the corner boards have warped away from the substrate as can be seen in the photo below. � , i i. It i i i,,. . Photograph 9-Corner board at the , SE corner has warped away from z. t t �1iq i the structure exposing a vertical n T 4 hand-hewn timber(arrow). This is �\ ;,'. likely the north timber of the east , wall frame. I l � i ' I , M ' ka,‘ , i. r s+ar�, 1 41,1" , 12 210 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 The studs would run between the sill plate and the upper framing members and, at the end walls, would carry through,from sill to roof slope with no interruption. The second floor would be framed in a north/south direction into the top plate of the front and rear walls with sawn timbers running the full width of the house. 4.3 Roof Roof rafters would extend over a knee wall at the north and south sides of the second floor and extend down to form the roof eaves. A collar tie would be installed to form the ceiling over the second floor and brace the rafters.The rafters would be, typically tapered with the thinner ends at the top next to the ridge. Rafters would be either butted together and nailed, butted together either side of a ridge board, or lapped and pegged -the latter being most probable given the age of the building. ssp, Photograph 10-View of the end wall of the tail. Note the small window into the upper room which had to be offset to avoid the chimney from the kitchen. The IMMINIOW chimey has been reconstructed. 111 4 ,„ • The tail of the house, forming the kitchen and, in this case unusually, the second floor rear bedroom, would be of similar construction. Typically the kitchen floor would be placed lower than the main floor with a similar condition of one or two steps being present at the entrance to the upper bedroom from the central hall. 13 211 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 The roof is a moderate pitch, roughly 1:2 ratio although the slope on the front wing is of lower slope than that of the addition. Wood planks would have been installed over the roof framing(rafters). These would be typically 1"thick rough sawn pine of 8"to 12" in width (this type of lumber was typically used to sheath roofs and was also commonly used to sheath the walls of barns- it is still called barnboard). They would be installed with a small gap between each plank to provide ventilation to the underside of the shingles. Shingles would be locally made of eastern cedar, typically approximately 16" long with a minimum of three layers at each shingle (roughly a 5-1/3"exposure resulting from the overlap). Shingles on the existing roof are asphalt and are not original. 4.4 Windows Early, possibly original, windows are found in the house although some l have been replaced with aluminum windows of a pattern which do not match the original tradition for a house of this vintage. These can be seen in the previous photographs. Based on a probable dating of the late 19th century, the original window pattern would most likely have been double hung sash with each sash having two panes (known as a 2/2 pattern). If it is determined that the house was constructed prior to 1870, it is more likely that the pattern would have been 6/6 -window panes were available in standard sizes and the window openings can be calculated using the standard pane size in combination with the probable dimensions of the muntins (spacers between panes), stiles (vertical elements)and rails forming each sash. M � ` w _ ... ' 1 i.#4, .... , ,. . 1 -, ,4 I �. 11 1 f 3. . . ..," ... , , ,T , , Photograph 11-Windows on west elevation-note the informality of the placement which was likely done to avoid framing. 14 212 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April2015 The sills were constructed of pine and are generally still present, although in only fair to poor condition. Sills inside the porch on the east side of the tail are in much better condition as they have been protected from the weather for as much as 50 years or more (there is an original exterior door and exterior windows on the west side inside of the porch. 4.5 Exterior Doors Original windows in the house have been replaced with modern doors dating to the 1960's save for the door leading from the kitchen into the side porch. 4.6 Chimneys Chimneys have been replaced with relatively modern chimneys. Originally, there would have been chimneys at the ridge line on either side of the main roof. The kitchen chimney at the rear of the tail is in the appropriate location of the three original locations, but has been reconstructed. 4.7 Interior The interior could not be accessed for the inspection and therefore we could not observe the main floor framin g in the basement or under the roof and therefore conclusively date the structure. Nor could we observe interior trim or doors which also aids in dating a structure. 15 213 • Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 5. Heritage Evaluation 5.1 General Comments There is sufficient information to permit, at some time in the future, a restoration of the building to its original appearance. A good and appropriate use should be found for the house if demolition is not found to be necessary. 5.2 Evaluation We have analyzed the subject building in accordance with the matrix required by the Ontario Heritage Act(O.Reg. 09/06) to establish recommendations for its significance. In the tables below, our opinion is followed by an analysis for each of the points flagged in the tables. Design or Physical Value Our opinion i. Rare,unique,representative or early example of a style,type, No expression,material or construction method ii. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit No iii. Displays a high degree of scientific or technical achievement No Rare example of a style, type, expression, material or contruction—The structure at 1450 Whitevale is a representative example of a mid-nineteenth century house which was constructed using a combination of pegged wood frames and studs. Craftsmanship in the house is typical and of good workmanlike quality for its period but is not exceptional. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit—The building was constructed in a manner that exhibits only an average level of craftsmanship when compared with others of the period. Displays a high degree of scientific or technical achievement-The building exhibits no specific technical achievements. 16 214 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 Historical or Associative Value ; Our opinion i. Direct associations with a theme,event,belief,person,activity, No organization or institution that is significant to a community ii. Yields,or has the potential to yield,information that contributes to an Yes understanding of a community or culture iii. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect,artist, !No builder,designer or theorist who is significant to a community Direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community -The property is associated with the earliest settlers of the area but the importance of the individuals is associated with other property along Concession V as this property was passed on to a son of Asher Willson.This building was constructed with modest means and aspirations. Yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture-This building contributes to the understanding of the culture connected with the development of the local community, but in an attenuated manner. Only in combination with other holdings along Whitevale Road does the site yield information regarding the culture of the area. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect,artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community-The designer and builder are unknown. Contextual Value Our opinion i. Important in defining,maintaining,or supporting the character of an Yes area ii. Physically,functionally,visually or historically linked to its No surroundings iii. Landmark No Important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area and Surroundings—The structure is one of several buildings that contribute to the character of Whitevale Road which, by any measure, is an early remaining settlement area in Ontario. Physically,functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings— While historically linked to its surroundings, the building is not significant. Landmark—While located overlooking Whitevale Road, the building is not visibly a local landmark. 17 215 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 5.2.1 Summary Only two criteria of the provincial matrix for evaluation that could trigger designation of the property are met by this structure.The Provincial Policy Statement requires that"Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved." In respect to this structure, it is our opinion that the building is only modestly significant. However, it should be photographed, recorded and preserved.The house has been evaluated in previous heritage studies as being an Important Heritage Resource. We only partially concur with this statement. 5.3 Current heritage status The house is currently listed in the City of Pickering Heritage Inventory and as a "Heritage Lot" in the Seaton Neighbourhood Plan.There are no remaining associated outbuildings. 5.4 Statement of Significance The following can be used as a Draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value for 1450 Whitevale Road: Although of modest significance, the cultural heritage value of 1450 Whitevale Road lies in its simple design, and associations with the early settlers of Whitevale Road.The building is comprised of a structure and tail built from the 1860's to early 1870's and represents the farm house of a modest rural holding. 5.4.1 Design Value The house is a good example of a simple gable-roofed three bay front(front door flanked by main floor windows)with a rear tail with perpendicular proportions.The building is clad in wood clapboard and wood corner boards of early vintage.The structure appears to evoke the design of an earlier log structure that is reported to have been on the site as early as 1861. 5.4.2 Historic/Associative Value The house is associated with the occupancy of the site by Francis Linton who purchased the property from the Willson family, among the earliest of the Loyalist settlers in the area. 5.4.3 Character-defining Elements Should a statement of Significance be prepared for the house, we consider its character-defining elements to be: - the overall massing of the structure and its height and proportions - the"T"shaped floor plan with the kitchen tail characteristic of early farmhouses in the area - the surviving 2/2 window pattern of the side and rear elevations 18 216 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 - the roof slopes - the original clapboard siding together with beaded corner boards 5.4.4 Contextual Value The subject house maintained and supported the rural heritage character of Whitevale Road. 5.4.5 Interior The interior could not be evaluated due to lack of access 5.5 Mitigation The subject site, its relatively early date, and its construction make it of subject Y Y interest. Re-use of this structure for a future use is possible. Properly stabilized, the building could support municipal or park functions or provide, for example, a low cost rentable site for private schooling or an NGO.Therefore, continuance of its current listing or designation of the site would be appropriate to retain this interesting example of a modest frame farmhouse from the late 19th century. While the loss of heritage structures is regrettable, not every structure can be retained. Should it be determined that the building is not sufficiently valuable to retain or designate, it is our opinion that it is essential to mitigate the heritage impact of its loss to the City of Pickering. This could be done by recording the building by drawings in accordance with known documentation standards, photographs keyed to the drawings, and salvage of important structural components for display and interpretation in the community. 5.6 Recommendations The house should continue to be included on the list of heritage properties for the City of Pickering. Reference to the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada should be made for any modifications or updates to the building. This should not preclude changes to the building- rather the standards should guide any work done to repurpose the building while retaining the memory of heritage features. 19 217 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 7. Closure This report has been written by the Consultants (Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd.Architects(GBCA)for the benefit of the client to whom it is addressed. The information and data contained herein represent the Consultants' best professional judgment in light of the knowledge and information available to the consultants at the time of preparation. Except as required by law, this report and the information and data contained herein are to be treated as confidential and may be used and relied upon only by the client, its officers and employees. The Consultants deny any liability whatsoever to other parties who may obtain access to this report for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, or reliance upon,this report or any of its contents without the express written consent of the Consultants and the client. The Consultants have prepared this report in accordance with the Scope of Services agreed with the Client. If you have any questions regarding the information contained herein, please contact the undersigned. Yours sincerely Goldsmith Borgal &Co. Ltd.Architects Christopher Borgal OAA FRAIC CAHP Principal 20 218 Attachment#5 to Report PLN 04-15 Building Assessment Report 3440 Brock Road 219 • Draft Report: Building Heritage Ass t essmen < . ., ./jam ll`/// . . . e 1 ,./-',-, cio'` , . 400i, ' -*- ''''. ',?:'`.,itt 4.."' - , L.--i =\ o\,f,.r\�{ ? } . ., � rr. ,�� i,-, - - - ;,,,,,- 1 - -- --, 1--•-..\ , 4, .,-. i yi..-- 'i r l i v, ` itl ' • ,. d C..... 004` - - , - — ''''''°1---- ';'-'' — •-• ' '‘... ••• - ', ", ;... .14.** I r. — --.., ; ,,,,,,,,,,. ; r - oc '‘ I e A 4 1 } • t Wil ' } d :4 f { at Goldsmith ny Ltd. 3440 Brock Road, Pickerin Ontario &Company Ltd. Architects for 362 Davenport Rd. Suite 100 City of Pickering Toronto.Ontario MSR 1K6.Canada 6 April 201 1 416 929 6556 F 416 929 4745 V, vw.gbca.ca 220 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 General Parameters Goldsmith Borgal & Co. Ltd.Architects (GBCA) was requested in early 2015 to prepare an assessment of the property listed as 3440 Brock Road, Pickering, Ontario. A study has been deemed to be required to determine the heritage importance and condition of this structure and this information will determine its recommended disposition. The site was visited on ** March 2015. 1.2 Assumptions Assumptions for the work: • Investigations were limited to visual inspection.We did not conduct any destructive testing nor was the examination done in detail. • Conservation mitigation work that we may propose is intended to conform to the highest conservation standards and result in the retention of as much historic building material as possible. • Where we suggest that some of the building elements may be removed or significantly changed, we recommend that the general arrangement of the features be recorded and documented in a manner that documents the evolution of the overall structure. • We were not permitted to enter the building and thus some of the material related to dating of the structure may be open to conjecture as interior areas, including the basement and attic, could be visited to date original assemblies. CBCA 2 221 I Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 2. SITE BACKGROUND 2.1 Historical Mapping The subject site (red circle) is documented in the J.J. Beers & Co. Ontario County Atlas, Pickering Twp., of 1877 to the south of the hamlet of Brougham seen in the image below (red arrow). The subject building is located on the property indicated as being owned by R. Brignatt 1877. The property to the north, which appears to have been subdivided (now 2490 Brock) is shown as being in the hands of Mrs.T.C. Hubbard.This property is listed by the municipality as the "Thomas Hubbard House" and its construction is stated to be c1870 although it is probably 3490 Brock Road that was actually the Hubbard house.Typically, only the residential structures are illustrated in the County Atlas— outbuildings were not generally indicated.•L.-. ti ! `*• •i' ,art • t� t ,a- , •. . V. ' ',, 4 •j. - ''•4 G Wit!, L zl :f t t ` .- ♦ 5 ;' `6; ay ` 1 a ? j s 6� "{1 =. - ; 4. �� ; kip, 44: 3r 1 \•,1 i 4 ` ti i. \�S' 1 •i _ 11` a, L /;, - C •` L I. . c - wi 4'.1 4 L-:. y GBCA 3 222 • Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 1Rt W67 1'Ictil lilrG t A. 7,, {. 1 n■7 �� ' i ,,it I 11 _ Illustrated on this page is a copy of an 1867 x map of Pickering and a detail. In both '= . cases, Brougham is circled and the subject site is located with a red arrow. During this _ _.if time the property is indicated as being in '' the possession of W. Bayles. i i ii . t/ F:. 1867 ('enlenni:il Souvenir' 1967 _ ilio .,.. . , , .. .„ ,. 1,, ,. ,. . ..,,_,,, , , , . ,. .. _ , .. ,.„ ,. ... , „ ., , . .., . .. ._ , , , , _ s : ....\,.. rs .. !. .. , . , ..., , , , , , :. „..,, ,,„ , , , ,„ , ..„, ,.,., . ,,„t, ,,,. ,, , , , I�c3 1 . Frh..1I Gmab 1 0 ..5 •' __ 1-1., t 4, ,:r:. .- 17 4 • "z , , 1- C' GBCA 4 223 I I Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 2.2 Location The subject building is located on the west side of Brock Road (A)just south of Hwy 407 (B) in Pickering, Ontario. The site is illustrated in the upper image and includes: ` • the subject frame house 3 • . (1) constructed 3 3 a c1835-1840. • the main barn (2) now demolished (photo dates to 2009). 4' 1 • Outbuildings and sheds (3) . �, r ° _ , ,1,\„, ..,.: .k, V ' ‘ I ,„N• 'ai;\* ,.t\- ..1° .t� a V.I.V. .IV,i61-0....k. , , ., _ ...:., ... . ..w - Al--- -.'' '. ,. ,,,„ % _r 10.1_ T ,_-- .,, .,,J -.-..-,...,4:-..-.*.,, -, ,.. , .;. : ‘' 4, . t . - . ' ktio, , •' 1 .. . `t L .■ a> x .may V*r• x . `' 4 ,> t. a� ;,1 * .. v GBC.:A 5 224 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 2.3 History An early, c1809, occupant of Lot 19 Concession V was Thomas Hubbard who arrived in PickeringTwp. immediately prior to the turn of the 19th century. Henry Smith owned the original Crown Grant of 1797 until 1821. Hubbard was recognized as a United Empire Loyalist. Thomas Hubbard had a major impact on the local community in his social, religious and political life. He was the first township clerk(1811), and donated land for the first area school which was constructed by the Hubbards and neighbours Matthews, Sharrards and Willsons. Hubbard's son served as a private in the 2nd Flank Company of the 3rd York Militia receiving a General Service Medal during the siege of Detroit in the War of 1812. It appears that, by 1867,W. Bayles owned lot 19, which is the subject property, but this was subdivided by 1877 to form four lots and also included a portion of the hamlet of Brougham to the north of the lot. The location of the subject house, on a mid-lot parcel, is indicated in the 1877 as in the ownership of R. Brignatt. Construction of a new home after an acquisition (1868 to 1877) is consistent with our dating.The property to the north, which appears to have been subdivided (now 3490 Brock) is shown as being in the hands of Mrs.T.C. Hubbard - perhaps the wife of Thomas or a descendant.We could not establish whether Bayles or Brignatt were descendants of Thos. Hubbard -further research is needed and if not this house has a lessened associative value.After 1920, the Bayles family owned the property and renovations as noted below from the 1920's and 30's are consistent with a change of ownership in that renovations after a purchase are frequently observed. <I" ' 3, •,."' 8 _:`-'1'..\,44\* om. i ,..` ••w'"•''l :.r-•.,. 4s'*1,L' ,�• s*• ' � „.. . Ai . m"...4 A. u* ' '- ' - i A e A 44, {.4 l' 'I �. * ,, 'r,4, 3 Wi �� i j sere �� 7 . a ,,,,., -.....,, A ,, .. .4 I1 ,. , ,. Photograph 1 -View of the front of the house from the east GBCA 6 225 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 3. GENERAL DESCRIPTION 3.1 General Comment The house is of 1-1/2 storeys and constructed of wood frame on a stone foundation. There is a side wing constructed of wood frame.A porch with decorative bargeboard and columns fronts the original structure which appears to have been constructed in the 1870's. The side wing appears to have been constructed after the main house and mimics the brick house to the north found at 3490 Brock Road. A barn and several outbuildings remain behind the house to the west. Most early houses in this area were of frame construction due to the plentiful supply of old-growth forest. By the late 1800's, wealthy farmsteads were constructing larger homes than earlier dates, or adding on to existing structures particularly where they were required to house larger families. In this case, the subdivision of Lot 19 into smaller parcels yielded less arable land for the owner of the subject property which raises the issue of where funds come from. Rental of adjacent lands may be one alternative source of funds. It is interesting that there was construction on this house at i Imir R 11, . . . ,,....tostior air Photograph 2-Detail of romanesque arched gable window. The original window has been planked in to allow for the installation of a c1960's sliding window. • approximately the same time as the construction of 3490 Brock Road and that the appearance of both houses roughly corresponds with the subdivision of Lot 19. It is possible that the subdivision itself created some of the funds used to build or modify these houses. GBCA 7 226 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 k. e r vtP .. ------r---al' _• ... ., orry 1."`m' m..- M R 1 ill 1 , _ _ _ _ r Photograph 3-Detailed view of the original house from the east. Note the difference in siding between the north wing(shiplap)and the main house(clapboard). Photograph 4-South elevation. The siding on the tail appears to match that of the original house although the foundation has been re-worked.The central chimney and side door are not original but located in an appropriate location for a short summer kitchen. . ,,. - , . : _7-...... ". / = III ..i---- ____.% r, AL:,___________ ,..... ---- .., . _ ill - — nil - L 1 :: : -- _ GBCA 8 227 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 ALL ' -•-• _._ -tee e. -- - ". . row_ Photograph 5-Detail of the tail. The windows and doors appear to date to the 1920's to 1930's and likely replace earlier units.The foundation has been parged over the original stone. The lower portion of the chimney appears to date to renovations in the 1920's or 30's while the upper portion was repaired in the 1980's to 90's. Photograph 6-Rear elevation of the tail. The tail,as is probably the f main house,is framed with timbers ^� ,'"�+m►„��'�;•„��.�,,,�� rather than studs which are visible r"�•:�• '"" - ! behind the missing clapboard. This . places the date of the house at the 1r,' "` x; late 1860's to early 1870's.The concrete door stoop likely dates to 'r' .... the early 20th century renovations. GBCA 9 228 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 V; z. � >. _ , 47 4 4111%. _ �...• 'dr',I 420111111k., c. 4 $ a y F Photograph 7-North and west elevations of the tail. The siding on the tail appears narrower than that of the main house. Photograph 8-Partial rear wall of the house including the tail at right,the basement entry door, the back wall of the original house and the back wall of the addition. The windows in the addition may have been salvaged from the original north wall of the house. 7y 10 229 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 rriM±wr Y a:.;;;" _ a+�IFWY7• lXr.�s r• vi ,ea1104.10 • ..11*ti:.'s111. .t.YiIIi+MPi0.'• f i twl7rr•• a s r ,- AL r .y,,.,r i - tA 111,44c. •e° f.�.. • +r•Afro ip" # u^ >Aern"' Photograph 9-Detail of basement stair porch and door. Note that the siding of the porch is considerably narrower than that of the wall to which it abuts. Photograph 10-View of rear of addition ' and partial view of the north wall. t=" • 1 GBCA 11 230 • Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 E W .ry... r II IV dal Photograph 11 -Lower portion of north wall of wing at junction with the back wall. Note that there are three types of siding. • Photograph 12-Detail of corner showing damaged foundation wall. 4`. v14441 Sall ee a B 12 231 NI I Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 g �. ''-rte }�i' <. te .. s ? a" �.A"r��Aht 1 t, a sr [1 I -, .• , .is, �_ r - _.-,—°'" , fi f, .-if � i �F� f, t M � •R� f#j A3-'--*'''';' j fl4iiimr i``° a i4 —s , ,, 1 t ' ; t V. Ilk J f T _ + t \'' T T' '4 t - .. t t xT' F t Photograph 13-Detail of northwest corner of wing. Note the shiplap at left and the rather poor condition of the clapboard at right. It is probable that during the construction of the addition,the clapboard was removed from the north wall of the original building and used to clad the rear wall of the addition-the gable walls are of similar size and roof pitch. GBCA 13 232 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 . i t 1 •i ; i +rt + -• .1 a r' :.s glatt‘t �t y 1y�ft_., „ )�t rfYi 3 4 r‘ 4 i {. a r r l� l•�r a t .:�t+ � + NSF V yt :,+'t'f`' - N ft.: x.r (41_ ■ t.3ari a ltgh r 'fit 1;V'3 '''L; ^AR • Photograph 14-Front elevation of the addition with its clapboard siding. Note the arched window hood over the window on the lower floor. The windows are paired 1/1 configuration and are more typical of the 1890's than the 1870's. GBCA 14 233 1 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 ._ , 4,1,-,-..-.,, :-) • .. . :: 4:-.,f'. 1rJt+ 1 , • : ,.....- - . ......- 4a ' ii if . 7 l 0 j4Y. I Photograph 15-Front porch. The fretwork and narrow turned columns suggest an 1870's date- the porch post on the right has been sawn in half to fit. Photograph 16-The front door which is a four panel door with finely run stops and appears to M` I be contemporary with the original building. - • GBCA 1_) 234 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 i �'.-.' 'p t Photograph 17 Door leading from the li- - porch into the newer addition. The upper door panels,which can be seen through ' the storm door,are considerably longer than the main front door. The door,and the siding around it are contemporary • )# with the addition. �,,, - `"" , t i `<t s Fu �. I Photograph 18 Chimney at the junction V of the roof ridges. The lower portion of - ' the chimney is constructed of red water- `• j struck brick typical of the 1980's. The "` upper portion has been extended or "" r repaired by red sanded-face brick of the , turn of the 21st century.Note the r- 1 1111-.', stainless cap and pipe required for a gas 1111. furnace. e..4. a i .441116.. . , f � �r� 1111 1 . .' 7 GBCA 16 235 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 4. DETAILED EXAMINATION • 4.1 Foundations The foundation is constructed of native fieldstone. The stones are laid roughly fitted and bonded with lime-based mortar. Typically, the core of these walls is composed of smaller rocks between the larger face stones. Also typically, the inside face of the foundation in the basement, if used, would have been painted with lime-wash to provide a better level of light and reduced the development of mould. The basement would have provided an area for the storage of root vegetables and fruit during the winter months. Field stone was readily available in southern Ontario as it is typically mixed with the native soils as a result of glacial deposition. During the winter, particularly in the early days of farming the area, the winter frost would push these rocks to the surface and would have to be regularly removed to permit ploughing and used for building materials, perimeter fences or simply disposed of. The material, scraped from rocky outcrops by glaciers during the ice age, is composed of a wide variety of rock and,typically, only the hardest, was used as building stones. This material includes gneiss, granite, and quartzite and typically sized for handling by one or two workers.As they were rolled and tumbled in the glaciers, they are typically rounded in profile 4.2 Exterior Wall and Roof Framing We could not access the interior of the house and could not confirm the framing. It is probable that, given the age of the house, the original portion was framed with pegged timbers with wood studs set between to allow for nailing on of the exterior siding and interior lath and plaster.The later addition, given the dating, is most likely of mill-sawn studs and boards in a manner that is similar to modern construction. The addition would most likely use"balloon framing"where the studs extend from the sill plate to the top of wall without the intervening second floor platform used today. The tail of the house, forming the kitchen, would be of similar construction as the original house although only of one storey. Typically the kitchen floor would be placed lower than the main floor almost on grade unlike the main house which would be raised over a basement. 4.3 Roof The roof is of a fairly steep pitch, approximately 1: 1 ratio.Wood boards would have been installed over the roof framing(rafters). These would be typically 1"thick rough sawn pine of 8"to 12" in width (this type of lumber was typically used to sheath roofs and was also commonly used to sheath the walls of barns- it is still called barn board). They would be installed with a small gap between each board to provide ventilation to the GBCA 17 236 Building Heritage Assessment • For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 underside of the shingles. Shingles would be locally made of eastern cedar, typically approximately 16" long with a minimum of three layers at each shingle(roughly a 5-1/3" exposure resulting from the overlap). Shingles on the existing roof are asphalt and are not original. 4.4 Windows Original windows remain in the house are of 2 panes over 2 panes in the original house and the side and rear of the addition.This is consistent with a date of 1865 - 75. Windows on the front wall of the addition are paired 1/1 windows which suggest a dating from 1890 to 1910 which is consistent with the other details, such as the siding (well into the 20th century, 2/2 windows were being installed in houses in Canada). Windows in the rear tail are 3/1 pattern which is typical of the period from WWI to the 1940's, although the date can be narrowed to probably the 1920's to 1930's. The sills were constructed of wood and are generally still present, although in only fair to poor condition. Photograph 19-Small rather clumsy window added at the junction of the wings when the north wing was added-possibly for a washroom. GBCA 18 237 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 4.5 Exterior Doors Both front doors(not including the storm doors which appear to be early 20th century in vintage) date to the portion of the house in which they are located. The front door in the original house is a four panel door with heavy mouldings. The door from the front porch into the north wing has longer upper panels though it is probably also a four panel door. 4.6 Chimneys A single chimney is located at the centre of the ridge junction between the main house and the north wing. It is almost certainly 20th century based on the bricks and the upper portion was repaired after its original construction. It has been lined with a stainless steel liner presumably to accommodate a gas furnace. Another chimney is located at the midpoint of the tail and most likely, before repairs, dates to the early 20th century. 4.7 Front Porch A front porch is constructed on a concrete block and concrete platform of 20th century origin -probably prior to the 1970's when concrete blocks changed from imperial size to metric. Posts and fretwork support the edge of the roof which may be original to the house but modified to suit the arrangement of the addition.The porch roof appears to be early. 4.8 Interior Interior access was not granted by the Province for our inspection.Therefore we were unable to evaluate the interior for integrity nor to date the interiors by examining trim, fittings, and attic and cellar framing. • • GBCA 19 238 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 5. Heritage Evaluation 5.1 General Comments There is sufficient information to permit, at some time in the future, a restoration of the building to its original appearance. Rather, a good and appropriate use should be found for the house if demolition is not found to be necessary. 5.2 Evaluation We have analyzed the subject building in accordance with the matrix required by the Ontario Heritage Act(O.Reg. 9/06)to establish recommendations for its significance. In the tables below, our opinion is followed by an analysis for each of the points flagged in the tables. Design or Physical Value Our opinion i. Rare,unique,representative or early example of a style,type, No . expression,material or contruction method ii. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit No iii. Displays a high degree of scientific or technical achievement No Rare example of a style&type displaying a high degree of craftsmanship— The original house was a typical centre-gable structure, in wood, dating to the latter part of the 19th century. Save for the former presence of a round arch (Romanesque)window in the centre gable, and its wood construction, it is not a remarkable example of its time and period. The addition, to the north, appears to have been created in the late 19th to early 20th century period and is also unremarkable and appears to have been grafted on to the original structure. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit—The building was constructed in a manner no more nor less sophisticated than that used for a building of similar and typical use at a time contemporary with its construction. Displays a high degree of scientific or technical achievement-The building is an ordinary house for its time and place. GBCA 20 239 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 Historic/Associative Value Our opinion i. Direct associations with a theme,event,belief,person,activity, No organization or institution that is significant to a community ii. Yields,or has the potential to yield,information that contributes to an No understanding of a community or culture iii. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect,artist, No builder,designer or theorist who is significant to a community Direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person,activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community-While earlier reports have identified an association of this house with a person important to the local community (Thos. Hubbard), the property listings in 1867 and 1877 do not appear to support this. We were unable to determine if the property owners of those years, and later, were descendants of Hubbard. It is our opinion that, although Lot 19 is associated with significant early settlers, the house itself is not directly connected. Yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture-This house has some interesting details related to the north addition, but offers no other information related to the community or culture other than it was a small building constructed on a subdivision of Lot 19 sometime between 1867 and 1877. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community—The building was typical for its time and reflects no more than the common approach to buildings of this time and period. Pattern books were used for both the original house and the addition and these were readily available to any builder of the time. Contextual Value Our opinion i. Important in defining,maintaining,or supporting the character of an No area ii. Physically,functionally,visually or historically linked to its !No i - surroundings iii. Landmark i No Important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area and Surroundings— Located at the intersection of Hwy 7 and Brock Road, the building has been divorced from its original context save for its function as an operating farm. GBCA 21 240 • • Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 Physically,functionally,visually or historically linked to its surroundings— While historically linked to its surroundings, the structure was likely constructed after the subdivision of Lot 19.As the farmhouse for an operating farm, it is linked to its surroundings which will rapidly change with new development. Landmark—By virtue at the corner of a major intersection, it is a minor local landmark but is not sign ificant in the overall context of the Municipality or the Province. 5.2.1 Summary While some minor aspects of the building are worthy of commemoration and recording, it is our opinion that the property at 3440 Brock Road is not a significant heritage resource.The Provincial Policy Statement requires that "Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved." In respect to this structure, it is our opinion that the building is not significant but that it should be photographed and recorded by dimensioned drawings if demolished. 5.3 Current heritage status The house is currently listed in the City of Pickering Heritage Inventory as the Thomas Hubbard House. Based on our assessment, it is highly possible that the house at 3490 Brock Road may have closer associations with Hubbard. 5.4 Statement of Significance The following can be used as a Draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value for 3440 Brock Road: Although of modest significance, the cultural heritage value of 3440 Brock Road lies in its design, and possible associative and contextual value.The building is comprised of a c1870 house which was subsequently added to c1890. 5.4.1 Design Value The house is of typical design and materials for its period. Some features, such as the arched windows at the east(front) wall, are of interest and distinctive.The addition was done in the spirit of 3490 Brock Road to the north which also dates to the 1870's. 5.4.2 Historic/Associative Value The house was considered in previous evaluations to be a Heritage Resource(Bray et. al). However, as determined by our evaluation, criteria for such a conclusion are not met. GBCA 22 241 • • Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 5.4.3 Character-defining Elements The building is very much unchanged from the time of its last addition in the late 19th to early 20th century. Should a statement of Significance be prepared for the house, we consider its character-defining elements to be: - the overall massing of'the structure and its height and prominence - the"T" shaped floor plan which was modified to match 1870's examples - the centre gable of the original building with its arched window and surviving mouldings under the eaves - the roof slopes and sloped eaves - the decorative turned posts and fretwork decorating the front porch - the original clapboard siding together with the later siding of the north wing - the original 2/2 windows on the original wing and the paired 1/1 windows on the front wall of the addition which include an arched frame at the main floor 5.4.4 Contextual Value The subject house maintained and supported the rural heritage character of _ Brock Road.This has now been substantially lost by the road allowances which border the site placing the building outside of its original context. • 5.4.5 Interior The interior could not be evaluated due to lack of access 5.5 Recommendations The house at 3440 Brock Road should be recorded in detail, both interior and interior, in a manner which is outside of the scope of this current report. A set of measured and dimensioned drawings should be prepared with keyed photographs to document the structure for posterity. It is our opinion that the house should not be Designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by the City of Pickering. GBCA 23 242 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering • 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 6. Closure This report has been written by the Consultants (Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd.Architects (GBCA)for the benefit of the client to whom it is addressed. The information and data contained herein represent the Consultants' best professional judgment in light of the knowledge and information available to the consultants at the time of preparation. Except as required by law, this report and the information and data contained • herein are to be treated as confidential and may be used and relied upon only by the client, its officers and employees. The Consultants deny any liability whatsoever to other parties who may obtain access to this report for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, or reliance upon, this report or any of its contents without the express written consent of the Consultants and the client. The Consultants have prepared this report in accordance with the Scope of Services agreed with the Client. If you have any questions regarding the information contained herein, please contact the undersigned. Yours sincerely Goldsmith Borgal & Co. Ltd.Architects • Christopher Borgal OAA FRAIC CAHP Principal GRCA 24 243 ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# 6N Oaf-IS °O A Excerpts of Minutes Heritage Pickering PICKERING Advisory Special Committee Meeting April 15, 2015 7:00 pm Main Committee Room Attendees: K. Borisko J. Calder J. Dempsey W. Jamadar • D. Joyce T. Reimer M. Sawchuck C. Sopher J. Van Huss C. Rose, Chief Planner Surti, Manager, Development Review & Urban Design C. Celebre, Senior Planner, Development Review & Heritage L. Roberts, Recording Secretary Also Present: Dan Hagan Theresa Gauthier • Chris Borgal`-Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd. Architects Rob Quig Whitevale&District Resident's Association Scott Finlayson, Whitevale & District Resident's Association `` i, Item/ Details &,Discussion:& Conclusion Action Items / Ref# (summary of discussion) tatus.` • f elude deadline as • t r appropriate) :4:0`:{:.. New Business —.Heritage'Consultant Reports Chris Borgal appeared before the Committee to provide an overview of the heritage assessment reports he prepared in response to the Class B Environmental Assessments for properties proposed for demolition in the Seaton lands and Whitevale. 4.1) 825 Whitevale Road C. Borgal provided an overview of the draft heritage assessment report for 825 Whitevale Road, noting the importance with this property as it is currently listed on the Heritage Register and is recommended for designation. A brief discussion period ensued with staff responding to questions raised regarding the heritage lot boundaries. 244 Page 1 ATTACHMENT,# % TO REPORT# Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion -~ Action Items / Ref# (summary of discussion) Status (include deadline as _ . appropriate) Moved by M. Sawchuck 1. That the Heritage Pickering.Advisory Committee recommend to Council that in response to the Infrastructure Ontario Class B Environmental Assessment for demolition, Council object to the demolition of the house located at 825 Whitevale Road; and, 2. That Council designate 825 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Carried ' z 4.2) 1050 Whitevale Road C. Borgal provided an outline of the contents of the draft preliminary report for 1050 Whitevale Road. Comments were noted as follows; • Questioned whether a subdivision would be going in this location • Would be useful to view The interior d • Property stood out, could'have interesting history • Worth a further look • Well constructed • Could have social history • Should have a full report prepared Moved by C. Sopher That 1050 Whitevale Road be deferred in order to retain.C. Borgal to complete a full assessment report. Carried ` . • 4.3) 3280 16th Sideline C. Borgal provided an overview of the draft preliminary report for 3280 16th Sideline, with the following comments being noted: • Impressive landscape • Possibility of offering properties for sale • Still value in adding to register when properties are noted as having no significant heritage value • View the interior of the house 245 Page 2 ATTACHMENT REPORT# PIA 04%S Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items:l Ref# (summary of,discussion) " Status (include deadline as P y Moved by J. Van Huss 1. That the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee recommend to Council that in response to the Infrastructure Ontario Class .B Environmental Assessment for demolition, Council not object to the demolition of the house located at 3280 16th Sideline; 2. That Infrastructure Ontario record the building in the form of photographs and/or drawings and provide the documents of the building to the City; and, 3. That prior to demolition, exterior or interior heritage features be salvaged and any interested heritage organizations;the City or other interested parties be able to coordinate the salvage of any materials. Motion Lost Further discussion ensued with respect to obtaining additional information on this property. It was noted that by doing nothing, it shows support of heritage properties that could potentially have some heritage,significance rather than voting to support demolition. Moved by J Calder That C. Borgal be retained-to complete a full assessment report on 3280 Sideline 16._ , Carried 4.4) 3490 Brock Road C. Borgal provided an overview on the preliminary assessment report for 3490 Brock Road. He indicated the historical • signification of the Hubbard family, but stated there seemed to be some confusion regarding ownership, whether it was related to the property at 3490 or 3440 Brock Road. Discussion ensued with comments as follows: • Unsure of the state of windows • Odd addition in rear • House in poor condition • Not desirable property due to proximity to 407 246 Page 3 ATTACHMENT TO REPORT# 11■ Item/ Details & Discussion & Conclusion. Action Items / Ref# (summary of discussion) Status • (include deadline as appropriate)- Moved by D. Joyce 1. That the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee recommend to Council that in response to the Infrastructure Ontario Class B Environmental Assessment for demolition, Council not object to the demolition of the house located at 3490 Brock Road; • 2. That Infrastructure Ontario record the building in the form of photographs and/or drawings and provide the documents of the building to the City; and 3. That prior to demolition, exterior or interior heritage features be salvaged and any interested heritage organizations, the City of other interested parties be able to coordinate the salvage of any materials. Motion Lost Moved by D. Joyce That C. Borgal be retained to complete a full assessment report on 3490 Brock Road. • Carried 4.5) 3440 Brock,Road Chris Borgal provided an overview of the draft heritage assessment report for 3440 Brock Road, noting the structure appears to be in fair condition., A brief discussion period ensued with questions raised regarding the contextual value of the structure as well as any potential impacts on the budget for preparing further full assessments. Moved by J. Calder 1. That the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee recommend to Council that in response to the Infrastructure Ontario Class B Environmental Assessment for demolition, Council object to the demolition of the house located at 3440 Brock Road; and 2. That Infrastructure Ontario restore the building to its original appearance and livability and find an appropriate use and tenant for the house. 247 Carried Page 4 ATTACHMENT# D TO REPORT# 1 LN O4-15 Item/ Details & Discussion & Conclusion - Action;Items/ Ref# . (summary of,_discussion) . �a Status' r 4 include deadline'as PP Pat ) :a ro n e 4.5) 1130 Whitevale Road Chris Borgal provided an outline of the contents of the draft heritage assessment report for 1130 Whitevale Road. He noted that he would be visiting the location again. Moved by C. Sopher 1. That the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee.recommend to Council that in response to the Infrastructure Ontario Class B Enviornmental Assessment for demolition, Council object to the demolition of the house located at 1130 Whitevale Road; and 2. That Council designate 1130 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Carried 4.6) 1450 Whitevale Road - Chris Borgal outlined the contents of the draft heritage assessment report for 1450 Whitevale Road;-He noted the social history connected to this property should be preserved. He also noted large barns as well as a small stone-'house on the property as well. • Moved byK Borisko 1.: That the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee recommend to`Council that in response to the Infrastructure Ontario Class B Enviornmental Assessment for demolition, Council object to the demolition of the house'located at 1450 Whitevale Road; and 2. That Council designate 1450 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario'Hentage Act. Carried 4.7) 1740 Fifth Concession Chris Borgal outlined the contents of the draft preliminary report for 1740 Fifth Concession. 248 Page 5 ATTACHMENT# (0 TO REPORT# PLN oLi-l5 Item / Details & Discussion & Conclus_ion m Action Ites / (summary of discussion) Status' (include deadline as ri PP Pat ) Moved by J. Dempsey 1. That the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee recommend to Council that in response to the Infrastructure Ontario Class B Enviornmental Assessment for demolition, Council not object to the demolition of the house located at 1740 Fifth Concession; 2. That Infrastructure Ontario record the building in the form of photographs and/or drawings and provide the documents of the building to the City; and 3. That prior to demolition, exterior or interior heritage features . be salvaged and any interested heritage-organizations, the City of other interested parties be able tocoordinate the salvage of any materials. Motion Lost Moved by J. Dempsey • That C. Borgal be retained to complete a full assessment report on 1740 Fifth Concession. Carried f' t. ``C<:•``{ • • 249 Page 6 ATTACHMENT# 7 TO REPORT# March 29, 2015 Via E-mail to: internet.feedback.mtour @ontario.ca The Honourable Michael Coteau Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Hearst Block, 9th Floor 900 Bay Street Toronto, ON M7A 2E1 Dear Minister Coteau, Re: Built Heritage Threatened in Seaton I am writing you as a representative of the Whitevale and District Residents' Association regarding the fact that the City of Pickering received notice in November of 2014 that an environmental consultant has been retained by Infrastructure Ontario and is in the process of gathering background information for the preparation of a Class B Environmental Assessment for the demolition of 15 properties in the Seaton Urban Area (North Pickering). While the City of Pickering has been reviewing this initial list of properties, I understand additional properties continue to be added to the list for proposed demolition. After having reviewed the initial list of properties in question, we write to express our deep concern that the demolition of some of these properties are being contemplated; not only because of the potential for the immediate loss of these examples of built heritage in Ontario but also for 1) the implications to Heritage protections in Ontario and to 2) the respect being afforded by Infrastructure Ontario to the 2013 OMB rulings on the Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 22 (PL 101016 et al) . Of the 15 properties under consideration for demolition, eight already have some form of heritage designation, be that a listing on the Municipal Heritage Register, ORC Heritage Register or designations under either Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. Four of these properties were also designated as "Heritage Lots" during the aforementioned 2013 OMB hearings. During the 2013 OMB hearings, Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 22 was accepted as an amendment to the Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP). Among the many changes, OPA 22: • moved the eastern boundary of the Whitevale District Conservation District to the eastern village boundary, removing the school, cemetery and several 250 ATTACHMENT# Z TO REPORT# R-N O4-15 properties from the protection of the Ontario Heritage Act Part V Designation within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District; • reconfirmed the CPDP goal of, "Cultural Heritage: The integration of cultural heritage into the new community by drawing on the physical legacies of original aboriginal and European occupations."; • reconfirmed City Council's requirement that the Neighbourhood plans "incorporate significant built heritage resources into the lot pattern of the new and mixed use neighbourhood"; and • recognized Whitevale Road between Golf Course Road and Sideline 22 as a "Character Road" with significant "built heritage resources" adjacent to the road. One of the justifications provided in the 2013 OMB ruling for the restatement of the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District eastern boundary is, "that cultural heritage was comprehensively considered it the development of the CPDP". While several studies have been performed in recent years, and it does appear that consideration for protection of heritage assets have been incorporated into the CPDP, the actions now being taken by Infrastructure Ontario suggest that when it comes to execution of the plan, cultural heritage assets are not being protected at all. Four of the properties along the "Character Road" stretch are on this list of 15 being considered for demolition and two of these are on designated "Heritage Lots". Two more of the 15 properties being considered for demolition outside the "Character Road" area are also on "Heritage Lots". Some of the 15 properties were listed in the Part V Whitevale Heritage Conservation District registration under the Ontario Planning Act and one (incredibly) is a beautiful, rare example of stonemason craftsmanship that was recently designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act on April 22, 2014. We are shocked that given all the discussions, negotiations, rulings and official designations under Ontario Law, these properties could even be considered for demolition. The CPDP claims to be concerned with preserving heritage assets, and the OMB ruling claimed that OPA 22 would provide the tools to continue to adequately protect our cultural heritage, however the fact that the demolition of these properties is now being considered suggest these Cultural Heritage Assets actually have no protection and that in spite of the language used in the OMB ruling on the matter and the CPDP, the protection of built heritage is not a priority. 251 ATTACHMENT# 7 70 REPORT , c.1 Q- We expect that this is largely a financial decision and understand of course that your office has a responsibility to the taxpayers of Ontario, which we respect. However,we believe there are alternatives to demolition that all involved parties have an obligation to pursue. We believe demolition of built heritage assets should properties should only ever be considered as a last resort. During Phase Two of the hearing, the OMB heard evidence on maintenance and ownership of built heritage from the City of Pickering's heritage and planning experts. In our closing submission, a representative of the Whitevale and District Residents' Association requested the following: 1. A Recommendation from the Chair that the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham and the Province of Ontario enter into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") to sell the Built Heritage within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District and Seaton Urban Area to the original land owners or current tenants; and 2. A Recommendation from the Chair that the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham and the Province of Ontario enter into an MOU to ensure all Built Heritage resources remain occupied. During Phase Two of the hearing, the planning expert for the City of Pickering, Mr. Paul Lowes, was asked a series of questions during cross examination regarding the Built Heritage of the Seaton Urban Area Development. When asked specifically who he believed would be the best steward of heritage properties Mr. Lowes replied: "It would be appropriate for the person living in the property to own the property, subject to Dr. Bray's recommendations that if the property is transferred it should also be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. I agree that having owners and occupiers being one and the same would be appropriate to preserve the Heritage Buildings" Minister Coteau, selling Built Heritage properties to the original land owner or current tenant was done for the lands west of the Whitevale Hamlet. The City of Pickering was involved in this process. The Central Pickering Development Plan states on page 12: Commencing in 1999, the Ontario Realty Corporation sold the agricultural lands located west of the Duffins Creek and within the Town of Pickering to the original land owners or tenant farmers. The sale was based on a Memorandum of Understanding signed by three levels of government-the Province, the Regional Municipality of Durham and the Town of Pickering- 252 ATTACHMENT#, _`0 REPORT# 4\10 -l5 _.. :.._.. that committed all parties to ensuring that the lands remained in agricultural use in perpetuity. The memorandum of Understanding was supported by conservation and agricultural easements being placed on the lands. Why is the Built Heritage east of Whitevale being treated differently than those to the west? Given these properties are currently owned by the Province,we believe the Province should take the lead and start the process of returning these lands to their original owners or current tenants as they have in the past. During Phase Two of the hearing the City of Pickering put into evidence the state of the Built Heritage in the Seaton Urban Area Development. in fact, the City of Pickering's own expert in cultural and heritage planning, Dr. Carl Bray, stated in his expert witness statement: Ideally the plan [updated Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Plan] would include a memorandum of understanding between the City and the Province regarding commitments by the latter to conserve Provincially- managed significant cultural heritage resources by designating them under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and ensuring that built heritage resources remain occupied and secure until the new neighbourhoods adjacent to them are built and occupied. [emphasis added] A conservation and preservation strategy is clearly required. Currently the state of Pickering's Built Heritage varies substantially. Consider the following four examples taken from the Seaton Built Heritage Assessment Prepared by Andre Scheinman, Heritage Preservation Consultant, in November 2004 for the North Pickering Land Exchange Team. The first two examples (reference A & B) are properties which are currently unoccupied and now being considered for demolition. The second two (reference C & D) are properties which are currently occupied but for which their futures are very uncertain should the first two be destroyed. A. Albright Farmstead - 1050 Whitevale Road The Farmstead at 1050 Whitevale Road was given to Aaron Albright from the Crown in 1852, originally set aside as part of the Clergy Reserve. The existing brick dwelling was built sometime after 1861, but likely from the physical/stylistic evidence within a decade of that date. 253 AT AC HMENT C;i_P RT - ?4.1 0j-)5 Substantial heritage fabric remains including window surroundings with paneled dada, door surrounds and baseboards. Unfortunately serious damage occurred due to roof leaks. The property is considered to be of Local Significance. When visited 10 years ago this building was tenanted and considered an 'A' category structure though the sidelights and transom of the main entrance had been 'bricked in' sometime previous to that. However, since that time the building has become derelict. The fine 6/6 wood sash and, more significantly, the pointed arch sash with bar tracery have been removed from the building and replaced with vinyl units which bear no resemblance to the original sash. Of greater concern is the longstanding neglect of a roof leak that has allowed the roof structure and portions of the interior to be sorely damaged, a condition that appears to be ongoing and has not been addressed. This building is certainly, at minimum, of Local Significance, and both the decision-maker with regards to window replacement and the neglect leading to its denigration are extremely unfortunate. ❖ See Attachment 1 for Photographs of the Albright Farmstead from Mr. Scheinman's Report B. Nathaniel Hastings House- 1130 Whitevale Road This lot was originally part of the extensive lands granted by the Crown to Isabella Hill. This house was built c. 1835-40 and is the only one within the area studies by Mr. Scheinman that was recorded in'the 1851 consensus as being of stone. The building is a fine example of the vernacular adaptation of Anglo-Palladian (Georgian) motifs and is one of the few five bay residents built this early in the area. The Nathaniel Hastings House is considered to be of high Regional Significance. The loss of original windows is unfortunate but otherwise much of the heritage fabric remains, including much of the interior. However, it is under threat and gradual attrition by neglect and low quality repairs/maintenance. Of particular 254 ATTACHMENT#_ €0 REPORT# ?4d D�1 l5 concern currently is the condition of the roof which appears about ready to fail and allow moisture to penetrate the historic interior ❖ See Attachment 2 for Photograph of the Nathaniel Hastings House from Mr. Scheinman's Report C. Former Schoolhouse— 3215 Sideline 28 The Former School (the "Whitevale Schoolhouse") is a Greek Revival School Building built in 1864-65. After being declared redundant, the building was saved from demolition by its being purchased, restored and renovated as a private home by the current occupant, Mr. Charles Neville, who bought the building in 1968 only to be expropriated in 1972. This rural school conforms closely to the prototype developed by J. G. Hodgins in his guidelines for school buildings in Upper Canada (1859) and still has many student names and dates incised into the relatively soft brick. • While the interior has been renovated for use as a private home, it has been done so with great respect for its former use preserving and revealing such items as original plaster cornice, chalkboards and coat rails. The fine heavy timber king-post roof structure remains unchanged. • This resource is considered to be of high Regional Significance for the following reasons: • It was the educational and social focus of the community over 100 years where the education of the youth or generations of Majorville (Whitevale) and region took place; • It is a key landmark on the eastern approach to Whitevale. The Whitevale School has been carefully preserved and maintained by Mr. Neville who purchased it just prior to expropriation. ❖ See Attachment 3 for Photographs of the Whitevale Schoolhouse from Mr. Scheinman's Report • D. William Turner House-3250 Sideline 28 255 ATTACHMENT L--7_ -- 0 FE.PORT# pAi' Del-1 William Turner arrived in Pickering form New Brunswick in 1841 and settled on this land. His descendants remained on the property until just after World War Two. Mr. Chris Kahn purchased the William Turner House in September 1973, his wife Allison moved in about four years later. Mr. Khan is a carpenter and handyman and has continued to occupy the William Turner House since its purchase nearly 40 years ago. A substantial amount of original detailing remains throughout the house including front door treatment,window and door castings, base and chair rail and wide pine flooring. Most impressive however is the wood paneled window embrasure and the heavy 2nd floor joists, finely planed and with beaded edges indicating clearly that they were always intended to be exposed. The William Turner House is considered Regionally Significant. Both interior and exterior remain quite intact including the early and now rare features. The site context also retains integrity except for the loss of barns. ❖ See Attachment 4 for Photographs of William Turner House from Mr. Scheinman's Report We agree with both City of Pickering experts and feel the best way to protect these cultural heritage resources from the same fate of neglect and denigration is to sell them back to the original or current owners who would be the best stewards of these significant properties. In the cases where sales to the original or current owners are not possible, sale of the properties into private hands under appropriate conditions of heritage preservation is the next best alternative. Other important heritage homes in the Whitevale area have been preserved through this method including the posting of a performance bond by purchasing party to assure proper restoration and quality of workmanship. We respectfully ask that you please intervene in this process and help ensure that these and other valuable pieces of Ontario's history are not lost in spite of the contrary actions and commitments that have already been made by all levels of government involved in this matter. 256 ATTACHMENT#�.--! `r^R REPORT'.)c Lr* of is Please feel free to contact representatives of the Whitevale and District Residents' Association at quig.robert @gmail.com or srfinlayson @hotmail.com to discuss the matter further. We are very interested in working with you to protect these heritage assets for future generations to enjoy. Sincerely, • Scott Finlayson Robert Qu'rg President, Whitevale and District Vice President, Whitevale and District Residents' Association Residents' Association Copy: Hon. Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario Hon. Madeleine Meilleur, Attorney General of Ontario Joe Dickson, MPP Ajax-Pickering Heritage Pickering Mayor Ryan Members of Council Members, Ontario Municipal Board Members, Ontario Heritage Trust Chief Administrative Officer Director, Community Services Director, Office of Sustainability Chief Planning Officer 257 ATTACHMENT#__Z___TO RE-=ART 241•3 014-15 Attachment 1 Photographs of the Albright Farmstead from Mr. Scheinman's Report e .. 7< � • • •• . Fig. ''Lame aroc pct horn F .I: ricw.frani southeast • • • • • • 258 AYTACt-irV1ENT# 7 To REPOITI # PLA oLl-i5 Attachment 2 Photograph of the Nathaniel Hastings House from Mr. Scheinman's Report . _- . .. 1 ' '- ,.r. P,-,,---:-. .,4,W .1,T.:=,, 414. ty 4 --' ' ."-''' ,, ,.1!;.:,_ _,„_, xr .j. ,,. ' lk......,:,"'="Ty4A0. -aff.a.4 .....t 0,,.., :',:,• -:-,,Z;7':nt.t..4.,.._ . .A::,:77. .n.,;71.-• •,--,-..,;--.:v„Iii,, -..f,: or.;----w-''''''_--..,s1-:-..„.;-,,:?.-.4-- .---7.m: -:-.‘4 T.':--.:;771.-4.9 ."--...1.7,- -.i.,-';,-,-,1.,-w:.•,..-....r . IF'--,.. ..--- "' ,' 4,-. "'-.:.:_- r.t..',.-,..; -,7 A '''%-!. 4...- ,, '-,t..- ,:-.''',"2a-,- ' .:, ,'„..,.,-.,'..4-ifi •:. ....tr,- ,4,:,, -,'--0,45,-*--,:rla-C^55-!-V, 1 ;'''. ,.„_.,_,..;"_- _,,..77. i*. „L.,'`,,'.- .,-, '''' , ::,.1.1, - ,,'-p- ,,:-.• ,r,‘A'r 171*";ATIta '.,,/;,4f*. :1141.: 1;K.!1:1'''',cf 1.11'.L le.:',4"Pi,ra i-lt::'-'4;."..,' '1 Li y ' .,0.4iw------V:--- -- ,-j,-,- ---..-,,„„:-- ri;.:2,,,,....-:,' :4 .. '7 ' + 7- :410,-,1,:yr , -., ----...‘r. --n,'. -1 ,..t:-,,--4,....- - , ,-,,,.• ._ -,L,. , , ,,,,,--,-.7:-. - - , :-,---, . ,„ . , elyi_ , -.. ...- , ,,. '' e-t,. .'7,- -,, .11.- - -.'4 - '' - ,t--., . • . .. P ---14- .- .- 7 - ,/-•A-r-7-;-:' -...,-.— --,.,_-,- f:-'• .. , -. ,.-4,..--..-04.----TN ,.._„ . , ,, , _J.: ,-..:.2*,%.,..,e.. ,..,-;-.3•.•-!•.. '''..-.. -- .''. ' " - _ .. Fig.2:View form southeast Fig 1:Front elevation ' ,._. ..... • ■-17:4,:.:. .1".. : : ' . • .■ ',7 a ' . • • ': Z.--,qta'''.'"4",!:.1.:7_,,at.,4 . . -.■-:' -1:,,a, .:'" • ' " ' - -• 41:1' , . . •.., . 7,t E I s , . :.-., ' 4 11, e, _ . i_ , t r i o , _ ., ,: '-4.--,.-=.1* ' i ,4-_-,--7?%.•‘-::;,;':%-",:-;,;,77 . ,-. - .2.. - ir , oi _pig7-"-r ti-' -.-tx=7 ,..-..r.. --:-.1-1';M:-..;2;;;;.7.7.7;A:7 '' " '-":-";; '." ' ■ ;',.'''''' ' '''- 4`174.-i -`_,,,-„f-'3":, ir' _„-,—,-' ,..!'-',.?,=.2.2:7,-:',2-74',:.7:-"-TNAV" $i-=''.)7.----T* '..t-::- ':r.;.. •'-..:-".Its: . 1 A:7* . ,,,it,„ .:711,41,4,,.. -.--- -.,,..-- '::; ',::::: ...,';: -,,,;- -,L,'.,,,.:-;•1. IT i I „ !,..-1 Fig.3: Parlour fireplace surround i ': ',';',2' -ttk::::.,71;,.. .=.:'',:.+,. ...4 t. '. -,:: ;ft-., - •:. —--. ., -: = -'''-*'-,....V.").12:'0.■r4.i.',.*1 "---.41..: 'N .. 1 4, ' - ' z--r---r77-,.:777 ..,,, ...r.p. r-,., . &-•.,,,.. ,, : : - . ,.' : ,_ . ' ,, ----'''`,r=' - :"":" : .. ,- '4"..7 7:5:;■-'1,-,-.7:::Fi:: - 'W.1-7-, a .,..„, A ,,, I - i ,. . '.:-7.,-,m..."7.-- --,"'..r.",";:.• -.."-"-'71,- -".-,Z.-11,..,"--""---s4-:-'7, -- ..;--",,y- v.,"--"K'... ..":"'''' ":".:7' ';-..' :-'7 '5"; ' • ; =":"•.1;,=:72.' '''.".-''.' ,-":----7'="247/.71"=7:.'4 "-"=".7"":":".".::=,''.''''-="7=7-7 ' --7t-t'L:-."-- -•': :i'"'S'i-tX- -Z. -.': '-'"--;:i 1'4*'''' t -"-,6,::: ; - - _ d;1="...j.;,:-: :::.,,,....: .f..--7,. "-±-;,::2;:-4:`,,,.. 't•-,--1-`-.L1„,=?4',";'-'"-*:.:.. ' Ti iiii.." ,:i,i_ ,,_. ., It it I,11,,ioitottitt t1.7 it ' '1 Fig.4:Early 'kt7ob'newel tt. ' ..- . ot, ..-- ..-.4 '' 'a i ---- ' 'z. ----1,-m:: '-'• , -, ,,,, 'lte" .. ''' J_- — Fig.5:Ban?interior 259 ilE''U4? t (6 p4-15 _.. Attachment 3 Photographs of the Whitevale Schoolhouse from Mr. Scheinman's Report a ::1 -a - 4 :-. ` c., - ,L - PA-•Rr $, " r� + ,, h b L ni ga,tP t.. r'. .rte, Im `7 r, ,77 .F'r''1: Fer ercre.Note tiotestor,o cupola. 1 i .2: 7611.cr' a iort€rht.. 1 `sue , -, - , .. �}}.t,, .:1 =1 } + _.tom 4Y-raw ,,::',:5- ' �1 ., a s: _ = - Frg.4. Vestige ofplaster comir Fix3: 'x.:..-lined c.19.11;Jodi&plantings , -7 .. ; �, ."-mat,. = -` 0 t t U ry fit row, k _ Fig.5: Chalkboards remain in place, t� . - 260 Attachment 4 Photographs of William Turner House from Mr. Scheinman's Report .. • pJ .+ z " E ,r= Irl- ,4*.,,,, { • } ' —_,_.4. - :Y!. . s� h .r w ` -i,'4e ii vx: ,r.5 14 f-. t- 7s 4 s , ,1•' r `,. 4 , rC,� ' , y ' �v 3I{ d ,tt qd.,,+.f yT•• i aS�„ r;� ,:5-,44,14- - ,r, Kam.. '�'t�. ar .� Fig. 1: Front elevation and perennial beds Fig.2: ll'est elevation&later entrance to cellar - - ,,; .... - .1 :on S .. f-�# # ,t " 5 t ` • "�� %i t 0,4,;.:,,,,_1;;;14,•,,,,,_1;;;14,•,-5,, 1l ' O r re � E a o - F - _ t f.w I t - t ' S s y A u.., „.ilk, z, i Ii —'ct .4 �. ! Fig.3: Original `cellar' kitchen irenlar:e Fig,4:Detail of beams&floorboards finished with edge bead • 1 .,;;a h , „# 1 . __, , i -� 7 _=_ J "` r. k s r A 261 Fig 5:Typical interiorfeatwres ATTACHMENT '' • REPORT ?LN 0.15�� u.L. Celebre, Cristina From: Marion Thompson Sent: March-30-15 10:45 AM To: Cc: . Subject: Built Heritage Threatened in Pickering The Honourable Michael Coteau • Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Hearst Block, 9th Floor 900 Bay Street Toronto, ON M7A 2E1 Dear Minister Coteau, Re: :Built Heritage Threatened in Seaton • I write to you as a concerned citizen of Ontario and a long-time resident of Whitevale. I have become aware that Infrastructure Ontario has begun the assessment process to demolish 15 heritage properties in the Seaton Lands in North Pickering. Having reviewed the list of properties in question, I am writing to express my deep concern that demolition of some of these properties is being contemplated. I am concerned not only about their immediate loss,but also about the potential for future losses of other provincially-owned homes. In fact, several of the.properties being considered for demolition already have some form of heritage designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Their heritage value has already been established and any other owner other than the government of Ontario would be obligated to maintain and protect these buildings. And,if the houses are deemed to be derelict, it has not escaped our notice that the Ontario Government has been the landlord for over 40 years! While this is likely a financial decision and I understand, of course,that your office has a responsibility to the taxpayers of Ontario, I believe there are alternatives to demolition that all involved parties have an obligation to pursue. Demolition of built heritage assets should only ever be considered as a last resort. I respectfully ask that you please intervene in this process and help ensure that these and other;valuable pieces of Ontario's history are not lost in spite of the contrary actions and commitments that have already been made by all levels of government involved in this matter. 1 - 262 ATTACHMENT#.__7 R P URI.; w 04_-15 Thank you for your attention to this important issue. Sincerely, Marion Thompson 437 Churphwin St. Whitevale, ON LOH MO Copy: Hon. Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario Hon. Madeleine Meilleur, Attorney General of Ontario Joe Dickson, MPP Ajax-Pickering Heritage Pickering Mayor Ryan Members of Council Members, Ontario Municipal Board Members, Ontario Heritage Trust Chief Administrative Officer Director, Community Services . Director, Office of Sustainability Chief Planning Officer • • • 2 263 • e r1ACKVE # 7 - T Celebre, Cristina From: jerry mihailoff - Sent: March-30-15 1:26 PM To: Cc: • Subject: " Demolition Derby • The Honourable Michael Coteau Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport • Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Hearst Block, 9th Floor 900 Bay Street Toronto, ON M7A 2E1 Dear Minister Coteau, • Re: Built Heritage Threatened in Seaton • I am writing you as a concerned citizen of Ontario regarding the fact that I have become aware that Infrastructure Ontario has begun the assessment process to demolish 15 heritage properties in the Seaton Lands in North Pickering. • After having reviewed the list of properties in question, I am writing you to express my deep concern that the demolition of some of these properties is being contemplated. I am concerned not only -about their immediate loss, but also the potential for future losses of other provincially owned homes. Several of the properties being considered for demolition already have some form of heritage designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Their heritage value has already been established and any other owner other than the government of Ontario would be obligated to maintain and protect these buildings. • • While this is likely financial decision and I understand of course that•your office has a responsibility to the taxpayers of Ontario, I believe there are alternatives to demolition that all involved parties have an obligation to pursue. Demolition of built heritage assets should only ever be considered as a last resort. I respectfully ask that you please intervene in this process and help ensure that these and other valuable pieces of Ontario's history, are not lost in spite of the contrary actions and commitments that have already been made by all levels of government involved in this matter. Seven years ago we purchased a heritage property in the hamlet of Whitevale. With careful renovations, we upgraded the living spaces and preserved the heritage attributes of the buildings. It 1 264 ATTACHMENT REPOR ;+ PLA,_ 04-15 has become a more than comfortable place to live. The preservation of many of these heritage buildings should become available to others with the same desire to appreciate the historic significance of the structures and become stewards of our Ontario history. The accelerated mindless housing sprawl on our best farmland in the Whitevale community, exemplifies the mercenary approach developers have adopted to destroy the most important resources we own.Surely you can save and restore a few monuments to display to future generations that we are not heartless. In this critical time of "Save our Land and Water"can_you not make these exceptions to do our part? Thank you for your attention to this important issue. Sincerely, • Jerrold Mihailoff Beverly Moroz • • • • • •• • • • •• 2 265 ,;PCIR :f PLN o-/5 Celebre, Cristina From: johnjudy duffus Sent: April-09-15 4:41 PM To: ' Cc: Subject: Heritage Buildings on Concession Road 5, Whitevale, Ontario The Honourable Michael Coteau Minister of Culture, Tourism and Sport I am writing to you about the proposal to demolish many heritage houses, currently owned by the province,on Concession Five in Whitevale. I understand that the demolitions are to make way for the Seaton project. I also understand that despite a heritage designation the province may over rule the designation if it so chooses. Concession Five is a part of Pickering's heritage. The area in question runs between Brock Road in the East and the village of Whitevale in the West. It runs in a straight line and rises and falls with the landscape. Along the road are many examples of early farmsteads. In particular there are several one storey stone houses, one larger stone house, 615 Whitevale Road, and the original schoolhouse at 3215 Sideline 28. This is a Greek revival school'building constructed in 1864-65. It has been lovingly preserved by the current resident. Of interest is the exterior where graduating students have etched their names over the past one hundred years. #615 was built by a Mr Major who founded the community of Whitevale,which was at first named Majorville. This beautiful house is located on the crest of a hill opposite to Sideline 26. This house is an important part of the history of settlement around the mill on Duffms Creek,over a hundred years ago. As such it should be preserved and maintained for future generations and not demolished. Your intervention in this matter will be appreciated by all local residents and by those interested in the history of the area. In grateful anticipation • Judy Duffms 479 Churchwin Street Whitevale, Ontario • LOH 1MO • ijduffus @gmail.com • • 1 266 ri PDHT ) J 1 Cq /J Celebre, Cristina From: Brigitte Sopher _ _ Sent: April-13-15 10:34 PM To: Cc: Subject: • Heritage Properties Threatened in Seaton Via E-mail to: internet.feedback.mtour @ontario.ca The Honourable Michael Coteau Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Hearst Block, 9th Floor 900 Bay Street Toronto, ON M7A 2E1 Dear Minister Coteau, Re: Heritage properties threatened to be demolished in Seaton I am writing you as a concerned citizen of Ontario and resident of the Heritage Hamlet of Whitevale. I have recently become aware that Infrastructure Ontario has begun the assessment process to demolish 15 heritage properties in the Seaton Lands in North Pickering. I know some of the properties in question(for instance the beautiful stone house "Nathaniel Hastings House" at 1130 Whitevale Road)and I have reviewed.the list of all the properties slated for demolition. I am writing you to express my deep concern about the impending loss of what is part of our region's heritage.Several of the properties being considered for demolition already have some form of heritage designation under the Ontario Heritage Act.Some have been labelled as being of"high regional significance".Some are simply beautiful wood or stone.structures from the 19th century,which represent various periods in our region's history.Their heritage value has already been established and any owner other than the government of Ontario would be obligated to maintain and protect these buildings.Once demolished they would represent an irreplaceable loss for our community and even for our province. This is likely a financial decision and I understand that your office has a responsibility to the taxpayers of Ontario. However, your responsibility is not only to accommodate today's taxpayers, it is also to consider the preservation of our cultural assets for the benefit of future generations.There are alternatives to demolition that all involved parties have an obligation to pursue. Demolition of built heritage assets should only ever be considered as a last resort. Examples in neighbouring towns such as Markham have demonstrated that such buildings can be sold and lovingly restored by dedicated owners.They contribute to the pride we have in our roots, in the culture and history of our community. The fate of these buildings deserve careful consideration. I respectfully ask that you intervene in this process and help ensure that these and other valuable pieces of Ontario's history are not lost, in spite • 1 267 AT TO REPORT 4N 5 # C?�f-I of the contrary actions and commitments that have already been made by all levels of government involved in this matter. Thank you for your attention to this important issue. Sincerely, Brigitte Sopher • Copy: Hon. Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario Hon. Madeleine Meilleur, Attorney General of Ontario Joe Dickson, MPP Ajax-Pickering Heritage Pickering Mayor Ryan • Members of Council Members, Ontario Municipal Board Members, Ontario Heritage Trust Chief Administrative Officer Director, Community Services Director, Office of Sustainability Chief Planning Officer • . i 2 268