Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
September 27, 2023
Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Agenda September 27, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Members of the public may observe the meeting proceedings by viewing the livestream. Page 1. Review and Approval of Agenda 2. Disclosure of Interest 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1 June 28, 2023, Meeting Minutes 1 4. Delegations 5. New Business 5.1 Presentation by Shauna Muir, Supervisor, Public Affairs & Corporate Communications Re: Corporate Strategic Plan Engagement S. Muir 5.2 Municipal Heritage Register Review and Update E. Game 5 6. Other Business 7. Next Meeting - October 25, 2023 8. Adjournment Page 1 of 4 Minutes/Meeting Summary Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee June 28, 2023 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm Attendees: N.Brewster L. Jeffrey S. Monaghan R. Smiles C. Doody-Hamilton J. White C. Forrester, Kindred Works K. Opoku, Kindred Works A. Hannaford, MHBC Sharon Hong, ERA Architects C. Morrison, Principal Planner, Development Review B. Weiler, Principal Planner, Policy (Staff Liaison) A. MacGillivray, Committee Coordinator (Recording Secretary) Absent: R. Anderson A. Bhadra Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 1. Review and Approval of Agenda Moved by C. Doody-Hamilton Seconded by N. Brewster That the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda of June 28, 2023 be approved. Carried 2. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 3. Approval of Minutes Moved by C. Doody-Hamilton Seconded by R. Smiles That the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of June 14, 2023 be approved. - 1 - Page 2 of 4 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) Carried 4. Delegations There were no delegations. 5. New Business 5.1 Official Plan and Rezoning Application – 1066 Dunbarton Rd. C. Morrison provided an overview of the current use of the subject site and the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications. The applications propose townhouse dwellings on the property, while retaining the original 1877 church building. C. Forrester, Kindred Works and Sharon Hong, ERA Architects provided an overview of the project speaking to: • the ownership of the property; • background and history of Kindred Works; • the proposed residential units; • the provision for affordable residential units on the site; • visual renderings of the project; • Kindred Works’ sustainability targets; • the history of the Dunbarton-Fairport United Church; • the historical context of the subject lands and surrounding Dunbarton area; and, • the proposal to demolish the newer additions of the church and retain the original structure. Discussion ensued amongst Committee Members regarding: • whether the church building will remain useful to the community and congregation if the newer additions were demolished; • concerns regarding whether the amount of parking proposed is sufficient; • the daycare currently operating on the site and the anticipated impacts of this development on its operation; and, • the basement of the church building. - 2 - Page 3 of 4 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) Moved by C. Doody-Hamilton Seconded by L. Jeffrey 1. That Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee support the proposal to retain and conserve the portion of the Church, constructed in 1877, as illustrated in the Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated October 14, 2022; 2. That the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee supports the designation of the 1877 Church and that the committee be consulted at a later date regarding the draft by- law and lands to be designated under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; 3. That Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee be consulted on the restoration plans for the retained Church, the design of any proposed addition to the Church, and the proposed site and building design of residential units, prior to the issuance of Site Plan Approval; 4. That, as a part of the Site Plan Application submission, the applicant shall submit a Conservation Plan, that is consistent with the conservation strategy set out in the Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by ERA Architect Inc. dated October 14, 2022, which includes, but is not limited to: a) Review of the finalized townhouse design, noting any changes that have been or should be made to their scale, form, massing, and materials to ensure their compatibility with the 1877 Church; b) Recommendations for the repair and renovation of the north elevation of the 1877 Church, following the removal of the later additions (including the design parameters for a small addition, if required); - 3 - Page 4 of 4 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 5. That, prior to the execution of a site plan agreement, the applicant provide a Letter of Credit to secure all works included in the approved Conservation Plan, to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development & CBO; 6. That, prior to Site Plan Approval, a reference plan be provided to the City of Pickering to identify the location of the retained Church and any new addition; 7. That, after a designation by-law has been registered on title, a heritage plaque be placed on the building or subject lands at the owner’s expense; and, 8. That the comments and discussion of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee be included by staff in a future recommendation report to the Planning & Development Committee. Carried 6. Other Business 7. Next Meeting The next meeting of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee is scheduled for September 27, 2023. 8. Adjournment Moved by N. Brewster Seconded by S. Monaghan That the meeting be adjourned. Carried Meeting Adjourned: 7:39 pm - 4 - Memo To: Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee September 27, 2023 From: Emily Game Senior Planner, Heritage Copy: Chief Planner Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design Subject: Municipal Heritage Register Review and Update Purpose The purpose of this Municipal Heritage Register review and update is to assist in the identification of significant heritage properties that are candidates for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The review will also identify properties for retention on, and removal from, the Municipal Heritage Register. Ontario Heritage Act Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act indicates that municipal staff shall keep a register of properties situated in the municipality that are of cultural heritage value or interest. The Municipal Heritage Register (the register) is the official list of cultural heritage properties identified as being important to the City, and includes designated and non-designated properties. The City of Pickering register was last updated in 2021. The register must include all properties in the municipality that are designated under Part IV (individual designation), and Part V (district designation) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The register also includes properties that have not been designated that Council believes may have cultural heritage value or interest. These are commonly known as “listed" properties. Council must consult with its municipal heritage committee before including a property on the register or removing the reference to such a property from the register. Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 The enactment of Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, altered Provincial legislation, including the Planning Act, Conservation Authorities Act, and the Ontario Heritage Act. The bill now mandates removal of listed properties from the register without consultation with the Municipal Heritage Committee. Listing, a tool used by most municipalities with heritage registers, will be curtailed by requiring that listed buildings are either designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act in two years, or they must be dropped from the register for at least five years. Once these properties are removed, they will have no protection from demolition. - 5 - September 27, 2023 Page 2 of 3 Municipal Heritage Register review and update Previously Assessed Properties The Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of the following properties has been evaluated through Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports or Heritage Impact Assessments (see Location Maps, Attachments #1 to #5): • 1294 Kingston Road • 450 Finch Avenue • 1 Evelyn Avenue • 401 Kingston Road • 4993 Brock Road Unassessed Properties The Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road and 4953 Brock Road (the Brougham Union Masonic Lodge) has not been determined through the application of Ontario Regulation 9/06. It is recommended that Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports be prepared in accordance with the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (2010) and Heritage Identification and Evaluation Process (2014). The primary purpose of this report is to evaluate the properties using Ontario Regulation 9/06 to determine if they retain cultural heritage value or interest (see Location Maps, Attachments #6 and #7). Staff Recommendations to Heritage Pickering This memo provides recommendations to the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee regarding the aforementioned properties. With the exception of 4953 Brock Road, all of the properties are privately owned. As outlined in the Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports and Heritage Impact Assessments, the consultant recommends that 1294 Kingston Road, 450 Finch Avenue, 1 Evelyn Avenue, 401 Kingston Road, and 4993 Brock Road meet the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06. The evaluation reports include a draft Statement of Significance for each of the properties which outlines the list of exterior heritage attributes. It is the practice of the City not to include interior features of a private building in the designation by-law. Staff offer the following recommendations to the Committee: • That Heritage Pickering support the Part IV designation of the following properties: o 1294 Kingston Road o 450 Finch Avenue o 1 Evelyn Avenue o 401 Kingston Road o 4993 Brock Road • That Heritage Pickering support of the completion of Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports for 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road and 4953 Brock Road to determine their Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, and to determine if the properties are candidates for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. - 6 - September 27, 2023 Page 3 of 3 Municipal Heritage Register review and update Attachment #8 summarizes the current heritage status, heritage consultants’ analyses and recommendations, and staff’s recommendations to the Committee for the seven properties considered in this memo (Attachments #9 to #14 are referenced in Attachment #8). Next Steps Heritage Pickering recommendations will be included in the City Development Staff Recommendation Report to Planning & Development Committee, and the properties recommended for Part IV designation under the Ontario Heritage Act will be presented to Council. If you have any questions, please contact me at 905.420.4660, extension 1147. EG:nr J:\Documents\Administration\A-3300\A-3300-074\2023 Heritage Register Update\Heritage Committee Meeting\Heritage Committee Memo_11SEPT23.docx Attachments 1. Location Map – 1294 Kingston Road 2. Location Map – 450 Finch Avenue 3. Location Map – 1 Evelyn Avenue 4. Location Map – 401 Kingston Road 5. Location Map – 4993 Brock Road 6. Location Map – 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road 7. Location Map – 4953 Brock Road 8. Summary Table 9. Heritage Report for the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department: Fox and Fiddle Mansion (UMA 2013) 10. Old Liverpool House, 1294 Kingston Road and 1848 & 1852 Liverpool Road, Pickering, Heritage Impact Assessment (ERA 2019) 11. 450 Finch Avenue, Pickering Ontario: Heritage Impact Assessment (ERA 2022) 12. Kingston Road Study: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (Branch Architecture 2020) 13. Heritage Assessment: 4993 Brock Road, Claremont, Pickering, Ontario (Goldsmith 2017) 14. 1027 Dunbarton Road: Cultural Heritage Evaluation (ERA 2016) - 7 - B o w l e r D r i ve G l enanna Road Gl e n d a l e D r i v e Liverpool Road Fi e l d l i g h t B o u l e v a r d Ma l d e n C r e s c e n t K in g st o n R o a d Char l o tte C ircle P i c k e r i n g P a r k w a y Br o n t e S q u a r e DavidFarr Park South PineCreekRavine 1:4,000 SCALE:© The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment File: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Sep. 07, 2023 ¯ E SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\01-City Development\A-3300-074 Municipal Heritage Register\2023 Heritage Register Update\1294KingstonRd_LocationMap.mxd Location Map Municipal Address:Municipal Heritage Register Review and Update1294 Kingston Road Attachment #1 - 8 - Amberlea Road S augeen Drive Finch Avenue Ro s e b a n k R o a d Wi l d f l o w e r D r i v e SummerPark SequinPark 1:6,000 SCALE:© The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Municipal Address:Municipal Heritage Register Review and Update THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Sep. 07, 2023 ¯ E 450 Finch Avenue SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\01-City Development\A-3300-074 Municipal Heritage Register\2023 Heritage Register Update\450FinchAve_LocationMap.mxd HydroLands HydroLands HydroLands Attachment #2 - 9 - Rougemoun t D r i v e Ro s e b a n k R o a d H i g h w a y 4 0 1 E v e l y n A v e n u e Toynevale Road Dalewood Drive K i n g s t o n R o a d Ch a n t i l l y R o a d Frontier Court Granite Court Rouge Hill Court Old Forest Road EastWoodlandsPark SouthPetticoatRavine 1:4,000 SCALE:© The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Municipal Address:Municipal Heritage Register Review and Update THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Sep. 07, 2023 ¯ E 1 Evelyn Avenue SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\01-City Development\A-3300-074 Municipal Heritage Register\2023 Heritage Register Update\1EvelynAve_LocationMap.mxd Attachment #3 - 10 - Rougemount Drive Toynevale Road E v e l y n A v e n u e Ch a n t i l l y R o a d Da h l i a C r e s c e n t Oa k w o o d D r i v e Frontier Court Lytton Court D a l e w o o d D r i v e O l d F o r e s t R o a d Highway 4 0 1 Rouge Hill Court Kingston Road EastWoodlandsParkSouthPetticoatRavine 1:4,000 SCALE:© The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Municipal Address:Municipal Heritage Register Review and Update THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Sep. 07, 2023 ¯ E 401 Kingston Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\01-City Development\A-3300-074 Municipal Heritage Register\2023 Heritage Register Update\401KingstonRd_LocationMap.mxd Attachment #4 - 11 - Wi x s o n S t r e e t B ro c k R o a d Do w S t r e e t Central Street Henry Street David Street Wellington Street Joseph Street Vi c t o r i a S t r e e t Claremont Memorial Park 1:2,000 SCALE:© The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Municipal Address:Municipal Heritage Register Review and Update THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Sep. 07, 2023 ¯ E 4993 Brock Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\01-City Development\A-3300-074 Municipal Heritage Register\2023 Heritage Register Update\4993BrockRd_LocationMap.mxd Attachment #5 - 12 - SpartanCourt Cloudbe r r y C o u r t D u n c h u r c h S t r e e t Dunbart o n R o a d Rambleb e r r y A v e n u e Highway 401 Kingston Road DalewoodRavine DalewoodRavine 1:2,000 SCALE:© The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Municipal Address:Municipal Heritage Register Review and Update THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Sep. 07, 2023 ¯ E 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\01-City Development\A-3300-074 Municipal Heritage Register\2023 Heritage Register Update\1027-1031DunbartonRd_LocationMap.mxd Attachment #6 - 13 - Central Street Br o c k R o a d Ba r c l a y S t r e e t Wi x s o n S t r e e t Do w S t r e e t Wellington Street Vi c t o r i a S t r e e t Acorn Lane ClaremontMemorial Park 1:2,000 SCALE:© The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Municipal Address:Municipal Heritage Register Review and Update THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Sep. 08, 2023 ¯ E 4953 Brock Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\01-City Development\A-3300-074 Municipal Heritage Register\2023 Heritage Register Update\4953BrockRd_LocationMap.mxd Attachment #7 - 14 - Page 1 of 11 1294 Kingston Road Current Heritage Status •Listed on the Municipal Heritage Register Consultants Analysis and Recommendation Old Liverpool House, 1294 Kingston Road and 1848 & 1852 Liverpool Road, Pickering, Heritage Impact Assessment (ERA 2019) The property at 1294 Kingston Road consists of a former hotel and tavern, built circa 1879 for innkeeper Robert Secker. The property is located at the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Liverpool Road. The hotel building is two storeys in height, built of red brick with a polychrome cornice, lintels, and quoining. The building’s roof is flat, with a street facing ornamental parapet. The building features a porch that wraps around its south and east elevations. The hotel was known as both the Liverpool Arms Inn and the Liverpool House throughout its tenure. Statement of Cultural Heritage Value The property is 1294 Kingston Road is valued as a rare remaining example of the highway side inn typology in Ontario. The inn was constructed in the Village of Liverpool Market between 1879 and1884, in a newly established village featuring a post office and telegraph station, street lighting, and a market built to support the Frenchman’s Bay import/export industry to the south. The inn was intended to serve highway traffic along the Kingston Road, a high-order stagecoach route between Toronto and Kingston. The hotel building, which exhibits many of the typological features of the highway side inn, illustrates the theme of hotel- and-tavern establishments along high-order corridors between urban centres, as well as the theme of small community development at the junctures of concession lines, sideroads, and highways between communities. Across Ontario, communities were established at the junctures of the concession lines and sideroads of Upper Canada’s 1790s land surveys. The Liverpool Attachment #8 - 15 - Page 2 of 11 Arms Inn was established at the main intersection of the Village of Liverpool, later Liverpool Market and Liverpool’s Corners, and its remaining presence there serves to illustrate the intersection’s history. Its presence, as a building evidently constructed in the late nineteenth century, offers the potential to yield information that a historic community was located at the intersection of Kingston and Liverpool Roads. The property at 1294 Kingston Road offers further design value as a representative example of the Italianate-style applied to a commercial hotel building. The hotel is considered a local landmark through its appearance as a representative historic building at a prominent intersection in downtown Pickering. Heritage Attributes: Attributes that exhibit the property’s design value as a rare remaining example of the highway side inn typology and its value in its association with the theme of highway side inns include: • The building’s location on the northwest corner of the intersection at Kingston and Liverpool Roads; • The building’s orientation toward Kingston Road, with secondary frontage onto Liverpool Road; • The building’s form, scale, and massing, including its original rear extension; • The building’s four original chimneys protruding from the roof: two at the east side and two at the west; and • The building’s wrap-around porch. Attributes that exhibit the property’s design value as a representative example of the Italianate-style applied to a commercial hotel building include: • The building’s polychrome brick cladding, with red brick as the principal palette, and buff brick used in detailing including its cornice, quoining, and lintels; • The building’s flat roof and bracketed parapet rising from its principal facade; • The building’s segmentally arched window and door openings; and • Ornamental Italianate-style design features including the building’s cornice and parapet, quoining, bracketed windowsills and hooded lintels. Attributes that exhibit the property’s value in its association with the theme of small community development at high-order intersections, its potential to yield evidence of the historic community at Kingston and Liverpool Roads, and its contextual value as a local landmark include: - 16 - Page 3 of 11 All nine attributes listed above: • The building’s stone foundations; and, • Views of the building from the public realm along Kingston Road, Liverpool Road, and at the intersection of Kingston and Liverpool Roads. ERA evaluated the property and determined the property is a candidate for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act for its design, associative and contextual value. Furthermore, it is recommended that the City request the owner manage the property in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries [MHSTCI 2010]). Heritage Report for the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department: Fox and Fiddle Mansion (UMA 2013) The public house at the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Liverpool Road in Pickering is a fine example of what may be termed vernacular commercial architecture in Ontario. It is the only one that is (or until recently) in its original use as a public house. The architectural design of the original structure reflects the defining characteristic of the Victorian sub-style. Additions and alterations, made in the 1970s, did not try to replicate nineteenth-century features. Rather they reflect attempts to blend materials and colours with the original. This design decision is reasonable. It would have been desirable to reflect the Victorian penchant for softening stand-alone buildings with landscaping. Staff Analysis Staff concur with the consultant’s conclusions that the property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06. Recommends to HPAC That Council designate 1294 Kingston Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (MHSTCI 2010). - 17 - Page 4 of 11 450 Finch Avenue Current Heritage Status • Listed on the Municipal Heritage Register • The Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines (Section N1.10.1 Heritage Structures) identifies the building at 450 Finch Avenue as one of four significant dwellings within this area. Consultants Analysis and Recommendation 450 Finch Avenue, Pickering Ontario: Heritage Impact Assessment (ERA 2022) The property at 450 Finch Avenue, known as the Dixon Farmhouse, is located on the north side of Finch Avenue, west of Rosebank Road. The property exhibits design value as a representative example of a mid-nineteenth century farmhouse built in Pickering, Ontario. Built in 1858 in rural Pickering Township, the building reflects the typological features of a mid-nineteenth century farmhouse through its one-and-a-half-storey side-gabled form, its Georgian stylistic elements, its stone construction, and its location and orientation in relation to Finch Avenue. The property is associated with the Dixon family, early settlers of Pickering Township. Benjamin Dixon acquired the south portion of the 200-acre lot in 1847, and the Dixon family retained tenure on the property for almost a century, until 1945. Like other early settlers, the Dixon family contributed to the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges within the Township into the twentieth century. Attributes that convey the property’s representation of a mid- nineteenth century farmhouse in Pickering include: • One-and-a-half storey form; • Symmetrical arrangement of the principal elevation, with a central doorway and windows on each side; • Side-gabled roof with mirrored chimney stacks; • Vernacular stone construction; - 18 - Page 5 of 11 • Architectural elements of the Georgian style, including: o A central entrance with transom and sidelights; and o Six-over-six windows. • Orientation to Finch Avenue; • Substantial setback from Finch Avenue; • Linear driveway with access to Finch Avenue; and • Mature trees and rural landscape character within the property’s front setback. The Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report includes an assessment of the property in relation to Ontario Regulation 9/06 and finds that the property meets the criteria for design or physical value and for contextual value. Based on those findings as well as further research and analysis, it is recommended that the City of Pickering pursue designation of the property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Furthermore, it is recommended that the City request that the property owner manage the property in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (MHSTCI 2010). Staff Analysis Staff concur with the consultant’s conclusions that the property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06. Staff Recommends to HPAC That Council designate 450 Finch Avenue under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (MHSTCI 2010). Given that the size of the property is 2.02 hectares (4.99 acres) in area, it is recommended that a reference plan be prepared to create an appropriate size of the heritage lot boundary to include the one-and-half-storey, stone house. - 19 - Page 6 of 11 1 Evelyn Avenue Current Heritage Status • Listed on the Municipal Heritage Register Consultants Analysis and Recommendation Kingston Road Study: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (Branch Architecture 2020) The property at 1 Evelyn Avenue is located on east side of Evelyn Avenue, south of Kingston Road. The building is a representative example of an early twentieth century bungalow in Pickering. The unique fieldstone treatment on the exterior walls is also found at 401 Kingston Road which was also contained within the Morgan and Dixon Plan. The property was found to have contextual value as it reflects the pattern of early twentieth century residential development along Kingston Road in Pickering. The property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and it is recommended that the City should consider individual designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Furthermore, it is recommended that the City request that the property owner manage the property in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (MHSTCI 2010). Staff Analysis Staff concur with the consultant’s conclusions that the property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and that the City should consider individual designation. Staff Recommends to HPAC That Council designate 1 Evelyn Avenue under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (MHSTCI 2010). - 20 - Page 7 of 11 401 Kingston Road Current Heritage Status • Listed on the Municipal Heritage Register Consultants Analysis and Recommendation Kingston Road Study: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (Branch Architecture 2020) The property at 401 Kingston Road, is located within the Kingston Road Corridor, on the south side of Kingston Road and west of Rougemount Drive. The building is a representative example of an early twentieth century bungalow in Pickering. Of note, is the unique fieldstone treatment on the exterior walls. This is also found at 1 Evelyn Avenue which was also contained within the Morgan and Dixon Plan. The property was found to have contextual value as it reflects the pattern of early twentieth century residential development along Kingston Road in Pickering. The property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and it is recommended that the City should consider individual designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Furthermore, it is recommended that the City request that the property owner manage the property in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. Staff Analysis Staff concur with the consultant’s conclusions that the property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06. Staff Recommends to HPAC That Council designate 401 Kingston Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (MHSTCI 2010). - 21 - Page 8 of 11 4993 Brock Road Current Heritage Status • Listed on the Municipal Heritage Register Consultants Analysis and Recommendation Heritage Assessment: 4993 Brock Road, Claremont, Pickering, Ontario (Goldsmith 2017) The heritage assessment concluded that the main building on the subject property has cultural heritage value related to its design and context. The assessment outlines that the building is an example of an 1850s Ontario cottage style that is becoming increasingly rare. It further states that the main building is a good representation of an early style that has survived largely intact, and of a typical wood frame construction and cladding of the 1850s period. The assessment also outlines that the building has contextual value in relation the Hamlet of Claremont. The construction of the building in the early 1850s, makes it one of the earliest buildings constructed in Claremont, a village that was settled in the 1840s. It is one of the few original buildings remaining in Claremont that anchor the village in time. The existing coach house in the rear yard was not identified as having heritage value under the criteria of Ontario Regulation 09/06. The report concludes that the heritage value of the main building should be considered in the future planning of the property. The property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and it is recommended that the City should consider individual designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act Furthermore, it is recommended that the City request that the property owner manage the property in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. - 22 - Page 9 of 11 Staff Analysis Staff concur with the consultant’s conclusions that the property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and that the City should consider individual designation. Staff Recommends to HPAC That Council designate 4993 Brock Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (MHSTCI 2010). 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Current Heritage Status • Listed on the Municipal Heritage Register Consultants Analysis and Recommendation The Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of the subject property has not been determined through the application of Ontario Regulation 9/06, rather a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Letter was completed. 1027 Dunbarton Road: Cultural Heritage Evaluation (ERA 2016) The property at 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road, the former home and shop of George Falconer, Sadler, is located within the former Village of Dunbarton, on the east side of Dunbarton Road. The Victorian style building is made up of two primary components, a house (east) and a store (west). In the nineteenth century, Victorian-influenced buildings emerged as a popular style in rural Upper Canada. The houses were generally one-and-a-half stories with a gable roof and windows within the gables or dormers. A common type, the Ontario Farmhouse, often followed an L-shaped plan, displayed dichromatic brickwork, and featured a front porch or verandah. The house is a one-and-a-half storey brick building with a gable roof. The front gable displays a pair of windows with a single - 23 - Page 10 of 11 window above. Within the recess is a wood entrance vestibule that forms part of the verandah. Above is a gable dormer with a single window. Directly to the west is the one-and-a-half storey brick store, also with a gable roof. At the street, the front facade extends up past the roof to display a two-storey frontage. The front facade consists of a glazed storefront with a central entrance and a pair of windows above. Based on historic photographs, the house was constructed with red brick and decorative buff brickwork including quoined corners and square windows arches. The original house had a wood shingle roof and a corbelled brick chimney. The windows were wood and appear to match the existing configuration. Similar to the house, the store was red brick with buff brick at the corners, window arches and parapet. It also had a wood shingle roof and a chimney at the rear (modified). At the front facade, the original entry appears recessed, and the storefront windows were divided into four equal lights, similar to the window pattern above. The building today displays much of the integrity of the original building configuration. Visible changes include the painting of the masonry, minor modifications to the verandah and storefront, an asphalt shingle roof and painted aluminium raingear, and alterations to the chimneys. The property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and it is recommended that the City should consider individual designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Furthermore, it is recommended that the City request that the property owner manage the property in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. Staff Analysis Not applicable. Staff Recommends to HPAC That Council support the completion of a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report in accordance with the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (2010) and Heritage Identification and Evaluation Process (2014). - 24 - Page 11 of 11 4953 Brock Road Current Heritage Status • Subject to a municipal heritage easement (October 5, 1981) Consultants Analysis and Recommendation Not applicable. The Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of the subject property has not been determined through the application of Ontario Regulation 9/06. Staff Analysis Not applicable. Staff Recommends to HPAC That Council support the completion of a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report in accordance with the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (2010) and Heritage Identification and Evaluation Process (2014). - 25 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant Fox and Fiddle Mansion 1294 Kingston Road Concession 1, Lot 23 City of Pickering Lat 43° 83’ 58.37” N; Long 79° 09’ 11.96” W Attachment #9 - 26 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 3 CONTEXT .............................................................................................................................. 4 PROPERTY HISTORY .............................................................................................................. 4 BUILDING HISTORY ............................................................................................................... 5 PERSONAL HISTORY ............................................................................................................. 6 HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................................................... 7 ARCHITECTURE ..................................................................................................................... 7 ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................................................... 8 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 9 NOTES: ............................................................................................................................... 10 LIST OF SOURCES ................................................................................................................ 12 APPENDICES: ...................................................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX 1: PHOTOGRAPHS ................................................................................. 15 APPENDIX 2: MAPS & AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS ....................................................... 27 APPENDIX 3: DOCUMENTS ..................................................................................... 33 APPENDIX 4: INVENTORY FORM ............................................................................ 36 - 27 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 3 Fox and Fiddle Mansion a.k.a. The Old Liverpool House; Liverpool Arms Inn; Secker’s Hotel; Liverpool House 1294 Kingston Road, City of Pickering, Ontario INTRODUCTION Stories are told of the building now known as the Fox and Fiddle Mansion being built in 1827. A builder is named—Robert Chacker, of Merseyside, Liverpool England, and furthermore it is declared the building materials were bricks made at the old Mimico brickyard.1 Unfortunately, these stories are told without any sense of history or of architectural styles. Not only is there no record of an inn in the Liverpool Market vicinity as early as the 1820s, but neither Mimico nor the brickworks existed for many years to come. And the architecture of the building also reflects a much later date. In fact, the evidence points to a building date of 1879. The Fox and Fiddle Mansion is located on the northwest corner of Kingston Road (Highway #2) and Liverpool Road, in an area sometimes known as Liverpool Corners, and at an earlier time as Liverpool Market. The building is on Lot 23, Concession 1, and faces south toward Kingston Road. Robert Secker, the man who built the The Liverpool House (as it was originally named) in 1879, was an immigrant from England, born about 1821. Just when he came to Canada West is not known. He first appears in the records as an innkeeper on Bloor Street in Yorkville, Toronto, in 1857.2 Shortly thereafter, however, he moved to Pickering Township.3 Although he is described in the Census of 1861 as a farmer, it is clear that his vocation was as an innkeeper, which is how he is described in most other records. By all accounts he appears to have been a good businessman despite the fact that he never learned how to read or write.4 The move to Pickering may have been prompted by the need to provide for a growing family. Secker was probably married in the min-1850s. His wife’s name was Ellen, maiden name not now known. They had a son, Robert, born in 1856. Robert, Jr. was recorded in the 1861 Census, but then disappears from all subsequent records.5 Upon moving to Pickering Township, it was not in Liverpool Market that Secker settled, but Dunbarton—not in the hamlet itself, but along Kingston Road to the east of the hamlet. There, by 1858, he operated a hotel known as the Liverpool House.6 Until the mid-1870s Secker’s residence was always given as Lot 24, Concession 1, Dunbarton. His first recorded attachment to Lot 23 was in 1876.7 - 28 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 4 CONTEXT The Hamlet of Liverpool Market / Liverpool Corners Liverpool Market, at the junction of Kingston Road and Liverpool Road, was the base of operations for J.H. McClellan, the owner of the Pickering Harbour Company and a branch of the Toronto Dominion Bank. The hamlet seems to have come into its own in the 1870s. The post office was established in 1876.8 The 1877 map of Pickering Township in the Illustrated Historical Atlas of Ontario County (Beers, 1877) shows that by that year there was as well a telegraph office (on the southwest corner), a Dominion Bank (on the northeast corner) with the residence of J.H. McClellan just to the east. A one-acre lot is shown on the northwest corner, but with no building located on it. A steam saw is shown on a contributory stream to the south, just to the north of the Grand Trunk Railway, and a railway depot (for Dunbarton) is located a short distance to the west.9 Ross Johnson, a correspondent of the Whitby Chronicle, visited the hamlet in 1883, and wrote: From that I wended my way northward to Liverpool Market, interviewed friend Moody on the grain question, and found repose to my weary limbs in the orderly and well kept wayside inn, known as Secker’s Hotel. The busy season was just beginning at time of my visit, and grain, mainly barley, was coming in in considerable quantities, say 70 or 80 loads a day. This is said to be much below the average at this season of the year.10 PROPERTY HISTORY Because of the very poor condition of the indices to land transactions presently available at the Land Registry Office, it is difficult, if not impossible to trace this property’s ownership from the original patentee to the present owner. What follows is what we have been able to piece together from the LRO record and from other sources. As early as 11 February 1795, Lot 23, Concession 1 (along with other Pickering lands) was assigned to the then Lieutenant George Hill.11 On 6 May 1796, the 200 acres of Lot 23, were patented by the now-promoted Captain George Hill, which makes his one of the very earliest grants of land in Pickering Township.12 Hill was a captain in the 5th Regiment, and Adjutant at Fort Niagara, 1794-1795. He was granted 1200 acres altogether in Pickering Township. His wife, Isabella Ford, daughter of Commodore Andrews, herself was granted another 1200 acres in Pickering Township after her father was lost at sea. After George’s death, his widow sold the entire lot in 1832 to William Proudfoot, a merchant (and later the president of the Bank of Upper Canada).13 Proudfoot sold the north quarter (50 acres) later the same year to Thomas Conat. The south ¾ he sold in 1834 to the Hon. Peter Adamson, but Adamson sold the land back to Proudfoot five years later. Proudfoot then sold the land to Paul Whitney in 1840.14 Whitney was a merchant, postmaster, and Justice of the Peace in Pickering Village. It appears that the transfer of land from this point went to Lawrence Welsh in 1855, to Francis Leys, Jr. in 1860, and to Robert Secker in 1865. - 29 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 5 Subsequent ownership to 1944 is also unclear; in that year, Thomas and Harriet Jatiouk purchased the land from Kennie Rudolfus Marshall.15 In 1980, Jim and Maria Skentzos purchased the hotel.16 The land is now registered in the name of Dimitman Enterprises Limited (since 2004). BUILDING HISTORY The location of this building at such a prominent corner makes it a landmark in the urban part of Pickering and a fitting reminder of the area’s past. The 1870s were a time of negative growth in Pickering Township. Between 1871 and 1881 the population declined 6.6% and acreage of occupied farms declined 5.3%.17 It would seem to have been a bad time to be constructing a new building, especially one of these dimensions. However, the shift of activity regarding Frenchmans Bay from Dunbarton to Fairport made Secker’s move quite practical. Back in the 1830s, William Dunbar, an immigrant from Scotland, had created Dunbarton as a port for Frenchmans Bay. The bay became increasingly important as a port for the export of ship’s mast, pine logs, cordwood, and squared timber. Dredging began in the bay as early as 1843 to clear a channel large enough to admit larger ships from Lake Ontario, and a wharf was built at the north end in the 1850s. When the Grand Trunk Railway was opened through Pickering Township in 1856, use of Frenchmans Bay as a port declined sharply. However, the provincial government poured in money for an upgrading of the facilities. A new wharf replaced the old one, a lighthouse was built, a new channel was dredged, and a 50 000 bushel elevator was constructed. Once again the bay became a bustling port. But the port was centred now on Fairport, a hamlet established on the east side of the bay, and Dunbarton was not only further away, but now cut off from direct access to the bay by the railway. Barley became the chief export. Wagons would line the road all the way to Liverpool Road waiting to unload their cargoes of barley, which were destined for the breweries of the United States. When the Whitby Chronicle reported on a banquet held at Secker’s Hotel in December 1878 it made reference toward the end of the article of the Seckers’ plans for the erection of a new hotel.18 The hotel that was built in the following year is the present structure now under review. The old Secker’s Hotel, also known as The Liverpool House, had been located further west along Kingston Road, close to the hamlet of Dunbarton (on Lot 24). The new one had easier access to the hamlet and port of Fairport and to Frenchmans Bay. It also was now located close to the residence of J.H. McClellan the owner of the Pickering Harbour Company, as well as to the local bank and telegraph office. The hotel would continue to serve the travellers along Kingston Road, but now would be more accessible to the farmers bringing their goods to be shipped from the port as well as to the sailors from the ships being loaded in the port. In 1964 the hotel and the land on which it sat was expropriated by the Ontario Department of Highways for a proposed widening of Kingston Road. However, Harriet Jatiouk, the owner, who was using the building at that time only as her home, refused to move and have the hotel demolished. For some years after her husband’s death she had operated a small general store in the hotel, and many local people will remember purchasing bus tickets from her. But the income she made was less than the taxes she owed and she had to give up the business. By 1971 she agreed to move the building - 30 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 6 back further north to allow for the road widening. She claimed to have spent $34 000 on the move and restorations.19 The building was set on a new basement foundation. Subsequent changes were made when the enclosed porch and other single-storey elements were added on three sides. About 1982, two years after they purchased the building, Jim and Maria Skentzos carried out extensive renovations to make the old hotel into a fine dining establishment.20 Shortly after 2000, Jim Skentzos retired from the business and it was taken over by his son for a few years. He then leased the restaurant to others who continued to operate the restaurant until the summer of 2012. It has now been closed for about 6 months. PERSONAL HISTORY No doubt many persons of note have enjoyed the facilities of the Liverpool Arms Hotel over the years. One report, undocumented, claims that Sir John A. Macdonald was one of those travellers through Pickering Township who stopped either for refreshments or to spend the night. But there is no direct association of this building with prominent citizens of Pickering—apart, at least, from its builder Robert Secker. His story is a strange one, at least according to writers Margaret McBurney and Mary Byers. They wrote: After mid-century, travellers reaching Pickering found a pleasant hostelry awaiting them at Liverpool Corners near the Pickering harbour (Highway 2 and Liverpool Road). Known as Secker’s Hotel or the Liverpool Hotel, it was built in 1878 by Robert Secker, an enterprising Englishman who settlerd there in the mid-1850s and achieved notable success with his hotel and also, the records show, with the ladies. Although illiterate, Robert Secker succeeded in the hotel business even at a time when traffic along the Kingston Road was diminishing. Part of his success may have resulted from an unusual domestic situation that provided him with added (and free) female help. Secker had a legal wife, Harriet, in England, as well as two more ‘wives’ in Canada. The census of 1861 recorded that Robert Secker had a ‘wife’ named Eleanor (sometimes Helen or Ellen). Ten years later, the census showed that two children, William and Susan, had been born to them. When the census-taker returned in 1881 he found Secker involved in a ménage â trois that was, to say the least, unusual. Eleanor/Ellen (now aged fifty-three) was still in residence, but a younger woman was also on the scene, listed as the mother of his ‘natural’ daughter, Minnie. The new ‘wife’ was Sarah Newman, and she became Secker’s sole legatee. His will clarified matters a bit, as he left everything to ‘Sarah Newman, generally known as Mrs. Sarah Secker, who has lived with me for a number of years’ and to ‘our natural daughter, Minnie Secker.’21 Some of the detail of this story is not quite accurate, but the gist of it seems to be true according to the evidence. Sarah Newman was actually recorded in the 1861 Census as a servant in the Secker household—not a member of the family. In the 1891 census she is recorded as Sarah Secker, just below Ellen’s name (who is designated as Robert’s wife). And in the Voters’ List of 1900, she is recorded as Sarah Secker, Widow.22 No explanation is evident except the obvious one. Secker’s obituary in the Pickering News described him as “a man of considerable means.”23 in fact, the Assessment Rolls show him to have been a shrewd businessman. For example, between 1859 and 1864, his value increased from $1800 to $4800. That - 31 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 7 number would fluctuate in subsequent years, but would never fall very far, and meanwhile he was buying up other properties. In 1885, his daughter Susan married James Gordon, then in 1893 he purchased the Cuthbert Hotel in Pickering Village and gave it to his son-in-law.24 It was renamed the Gordon House and was continuously run as a hotel by the Gordon family until 1952. It is still in use, although no longer as a hotel. HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE At one time or another there were at least nine inns or taverns along Kingston Road.25 Three structures are extant but only the one at Liverpool Corners (Liverpool Road and Highway #2) remains (at least until recently) as a public house. Within the streetscapes of the Pickering City Centre this building is a notable landmark. It is one of only half a dozen nineteenth century buildings remaining on Kingston Road within present-day Pickering, and the only commercial example still in its original use. ARCHITECTURE This writer was able to view only the exterior of the building, and that at a distance. No significant signs of past building movement were noted. The masonry is remarkably free of cracks. Repairs and alterations and additions are apparent, but all appear sound. The Fox and Fiddle mansion is a two-storey with basement, rectangular-with-tail, polychrome brick commercial building built c1879. It was built as a hotel on the Kingston Road, adjacent to Liverpool Road. For the last few decades, since it was moved back from the highway to allow for road widening, it has been a restaurant and public house. Throughout most of the nineteenth century, when Pickering Township was developing, the prevailing architectural style in Ontario was Victorian, coinciding roughly with Queen Victoria’s reign of 1837 to 1901. In Ontario the progression of various Victorian styles seemed to agree with those building the province and they embraced them vigorously; it seemed to suit the optimistic gung-ho attitude of the owners and builders. As a result, the length of Highway 2 is spotted with towns with Victorian main streets and with commercial four corners with Victorian store-fronts and Victorian-style half-way houses. Within Pickering Township this could be seen in Pickering Village (also known as Duffins Creek), in Dunbarton and in Liverpool Market. Small-town Ontario seems to have found the “Italianate” sub-group of the Victorian styles most compatible with the needs of its commercial buildings and with the methods of building and the abilities of the trades that were available. Architectural historian, Alan Gowans, uses the phrase “vernacular commercial Italianate” and this description seems to fit this building.26 The defining characteristics of building elements contributing to the vernacular commercial Italianate style are: mullioned and transomed windows; tall, narrow, segmentally-arched masonry openings; moulded brick window surrounds; contrasting- brick quoins; decorative cornice, usually with brackets; and prominent chimneys— enlivening simple building forms, but highly decorative features. - 32 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 8 The move in the developing world from Classical Revival styles to those termed Picturesque gave the architects and builders much more flexibility to choose building elements for their eye appeal rather than for their historical and literary associations. In the case of the Liverpool House the mullioned and transomed window sashes are very distinctive and rare in Pickering Township. Similarly, the cream-coloured brick, segmentally arched “eye-brows” over the windows must have taken extra effort to design and manufacture but were well worth the effort in the eyes of the beholders at that time. Where the windows and their surrounds came from, and who designed them, would be worthwhile pursuing. Some of the distinguishing elements of this style and time relate to the fact that industrialization was leading to many building parts being mass-produced rather than being provided by craftsmen on a one-off basis. This aspect may apply to the window sash and original doors; it certainly applies to the terra cotta parapet wall coping tile. The south-facing and east facing sides of the building have had an extensive enclosed porch and further one-storey elements added about thirty years ago. The porch replaces an original open verandah. This addition incorporates a wheelchair ramp to improve barrier-free access. While not designed to reproduce a Victorian verandah, it is apparent that efforts were made in designing the porch to have the new elements blend in with the original structure. At the same time that the building was moved the new property lines along Kingston Road and Liverpool Road were defined with a brick and steel demising wall. This would have been a costly undertaking; unfortunately, the brick masonry is not resisting the elements as well as the building and could be costly to put right. The dominant cornice on the south façade would appear to be a replacement for the original. Similarly, the brackets supporting its corners appear new. It is not a very convincing replacement. It is unfortunate that the recent uses of the building have required all of the property to be paved for parking and access. As can be seen from the photographs in the Appendix this fine example of a North American vernacular commercial Italianate inn looks lonely and forlorn without grass and trees and gardens. If the building is to remain it would be helpful if some way could be found to have co-operative parking among all the nearby commercial uses to free up land for greenery ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE The public house at the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Liverpool Road in Pickering is a fine example of what may be termed vernacular commercial architecture in Ontario. It is the only one remaining that is (or was until recently) in its original use as a public house. The architectural design of the original structure reflects the defining characteristics of this Victorian sub-style and appears on exterior viewing to be structurally sound. It was inhabited until 2012.27 Additions and alterations, made in the 1970s, did not try to replicate nineteenth-century features. Rather they reflect attempts to blend materials and colours with the original. This design decision is reasonable. It would have been desirable to reflect the Victorian penchant for softening stand-alone buildings with landscaping. - 33 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 9 CONCLUSION Although Liverpool Market, or later, Liverpool Corners, is all but forgotten as a separate hamlet within the Township of Pickering, the Fox and Fiddle Mansion is a reminder of its glorious past. While other inns and taverns came and went, the Liverpool House, as it was first named, survived for over a century and a quarter through various owners and several name changes. While it has no known associations with prominent Pickering citizens, it does have strong ties to the port of Frenchmans Bay and its long history of economic boom and bust, and it remains arguably the most notable landmark remaining in the city. - 34 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 10 Notes: 1. John Scott, “Owner rejects offer, will move old hotel”, Globe and Mail (23 November 1970); “A Cord that Binds: A Journey along Kingston Road”, Kindred Spirits (1989), p. 3. Note: neither article cites any documentation. Is the name Robert Chacker a corruption of Robert Secker, the true builder of the hotel? 2. John Lovell, Canada Directory for 1857-58 (Montreal: John Lovell, 1857). 3. According to the Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario (Beers, 1877), Secker first resided in Pickering Township in 1857. As early as 1858 the Assessment Rolls give his occupation as Innkeeper: Pickering Township: Assessment Rolls. OA: F 1864. According to the Charge Book of William Dunbar, Sr., Magistrate, in November 1858, Robert Secker brought John Gleeson before Magistrate Dunbar of Dunbarton charged with assault. This may have had something to do with his occupation. 4. So the Census records declare. 5. See Censuses of 1861, 1871, 1881, etc. 6. Assessment Rolls. Mitchell & Co., Canada Classified Directory for 1865-66 (Mitchell, 1865). In that same year (1865) Seeker voted on a Pickering Township By-Law to allow liquor to be served in the township: Prohibitory By-Law—Poll Book, 1865. 7. J.A. Crawford, Gazetteer and Directory of the County of Ontario for the Year 1876 (Uxbridge: W. Pemberton, 1876), p. 178. 8. Max Rosenthal. “Early Post Offices in Pickering Township”, 1965. 9. Map pp. 18-19. 10. Traveller, “Our County”, Whitby Chronicle 28 (Friday, 16 November 1883). 11. Pickering Township Papers, OA: MS 658, Reel 395: fo 356. 12. Pickering Township: Index to Land Patents. OA: MS 693, Reel 155. Unless otherwise noted, all land transactions are from the Abstract Index to Deeds in the Land Registry Office (LRO) in Whitby. Only the grant to John Smith was earlier than that to Capt. Hill. 13. Over the years Proudfoot purchased a great deal of land in Upper Canada; by 1858 he claimed ownership of “upwards of 70,000 acres.” Barrie Dyster in Dictionary of Canadian Biography (DCB), 9: 649; Edith Firth (ed), The Town of York 1815-1834 (Toronto: Champlain Society, 1966), p. 66n; Liz Lundell, The Estates of Old Toronto (Erin, ON: Boston Mills Press, 1997), pp. 52-53. - 35 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 11 14. See: John Lovell, Canada Directory for 1857-58 (Montreal: John Lovell, 1857); and George C. Tremaine, Tremaine’s Map of the County of Ontario, Upper Canada (Toronto: George C. Tremaine, 1860). 15. According to John Black, Thomas Jatiouk served in the Polish cavalry in the First World War. He also says the family sometime anglicised their name to Jackson. 16. Henry M. Gawman, “Old Liverpool House steeped in history”, The News Advertiser (5 January 1994); Lynne Ainsworth, “1877 hotel coming back to life”, Toronto Star (1980). 17. Based on the Censuses of 1871 and 1881, the population of Pickering dropped from 7375 to 6883 during that decade, and the number of farms dropped from 735 to 666. Leo A. Johnson, History of the County of Ontario 1615-1875 (Whitby: The Corporation of the County of Ontario, 1973), pp. 323-324. 18. “Social Gathering, Liverpool Market”, Whitby Chronicle (19 December 1878). 19. Ainsworth (1980). 20. Gawman (1994). 21. Tavern in the Town: Early Inns and Taverns of Ontario (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1878), p. 84. 22. Voters’ List for 1900, p. 32. 23. Pickering News, 27 November 1896, p. 8. 24. Pickering News, 1 May 1885; News Advertiser, 17 January 1993, p. 16. 25. From west to east without regard to dates, two have been recorded at Rouge Hills; Secker’s Hotel in Dunbarton; the Liverpool Arms Hotel at Liverpool Market; the Post Manor at Brock Road; the Woodruff Tavern (just west of Duffin’s Creek); Head’s Hotel and the Gordon House (originally the Cuthbert Hotel) in Pickering Village; and the Post Inn (near the Whitby border). 26. Alan Gowans, Styles and Types of North American Architecture: Social Function and Cultural Expression (New York: Harper Collins, 1992), p. 377. 27. Gowans (1992), p. 376. - 36 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 12 LIST OF SOURCES Manuscripts: Dunbar, William. Charge Book of William Dunbar, Sr., Magistrate. Minutes of the Pickering Township Council, 1811-1876. Ontario Archives (OA): MS 281 (1). Pickering Township: Abstract Index to Deeds, Land Registry Office, Whitby, and Ontario Archives (OA). Pickering Township: Assessment Rolls. OA: F 1864. Pickering Township: Census Records, 1851-52, 1861, 1871, 1881, 1891, 1901. Pickering Township: Index to Land Patents. OA: MS 693, Reel 155. Pickering Township Papers. OA: MS 658, Reel 395. Prohibitory By-Law—Poll Book, 1865. Pickering Museum Village. Rosenthal, Max. “Early Post Offices in Pickering Township”. 1965. Surrogate Court Index of Ontario, Canada 1859-1900, Vol. 11: Ontario County, p. 54: Secker, Robert, Pickering, #2934, 1896. Voters’ Lists for 1879, 1880, 1883, 1892, 1900. Books: Anderson, C.E. The Province of Ontario Gazetteer and Directory. Toronto: Robertson & Cook, 1869. Beers, J.H. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario, Ont. Toronto: J.H. Beers, 1877. Brown, George. Brown’s Toronto City and Home District Directory 1846-1847. Toronto: George Brown, 1846. Connor, J.C. and J.W. Coltson. The County of Ontario Directory for 1869-70. Toronto: Hunter, Rose & Co., 1869. Crawford, J.A. Gazetteer and Directory of the County of Ontario for the Year 1876. Uxbridge: W. Pemberton, 1876. Curl, James Stevens. Victorian Architecture. London: David and Charles, 1990. Farewell, J.E. County of Ontario. Whitby: Gazette-Chronicle Press, 1907. Firth, Edith G. (ed). The Town of York 1815-1834. Toronto: Champlain Society, 1966. Gowans, Alan. Building Canada: An Architectural History of Canadian Life. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1966. Gowans, Alan. Styles and Types of North American Architecture: Social Function and Cultural Expression. New York: Harper Collins, 1992. - 37 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 13 Greenwald, Michelle. The Historical Complexities of Pickering, Markham, Scarborough, and Uxbridge. North Pickering Community Development Project and Ontario Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, 1973. Johnson, Leo A. History of the County of Ontario 1615-1875. Whitby: The Corporation of the County of Ontario, 1973. Kalman, Harold. A Concise History of Canadian Architecture. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 2000. Lovell, John. Canada Directory for 1857-58. Montreal: John Lovell, 1857. Lundell, Liz. The Estates of Old Toronto. Erin, ON: Boston Mills Press, 1997. McBurney, Margaret, and Mary Byers. Tavern in the Town: Early Inns and Taverns of Ontario. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1878. McKay, William A. The Pickering Story. Pickering: Township of Pickering Historical Society, 1961. Mikel, Robert. Ontario House Styles: The Distinctive Architecture of the Province’s 18th and 19th Century Homes. Toronto: James Lorimer, 2004. Mitchell & Co. Canada Classified Directory for 1865-66. Mitchell, 1865. Richardson, A.H., and A.S.L. Barnes. Rouge, Duffin, Highland, Petticoat Valley Conservation Report. Toronto: Ontario Department of Planning and Development, 1956. Ricketts, Shannon, Leslie Maitland, and Jacqueline Hucker. A Guide to Canadian Architectural Styles. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press, 2004. Rowsell, Henry. Rowsell’s City of Toronto and County of York Directory for 1850-1. Toronto: Henry Rowsell, 1850. Sabean, John W. Time Present and Time Past: A Pictorial History of Pickering. Pickering: Altona Editions, 2000. Smith, W.H. Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer. Toronto: H. & W. Rowsell, 1846. Smith, W.H. Canada: Past, Present and Future. Toronto: Thomas Maclear, 1852. Unterman McPhail Associates. Inventory of Heritage Buildings, City of Pickering. Toronto: Unterman McPhail Associates. 2001. Walton, George. The City of Toronto and the Home District Commercial Directory and Register. Toronto: T. Dalton and W.J. Coates, 1837. Wood, William R. Past Years in Pickering. Toronto: Briggs, 1911. Articles: “A Cord that Binds: A Journey along Kingston Road”, Kindred Spirits (1989), p. 3. Ainsworth, Lynne. “1877 hotel coming back to life”, Toronto Star (1980). Dyster, Barrie. “Proudfoot, William”, Dictionary of Canadian Biography. 9 (1976), 647-648. - 38 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 14 Gawman, Henry M. “Old Liverpool House steeped in history”, The News Advertiser (5 January 1994). Pickering News articles. 22 August 1884; 1 May 1885; 27 November 1896. Scott, John. “Owner rejects offer, will move old hotel”, Globe and Mail (23 November 1970). “Social Gathering, Liverpool Market”, Whitby Chronicle (19 December 1878). Traveller [Ross Johnston]. “Our County”, Whitby Chronicle 28 (Friday, 16 November 1883). Maps: Department of National Defence. Topographical Map. Markham 30 M/14. 1932. Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. Topographical Map. Markham 30 M/14. 1964. Goad, Charles E. Atlas of Ontario County, Province of Ontario. Toronto: Chas. E. Goad, 1895. Guidal Landowners’ Map of Pickering Township. Map and Advertising Co., 1917. Ridout, Thomas. Pickering Township Map. 1823. OA: A.23. Rottenburg, George F. Map of the Principal Communications in Canada West compiled from the most authentic sources, actual Surveys, District maps, etc. 1850. Smith, George. Map of Pickering Township: Centennial Souvenir. Pickering: Pickering Township Historical Society, 1967. Tremaine, George C. Tremaine’s Map of the County of Ontario, Upper Canada. Drawn by John Schier. Toronto: George C. Tremaine, 1860. Other Sources: Aerial Photographs, courtesy of the Pickering Planning Department. Interviews with John Black, long-time resident of Liverpool Corners. Pickering Public Library: Pickering-Ajax Digital Archive. www.pada.ca. Pickering Township Historical Society Digital Archive. - 39 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 15 APPENDICES: Appendix 1: Photographs The Liverpool Arms Inn in the 1920s (from a post card). Advertising card, 1929. A photograph of John Black taken in 1939. In the background are: The Liverpool Arms Inn; the Nicholson house to the east across Liverpool Road; Black’s Service Station to the south across Kingston Road. Courtesy of John Black. - 40 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 16 The Liverpool Arms Inn in 1963. Courtesy of John Black. The Liverpool Arms Inn in the 1960s. Photograph by Donald Gibson. - 41 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 17 Two views of the former Liverpool Arms Inn in the 1970s. Photographs courtesy of Jim Skentzos and the Pickering Public Library. - 42 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 18 Advertising brochures for The Old Liverpool House, 1987. Courtesy of Jim Skentzos. - 43 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 19 Advertising brochure for The Old Liverpool House, 1987. Courtesy of Jim Skentzos - 44 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 20 The Old Liverpool House in 1990. The Old Liverpool House in 1998. Photographs courtesy of Jim Skentzos. - 45 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 21 The Old Liverpool House in 2000. Photographs by Ken Lawlor; courtesy of the Pickering Township Historical Society. - 46 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 22 Fox and Fiddle Mansion: South façade and South and East façades, 2013. Photographs by Gordon Zimmerman. - 47 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 23 Fox and Fiddle Mansion: East façade and East and North façades, 2013 Photographs by Gordon Zimmerman. - 48 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 24 Fox and Fiddle Mansion: East & North façade, 2013. Fox and Fiddle Mansion: Northwest façade, 2013. Photographs by Gordon Zimmerman. - 49 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 25 Fox and Fiddle Mansion: West façade and West and South façades, 2013. Photographs by Gordon Zimmerman - 50 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 26 Fox and Fiddle Mansion: Window details, 2013. Fox and Fiddle Mansion: Demising fence, 2013. Photographs by Gordon Zimmerman. - 51 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 27 Appendix 2: Maps & Aerial Photographs Ridout Map, 1823. Rottenburg Map, 1850. Inns are shown at Rouge Hill and east of Canton (Pickering Village). - 52 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 28 Tremaine’s Wall Map of the County of Ontario, Upper Canada, 1860. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario (Beers), 1877. A Tavern is shown east of Dunbarton (on Secker land); a 1-acre vacant lot is indicated at the northwest corner of Liverpool Market. - 53 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 29 Guidal Map, 1917. - 54 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 30 Topographic Map, 1932. Topographic Map, 1964. - 55 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 31 Aerial photograph, 1959. Aerial photograph, 1978. Aerial photographs courtesy of Pickering Planning & Development Department. - 56 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 32 Aerial photograph, 1980s. Courtesy of Pickering Town Centre. Aerial photograph, 2010. Courtesy of Pickering Planning & Development Department. - 57 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 33 Appendix 3: Documents Unterman McPhail Associates. Inventory of Heritage Buildings, City of Pickering. Toronto: Unterman McPhail Associates. 2001. - 58 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 34 - 59 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 35 - 60 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 36 Appendix 4: Inventory Form Name: Fox & Fiddle Mansion Alternative Name(s): The Old Liverpool House; Liverpool Arms Inn; Liverpool Hotel Location Street Address: 1294 Kingston Road Concession and Lot: Concession 1, Lot 23 Global Positioning System (GPS): Lat 43° 83’ 58.37” N Long 79° 09’ 11.96” W Village / Hamlet: Liverpool Market; Liverpool Corners Direction positioning: South Description Property Identification Number: 263400122 Assessment Roll Number: 020017273000000 Canadian Inventory of Historic Buildings (CIHB): Designation: Associations Family / Families: Secker; Jatiouk; Skentzos Events: Date of Construction Known: 1879 Circa: Builder: Robert Secker Architect: Not known Heritage Information - 61 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 37 Design or Style: Vernacular Commercial Italianate Date Stone or Plaque: None Archaeological Notes: Occupancy (with date): 1879: hotel; 2012: restaurant 2013: vacant Type of Building: Commercial hotel Building Plan Ground Floor: Storeys: 2 plus basement Bays: 5 bays front /south elevation Layout: Centre hall with “tail” & later addition Substructure Materials: Concrete; not original—from time building was moved Condition: Good Main Wall Structure Materials: Red brick (clay) with buff brick (yellow-beige) quoins, voussoirs, etc. Condition: Very good Building Envelope Materials: Masonry, wood windows Condition: Very good Roof Type: Slightly sloped built-up roof Materials: Condition: - 62 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 38 Porches and Stairs: Original verandah & stairs replaced with enclosed porch & concrete stairs & wheelchair ramp Wall Openings Windows: Wood mullioned & transomed with brick segmentally arched hood mouldings in buff brick Doors: Condition: Excellent & of unique design Notable Features Exterior: Masonry work, especially original parts, widow design & construction Interior: Central stairwell Alterations: Most notably the replacement of the original wood verandah on the south and east facades with an enclosed porch, stairs, & ramp Other Buildings Barn: Removed Shed: Other: Landscape: Demising fence; mostly parking lot; lacks soft landscaping Landmark Value: Dominant Additional Notes: The moving of the original L- shaped hotel onto a new basement/foundation would appear to have strengthened the building structurally. There are few visible exterior signs of stress or strain in the building envelope Photographs - 63 - Heritage Report for The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department January 2013 John W. Sabean, PhD, OMC, Historical Consultant Gordon Zimmerman, B.Arch (Toronto), Architectural Consultant 39 Historic (with date): 1920s, 1963, 1990, 2000, etc. Recent (with date): Zimmerman, January 2013 Sources Unterman McPhail Includes 2001 Photograph - 64 - HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Old Liverpool House 1294 Kingston Road and 1848 & 1852 Liverpool Road, Pickering ISSUED: May 16, 2019 REVISED: July 30, 2020 Attachment #10 - 65 - PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY: ii HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 416-963-4497 CONTENTS Executive Summary iv Background iv Conclusion v 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Scope of the Report 1.2 Site Description and Context 1.3 Context Photos 1.4 E xisting Heritage Status 1.5 Adjacent Heritage Resources 2 BACKGROUND 10 2.1 Context 2.2 Site History 2.3 Original Buildings and Later Additions 3 ASSESSMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE 31 3.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation 3.2 DRAFT Statement of Significance: 1294 Kingston Road 4 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITION 34 5 POLICY REVIEW 39 6 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 46 6.1 Designing with Heritage and CCUDG Altona Group 11 Progress Ave Unit # 5 Toronto, ON, M1P 4S7 416-871-5983 - 66 - iiiISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 Project #18-085-02 Prepared by PE / JQ / JT/ EC1/ EC2/ SC / EA / ZC/ LL COVER PAGE: Old Liverpool House, ERA Architects (2018). ISSUED: May 16, 2019, REVISED: July 30, 2020 7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 50 7.1 Impacts to Old Liverpool House (1294 Kingston Road) 7.2 Impact on Adjacent Heritage Resources 7.3 Impact Summary 7.4 Conformity with City Centre Urban Design Guidelines 8 CONSERVATION STRATEGY 54 8.1 Conservation Approach 8.2 Conservation Scope 8.3 Mitigation Strategies 9 CONCLUSION 58 10 PROJECT PERSONNEL 59 11 REFERENCES 61 12 APPENDICES 65 Appendix A: Architectural Plans (Kirkor Architects - July 22, 2020) 65 Appendix B: Landscape Plans (MBTW - April, 2020) 88 Appendix C: Building Relocation Feasibility Letter (Laurie McCulloch) 89 Appendix D: Abstract/Parcel Register Book 91 Appendix E: Compliance to the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines 92 - 67 - iv HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING Ex Ecutiv E Summary View to the Old Liverpool House from the southeast corner of Kingston and Liverpool Roads (ERA, 2018) Background The purpose of this Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) is to evaluate the impact of the proposed development on the property at 1294 Kingston Road and 1848 & 1852 Liverpool Road (“the Site”) in Pickering. The Site is located at the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Liverpool Road in Pickering’s City Centre Neighbourhood. The Site contains the existing Old Liverpool House at 1294 Kingston Road, a one-storey commercial plaza at 1848 Liverpool Road and a converted residential building at 1852 Liverpool Road. The remainder of the Site is occupied by surface parking lots. Cultural Heritage Value Since the last submission of this Report in May 2019, the property at 1294 Kingston Road (Old Liverpool House), has been listed on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register. ERA has evaluated the property according to Ontario Regulation 9/06 and has determined it meets the criteria for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act for its design, associative, and contextual value. ERA also evaluated the properties at 1848 and 1852 Liverpool road and determined that they have no cultural heritage value. There are no listed or designated properties adjacent to the Site. Proposed Development The proposed redevelopment contemplates the removal and replacement of existing buildings at 1848 and 1852 Liverpool Road with a 25-storey mixed-used tower setback atop a 6-storey podium, and a 13-storey mid-rise building at the north portion of the site. The proposed development steps down in height along Liverpool Road from the Kingston Road intersection. The existing Old Liverpool House will be relocated approximately 16 metres south, restored and rehabilitated for integration with the - 68 - vISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 proposed development. New pedestrian walkways, landscaped areas and a publicly accessible plaza will accompany the proposed new development. Conservation & Impact Mitigation Conservation of the Old Liverpool House is proposed as part of the proposed redevelopment of the Site. To enhance the site and block strategy, the existing heritage resource will be relocated approximately 16 metres south of its existing location. While the existing building will be relocated, rehabilitated and sited adjacent to proposed new construction, the potential impacts to the building are mitigated by: • Maintaining the historic road-side relation- ship of Old Liverpool House to Kingston Road and the intersection; • Retention, restoration and rehabilitation of the Old Liverpool House to ensure its continued reuse, including a reinstated wrap-around wood porch, parapet and main stair; • Setbacks of the proposed new construction such that the Old Liverpool House can be read as an independent building; • Complementary landscape strategy surrounding the Old Liverpool House, with opportunities for interpretation of its heritage as a highway hotel through public art and landscape detailing (e.g. planting choices and paving details); • Sympathetic design of new construction, including the articulation of the proposed tower’s south facade in response to the angled orientation of the Old Liverpool House; and • Sympathetic masonry material and massing for proposed new 6-storey podium in response to the existing red brick building. Conclusion The proposed development appropriately conserves and enhances the cultural heritage value of the Old Liverpool House. The impacts to the heritage resource on site will be mitigated by a conservation strategy that conserves and celebrates the Site’s cultural heritage value, while enhancing the surrounding public realm and streetscape. A forthcoming Conservation Plan will provide further detail for the proposed building relocation and conservation scope of work. - 69 - vi HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK - 70 - 1ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 1 iNtrODuctiON 1.1 Scope of the Report ERA Architects Inc. (ERA) were retained as the heritage consultant for the redevelopment of 1294 Kingston Road and 1848 & 1852 Liverpool Road (the “Site”). This Report considers the impact of the proposed development on the identified heritage resource on the Site. The purpose of an HIA is to evaluate the proposed development in relation to cultural heritage resources and recommend an overall approach to the conservation of the heritage value of these resources. This report was prepared with reference to the following: • Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heri- tage Value or Interest; • Ontario Heritage Tool Kit; • Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines for the Conserva- tion of Historic Places in Canada (2010); • Provincial Policy Statement (2020); and • City of Pickering Official Plan (2018). Note on July 2020 Revision Sections of the report has been altered to relfect the changes to the design of the development, to address comments from the authorities and their agents, and to include up to date information and policy changes. The intent of the submission, however, remains unchanged. - 71 - 2 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING 1.2 Site Description and Context The Site is located at the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Liverpool Road in Pickering’s City Centre Neighbourhood. The Site is comprised of the following: • A t wo-storey brick building, known as the Old Liverpool House, and a surface parking lot at 1294 Kingston Road; • A one-storey commercial plaza and surface parking lot at 1848 Liverpool Road; and • A one-storey converted residential dwelling and playground space at 1852 Liverpool Road. The Site’s surrounding context consists of the Liverpool residential neighbourhood to the north and northwest of the Site. The Pickering Town Centre shopping mall and adjacent commercial plazas are located to the south and east of the Site. A small commercial plaza is located immediately west of the site along Kingston Road. The Site is located within the rapidly emerging Pickering ‘City Centre’, as identified in the Pickering Official Plan and City Centre Urban Design Guidelines. City Centre is an area planned for mixed uses, landmark developments, civic buildings, pedestrian and transit-oriented infrastructure, and public amenity places and activities. Property data map showing Site outlined in blue (City of Pickering, annotated by ERA). L i v e r p o o l R o a d L i v e r p o o l R o a d Kin g s t o n R o a d Kin g s t o n R o a d 1848 1294 1852 - 72 - 3ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 Aerial view, showing Site in blue (Google Maps, annotated by ERA). Axonometric view looking north-west, showing Site in blue (Google Maps, annotated by ERA). Kin g s t o n R o a d Kin g s t o n R o a d L i v e r p o o l R o a d L i v e r p o o l R o a d Kings t o n R o a d Kings t o n R o a d Liverpo o l R o a d Liverpo o l R o a d - 73 - 4 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING 1.3 Context Photos Looking east on Kingston Road, Site at left (ERA, 2018). Looking west on Kingston Road, Site at right (ERA, 2018). - 74 - 5ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 Looking north on Liverpool Road, Site at left (ERA, 2018). N.B. Two photographs have been stitched together to provide this view. Looking north-west towards the Site from the southeast corner of the intersection of Kingston and Liverpool Roads (ERA, 2018). - 75 - 6 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING Shopping plaza to the west of the Site, Site at right (ERA, 2018). Looking west from within the Site to the parking lot for the adjacent plaza to the west of the Site (ERA, 2018). - 76 - 7ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 Backyards of adjacent residential dwellings to the west of the Site, as seen from within the Site looking west (ERA, 2018). Backyards of adjacent residential dwellings to the west of the Site, as seen from within the Site looking northwest (ERA, 2018). - 77 - 8 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING Existing house being used as a daycare facility on Site (ERA, 2018). - 78 - 9ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 1.4 Existing Heritage Status Following the original submission of this Report in May 16, 2019, The Old Liverpool House at 1294 Kingston Road was listed on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register on December 16, 2019. ERA has evaluated the property according to Ontario Regulation 9/06 and has determined it meets the criteria for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act for its design, associative, and contextual value. 1.5 Adjacent Heritage Resources The Site is not adjacent to any properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or listed on the Pickering Municipal Heritage Register. - 79 - 10 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING 2 B a cKGr OuND 2.1 Context Settlement The Site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection at Liverpool Road and Kingston Road, historically known as Liverpool Market, and later as Liverpool’s Corners. The hamlet’s growth was supported by travellers on the Kingston Road Stagecoach Route as well as the farmers and shipworkers involved in the grain trade at Frenchman’s Bay. By 1910 the lake schooners employing local shipworkers were no longer in operation, resulting in a local economic depression. Urbanization During the latter half of the 20th century, Pickering experienced a residential housing boom that transformed agricultural lands into a suburban landscape. The current context is reminiscent of that time, with surface parking lots on every corner of the intersection of Kingston and Liverpool Roads that support big box shopping malls. 2.2 Site History Pre-1791: Early History The Site sits just north of Frenchman’s Bay, several kilometres east of the Rouge River. Well-documented archaeological and archival evidence demonstrates that in the 1600s, the Seneca village of Ganatsetiagon (one of several transliterated spellings) sat 5.5 kilometres west of the Site, at the intersection of the Rouge River and today’s Kingston Road. Ganatsetiagon was established just northwest of the mouth of the Rouge River, and served as a southern base for one of the several Toronto Carrying Place trails from Lake Ontario to Lake Simcoe. The village appears on multiple French exploration maps dating to the 1670s and 1680s. In the winter of 1669, French Sulpician missionary Francois de Salignac de la Mothe-Fenelon travelled to Ganatsetiagon and is said to have attempted to establish a school for the Seneca children; it is widely reported that Frenchman’s Bay is named for Fenelon and his travel companions. Following the late-17th-century Haudenosaunee departure from the north shores of Lake Ontario and the arrival of the Anishinaabe Mississaugas of the Credit in the 18th century, the site of Ganatsekiagon was no longer occupied. Today, the Bead Hill National Historic Site at Kingston Road and the Rouge River is recognized as the possible Ganatsekiagon village site, due to the discovery of significant numbers of archaeological materials there. - 80 - 11ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 1688 map originating from Jesuit Pierre Raffeix and copied by New France hydrographer Jean-Baptiste-Louis Franquelin. While maps dating to the 1600s tend to be topographically inaccurate, there is a bay just west of Ganatsetiagon (spelled here Ganestikiagon) that could be today’s Frenchman’s Bay. An approximate location of the Site is indicated in blue. (Map title: Le Lac Ontario avec Les Lieux circonvoisins & particulierement les cinq nations Iroquoises, retrieved from Derek Hayes’s Historical Atlas of Toronto, annotated by ERA). 1791-1815: Initial Land Grants and the Road to Kingston The Constitutional Act of 1791 established the new colony of Upper Canada (today’s Ontario), and set in place a British colonial administration. Early on, the colonial administration commissioned the survey of counties, townships and 200-acre lots separated by concession lines and sideroads. The Site was located within York County, in Pickering Township. (In 1852, the east portion of York County, including the Township of Pickering, would be separated off as the newly-formed Ontario County). Following the survey and establishment of Yonge Street, the colonial administration intended to establish a road from the head of the lake (Hamilton) to Kingston, and engaged contractor Asa Danforth to lay the road in 1796. The road was ultimately completed by 1815. Soon afterward, settlements began to emerge at the junctures of the Kingston Road route and the intersecting sideroads, often marked - 81 - 12 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING by a post office, and sometimes a highway hotel or tavern. The more successful settlements grew to become villages, with the establishment of additional commerce and local institutions. In 1795, Upper Canada’s Surveyor General D. W. Smith assigned to Lieutenant George Hill three 200-acre lots in the Township of Pickering: Lots 22, 23 and 24, in the First Concession. The Site is located on Lot 23 in the First Concession. It is not known whether Hill ever lived or built on his lands; like many British colonial land grantees, he may have been based in York or another municipal centre, with little need to settle on several hundred acres of potential agricultural land. 1815-1855: Early Villages along the Road to Kingston The earliest settlement along the Kingston Road in the Township of Pickering was the Village of Duffin’s Creek, which eventually became Pickering Village. The village had settled into its own municipal entity by 1811, and by 1817, its first general store had been established. Pickering Village was located at the juncture of Kingston Road and the 2nd Concession Road (today’s Finch Avenue), just northeast of the Site. Early settlers in Pickering Village included Squire Francis Leys, who kept the village’s post office. By 1851, the post office in Pickering would be run by Leys’s son-in-law, Paul Frederick Whitney, who also served as the Justice of the Peace. 1826 Map of the Province of Upper Canada, with the road to Kingston highlighted in blue, and an arrow indicating the Site (University of Toronto Maps Library, annotated by ERA). - 82 - 13ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 In 1831, Scottish settler William Dunbar settled on Lot 25 in the First Concession, just southeast of the Site, and established a Scottish settlement called Dunbarton, just east of the juncture of Kingston Road and the First Concession (today’s Bayly Street/Sheppard Avenue). Along with the saw and grist mills established in these communities to serve the surrounding areas’ agricultural needs, forestry soon became an important industry in Pickering Township. Frenchman’s Bay was ideally suited to imports and exports, being large enough for ships to enter, and as early as 1843, the bay was dredged to increase its capacity to admit even larger ships. Time Present and Time Past: A Pictorial History of Pickering notes that “[p]ine logs for ship’s masts, squared timber, and cordwood were exported through Frenchman’s B ay”. In the mid 19th century, Concession 1 Lot 23 was located almost 2 kilometres east of Dunbarton, and almost 3 kilometres west of Pickering, on the Kingston Road. In 1832, Concession 1 Lot 23 was sold to William Proudfoot by Isabella Hill, the wife of Lieutenant George Hill. Proudfoot was a Scottish merchant, banker and investor who resided in York, having arrived c. 1816. After arriving in Upper Canada, Proudfoot amassed a large portfolio of land, which at one point totalled upwards of 70,000 acres. Since Proudfoot resided in York and was known as a real estate speculator, it is likely that he never resided on Lot 23 in Concession 1. In September of 1832, William Proudfoot sold the north 1/4 of Lot 23 to Thomas Conal. In 1834, the south 3/4 of Lot 23 encompassing the Site was sold to Peter Adamson, about whom little is known. Adamson later sold the south 3/4 of Lot 23 back to William Proudfoot in 1839. This was likely a speculative transaction, as Proudfoot sold the south 3/4 of Lot 23 to Paul Whitney less than a year later in 1840. In the 1851 census, P. F. and Elizabeth Whitney, both 30 years old, had four children between the ages of seven and one, as well as three servants in their household. Whitney’s occupation is listed as “gentleman”; it can be assumed that these were well-to-do landowners with some status in the community. The family does not appear to have been living on Lot 23. 1855: The Grand Trunk Railway & The Whitney Plan for Liverpool In the early 1850s, the Grand Trunk Railway (GTR) was in the process of completing its railway from Montreal to Toronto. An April 1855 newspaper advertisement notes that the GTR had recently purchased An undated photo, looking east, of Dunbarton’s main street, which would be Kingston Road (Pickering Public Li- brary). An 1876 photo of export-focused in- dustrial buildings on Frenchman’s Bay (Pickering Public Library). - 83 - 14 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING 1860 map of Ontario County. Concession 1 Lot 23 is highlighted in blue, and the Site is indicated with a black arrow. The newly-built “Frenchman’s Bay Station”, later known as Liverpool Station and the Dunbarton CNR Station, can be seen to the Site’s left, at the intersection of Bayly Street/Sheppard Avenue, the rail corridor, and the road within Lot 24 (University of Toronto Maps Library, annotated by ERA). 10 acres of land for a railway depot in the Dunbarton area. The 1860 and 1878 County Atlases indicate that this land was likely located at the base of Concession 1 Lot 24, to the Site’s west. It is speculated that it was the GTR’s arrival, and the planned establishment of a rail depot in the vicinity, that led P. F. Whitney to subdivide the southern 72 acres of his 200-acre lot. Prior to April 1855, he commissioned the subdivision of the 72 acres into 400 town lots. An advertisement, dated April 7th 1855 in the Globe, read as follows: FOUR HUNDRED Building Lots will be offered for sale in the rising Village of Liverpool, in the Township of Pickering. These lots are situated at the head of the Bay, which forms the PIckering Harbor, and immediately on the road from Whitby to Toronto; from the latter place it is distant 20 miles, and is decidedly one of the most eligible sites for a large town in the Upper Province. - 84 - 15ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 The Grand Trunk Railroad Company have purchased and laid out 10 acres of land for a Railroad Depot in the Village, which, together, with the harbour, and the advantage of extensive water power in the immediate vicinity, form a combination of favourable circumstances rarely to be met with, and which must render it the centre and emporium of a large and extensive trade. The export of grain and corn, lumber, shingles, cordwood from the harbour for the past year has far exceed the most sanguine expectations of the Stockholders, and has left a large amount of surplus revenue to the credit of the company. The Frenchman’s Bay, which forms the inner harbor, is a beautiful oval sheet of water about a mile and a half long, and one mile broad. The land round the Bay rises with a gentle and easy ascent, thereby affording every facility for draining, and the harbor is confessedly one of the most secure on the North shore of Lake Ontario. Vessels when once inside the piers are completely sheltered from all winds. A steamboat will touch here regularly during the summer seasons, which, together with the arrival and departure of numerous schooners, give the harbor quite a maritime appearance. An extensive White Fishery is carried on along the Beach in front of the Bay. Some extensive buildings are in course of erection, and the erection of the Grand Trunk Railroad Company’s store-houses and workshops, is expected to commence shortly. These lots are situated between three great leading thoroughfares, having the Kingston Road on the North; the principal entrance to the Railroad Depot on the West; and bounded on the East by the main street leading to the harbor and wharves; a main leading road to settlements north of the Village is being laid out, which will open a direct communication with Markham, Uxbridge, Scott, &c... Terms of payment for the Building Lots will be five equal annual instalments, one-fifth down. P. F. WHITNEY Liverpool, April 7th, 1855 Over the next 17 years, only 62 of the 400 building lots would be sold. It it speculated that this was due to the planned Village of Liverpool’s proximity to the existing Village of Dunbarton, just southwest down the Kingston Road. Over the coming decades, residents of the area appear to have interchangeably identified themselves as residents of Dunbarton, Liverpool, and Frenchman’s Bay. Closer view of the 1860 map of Ontario County. The area of Whitney’s Plan (the 400 building lots) is outlined in black dashes. The surrounding context shows the blue Lot 23’s relationship to Dunbar- ton, Frenchman’s Bay, and the Grand Trunk Railway (University of Toronto Maps Library, annotated by ERA). - 85 - 16 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING The concept of Liverpool as a place appears to have caught on relatively quickly, however. In September of 1857, a Globe article noted that Edward Shortis was selling 100 acres of land on Lot 24, “[a]djoining the Village of Liverpool, (a station of the Grand Trunk Railroad)”, which he intended to sell either as one lot, or in lots of 5 or 10 acres each. In June 1857, a separate Globe article had noted: For the accommodation of gentlemen who intend to join the dinner- party this evening at the Liverpool Arms (Frenchman’s Bay), the Superintendent of the Grand Trunk Railway will allow the cars which leave the Bay street Station at 4. 25. to stop at the Liverpool Station. This means that a tavern known as the Liverpool Arms existed in the area as early as the late 1850s. This is not the hotel that was later constructed on the Site in 1879, but may have been a forerunner, established by its eventual first owner and proprietor, Robert Secker. 1855-1877: Land Exchanges on Lot 23 Over the next two decades, some buildings were developed on the 62 buildings lots purchased in the Whitney Plan. P. F. Whitney’s 200-acre lot was effectively split into three portions: • the 72-acre subdivided Village of Liverpool south of Kingston Road,; • the 78 acres north of Kingston Road; and, • the 50 acres north of the 78 acres, adjoining the 2nd concession road (today’s Finch Avenue). Residences were built on both the north 50 acres, and the middle 78 acres. In 1860-61, Whitney and his brother-in-law, Francis Baxter Leys, sold his 200-acre property back and forth a few times. The purpose of these sales is not clear. It appears to have possibly resulted in a legal issue following Whitney’s death, at age 46, in 1867. The following years saw a legal challenge over the lot’s ownership between Whitney’s widow Elizabeth and their five children, and her brothers Francis B. and John Leys, as well as a number of others who appear to have had mortgages and or other interests in the lot. The legal challenge appears to have been settled by 1872-1873. A primary-source record of land transfers, retrieved from the Pickering Public Library, describes the following vesting order, which was registered on June 9th, 1873: The Globe, June 20th, 1857 (ProQuest Historical Newspapers Database). The Globe, September 7th, 1857 (Pro- Quest Historical Newspapers Data- base). - 86 - 17ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 Vesting order made in a cause wherein Elizabeth Whitney, Eliza Jane Whitney, Francis Leys Whitney, John Frederick Whitney, Samuel Whitney and Paul Frederick Whitney, by Elizabeth Whitney their next-friend are Plaintiffs and John Leys, Francis B. Leys by bill and George Alexander Woodward, Cholmley Woodward the younger, Thomas Taylor, George Taylor and William Mills Morse and Robert Secker and John Meighan, made parties in the masters office are Defendants. It was ordered that the lands and premises hereafter mentioned should be vested in Robert Secker, being 78 acres of Lot 23 in the 1st Con of Pickering lying south of the N1/4 and South of the Kingston road. [emphasis added in bold] On November 15th, 1872 (which should likely be understood to be concurrent to the settlement above), the three portions of the original Lot 23 were advertised in a Chancery Sale, up for public auction: PARCEL No. 1. - The north quarter of Lot number 23, in the 1st concession of the Township of Pickering, in the County of Ontario, containing 50 acres, more or less, of which 45 acres are cleared. On it are erected a log house and frame barn. PARCEL No. 2. - That part of the said Lot lying south of the north quarter, and north of the Kingston Road, containing 78 acres, more or less, of which 40 acres are under cultivation. On it are erected a frame house, frame barn, a shed and stable. PARCEL No. 3. - That part of the said Lot lying between the said Kingston Road and the Grand Trunk Railway, laid out in Village Lots, according to a plan of the Village of Liverpool, made for the late Paul Frederick Whitney, containing 40 acres, more or less, exclusive of the following Village Lots which are excepted, viz: - Lots 1, 4, 6... [59 other lots], alll inclusive as laid down upon the said plan, which will be produced at the sale, and may be seen meantime at the office of the Vendors’ Solicitors. There are no buildings upon this parcel, but the lots excepted are occupied, and dwelling houses erected upon a number of them. Following either the Chancery Sale or the settlement, it appears that on June 9th 1873, Robert Secker immediately sold the middle 78 acres, north of Kingston Road, to Brantwood Bush and his wife Hannah. On March 6th, 1876, Brantwood and Hannah Bush severed a 1-acre lot at their property’s southeast corner, and sold it to Louisa Elizabeth McClellan, and her husband Joseph Harris McClellan. Ad for Lot 23’s sale, dated November 15th, 1872 (source unknown). - 87 - 18 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING 1878 map of Ontario County. The 200 acres of Concession 1 Lot 23 are outlined in blue, the middle 78 acres are highlighted in blue, and the Site is indicated with a black arrow. The “Tavern” on the Lot 24, to the left, on Kingston Road’s north side, is estimated to be Robert Secker’s earlier Liverpool Arms/Liverpool House inn (Beers & Co., annotated by ERA). Joseph Harris McClellan was the president of the Pickering Harbour Company. He was also closely involved with the Dominion Bank in the area in its earliest years (it was established in 1871), and by 1878, he had opened a Liverpool branch in his own home at the northeast corner of today’s Kingston and Liverpool Roads. - 88 - 19ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 It is not known whether McClellan and his wife owned the northeast corner lot prior to their purchase of the northwest corner lot in 1876. However, two years later, on December 16th 1878, the McClellans sold the 1-acre northwest corner lot (the Site) back to Robert Secker. 1877-79: Secker’s Hotel at Liverpool Market In 1877, the 1850s planned Village of Liverpool appears to have instead consolidated into the Village of Liverpool Market, centred on the corners at today’s Kingston and Liverpool Roads. The Liverpool Market Post Office, on the intersection’s southeast corner, opened on March 1st, 1877. On September 8th, the Globe reported that “[t]he streets in the village of Liverpool Markets were lit last night for the first time”. A market building was established at one of the intersection’s southern corner. By 1878, J. H. McClellan had his house and Dominion Bank branch constructed at the northeast corner. Robert Secker In 1878, when he purchased the empty 1 acre at the intersection’s northwest corner, Robert Secker was already the owner of over 165 acres on the surrounding properties. Born in Ipswitch, England in 1821, he first appears in the Pickering Township area records in the late 1860s, but he would have been in the area some years earlier. As noted above, the 1857 article referencing the Liverpool Arms hotel at Frenchman’s Bay was likely operated by him. In 1868, an advertisement in the Whitby Chronicle noted that Robert Secker, of Liverpool House, Frenchman’s Bay, was selling a 100-acre farm on the east half of Concession 2, Lot 29 in Pickering Township. He is not recorded as the lot’s owner on the 1860 County Atlas, meaning that he would have purchased it sometime between 1860 and 1868. The 1866 Ontario County Directory lists Secker on Concession 1 Lot 24, and the 1869 and 1871 directories for Dunbarton list Robert Secker as a “hotel keeper” in the vicinity. In 1871, Robert Secker is listed in the Pickering Township census as living with his wife Ailen (a mis-spelling of Ellen), his daughter Susan and son William, and a Sarah Newman, whose occupation is not listed. A photograph of McClellan’s house and Dominion Bank branch on the in- tersection’s northeast corner, taken al- most a century later, likely in the 1960s (Retrieved from Time Present and Time Past: A Pictorial History of Pickering). 1878 map of Ontario County, with Robert Secker’s lands in blue. (Beers & Co., annotated by ERA). - 89 - 20 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING Others have noted that the Seckers exhibited an unorthodox family structure; in Tavern in the Town: Early Inns and Taverns on Ontario, the authors describe the situation as follows: Secker had a legal wife, Harriet, in England, as well as two more ‘wives’ in Canada. The census of 1861 recorded that Robert Secker had a ‘wife’ named Eleanor (sometimes Helen or Ellen). Ten years later, the census showed that two children, William and Susan, had been born to them. When the census-taker returned in 1881 he found Secker involved in a menage a trois that was, to say the least, unusual. Eleanor/Ellen (now aged fifty-three) was still in residence, but a younger woman was also on the scene, listed as the mother of his ‘natural’ daughter, Minnie. The new ‘wife’ was Sarah Newman, and she became Secker’s sole legatee. His will clarified matters a bit, as he left everything to ‘Sarah Newman, generally known as Mrs. Sarah Secker, who has lived with me for a number of years’ and to ‘our natural daughter, Minnie Secker’. Further archival information supports this claim. In 1897, following Secker’s death the previous year, a Whitby Chronicle article noted: Robert Secker, hotel keeper, of Pickering, died leaving an estate valued at $20,000 to Sarah Secker, his widow. Since Seckers [sic] death a claimant has come to the fore. She says her name is Harriet Secker and she claims to be the first, original and only wife of the deceased hotel keeper. She lives in England and through her solicitors, McDonnell & Boland, has issued a writ at Osgoode Hall for one-third, her dower. The plaintiff claims that Secker had three or possibly four wives, but she is the first, and the only one entitled to share in his estate. Secker’s Hotel On December 16th 1878, Robert Secker purchased the 1-acre lot at the northwest corner of today’s Kingston and Liverpool Roads. He commissioned a local architect to design a 22-room hotel; it was designed in the Italianate style, which was typical of the era. A 1979 article notes that “the Liverpool Arms was one of an estimated 150 inns and taverns that dotted the stagecoach and railway lines between Toronto and Cobourg”. The hotel was built up to the Kingston Road street edge, with a full elevated wrap-around porch along the front and side elevations. There were steps down to the ground on all three sides. As early as the 1920s, the porch’s west side featured a railing around to the south-facing stairs; it appears that the grade rose eastward below the building such that the porch’s east side was so low as to not require a railing. - 90 - 21ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 The next available image of the Liverpool Arms Inn, estimated to be taken circa 1920 from the southwest. By 1920, the building’s parapet had been removed (Pickering Public Library). The earliest available image of the Liverpool Arms Inn, which appeared in a special Christmas edition of the Pickering News in 1902. By 1902, the hotel had been transferred to Secker’s son-in law, Robert Toms (Pickering Public Library). - 91 - 22 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING The Highway Hotel Typology When Robert Secker commissioned the construction of his hotel at the intersection of today’s Kingston and Liverpool Roads, he was contributing to a relatively common commercial trend: the construction of inns and taverns along highways between urban centres. These were generally located along railway- and stagecoach routes, often at the juncture of two high-order roads, or a highway’s intersection with a concession or side road. Sometimes, these intersections would have already grown into postal villages (i.e. villages served by a post office); at other times, the inn would be a driver for the growth of commercial business, or concentration of residences, near the corners. Sometimes, the hotel would remain as a stand-alone business amidst surrounding farmland. Highway hotels were typically characterized by a few basic typological features: prominent signage, wrap-around porches supported by basic wooden posts with limited ornamentation, often corner-lot locations and thus multiple street-facing elevations. They generally offered stables at the rear for travellers’ horses. This building typology tends to be subject to demolition and redevelopment pressures due to the fact that highway hotels were generally stand-alone heritage buildings, less likely to be conserved in conjunction with a collection of others, like in a historic downtown. Many of these buildings have been demolished throughout Ontario as a result of suburban expansion and intersection redevelopment. 1878: Inn at the Village of Norway, at Kingston Road and Wood- bine Avenue. (Might & Co.’s Historical Atlas of the County of York) Left: 1903 photo of the Empringham Hotel in the Town of Little York, at Danforth Ave. and Dawes Rd. Right: Men pose on the porch of the Empringham Hotel c. 1900. (Toronto Public Library) 1913: The Railroad Exchange Hotel, in Georgetown. (Town of Halton Hills) 1954: The 1877 Derry West Hotel, in the Village of Brown’s Cor- ners, at Woodbine Ave. and Highway 7. (Toronto Public Library) - 92 - 23ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 1879-1965: Hotel Proprietors and Operations Robert Secker operated the hotel at Liverpool Market over the next decade. In 1892, at age 71, he retired, and began leasing the 1-acre property to Joseph Brereton Gormley, a young Dunbarton-area farmer’s son who became the hotel’s second proprietor. In newspaper articles at the time, the inn would be referenced as “Secker’s Hotel”, and later, as “Gormley’s Hotel”. In 1902, the hotel was being operated by Robert Toms, Robert Secker’s son-in-law, who was married to Minnie Secker. It is not known who succeeded Toms and/or Gormley as the hotel’s proprietor, but a 1929 newspaper advertisement describes the hotel as the Liverpool Arms Inn, with S. Cook as its proprietor. Photography from the late 1920s and early 1930s indicates that by this time, the Kingston and Liverpool intersection had evolved from a stagecoach stopping point to a highway rest stop for drivers of automobiles that were growing in popularity. Signage on the Liverpool Arms Inn indicates that motor oil and Marathon Gasoline was sold there, in the 1929 newspaper ad. In 1922, across the street on the former site of the Liverpool Market (the southeast corner), Morley Black established Black’s Service Station, which would go on to occupy the corner until 1979, and continues to operate as a gas station and service centre today. In 1942, Thomas and Harriet (sometimes Annie) Jatiouk purchased the hotel at Liverpool. By this time, the intersection was known as Liverpool’s Corners; a village had never formally materialized beyond the commercial activity on the four corners. Harriet Jatiouk established a small general store within the hotel, which likely provided similar offerings to the Black’s Service Station across the street. It appears that in addition to the 22 hotel rooms at the Liverpool Arms Inn, or the Liverpool House, camping grounds were offered both on the hotel property, and across the street on both the southwest and northeast corners. The white frame McClellan house, later the Nicholson House, offered “holiday cabins” circa the 1940s. The Blacks also briefly offered tourist cabins through the late 1920s. A photograph of a group of men on the porch of Gorm- ley’s Hotel, circa the 1890s. (Pickering Public Library) 1929 newspaper advertisement for the Liverpool Arms Inn (fineartamerica.com) Black’s Service Station, operated by Morley and Luel- la Black, likely in the late 1920s/early 1930s (Pickering Public Library). - 93 - 24 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING Postcard advertising the Liverpool Arms Inn, date unknown. Estimated to be circa 1920 (Pickering Public Library). A c. 1929 photograph of Luella Black (left) and a friend, on her property on the southwest corner. Black’s Service Station can be seen to the far right, and the Liverpool Arms Inn behind them. (Pickering Public Library). - 94 - 25ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 A c. late 1920s, early 1930s photograph of a boy (possibly John Black) sitting at Black’s Service Station. The Liverpool Arms Inn can be seen in detail behind him. (Pickering Public Library). A c. 1940s photograph along Kingston Road, looking west, toward the white frame McClellan house, with the Liverpool Arms Inn and porch visible on the opposite corner. (Pickering Public Library). - 95 - 26 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING By the 1950s, a railing had been installed along the full span of the hotel porch, enclosing the previously- open east side, and eventually, the porch was fully removed along the building’s west elevation. Two photographs taken sequentially c. the 1950s; the upper photo shows the removal of the porch from the building’s west side. (Pickering Public Library). - 96 - 27ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 1965-1970: Expropriation and Relocation Sometime between 1942 and 1964, Thomas Jatiouk died, and his wife Harriet continued to operate the Liverpool Arms Hotel. Harriet rented rooms in the hotel until 1965, and operated her general store out of the building’s base. A 1970 Globe and Mail article notes that in 1958, the Province of Ontario’s Department of Highways offered her $14,500 for the hotel property. The Province’s intent was to expropriate land along Kingston Road to facilitate its widening. Jatiouk refused to sell; she would note in 1970 that “My husband and I bought the hotel in 1942 and I love every board and room in it... They tried to wear me down because they knew I was alone, but I was determined to keep the hotel.” She held out until 1970, when the Province offered her $40,000 for the property instead. Jatiouk relocated the Old Liverpool House northward (refer to 1971 aerial image on the following page). Upon relocation, the building’s orientation appears to have been maintained, with primary frontage onto Kingston Road and secondary frontage onto Liverpool Road. Harriet Jatiouk is pictured in the Globe and Mail on Novem- ber 23re, 1970, on the porch of the Liverpool Arms Inn, prior to its relocation northward. (Retrieved from the ProQues- tion Historical Newspaper Archive). The hotel pictured behind a group of men working, prior to its move off the street edge (Pickering Public Library, no date). The Liverpool Arms Inn, apparently following its relocation northward (Pickering Public Library, no date). - 97 - 28 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING 1961: Liverpool’s Corners are intact, with buildings at the street line. (City of Toronto Archives, all annotated by ERA) 1964: The McClellan, later Nicholson, house has been de- molished at the northeast corner. (Pickering Public Library) 1969: The Liverpool Arms Inn remains at the northwest cor- ner, at the street edge. (City of Toronto Archives) 1971: The Liverpool Arms Inn has been relocated northward from the intersection. (City of Toronto Archives) 1973: Kingston Rd has been expanded, and Pickering Town Centre mall built at the southeast corner. (Toronto Archives) Late 1970s: Southeast-facing aerial showing the Liverpool’s Corners, with the hotel at the base. (Pickering Public Library) - 98 - 29ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 1980-Present: Restaurant Reuse Harriet Jatiouk remained at the relocated Liverpool Arms Inn building until she died in May 1979. After her death, the property was purchased by Jim and Maria Skentzos, who undertook extensive renovations to convert the building into a restaurant, which they called The Old Liverpool House. The Skentzos renovations included the replacement of the existing porch with a neoclassically-inspired porch design, the replacement of the original two-over-two double-hung sash windows with historically inaccurate multi-light windows, and the paving of the building’s grass surroundings to provide for restaurant parking. 1982: A promotional image of The Old Liverpool House restaurant (Pickering Pub- lic Library) The Old Liverpool House post-reno- vations circa 1982 (Pickering Public Library) Some years later, the building’s porch was enclosed, which expanded the floor plate to provide for increased seating throughout the full year. The building’s signage was later moved from the porch roof to the building parapet, and a rear extension was constructed in an approach that mimicked the original building’s style. Enclosed porch, no date (Pickering Public Library) Signage transferred to the parapet. Rear extension visible, no date. (Pickering Public Library) - 99 - 30 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING 2.3 Original Buildings and Later Additions 1294 Kingston Road Survey (Mandarin Surveyors, annotated by ERA) E n c l o s e d p o r c h E n c l o s e d p o r c h C o n c r e t e r a m p C o n c r e t e r a m p Wood d e c k Wood d e c k Conc r e t e Conc r e t e step s step s 1294 1294 Kingston RoadKingston Road Original building Later addition - 100 - 31ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 3 aSSESSmENt OF cuLturaL HEritaGE vaLuE 3.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation Value (quoted from O. Reg. 9/06)Assessment: 1294 Kingston Road a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, 1294 Kingston Road is a rare and representative extant example of the highwayside inn-and-tavern typology. It exhibits additional representative features of the Italianate style as applied to a commercial block-style building. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit According to a May 2018 Condition Assessment conducted by ERA Architects, the building displays a high degree of craftsmanship (brick detailing, for instance) for a typical commercial application of the Italianate style during the 1870s-1880s. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. n/a direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, 1294 Kingston Road is associated with the theme of historic small community establishment at the junctures of high-order roads, and particularly with the theme of highway-side inns along high-or- der roads between urban centres. yields, or has the potential to yield, informa- tion that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture 1294 Kingston Road has the potential to yield information, other- wise lost, that this was a historic juncture of two original roads in Upper Canada (the highway to Kingston, and Liverpool Road, the 22nd Sideroad), where mid-19th-century attempts at establishing a major port village (the Village of Liverpool) evolved into the high- way-side Liverpool’s Corners, which served car traffic along the Kingston Road through the 20th century. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. n/a important in defining, maintaining or support- ing the character of an area, n/a physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings The Old Liverpool House is historically linked to its suroundings as a highway side hotel. Although the structure was moved north- ward, further from Kingston Road in the 1970s, it has retained some of its original relationship with the intersection. a landmark.1294 Kingston Road is recognized as a local landmark, one of few remaining rural heritage buildings in Pickering, and positioned on a prominent corner in the municipality’s evolving town centre. DE S I G N / P H Y S I C A L V A L U E HI S T O R I C A L / A S S O C I A T I V E V A L U E CO N T E X T U A L V A L U E - 101 - 32 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING 3.2 DRAFT Statement of Significance: 1294 Kingston Road Purpose This DRAFT Statement of Significance for 1294 Kingston Road was prepared by ERA for the purposes of this Report and follows the Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation from the following page. Description of the Historic Place The property at 1294 Kingston Road consists of a former hotel and tavern, built circa 1879 for innkeeper Robert Secker. The property is located at the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Liverpool Road. The hotel building is two storeys in height, built of red brick with a polychrome cornice, lintels and quoining. The building’s roof is flat, with a street-facing ornamental parapet. The building features a porch that wraps around its south and east elevations. The hotel was known as both the Liverpool Arms Inn and the Liverpool House throughout its tenure. Statement of Cultural Heritage Value The property is 1294 Kingston Road is valued as a rare remaining representative example of the highwayside inn typology in Ontario. The inn was constructed in the Village of Liverpool Market between 1879 and 1884, in a newly-established village featuring a post office and telegraph station, street lighting, and a market built to support the Frenchman’s Bay import/export industry to the south. The inn was intended to serve highway traffic along the Kingston Road, a high-order stagecoach route between Toronto and Kingston. The property at 1294 Kingston Road has further design value as a representative example of the Italianate style applied to a commercial hotel building. The hotel building, which exhibits many of the typological features of the highwayside inn, illustrates the theme of hotel-and-tavern establishments along high-order corridors between urban centres, as well as the theme of small community development at the junctures of concession lines, side roads and highways between communities. Across Ontario, communities were established at the junctures of the concession lines and sideroads of Upper Canada’s 1790s land surveys. The Liverpool Arms Inn was established at the main intersection of the Village of Liverpool, later Liverpool Market and Liverpool’s Corners, and its remaining presence there serves to illustrate the intersection’s history. Its presence, as a building evidently constructed in the late 19th century, offers the potential to yield information that a historic community was located at the intersection of Kingston and Liverpool Roads. - 102 - 33ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 The hotel is considered a local landmark through its appearance as a representative historic building at a prominent intersection in downtown Pickering. DRAFT Heritage Attributes Attributes that exhibit the property’s design value as a rare remaining representative example of the highwayside inn typology and its value in its association with the theme of highwayside inns include: • The building’s location on the northwest corner of the intersection at Kingston and Liverpool Roads; • The building’s orientation toward Kingston Road, with secondary frontage onto Liverpool Road; • The building’s form, scale and massing, including its original rear extension; and, • The building’s four original chimneys protruding from the roof: two at the east side and two at the west. Attributes that exhibit the property’s design value as a representative example of the Italianate style applied to a commercial hotel building include: • The building’s polychrome brick cladding, with red brick as the principal palette and buff brick used in detailing including its cornice, quoining, and lintels; • The building’s flat roof, and bracketed parapet rising from its principal facade; • The building’s segmentally-arched window- and door openings; and, • Ornamental Italianate-style design features including the building’s cornice and parapet, quoining, bracketed window sills and hooded lintels. Additional attributes that exhibit the property’s value in its association with the theme of small community development at high-order intersections, its potential to yield evidence of the historic community at Kingston and Liverpool Roads, and its contextual value as a local landmark include: • Views of the building from the public realm along Kingston Road, looking west, along Liverpool Road, looking north, and at the intersection of Kingston and Liverpool Roads, looking north west. - 103 - 34 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING 4 aSSESSmENt OF E xiStiNG cONDitiON ERA conducted a condition assessment of the building at 1294 Kingston Road in May, 2018. East Elevation – overall poor to fair condition • The brickwork appears to be in fair condition with areas of environmental staining and efflorescence, cracked and/or open mortar joints in the brick arches over the windows, areas of brick delamination, open mortar joints in the brick walls, obsolete/redundant ferrous metal fasteners that remain in the masonry walls, and areas of poor past masonry repairs. • The wood window frames appear to be original and generally appear to be in fair-to-poor condition. One of the wood frames appears to be damaged near the top of the window. • The wood window sashes don’t appear to be original. • Two window openings near the north end appear to be covered with plywood. • The parapet glazed coping tiles on the 2-storey portion of the building appear to be original and in fair condition, with an isolated area of damage. • The one-storey enclosed porch addition at the east end of the building appears to be in fair condition, with extensive mortar loss in the brick base and large areas of efflores- cence. The following references to building condition may be found within this section. Excellent: Superior aging performance. Functioning as intended; no deterioration observed. Good: Normal Result. Functioning as intended; normal deterioration observed; no maintenance anticipated with in the next five years. Fair: Functioning as intended; normal deterioration and minor distress observed; maintenance will be required with in the next five years to maintain functionality. Poor: Not functioning as intended; significant deterioration and distress observed; maintenance and some repair required with in the next year to restore functionality. Defective: Not functioning as intended; significant deterioration and major distress observed. East elevation (ERA, 2018). - 104 - 35ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 South Elevation – overall fair condition • The brickwork appears to be in fair condition with some areas of environmental staining, cracked and/or open mortar joints in the brick arches over the windows, locations of open mortar joints in the brick walls, obsolete/redundant ferrous metal fasteners that remain in the masonry walls, and areas of poor past masonry repairs. • The wood window frames appear to be original and generally appear to be in fair-to-poor condi- tion. • The wood window sashes don’t appear be original. • The one-storey enclosed porch addition at the east end of the building appears to be in fair condition, with extensive mortar loss in the brick base and large areas of efflorescence. • The wood cornice appears to be in fair-to-poor condition, with locations of flaking/peeling paint and localized wood rot. • The building at one point was tuckpointed. Most of the tuckpointing is now missing, although the overall brick wash appears to be in good condition. South (principal) elevation (ERA, 2018). - 105 - 36 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING North Elevation – overall fair condition • The brickwork appears to be in fair condition with some areas of environmental staining, cracked and/or open mortar joints, localized areas of brick delamination, open mortar joints and areas of poor past masonry repairs. There’s also a location of graffiti on the brick on the 2nd storey level. • The wood window frames appear to be original, and generally appear to be in fair-to-poor condi- tion. • The wood window sashes don’t appear to be original. • The more recent north addition appears to be in fair condition, with localized efflorescence near top of chimney. • An original window opening on the north elevation has been bricked-in, and has localized masonry step cracks and fractured bricks above the old opening location. North (rear) elevation (ERA, 2018). - 106 - 37ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 West Elevation – overall fair to poor condition • The brickwork appears to be in fair condition with some areas of environmental staining, cracked and/or open mortar joints in the brick arches over the windows, open mortar joints in the brick walls, areas of brick delamination, obsolete/redundant ferrous metal fasteners and areas of poor past masonry repairs. • There is a new door opening and metal fire escape at the second-floor level with poorly executed brickwork at the perimeter of the opening. • The wood window frames appear to be original, and generally appear to be in fair-to-poor condi- tion with some peeling paint and localized wood rot. • The wood window sashes don’t appear to be original. • The later one-storey brick addition at the north-west corner of the building appears to be in fair condition. • The northwest corner of the original building and west elevation at the basement level has been parged over. The parging appears to be in fair condition. • There is a basement window on the west elevation which was previously blocked and parged over. The parging is currently demonstrating localized cracking above it and on both sides. West elevation (ERA, 2018). - 107 - 38 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING Interiors – overall fair to poor condition • The wood window frames appear to be original, and appear to be generally in fair condition. • There are what appear to be a later addition wood door frames leading to the enclosed porch, and a later addition brick fireplace on the ground floor. There is poor masonry repointing and some brick delamination on the brick fireplace. • There are isolated vertical cracks in the bricks and mortar joints on the brick wall in the enclosed porch area, and some brick staining in that area as well. - 108 - 39ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 5 POLicy rE viEW The following documents comprise the policy framework relevant to the heritage resources on Site: • Ontario’s Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 2020 (the “PPS”); • Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017 (the “Growth Plan”) • Durham Regional Official Plan, 2017; • City of Pickering Official Plan, 2018 (the “Official Plan”); and • City Centre Urban Design Guidelines, 2017. Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 The PPS is intended to guide planning policy across Ontario’s municipalities. It provides the following framework for the conservation of heritage resources: 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. 2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. The PPS additionally provides the following definition for conservation: Conserved: means the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained under the Ontario Heritage Act. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment and/or heritage impact assessment. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments. - 109 - 40 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING The PPS consistently emphasizes the need to conserve heritage resources that are subject or adjacent to development by ensuring that their heritage value is retained, which is achieved through the conservation of the heritage attributes that convey that value. The Province introduced an updated Provincial Policy Statement (took effect on May 1, 2020). The updated PPS modifies various definitions related to cultural heritage pertaining to the designation of cultural heritage resources. Notably, the PPS’s revised definition of “significant” includes those properties determined to have cultural heritage value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act, as well as those included in federal and/or international registers, and/or protected through an official plan, zoning by-law, or other land uses planning tools. Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017) The Growth Plan provides a framework for implementing Ontario’s vision for building stronger, prosperous communities by better managing growth in greater Toronto region. The Growth Plan acknowledges the importance of protecting and enhancing cultural heritage resources when accommodating growth as described by the following policies: 1.2.1 Guiding Principles • Conserve and promote cultural heritage resources to support the social, economic, and cultural well-being of all communities, including First Nations and Métis communities. 4.2.7 Cultural Heritage Resources • Cultural heritage resources will be conserved in order to foster a sense of place and benefit communities, particularly in strategic growth areas. Since the original submission of this document in 2019, an updated Growth Plan took effect in May 2019. The Plan revises policies related to designation of employment lands, transit-oriented development and natural heritage mapping and scales density targets to municipalities’ level of urbanization. The above listed heritage-specific policies were not altered. The updated Plan aligns policies and definitions of cultural heritage with recent changes to the Ontario Heritage Act. - 110 - 41ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 City of Pickering Definition of Cultural Heritage Cultural heritage includes archaeological sites and resources; buildings and structural remains of historical, architectural, natural and contextual value; shipwreck sites; traditional use areas; rural districts and settlements; urban neighbourhoods; cultural landscapes of historic interest; and significant views, vistas and ridge lines. More broadly, cultural heritage comprises everything produced and left by the people of a given time and geographic area, the sum of which represents their cultural identity. This includes their folklore, rituals, art, handicrafts, equipment, tools, communications, transportation, buildings, furnishings and dwellings. Durham Regional Official Plan (2017) The Durham Regional Official Plan identifies downtown Pickering as an Urban Growth Centre. The Site is located in the Pickering City and Urban Growth Centre. Section 1 of the Durham Regional Plan identifies a series of bases, goals and directions. Section 2 relates to the environment and provides the goal “to preserve and foster the attributes of communities and the historic and cultural heritage of the Region.” Cultural heritage policies include: 2.2.11 The conservation, protection and/or enhancement of Durham’s built and cultural heritage resources is encouraged. 2.3.49 Regional Council shall encourage Councils of the area municipalities to utilize the Ontario Heritage Act to conserve, protect, and enhance the built and cultural heritage resources of the municipality, to establish Municipal Heritage Committees to consult regarding matters relating to built and cultural heritage resources planning, and the designation of heritage conservation district and properties provided for n the Ontario Heritage Act. As stated in Policy 8A.1.2.d , City Centres shall be developed “with prime consideration for the spatial distribution of structures, architectural treatment, and the preservation and enhancement of cultural heritage resources.” City of Pickering Official Plan (2018) The City of Pickering Official Plan recognizes the intersection of Kingston and Liverpool Roads as a “gateway” to the City Centre. Furthermore, it identifies Kingston Road as the City’s “main street.” Addressing objectives for the conservation of the City’s cultural heritage resource, the Official Plan requires that “City Council shall respect its cultural heritage, and conserve and integrate important cultural heritage resources from all time periods into the community.” Policy 8.8 allows for Council to permit the alteration and additions to cultural heritage resources, so long as the changes do not detrimentally affect the heritage value of those resources. Policy 8.9 promotes the - 111 - 42 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING maintenance of the original use, location, and orientation of heritage structures. Where that is not possible it supports the adaptive reuse and relocation of heritage structures. The Site is located in the City Centre (Neighborhood 8 in the Official Plan), which prioritizes mixed uses and an improved public realm. It considers public squares, transit waiting areas and tall buildings to be appropriate uses for lands fronting all four corners of the Kingston Road and Liverpool Road intersection. City Centre Urban Design Guidelines (2017) The Site is subject to the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines, which encourage a mixed use/main street zone along Kingston Road. Urban design objectives include ensuring that streetscape and landscaping treatments exhibit a “downtown” character with urban sidewalks closer to the streets, pedestrian scale lighting, and appropriate planting and signage. The Design Guidelines specify appropriate building types for development in the City Centre, with mid- rise buildings and signature buildings intended for development along major arterial streets and key gateways to the City Centre. The Site is located in a gateway area as shown in Figure 8 of the Urban Design Guidelines. Guidelines pertaining to the Site include: 1.2 Guiding Principles Create bold entry-points to City Centre through design excellence in architecture, public art and public plazas at key gateway locations and areas of high visibility. 2.1 The Built Form Vision for the City Centre The vision illustrates what the final build-out of Pickering City Centre may look like, and goes far beyond what is envisioned to occur by 2031. The built form vision contains the following key features: 3. A “Gateway” to the City Centre, located at the intersection of Kingston Road and Liverpool Road, featuring distinct buildings and enhanced with public plazas at each of the four corners. - 112 - 43ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 City Centre Urban Design Guidelines, Figure 8 (site within gateway area shown with red arrow, City of Pickering, annotated by ERA). 2.3.1 The Context The introduction of new development needs to be cognisant of the local context to ensure compatibility with the character, function and scale of surrounding development. b) The diverse visual characteristics of the City Centre call for building design that helps define and contribute positively to the surrounding built form and public realm. c) The design of sites and buildings shall seek to create and enhance view portals and vistas of parks and signature buildings within the City Centre. 2.3.3 Building Placement and Orientation The placement and orientation of buildings should define and augment the public realm (streets and open spaces) and places on properties where routes and people congregate, such as private squares. The coordination of building location along a street edge and the placement of buildings on prominent corners help create an active and attractive streetscape. - 113 - 44 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING There are additional guidelines for Gateways and for Signature Buildings anticipated at Gateway locations in the City Centre, including: 2.4.4.4 Signature Buildings a) Buildings with significant heights and massing should be located at key gateways to, and intersections within, the City Centre. Signature buildings at key gateway locations, shown on Figure 8, shall include architectural features that signify the importance of the corner. This can be attained by bold and expressive building design through the use of high quality building materials, highly articulated building façades and unique massing details; and e) Efforts shall be made to retain or integrate the Liverpool House, located at the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Liverpool Road with surrounding development. Adjacent landscaping and urban design treatments shall reinforce the building’s significance and role as a historical reference point. Intensification of the site in the form of building alterations or additional development shall ensure the siting, size, massing, scale, and materials of the new development complement or enhance the heritage attributes of this property. 4.2.5 Gateways Gateway areas help to enhance orientation, signal key points of entry into the core of the community as a special character area, and provide key opportunities where the coordinating of the design of landscapes, signage, public art and buildings can create a sense of entry and orientation. The expression of a community gateway can take on many forms and will hinge on the individual circumstances of the site. a) Gateways signify arrival into a special place. b) Gateways are high quality spaces. The built form and public realm context of the gateway should be held to higher design standards. c) Design features at corners should include signature buildings and/or enhanced landscaping such as signage, art, lighting, historic markers, special paving, open space/square, or seating, as well as coordinated fencing to frame the entry into the neighbourhood. - 114 - 45ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 d) The design of gateways will be coordinated to: • celebrate gateways with public gathering spaces • locate primary building entrances at gateways • provide visually prominent massing, such as distinct corner or roof treatments • ensure that special attention to architectural and material quality is given • locate public art at gateways • ensure consistency of materials, colours and textures in built form and landscape (for example in building façades and paving materials) • provide special streetscape elements or furnishing such as signs, arches, columns, or fountains • have consideration for visibility at night and winter months through lighting and vertical expressions • ensure that parking, loading, servicing, utilities, mechanical equipment are located out of public view e) Intersections at gateway sites should have distinctive surface treatment for pedestrian crossings, including wider sidewalks and connections to bus shelters. f) The corner of the building should be slightly recessed to create a small public square of at least 100 square metres in size at the street corner. g) The primary entrances to buildings at gateway locations should be located at the street corner and contain architectural features that would enhance and activate the street corner. - 115 - 46 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING 6 DEScriPtiON OF tHE PrOPOSED DE vELOPmENt The proposed mixed use redevelopment of the Site removes and replaces the buildings at 1848 and 1852 Liverpool Road with a 25-storey tower setback atop a 6-storey podium, and a 13-storey mid-rise building. The proposal includes the relocation, restoration, rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the Old Liverpool House at 1294 Kingston Road for commercial use. Publicly accessible open space at the corner of Kingston Road and Liverpool Road and improvements to the public realm are also proposed. The proposed development introduces 495 units to the Site. Active at grade retail and commercial uses are proposed along the Liverpool and Kingston Road frontages of the proposed new construction and the retained Old Liverpool House. Parking is proposed to be provided, within 3 levels of underground parking and 31 spaces at-grade to support commercial uses. The proposed new construction will be set back 5.35m to the north from the retained heritage building. The podium base of the tower is designed with a compatible and distinguishable brick to visually balance the use of contemporary glazing and serve as a visual backdrop to the retained Old Liverpool House. The tower element is setback and angled to provide additional contrast to the podium below . Proposed renderings of the development from the Kingston Road and Liverpool Road intersection, one of the conserved views (Kirkor, 2020). - 116 - 47ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 Proposed relocation of Old Liverpool House reinststates its presence on the intersection of Kingston Road and Liverpool Road, one of the conserved views (Kirkor, 2020). 6.1 Designing with Heritage and CCUDG In addition to its restoration and adaptive reuse, the proposed development will relocate the heritage building south approximately 16m and integrate it within an urban plaza, fulfilling the CCUDG for Gateways and in particular 2.4.4.4 Signature Building (e) . The development reinstates the heritage building’s historic relationship to the public realm, a connection which was weakened by the previous relocation during the 1970s Kingston Road expansion. By moving south towards Kingston Road, the building’s historic streetwall and its presence at the intersection are conserved while meeting CCUDG 2.3.3 Building Placement and Orientation. Situating the building as part of the pedestrian environment allows an interpretation of its relationship with Kingston Road prior to Pickering’s intensification. The proposed development further enhances Old Liverpool House’s relationship to the intersection by ensuring that the views to its south and east elevations are unobstructed. The landscape design and planting scheme avoids visual obstructions from the public realm and establish a buffer to the traffic of Kingston Road. The design of the landscape intends to bridge the forward looking vision of the CCUDG while creating programmable outdoor spaces for heritage interpretation through paving design, public art, and planting palette. - 117 - 48 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING Rendering of the proposed development looking west from Kingston Road, one of the conserved views (Kirkor, 2020). - 118 - 49ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 Proposed landscape plan (MBTW, 2020). TO SURFACE PARKING - 119 - 50 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING 7 imPact a S SESSmENt The proposed redevelopment of the Site will impact the identified heritage resource at 1294 Kingston Road on the Site. These impacts, as listed below, are mitigated through several design techniques, explored in the following Section of this Report. 7.1 Impacts to Old Liverpool House (1294 Kingston Road) Relocation The proposed relocation of the Old Liverpool House, approximately 16m south of its current position, returns the structure closer to its original location while enhancing its visual and contextual relationships at the intersection of Kingston and Liverpool Roads not currently enjoyed. The proposed relocation marks the second relocation of the building, with the first occurring in the early 1970s. Removal of Rear Additions The removal of the rear and flanking one- and two-storey additions, metal exit stair on the west elevation, covered wood deck, existing signage and contemporary chimneys are proposed as they are built with typical construction methods and do not contain the same craftsmanship elements as the original fabric of the Old Liverpool House. The removal of the later additions will allow for the restoration of the original building. Rehabilitation for Reuse Various interior and exterior rehabilitation works will be necessary to ensure the Old Liverpool House can be adaptively reused for continued commercial use. Upgrades to ensure universal accessibility will also be required. Furthermore, close proximity to above ground parking and transit, the plaza, and the new towers increase its long- term viability as a commercial space. Alterations to Context The historically rural setting of the Old Liverpool House will be further altered with the addition of the proposed mid-rise and high-rise buildings to the north. However, the ground floor retail in the proposed buildings can reinforce the long term viability of Old Liverpool House as a commercial space. 7.2 Impact on Adjacent Heritage Resources There are no identified heritage resources adjacent to the Site. - 120 - 51ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 7.3 Impact Summary The following table summarizes the impacts of the proposal on the property at 1294 Kingston Road on the Site. Possible Effect Assessment (1294 Kingston Road) Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features No impact. All significant attributes and features of the existing building as identified in this report will be retained and restored. Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance The proposed restoration and rehabilitation of the Old Liverpool House is consistent with The Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2010). The proposed relo- cation (closer to its original location) will enhance the public realm and provide for a more “urban” pedestrian experience, while continuing to anchor the Kingston and Liverpool Roads intersection. The rehabilitation and restoration of the heritage resource complements the proposed mixed-use residential buildings to the north. Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of an associat- ed natural feature or plantings, such as a garden No impact. Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship The building’s historic relationship to the intersec- tion will be maintained and enhanced through its proposed relocation. Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features Views to the Old Liverpool House are enhanced by the proposed relocation south closer to the public realm. Obstructions to the views are reduced. A change in land use (such as rezoning a church to a multi-unit residence) where the change in use negates the property’s cultural heritage value No impact. Existing commercial and neighbour- hood amenity uses will continue. Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns The proposed grade changes will not impact the heritage resource. Impact on adjacent heritage property Not applicable. There are no identified heritage properties adjacent to the site. - 121 - 52 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING 7.4 Conformity with City Centre Urban Design Guidelines In addition to assessing the proposed development’s impacts on the heritage resource on the Site, this Report considers the proposed Site Plan’s conformity to the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines (CCUDGs), in particular the site specific guidance provided in Subsection 2.4.4.4 (e). The following table assesses the proposed development with regards to this guidance, which is intended to conserve and enhance the prominence of Old Liverpool House at this Gateway intersection. Refer to Appendix D of this Report for an analysis of compliance to other relevant CCUDG guidance. Further analysis is provided in the Planning Justification Report by Urban Strategies, Inc., accompanying this submission package. - 122 - 53ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 Pickering City Centre Urban Design Guidelines (CCUDG) Subsection 2.4.4.4 (e) Assessment (1294 Kingston Road) Effort shall be made to retain or integrate the Liverpool House, located at the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Liverpool Road with surrounding develop- ment. Old Liverpool House is proposed to be retained (non-original additions removed) and relocated to the southern edge of the Site, along Kingston Road, reinstating this building’s historic relationship to the street. The proposed high-rise podium is to be set back from the retained heritage fabric to ensure it can be read as a separate three-dimensional building in contrast to the surrounding development. This will highlight views to the Site and ensure Old Liverpool House serves as a ‘Signature Building’ at this Gateway location. Adjacent landscaping and urban design treatments shall reinforce the building’s significance and role as a historical reference point. Proposed landscape and urban design treatments are designed to: 1) Interpret the historic streetwall condition by locating the heritage building within proximity to (+/-7m) the right-of-way ; 2) Provide obstruction-free views of the heritage building’s primary façades by limiting visual obstructions from the intersection; and 3) Anchor the heritage building within a public plaza which provides opportunities for interpretation, public art, and high quality planting (e.g. a rustic, native, planting palette). Intensification of the site in the form of building alterations or additional development shall ensure the siting, size, massing, scale, and materials of the new development complement or enhance the heritage attributes of this property. Proposed new construction ia setback 5.35m from the heritage building and conserves the views identified in the draft Statement of Significance. The proposed 6-storey building podium below the proposed tower features complementary contemporary design and materiality. Red brick is used to contrast with glazing and provide a compatible backdrop to the retained heritage fabric. The scale and massing of the adjacent 6-storey podium is reduced through articulation of the masssing and architectural detailing the south and east façades. Additionaly, the tower is set back from the edge of the podium. - 123 - 54 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING 8 cONSEr vatiON Str atEG y 8.1 Conservation Approach The proposed conservation approach for the Old Liverpool House on the Site is a combination of restoration and rehabilitation, discussed as follows in the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada: Restoration involves accurately revealing, recovering or representing the state of an historic place or individual component as it appeared at a particular period in its history, while protecting its heritage value. Rehabilitation involves the sensitive adaptation of an historic place or individual component for a continuing or compatible contemporary use, while protecting its heritage value. 8.2 Conservation Scope The preliminary conservation scope includes: • Relocate the existing building approximately 16m to the south of its existing location; secure on new foundations (see feasibility letter prepared by Laurie McCulloch attached as appendix B); • Remove later one storey and two storey additions, metal exit stair, wood deck, signage and contemporary chimneys; • Masonry cleaning, repair and replacement where necessary; • Repair and repaint original wood frames where necessary; • Repair and repaint wood cornice where necessary; • Provide new flashing and rainwater conveying system; • Reinstate original window opening(s) on North elevation; • Reinstate parapet wall with reference to the form of the missing historic features; • Replace all windows to match original profile; • Replace the exterior door entrances with new sympathetic doors and frames; • Replace existing covered porch with an open porch to allow for contemporary uses; • Provide required universal accessibility; and • Ongoing continued maintenance. - 124 - 55ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 The forthcoming Conservation Plan will provide further detail for the above preliminary conservation scope. Additionally, precise porch conservation and accessible design will be detailed in the Conservation Plan phase. 8.3 Mitigation Strategies The following mitigation strategies are proposed to address impact on the Site’s cultural heritage value: Relocation, Restoration and Rehabilitation The proposed development reinstates the building’s visually prominent relationship to the intersection and its continued use, in line with its historic role as a highway hotel. Once relocated to the proposed highly visible location along Kingston Road, the retained heritage building will be restored, and the original porch and parapet will be reinstated. The building will also be rehabilitated for commercial use, ensuring its continued use and animation along the street edge. The building’s continued use as a publicly accessible commercial amenity ensures that the building and its connection to historic use is maintained. Public Realm The proposed public realm at the edges and corner of Liverpool Road and Kingston Road will further provide visual and physical separation between the proposed new construction and the retained Old Liverpool House, allowing the heritage resource to maintain its legibility and prominence from the surrounding streets. The proposed landscape and urban design of the urban plaza and streetscape will provide a pedestrian-scale setting around the heritage building. New pedestrian walkways, planters, seating and signage will encourage access and engagement with the Old Liverpool House. The landscape design scheme avoids visual obstructions towards the heritage building, thereby conserving views from the intersection and surrounding streets. • - 125 - 56 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING Proposed Architectural Design The proposed high-rise building is designed to respond to its role as a visual backdrop to the retained heritage fabric. The articulated podium and ground floor divides the massing of the building base into visually smaller units and provides a transition to the height of the tower, which is set back atop the podium. The podium is designed to interpret the red brick materiality of the retained heritage resource in a contemporary, compatible and distinguishable form. Interpretation The proposed urban plaza incorporates interpretation features in the form of public art, paving, and other landscape features. - 126 - 57ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK - 127 - 58 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING 9 cONcLuSiON The proposed development appropriately conserves the cultural heritage value of the building known as the Old Liverpool House, while allowing for its continued prominence at the gateway intersection of Kingston and Liverpool Roads. The impacts to the heritage resource on the Site associated with its relocation, removal of non-original additions and introduction of increased density on the Site will be mitigated by a conservation strategy. The proposed strategy will conserve the Site’s cultural heritage value, through relocation, prominent siting, rehabilitation for continued use and public realm design, which enhance opportunities for public engagement on the Site. New construction is set back north of the retained heritage fabric, and is contextualized through reference to historic materiality in the podium and stepped back siting and design of the angled tower. A more detailed Conservation Plan and Heritage Easement Agreement are anticipated for the Old Liverpool House as part of the ongoing approvals process. - 128 - 59ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 Philip Evans Philip Evans is a principal of ERA Architects and the founder of small. In the course of his fourteen-year career, he has led a range of conservation, adaptive reuse, design, and feasibility planning projects. Philip is a professional member of CAHP. Janice Quieta Janice Quieta, OAA, is an associate with ERA Architects. She received her Master of Architecture degree from Dalhousie University after completing a Bachelor of Architectural Science degree at Ryerson University. Julie Tyndorf As an Associate with ERA Architects, Julie Tyndorf MCIP, RPP, CAHP, engages in the field of heritage conservation through urban planning. Her key areas of focus are on municipal heritage policies and the heritage approvals process as they relate to new development. Emma Cohlmeyer (EC1) Emma Cohlmeyer works with the heritage planning team at ERA Architects. She has a Master Degree in Urban Planning from the University of Toronto and a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Guelph. Emma is an experienced project manager. Stuart Chan Stuart Chan is a landscape designer at ERA Architects. He holds a Master of Landscape Architecture from the University of Guelph. Emma Abramowicz Emma Abramowicz is a heritage planner at ERA Architects. She holds a Master of Planning in Urban Development from Ryerson University, as well as a Bachelor of Arts from Queen’s University. Emily Collins (EC2) Emily Collins is a planner with ERA Architects. She received her Bachelor of Environmental Studies with a major in Honours Planning from the University of Waterloo. 10 Pr OJEct PErS ONNEL - 129 - 60 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING Zoe Chapin Zoe Chapin (Candidate member, OPPI) works with the heritage planning team at ERA Architects. She has a Master of Urban Planning from McGill University, where she also completed a Bachelor of Arts in Urban Systems. Lucy Lynch Lucy is a planner with the heritage planning team at ERA. She graduated from York University’s Master of Environmental Studies program with a specialization in Urban and Environmental Planning. - 130 - 61ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 11 rEF ErENcES (1885, Apr 11). 400 Building Lots - Extensive Sale of Building Lots by Auction. The Globe, 345. Retrieved from the ProQuest Historical Newspaper Database, Toronto Public Library. (1857, Jun 20). For the accommodation of gentlemen who intend to join the dinner-party... The Globe, 2. Retrieved from the ProQuest Historical Newspaper Database, Toronto Public Library. (1857, Sept 07). Farm for Sale: One Hundred Acres of Lane. The Globe,3. Retrieved from the ProQuest Historical Newspaper Database, Toronto Public Library. (1868, May 14). Farm for Sale - Comprising 100 Acres. The Whitby Chronicle. Retrieved from the Archives at Whitby Public Library online. (1872, Nov 15). Chancery Sale of Valuable Real Estate in the Township of Pickering. [Newspaper unknown]. (1877, Sept 8). Condensed Canadian Despatches - The streets of Liverpool were lit for the first time last night... The Globe, 8. Retrieved from the ProQuest Historical Newspaper Database, Toronto Public Library. (1883, Sept 21). Visiting Dunbarton. The Pickering News. Retrieved from the Archives at the Pickering Public Library. (1884, Jan 04). Liverpool Market (Taylor & Allison’s Old Stand). The Pickering News. Retrieved from the Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. (1884, May 09). Welfare - This celebrated stallion, the property of Mr. David Annan, will traverse the following route this season... The Pickering News. Retrieved from the Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. (1884, May 23). Mr. Thomas Haines, well known in this township as a cattle buyer for a number of years past, died at Secker’s Hotel, Liverpool Market... The Pickering News. Retrieved from the Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. (1885, May 01). Joined in Wedlock: Mr. James Gordon, proprietor of the Cuthbert House... The Pickering News. Retrieved from the Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. (1889, May 25). Card of Thanks: City of London Fire Insurance Co. The Pickering News. Retrieved from the Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. (1891, May 01). In the Township of Pickering a hotel license was granted... The Pickering News. Retrieved from the Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. (1891, Jun 05). Robert Bonner, Jr. The Pickering News. Retrieved from the Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. (1895, May 10). Grit Wilkes, the thoro’-bred’ trotting stallion, the property of W. G. Gerow, Whitevale, Ont., will make the season of 1895 as follows... The Pickering News. Retrieved from the Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. - 131 - 62 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING (1896). After an illness of some months duration, Robert Secker, of Liverpool Market, died at his residence on Saturday morning... Retrieved from the Archives at the Pickering Public Library. (1897, Jun 18). Stray Horse - Came to the Secker House, Liverpool Market... The Pickering News. Retrieved from the Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. (1897, Oct 08). Toronto News: - Robert Secker, hotel keeper, of Pickering, died leaving an estate... The Whitby Chronicle. Retrieved from the Archives at the Whitby Public Library Online. (1898, Jan 07). Permits were issued to James Gordon, Pickering... The Pickering News. Retrieved from the Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. (1898, May 27). Woodburn Prince 2023, the property of Graham Bros... The Pickering News. Retrieved from the Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. (1898, Jul 22). Liverpool. The Pickering News. Retrieved from the Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. (1899, Apr 28). For Sale - A new milch cow at lot 23, con. 1. Pickering, at Liverpool Market... The Pickering News. Retrieved from the Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. (1970, Nov 24). Widow Saves Hotel. The Ottawa Journal, 1. Retrieved from Newspapers. com. Ajax L ACAC. (1993, Jan 17). The Gordon house once a fine hotel. Pickering News Advertiser, 16. Retrieved from the Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. Ainsworth, L. (1979-80). 1877 hotel coming back to life. Retrieved from the Archives at the Pickering Public Library. Barrie, Dyster (n.d.). Proudfoot, William. Retrieved from http://www.biographi.ca/en/ bio/proudfoot_william_1817_66_9E.html. Black, J. (2004). Black’s Service Station & Store. Pickering Township Historical Society Pathmaster, 6(3 & 4), 1-3. Bush, B. (1878). Abstract: Pt. 23 - 1st Con. Pickering. Retrieved from the Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. City of Pickering. (1860, Aug 16). Indenture of Bargain and Sale. Retrieved from the Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. City of Pickering. (1860, Oct 16). Indenture of Bargain and Sale. Retrieved from the Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. City of Pickering. (1861, May 02). Indenture of Bargain and Sale. Retrieved from the Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. City of Toronto. (1961-1973). Aerial Photographs. Retrieved from the City of Toronto - 132 - 63ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 Archives: https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/accountability-opera tions-customer-service/access-city-information-or-records/city-of-toron to-archives/whats-online/maps/aerial-photographs/. Farewell, J. E. (1973). Ontario County. Belleville, ON: Mika Publishing. Google Maps. Retrieved online from: https://www.google.ca/maps/. Government of Canada. (1851, 1871, 1881, 1891, 1901). Census of Canada for Pickering Township. Retrieved from the Ancestry.ca website: https://www.ancestry.ca/ search/categories/35/. Government of Canada. (1940, 1949, 1963, 1965, 1968, 1974). Urban List of Electors, Electoral District of Ontario, Rural Polling Division No. 3, Pickering Township. Retrieved from the Ancestry.ca website: https://www.ancestry.ca/search/ categories/35/. Hayes, D. (2008). Historical Atlas of Toronto. Vancouver, BC: Douglas & McIntyre Publishers Inc. Lovell, J. (1871). Lovell’s Canadian Dominion Directory, 1871. Retrieved from the Ancestry.ca website: https://www.ancestry.ca/search/categories/35/. Maurault, O. “Salignac de la Mothe-Fenelon, Francois De.” Dictionary of Canadian Biography, Volume 1. Retrieved from http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio. php?id_nbr=256. McBurney, M. & Byers, M. (1987). Tavern in the Town: Early Inns and Taverns of Ontario. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. McDonald, J. (1982, Sept 14). 1800s Pickering tavern now a fine dining location. Toronto Star, H7. Retrieved from the ProQuest Historical Newspaper Archive, Toronto Public Library. Mitchell & Co. (1866). Gazetteer & Directory for Ontario, 1866. Retrieved from the Durham Region Branch of the Ontario Genealogical Society, https://www. durham.ogs.on.ca/resources/Ontario_1866_Directory/index.html. Morley, L. M. (1970). The Village of Pickering: 1800-1970. Pickering, ON: Pickering Council. Noonan, L. (2016, Dec 30). Stories from Rouge Park: DIscovering the 17th century Gandatsetiagon settlement. Toronto.com. Retrieved from https://www. toronto.com/community-story/7040350-stories-from-rouge-park-discover ing-the-17th-century-gandatsetiagon-settlement/. Ontario Land Registry (2020). Durham 40, Pickering, Book 204. Retrieved from https:// www.onland.ca/ui/40/books/60739/viewer/412287290?page=1. Parks Canada. Bead Hill National Historic Site of Canada - Statement of Significance. Retrieved from https://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/page_nhs_eng. aspx?id=531. Province of Ontario (2006). “Ontario Regulation 9/06.” Criteria for Determining Cultural - 133 - 64 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING Heritage Value or Interest. Retrieved online from: http://www.ontario.ca/ laws/regulation/060009. Province of Ontario (2014). “Provincial Policy Statement.” Retrieved online from: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=10463. Robertson & Cook, Publishers. (1869). Province of Ontario Gazetteer and Directory. Retrieved from Library and Archives Canada online. Rosenthal, M. (1965). Early Post Offices in Pickering Township. [A paper presented by Mr. Max Rosenthal to a meeting of the Township of Pickering Historical Society, 4th June 1965). Sabean, J. W. [ed.]. (2000). Time Present and Time Past: A Pictorial History of Pickering. Pickering: Altona Editions, for the Pickering Township Historical Society and the City of Pickering Millenium Committee. Scott, J. (1970, Nov 23). Prefers sentiment to cash: Owner rejects offer, will move old hotel. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from the Archives at the Pickering Public Library, J. H. Clark Papers. Smith, D. W. (1795, Feb 11). Pursuant to an Order of Council of the 19th October 1792, I assign to Lieutenant George Hill the Lots no. 22, 23 + 24 in the first Concession... [microfiche file]. Retrieved from the Archives at the Pickering Public Library. Sparks Family History. Retrieved from the Archives at the Pickering Public Library. Winter, B. (1976, Aug 11). Historical Whitby: Dominion Bank. The Whitby Free Press, 7. Retrieved from images.ourontario.ca. - 134 - 65ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 12 aPPENDicE S Appendix A: Architectural Plans (Kirkor Architects - July 22, 2020) Drawing Title: Scale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: No : Issued For:Date: Drawing No.: No.: Revision:Date: PPlloott DDaattee::FFiillee PPaatthh:: Contractor Must Check And Verify All Dimensions On The Job. Do Not Scale The Drawings. All Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents Are The Copyright Of The Architect And Must Be Returned Upon Request. Reproduction Of Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents In Part Or Whole Is Forbidden Without The Architects Written Permission. This Drawing Is Not To Be Used For Construction Until Signed ByThe Architect. Date: Project: 22002200--0077--3300 11::0033::1100 PPMM CC::\\RReevviitt\\22001199\\1188004444PP1111--OOlldd LLiivveerrppooooll HHoouussee--MMaasstteerr__RRVVTT22001199__ccccoohheennWW99PPLLFF..rrvvtt 1294 Kingston Rd & 1848-1852 Liverpool Rd CC DB 18-044 July 22, 2020 Z0.0 OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE Cover Sheet Altona Group 1294 Kingston Rd & 1848-1852 Liverpool Rd MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PICKERING DRAWING LIST Sheets: SheetType SheetNumber Sheet Name ZB A # 1 ( M a y 1 6 , 2 0 1 9 ) ZB A # 2 ( J u l y 2 2 , 2 0 2 0 ) 11 REZONING Z0 Z0.0 Cover Sheet ■■ Z1 Z1.1 Context Plan ■■ Z1.2 Site Survey & Statistics ■■ Z1.3 Site Plan ■■ Z2 Z2.0 Floor Plan - Level P2-P3 ■■ Z2.1 Floor Plan - Level P1 ■■ Z2.2 Floor Plan - Levels 1 - 3 ■■ Z2.3 Floor Plans - Levels 4 - 9 ■■ Z2.4 Floor Plan - Level 10 - 24 ■■ Z2.5 Floor Plan - Level 25, Mech. Penthouse & Roof Plan ■■ Z3 Z3.1 East Elevation ■■ Z3.2 West Elevation ■■ Z3.3 North Elevation ■■ Z3.4 South Elevation ■■ Z4 Z4.1 Section - East/West ■■ Z4.2 Section - North/South ■■ Z5 Z5.1 Sun/Shadow Diagram June ■■ Z5.2 Sun/Shadow Diagram March/September ■■ Z5.3 Sun/Shadow Diagram December ■■ Z6 Z6.1 Perspectives ■■ Z6.2 Perspectives ■■ Z6.3 Perspectives ■■ 01 Rezoning May 16, 2019 02 Rezoning Revision July 22, 2020 - 135 - 66 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING K I N GST ON R D LIVE R PO OL RD GLEN DAL E DR B R O N T E S Q U A R E B R O N TE S Q U A R E BR ONTE SQ UAR E GLENANNA RD BR ONTE SQ UAR E LIVE R PO OL RD OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE BUILDING A BUILDING B N Drawing Title: Scale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: No : Issued For:Date: Drawing No.: No.: Revision:Date: PPlloott DDaattee::FFiillee PPaatthh:: Contractor Must Check And Verify All Dimensions On The Job. Do Not Scale The Drawings. All Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents Are The Copyright Of The Architect And Must Be Returned Upon Request. Reproduction Of Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents In Part Or Whole Is Forbidden Without The Architects Written Permission. This Drawing Is Not To Be Used For Construction Until Signed ByThe Architect. Date: Project: 1 : 1000 22002200--0077--3300 11::0044::1166 PPMM CC::\\RReevviitt\\22001199\\1188004444PP1111--OOlldd LLiivveerrppooooll HHoouussee--MMaasstteerr__RRVVTT22001199__ccccoohheennWW99PPLLFF..rrvvtt 1294 Kingston Rd & 1848-1852 Liverpool Rd CC DB 18-044 July 22, 2020 Z1.1 OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE Context Plan Altona Group Z1.1SSccaallee:: 11 :: 11000000 Context Plan 1 01 Rezoning May 16, 2019 02 Rezoning Revision July 22, 2020 - 136 - 67ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 JULY 22, 2020 N Drawing Title: Scale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: No : Issued For:Date: Drawing No.: No.: Revision:Date: PPlloott DDaattee::FFiillee PPaatthh:: Contractor Must Check And Verify All Dimensions On The Job. Do Not Scale The Drawings. All Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents Are The Copyright Of The Architect And Must Be Returned Upon Request. Reproduction Of Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents In Part Or Whole Is Forbidden Without The Architects Written Permission. This Drawing Is Not To Be Used For Construction Until Signed ByThe Architect. Date: Project: 1 : 1 22002200--0077--3300 11::0044::3355 PPMM CC::\\RReevviitt\\22001199\\1188004444PP1111--OOlldd LLiivveerrppooooll HHoouussee--MMaasstteerr__RRVVTT22001199__ccccoohheennWW99PPLLFF..rrvvtt 1294 Kingston Rd & 1848-1852 Liverpool Rd CC DB 18-044 July 22, 2020 Z1.2 OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE Site Survey & Statistics Altona Group 1 NNTTSS Project Statistics Z1.2 2 NNTTSS Survey Z1.2 01 Rezoning May 16, 2019 02 Rezoning Revision July 22, 2020 - 137 - 68 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING N69°44'35"E 15.24 N69°51'10"E 18.42 N18°28'05"W 77.01 GL E N D A L E D R I V E LOT 30 LOT 29 LOT 28 (ROADALLOWANCEBETWEENLOTS22AND23) LOT 31 PART 17 PART 18 P A R T 1,P L A N 4 0 R -2 8 1 1 9 P A R T 1 ,P L A N 9 0 1 ( P -1 9 2 2 -6 7 ) P A R T 4 P L A N 8 9 5 ( P - 1 9 2 2 - 6 5 ) LOT 2 4 PLAN 489 (B Y R E G I S T E R E D P L A N 4 8 9 ) PA R T 3 PA R T 6 PART 8 LO T 27 P A R T 1 P L A N 4 0 R - 7 3 7 A R T 1 ,P L A N 8 3 2 ( P -1 9 2 2 -5 9) LO T 2 3 LO 8 8.4588.4 9 88.4 5 8 8.33 88.2 0 87.8 2 8 7.8787.8087.7 7 87.79 87.7 3 8 7.70 8 7.68 87.6 7 8 7.71 8 7.56 8 7.5587.55 8 7.55 87.5 7 8 7.58 87.6 0 87.6 1 8 8.64 88.6 0 88.6 4 88.6 3 89.0 388.9 6 89.7 2 8 9.70 8 9.69 8 9.69 89.6 1 89.6 5 8 9.57 89.5 5 8 9.49 8 9.48 89.3 9 89.4 5 89.3 4 8 9.29 8 9.21 89.3 0 89.2 6 89.0 5 8 9.03 89.1 9 89.1 7 8 9.24 89.0 8 8 9.11 89.0 7 8 9.0388.9 8 8 9.03 8 9.07 89.0 5 8 9.00 8 8.89 88.9 4 88.9 7 88.8 5 8 8.91 8 8.7288.4 9 8 8.56 88.6 4 88.6 1 88.7 3 88.78 88.6 6 8 8.83 8 9.12 88.9 2 88.9 0 88.8 7 88.9 2 88.9 1 8 8.9388.7 8 88.9 3 88.8 7 8 8.88 8 8.8188.7 7 88.8 5 8 8.74 8 8.79 88.8 2 88.8 488.97 8 8.85 88.8 2 8 8.96 88.9 5 88.8 088.82 88.8 188.7 8 88.9 0 88.8 088.7588.8 8 8 8.88 8 8.95 8 9.00 8 8.7788.7 388.8 9 8 8.84 8 8.7088.62 88.7 088.6388.6 1 8 8.55 8 8.66 88.5 588.55 8 8.58 88.7 3 8 8.77 88.6 3 8 8.79 8 8.89 8 9.03 8 8.90 89.0 4 89.1 6 8 9.10 89.1 5 8 9.28 89.3 9 8 9.28 89.3 2 8 9.35 89.4 1 8 9.51 8 9.37 8 9.50 89.5 2 8 9.41 89.4 1 8 8 9.44 8 9.17 87.8 7 8 8.14 87.0 6 6 9486.9 4 8 7.0886.9 3 8 6.98 8 7.1 1 8 7.20 8 7.24 4 888.1 1 8 8.16 88.1 7 8 8.2188.22 88.3 5 8 8.33 88.3 888.4 4 8 8.55 88.5 1 88.6 288.6 5 8 8.81 88.7 6 8 8.74 88.8 3 8 8.91 8 8.84 8 8.88 8 8.87 88.8 388.8 6 8 8.79 88.7 4 88.7 7 8 8.79 8 8.78 8 8.75 8 8.83 89.0 8 8 8.97 89.1 0 8 9.18 8 9.13 8 9.24 89.1 6 89.2 989.3 2 8 9.41 8 9.40 89.4 6 8 9.5189.5 4 89.4 9 8 9.4889.53 8 9.53 89.4 0 89.5 0 8 9.49 89.3 7 89.3 7 89.4 7 8 9.36 89.3 5 89.3 4 8 9.35 8 9.29 8 9.38 8 9.24 89.2 1 89.3 6 89.3 0 89.1 7 8 9.13 8 9.06 8 9.19 89.0 9 8 8.95 8 8.94 8 9.02 88.9 0 8 8.80 88.9 1 88.7 6 88.7 5 88.8 9 8 8.88 88.7 5 8 8.77 8 8.64 8 8.67 88.6 1 88.6 5 8 8.74 8 8.70 88.5 7 8 8.5488.5 6 88.6 8 8 8.63 8 8.52 88.5 3 88.6 6 8 8.64 88.5 2 88.5 6 88.6 9 8 8.60 8 8.66 8 8.76 88.7 5 88.6 3 88.6 1 8 8.57 8 8.68 8 8.68 8 8.47 88.4 6 88.5 8 8 8.45 88.3 2 8 8.1888.3 288.3 5 88.2 8 8 8.09 8 8.06 8 8.20 8 8.12 88.5 2 8 66 88.68 8 8.82 8 8.64 88.6 788.69 88.6 9 8 8.74 88.8 7 8 8.93 89.30 89.1 1 89.1 589.1 6 89.1 2 8 9.24 8 9.06 8 9.01 89.1 6 8 9.20 8 9.19 89.0 6 89.0 3 89.0 1 89.0 2 8 8.57 8 8.74 8 8.80 88.7 8 8 8.87 8 8.85 88.9 989.02 89.04 88.8 9 88.8 7 88.95 8 8.84 8 8.79 88.95 8 8.79 88.8 0 8 8.81 8 8.81 8 8.82 8 8.84 88.9 188.92 8 8.90 88.9 3 8 9.01 89.1 0 89.1 7 8 9.25 89.3 6 8 9.45 89.4 9 89.5 2 89.5 6 8 9.58 87.7 5 8 7.72 8 7.74 8 7.76 87.8 3 8 8.32 8 8.19 87.9 2 8 7.86 87 . 7 9 8 7.90 87.8 9 87.7 6 87.6 8 8 7.64 8 7.52 8 7.53 87.8 9 8 7.87 8 7.91 8 8.08 88.02 8 7.72 8 7.72 8 7.74 87.7 5 8 7.8887.8 3 8 7.87 87.9 7 8 8.09 87.99 88.4 4 88.5 7 88.5 8 8 8.63 88.5 5 8 8.64 8 8.43 8 8.33 8 8.43 8 9.01 88.9 9 8 7.60 8 7.71 8 7.62 8 7.9087.7 8 87.9 0 87.8 1 8 7.91 87.8 3 8 7.8087.8 887.8 8 87.7 7 8 8.33 8 8.1487.95 8 7.78 8 7.77 8 7.6 7 87.8 2 8 7.91 8 8.06 87.9 2 8 8.08 8 8.26 88.2 288.06 88.0 3 8 8.17 88.7 4 88.7 7 8 9.3689.3 8 89.12 8 9.1089.05 89.05 89.1 3 8 8.63 8 8.62 88.7 0 88.6 0 8 8.68 89.3 7 89.5 7 89.4 5 89.4 9 8 9.54 8 9.5689.38 89.3 6 8 9.42 89.1 989.21 89.3 089.4 2 89.3 7 89.3 8 ? CENTRELINEOFROAD CEN TRELIN E O F R OA D CONCRETECURB CONCRETECURB CON C R E TE CURB C O N C RET E C U R BCONCRETECURB IS LA ND C ONC.P A D CO N C R E T E C U R B CO N C.C U R B CONCRETE CURB C ON C R E TE SID E WAL K A L K CONC RETE SIDEWALK CONCRETE SIDEWALK CON BO ARDFEN CE PARKING LOTS CURBCUT CURBCUT CURBCUT CURBCUT CURB CURB CUT CURB ASPHALT DRIVEWAY C ONCR E T E SIDEWAL K CUT CUT C U TCURB CONCRETE SIDE WA BOARDFENCE BUS S T O P C ONC.P A D CONC.CURB CONC.CURB CONC.CURB CONC. CURB PARKING LOTS PARKING LOTS FRAMESHED P.W.F. STOP BUS BENCH X X X X XXX X X X X X X 3.05 3.06 4.48 4.74 N69°57'20"E 54.42 N1 8 ° 2 5 ' 5 0 " W 19 . 4 5 N18°15'55"W 19.81 N18°33'40"W 37.30 N18°23'40"W 123.63 N 4 0°4 2'5 5 "E 3 1.3 6 N14°19'00"E 29.98 N20°06' 3 0"W 13.4 5 N13°50'55"W 80.36 N18°33'10"W 26.45 W.V.F.H. W.V. F.H. W.V. F.H. W.V. W.V.W.V . C.B. C.B. C.B. C.B. C.B. C.B. C.B. C.B. U.P. U.P. L.S. L.S. U.P. U.P. L.S. L.S. U.P. U.P. G.W. PEDESTAL BELL SIGN SIGN SIGN SIGN 0.4Dia. 0.4Dia. 0.4Dia. 0.4Dia. 0.8Dia. 0.4Dia. 0.2Dia. 0.2Dia. 0.3Dia. 0.3Dia. 0.6Dia. 0.6Dia. 0.8Dia. M.H. M.H. M.H. M.H. M.H. M.H. M.H. M.H. M.H. M.H. M.H. M.H. M.H. M.H. H.W. T.S. H.W. T.S. T.S. H.W. HW HW WELL CB&MH CB&MH CB&MH C.B.&M.H. H.W. H.W. LIVE RPOOL ROAD N69°51'10"E 18.42GL E N D A L E D R I V E (ROADALLOWANCEBETWEENLOTS22AND23) PART 17 PART 18 P A R T 1,P L A N 4 0 R -2 8 1 1 9 P A R T 1 ,P L A N 9 0 1 ( P -1 9 2 2 -6 7 ) LO T 2 4 P LA N 4 89 (B Y R E G I S T E R E D P L A N 4 8 9 ) PA R T 3 PA R T 6 PART 8 LO T 27 P A R T 1 A R T 1 ,P L A N 8 3 2 ( P -1 9 2 2 -5 9) LO T 2 3 LO 8 8.4588.4 9 88.4 5 8 8.33 88.2 0 87.8 2 8 7.8787.8087.7 7 87.79 87.7 3 8 7.70 8 7.68 87.6 7 8 7.71 87.57 8 7.58 87.6 0 87.6 1 8 8.64 88.6 0 88.6 4 88.6 3 89.0 388.9 6 89.7 2 8 9.69 89.6 1 89.6 5 8 9.57 89.5 5 89.1 7 89.0 8 8 9.07 8 8.94 88.9 7 8 8.91 88.4 9 8 8.56 88.6 4 88.6 1 88.7 3 88.78 88.6 6 88.8 7 88.9 2 88.9 1 8 8.9388.7 8 88.9 3 88.8 7 8 8.88 8 8.8188.7 7 88.8 5 8 8.74 8 8.79 88.8 2 88.8 488.97 8 8.85 88.8 2 8 8.96 88.9 5 88.8 088.82 88.8 188.7 8 88.9 0 88.8 088.7588.8 8 8 8.88 8 8.95 8 8.7788.7 3 8 8.7088.6 288.5588.5 588.55 8 8.58 88.6 3 8 8.79 8 8.90 8 9.04 8 9.10 89.1 5 89.3 9 8 9.28 89.3 2 8 9.35 89.5 1 8 9.37 89.4 1 89.4 1 8 8 9.44 8 9.17 87.8 7 8 8.14 87.0 6 6 9486.9 4 8 6.98 8 7.20 4 8 8 8.16 88.1 7 8 8.2188.22 88.3 5 8 8.33 88.3 888.4 4 8 8.55 88.5 1 88.6 288.6 5 8 8.81 88.7 6 8 8.74 88.8 3 8 8.91 8 8.84 8 8.88 8 8.87 88.8 388.8 6 8 8.79 88.7 4 88.7 7 8 8.79 8 8.78 8 8.75 8 8.83 89.0 8 8 8.97 89.1 0 8 9.18 8 9.13 8 9.24 89.1 6 89.2 989.3 2 8 9.41 8 9.40 89.4 6 8 9.5189.5 4 89.4 9 8 9.4889.53 8 9.53 89.4 0 89.5 0 8 9.49 89.3 7 89.3 7 89.4 7 8 9.36 89.3 5 89.3 4 8 9.35 8 9.29 8 9.38 8 9.24 89.2 1 89.36 89.3 0 89.1 7 8 9.13 8 9.06 8 9.19 89.0 9 8 8.95 8 8.94 8 9.02 88.9 0 8 8.80 88.9 1 88.7 6 88.7 5 88.8 9 8 8.88 88.7 5 8 8.77 8 8.64 8 8.67 88.6 1 88.6 5 8 8.74 8 8.70 88.5 7 8 8.5488.5 6 88.6 8 8 8.63 8 8.52 88.5 3 88.6 6 8 8.64 88.5 2 88.5 6 88.6 9 8 8.60 8 8.66 8 8.76 88.7 5 88.6 3 88.6 1 8 8.57 8 8.68 8 8.68 8 8.47 88.4 6 88.5 8 8 8.45 88.3 2 8 8.1888.3 288.3 5 88.2 8 8 8.09 8 8.06 8 8.20 8 8.12 88.5 2 8 66 88.68 8 8.82 8 8.64 88.6 788.69 88.6 9 8 8.74 88.8 7 8 8.93 89.30 89.1 1 89.1 589.1 6 89.1 2 8 9.24 8 9.06 8 9.01 89.1 6 8 9.20 8 9.19 89.0 6 89.0 3 89.0 1 89.0 2 8 8.57 8 8.74 8 8.80 88.7 8 8 8.87 8 8.85 88.9 989.02 89. 04 88.8 9 88.8 7 88.95 8 8.84 8 8.79 88.95 8 8.79 88.8 0 8 8.81 8 8.81 8 8.82 8 8.84 88.9 188.92 8 8.90 88.9 3 8 9.01 89.1 0 89.1 7 8 9.25 89.3 6 8 9.45 89.4 9 89.5 2 89.5 6 8 9.58 87.7 5 8 7.72 8 7.74 8 7.76 87.8 3 8 8.32 8 8.19 87.9 2 8 7.86 87 . 7 9 8 7.90 87.8 9 87.7 6 87.6 8 8 7.64 8 7.52 8 7.53 87.8 9 8 7.87 8 7.91 8 8.08 88.02 8 7.72 8 7.72 8 7.74 87.7 5 8 7.8887.8 3 8 7.87 87.9 7 8 8.09 87.99 8 9.01 88.9 9 8 7.60 8 7.71 87.6 2 8 7.9087.7 8 87.9 0 87.8 1 8 7.91 87.8 3 8 7.8087.8 887.8 8 87.7 7 8 8.33 8 8.14 8 7.77 87.6 7 87.8 2 8 7.91 8 8.06 87.9 2 8 8.08 8 8.26 88.2 288.06 88.0 3 8 8.17 88.7 4 88.7 7 8 8.62 8 8.60 8 9.37 89.5 7 89.4 5 89.4 9 89.5 4 89.5 6 ? CENTRELINEOFROAD CEN TRELIN E O F R OA D CONCRETECURB CONCRETECURB CON C R E TE CURB C O N C RET E C U R BCONCRETECURB IS LA ND C ONC.P A D CO N C R E T E C U R B CO N C.C U R B CONCRETE CURB C ON C R E TE SID E WAL K A L K CONC RETE SIDEWALK CONCRETE SIDEWALK CON PARKING LOTS CURBCUT CURBCUT CURBCUT CURBCUT CURB CURB CUT CURB ASPHALT DRIVEWAY C ONCR E T E SIDEWAL K CUT CUT C U TCURB CONCRETE SIDE WA BUS S T O P C ONC.P A D CONC.CURB CONC.CURB CONC. CURB PARKING LOTS PARKING LOTS FRAMESHED STOP BUS BENCH XXX X X X 3.05 3.06 N18°25'50"W 19.45 N18°33'40"W 37.30 N18°23'40"W 123.63 N 4 0°4 2'5 5 "E 3 1.3 6 N14°19'00"E 29.98 N20°06' 3 0"W 13.4 5 N13°50'55"W 80.36 N18°33'10"W 26.45 W.V.F.H. W.V. F.H. W.V. W.V.W.V . C.B. C.B. C.B. C.B. C.B. C.B. C.B. C.B. U.P. U.P. L.S. L.S. U.P. U.P. L.S. L.S. U.P. U.P. G.W. SIGN SIGN SIGN SIGN 0.4Dia. 0.4Dia. 0.4Dia. 0.4Dia. 0.8Dia. 0.4Dia. 0.8Dia. M.H. M.H. M.H. M.H. M.H. M.H. M.H. M.H. M.H. M.H. M.H. T.S. T.S. T.S. H.W. HW HW CB&MH C.B.&M.H. H.W. H.W. LIVE RPOOL ROAD UNDERGROUND LIMIT UNDERGR OU NDLIMIT UNDERGR OU NDLIMIT UNDERGROUNDLIMIT UNDERGROUNDLIMIT UNDERGROUNDLIMIT UNDERGROUNDLIMIT UNDERGROUNDLIMIT P R O P E R T Y LIN E PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE HYD HYD KIN G ST O N R D LI V ERPOO L R D GLEN DAL E DR BUILDING B25 STOREY ROOF TOP (79.40m A.F.F.) ROOF @ LEVEL 4 (10.85m A.F.F.) OUTLINE OF LOADING AT LEVEL 1 ROOF @ LEVEL 7 (20.00m A.F.F.) ROOF @ LEVEL 7 (20.00m A.F.F.) OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE ROOF @ LEVEL 10(29.65m A.F.F.) EXTERIORLOADING AT LEVEL 1 AT G R A D E P A K I N G ( 1 8 ) AT G R A D E P A K I N G ( 1 0 ) ROOF TOP (42.65m A.F.F.) RELOCATED 16.4 m SOUTH OF CURRENT LOCATION TOP OF MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE(84.40m A.F.F.) BUILDING A13 STOREY TOP OF MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE(47.65m A.F.F.) ROOF @ LEVEL 12 (35.55m A.F.F.) OUTLINE OF GROUND FLOOR 5. 3 5 m 5.55 m 6.50 m Property line located 18 m from the centerline of Liverpool Road. BICYCLE PARKING EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT BICYCLE PARKING U/G PARKING ENTRANCE RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL SIAMESE CONNECTION SIAMESE CONNECTION 2.55 m 9.40 m 3.20 m 1.7 0 m 1 . 5 0 m 19 . 4 0 m 12 . 3 5 m 1 . 0 0 m 1. 5 0 m 3. 0 0 m 3.60 m 6.10 m 18.55 m 2.00 m 2.65 m 0.95 m OUTLINE OF GROUND FLOOR 33.00 m 18.00 m OU T D O O R A M E N I T Y @ L E V E L 7 (2 0 . 0 0 m A . F . F . ) AT GRADE PAKING (3) OUTLINE OF GROUND FLOOR OUTDOOR AMENITY BUILDING B DROP OFF BUILDING A DROP OFF 6. 7 0 m 5. 9 0 m 17.70 m 2.50 m 4.90 m 12.00 m 3. 9 0 m 3.35 m 18 . 6 5 m 24 . 6 5 m LOBBY ENTRANCE (BUILDING B) 3. 0 0 m 12 . 9 5 m 25 . 8 0 m 23 . 7 5 m 1. 7 5 m 3.0 0 m 2.05 m4.45 m 18.65 m 2.00 m 70 . 3 0 m 39 . 9 0 m 4.0.l. Continuous Length ofBuildings along a Street Line 78 percent of the street frontage of a lotis occupied by a building 4.05 m2.45 m 4.15 m 17.50 m 2.00 m FI R E R O U T E 0.60 m 1.40 m LO A D I N G S P A C E 12 . 0 m X 3 . 5 m LO A D I N G S P A C E 12 . 0 m X 3 . 5 m X 4 . 2 m 7.0 m c l e a r a n c e 10 . 5 5 m 6.50 m 2.65 m R9000 R 75 0 0 FI R E R O U T E LOBBY ENTRANCE (BUILDING A) RETAIL RETAIL 27 . 9 0 m R 2200R 5 5 0 0 R 3 800 R 400 0 R 7 5 0 0 R 1 0 0 0 R 6000 R 4 500R 6 0 0 0 6.50 m 3.80 m EXIT 4.95m N Drawing Title: Scale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: No : Issued For:Date: Drawing No.: No.: Revision:Date: PPlloott DDaattee::FFiillee PPaatthh:: Contractor Must Check And Verify All Dimensions On The Job. Do Not Scale The Drawings. All Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents Are The Copyright Of The Architect And Must Be Returned Upon Request. Reproduction Of Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents In Part Or Whole Is Forbidden Without The Architects Written Permission. This Drawing Is Not To Be Used For Construction Until Signed ByThe Architect. Date: Project: 1 : 350 22002200--0077--3300 11::0044::4499 PPMM CC::\\RReevviitt\\22001199\\1188004444PP1111--OOlldd LLiivveerrppooooll HHoouussee--MMaasstteerr__RRVVTT22001199__ccccoohheennWW99PPLLFF..rrvvtt 1294 Kingston Rd & 1848-1852 Liverpool Rd CC DB 18-044 July 22, 2020 Z1.3 OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE Site Plan Altona Group 01 Rezoning May 16, 2019 02 Rezoning Revision July 22, 2020 Z1.3SSccaallee:: 11 :: 335500 Site Plan 1 - 138 - 69ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 2 Z4.1 2 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.2 1 Z4.2 EL E V A T O R L O B B Y BU I L D I N G A VEST.LOCKERS MECH/SERVICE MECH/SERVICE LOCKERS LOCKERS EL E V A T O R L O B B Y BU I L D I N G B VEST. MECH/SERVICE 7.5%15% RA M P U P T O P 2 O U T LIN E O F O L D LI V E R P O O L H O U S E OU T L I N E O F B U I L D I N G B OU T L I N E O F B U I L D I N G A OUTLINEOF R OADABOVE LOCKERS FRESH AIR INTAKE MECH/SERVICE EXHAUST SHAFT 0.80 m 0.80m 0.85 m 2.60 m 3.90 m 0.80 m 0.60 m 1.00m 1.40 m LOCKERS0.85 m 1.05m 6.50 m 6.50m 6.50m 6.50 m 6.50 m 6.50 m 6.50 m 6.50 m 6.50m6.50 m 6.50m PODIUM ABOVE TOTAL LEVEL P3 PARKING = 180 SPACES 2 Z4.1 2 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.2 1 Z4.2 6.50 m 6.50m 6.50m 6.50 m 6.50 m 6.50 m 6.50 m EL E V A T O R L O B B Y BU I L D I N G A VEST.LOCKERS MECH/SERVICE MECH/SERVICE LOCKERS BICYCLE PARKING (95) EL E V A T O R L O B B Y BU I L D I N G B VEST. MECH/SERVICE 7.5% 15% RA M P D N T O P 3 1.75m 7.5%15% RA M P U P T O P 1 6.50 m 6.50m6.50 m O U T LIN E O F O L D LIV E R P O O L H O U S E OU T L I N E O F B U I L D I N G B OU T L I N E O F B U I L D I N G A OUTLINEOF R OADABOVE FRESH AIR INTAKE MECH/SERVICE EXHAUST SHAFT 0.80 m 0.80m 0.85 m 2.60 m 3.90 m 0.80 m 0.60 m 1.00m 1.40 m0.85 m 1.05m 6.50m PODIUM ABOVE TOTAL LEVEL P2 PARKING = 178 SPACES N Drawing Title: Scale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: No : Issued For:Date: Drawing No.: No.: Revision:Date: PPlloott DDaattee::FFiillee PPaatthh:: Contractor Must Check And Verify All Dimensions On The Job. Do Not Scale The Drawings. All Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents Are The Copyright Of The Architect And Must Be Returned Upon Request. Reproduction Of Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents In Part Or Whole Is Forbidden Without The Architects Written Permission. This Drawing Is Not To Be Used For Construction Until Signed ByThe Architect. Date: Project: 1 : 350 22002200--0077--3300 11::0044::5522 PPMM CC::\\RReevviitt\\22001199\\1188004444PP1111--OOlldd LLiivveerrppooooll HHoouussee--MMaasstteerr__RRVVTT22001199__ccccoohheennWW99PPLLFF..rrvvtt 1294 Kingston Rd & 1848-1852 Liverpool Rd CC DB 18-044 July 22, 2020 Z2.0 OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE Floor Plan - Level P2-P3 Altona Group 01 Rezoning May 16, 2019 Z2.0SSccaallee:: 11 :: 335500 Level P3 2 Z2.0SSccaallee:: 11 :: 335500 Level P2 1 02 Rezoning Revision July 22, 2020 - 139 - 70 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING 2 Z4.1 2 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.2 1 Z4.2 6.50m TOTAL LEVEL P1 PARKING = 168 SPACES 6.50m 6.50m 6.50 m 6.50 m 6.50 m 6.50 m EL E V A T O R L O B B Y BU I L D I N G A VEST.LOCKERS MECH/SERVICE MECH/SERVICE MECH/SERVICE LOCKERS BICYCLE PARKING (102)COMMERCIAL LOBBY EL E V A T O R L O B B Y BU I L D I N G B VEST. MECH/SERVICE 7.5% 15% RA M P D N T O P 2 1 5 % RAMPUPTOLEVEL1 1.75m 7.5% 6.50m6.50 m MECH/SERVICE O U T LIN E O F O L D LIV E R P O O L H O U S E OU T L I N E O F B U I L D I N G B OU T L I N E O F B U I L D I N G A OUTLINEOF R OADABOVE FRESH AIR INTAKE EXHAUST SHAFT 0.80 m 0.80m 0.85 m 2.60 m 3.90 m 0.80 m 0.60 m 1.00m 1.40 m0.85 m 1.05m 6.50m 260053 0 0 PODIUM ABOVE 5.30 m2.60 m 6.50 m GATE MECH/SERVICE VISITOR PARKING = 90 SPACESRESIDENT PARKING = 78 SPACES V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V VVVVV VV VV VV V V V V V VVV V V V V V V V V V V V V V STACKED BICYCLE PARKING 2.40 m5.30 m 2.40 m3.40 m 2.40 m VEST. N Drawing Title: Scale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: No : Issued For:Date: Drawing No.: No.: Revision:Date: PPlloott DDaattee::FFiillee PPaatthh:: Contractor Must Check And Verify All Dimensions On The Job. Do Not Scale The Drawings. All Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents Are The Copyright Of The Architect And Must Be Returned Upon Request. Reproduction Of Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents In Part Or Whole Is Forbidden Without The Architects Written Permission. This Drawing Is Not To Be Used For Construction Until Signed ByThe Architect. Date: Project: 1 : 350 22002200--0077--3300 11::0044::5555 PPMM CC::\\RReevviitt\\22001199\\1188004444PP1111--OOlldd LLiivveerrppooooll HHoouussee--MMaasstteerr__RRVVTT22001199__ccccoohheennWW99PPLLFF..rrvvtt 1294 Kingston Rd & 1848-1852 Liverpool Rd CC DB 18-044 July 22, 2020 Z2.1 OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE Floor Plan - Level P1 Altona Group TYPICAL BICYCLE PARKING SPACE: 1750 60 0 1800 Horizantal Parking Space 2000 50 0 1500 Vertical Parking Space TYPICAL PARKING SPACE: Drive Aisle @ 6.5m MIN. 1m Side Obstruction Clearance Marker S12 26 0 0 30 0 30 0 5300 SE E N O T E : A SE E N O T E : A 6500 1m Side Obstruction Clearance Marker S12 24 0 0 30 0 30 0 5300 SE E N O T E : A SE E N O T E : A 6500 Accessible Parking Space Type A 1m Side Obstruction Clearance Marker S12 34 0 0 30 0 15 0 0 5300 SE E N O T E : A SE E N O T E : B 6500 NOTES: A - PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL 300mm FOR PARKING SPACE WIDTH WHEN OBSTRUCTIONS OCCUR BETWEEN THE FRONT AND REAR 1000mm.B - PROVIDE A 1500mm WALKWAY ON AT LEAST ONE SIDE OF A HANDICAP PARKING STALL. THIS WALKWAY MAY BE SHARED WITH ADJOINING HANDICAP SPACE. Accessible Parking Space Type B 01 Rezoning May 16, 2019 02 Rezoning Revision July 22, 2020 Z2.1SSccaallee:: 11 :: 335500 Level P1 1 - 140 - 71ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 P R O P E R T Y LIN E PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE HYD HYD I N G S T O N RO A D P R O P E R T Y LIN E PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE HYD HYD I N G S T O N RO A D P R O P E R T Y LIN E PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE HYD HYD I N G S T O N RO A D 2 Z4.1 2 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.2 1 Z4.2 BICYCLE PARKING / SERVICES RETAIL GARBAGE MOVING COMMERCIAL GARABGE RESIDENTIAL LOBBY EGRESS BICYCLE PARKING RETAIL GARBAGE COMMERCIAL LOBBY MOVING COMMERCIAL GARABGE RESIDENTIAL LOBBY EG R E S S EGRESS EL E V A T O R LO B B Y LOADING LOBBY ENTRANCE (BUILDING B)EXTERIORLOADING (BUILDING B) LOBBY ENTRANCE (BUILDING A) STAGINGAREA 5.80 m INDOOR AMENITY AT G R A D E V I S I T O R P A R K I N G ( 1 0 ) 5.35 m AT G R A D E V I S I T O R P A R K I N G ( 1 8 ) 2.60 m EGRESS O.D. (L5.5 m X H4.4 m) EGRESS 7.5% 15% 1.75m 3.00 m 2.80 m9.35 m EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT U/G PARKING ENTRANCE LOADING (BUILDING A) OPEN TO ABOVE BICYCLE PARKING RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL F.H. SIAMESE CONNECTION 14.85m 12.95 m SIAMESE CONNECTION INTAKESHAFT 4.60m 4.30 m EXHAUST SHAFT 6.35 m LO A D I N G S P A C E 12 . 0 m X 3 . 5 m X 4 . 2 m LO A D I N G S P A C E 12 . 0 m X 3 . 5 m X 4 . 2 m 7.0 m c l e a r a n c e OUTDOOR AMENITY 6.50 m 10.55 m 6.50 m 10.55 m RETAIL 6.50 m AT GRADE VISITOR PARKING (3) R 7 5 0 0 R 9 0 0 0 2.55 m 4.90 m 6.50 m 5.80 m 17.40 m 3.00 m 2.50 m 32.70 m 22.35 m 18.55m PODIUM ABOVE COMPACTOR TRI-SORTER COMPACTORTRI-SORTER EGRESS EGRESS EGRESS RELOCATED 16.4 m SOUTH OF CURRENT LOCATION OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE 2 Z4.1 2 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.2 1 Z4.2 AMENITY UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNITUNITUNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNITUNITUNITUNIT UNIT UNIT LOCKERS OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE 22.20m 5.35 m 2.60 m 3.00 m 2.80 m 14.85m 10.55 m 5.35 m 2.60 m 3.00 m 2.80 m 14.85m 6.50m 2.55 m 5.80 m 17.40 m 3.00 m 2.50 m 18.55m 11.80 m 9.20 m 5.15 m 32.70 m 2.55 m PODIUM L INE ABOVE 4.90 m 2 Z4.1 2 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.2 1 Z4.2 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNITUNITUNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNITUNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT 2.80 m2.80 m 6.50m 2.55 m 5.80 m 17.40 m 4.90 m 18.55m 11.80 m 9.45 m 5.15 m 32.70 m 3.00 m 2.50 m N Drawing Title: Scale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: No : Issued For:Date: Drawing No.: No.: Revision:Date: PPlloott DDaattee::FFiillee PPaatthh:: Contractor Must Check And Verify All Dimensions On The Job. Do Not Scale The Drawings. All Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents Are The Copyright Of The Architect And Must Be Returned Upon Request. Reproduction Of Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents In Part Or Whole Is Forbidden Without The Architects Written Permission. This Drawing Is Not To Be Used For Construction Until Signed ByThe Architect. Date: Project: 1 : 350 22002200--0077--3300 11::0055::3399 PPMM CC::\\RReevviitt\\22001199\\1188004444PP1111--OOlldd LLiivveerrppooooll HHoouussee--MMaasstteerr__RRVVTT22001199__ccccoohheennWW99PPLLFF..rrvvtt 1294 Kingston Rd & 1848-1852 Liverpool Rd CC DB 18-044 July 22, 2020 Z2.2 OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE Floor Plan - Levels 1 - 3 Altona Group 01 Rezoning May 16, 2019 02 Rezoning Revision July 22, 2020 Z2.2SSccaallee:: 11 :: 335500 Ground floor Plan 1 Z2.2SSccaallee:: 11 :: 335500 Level 2 2 Z2.2SSccaallee:: 11 :: 335500 Level 3 3 - 141 - 72 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING P R O P E R T Y LIN E PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTYLINE HYD HYD I N G S T O N ROA D P R O P E R T Y LIN E PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTYLINE HYD HYD I N G S T O N RO A D P R O P E R T Y LIN E PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTYLINE HYD HYD I N G S T O N ROA D 2 Z4.1 2 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.2 1 Z4.2 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNITUNITUNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNITUNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT ROOF @ LEVEL 4 (10.85m A.F.F.) 6.60 m12.35 m 9.45 m 17.70 m 6. 7 0 m 3.05 m 5.65 m 21 . 9 5 m 3.10 m 2 Z4.1 2 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.2 1 Z4.2 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNITUNITUNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT ROOF @ LEVEL 7 (20.00m A.F.F.) ROOF @ LEVEL 4 (10.85m A.F.F.) RO O F @ L E V E L 7 (2 0 . 0 0 m A . F . F . ) INDOOR AMENITY OUTDOOR AMENITY 5.25 m 9. 6 0 m 4.55 m 21.75 m 6.60 m 26 . 0 0 m 12.90 m 35.05 m 2.00 m 7.40 m 2 Z4.1 2 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.2 1 Z4.2 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNITUNITUNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT ROOF @ LEVEL 7 (20.00m A.F.F.) UNIT UNITUNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT ROOF @ LEVEL 4 (10.85m A.F.F.) RO O F @ L E V E L 7 (2 0 . 0 0 m A . F . F . ) 9. 6 0 m 4.55 m 21.75 m 6.60 m 7.35 m 12.90 m 35.05 m 2.00 m 26 . 1 5 m 7.20 m UNIT N Drawing Title: Scale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: No : Issued For:Date: Drawing No.: No.: Revision:Date: PPlloott DDaattee::FFiillee PPaatthh:: Contractor Must Check And Verify All Dimensions On The Job. Do Not Scale The Drawings. All Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents Are The Copyright Of The Architect And Must Be Returned Upon Request. Reproduction Of Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents In Part Or Whole Is Forbidden Without The Architects Written Permission. This Drawing Is Not To Be Used For Construction Until Signed ByThe Architect. Date: Project: 1 : 350 22002200--0077--3300 22::3399::2200 PPMM CC::\\RReevviitt\\22001199\\1188004444PP1111--OOlldd LLiivveerrppooooll HHoouussee--MMaasstteerr__RRVVTT22001199__ccccoohheennWW99PPLLFF..rrvvtt 1294 Kingston Rd & 1848-1852 Liverpool Rd CC DB 18-044 July 22, 2020 Z2.3 OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE Floor Plans - Levels 4 - 9 Altona Group 01 Rezoning May 16, 2019 02 Rezoning Revision July 22, 2020 Z2.3SSccaallee:: 11 :: 335500 Levels 4 - 6 1 NNTTSS Z2.3 Level 7 2 Z2.3SSccaallee:: 11 :: 335500 Levels 8 - 9 3 - 142 - 73ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 P R O P E R T Y LIN E PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE HYD HYD I N G S T O N ROA D P R O P E R T Y LIN E PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE HYD HYD I N G S T O N RO A D P R O P E R T Y LIN E PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE HYD HYD I N G S T O N ROA D 2 Z4.1 2 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.2 1 Z4.2 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNITUNITUNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT ROOF @ LEVEL 7 (20.00m A.F.F.) ROOF @ LEVEL 10(29.65m A.F.F.) UNIT UNITUNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT ROOF @ LEVEL 4 (10.85m A.F.F.) RO O F @ L E V E L 7 (2 0 . 0 0 m A . F . F . ) 4.55 m 12.90 m 35.05 m 7.20 m 22.70 m 7.40 m 26.15 m UNIT 2 Z4.1 2 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.2 1 Z4.2 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNITUNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT ROOF @ LEVEL 7 (20.00m A.F.F.) ROOF @ LEVEL 10(29.65m A.F.F.) ROOF @ LEVEL 12 (35.55m A.F.F.) UNIT UNITUNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT 5.35 m 5.35 m 6.75 m 39.50 m 22.70 m 28.15 m 9.70 m ROOF @ LEVEL 4 (10.85m A.F.F.) RO O F @ L E V E L 7 (2 0 . 0 0 m A . F . F . ) 7.20 m12.90 m UNIT 2 Z4.1 2 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.2 1 Z4.2 ROOF @ LEVEL 7 (20.00m A.F.F.) ROOF @ LEVEL 10(29.65m A.F.F.) ROOF @ LEVEL 12 (35.55m A.F.F.) UNIT UNITUNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT ROOF @ LEVEL 4 (10.85m A.F.F.) RO O F @ L E V E L 7 (2 0 . 0 0 m A . F . F . ) 7.60 m 12.90 m 45.35 m 27.90m 7.20 m UNIT N Drawing Title: Scale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: No : Issued For:Date: Drawing No.: No.: Revision:Date: PPlloott DDaattee::FFiillee PPaatthh:: Contractor Must Check And Verify All Dimensions On The Job. Do Not Scale The Drawings. All Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents Are The Copyright Of The Architect And Must Be Returned Upon Request. Reproduction Of Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents In Part Or Whole Is Forbidden Without The Architects Written Permission. This Drawing Is Not To Be Used For Construction Until Signed ByThe Architect. Date: Project: 1 : 350 22002200--0077--3300 11::0066::4444 PPMM CC::\\RReevviitt\\22001199\\1188004444PP1111--OOlldd LLiivveerrppooooll HHoouussee--MMaasstteerr__RRVVTT22001199__ccccoohheennWW99PPLLFF..rrvvtt 1294 Kingston Rd & 1848-1852 Liverpool Rd CC DB 18-044 July 22, 2020 Z2.4 OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE Floor Plan - Level 10 - 24 Altona Group 01 Rezoning May 16, 2019 02 Rezoning Revision July 22, 2020 Z2.4SSccaallee:: 11 :: 335500 Levels 10 -11 1 Z2.4SSccaallee:: 11 :: 335500 Levels 12 -13 2 Z2.4SSccaallee:: 11 :: 335500 Building A - MECH. P.H. & Building B - Levels 14 - 24 3 - 143 - 74 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING P R O P E R T Y LIN E PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE HYD HYD I N G S T O N ROA D P R O P E R T Y LIN E PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE HYD HYD I N G S T O N ROA D P R O P E R T Y LIN E PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE HYD HYD I N G S T O N RO A D 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.2 1 Z4.2 ROOF @ LEVEL 7 (20.00m A.F.F.) ROOF @ LEVEL 10(29.65m A.F.F.) ROOF TOP (42.65m A.F.F.) BUILDING A13 STOREY TOP OF MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE (47.65m A.F.F.) ROOF @ LEVEL 12 (35.55m A.F.F.) UNITUNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT ROOF @ LEVEL 4 (10.85m A.F.F.) RO O F @ L E V E L 7 (2 0 . 0 0 m A . F . F . ) 28.75m 8.35 m12.90 m 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.2 1 Z4.2 ROOF @ LEVEL 7 (20.00m A.F.F.) ROOF @ LEVEL 10(29.65m A.F.F.) ROOF TOP (42.65m A.F.F.) BUILDING A13 STOREY TOP OF MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE (47.65m A.F.F.) ROOF @ LEVEL 12 (35.55m A.F.F.) 6.70 m 17.70 m 4.90 m 70.30m 4.45 m 18.65 m 2.00 m 70.30m 4.05 m2.45 m 4.15 m 17.50 m 2.00 m 2.55 m ROOF TOP (79.40m A.F.F.) ROOF @ LEVEL 4 (10.85m A.F.F.) ROOF @ LEVEL 7 (20.00m A.F.F.) OU T D O O R A M E N I T Y @ L E V E L 7 (2 0 . 0 0 m A . F . F . ) 9.40 m 3.20 m 5.55 m 3.35 m 18.65m 26.15m MECH. P.H. 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.2 1 Z4.2 ROOF @ LEVEL 7 (20.00m A.F.F.) ROOF @ LEVEL 10(29.65m A.F.F.) ROOF TOP (42.65m A.F.F.) BUILDING A13 STOREY TOP OF MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE (47.65m A.F.F.) ROOF @ LEVEL 12 (35.55m A.F.F.) 12.90 m BUILDING B25 STOREY ROOF TOP (79.40m A.F.F.) ROOF @ LEVEL 4 (10.85m A.F.F.) ROOF @ LEVEL 7 (20.00m A.F.F.) TOP OF MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE(84.40m A.F.F.)OU T D O O R A M E N I T Y @ L E V E L 7 (2 0 . 0 0 m A . F . F . ) 9.40 m 3.20 m 1.70 m 1.50m 19.40m 12.35m 1.00m 1.50m 3.00m 3.60 m 24.65 m 2.00 m 2.65 m 0.95 m 0.60 m 1.40 m 5.55 m 3.35 m N Drawing Title: Scale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: No : Issued For:Date: Drawing No.: No.: Revision:Date: PPlloott DDaattee::FFiillee PPaatthh:: Contractor Must Check And Verify All Dimensions On The Job. Do Not Scale The Drawings. All Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents Are The Copyright Of The Architect And Must Be Returned Upon Request. Reproduction Of Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents In Part Or Whole Is Forbidden Without The Architects Written Permission. This Drawing Is Not To Be Used For Construction Until Signed ByThe Architect. Date: Project: 1 : 350 22002200--0077--3300 11::0077::3300 PPMM CC::\\RReevviitt\\22001199\\1188004444PP1111--OOlldd LLiivveerrppooooll HHoouussee--MMaasstteerr__RRVVTT22001199__ccccoohheennWW99PPLLFF..rrvvtt 1294 Kingston Rd & 1848-1852 Liverpool Rd CC DB 18-044 July 22, 2020 Z2.5 OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE Floor Plan - Level 25, Mech. Penthouse & Roof Plan Altona Group Z2.5SSccaallee:: 11 :: 335500 Building A - T/O MECH. P.H. & Building B - Level 25 1 Z2.5SSccaallee:: 11 :: 335500 Building B - MECH. P.H.2 Z2.5SSccaallee:: 11 :: 335500 Building B - T/O MECH. P.H.3 - 144 - 75ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 Building A-LEVEL 1 0.000.00 Building B - LEVEL 24.504.50 Building A-LEVEL 8 23.7523.75 Building A-LEVEL 13 38.8038.80 Building B - LEVEL 37.607.60 Building B - LEVEL 927.7527.75 Building B - LEVEL 1030.7030.70 Building B - Mech. P.H.79.4079.40 Building B - ROOF84.4084.40 Building A-LEVEL 3 7.757.75 Building A-LEVEL 5 13.6513.65 Building A-LEVEL 7 20.0020.00 BUILDING A-MPH 42.6542.65 Building B - LEVEL 2575.5575.55 Building B - LEVEL 410.8510.85 Building A-LEVEL 4 10.7010.70 Building B - LEVEL 513.8013.80 Building B - LEVEL 616.7516.75 Building A-LEVEL 6 16.6016.60 Building B - LEVEL 720.0020.00 Building B - LEVEL 824.5024.50 Building A-LEVEL 10 29.6529.65 Building A-LEVEL 11 32.6032.60 Building B - LEVEL 1133.6533.65 Building A-LEVEL 12 35.5535.55 Building B - LEVEL 1236.6036.60 Building B - LEVEL 1339.5539.55 Building B - LEVEL 1442.5042.50 Building B - LEVEL 1545.4545.45 Building B - LEVEL 1648.4048.40 Building B - LEVEL 1751.6551.65 Building B - LEVEL 1854.6054.60 Building B - LEVEL 1957.5557.55 Building B - LEVEL 2060.5060.50 Building B - LEVEL 2163.4563.45 Building B - LEVEL 2266.4066.40 Building B - LEVEL 2369.3569.35 Building B - LEVEL 2472.3072.30 Building B-LEVEL 10.000.00 Building A-LEVEL 2 4.504.50 Building A-LEVEL 9 26.7026.70 5.00 m 79.40m Building A-T.O.MPH 47.6547.65 5.00m 42.65m 20.00m 20.00m 18.55 m 21.95 m 25.10 m 27.90 m Z3 . 11 BLDG.B BLDG. A Drawing Title: Scale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: No : Issued For:Date: Drawing No.: No.: Revision:Date: PPlloott DDaattee::FFiillee PPaatthh:: Contractor Must Check And Verify All Dimensions On The Job. Do Not Scale The Drawings. All Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents Are The Copyright Of The Architect And Must Be Returned Upon Request. Reproduction Of Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents In Part Or Whole Is Forbidden Without The Architects Written Permission. This Drawing Is Not To Be Used For Construction Until Signed ByThe Architect. Date: Project: As indicated 22002200--0077--3300 11::0099::0055 PPMM CC::\\RReevviitt\\22001199\\1188004444PP1111--OOlldd LLiivveerrppooooll HHoouussee--MMaasstteerr__RRVVTT22001199__ccccoohheennWW99PPLLFF..rrvvtt 1294 Kingston Rd & 1848-1852 Liverpool Rd CC DB 18-044 July 22, 2020 Z3.1 OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE East Elevation Altona Group Z3.1SSccaallee:: 11 :: 225500 East Elevation 1 NNTTSS Z3.1 Key Plan - East Elevation 2 01 Rezoning May 16, 2019 02 Rezoning Revision July 22, 2020 - 145 - 76 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING Building B - LEVEL 2 4.504.50 Building A-LEVEL 823.7523.75 Building A-LEVEL 1338.8038.80 Building B - LEVEL 3 7.607.60 Building B - LEVEL 9 27.7527.75 Building B - LEVEL 10 30.7030.70 Building B - Mech. P.H.79.4079.40 Building B - ROOF 84.4084.40 Building A-LEVEL 37.757.75 Building A-LEVEL 513.6513.65 Building A-LEVEL 720.0020.00 BUILDING A-MPH42.6542.65 Building B - LEVEL 25 75.5575.55 Building B - LEVEL 4 10.8510.85Building A-LEVEL 410.7010.70 Building B - LEVEL 5 13.8013.80 Building B - LEVEL 6 16.7516.75Building A-LEVEL 616.6016.60 Building B - LEVEL 7 20.0020.00 Building B - LEVEL 8 24.5024.50 Building A-LEVEL 1029.6529.65 Building A-LEVEL 1132.6032.60 Building B - LEVEL 11 33.6533.65 Building A-LEVEL 1235.5535.55 Building B - LEVEL 12 36.6036.60 Building B - LEVEL 13 39.5539.55 Building B - LEVEL 14 42.5042.50 Building B - LEVEL 15 45.4545.45 Building B - LEVEL 16 48.4048.40 Building B - LEVEL 17 51.6551.65 Building B - LEVEL 18 54.6054.60 Building B - LEVEL 19 57.5557.55 Building B - LEVEL 20 60.5060.50 Building B - LEVEL 21 63.4563.45 Building B - LEVEL 22 66.4066.40 Building B - LEVEL 23 69.3569.35 Building B - LEVEL 24 72.3072.30 Building B-LEVEL 1 0.000.00 Building A-LEVEL 24.504.50 Building A-LEVEL 926.7026.70 Building A-T.O.MPH47.6547.65 5.00 m 42.65m 5.00 m 79.40 m 20.00m 20.00m 0.90 m 25.10 m 27.90 m Z3 . 2 1 BLDG.B BLDG. A Drawing Title: Scale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: No : Issued For:Date: Drawing No.: No.: Revision:Date: PPlloott DDaattee::FFiillee PPaatthh:: Contractor Must Check And Verify All Dimensions On The Job. Do Not Scale The Drawings. All Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents Are The Copyright Of The Architect And Must Be Returned Upon Request. Reproduction Of Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents In Part Or Whole Is Forbidden Without The Architects Written Permission. This Drawing Is Not To Be Used For Construction Until Signed ByThe Architect. Date: Project: As indicated 22002200--0077--3300 11::1100::1177 PPMM CC::\\RReevviitt\\22001199\\1188004444PP1111--OOlldd LLiivveerrppooooll HHoouussee--MMaasstteerr__RRVVTT22001199__ccccoohheennWW99PPLLFF..rrvvtt 1294 Kingston Rd & 1848-1852 Liverpool Rd CC DB 18-044 July 22, 2020 Z3.2 OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE West Elevation Altona Group Z3.2SSccaallee:: 11 :: 225500 West Elevation 1 NNTTSS Z3.2 Key Plan - West Elevation 2 01 Rezoning May 16, 2019 02 Rezoning Revision July 22, 2020 - 146 - 77ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 Building A-LEVEL 1 0.000.00 Building A-LEVEL 8 23.7523.75 Building A-LEVEL 13 38.8038.80 Building A-LEVEL 3 7.757.75 Building A-LEVEL 5 13.6513.65 Building A-LEVEL 7 20.0020.00 BUILDING A-MPH 42.6542.65 Building A-LEVEL 4 10.7010.70 Building A-LEVEL 6 16.6016.60 Building A-LEVEL 10 29.6529.65 Building A-LEVEL 11 32.6032.60 Building A-LEVEL 12 35.5535.55 Building A-LEVEL 2 4.504.50 Building A-LEVEL 9 26.7026.70 Building A-T.O.MPH 47.6547.65 42.65 m 5.00 m Building B - LEVEL 2 4.504.50 Building B - LEVEL 3 7.607.60 Building B - LEVEL 9 27.7527.75 Building B - LEVEL 10 30.7030.70 Building B - Mech. P.H.79.4079.40 Building B - ROOF 84.4084.40 Building B - LEVEL 25 75.5575.55 Building B - LEVEL 4 10.8510.85 Building B - LEVEL 5 13.8013.80 Building B - LEVEL 6 16.7516.75 Building B - LEVEL 7 20.0020.00 Building B - LEVEL 8 24.5024.50 Building B - LEVEL 11 33.6533.65 Building B - LEVEL 12 36.6036.60 Building B - LEVEL 13 39.5539.55 Building B - LEVEL 14 42.5042.50 Building B - LEVEL 15 45.4545.45 Building B - LEVEL 16 48.4048.40 Building B - LEVEL 17 51.6551.65 Building B - LEVEL 18 54.6054.60 Building B - LEVEL 19 57.5557.55 Building B - LEVEL 20 60.5060.50 Building B - LEVEL 21 63.4563.45 Building B - LEVEL 22 66.4066.40 Building B - LEVEL 23 69.3569.35 Building B - LEVEL 24 72.3072.30 Building B-LEVEL 1 0.000.00 79.40 m 5.00m Z3.3 1 Z3.3 2 BLDG.B BLDG. A Drawing Title: Scale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: No : Issued For:Date: Drawing No.: No.: Revision:Date: PPlloott DDaattee::FFiillee PPaatthh:: Contractor Must Check And Verify All Dimensions On The Job. Do Not Scale The Drawings. All Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents Are The Copyright Of The Architect And Must Be Returned Upon Request. Reproduction Of Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents In Part Or Whole Is Forbidden Without The Architects Written Permission. This Drawing Is Not To Be Used For Construction Until Signed ByThe Architect. Date: Project: As indicated 22002200--0077--3300 11::1111::3355 PPMM CC::\\RReevviitt\\22001199\\1188004444PP1111--OOlldd LLiivveerrppooooll HHoouussee--MMaasstteerr__RRVVTT22001199__ccccoohheennWW99PPLLFF..rrvvtt 1294 Kingston Rd & 1848-1852 Liverpool Rd CC DB 18-044 July 22, 2020 Z3.3 OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE North Elevation Altona Group Z3.3SSccaallee:: 11 :: 225500 North Elevation - Building A 2 Z3.3SSccaallee:: 11 :: 225500 North Elevation - Building B 1 NNTTSS Z3.3 Key Plan - North Elevation 3 01 Rezoning May 16, 2019 02 Rezoning Revision July 22, 2020 - 147 - 78 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING Z3.4 1 Z3.4 2 BLDG.B BLDG. A Building A-LEVEL 1 0.000.00 Building A-LEVEL 8 23.7523.75 Building A-LEVEL 13 38.8038.80 Building A-LEVEL 3 7.757.75 Building A-LEVEL 5 13.6513.65 Building A-LEVEL 7 20.0020.00 BUILDING A-MPH 42.6542.65 Building A-LEVEL 4 10.7010.70 Building A-LEVEL 6 16.6016.60 Building A-LEVEL 10 29.6529.65 Building A-LEVEL 11 32.6032.60 Building A-LEVEL 12 35.5535.55 Building A-LEVEL 2 4.504.50 Building A-LEVEL 9 26.7026.70 Building A-T.O.MPH 47.6547.65 5.00m 42.65 m PR O P E R T Y L I N E 7.50 m 10.50m 45.00° Building B - LEVEL 2 4.504.50 Building B - LEVEL 3 7.607.60 Building B - LEVEL 9 27.7527.75 Building B - LEVEL 10 30.7030.70 Building B - Mech. P.H.79.4079.40 Building B - ROOF 84.4084.40 Building B - LEVEL 25 75.5575.55 Building B - LEVEL 4 10.8510.85 Building B - LEVEL 5 13.8013.80 Building B - LEVEL 6 16.7516.75 Building B - LEVEL 7 20.0020.00 Building B - LEVEL 8 24.5024.50 Building B - LEVEL 11 33.6533.65 Building B - LEVEL 12 36.6036.60 Building B - LEVEL 13 39.5539.55 Building B - LEVEL 14 42.5042.50 Building B - LEVEL 15 45.4545.45 Building B - LEVEL 16 48.4048.40 Building B - LEVEL 17 51.6551.65 Building B - LEVEL 18 54.6054.60 Building B - LEVEL 19 57.5557.55 Building B - LEVEL 20 60.5060.50 Building B - LEVEL 21 63.4563.45 Building B - LEVEL 22 66.4066.40 Building B - LEVEL 23 69.3569.35 Building B - LEVEL 24 72.3072.30 Building B-LEVEL 1 0.000.00 5.00m 79.40 m Drawing Title: Scale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: No : Issued For:Date: Drawing No.: No.: Revision:Date: PPlloott DDaattee::FFiillee PPaatthh:: Contractor Must Check And Verify All Dimensions On The Job. Do Not Scale The Drawings. All Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents Are The Copyright Of The Architect And Must Be Returned Upon Request. Reproduction Of Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents In Part Or Whole Is Forbidden Without The Architects Written Permission. This Drawing Is Not To Be Used For Construction Until Signed ByThe Architect. Date: Project: As indicated 22002200--0077--3300 11::1122::2233 PPMM CC::\\RReevviitt\\22001199\\1188004444PP1111--OOlldd LLiivveerrppooooll HHoouussee--MMaasstteerr__RRVVTT22001199__ccccoohheennWW99PPLLFF..rrvvtt 1294 Kingston Rd & 1848-1852 Liverpool Rd CC DB 18-044 July 22, 2020 Z3.4 OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE South Elevation Altona Group NNTTSS Z3.4 Key Plan - South Elevation 3 Z3.4SSccaallee:: 11 :: 225500 South Elevation - Building A 2 Z3.4SSccaallee:: 11 :: 225500 South Elevation - Building B 1 01 Rezoning May 16, 2019 02 Rezoning Revision July 22, 2020 - 148 - 79ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 Building A-LEVEL 1 0.000.00 LEVEL P1 -3.60-3.60 LEVEL P2 -6.40-6.40 LEVEL P3 -9.20-9.20 Building A-LEVEL 8 23.7523.75 Building A-LEVEL 13 38.8038.80 Building A-LEVEL 3 7.757.75 Building A-LEVEL 5 13.6513.65 Building A-LEVEL 7 20.0020.00 BUILDING A-MPH 42.6542.65 Building A-LEVEL 4 10.7010.70 Building A-LEVEL 6 16.6016.60 Building A-LEVEL 10 29.6529.65 Building A-LEVEL 11 32.6032.60 Building A-LEVEL 12 35.5535.55 Building A-LEVEL 2 4.504.50 Building A-LEVEL 9 26.7026.70 UNIT UNIT RETAIL UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT GARBAGE UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT LOADING UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MECHANICAL/PENTHOUSE PARKING Building A-T.O.MPH 47.6547.65 UNITUNIT PARKING PARKINGPARKING PARKINGPARKING ELE. LOBBY ELE. LOBBY ELE. LOBBY ELE. LOBBY 7.55 m ELE. SHAFT CH U T E 5.00 m 42.65m 3.60m 2.80 m 2.80 m 20.00m B.B. B. 7.50 m 10.50 m 45.00° PR O P E R T Y L I N E Building B - LEVEL 2 4.504.50 LEVEL P1 -3.60-3.60 LEVEL P2 -6.40-6.40 LEVEL P3 -9.20-9.20 GARBAGEEXTERIOR LOADING UNITUNIT Building B - LEVEL 3 7.607.60 Building B - LEVEL 9 27.7527.75 Building B - LEVEL 10 30.7030.70 Building B - Mech. P.H.79.4079.40 Building B - ROOF 84.4084.40 Building B - LEVEL 25 75.5575.55 Building B - LEVEL 4 10.8510.85 Building B - LEVEL 5 13.8013.80 Building B - LEVEL 6 16.7516.75 Building B - LEVEL 7 20.0020.00 Building B - LEVEL 8 24.5024.50 Building B - LEVEL 11 33.6533.65 Building B - LEVEL 12 36.6036.60 Building B - LEVEL 13 39.5539.55 Building B - LEVEL 14 42.5042.50 Building B - LEVEL 15 45.4545.45 Building B - LEVEL 16 48.4048.40 Building B - LEVEL 17 51.6551.65 Building B - LEVEL 18 54.6054.60 Building B - LEVEL 19 57.5557.55 Building B - LEVEL 20 60.5060.50 Building B - LEVEL 21 63.4563.45 Building B - LEVEL 22 66.4066.40 Building B - LEVEL 23 69.3569.35 Building B - LEVEL 24 72.3072.30 Building B-LEVEL 1 0.000.00 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT OUTDOOR AMENITY LOCKERS INDOOR AMENITY UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT RETAIL PARKING PARKING PARKING MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE INDOOR AMENITY LOCKERS UNIT UNITUNIT UNITUNIT LOCKERS LOCKERS ELE. LOBBY ELE. LOBBY ELE. LOBBY ELE. SHAFTSTAIRS ELE. LOBBY PARKING PARKING PARKING B.B. B.B. B.B. B.B. B.B. B.B. B.B. B.B. B.B. 5.00 m 79.40m 3.60m 2.80 m 2.80 m 20.00m _3.00 m B. B. B. 2 Z4.1 2 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 1 Z4.1 BLDG.B BLDG. A Drawing Title: Scale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: No : Issued For:Date: Drawing No.: No.: Revision:Date: PPlloott DDaattee::FFiillee PPaatthh:: Contractor Must Check And Verify All Dimensions On The Job. Do Not Scale The Drawings. All Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents Are The Copyright Of The Architect And Must Be Returned Upon Request. Reproduction Of Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents In Part Or Whole Is Forbidden Without The Architects Written Permission. This Drawing Is Not To Be Used For Construction Until Signed ByThe Architect. Date: Project: As indicated 22002200--0077--3300 11::1122::4411 PPMM CC::\\RReevviitt\\22001199\\1188004444PP1111--OOlldd LLiivveerrppooooll HHoouussee--MMaasstteerr__RRVVTT22001199__ccccoohheennWW99PPLLFF..rrvvtt 1294 Kingston Rd & 1848-1852 Liverpool Rd CC DB 18-044 July 22, 2020 Z4.1 OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE Section - East/West Altona Group Z4.1SSccaallee:: 11 :: 225500 Section East/West (Building A)2 Z4.1SSccaallee:: 11 :: 225500 Section East/West (Building B)1 01 Rezoning May 16, 2019 02 Rezoning Revision July 22, 2020 NNTTSS Z4.1 Key Plan - East/West Sections 3 - 149 - 80 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING Building A-LEVEL 10.000.00 Building B - LEVEL 2 4.504.50 LEVEL P1-3.60-3.60 LEVEL P1 -3.60-3.60 LEVEL P2-6.40-6.40 LEVEL P2 -6.40-6.40 LEVEL P3-9.20-9.20 LEVEL P3 -9.20-9.20 Building A-LEVEL 823.7523.75 Building A-LEVEL 1338.8038.80 Building B - LEVEL 3 7.607.60 Building B - LEVEL 9 27.7527.75 Building B - LEVEL 10 30.7030.70 Building B - Mech. P.H.79.4079.40 Building B - ROOF 84.4084.40 Building A-LEVEL 37.757.75 Building A-LEVEL 513.6513.65 Building A-LEVEL 720.0020.00 BUILDING A-MPH42.6542.65 Building B - LEVEL 25 75.5575.55 Building B - LEVEL 4 10.8510.85Building A-LEVEL 410.7010.70 Building B - LEVEL 5 13.8013.80 Building B - LEVEL 6 16.7516.75Building A-LEVEL 616.6016.60 Building B - LEVEL 7 20.0020.00 Building B - LEVEL 8 24.5024.50 Building A-LEVEL 1029.6529.65 Building A-LEVEL 1132.6032.60 Building B - LEVEL 11 33.6533.65 Building A-LEVEL 1235.5535.55 Building B - LEVEL 12 36.6036.60 Building B - LEVEL 13 39.5539.55 Building B - LEVEL 14 42.5042.50 Building B - LEVEL 15 45.4545.45 Building B - LEVEL 16 48.4048.40 Building B - LEVEL 17 51.6551.65 Building B - LEVEL 18 54.6054.60 Building B - LEVEL 19 57.5557.55 Building B - LEVEL 20 60.5060.50 Building B - LEVEL 21 63.4563.45 Building B - LEVEL 22 66.4066.40 Building B - LEVEL 23 69.3569.35 Building B - LEVEL 24 72.3072.30 Building B-LEVEL 1 0.000.00 Building A-LEVEL 24.504.50 Building A-LEVEL 926.7026.70 RETAILGARBAGELOBBY UNITUNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MECHANICAL/PENTHOUSE INDOOR AMENITY OUTDOORAMENITY PARKING UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT DRIVEWAY GARBAGE UNDERGAROUND PARKING RAMP UNIT UNITUNITUNITUNITUNIT MOVING BICYCLE PARKINGINDOOR AMENITY Building A-T.O.MPH47.6547.65 INDOOR AMENITY UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. LOCKERS BICYCLE PARKING BICYCLE PARKINGPARKING DRIVEWAY PARKING DRIVEWAY PARKING DRIVEWAY ELE. LOBBY ELE. LOBBY ELE. LOBBYLOCKERS LOCKERS LOCKERSMECH/SERVICE PARKING PARKING RAMP RAMP LOCKERS LOCKERS LOCKERS PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING 5.00 m 74.90m 4.50m 3.60m 2.80 m 2.80 m 5.00m 42.65m 18.55 m 26.15 m 20.00m 20.00m INDOOR AMENITY LOADING CO M M . GA R B A G E UNIT UNITUNITUNITUNITUNIT UNIT UNITUNITUNITUNITUNIT UNIT UNIT UNITUNITUNITUNITUNIT UNIT UNIT UNITUNITUNITUNITUNIT UNIT UNIT UNITUNITUNITUNITUNIT UNIT UNIT UNITUNITUNITUNITUNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT EXIT STAIRS EXIT STAIRSUNIT UNIT OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE B. 1 Z4.2 1 Z4.2 BLDG.B BLDG. A Drawing Title: Scale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: No : Issued For:Date: Drawing No.: No.: Revision:Date: PPlloott DDaattee::FFiillee PPaatthh:: Contractor Must Check And Verify All Dimensions On The Job. Do Not Scale The Drawings. All Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents Are The Copyright Of The Architect And Must Be Returned Upon Request. Reproduction Of Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents In Part Or Whole Is Forbidden Without The Architects Written Permission. This Drawing Is Not To Be Used For Construction Until Signed ByThe Architect. Date: Project: As indicated 22002200--0077--3300 11::1133::0000 PPMM CC::\\RReevviitt\\22001199\\1188004444PP1111--OOlldd LLiivveerrppooooll HHoouussee--MMaasstteerr__RRVVTT22001199__ccccoohheennWW99PPLLFF..rrvvtt 1294 Kingston Rd & 1848-1852 Liverpool Rd CC DB 18-044 July 22, 2020 Z4.2 OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE Section - North/South Altona Group Z4.2SSccaallee:: 11 :: 225500 Section North/South 1 01 Rezoning May 16, 2019 02 Rezoning Revision July 22, 2020 NNTTSS Z4.2 Key Plan - North/South Section 2 - 150 - 81ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 0 10 20 50 100 150 PROPOSED SHADOW AS-OF-RIGHT SHADOW N Drawing Title: Scale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: No : Issued For:Date: Drawing No.: No.: Revision:Date: PPlloott DDaattee::FFiillee PPaatthh:: Contractor Must Check And Verify All Dimensions On The Job. Do Not Scale The Drawings. All Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents Are The Copyright Of The Architect And Must Be Returned Upon Request. Reproduction Of Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents In Part Or Whole Is Forbidden Without The Architects Written Permission. This Drawing Is Not To Be Used For Construction Until Signed ByThe Architect. Date: Project: As indicated 22002200--0077--3300 11::1144::3366 PPMM CC::\\RReevviitt\\22001199\\1188004444PP1111--OOlldd LLiivveerrppooooll HHoouussee--MMaasstteerr__RRVVTT22001199__ccccoohheennWW99PPLLFF..rrvvtt 1294 Kingston Rd & 1848-1852 Liverpool Rd CC DB 18-044 July 22, 2020 Z5.1 OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE Sun/Shadow Diagram June Altona Group 1June 21 @ 09:18 Z5.1 2June 21 @ 10:18 Z5.1 3June 21 @ 11:18 Z5.1 4June 21 @ 12:18 Z5.1 5June 21 @ 13:18 Z5.1 6June 21 @ 14:18 Z5.1 7June 21 @ 15:18 Z5.1 8June 21 @ 17:18 Z5.1 9June 21 @ 19:18 Z5.1 As indicated 01 Rezoning May 16, 2019 02 Rezoning Revision July 22, 2020 - 151 - 82 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING 0 10 20 50 100 150 PROPOSED SHADOW AS-OF-RIGHT SHADOW N Drawing Title: Scale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: No : Issued For:Date: Drawing No.: No.: Revision:Date: PPlloott DDaattee::FFiillee PPaatthh:: Contractor Must Check And Verify All Dimensions On The Job. Do Not Scale The Drawings. All Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents Are The Copyright Of The Architect And Must Be Returned Upon Request. Reproduction Of Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents In Part Or Whole Is Forbidden Without The Architects Written Permission. This Drawing Is Not To Be Used For Construction Until Signed ByThe Architect. Date: Project: As indicated 22002200--0077--3300 11::1166::3300 PPMM CC::\\RReevviitt\\22001199\\1188004444PP1111--OOlldd LLiivveerrppooooll HHoouussee--MMaasstteerr__RRVVTT22001199__ccccoohheennWW99PPLLFF..rrvvtt 1294 Kingston Rd & 1848-1852 Liverpool Rd CC DB 18-044 July 22, 2020 Z5.2 OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE Sun/Shadow Diagram March/September Altona Group 2March/September 21 @ 10:18 Z5.2 1March/September 21 @ 09:18 Z5.2 3March/September 21 @ 11:18 Z5.2 4March/September 21 @ 12:18 Z5.2 5March/September 21 @ 13:18 Z5.2 6March/September 21 @ 14:18 Z5.2 7March/September 21 @ 15:18 Z5.2 8March/September 21 @ 17:18 Z5.2 9March/September 21 @ 19:18 Z5.2 As indicated 01 Rezoning May 16, 2019 02 Rezoning Revision July 22, 2020 - 152 - 83ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 0 10 20 50 100 150 PROPOSED SHADOW AS-OF-RIGHT SHADOW N Drawing Title: Scale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: No : Issued For:Date: Drawing No.: No.: Revision:Date: PPlloott DDaattee::FFiillee PPaatthh:: Contractor Must Check And Verify All Dimensions On The Job. Do Not Scale The Drawings. All Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents Are The Copyright Of The Architect And Must Be Returned Upon Request. Reproduction Of Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents In Part Or Whole Is Forbidden Without The Architects Written Permission. This Drawing Is Not To Be Used For Construction Until Signed ByThe Architect. Date: Project: As indicated 22002200--0077--3300 11::1188::5599 PPMM CC::\\RReevviitt\\22001199\\1188004444PP1111--OOlldd LLiivveerrppooooll HHoouussee--MMaasstteerr__RRVVTT22001199__ccccoohheennWW99PPLLFF..rrvvtt 1294 Kingston Rd & 1848-1852 Liverpool Rd CC DB 18-044 July 22, 2020 Z5.3 OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE Sun/Shadow Diagram December Altona Group 1December 21 @ 09:18 Z5.3 3December 21 @ 11:18 Z5.3 4December 21 @ 12:18 Z5.3 5December 21 @ 13:18 Z5.3 6December 21 @ 14:18 Z5.3 7December 21 @ 15:18 Z5.3 8December 21 @ 16:18 Z5.3 9December 21 @ 17:18 Z5.3 2December 21 @ 10:18 Z5.3 As indicated 01 Rezoning May 16, 2019 02 Rezoning Revision July 22, 2020 - 153 - 84 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING Drawing Title: Scale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: No : Issued For:Date: Drawing No.: No.: Revision:Date: PPlloott DDaattee::FFiillee PPaatthh:: Contractor Must Check And Verify All Dimensions On The Job. Do Not Scale The Drawings. All Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents Are The Copyright Of The Architect And Must Be Returned Upon Request. Reproduction Of Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents In Part Or Whole Is Forbidden Without The Architects Written Permission. This Drawing Is Not To Be Used For Construction Until Signed ByThe Architect. Date: Project: 22002200--0077--3300 11::1199::0011 PPMM CC::\\RReevviitt\\22001199\\1188004444PP1111--OOlldd LLiivveerrppooooll HHoouussee--MMaasstteerr__RRVVTT22001199__ccccoohheennWW99PPLLFF..rrvvtt 1294 Kingston Rd & 1848-1852 Liverpool Rd CC DB 18-044 July 22, 2020 Z6.1 OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE Perspectives Altona Group 1View from the east Z6.1 3View from Kingston Rd Z6.1 2View from the intersection of Kingston Rd & Liverpool Rd Z6.1 4View of Building B from the north Z6.1 01 Rezoning May 16, 2019 02 Rezoning Revision July 22, 2020 - 154 - 85ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 Drawing Title: Scale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: No : Issued For:Date: Drawing No.: No.: Revision:Date: PPlloott DDaattee::FFiillee PPaatthh:: Contractor Must Check And Verify All Dimensions On The Job. Do Not Scale The Drawings. All Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents Are The Copyright Of The Architect And Must Be Returned Upon Request. Reproduction Of Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents In Part Or Whole Is Forbidden Without The Architects Written Permission. This Drawing Is Not To Be Used For Construction Until Signed ByThe Architect. Date: Project: 22002200--0077--3300 11::1199::0044 PPMM CC::\\RReevviitt\\22001199\\1188004444PP1111--OOlldd LLiivveerrppooooll HHoouussee--MMaasstteerr__RRVVTT22001199__ccccoohheennWW99PPLLFF..rrvvtt 1294 Kingston Rd & 1848-1852 Liverpool Rd CC DB 18-044 July 22, 2020 Z6.2 OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE Perspectives Altona Group 5View of Building A from the southeast Z6.2 7View of retail corner along Liverpool Rd Z6.2 6View of retail along Liverpool Rd Z6.2 8View from the southeast Z6.2 01 Rezoning May 16, 2019 02 Rezoning Revision July 22, 2020 - 155 - 86 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING Drawing Title: Scale: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: Date: No : Issued For:Date: Drawing No.: No.: Revision:Date: PPlloott DDaattee::FFiillee PPaatthh:: Contractor Must Check And Verify All Dimensions On The Job. Do Not Scale The Drawings. All Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents Are The Copyright Of The Architect And Must Be Returned Upon Request. Reproduction Of Drawings, Specifications And Related Documents In Part Or Whole Is Forbidden Without The Architects Written Permission. This Drawing Is Not To Be Used For Construction Until Signed ByThe Architect. Date: Project: 22002200--0077--3300 11::1199::0066 PPMM CC::\\RReevviitt\\22001199\\1188004444PP1111--OOlldd LLiivveerrppooooll HHoouussee--MMaasstteerr__RRVVTT22001199__ccccoohheennWW99PPLLFF..rrvvtt 1294 Kingston Rd & 1848-1852 Liverpool Rd CC DB 18-044 July 22, 2020 Z6.3 OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE Perspectives Altona Group 9View from the intersection of Kingston Rd & Liverpool Rd Z6.3 01 Rezoning May 16, 2019 02 Rezoning Revision July 22, 2020 11View of tower facade detail Z6.3 10View of podium facade detail Z6.3 - 156 - 87ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK - 157 - 88 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING Appendix B: Landscape Plans (MBTW - April, 2020) - 158 - 89ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 Appendix C: Building Relocation Feasibility Letter (Laurie McCulloch) 960 Taunton Rd E Whitby, ON L1R 3L8 Phone: (905) 728-0884 Fax: (905) 743-0528 mccullochmovers@aol.com Laurie McCulloch Building Moving Wednesday, April 3, 2019 Methodology Re: 1294 Kingston Road, Pickering, ON Background The building to be retained is approximately 35’ X 55’ X 2 storey solid brick commercial building with approx. 20’ X 35’ off center addition on the north moving south and east over newly built foundation. The building has been in operation as a restaurant and has been maintained at a o level. The superstructure appears to be in excellent condition and the building is a prime candidate for relocation. Site Preparation Demolition of the side additions, front porches and ramps and any necessary excavation to be completed by others. We will establish and make the cut line between the side portion being demolished and the saved portion before demolition begins. Loading Procedure 1. clean basement, disconnect services and remove fixtures (furnace, stairs etc.) 2. establish cut line to allow demolition to occur 3. insert main beams under building 4. level beams and install jacking and safety cribs under each beam 5. insert cross beams at each end through the mains to carry the needle beams 6. shim the cross beam ends to the underside of the cut line as well as the interior masonry walls 7. insert the needle beams, pack and shim to the brick line 8. with the two end walls loaded and packed open holes on each side and insert one cross loader at a time packing and shimming into place as you go 9. the first floor joist will also be packed to the cross beams 10. install any necessary bracing for weak points in doorways, etc. 11. connect the jacks and raise building 1 inch with our unified jacking machine 12. remove basement support points between cross beams and insert safety needles - 159 - 90 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING Laurie McCulloch Building Moving 2 13. install roll steel and multi directional Hillman rollers to slide building south and west 14. move building desired distance to the south and west, crib off and remove roll steel 15. hold in place while basement completed by others 16. once basement complete relieve steel framework and remove Rolling Multi directional Hillman rollers are placed between the main beams and roll steel for the move. The 50 ton capacity rollers will be installed based on the actual weight of the loaded building including steel. The actual weight will be determined once the building is loaded on our equipment with our hydraulic equipment and verified by David Seberras to ensure that an adequate safety ratio for the rolling equipment is maintained. Foundation An adequate height foundation will need to be built up to the underside of the brick to pin the building in its final location by others. We will be assist in the design of new foundation walls to make sure the design facilitates the removal of our steel framework. Placement After the building is at its desired location and elevation, the new concrete foundation wall is installed leaving openings for the main beam removal. Laurie McCulloch Laurie McCulloch Building Moving - 160 - 91ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 Appendix D: Abstract/Parcel Register Book - 161 - 92 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | OLD LIVERPOOL HOUSE, PICKERING Appendix E: Compliance to the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines Note: refer to the Planning Rationale Report (Urban Strategies Inc.) submitted along with the Report for a full analysis of applicable guidelines. City Centre Urban Design Guideline Assessment of Proposed Development’s Conformity Section 2.3.1 “Site Design-The Context” The proposed redevelopment is consistent with the guidance on creating and enhancing view portals and vistas of signature buildings. Section 2.3.3 “Building Placement & Orientation” The proposed development sites Old Liverpool house closer to the street edge and proposes to rehabilitate the retained heritage fabric for its con- tinued, active at-grade commercial use. Proposed setbacks contribute to the public realm. Section 2.4.1: “Transition & Massing”The proposed Site Plan implements the guidelines for siting and designing built form: Section 2.4.4.1 “Low-Rise buildings”The proposed development sites low-rise town- houses adjacent to existing low-rise residential uses west of the Site to transition the Site to neighbouring built form. Section 2.4.4.2 “Mid-Rise buildings”The proposed development sites the mid-rise building along the Liverpool Street edge to provide and provides step backs on upper storeys. Section 2.4.4.3 “Tall Buildings”The proposed development situates the greatest massing near the intersection of the two surround- ing arterial roads, and sites the tower element atop a podium base, as outlined in the guidelines for tall buildings. - 162 - 93ISSUED MAY 16, 2019 | REVISED: JULY 30, 2020 City Centre Urban Design Guideline Assessment of Proposed Development’s Conformity Section 2.4.4 .4 “Signature Buildings”The proposed development balances Guideline 2.4.4a) which calls for locating significant height and massing at key gateways with guideline 2.4.4.4 e., which states that the Old Liverpool House should be retained and made visually prominent. Section 3.9.1 “Major Streets”The proposed development responds to the policies relevant to surrounding high-order streets (Kingston Road and Liverpool Road) with higher building heights, and pedestrian amenities, such as street trees planters and public art. Section 4.2.5 “Gateways”The proposed development is consistent with the policies for Gateways in that it provides an urban plaza, creates a sense of arrival and integrates the Old Liverpool House at the corner (a ‘Signature Building’), while promoting sightlines to this landmark from the public realm. The podium base of the tower incorporates brick cladding and articulating at this highly-visible corner. - 163 - - 164 - HERITAgE ImpAc T A ssEssmEnT 450 FINCH AVENUE Pickering, Ontario April 8, 2022 Attachment #11 - 165 - PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY: ii HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 416-963-4497 Beachview Homes #21-7611 Pine Valley Drive Woodbridge ON, L4L 0A2 905-851-6441 Project #21-061-01 Prepared by PE / SI / EA / CH - 166 - iiiAPRIL 8, 2022 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IV 1 REPORT SCOPE 1 2 INTRODUCTION TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY 2 3 BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS 10 4 EVALUATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST 26 5 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITION 28 6 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 31 7 IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON HERITAGE ATTRIBUTES 35 8 CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES 36 9 RECOMMENDED CONSERVATION STRATEGY 41 10 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 42 11 SUMMARY OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS 43 12 REFERENCES 44 13 APPENDICES 46 - 167 - iv HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE ExEcutivE Summary E xEcutivE Summary • Reduction of the “farmstead lot” size from 5 acres to 0.18 acres, with adjacent infill devel- opment; • Construction of a two-storey rear addition to the Dixon Farmhouse; • Relocation of the Dixon Farmhouse 8.8 metres south and 7 metres east from its original location, altering its existing front yard setback; • Alteration of the Site’s rural landscape char- acter and topography; • Removal and salvage of the rear portico; and • Full restoration of the Dixon Farmhouse. Some of these impacts can be considered adverse, some are positive, and some are neutral. Adverse impacts are mitigated appropriately through the proposed conservation strategy for the Site. Conservation Strategy The Dixon Farmhouse is proposed to be retained and relocated southeastward from its original location. The primary conservation treatment is rehabilitation: the building is proposed to be restored as a residence, and adapted to accommodate additional floor area, with a compatible rear addition. The Dixon Farmhouse is proposed to maintain its orientation and a substantial front-yard setback from Finch Avenue. Its rural character is proposed to be interpreted through landscape design, relying on an understanding of the Historic Ontario Farmstead typology for interpretive guidance. The impact of new construction is proposed to be mitigated through design measures related to scale, form, massing, and materiality, as outlined in Section 8 of this Report. Background This Heritage Impact Assessment (“HIA”) has been prepared by ERA Architects Inc. (“ERA”) for the property at 450 Finch Avenue, Pickering, Ontario (the “Site”). The Site is currently occupied by a 1½ storey stone farmhouse (built c.1858), known as the “Dixon Farmhouse”, an accessory structure, and unintended fields. The buildings are currently vacant. Heritage Status The Site is listed on the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register, under Part IV, Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Site is not considered adjacent to any properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, or listed on the Municipal Heritage Register. ERA has completed an evaluation of the property in accordance with Ontario Regulation 9/06 (“O. Reg. 9/06”) and has concluded that the Site carries design value as a representative mid-19th-century farmhouse in Pickering, and for its association with the Dixons, early settlers in the area. The analysis and a draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value are included in Section 4 of this Report. Summary of Proposed Development The Site is proposed to be redeveloped under a Draft Plan of Subdivision, which would create 31 residential lots. The Dixon Farmhouse would be retained on Lot 28, and relocated 8.8 metres south and 7 metres east. Impact of Proposed Development and Mitigation Measures The proposed development will impact the Site’s cultural heritage value through the following: - 168 - vAPRIL 8, 2022 Conclusion The proposal appropriately balances the planning and heritage conservation objectives for the Site. The potential impacts of the relocation of the Dixon Farmhouse, subdivision of the property and construction of a new addition to the Dixon Farmhouse, will be mitigated by design measures that will conserve the Site’s cultural heritage value and communicate its rural heritage. In this way, the proposal meets the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), and the regional and municipal heritage planning framework. - 169 - 1APRIL 8, 2022 1 rEport S copE ERA has been retained by Beachview Homes to provide a HIA for the proposed redevelopment of the Site. This report considers the impact of the proposed development on the listed heritage resource on the Site. The purpose of a HIA, as per the 2021 draft Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference for the City of Pickering, is to “determine if any cultural heritage resources may be adversely impacted by a specific proposed development or site alteration, and to recommend an overall approach to conserve the resource(s)” (City of Pickering, 2021). This report was prepared with reference to the following: • Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2010); • Provincial Policy Statement (2020); • O. Reg. 9/06; • Ontario Heritage Tool kit; • Durham Regional Official Plan (consolidated 2020); • Cit y of Pickering Official Plan - Edition 8 (consolidated 2018); and • Cit y of Pickering draft Heritage Impact Assessment - Terms of Reference (2021). - 170 - 2 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE 2 introduction to thE SubjEct propErty 2.1 Site Description The Site is located northwest of Finch Avenue and Rosebank Road in Pickering, Ontario, south of the historic settlement of Cherrywood. The Site contains a 1½ storey stone farmhouse, known as the “Dixon Farmhouse”, a 1-storey accessory structure, and unintended fields. The buildings are currently vacant. The Site is located on the traditional territory of the Anishinabewaki, the Huron-Wendat, and the Haudenosaunee First Nations. The City of Pickering is subject to the Williams Treaties (Clause 2), signed in 1923 between the Missisaugas of Scugog Island First Nations and the Crown. 2.2 Site Context The Site’s surrounding context is broadly characterized by residential buildings, agricultural lands, and natural areas, including: • To the north: CP Railway. Agricultural lands and residential buildings are located further north; • To the east: Residential subdivision containing single and semi-detached dwellings; • To the south: Hydro Corridor and the Altona Forest; and • To the west: A parcel currently under construction for resi- dential development abuts the Site. Further west are single- detached dwellings. FINCH AV E N U E FINCH AV E N U E (Google Earth, 2021; annotated by ERA) Site R O S E B A N K R O A D R O S E B A N K R O A D CP RA I L W A Y CP RA I L W A Y 450 Location Plan - 171 - 3APRIL 8, 2022 Survey Topographic Survey Site The Dixon Farmhouse Detached Garage Drive Shed (demolished) (J.D. Barnes, 2020; annotated by ERA) - 172 - 4 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE 2.3 Site and Context Photographs Looking east along Finch Avenue toward the Site’s driveway (ERA, 2021). Looking north into the Site from Finch Avenue (ERA, 2021). - 173 - 5APRIL 8, 2022 The principal (south) elevation of the Dixon Farmhouse (ERA, 2021). The west elevation of the Dixon Farmhouse (ERA, 2021).The east elevation of the Dixon Farmhouse (ERA, 2021). - 174 - 6 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE The rear (north) and west elevations of the Dixon Farmhouse (ERA, 2021). Detached garage in the Site’s rear yard (ERA, 2021).Remnants of the drive shed, subject to a 2021 fire (ERA, 2021). - 175 - 7APRIL 8, 2022 Looking northeast past the Site (ERA, 2021). Looking north toward the Site from Finch Avenue (ERA, 2021). - 176 - 8 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE Looking northwest along Finch Avenue, west of the Site (ERA, 2021). Looking southwest along Finch Avenue, west of the Site (ERA, 2021). - 177 - 9APRIL 8, 2022 2.4 Heritage Status On-Site Heritage Resources The Site is listed on the Municipal Heritage Register, under Part IV, Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act: “Built c. 1850 for William Dixon. 1½ storey stone building on the north side of Finch Avenue. Associated with early settlement of Cherrywood; Date Added: February 22, 2021.” (City of Pickering, 2021) Adjacent Heritage Resources The Site is not considered adjacent to any properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, or listed on the Municipal Heritage Register. 2.5 Owner’s Contact Information Roberto Montemarano Beachview Homes 7611 Pine Valley Drive, Suite 21 Vaughan, ON L4L 0A2 905-851-6441 robert@beachviewhomes.ca Adjacent: for the purposes of policy 2.6.3, those lands continguous to a protected heritage property or otherwise defined bin the municipal official plan (Provincial Policy Statement, 2020). Note: the PPS definition above is used in absence of an alternative definition from the City of Pickering Official Plan. - 178 - 10 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE 3 bacKGround rESE arch and anaLySiS 3.1 Historical Context Indigenous Territory Pickering and the wider Durham Region is the traditional territory of the Anishinabewaki, the Huron-Wendat and the Haudenosaunee First Nations. The Site is located on lands situated within a broader trade, travel and settlement network that included the Rouge River, Frenchman’s Bay, Duffin’s Creek and other natural resources. Well-documented archaeological and archival evidence shows that the Site sat between the locations of two ancestral villages. A Huron- Wendat village, now known as the Miller Site, was located northeast of the Site at the intersection of the Third Concession and Brock Road (7.3km away) in the 12th century. The Seneca (Haudenosaunee) village of Ganatsetiagon (one of several transliterated spellings), was established later in the 17th century and sat southwest of the Site, at the intersection of the Rouge River and today’s Kingston Road (4.5 km away). As Lake Iroquois receded, the area north of present-day Lake Ontario provided ideal conditions for larger and more permanent settlements. The geological formations of sandy ridges overlooked streams, which offered strategic height and positioning for the establishment of secure villages, with locations near waterways for convenient fishing and travel. A 1958 archaeological excavation of the Miller Site found that the village was comprised of six longhouses, enclosed by a wooden palisade. The excavation revealed that the Huron-Wendat selected this location to limit contact with increasing conflict near the shore, although the isolated location, palisade, and an analysis of gravesites suggests that the village was still subject to hostility during this time. Ganatsetiagon was established at the mouth of the Rouge River, and served as a southern base for one of the several Toronto Carrying Place trails from Lake Ontario to Lake Simcoe. The village appears on multiple French exploration maps dating to the 1670s and 1680s. In the winter of 1669, French Sulpician missionary Francois de Salignac de la Mothe-Fenelon travelled to Ganatsetiagon and is said to have attempted to establish a school for the Seneca children; it is widely reported that Frenchman’s Bay is named for Fenelon and his travel companions. This site history was prepared from a non- Indigenous perspective based on written and archaeological records. It does not reflect or represent the full rich history of Indigenous peoples in this region. Map of Archaeological Sites in the Site’s Proximity Site Nearby First Nations Settlements (Pickering Library, n.d; annotated by ERA) - 179 - 11APRIL 8, 2022 1861 Map of the Rouge, Duffin, Highland and Petticoat Watersheds Site Nearby wateshed (McKay, 1961; annotated by ERA) - 180 - 12 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE Following the late-17th-century Haudenosaunee departure from the north shores of Lake Ontario and the arrival of the Anishinaabe Mississaugas of the Credit in the 18th century, the site of Ganatsetiagon was no longer occupied. Today, the Bead Hill National Historic Site at Kingston Road and the Rouge River is recognized as the possible Ganatsetiagon village site. Initial Colonial Settlement Early British settlement in Pickering began in the 1770s. The Constitutional Act of 1791 established the new colony of Upper Canada (today’s Ontario), and set in place a British colonial administration. In 1763, the Crown had issued a royal proclamation which established guidelines for the colonization of Indigenous territories in North America. The proclamation stated that Indigenous peoples held title to their territory until it was ceded by a treaty. In 1787-88, the British colonial administration entered into the Gunshot Treaty with the Mississaugas at the Bay of Quinte, for the lands between the Bay of Quinte and the eastern boundary of the 1787 “Toronto Purchase” at the Don River. The deed was later found blank, and the Crown deemed the treaty invalid. As a result, the Williams Treaties were signed in 1923 between a number of First Nations groups, including the Mississaugas of Scugog Island, and the Crown, to legally resolve the invalidity of the previous treaty. The Site is located within the Williams Treaties land, which span approximately 20,000 km² of land in southern Ontario. Map of Treaties in Ontario Site Williams Treaties (Ministry of Indigenous Affairs, n.d.; an- notated by ERA) - 181 - 13APRIL 8, 2022 Early Development of Pickering Township Colonial settlement in Pickering began in the 1770s. In 1791, the new colonial administration commissioned Augustus Jones to complete a survey of counties, townships and 200-acre lots separated by concession lines and sideroads. Settlement was gradual, and by the 1813 census, the Township of Pickering had 180 residents. Soon after the survey of concessions and sideroads, and the completion of Kingston Road in 1815, settlements began to emerge at the junctures of these new roads. They were often marked by a post office, a church or school, and sometimes a highway hotel or tavern. The more successful settlements grew to become villages, with the establishment of additional commerce and local institutions. 1801 Chewett Plan of Pickering show- ing the completed survey of 200-acre lots Site (Old Toronto Maps; annotated by ERA) - 182 - 14 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE The Village of Cherrywood The Site was situated within rural lands south of the historic village of Cherrywood, which was established in 1834 at the intersection of the Third Concession and Rosebank Road. At its heyday, the small village featured a general store, blacksmith shop, brickyard, school, and a church. In 1912, the Canadian Pacific (“CP”) Railway constructed the Cherrywood Station as part of its Lakeshore Line, a route which provided access to communities along the north edge of Lake Ontario. The line was abandoned in 1923 when CP services shifted to freight service, and subsequently, Cherrywood Station was demolished in 1964. In 1972, Cherrywood was located within the North Pickering Project, a provincial initiative to develop a new community featuring a federal airport. The original plan was intended to expropriate 43,000 acres of land north of Finch Avenue to the Uxbridge-Pickering Line, including the Site. For residents, the expropriation resulted in eviction and the option to rent back homes in the area. The project encountered significant public opposition, and was ultimately stalled due in part to a lack of servicing potential for the proposed community. To this day, the Cherrywood area remains largely rural in character. 1861 Tremaine’s Map Site Cherrywood Village 1900 image of the Cherrywood Brick Kiln, operated by the Petty family (Pickering Library) 1850 image of the Cherrywood School (Pickering Library). 1900 image of the T.P. Robbins General Store and Post Office in Cherrywood (Pickering Library). (University of Toronto Maps Library; annotated by ERA) - 183 - 15APRIL 8, 2022 Map of the North Pickering Project Site (Globe and Mail, 1975. p.1; annotated by ERA) - 184 - 16 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE 3.2 Site History The Site is located on the 200 acres which formed Lot 31, Concession 2 within Pickering Township, in York County. In 1833, the 200-acre lot was granted to Elizabeth Darry. While she owned the property, there is no evidence to suggest that Darry lived on the Site, or that the property was cleared or developed during her tenure. Dixon Family (1847-1945) The Site remained vacant until 1847, when Benjamin Dixon purchased 50 acres of Lot 31, fronting Concession 2. The 1851 census notes that Benjamin Dixon farmed the Site while residing in a 1-storey log house with his wife, Elizabeth, and daughter, also named Elizabeth. Typical of the early 19th century, the first farmhouses in Upper Canada (later Ontario) consisted of log construction in vernacular styles, with materials acquired through clearance of wood lots. By 1854, the Dixons had also acquired 50 acres located directly south of the Site, across Concession 2 (Lot 31, Concession 1). The property formed part of the Altona Forest, an area characterized by poor draining soil and topological constraints. It is unlikely that the Dixons farmed the property due to these conditions. According to the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register, the Dixon Farmhouse was built circa 1850, which conflicts with the later, 1851 census records, which had noted a log house on the Site within the year. ERA has reviewed archival documents to confirm the date of construction, including historical census records, land abstracts, and tax assessment rolls between the period of 1851 to 1861 (see Appendix B). The data suggests that the Dixon Farmhouse was constructed in 1858, when the property’s assessed value increased from its average amount of £250 to the amount of £300. The Dixon farmhouse was designed in a Georgian vernacular style, with a side-gabled roof, a 1-storey wood-frame rear wing, and a front porch (later addition) which spanned the width of the facade, typical of mid-19th-century Ontario farmhouses. The rear wing and front porch have since been removed. As indicated on the Ontario County Atlas, by 1878 the Dixons’ landholdings included 62 acres north of Concession 2 (today’s Finch Avenue), and 50 acres south of Concession 2, for a total of 112 acres. 1878 Map of the Pickering Township Dixon Farmhouse Dixon Properties The site history documented in this sec- tion consolidates sources including Land Registry Office records, tax assessment rolls, censuses, voter lists, archival maps and newspaper articles, supplemented by “oral histories” provided by former occupants, neighbours and descendants of the Dixon and Barber families on the Vintage Pickering Facebook page. (Archives of Ontario; annotated by ERA). - 185 - 17APRIL 8, 2022 Undated drawing of the Dixon Farmhouse. The rear wing and front porch has since been removed and are highlighted in blue (Drawing courtesy of Dixon descendant Melody Shea; annotated by ERA). 1931 image of the Dixon Farmhouse showing the front porch, since demolished. The front porch is highlighted in blue (Im- age courtesy of Dixon descendant Melody Shea; annotated by ERA). - 186 - 18 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE Upon Benjamin and Elizabeth’s passing in 1895 and 1902 respectively, William Dixon inherited the farmstead, which had been reduced again to 62 acres with the sale of the bush and pastureland across the road in 1895. In 1911, the Dixon family was recorded in the book: ‘Past Years in Pickering: Sketches in the History of the Community ’ as follows: “Mr. and Mrs. Dixon married and came to Pickering in 1849, settling in Lot 31, Con. 2. Mr Dixon died March 1895, and Mrs. Dixon October, 1902. Of their family eight are still living, namely: Mrs. Stockdale, in western Canada; Mrs. Anderson, in Toronto; Mrs. Sinclair, of Toronto; Mrs. William Lotton on Lot 33, Con. 1; Mrs. David Mainland, of Stouffville; William, on the old homestead; Tena, in Hamilton, and Mary, at Cherrywood.” (Wood, 1911. p.235). Similar to other settlers, the Dixons had contributed to the construction and maintenance of the roads within the Township. Council minutes and invoices from the Pickering Township Road System credit William and his sons with tasks such as stone crushing, erecting of bridges, and culvert repairs. In 1915, William Dixon completed the construction of a garage, an additional farmstead outbuilding that would complement the existing stone house, barn and silo on Site. Newspaper records indicate that the farmstead was expanded within the same year with Dixon’s purchase of 50 acres of adjacent land owned by the Hollinger family. 200 acres of farmland on Lot 31, Con. 2 was posted for rent in the Pickering News in October 1917, after William Dixon had relocated to a new residence in Whitevale. The Site was rented by newlyweds Sam and Mary Baker in November 1917, and by William and Edgar Mitchell in May 1918. Upon Dixon’s death in 1925, his four children inherited the 62-acre property. Land Registry records are unclear as to the sale of the other 138 acres. William, Robert, and Clara Dixon transferred their inheritance to their brother Reginald J. Dixon, who returned from Toronto to live on Site with his young family. Pickering Township Road System In- voice payable to Reginald J. Dixon for road repair tasks dated November 1922 (Pickering Library). 1918 Guidal Landowners Map of the Township of Pickering shows the Dixon Farmstead, expanded from 62 to ~200 acres Site Rental advertisement for the Dixon prop- erty on Lot 31, Concession 2 (Pickering News, 1917. p.4). (Pickering Library; annotated by ERA). - 187 - 19APRIL 8, 2022 Mid 20th-Century Ownership (1945-1959) Although Land Registry records for the Site are illegible between 1932- 1951, local “oral histories” provided on the Vintage Pickering Facebook page have been corroborated with primary sources, including voter lists, to determine that the Dixons sold their ~62 acre property to Evelyn and Joe Thompson in 1945. The Thompsons lived in the Dixon Farmhouse, and subdivided the 62 acres, carving off ~five acres at the southwest corner of the lot in the late 1940s for three residential properties, which would become the addresses at 402, 410 and 422 Finch Avenue. In combination with aerial photographs, voter lists indicate that the Thompsons further subdivided the land in the immediate vicinity of the Dixon Farmhouse and its outbuildings, creating two additional residential lots: a house at 456 Finch Avenue, on the east side of the Dixon Farmhouse’s driveway, and a house fronting onto Rosebank Road. It was likely at that time that the Dixon Farmhouse property was carved into the ~five acres that comprise the Site today. The historic farmstead’s barn was split from the property, and became part of the Rosebank Road-fronting lot, which the Thompsons sold to the Holmes family in 1966. Circa 1950, the Thompsons sold the ~five-acre Dixon Farmhouse lot to Louis J. Lahay and family. Louis Lahay was the patriarch of a family of prospectors, training his children (Wilfred, Joseph, and Pauline Leary) as mining industry pioneers in Northern Ontario in the 1930s. Louis Lahay and his adult children remained on Site until Lahay’s death in 1959. 1966 aerial of the Site (outlined in white) and 1940s subdivision properties (col- oured) (City of Toronto; annotated by ERA). 450 456402 410 422 FINCH AVENUEFINCH AVENUE RO S E B A N K R O A D RO S E B A N K R O A D R. R . # 2 , P i c k e r i n g - 188 - 20 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE Barber Family (1959-2016) By 1959, the Dixon farmstead has been subdivided to its present-day lot configuration. The 5-acre parcel, known as the Site, was purchased from the Lahay children by George and Jocelyn Barber, who took occupancy of the Dixon Farmhouse with their children. The Site was located within the bounds of the North Pickering Project and expropriated by the Crown in 1974. A 1997 article in the News Advertiser suggests that the Barbers rented the Site from the Crown until 1985, when the family regained ownership of the 5-acre parcel from the Province of Ontario. During their tenure, the Barbers completed additions to the Dixon Farmhouse which included an ornamental Classic Revival door surround applied to the exterior stone around the main entrance, and a salvaged porch added onto the rear elevation. Based on an analysis of a mid-1950s photograph of the McClellan House in nearby Liverpool Market (built c.1870s), the porch had originated from the 2-storey white-frame building formerly located at the northeast corner of Liverpool and Kingston Road. The McClellan House was built for Joseph Harris McClellan, president of Pickering Harbour Company, and had also served as a bank for travellers along Kingston Road. Descendants of the Barber family suggests that the Barbers resided on the Site until 2016, and the Site has remained vacant since then. 1967 map of Century Farms in Pickering Township Site Mid-1950s photograph of the front porch on the McClellan House (c.1870s), formerly located on the northeast corner of Liverpool and Kingston Road (Mary Nicholson Willard, 2022; annotated by ERA). Rear porch at the Dixon Farmhouse (Parslow Heritage Con- sultancy Inc., 2020; annotated by ERA) (Pickering Library; annotated by ERA). - 189 - 21APRIL 8, 2022 1956 aerial: A dormer addition was first visible on the principal (south) elevation within this year. 1959 aerial: Tarquin Barber, a descend- ant of the Barber family, noted that by this year, the farm structures to the east of the Dixon Farmhouse have been ac- quired by J.Holmes. Holmes owned the 10-acre parcel to the east of the Site, addressed as R.R #2, Pickering. Aerial Photographs Site Dixon Farmhouse Farm structures historically associated with the Dixon farmstead Site Dixon Farmhouse R.R #2, Pickering 1964 aerial: The rear wing of the Dixon Farmhouse has since been removed. A windrow has been established along the east side lot line. Site Dixon Farmhouse Windrow (City of Toronto; annotated by ERA). (City of Toronto; annotated by ERA) (City of Toronto; annotated by ERA). - 190 - 22 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE 1969 aerial: By 1969, a drive shed and detached garage was constructed to the rear of the Dixon Farmhouse. A sec- ondary entrance to Finch Avenue has been established to the west of Dixon Farmhouse. Site Dixon Farmhouse Accessory Structures 2021: The drive shed has burned down. The agricultural field is no longer active. Site Dixon Farmhouse Accessory Structure (City of Toronto; annotated by ERA). (Google Earth; annotated by ERA). - 191 - 23APRIL 8, 2022 3.3 Building Evolution Based on a review of the earliest available archival drawings and photographs, the original design of the Dixon Farmhouse appears to be largely intact. Estimated Alterations The farmhouse has sustained the following alterations: a) Removal of the front porch addition spanning the width of the principal (south) elevation after 1931; b) Removal of the wood-frame rear wing addition by 1964; c) Addition of dormer to the principal (south elevation) by 1956; d) Addition of an ornamental Classical Revival door surround applied to the exterior stone around the main entrance to the principal (south) elevation between 1931 to 1974. The door frame was removed before 2012; e) Addition of Italianate-style style rear porch after 1964; and f) Construction of drive shed and detached garage between 1968 to 1969. The drive shed burned down in 2021. - 192 - 24 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE 2012 photograph of the Dixon Farmhouse (Pickering Library). 1974 photograph of the principal elevation and front yard of the Dixon Farmhouse. The front porch and rear addition has been removed (Pickering Library). 1974 photograph of the ornamental Classical Revival door surround applied to the exterior stone around the main en- trance on the principal elevation (Pickering Library). - 193 - 25APRIL 8, 2022 2019 photograph of the drive shed (Parslow Heritage Consultancy Inc., 2020). 2021 photograph of the drive shed remnants (ERA, 2021). - 194 - 26 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE 4 E vaLuation of cuLtur aL hEritaGE vaLuE or intErESt Value (quoted from O. Reg. 9/06)Assessment: Dixon Farmhouse (450 Finch Avenue) 1. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. i. The property features a representative example of a mid-19th century farmhouse built in Pickering, Ontario. ii. The property does not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. iii. The property does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institu- tion that is significant to a community, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, informa- tion that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. i. The property is associated with the Dixon family, who owned the property between the 1847 to 1945. Benjamin Dixon was regarded as an early pioneer of Pickering Township. Like other early settlers, the Dixon family contributed to the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges within the Township into the 20th century. ii. The property does not have potential to yield information that con- tributes to an understanding of a community or culture. iii. The architect or builder is unknown. Given the property’s rural location and agricultural history, the architect or builder is not anticipated to be a designer or developer of significance. 3. The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. i. As the property is situated within an evolving context that does not exhibit a defined character, the property is not important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of the area. ii. Like all properties, the property is physically, functionally, visually and historically linked to its surroundings. The property does not exhibit such significant relationships to its surroundings to merit con- servation under the Ontario Heritage Act. iii. The property is not considered a landmark. 4.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation - 195 - 27APRIL 8, 2022 4.2 Draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value Description of the Property The Dixon Farmhouse is a 1½ storey stone farmhouse built circa 1858, located at 450 Finch Avenue in Pickering, Ontario. The property is located north of Finch Avenue, and west of Rosebank Road. Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest The property exhibits design value as a representative example of a mid-19th century farmhouse built in Pickering, Ontario. Built in 1858 in rural Pickering Township, the building reflects the typological features of a mid-19th century farmhouse through its 1½-storey side-gabled form, its Georgian stylistic elements, its stone construction, and its location and orientation in relation to Finch Avenue. The property is associated with the Dixon family, early settlers of Pickering Township. Benjamin Dixon acquired the south portion of the 200-acre lot in 1847, and the Dixon family retained tenure on the property for almost a century, until 1945. Like other early settlers, the Dixons were involved in the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges within the Township. Heritage Attributes Attributes that convey the property’s representation of a mid-19th- century farmhouse in Pickering include: • 1½ storey form; • Symmetrical arrangement of the principal elevation, with a central doorway and windows on each side; • Side-gabled roof with mirrored chimney stacks; • Vernacular stone construction; • Architectural elements of the Georgian style, including: • A central entrance with transom and sidelights; and • Six-over-six windows. • Orientation to Finch Avenue; • Substantial setback from Finch Avenue; • Linear driveway with access to Finch Avenue; and • Mature trees and rural landscape character within the prop - erty’s front setback. - 196 - 28 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE 5 aSSESSmEnt of E xiStinG condition DEFINITION OF TERMS The building components were graded using the following assessment system: Excellent: Superior aging performance. Functioning as intended; no deterioration observed. Good: Normal Result. Functioning as in- tended; normal deterioration observed; no maintenance anticipated within the next five years. Fair: Functioning as intended. Normal de- terioration and minor distress observed; maintenance will be required within the next three to five years to maintain func- tionality. Poor: Not functioning as intended; signifi- cant deterioration and distress observed; maintenance and some repair required within the next year to restore functionality. Defective: Not functioning as intended; sig- nificant deterioration and major distress observed, possible damage to support structure; may present a risk; must be dealt with immediately. A condition review of the exterior building elements of the Dixon Farmhouse was carried out in December of 2021. Architectural features such as the exterior load-bearing stone walls, wood details around the building, wood windows and doors, visible roof areas and associated flashings and rainwater management systems (gutters and downspouts) were reviewed for each elevation. The building is currently unoccupied. Many of the windows and doors around the building are either missing or uncovered, which allows for the interior to remain largely dry due to substantial air circulation throughout the building, but presents a hazard due to animal entry and vandalism. All openings around the building should be covered on the outside with exterior-grade plywood tightly secured to the window and door openings with louvered, insect-resistant metal grilles added to the coverings to continue to allow air circulation to the building interior. This will secure the building interior and discourage mold growth on the interior surfaces through constant drying action. All observations were made from grade as scaffolding or mechanical lift access was not available for close-up inspection of areas above the first storey. The interior spaces were not included in the review, and the condition assessment did not include structural, mechanical, electrical or plumbing systems or elements. - 197 - 29APRIL 8, 2022 General Condition Observations Overall, the primary exterior building elements for the Dixon Farmhouse appeared to be in poor condition in most locations, with certain building features such as the wood details and the wood windows and doors approaching a defective state of condition in some locations. • The exterior walls on the 1½ storey former residential building are composed of granite and other field stones laid in a random rubble pattern, with a more refined coursed rubble pattern used on the primary front elevation. The load-bearing stone walls are generally in fair condition, although there is evidence of some movement or shifting in the masonry. • There is visual outward bowing, deflection and deterioration of the masonry walls in selective locations. Open mortar joints are present in many locations due to shifting of the masonry and general deterioration and deferred maintenance of the walls over time. Previously, some areas have been unsympathetically repointed using a strong, cement-based mortar. These mortar joints should be cut out and all open or deteriorated joints repointed using a heritage lime-based mortar to closely match the original mortar on the building. Selective dismantling and partial rebuilding of some areas of the masonry will be required to make the walls straight and plumb again. • Some original windows and doors remain in the building, although many have been heavily damaged or are currently missing. A few of the ground floor windows have been covered with metal storm windows on the exterior, which are also frequently damaged. Some of the windows and doors are covered with protective plywood, but many are not and there is currently damage to the building interior from unwanted entry and vandalism. All windows and doors should be securely covered as described above to protect the building interior. • The non-original Italianate portico is also currently in poor condition, although the fine woodworking details present in the addition are salvageable and repairable. Other wood windows and doors around the building are also repairable in many locations or can be reproduced. The majority of the wood lug-sills for the windows in the building appear to be in fair to good condition and can be reused. Granite and fieldstones laid in a random rubble pattern on the rear (north) eleva- tion (ERA, 2021). Damaged storm windows on the princi- pal (south) elevation (ERA, 2021). The exterior of the main entrance on the principal (south) elevation is covered with protective plywood (ERA, 2021). - 198 - 30 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE • Other wood details around the building on the eave lines and a dormer window at the front of the building are in poor condition, with many areas of wood rot present or damage from animals. Some locations have been covered with metal mesh to try to discourage animal entry; these areas should be properly repaired to make the wood sound and whole again. • The gable roof is currently covered with asphalt shingles with perimeter metal flashings which appear to be in poor condition overall; the shingles have reached the end of their serviceable lifespan. • The t wo brick chimneys on the residence are beginning to show prominent signs of deterioration and should be dismantled to below the roofline and rebuilt. • The pre-painted metal gutters and downspouts on the north and south sides of the building are in poor or defective condition and require replacement. The existing gutters and downspouts are damaged, discontinuous, or full or organic material. All new raingear installed to direct water away from the building is required for each elevation. Eaves and gutters on the west elevation (ERA, 2021). Brick chimney (ERA, 2021). - 199 - 31APRIL 8, 2022 6 dEScription of thE propoSEd dE vELopmEnt The proposed development anticipates retention and relocation of the Dixon Farmhouse within a Draft Plan of Subdivision. The proposal will infill the Site with 31 new residential lots and a park. The existing road network to the east, being Rougewalk Drive and Mahogany Court, will be connected to and extended through the Site. The Dixon Farmhouse is proposed to be relocated 8.8 metres south and 7 metres east from its original location to the proposed Lot 28, an approximately 0.18 acre-lot (742 m2), with a frontage of 22.1 metres and a depth of 41.1 metres. The rear porch addition is proposed to be removed and salvaged, and a two-storey contemporary addition with an integrated garage is proposed to be built off the rear. ERA has prepared conceptual drawings showing the Dixon Farmhouse’s proposed rear addition and landscape strategy. The drawings are included in the following pages. The design of the proposed addition and the site’s landscape strategy is conceptual for the purposes of this Draft Plan of Subdivision Application, but will be refined and confirmed only at Site Plan Approval stage. Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision Existing location of the Dixon Farmhouse Proposed location of the Dixon Farmhouse, with its non-original rear porch removed Proposed contemporary rear addition (GHD, 2022; annotated by ERA) - 200 - 32 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE Site and Landscape Strategy Preliminary site and landscape strategy (ERA, 2022). 5.2 m 22.1 m 3.6 m 41.1 m 2 m 5.6 m 22.6 m - 201 - 33APRIL 8, 2022 Conceptual Views View of the Dixon Farmhouse, including proposed concepts for rear addition and site landscape strategy (ERA, 2022). Axonometric southwestward view of the Dixon Farmhouse and the proposed rear addition (ERA, 2022). Axonometric southeastward view of the Dixon Farmhouse and the proposed rear addition (ERA, 2022). - 202 - 34 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE Preliminary Siting Plan for Adjacent Subdivision Development Proposed location of the Dixon Farmhouse, with its non-original rear porch removed Proposed contemporary rear addition (GHD, 2022; annotated by ERA) Adjacent proposed houses Adjacent Subdivision Development Subdivision lots are proposed to the north and west of the new farmstead lot. The adjacent residential lots (Lots 26-27 and 29-31) are proposed to have rear-yard setbacks of either 7.5 metres or 8 metres, providing substantial buffer space and capacity for natural landscaping between the new houses and the Dixon Farmhouse Existing location of the Dixon Farmhouse - 203 - 35APRIL 8, 2022 7 impact of dE vELopmEnt on hEritaGE at tributES The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and treatment of the existing Dixon Farmhouse anticipates the following impacts: • Reduced “farmstead lot” size from 5 acres to 0.18 acres (742 m2), and the construction of a contemporary subdivision development adjacent (including subdivision housing and fencing); • Construction of a contemporary two-storey addition on the rear of the farmhouse; • Relocation of the farmhouse 8.8 metres south and 7 metres east from its original location, which will alter the existing setback from Finch Avenue, identified as a heritage attribute; • Alteration of the Site’s existing rural landscape character and topography. The existing informal rural landscaping will largely be removed, including the plantings that currently screen the house from the public realm. There are positive and adverse impacts anticipated, including the re-establishment of views to the Dixon Farmhouse from Finch Avenue, and alteration of the Site’s rural character with new plantings that will require time to grow to maturity; • Removal and salvage of the rear portico, which was installed on the farmhouse’s rear elevation in the mid to late-20th century; and • Full restoration of the Dixon Farmhouse. The impact of new construction is proposed to be mitigated with design measures outlined in Section 8 of this report. Negative impact on a cultural heritage resource include, but are not limited to: Destruction of any, or part of any, sig- nificant heritage attributes or features; Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; Shadows created that alter the appear- ance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden; Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; Direct or indirect obstruction of signifi- cant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site al- teration to fill in the formerly open spaces; Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeo- logical resource. (Ontario Heritage Tool kit). - 204 - 36 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE 8 conSidErEd aLtErnativES and mitiGation StratEGiES The potential impact of the proposal on the Dixon Farmhouse will be mitigated with design measures related to scale, form, massing, and materiality. The design measures proposed have been developed with reference to the Historic Ontario Farmstead typology. The following impact mitigation measures are recommended to be incorporated as the design of Lot 28 is refined and confirmed at the Site Plan Approval stage. Impact: Reduction of “farmstead lot” to 0.18 acres, and integration into contemporary subdivision. An interpretive rural landscape strategy is recommended to screen the contemporary development, with plant selection along the north and west property lines designed to obscure contemporary housing and conserve the rural character of the Site. In addition to front-yard fencing as shown to the right, non-traditional subdivision fencing for the Farmhouse’s lot boundaries will be selected and specified at the Site Plan Approval stage. The proposed fence design will convey the Site’s rural heritage , when compared to typical subdivision fencing. The fence design will comply with the City of Pickering’s Fence By-law (No. 6943/09). A new subdivision development is proposed to the north and west of the new farmstead lot. The new built form on adjacent properties (Lots 26-27 and 29-31) will feature rear-yard setbacks of either 7.5 metres or 8 metres, providing substantial green buffer space and capacity for natural landscaping between the new houses and the Dixon Farmhouse. Construction of adjacent subdivision residences will be required to be compatible with and sympathetic to the Dixon Farmhouse. Design recommendations could include simple contemporary materials that do not replicate or compete with the existing building’s stone. Wood cladding is recommended as an interpretive reference. Remnant of cedar fencing along the front lot line on the Site (Google Earth, 2009) Precedent image: split rail fence (Coun- try Living Magazine, n.d). - 205 - 37APRIL 8, 2022 Conceptual drawing of the rear elevation (ERA, 2022). Impact: Construction of a contemporary two-storey rear addition on the Dixon Farmhouse. The rear addition will be designed to be compatible with and subordinate to the existing heritage resource, through strategies including: • Location, orientation and roof pitch to reference the typical form and massing of rear wings on historic Ontario farmhouses; • Location of the integrated garage so that it is served by a linear driveway past the farmhouse, a typical condition on historic farmsteads, and consistent with the historic condition on Site; • A roofline that is no higher than the Dixon Farmhouse’s existing roofline; • Contemporary board-and-batten materials, with a standing- seam metal roof, selected so as (a) not to compete with the complex stone on the original building; and (b) to reference typical farmstead outbuilding materials, including the kitchen wing on Site that has since been lost; and • Design of contemporary windows to be proportionate to the windows on the heritage resource. The rear addition will also retain and make use of the existing rear door on the Dixon Farmhouse’s north elevation, and will retain as much heritage fabric as possible on the upper level while still providing access to the contemporary addition’s second storey. Precedent image: grey standing seam roof (Johnson & Associates Architects, n.d.). Precedent image: shed dormer (DC Texas Custom Homes, n.d). Precedent image: Grey-beige wood clad- ding (Martha Stewart Blog, 2013). Precedent image: Farmstead-style Ga- rage Doors (Visbeen Architects, n.d). - 206 - 38 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE Impact: Relocation of the farmhouse 8.8 metres south and 7 metres east from its original location, which will have impact on the existing setback from Finch Avenue, identified as a heritage attribute. The Dixon Farmhouse is proposed to be relocated southeastward on the Site in order to retain it as a viable residential property within the proposed subdivision. Its location has been selected to ensure that there is adequate space provided for a rear addition, and rear and side-yard setbacks, that all meet contemporary living standards. The relocation conserves a substantial setback from Finch Avenue, which is characteristic of a farmstead lot, and identified as a heritage attribute. The front yard setback is proposed to be reduced from the existing setback of 28.7 metres to the proposed setback of 22.6 metres. In conjunction with the relocation, landscape alterations (described in the following section) are proposed to remove the dense foliage along the front lot line, which is not a key typological feature of the Historic Ontario Farmstead, and which currently obscures views to the Dixon Farmhouse. The relocation is complemented by the re-opening of views to the Dixon Farmhouse across the landscape from Finch Avenue. The relocation and removal of foliage improves the visibility of the Dixon Farmhouse and the landscape from the public realm, which constitutes a positive heritage impact. Impact: Alteration to the Site’s existing rural landscape character and topography. An interpretive landscape strategy is recommended to conserve and rehabilitate the rural landscape character on the Site. As landscapes are dynamic and not static, the proposal would not require the retention of all existing landscape features (most will need to be removed during the subdivision’s construction), but new landscaping will be planted throughout the Site. New plantings are proposed be provided with the conditions to grow to maturity (sun and soil depth/space), and a series of diverse native plant species are proposed to convey a rural farmstead landscape character. Although the proposed landscape strategy will be confirmed at the Site Plan Approval stage, proposed locations for mature tree plantings and windrow-style elements include the front yard, along the west side lot line, and on the edge of the Dixon Farmhouse’s reinstated driveway location. - 207 - 39APRIL 8, 2022 The landscape strategy described on the previous page proposes to interpret elements of the Historic Ontario Farmstead typology, including tree-lined driveways, windrows along property edge and front-yard mature trees. The Historic Ontario Farmstead Typology (ERA, 2019). - 208 - 40 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE Impact: Removal and salvage of the rear portico, which was installed on the farmhouse’s rear elevation in the mid to late- 20th century. The non-original rear portico is proposed to be removed to accommodate the proposed new addition. Although not a heritage attribute, the portico is the product of a salvage tradition in Pickering to retain and conserve historic built fabric. In order to mitigate for the impact of its removal, the proposal anticipates the salvage of the portico for possible re-use. The Site’s capacity to accommodate the portico as a salvaged relic is to be confirmed at the Site Plan Approval stage. If the portico’s salvage on Site cannot be achieved, it is our recommendation that its off-site salvage be arranged in partnership with companies or organizations active in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area for the salvage of historic fabric and architectural materials. Impact: Full Restoration of the Dixon Farmhouse The Dixon Farmhouse will be restored as part of the redevelopment. The conservation scope of work for the farmhouse is detailed in Section 9.1 of this Report. - 209 - 41APRIL 8, 2022 9 rEcommEndEd conSErvation S tratEG y The proposed conservation approach is rehabilitation, which introduces 31 new residential lots to Site while reinstating the Dixon Farmhouse’s residential use. The conservation approach is informed by interpretation of the Historic Ontario Farmstead typology, and communicates the Site’s rural heritage. The proposal is consistent with the relevant provincial and municipal heritage policies, and meets the recognized professional standards and best practices in the field of heritage conservation in Canada. 9.1 Conservation Scope of Work The following preliminary conservation scope is anticipated: • Stabilize the structure in preparation for the relocation southeastward from its original location; • Relocate the structure; • Remove and salvage of the rear portico; • Restore the farmhouse exterior through works such as general masonry cleaning and mortar repairs, repair of wood details at the eave lines and dormer window, replacement of roof materials, dismantle and reconstruction of the two brick chimneys, as necessary; and • Investigate the feasibility of repairing/replacing original windows, based on condition and performance. Although early in the process, the Dixon Farmhouse’s feasibility for relocation has been confirmed by building relocation specialists at McCulloch Movers. A Feasibility Assessment prepared by McCulloch Movers, dated March 29, 2022 is included in Appendix C. Rehabilitation works will be further detailed in a Heritage Impact Assessment to be submitted at the Site Plan Approval stage, which will detail the confirmed design approach for the new lot and addition, and a subsequent Conservation Plan, as required by the City of Pickering. Rehabilitation: the action or process of making possible a continuing or compatible contemporary use of an historic place, or an individual component, while protecting its heritage value. Restoration: the action or process of accurately revealing, recovering or representing the state of an historic place, or of an individual component, as it appeared at a particular period in its history, while protecting its heritage value. Preservation: the action or process of protecting, maintaining, and/or stabilizing the existing materials, form, and integrity of a historic place or of an individual component, while protecting its heritage value. (Standards and Guidelines for the Conser- vation of Historic Places in Canada, 2003). - 210 - 42 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE 10 concLuSion and rEcommEndationS The proposed Plan of Subdivision application will create 31 new residential lots, while retaining and relocating the Dixon Farmhouse 8.8 metres south and 7 metres east. The Dixon Farmhouse will be expanded with a contemporary rear addition, designed to be compatible with and subordinate to the heritage resource. The proposed development intensifies the Site while conserving its the cultural heritage value. Any potential impact of new construction will be mitigated by design measures related to scale, form, massing, and materiality. The design measures proposed have been developed with reference to the Historic Ontario Farmstead typology. The design of the proposed addition and the site’s landscape strategy is conceptual for the purposes of this Draft Plan of Subdivision Application, but will be refined and confirmed only at Site Plan Approval stage. The proposal appropriately balances the planning and heritage conservation objectives for the Site, is consistent with the relevant provincial and municipal heritage policies, and meets the recognized professional standards in the field of heritage conservation in Canada. - 211 - 43APRIL 8, 2022 ERA Architects Inc. (ERA) specializes in heritage conservation, architecture, planning and landscape as they relate to historical places. This work is driven by our core interest in connecting heritage issues to wider considerations of urban design and city building, and to a broader set of cultural values that provide perspective to our work at different scales. In our 30 years of work, we have provided the highest level of professional services to our clients in both the public and private sector out of offices in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa. We have a staff of more than 100, and our Principals and Associates are members of associations that include: the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA), the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC). Philip Evans OAA, MRAIC, ICOMOS, CAHP is a Principal at ERA and the founder of Culture of Outports and small. Over the course of 17 years working in the field of heritage conservation, he has led a wide range of conservation, adaptive reuse, design, and feasibility planning projects. Samantha Irvine JD, ICOMOS, CAHP is a Senior Associate with the heritage planning team at ERA, where she has overseen projects that impact culturally significant buildings, neighbourhoods and landscapes since 2015. She holds a BA in History and Sociology from McGill University (Great Distinction); MA degrees in Historical & Sustainable Architecture (NYU) and Sustainable Urbanism (Wales); and a JD from Queen’s University. She is a member of the Ontario Bar Association and a former Fellow of Sustainable Urbanism with the Prince’s Foundation in London, England. Emma Abramowicz CAHP is a planner and Senior Project Manager at ERA Architects. She holds a Master of Planning in Urban Development from Ryerson University, and a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) from Queen’s University. Catherine Huynh BURPI is a Planner with ERA Architects. She holds a Bachelor of Urban and Regional Planning from Ryerson University. 11 Summary of profESSionaL QuaLificationS - 212 - 44 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE 12 rEfErEncES Ancestry. (n.d.) Canada, Voters Lists, 1835-1980. https://www.ancestry.ca/search/collections/2983/ Archives of Ontario. (n.d.). Township of Pickering fonds (1811-1960). Calis, K (2020). Pickering adopts Indigenous land acknowledgement settlement. https://www.toronto.com/ news-story/10240890-pickering-adopts-indigenous-land-acknowledgement-statement/ Chippewas and Mississaugas Williams Treaties First Nations (n.d.). Pre-Confederation Treaties. https:// williamstreatiesfirstnations.ca/pre-confederation-treaties/ City of Pickering. (2018). City of Pickering Official Plan - Edition 8. https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/ officialplan.aspx City of Pickering. (n.d.) Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. https://corporate.pickering.ca/ PLHCWebLink/Welcome.aspx?cr=1 City of Toronto. (n.d.) Aerial Photographs [1947-1992]. https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/accountability- operations-customer-service/access-city-information-or-records/city-of-toronto-archives/whats-online/ maps/aerial-photographs/ Durham Region. (2020). 2020- Durham Region Official Plan - Office Consolidation. https://www.durham. ca/en/doing-business/resources/Documents/PlanningandDevelopment/Official-Plan/2020-Durham- Regional-Official-Plan-Consolidation---Revised-1.pdf Facebook. (n.d.). Vintage Pickering Public Group. https://www.facebook.com/groups/vintagepickering/ about/ Gauslin, L (1974). From Paths to Planes – A Story of the Claremont Area. https://corporate.pickering.ca/ PLHCWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=171275&page=9&searchid=be0f77d4-79ec-4608-be90-e9bbe1ca3cc9 Kenyon, W (1958). The Miller Site. https://archive.org/details/millersite00keny Kenyon, W (1959). The Miller Site - 1959. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/DocView.aspx?id= 171235&page=3&searchid=eb7bd478-e168-4906-901c-392b2c085ac9 Library and Archives Canada (n.d.). Census Databse (1825 to 1926). https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/census/ Pages/census.aspx#b Ministry of Indigenous Affairs (n.d.) Map of Ontario treaties and reserves. https://www.ontario.ca/page/ map-ontario-treaties-and-reserves Ministry of Municipal Affairs (2020). Provincial Policy Statement. https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-provincial- policy-statement-2020-accessible-final-en-2020-02-14.pdf Parks Canada (2010). Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. https:// www.pc.gc.ca/en/culture/rclp-crhp/standards - 213 - 45APRIL 8, 2022 Parslow Heritage Consultancy Inc. (2020). Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report - 450 Finch Avenue, Part 31, Concession 2, Geographical Township of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario. Province of Ontario (n.d.). Discover Indigenous culture and history along the Trans Canada Trail. https:// www.ontario.ca/page/indigenous-culture-and-history-along-transcanada-trail#section-1 Province of Ontario (n.d.). O. Reg. 9/06: CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060009 Wood, W (1911). Past Years in Pickering: sketches of the history of the community. https://archive.org/details/ pastyearsinpicke00wooduoft/page/n9/mode/2up Sabean, J (2000). Time Present and Time Past: A Pictorial History of Pickering. https://corporate.pickering. ca/PLHCWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=171422&page=2&searchid=1ed40f0c-0386-4bdc-8742-45f45437b0f5 Service Ontario (n.d.) Search land property records. https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-land-property-records Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (n.d.). Current Archaeological Projects. https://trca.ca/ conservation/archaeology/current-archaeological-projects/ Toronto Public Library. (n.d.). Digital Newspaper. https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/books-video-music/ downloads-ebooks/digital-newspapers.jsp Veilleux, A (2011). K nowing Landscape: Living, Discussing, and Imagining the Toronto Carrying Place - 214 - 46 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE 13 appEndicES APPENDIX A: DRAFT HIA TERMS OF REFERENCE (CITY OF PICKERING, 2021) - 215 - DRAFT Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference, Nov. 26, 2021 Page 1 DRAFT Heritage Impact Assessment - Terms of Reference The City of Pickering recognizes the importance of maintaining a meaningful and active connection to its past through the conservation of its rich and varied cultural heritage: People, in making decisions and undertaking actions, should recognize, respect and nurture Pickering’s cultural heritage. This celebration of local heritage will contribute to the enrichment of the City’s urban, rural and ecological systems. Pickering’s resulting patterns of diversity and character, integrating old with new, and natural with built, will give the City a unique identity.1 The Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference supports the vision and the policies set out in the Pickering Official Plan, with a specific interest in ensuring that private and public developments and projects serve to conserve, protect and enhance the City’s cultural heritage resources. This terms of reference also follows the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) which states that “Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved” and that “Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved.” What is the purpose of this assessment? The purpose of a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) is to determine if any cultural heritage resources may be adversely impacted by a specific proposed development or site alteration, and to recommend an overall approach to conserve the resource(s). The study will be based on a comprehensive understanding of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource(s). It will serve to identify any impact(s) the proposed development or site alteration will have on the resource(s), consider mitigation options, and recommend a conservation strategy that best conserves the cultural heritage resource(s) within the context of the proposed development. The conservation strategy shall apply heritage conservation principles, clearly describe the conservation work and recommend methods to avoid or mitigate the negative impacts to the cultural heritage resource(s). In keeping with best practice, minimal intervention should be the guiding principle for all work. It is important to recognize the need for the HIA in the earliest possible stage of the project as it will need to address both existing and potential heritage properties including those: ● listed or designated on the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register; 1 Pickering Official Plan, Edition 8 - 216 - DRAFT Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference, Nov. 26, 2021 Page 2 ● Identified on the City of Pickering Inventory of Heritage Resources by Unterman McPhail Associates; ● identified as having cultural heritage value or interest through a preliminary site assessment or planning study; or, ● identified by the community, Municipal staff or local councillor. When is an HIA required? Where the development site contains one of more heritage properties, an HIA is a requirement of a complete application for the following planning application types: ● Official Plan Amendment ● Zoning By-law Amendment ● Plans of Subdivision/Condominium ● Site Plan Control An HIA may be required for the following additional application types: ● Consent and/or Minor Variance applications for any property on the Municipal Heritage Register. ● Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Plans of Subdivision, Site Plan Control and/or Consent and/or Minor Variance applications adjacent to a property on the Municipal Heritage Register. For the purpose of an HIA, adjacent means lands that are contiguous to a heritage property or which are near to a heritage property and separated by a road, trail, right of way, walkway, greenspace, or park. ● Heritage Permit applications (including demolitions) for any property designated under Part IV (individual) or Part V (Heritage Conservation District) of the Ontario Heritage Act, or properties subject to a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City of Pickering or Ontario Heritage Trust. Why is an HIA required? The HIA is required in order to: ● determine compliance with relevant cultural heritage policies; and ● assist staff with their analysis and report preparation. The rationale for the requirement to provide an HIA arises from: ● The Ontario Heritage Act; ● The Planning Act, Section 2(d); ● The Provincial Policy Statement, Section 2.6 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology; ● A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Section 4.2.7 Cultural Heritage Resources; ● Durham Regional Official Plan; ● City of Pickering Official Plan. Who is qualified to prepare an HIA? All HIAs must be prepared by a qualified heritage professional such as a heritage planner, heritage architect and/or heritage landscape architect with demonstrated knowledge in the - 217 - DRAFT Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference, Nov. 26, 2021 Page 3 conservation and stewardship of cultural heritage. The heritage professional must be a member in good standing of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP), and be independent from the planning, consulting or engineering firm making the development application or working on behalf of the applicant. Consideration will be given on a case-by-case basis to non-CAHP members who have specialization in applicable areas, depending on the types of heritage resources being assessed. What are the required contents of the HIA? The HIA will contain, but is not limited to, the following information. Introduction to the Subject Property ● A location plan (map and aerial photo) indicating the property/properties. ● A current site plan. ● A concise written and visual description of the property and its surroundings, identifying significant features, buildings, landscapes and views/vistas including any yet unidentified potential cultural heritage resources. ● A summary of the heritage status of the property and including existing heritage descriptions (as available) as well as applicable heritage policies and guidelines. ● Present owner’s contact information. Background Research and Analysis ● A comprehensive history of the property as documented in pictorial and textual records and as observed in as-found evidence related to all potential cultural heritage value or interest of the site (both identified and unidentified) including: physical or design, historical or associative, and contextual values. ● A chronological description of the site’s development from its Indigenous and pre- settlement condition through to its current lot configuration, and itemizing the structures and landscapes, noting additions, alterations, removals, conversions, etc. ● Reproductions of pictorial research materials including (but not limited to) maps, atlases, drawings, photographs, permit records, land title records, tax assessment rolls, directories, census records, etc. Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest ● An assessment of the property with respect to Ontario Regulation 9/06 - Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, describing the cultural heritage value or interest of the property as a whole and identifying all significant heritage attributes. Present the findings in a table organized according to each criterion with an explanation for each conclusion. Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest ● A statement of cultural heritage value or interest identifying the cultural heritage value(s) and describing the heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource(s). - 218 - DRAFT Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference, Nov. 26, 2021 Page 4 ● This statement will be informed by current research and analysis of the site as well as pre-existing heritage descriptions. ● This statement will be written in a way that does not respond to or anticipate any current or proposed interventions to the site. Assessment of Existing Condition ● A comprehensive written description of the existing physical condition of the structures on the site, including their exterior and interior. ● Professional quality record photographs of the property in its present state, including: ● views of the area surrounding the property to show it in context with adjacent properties and the immediate streetscape; ● overall views of the property including all significant landscape features; ● exterior views of each elevation of each building; ● interior views of heritage attributes or features, and a representative selection of rooms; ● close-up views of all interior and exterior heritage attributes. Description of the Proposed Development or Site Alteration ● A written and visual description of the proposed development or site alteration, including a proposed site plan, landscape plan, building elevations, and floor plans, where applicable. Submission material should clearly indicate the location of the on-site and adjacent cultural heritage resource(s) and the relationship of the proposed development to it. Impact of Development on Heritage Attributes ● An assessment of the potential impacts (direct and indirect, physical and aesthetic) the proposed development or site alteration may have on the cultural heritage resource(s) and heritage attributes of the site and/or adjacent lands using established heritage conservation principles, standards and guidelines. Supplement the written description with visual diagrams, drawings and/or renderings as needed. ● Positive impacts may include, but are not limited to: ● Restoration of a building, including replacement of missing attributes; ● Enhancement of an historic streetscape; ● Rehabilitation of a cultural heritage resource to ensure long-term viability. ● Negative impacts may include, but are not limited to: ● The destruction of any significant heritage attribute or part thereof; ● Alteration that is not sympathetic to the heritage attribute; ● Shadows created by new development that alter the appearance of, or change the viability of a heritage attribute; ● Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context, or significant spatial relationship; ● Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas; ● A change in land use which negates the property’s cultural heritage value; - 219 - DRAFT Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference, Nov. 26, 2021 Page 5 ● Land disturbances such as a grade change that alters soils and drainage patterns that adversely affect a cultural heritage resource. Considered Alternatives and Mitigation Strategies ● An assessment of the mitigation measures, conservation methods, and/or alternative development options that avoid or limit the adverse impacts to the cultural heritage resource. ● Mitigation options may include, but are not limited to: ● Alternative development approaches; ● Isolating development and site alteration from significant built and natural features and vistas; ● Design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting, and materials; ● Limiting height and density; ● Compatible infill and additions; ● Reversible alterations; ● Relocation of a heritage resource, to be employed only as a last resort, if conservation cannot be achieved by any other means. Recommended Conservation Strategy ● The preferred strategy recommended to best protect and enhance the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the on site and adjacent cultural heritage resource(s) including, but not limited to: ● An explanation of how the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the heritage resources informed and influenced the proposed development or site alteration; ● A mitigation strategy including the proposed methods; ● A conservation scope of work including the proposed methods; ● An implementation and monitoring plan, as applies; ● Referenced heritage policy, conservation principles and guidelines, and precedents; ● If removal of the cultural heritage resource was recommended, the HIA will provide site-specific guidelines to address commemoration/interpretation, salvaging, and/or documentation prior to demolition. Conclusion and Recommendations ● A concise summary of the findings of the report and clear recommendations regarding the most appropriate course of action for the property and its cultural heritage resources. Additional studies/plans may include: conservation; site specific design guidelines; interpretation / commemoration; lighting; landscaping; signage; structural/engineering analysis; site/building record and documentation; salvage; long-term maintenance; etc. Appendices ● A bibliography listing source materials and institutions ● A summary of the author’s qualifications - 220 - DRAFT Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference, Nov. 26, 2021 Page 6 The study will be submitted in hard copy (2 copies) and in PDF format. What else should the applicant know? As each proposal and property is different, contact the heritage planner prior to the commencement of the project to review the City’s cultural heritage interests, study expectations and review process. For complex applications, pre-consultation with the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee may also be requested. All HIAs will be reviewed by staff to ensure they are complete and that they meet the standards for heritage conservation best practices. Reports which are found to be lacking in this regard may be refused or require revisions. The City of Pickering reserves the right to request an independent peer review of an HIA at the applicant’s cost. Heritage and Planning staff will facilitate peer reviews if deemed necessary by the Manager, Development Review and Urban Design. What resources are available? ● Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) ● City of Pickering: Heritage Planning Information; Municipal Heritage Register and Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive ● Ontario Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries: Ontario Heritage Tool Kit and Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties ● Parks Canada: Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada ● Other heritage charters and guidelines: Well-Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundation’s Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation; Burra Charter; Appleton Charter; and Venice Charter. Questions? Elizabeth Martelluzzi Senior Planner, Development Review & Heritage City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 emartelluzzi@pickering.ca T. 905.420.4660 ext. 2169 Toll Free: 1.866.683.2760 F. 905.420.7648 - 221 - 47APRIL 8, 2022 Year Number of Acres Value of Real Property (Benjamin Dixon; Lot 31, Con. 2) 1852 50 £ 250 1853 50 £ 275 1854 50 £ 250 1855 50 £ 250 1856 50 £ 250 1857 50 £ 250 1858 50 £ 300 1859 50 $ 1200 * 1860 50 $ 1200 1861 50 $ 1200 1862 50 $ 1200 1863 50 $ 1200 1864 50 $ 1200 APPENDIX B: TAX ASSESSMENT ROLLS (LOT 31, CON 2) * Note: The increase in value is due to the Province of Canada’s accounts being required to be kept in dollars instead of pounds. - 222 - 48 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE APPENDIX C: FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT (MCCULLOCH MOVERS, 2022) - 223 - 960 Taunton Rd E Whitby, ON L1R 3L8 Phone: (905) 728-0884 Fax: (905) 743-0528 www.mccullochmovers.ca Laurie McCulloch Building Moving Tuesday, March 29, 2022 Emma Abramowicz (she/her) | Project Manager M.Pl. CAHP ERA Architects Inc. T 416.963.4497 x272 F 416.963.8761 E EmmaA@eraarch.ca Re: Proposed Heritage relocation at 450 Finch Avenue, Pickering, Ontario We are writing to provide our support of the proposed relocation of the heritage building at 450 Finch Avenue, Pickering Ontario. The historic stone building is in solid structural condition and is a good candidate for relocation on site. We have reviewed the proposed project and propose the following relocation strategy like previous successful projects that satisfies the site-specific requirements: • The building be loaded in one piece after some repointing work in the corners and areas of water penetration • The building will be relocated to a location directly over top of the footings at its final location • A full height basement will be built - 224 - Laurie McCulloch Building Moving 2 We have successfully relocated several such large scale heritage buildings on projects such as 100 Yorkville, 56 Blue Jays Way, Gooderham Mansion, James Cooper Mansion, 76 Howard Street. Each project has been slightly different, and each unique site circumstance has been accommodated Our Engineer, David Seberras has worked with us all these projects and we are looking forward to having him work with us on this project Yours Truly Greg Mcculloch Greg McCulloch Laurie McCulloch Building Moving - 225 - Laurie McCulloch Building Moving 3 Stone Building in air. Foundation built between beams - 226 - - 227 - CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT KINGSTON ROAD STUDY Pickering, Ontario November 1, 2020 Attachment #12 - 228 - Cover Image: 301 Kingston Road, 2019. (Branch Architecture, BA) PREPARED FOR: Elizabeth Martelluzzi, Planner II, Heritage City Development Department City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 E: emartelluzzi@pickering.ca PREPARED BY: Branch Architecture 2335 County Road 10 Picton, ON K0K 2T0 T: (613) 827-5806 Issued: 2020.06.16 DRAFT 2020.11.01 R1 - 229 - i Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 CONTENTS 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Project Framework & Background 1.2 Property Addresses and Lot Descriptions 2 Land Grants 2 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Historical Maps 3 1 Evelyn Avenue 7 3.1 Property Description 3.2 Background Research 3.3 Building Description & Site Photos 3.4 Evaluation 4 301 Kingston Road 16 4.1 Property Description 4.2 Background Research 4.3 Building Description & Site Photos 4.4 Evaluation 5 401 Kingston Road 26 5.1 Property Description 5.2 Background Research 5.3 Building Description 5.4 Evaluation 6 882 & 886 Kingston Road 37 6.1 Property Description 6.2 Background Research 6.3 Building Description & Site Photos 6.4 Evaluation 7 Discussion 59 Appendix 1: Sources Appendix 2: Summary of Land Records - 230 - ii KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 1. Approximate location of subject properties. (Bing maps annotated by BA) 1 Evelyn Avenue 882 Kingston Road 401 Kingston Road 301 Kingston Road PROJECTNORTH - 231 - 1 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 1 Introduction 1.1 Project Framework & Background Branch Architecture was retained by the City of Pickering as a heritage consultant to assess the potential cultural heritage value of four properties of heritage significance identified in the Kingston Road Corridor and Speciality Retailing Node Draft Intensification Plan. These properties are: 1 Evelyn Avenue; 301 Kingston Road; 401 Kingston Road; and, 882 Kingston Road. The scope of this cultural heritage evaluation includes the following: 1. Undertake a site visit to each property, including a walk around the subject building. 2. Conduct preliminary background research on the history of the properties and their immediate setting. 3. Undertake general photographic documentation of the property and surroundings. 4. Prepare a Preliminary Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report including the following for each property: • A written description of the property and building(s); • General photographs of each property and buildings; and, • Preliminary heritage evaluation based on Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Branch Architecture undertook on site visits to 401 and 882 Kingston Road on March 2, 2020, and to 301 Kingston Road on October 19, 2020. The visits consisted of walking around each property and the immediate context, and completing a visual review of the building exterior and interior (where access was permitted). All the properties were reviewed from the street in December of 2019. Branch Architecture prepared this Cultural Heritage Evaluation in accordance with Ontario Regulation 9/06 - Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, the Ontario Heritage Act, the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada as well as other charters and guidelines that exemplify heritage best practice. 1.2 Property Addresses and Lot Descriptions • 1 Evelyn Avenue - PLAN 230 PT LOT 10 NOW RP 40R12418 PART 1 • 301 Kingston Road - CON BF RANGE 3 PT LOT 32 • 401 Kingston Road - PLAN 230 PT LOT 19 NOW RP 40R16160 PART 1 • 882 & 886 Kingston Road - CON BF RANGE 3 PT LOT 27 AND RP 40R2628 PART 1 TO 4 AND RP 40R15853 PART 1,2,3 - 232 - 2 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 2 Land Grants 2.1 Introduction The Constitutional Act of 1791, known as the Canada Act, divided the Province of Quebec into Upper Canada to the west and Lower Canada to the east. As part of this Act, land grants in the newly surveyed townships were issued under the newly estab- lished provincial governments. In 1792, the responsibility of granting lands was del- egated to Lt. Governor Col. John Graves Simcoe. Simcoe followed British land granting tradition and, in effect, made members of his legislative council landed gentry. By the end of his term of office in 1796, he had placed one seventh of the surveyed townships in the hands of the Church of England (known as the Clergy Reserves) and provided well for his council and his civil servants. In the Pickering Township alone, of the 74,660 acres which the township contains, 18,800 were in the hands of five people; one of them the newly appointed Surveyor-General, two others, members of his family.1 Much of the Pickering Township was either granted to members of the military or allo- cated as additional land grants to absentee landholders. As such, there was little land left for new settlers purchasing land to establish a homestead here.2 Large areas of land, in particular the most desirable lands along the shoreline, remained wild well into the 1800s when the original landowners and the Church began selling off parcels to new settlers. The subject properties are located within Broken Front Concession 3 as shown on the 1877 County Atlas (opposite): • Con. 3 B.F., Lot 27 - 862 Kingston Road; • Con. 3 B.F., Lot 31 - 1 Evelyn Avenue and 401 Kingston Road; and, • Con. 3 B.F., Lot 32 - 301 Kingston Road. All these lots are bisected by Kingston Road. Kingston Road was a military road, dating from 1800, that served as the primary route for pioneers travelling between York (Toronto) and the Bay of Quinte (Kingston). In 1796, an American engineer named Asa Danforth was awarded with the contract for the road - a road two rods wide and far enough from the shore to avoid enemy forces from observing troop movements. 1 The Pickering Story, p. 21. 2 The Crown provided Loyalists with 200 acres and military grants of up to 5,000 acres for free. Settlers paid the Crown for 200 acre parcels. - 233 - 3 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 2. The Ontario County Atlas, 1877. (The County Atlas Project, McGill University) Lo t 3 2 Lo t 3 1 Broken Front Con. 3 Broken Front Con. 2 Con. 1 Lo t 3 3 Lo t 2 9 Lo t 2 8 Lo t 3 0 Lo t 2 6 Lo t 2 5 Lo t 2 7 Lo t 2 3 Lo t 2 4 1 Evelyn Avenue 882 Kingston Road 401 Kingston Road 301 Kingston Road PROJECTNORTH Kingston Rd Kingston Rd 2.2 Historical Maps - 234 - 4 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 3. Township of Pickering, County of Ontario Crown Lands Map No. 28, by Thomas Ridout, 1823 with later revisions. The clergy reserve lands are identified in blue. (Ontario Archives, OA) Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F. 4. Tremaine’s Map of the County of Ontario, Upper Canada by John Shier Esq. P.L.A. & County Engineer and published by Geo. C. Tremaine, 1860. (University of Toronto Map & Data Library) Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F.Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. - 235 - 5 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 5. The Ontario County Atlas, 1877. (The County Atlas Project, McGill University) 6. Map of the Township of Pickering by Chas E. Goad, 1895. (Pickering Archives, PA) Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F.Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F.Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. - 236 - 6 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 7. Gidual Landowners’ Map of Pickering, c. 1917. (PA) 8. Map of Pickering Township, Centennial Souvenir, 1967. (PA) Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F.Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F.Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. - 237 - 7 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 3 1 Evelyn Avenue 9. 1 Evelyn Avenue, west elevation. (Google streetview) Rougemoun t D r i v e H i g h w a y 4 0 1 Ev e l y n A v e n u e Toynevale Road Dalewood Drive K i n g s t o n R o a d Ch a n t i l l y R o a d Ro s e b a n k R o a d Frontier Court Granite Court Rouge Hill Court Old Forest Road East Woodlands Park South PetticoatRavine 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Location Map File: Property Description: A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯ E Pt Lot 10, Plan 230, Now Pt, 1 40R-12418 Subject Lands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\1EvelynAve_LocationMap.mxd (1 Evelyn Avenue) 10. 1 Evelyn Avenue, location map. (City of Pickering) - 238 - 8 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 3.1 Property Description One Evelyn Avenue falls within the south half of Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 31. The parcel was created as part of the Morgan & Dixon’s Plan (Plan No. 230) dated July 6, 1922. 3.2 Background Research Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 31 Concession 3 Broken Front Lot 31 originally formed part of the Clergy Reserves land allocation in Pickering.1 Seneca Palmer (1787-1873) received the patent for Lot 31 of the third broken front concession in Pickering in 1846.2 The Palmer family immigrated to Upper Canada from the United States around 1976 and settled in Scarborough in and around 1800. Seneca and his younger brothers John and Sherwood moved to the Township of Pickering to purchase land and establish their own farms. Seneca’s land petition of March 1819 describes him as follows: That your Petitioner was born in the United States of America, has resided in this province 23 years, is 27 years of age, is a son of James Palmer Senior an old settler in Scarborough, is married, and has never received any land from the Crown.3 Local historian John Sabean’s research of the Palmer Family suggests that Seneca Palmer farmed the land prior to gaining a land patent for Lot 31 in 1846. In a petition to purchase the property from the Crown, dated 21 February 1837, Palmer is described as ‘of the Township of Pickering’ and states that he has already cleared about 30 acres of the lot.4 1 The Crown Lands map (figure 3) notes Zephaniah Jones on this lot. According to Sabean’s article on the Palmer family, Jones leased this land from the Clergy Reserve from as early as 1823. Jones appears on Pickering Town Records as early as 1820. 2 Brown’s Toronto City and Home District Directory, 1846-1847, also lists Seneca Palmer on Lot 31, p. 62. 3 Upper Canada Land Petitions quoted in Sabean article. 4 The Palmer Family, p. 2. The Palmer Family “The early history of the Palmer fam- ily is sketchy and so far has been pieced together from what little documentation is available. The earliest references to the family date to 1802. Asa Danforth, reporting in that year on the condition of the Danforth Road, states that a settler named Palmer was located on the 10th mile post beyond York, which was probably Lot 23, Concession D in Scarborough. There is also a reference to a ‘Palmer’ family on a list of residents in the Township of Scarborough in 1802. The head of the family was James Palmer, Sr., who appears in the records of Scarborough on several occasions to about 1815. In 1803, he was appointed pound keeper and in 1804 overseer of highways. In 1815, a James Palmer, Sr. was noted in a York Militia List as being exempt from military draft. His family, as well as can be determined, consisted of his wife (name unknown), two daughters (one perhaps named Clara), and five sons (Seneca, John, and Sherwood who later moved to Pickering Town- ship, and James and Charles who remained in Scarborough).” - The Palmer Family: Settling in South Pickering by John W. Sabean - 239 - 9 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 By 1851, Seneca had established a 198 acre farm. There were 50 acres under cultivation including, 23 acres under crop (wheat, peas, oats, corn, potatoes, turnips and hay) and 15 acres under pasture. There was also an orchard or garden and livestock including cattle, horses, sheep, pigs. The remainder of the lot was wooded or ‘wild’.5 The 1851 census records show the Palmer family included Seneca, his wife Jane Jacques (1796-1875) and two chil- dren - George (age 19) and William (age 7). At that time the family was living in a one-storey brick house.6 7 Sabean’s article on the Palmer family describes the family residence as follows: ... one-and-a-half storey brick structure, is a fine example of the vernacular Regency-style cottage... As befitting the Regency style, the house is set in a picturesque landscape on a height of land over- looking the Petticoat.”8 9 George Palmer (1833-1891) remained on the family farm with his parents, while the other children left to start their own homesteads. Of note, two siblings had houses on adja- cent properties.10 11 After Seneca died of pneumonia on October 15, 1873, the properties in Pickering and Scarborough were willed to his wife Jane.12 Following her death in 1875, Lot 31 was divided between two of the sons: George received the north part of 120 acres, and James the south part of 80 acres. John and William acquired the Scarborough lands. 5 Year: 1851; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario County, Canada West (Ontario); Schedule: B; Roll: C_11742; Page: 275; Line: 9. 6 Year: 1851; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario County, Canada West (Ontario); Schedule: A; Roll: C_11742; Page: 171; Line: 42. 7 The 1851 census also notes Seneca’s older sons and their families under his listing: John, his wife Sarah, and daughter Mary; and, James, his wife Ellen as well as their children Jane and Seneen. Both families were living in 1 1/2 storey frame houses. 8 The Palmer Family, p. 2. 9 According to local papers, in 1998 the house was slated to be removed to allow for the construction of a new library. 10 Library and Archives Canada; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Census Returns For 1861; Roll: C-1057. 11 Year: 1871; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario South, Ontario; Roll: C-9973; Page: 69; Family No: 243. 12 Death certificate, Archives of Ontario; Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Collection: MS935; Reel: 5. 11. Seneca Palmer house, sketch (above) and in 1998 (be- low). (Pathways, Vol 2., No. 4) - 240 - 10 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER In 1882, George Kinlock purchased a 27 acre parcel along Kingston Road from George and Mary Palmer. Kinlock, a farmer, lived here with his mother (also named Mary).13 He died on July 19, 1915.14 The Pickering News remembered him under the Rosebank neighbourhood news column: Geo. Kinlock, an old resident, died at his resi- dence just north of here on Monday morning. The deceased, who was 68 years of age, was a bachelor and lived alone since the death of his mother some years ago. His funeral took place on Tuesday to St. Margaret’s cemetery, Scarboro.15 The executors of Kinlock’s will put the land up for sale the following August. Griffith B. Clarke purchased the 27 acre lot on June 26, 1919. The farm changed hands several times before Plan 230 - Morgan & Dixon’s Plan - was registered on March 13, 1922. It was named for the land owners Edwin Morgan and Mildred Dixon. The properties at 1 Evelyn Avenue and 401 Kingston Road fall within this subdivision. Lot 10 - 1 Evelyn Avenue The property at 1 Evelyn Avenue was granted to Silas R. Dixon, Mildred’s spouse, in 1930. The property remained in the Dixon family ownership until 1943. In 1921 Mildred and Silas Dixon lived in Pickering with their children Evelyn, Alexander, Leonard, Ruby and Russel, though it is not confirmed if they resided here.16 The next property owners were John Horace and Dorothea Daniell-Jenkins. Heinz and Ilse Wolf bought the lot in 1980. In 1998 it was sold to Mike Lindo, and the following year it was transferred to a company named 1000683 Ontario Ltd. The building currently houses a law office. 13 Year: 1891; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario West, Ontario, Canada; Roll: T-6358; Family No: 134. 14 Archives of Ontario; Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Collection: MS935; Reel: 211. 15 The Pickering News, Friday, July 23, 1915, Vol. XXXIV, p. 1. (PA). 16 Reference Number: RG 31; Folder Number: 75; Census Place: Pickering (Township), Ontario South, Ontario; Page Number: 1. 12. Property sale advert. (The Pickering News, August 27, 1915) - 241 - 11 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 3.3 Building Description & Site Photos Branch Architecture completed a visual review of this prop- erty from the street in December of 2019. It was a prelim- inary review focused on gaining a visual understanding of the site and building for the purposes of evaluating its potential cultural heritage value. The residential form buildings (house and outbuilding) at 1 Evelyn Avenue are examples of early 20th century bungalow style architecture in Pickering. The bungalow style house gained popularity in American in the early 20th century. It was popularized in California where American designers drew inspiration from the British version of India’s banglas style of home (Bengali style). In Ontario, the bungalow style is almost exclusively residential as it was commonly found in house pattern catalogues. The typical bungalow is a one or one-and-a-half storey dwelling with a front porch or verandah and displaying rustic materials such as textured brick, fieldstone and/or stucco. The roof is either a broad, low-pitched roof with a wide front dormer or a medium pitch front gable style. The following description of the property is limited as views from the street are obscured by mature trees: • The house is a two-storey building with a masonry - a mix of brick and stone - cladding. The building has a rectilinear plan with a projecting bay at the north-east corner of the building. The second floor of the main house and the connection to the one-storey outbuilding to the south appear to be additions. • The front (west-facing) elevation displays an asymmet- rical organization. The front entrance door is located between window openings and beneath flat roof canopy resting on square masonry piers. 13. American bungalow style home, 1921. (Sears Roebuck) 14. Canadian bungalow style home, 1922. (The Halliday Co.) - 242 - 12 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER • The exterior walls are clad in a mix of brick and multi-colour fieldstone. The main body of the wall is fieldstone with brick quoins and a brick quoin treatment at the window and door jambs. The extruded red brick is laid in a running bond (suggesting a wood frame construction). • The window openings are rectangular with a concrete sill and an arched brick lintel. The windows are wood with a mix of fixed and single hung sash types. On the ground floor there several types: paired single-hung windows with shorter upper sash (with most divided vertically into three panes); and, single-hung windows (with a shorter upper sash divided vertically into three panes). At the second floor addition, the windows are aluminium or vinyl fixed windows. • The roof has a hipped profile set at a low pitch. The roof is covered in asphalt shingle and the rain gear is painted metal. There is a tall brick chimney at the north wall and a second at the addition. • The one-story outbuilding south of the house displays a similar construction. It is one- storey structure set into the hillside so as to display a two-storey elevation to the east. It is mixed masonry (to match the house) with a hipped roof. The symmetrical front facade facing Evelyn Avenue displays two doors flanking a pair of small sash windows. 15. 1 Evelyn Avenue property, aerial view looking west, Aug. 2020. (Google streetview) - 243 - 13 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 16. 1 Evelyn Avenue property as seen from the corner of Kingston Road and Evelyn Avenue, Aug. 2019. (Google streetview) 17. 1 Evelyn Avenue house (left) and outbuilding (right), west (front) elevation, Aug. 2019. (Google streetview) - 244 - 14 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 18. 1 Evelyn Avenue house, west (front) elevation, 2020. (City staff) - 245 - 15 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 3.4 Evaluation The following evaluates 1 Evelyn Avenue in relation to Ontario Regulation 9/06. Criteria Description Assessment Design or Physical Value i. is a rare, unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method; The building is a represent- ative example of an early 20th century bungalow in Pickering. The unique fieldstone treatment on the exterior walls is also found at 401 Kingston Road which was also contained within the Morgan and Dixon Plan. ii. displays a high degree of crafts- manship or artistic merit, or; None found. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. None found. Historical or Associative Value i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organi- zation, or institution that is significant to a community; None found. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or; None found. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community. None found. Contextual Value i. is important in defining, maintain- ing, or supporting the character of an area; No. ii. is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings, or; Reflects the pattern of early 20th century residential de- velopment along Kingston Road in Pickering. iii. is a landmark.No. - 246 - 16 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 4 301 Kingston Road 19. 301 Kingston Road, north elevation, Dec. 2019. (BA) Ro ugemount Drive Fawndale Road Valley Gate Al t o n a R o a d Le k a n i C o u r t Toynevale Road Wi n e t t e R o a d P in e R id g e R o a d Rouge Hill Court D a l e w o o d D r i v e K i n g s t o n R o a d Brookridge Gate Highway 4 0 1 Ly t t o n C o u r t Ri v e r v i e w C r e s c e n t 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Location Map File: Property Description: A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯ E Pt Lot 32, B.F.C. Range 3 Subject Lands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\301KingstonRd_LocationMap.mxd (301 Kingston Road) City of Toronto 20. 301 Kingston Road, loca- tion map. (City of Pickering) - 247 - 17 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 4.1 Property Description The subject property falls within the south half of Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 32. The parcel was likely created when the concession lot was subdivided in 1944. 4.2 Background Research Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 32 The patent for Lot 32 of the third broken front concession was granted to William Holmes in 1798. Holmes owned multiple parcels in the Township of Pickering; the lots were located between French Man’s Bay and the Rouge River, and found within Concession 1 and along the lake, lots 26 through 33. William Holmes received a patent for Lot 32 on May 22, 1798. William Holmes (1766- 1834) was a doctor and military surgeon in Upper Canada. From 1790 to 1791 he was stationed in Newark near Niagara-on-the-Lake. In 1792, with plans to settle in Upper Canada, he accepted a grant for 1,200 acres in Pickering Township and purchased addi- tional land. However, in 1796 his regiment was relocated to Lower Canada, and Holmes’ family re-settled in Quebec where he worked as a senior medial officer. He also established himself as in private medical practice working at both Hotel-Dieu and Hospital General. By the early 1800s, he and his family were living in Upper Town Quebec City. After the death of his first wife Mary Ann in 1803, he remarried Margaret Macnaider in 1807. He main- tained an active medical career including the following positions: President of the Quebec examiners (1813); member of the Vaccine Board (1817); Justice of the Peace (1821); and, Commissioner for the relief of the insane and foundlings (1816). In the 1820s, Holmes retired from practice, delegating his responsibilities to younger doctors and staff. 1 John Wesley purchased the 195 acre parcel at Con. 3 BF, Lot 32 from William Holmes on June 26, 1843.2 The 1861 census indicates that John Charles Wesley (1838-1920) was a farmer that was born in Toronto. According to the 1861 census, John was married to Elmira Wesley (1841-1884) and they were living in a two storey frame house. The other extended family members living in the house included Jane (18) and Fanny (17) Wesley.3 Wesley owned the property for several decades and registered multiple mortgages on the south part of the lot in the 1860s. Between 1868 and 1871 there was several instruments listed on the south part of the lot, though these records are largely illegible. 1 Dictionary of Canadian Biography, William Holmes. 2 “Sarah Wesley” is listed as the resident of this lot in Brown’s Toronto City and Home District Direc- tory, 1846-1847, p. 65. Her relationship to John is not known. 3 Library and Archives Canada; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Census Returns For 1861; Roll: C-1057. - 248 - 18 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER In 1874, the part of the lot south of Kingston Road was purchased by Richard Rodd (1837- 1900); Rodd is also recorded on the 1877 Atlas Map. Richard, his wife Susan (1834-1899) and their eight children lived in Pickering in 1881.4 Richard was a farmer and the family immigrated from England. They lived in Whitby before buying the farm in Pickering.5 Robert and Naomi Moody purchased the lot in either 1881 or 1891.6 They sold the prop- erty south of Kingston Road to George Edward Toyne (1886-1943) on March 18, 1902 for $8,000. After George’s death in 1943, George’s wife Helen sold the one acre lot on the south side of Kingston Road to John and Alcone Alderice. The lot was sold to Manfred Pfeiffer and Delmar Page in 1968, and then granted to Ruth Smith (trustee) on Jan. 4, 1971. Ernest A.J. Salmon purchased the lot on January 16, 1971. Rouge Hill This intersection is identified in historical maps as ‘Rouge Hill’. While little is written about this community along the Grand Trunk Railway line, the 1892-93 Ontario Directory includes the following snapshot in time: A P O on the rive Rouge (which furnishes power), in Pickering tp, Ontario Co, 11 miles s-w of Whitby, the co seat, and 3 n of Pt Union, on the GTR, its nearest bank at Pickering. It contains a flour mill, Bible Christian church and public school. Residents listed - Wm. Maxwell, flour mill; John Pearce mason and contractor; Roger Pearce, mason and contractor; William Pearce, Mason and contractor; and Luke Wallace, carpenter.7 According to the Pickering Tweedsmere scrapbook, this area was also known as East Rouge Hill. 4.3 Building Description & Site Photos Branch Architecture completed a visual review of this property from the street in December of 2019, followed by a visit with the owner on October 19, 2020. There were preliminary reviews focused on gaining a visual understanding of the site and building for the purposes of evaluating its potential cultural heritage value, and did not include access to the interior. The building at 301 Kingston Road is an example of a mid 19th century Georgian house in Pickering, likely dating to the mid-1800s. This style dates to 1750-1850. Based on the English Palladian and Georgian styles, this style arrived in Upper Canada first with the 4 Year: 1881; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario South, Ontario; Roll: C_13244; Page: 84; Family No: 412 5 Year: 1871; Census Place: Whitby, Ontario South, Ontario; Roll: C-9974; Page: 67; Family No: 256 6 This date is difficult to read. 7 Ontario Gazetteer and Directory for 1892-93, p. 1029. - 249 - 19 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 United Empire Loyalists and later with British immigrants. Georgian buildings were known for balanced façades, restrained ornamentation, and minimal detailing. It was employed by Upper Canadian settlers desiring, “a sturdy house that reflected his simple dignity”.8 Common features of this building style include: a box-like massing up to 3 storeys in height; symmetrical elevations and classical proportions often displaying a balanced arrangement of windows and doors with flat or splayed window arches; simple designs with limited clas- sical detailing; medium to high pitch gable roofs with half floors in attics and windows on gable ends; chimneys flanking gable end walls; either timber construction with clapboard siding or solid plain brick buildings; vertical sash windows with wood or stone sills; and, a central entrance door with a transom light and side lights. The following is a description of the building with observations: • The house is a two-storey building with a gable roof. It is located on the south side of Kingston Road and overlooks Kingston Road from a small rise. At the rear of the resi- dence are several one-storey additions. • The front (north-facing) facade displays a balanced (though not symmetrical) arrange- ment of openings. On the ground floor there is a centrally placed front door flanked by window openings. On the second floor are three evenly placed window openings; they do not align with the openings below. • The side (east and west) elevations display a symmetrical arrangement of window openings. On the east elevation there is a vertical strip between the windows; this is likely an alteration related to the chimney. • The building has a stone foundation laid in a random pattern. In 2020, a pre-painted aluminum skirt flashing was installed over the foundation visible above grade. • The exterior walls are clad in horozontal pre-painted aluminum siding with a edge board detail at the base of the wall, corners and eaves. Given the depth of wall extending out from the stone foundation, it appeared that the original siding may be concealed under the existing, however, the owner advised that under the existing siding are plain wood planks laid horizontally (not a finished painted clapboard or masonry). This suggests that the original cladding has been removed. • The front entrance opening is framed by a pedimented lintel and side panels. These elements have been covered in painted metal. In front of the entrance is a poured concrete step with a modern wood railing at the east side. 8 Ontario Architecture, www.ontarioarchitecture.com. - 250 - 20 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER • In 2019, the front entrance doorway was composed of a six-panel wood door flanked by wood columns, inset sidelights (2 lights over a base panel) and an inset four-light transom. The framing elements (door frame and stiles) and the base panels at the side- lights were overclad in painted metal. By October of 2020, the doors and windows had been replaced and the pediment concealed under new metal. • The window openings are rectangular with a thin sill and wide frames at the top, sides and mullions. In 2019, the windows appear to be constructed of wood and were made up of a sash windows with exterior storm windows. There was a mix of window arrangements and patterns. On the ground floor there is: a grouping of three windows consisting of a 6-over-12 sash flanked by 4-over-6 sash windows; pairs of 4-over-6 sash windows; and, pairs of 4-over-1 sash windows. At the second floor there are 4-over-1 sash windows in pairs and threes and, at the rear elevation, 6-over-1 sash windows. By October of 2020, the windows had been replaced with single pane windows. The wood sill have also been overclad in pre-painted metal. • The roof has a medium pitch gable roof profile. The roof is covered in asphalt shingle and the rain gear is painted metal. The eaves appear to have been altered with a perfo- rated metal soffit and painted metal overcladding at the fascia, bedmold, frieze and gable-end returns. There is a single red brick chimney at the east wall. 21. Aerial view looking north-east, 2020. (Google streetview) - 251 - 21 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 22. North (front) elevation, 2019. (BA) 23. North (front) elevation, 2020. (BA) - 252 - 22 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 24. Front entrance, 2019. (BA)25. Front entrance, 2020. (BA) 26. Stone foundation, 2019. (BA)27. Metal skirt at foundation, 2020. (BA) - 253 - 23 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 28. East (left) and north (right) elevations, 2019. (BA) 29. East (left) and north (right) elevations, 2020. (BA) - 254 - 24 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 30. West (left) and south (right) elevations, 2019. (BA) 31. West (left) and south (right) elevations, 2020. (BA) - 255 - 25 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 4.4 Evaluation The following evaluates 301 Kingston Road in relation to Ontario Regulation 9/06. Criteria Description Assessment Design or Physical Value i. is a rare, unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method; The building is a rare (and altered) example of an early to mid-19th century Georgian residence in Pickering. ii. displays a high degree of crafts- manship or artistic merit, or; Further investigation required. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. None known. Historical or Associative Value i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organi- zation, or institution that is significant to a community; The property has associations with early Pickering landowner and military doctor William Holmes. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or; No. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community. None known. Contextual Value i. is important in defining, maintain- ing, or supporting the character of an area; No. ii. is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings, or; The property is associ- ated with the Rouge Hill community, and is perhaps one of a few remaining buildings from this time. iii. is a landmark.The building is promi- nently located at the intersection of Alton and Kingston roads, and marks the west edge of Kingston Road. - 256 - 26 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 5 401 Kingston Road 32. 401 Kingston Road, north elevation. (BA) Rougemount Drive Toynevale Road Ev e l y n A v e n u e Ch a n t i l l y R o a d Dah l i a C r e s c e n t Oa k w o o d D r i v e Frontier Court Lytton Court D a l e w o o d D r i v e O l d F o r e s t R o a d Highway 4 0 1 Rouge Hill Court Kingston Road East WoodlandsParkSouth PetticoatRavine 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Location Map File: Property Description: A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯ E Pt Lt 19, Plan 230, Now Pt 1, 40R-16160 Subject Lands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\401KingstonRd_LocationMap.mxd (401 Kingston Road)33. 401 Kingston Road, loca- tion map. (City of Pickering) - 257 - 27 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 5.1 Property Description The subject property falls within the south half of Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 31. The parcel was created as part of the Morgan & Dixon’s Plan (Plan No. 230) dated July 6, 1922. 5.2 Background Research Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 31 See 1 Evelyn Avenue for early settlement history. Lot 19 - 401 Kingston Road The property at 1 Evelyn Avenue was granted to Annie and Horace Branson in 1923. Based on the land records, it appears this transaction was not fulfilled as in 1936 the estate of Peter S. Gates registered a quit claim on the property, likely in relation to a 1922 mort- gage. In 1939, the property was granted to Silas Dixon. In 1944, the property was granted to Silas’ son Alexander. Two years later, the property was sold to Louis E. Staley. Kathleen and John Quigg owned the property between 1951 and 1967. From 1967 the property changed hands several times - John and Margaret Belcourt (1967); Jack Knowles (1970); Victor and Felicia Mastrogicomos (1973); Brian and Christine Binns, (1975); Walter Francis (1987) - before being purchased by a pair of management / hold- ings companies. It was transferred to 1138224 Ontario Ltd. in 1995. A Montessori daycare is currently operating out of the building. 5.3 Building Description For the purposes of this CHER, Branch Architecture visited the property on March 2, 2020. The inspection included walking around the building and through each floor, and completing a visual review and photographic documentation. The review focused on gaining a visual understanding of the site and building for the purposes of evaluating its potential cultural heritage value. The building at 401 Kingston Road is an example of an early 20th century bungalow in Pickering. The Bungalow style house was an American import to Canada in the early 20th century. It was popularized in California; the Americans were inspired by the British version of India’s banglas style of home (Bengali style). In Ontario, the Bungalow style is almost exclusively residential as it was commonly found in house pattern catalogues. The Bungalow is generally a one or one-and-a-half storey dwelling with a front porch or verandah and displaying rustic materials such as textured brick, fieldstone and/ or stucco. The roof is either a broad, low-pitched roof with a wide front dormer or a medium pitch front gable style. - 258 - 28 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER The following is a description of the building with observations: • The house is a one-and-a-half storey wood frame building with a brick veneer and topped with a gable roof. • The front (north-facing) facade displays a symmetrical organization. There is a centrally placed front porch (with an entrance door within) framed by windows on either side. Above is a roof dormer of a similar configuration to the porch. • The building has a poured concrete foundation with large field stones mixed in. On the exterior, the foundation wall displays fieldstone laid in a random pattern and artic- ulated with a pronounced beaded mortar joint. • The exterior walls display a mix of masonry. The fieldstone extends up from the foun- dation to the top of the window sill. The remainder of the exterior walls are clad in an extruded red brick laid in a running bond. The quoins and porch piers are also red brick. • The enclosed front porch has a front gable appearance. The porch is entered from the east side via a wood step. The porch is framed with brick piers at the corners; the piers have a concrete cap and support squared wood columns. The base of the wall is fieldstone with a concrete cap. The upper wall areas are infilled with fixed wood windows following a symmetrical layout. The triangular pediment of the roof gable is infilled with painted wood shingle. • The front door is wood. The upper panel is glazed and is composed of 6 divided lights (3 panes wide). The lower panels is made up of three vertical wood panels. The door opening is framed in brick with an arched brick linel. • The window openings are rectangular with a concrete sill and an arched brick lintel. The windows are wood with a mix of fixed and single hung sash types. On the ground floor there four types: three single-hung windows with shorter upper sash (most divided vertically into three panes); single-hung windows (with shorter upper sash divided verti- cally into three panes); small fixed windows; and, at the front proch, fixed windows with three panes across the top. At the second floor there are single-hung windows (with shorter upper sash divided vertically into three panes). • The roof has a gable roof profile set at a medium pitch and with a gable roof dormer on the front (north) elevation. The roof is covered in asphalt shingle, the eaves are painted wood and display simple detailing including hipped eaves returns on the side gables. The rain gear is painted metal. There is a single chimney at the west wall. It is red brick with a metal cap. • The interior layout is largely intact; its displays a traditional three bedroom house. Further, many of the original elements remain, including wood trim, baseboards, window and door casings, doors, windows, wood flooring on the ground floor, stairs, and a fireplace mantle. - 259 - 29 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 34. North (front) elevation. (BA) 35. North (front) elevation, as viewed from the east. (BA) - 260 - 30 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 36. Porch, west elevation with entry door. (BA)37. Porch, west wall. (BA) 38. North elevation, quoin treatment. (BA)39. Porch, upper post and eaves. (BA) - 261 - 31 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 40. Porch, interior. (BA)41. Front door with quoins at door. (BA) 42. West elevation. (BA) - 262 - 32 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 43. West elevation, eaves return. (BA)44. West elevation, chimney and eaves. (BA) 45. West elevation, base of chimney. (BA)46. West elevation, three part window. (BA) - 263 - 33 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 47. South and west elevations. (BA) 48. South elevation, rear door. (BA)49. South elevation, single window. (BA) - 264 - 34 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 50. South and east elevation. (BA) 51. Foundation, interior. (BA)52. Wall treatments, brick and fieldstone (BA) - 265 - 35 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 53. Interior, second floor window. (BA)54. Interior, kitchen. (BA) 55. Interior, three part window on ground floor. (BA) - 266 - 36 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 5.4 Evaluation The following evaluates 401 Kingston Road in relation to Ontario Regulation 9/06. Criteria Description Assessment Design or Physical Value i. is a rare, unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method; The building is a represent- ative example of an early 20th century bungalow in Pickering. Of note, is the unique fieldstone treatment on the exterior walls. This is also found at 1 Evelyn Avenue which was also con- tained within the Morgan and Dixon Plan. ii. displays a high degree of crafts- manship or artistic merit, or; None found. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. None found. Historical or Associative Value i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organi- zation, or institution that is significant to a community; None found. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or; None found. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community. None found. Contextual Value i. is important in defining, maintain- ing, or supporting the character of an area; No. ii. is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings, or; Reflects the pattern of early 20th century residential de- velopment along Kingston Road in Pickering. iii. is a landmark.No. - 267 - 37 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 6 882 & 886 Kingston Road 56. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill as viewed from east parking lot. (BA) W e s t S h o r e B oulevard Kingston Road S h adybrookDriveEd g e w o o d R o a d G o l d e n r i dge Road Fa i r p o r t R o a d DunbartonRoad Kates Lane SpruceHill Road Sheppard Avenue Rushton Road Merr i t t o n Ro a d Ad a C o urt Bayly Stre e t H ig h w a y 4 0 1 Vistula Ravine 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Location Map File: Property Description: A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯ E Pt Lot 27, B.F.C. Range 3 and Pt 1-4, 40R-2628 Subject Lands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\882-886KingstonRd_LocationMap.mxd and Pt 1-3, 40R-15853 (882-886 Kingston Road)57. 882 Kingston Road, loca- tion map. (City of Pickering) - 268 - 38 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 6.1 Property Description The legal description for 882 and 886 Kingston Road falls within the north half Concession 3 B.F., Lot 27 and is located directly west of the Village of Dunbarton. The existing lot was created on October 30, 1975. On June 1, 1976 the owners - Harry A. Newman and his wife - granted the subject property to “The Incumbent and Churchwardens of St. Paul’s on the Hill Dunbarton”. 6.2 Background Research Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 27 The following describes the early ownership of Concession 3 B.F., Lot 27 and the crea- tion of the subject property at 882 and 886 Kingston Road. William Holmes received the patent for this lot on May 28, 1796. See section 4.2 for background on Mr. Holmes. In 1832, Holmes sold the 200 acre lot to John Galbraith. In 1838, Henry Cowan purchased 111 acres on the north part of the lot. The Cowan family had immigrated to Canada in 1832 and settled at the mouth of the Rouge River on Lot 32 B.F. In 1840, Cowan sold the northern 100 acres to Thomas Courtice (1801-1860). Courtice acquired the remaining 11 acres in 1849. Thomas Courtice and his first wife Mary immi- grated from outside Devonshire, England in 1831. They settled in Darlington, Ontario before Mary died a few years after their arrival in Upper Canada. Thomas then married Mary Annis (1811-1899) of Pickering and, in 1841, the family relocated to Lot 27.1 2 The family farmed the lands and by 1851 the land was largely cleared with 57 acres of wheat, peas, oats, potatoes, turnips and hay as well as 15 acres of pasture.3 According to Past Years in Pickering, “He was a member of the Bible Christian Church and filled the office of the class leader and local preacher very acceptably from early manhood til the close of his life.”4 On Aug. 29, 1856, Courtice severed off several parcels; two were sold to The Grand Trunk Railway Company, and one small parcel was sold to the Trustees of School Sec. No. 3. The Dunbarton public school was built here and it operated until 1924.5 The remainder of the land was willed to Andrew James Courtice and later, in turn, to Levi Anni. 1 The Annis family arrived from Massachusetts in 1793. They settled Lot 6 B.F. of Pickering, 2 Brown’s Toronto City and Home District Directory, 1846-1847, p. 62. 3 Year: 1851; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario County, Canada West (Ontario); Schedule: B; Roll: C_11742; Page: 275; Line: 3. 4 Past Years in Pickering, p. 230. 5 In the land abstract it appears that the lot was enlarged c. 1880 with the purchase of more acreage north of Kingston Road by school trustees. This area of the ledger is larger illegible. - 269 - 39 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 According to the property records, on January 1, 1924 Harry A. Newman and his wife exchanged a parcel of their land and $1,200 with the school trustees for the property with the old school house. The intent of this trade was to convert the school into a church for the local Anglican congregation. The Village of Dunbarton The Village of Dunbarton is named for William Dunbar (1786-1869). Dunbar arrived in Lower Canada (Quebec) from Scotland in 1831. He continued on to the Town of York and, in 1840, purchased lands in Pickering Township.6 It was here that he laid out a predom- inantly Scottish settlement on Kingston Road. Dunbar worked as a blacksmith and was actively involved in the community; he was an elder in the Presbyterian church, a Justice of the Peace, and a school commissioner. He also contributed to the founding of the Pickering Harbour Company where he was employed as a the superintendent. His son William Dunbar Jr. inherited the property and spent his life working as a blacksmith in Dunbarton.7 His son, William T. Dunbar, owned and operated a general store in Duffins Creek (now Pickering Village) from 1880 to 1905, and constructed the Dunbar House on the north side of Dunbarton Road. The Village of Dunbarton was located along Kingston Road and had access to Frenchman’s Bay via an adjoining harbour. The April 3, 1896 edition of The Pickering News presents the following summary of the history of the village: The Village of Dunbarton derived its name as well as its origin from its first proprietor and projector, the late William Dunbar, Esq. Half a century ago he, with his household, settled on the lot of land he had bought, and on which he lived till the day of his death, in 1869. Then, the now well cleared and cultured farms were but large woods and little clearings. . . Somewhere about thirty years ago, the villages and the adjoining harbour both had their inception, and in both Mr. Dunbar ever took an active interest, being in the latter not only a large shareholder but superintendent of the work. . . The village plots when laid out, was rapidly bought up and built upon. . . Three stores now, and for a long time past, have readily and reasonably supplied the wants of the community. In one of them is the Post Office, with its mails twice each day. On the establishment of the Post Office the inhabitants agreed to call it Dunbarton, in honour of its originator, the name first got and ever retained. 6 William Dunbar’s deed to the west 1/2 of Lot 25, Concession 1, Pickering, Upper Canada is dated October 19, 1840. The Pickering Story conjectures that the time spent securing the property purchase can be linked to the families membership in the Reform Party as they were apprehended and kept under guard during the Rebellion of 1837. 7 Past Years in Pickering, pg.235. - 270 - 40 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER Prominent as it ever ought to be, stands the church, a commodious and substan- tial brick building, belonging to the Presbyterians, while the outskirts is the goodly brick school house. Thus the spiritual and the intellectual are wisely cared for. For a considerable time a tannery did good service in the village, but the removal of the railway station did much to injure the village and incommode the surrounding community. . . The situation is pleasant, having the beautiful bay with its harbour, in front, and the wide stretching lake beyond. The locality is while its inhabitants alike in enterprise and intelligence will favourably compare with those of any other community. The Dunbarton School, Section No. 3 The Dunbarton school house was built in 1857. According to Past Years in Pickering, “the brick for it and for the brick house on the farm opposite being made in the hollow south of the Kingston Road on the farm.”8 The Anglican Church in Pickering In the early 1800s, settlers were focused on clearing lands with an aim to establish a home- stead. Communities like Pickering were often served by a travelling missionary. According to Shumovich, by 1828 John Strachan (rector of St. James and Archdeacon of York): ... was most concerned about the ‘spiritual destitution’ of the families pioneering around York and the wilderness of Upper Canada, and the large numbers of Anglicans who has immigrated to the area from the British Isles. Rev. Adam Elliott was appointed as the visiting missionary, and in November of 1832 the Township of Pickering was added to his circuit. Initially, he held services in, “log school houses, taverns, barns and crowded houses all the way from Lake Ontario to Georgian Bay.”9 The first service in the Village of Pickering was held in the home of Mr. Francis Sey. The St. George’s Anglican Church was built circa 1856. It served residents of the Pickering Village as well as its membership in Dunbarton. St. Paul’s On-the-Hill The subject property has served Dunbarton’s Anglican community since 1925. In the early 1920s, the Dunbarton Anglican community began to distance itself from the Village of Pickering congregation. With an aim to establish a new church, church member and Toronto lawyer Harry A. Newman acquired this property in 1924. The property held the former Dunbarton School S.S. No. 3 (c. 1857). This exchange provided the school board with vacant land to construct a new two room school upon, and the former school was 8 Past Years in Pickering, p. 170. 9 St. Paul’s On-The-Hill, p. 2. - 271 - 41 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 renovated to serve as a place of worship for the ‘Mission of St. George’s’ or ‘The Dunbarton Mission’. The first service was held by Rev. Douglas Langford on November 8, 1925. Over the coming years, the parish continued to distinguish itself from the St. George’s Church. In 1933 it was renamed “St. Paul’s in-the-Hill, Dunbarton”. All the while, the two congregations continued to share the Rev. E.G. Robinson. He served as Rector from 1929-1953. In 1934, under the leadership of Harry Newman, the parish set about building a church. Newman built the church on this land (still owned my him) and leased it to the congre- gation for $1 /year until 1976. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill was designed by Architect Leo Hunt Stanford (1898-1970), son of Toronto architect Joseph Hunt Stanford. The family had immigrated from England to Canada in 1902. Leo was educated in Toronto and trained under his father. In 1922, Leo he became a partner in the firm. After his father died in 1935, Leo took over the practice that operated into the 1960s. Their portfolio was largely made up of residences, apartments and commer- cial buildings; of note is the Canadian National Institute for the Blind in Toronto. 10 The St. Paul’s On-The-Hill church is sited atop of a gently sloped hill with a south overlook across Kingston Road and on to Lake Ontario.11 The original church had a recta- linear plan (running east-west) with a tower at its south-east corner. The main entrance was located at the south-facing side of the tower and the chancel was found at its west end. The building was masonry construction displaying brick with stone accent details, and defined by tall stepped buttresses, arched wood windows, and saddleback roof of slate shingle. 10 Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950, www. dictionaryofarchitectsincanada.org. 11 It was located west of the existing church and former school house. Before its demolition in 1991, this building served as the parish hall. 59. Church of the Ascension, Toronto. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill ) 60. Pews from Buttonville church. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill ) 58. Mr. and Mrs. Harry A. Newman. (St. Paul’s On-The- Hill ) 61. Front elevation drawing by Leo Hunt Stanford Architect. (on display at St. Paul’s On- The-Hill) - 272 - 42 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 62. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill, Nov. 1934. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill ) 63. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill, Nov. 1984. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill ) 64. Floor plans, St. Paul’s On- the-Hill. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill ) - 273 - 43 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 The St. Paul’s On-The-Hill publication described the entry procession of the new church as follows: The interior of St. Paul’s is in keeping with the traditional design of small churches in rural Ontario. The floor plan shows the structure is made up of three rectan- gular box shapes. A small porch with six straight stairs lead to a set of Gothic lancet arched double wooden doors. These doors, centred on the south facade of the square tower, lead into a small entrance and stairs. The entrance leads to a nave without side aisles and the stairs lead down to the basement and up to the balcony which was added in 1983. The nave moves forward to the chancel... 12 According to St. Paul’s on-the-Hill, a unique aspect of the church is that it was constructed with materials reclaimed from other Ontario churches demolished: • Brick and windows were salvaged from the former Anglican Church of Ascension in Toronto; and, • Curved pews came from the former Buttonville Methodist Church (c. 1774).13 The church was formally opened on November 16, 1934 by Rev. D.T. Owen, Archbishop of Toronto. Rev. E.G. Robinson continued to lead the St. Paul’s On-The-Hill congregation as well as that of St. George’s. In 1939 his responsibilities expanded to include the growing Town of Ajax. With the outbreak of World War II and the subsequent establishment of the muni- tions plant (Defense Industries Ltd. or D.I.L.) in the Township of Pickering, Ajax quickly expanded into a community of 4,000. By 1943, the community had erected a church shared by four co-operating communions - Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian and United Church. Rev. Robinson lead the Anglican congregation. On May 1, 1959, St. Paul’s began worship as an independent parish under Rev. C.E. Olive as rector. He lived at the new two-storey rectory located directly south-west of the church. The site now contained three structures - the church, the parish hall in the old Durbanton school house, and the rectory.14 12 St. Paul’s On-The-Hill, p. 8. 13 The pews have since been replaced. 14 St. Paul’s On-The-Hill, p. 7. Rectors 1924-1930: Rev. Douglas B. Langford 1930-1953: Rev. E.G. Robinson 1953-1956: Rev. Jack Crouch 1956-1959: Rev. Dr. H.S. Shepherd 1959-1962: Rev. C.E. Olive 1962-1967: Rev. Ben P. Symth 1967-1969: Rev. Charles Dymond65. Rectory. (St. Paul’s On-The- Hill ) 1970-1972: Rev. Wm. J. Rhodes 1973-1978: Rev. S.G. West 1978-1981: Rev. Gregory W. Physick 1982-2002/3: Rev. Brian H. McVitty 2004-2019: Rev. Canon Kimberly Beard Incumbent - 274 - 44 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER The arrival of 1976 brought the end of the lease agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Newman. At this time the Newman’s transferred the property deed to the rector and churchwardens. On March 21, 1976, St. Paul’s On-The-Hill was consecrated by Archbishop Lewis Garnsworthy. In 1983, the church interior was renovated. The work included a new balcony that added 55 seats while preserving the aesthetic of the church. 66. View to chancel after the renovation, Octo- ber 1985. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill ) 67. Balcony, October 1985. (St. Paul’s On-The- Hill ) 68. Site Plan drawing of church addition and renovation, 1991. Footprint of the original church shown in blue. (DLIA) Rectory Church addition Original church Parish Hall - 275 - 45 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 In 1989, Davidson-Langley Incorporated Architect (DLIA) was engaged to complete the renovation of and an addition to the church. The architectural firm was founded in 1985 by Elizabeth Jane Davidson and operated until 2013. Davidson came from a family of estab- lished Ontario architects.15 DLIA designed worked on many ecclesiastical buildings as well as commercial, residential, recreational and institutional buildings. Religous projects by the firm included the Church of St. Clements (Toronto), Metropolitan United Church (Toronto) and St. George’s Anglican Church (Pickering). Their work at St. Paul’s On-The- Hill won the Town of Pickering’s Economic Development Award in 1991. This expansion project included for the renovation of the existing 3,000 square foot church as well as a 9,000 square foot addition to the west. Within the addition is a new entry with offices, an additional congregation space, an underground gymnasium, a day care centre, and meeting rooms. As with the original building, the new building incorporated salvaged materials including reclaimed brick.16 6.3 Building Description & Site Photos For the purposes of this CHER, Branch Architecture visited the property on March 2, 2020. The inspection included walking around the building and through the main floor, and completing a visual review and photographic documentation. The review focused on gaining a visual understanding of the site and building for the purposes of evaluating its potential cultural heritage value. This review did not include the rectory building. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill is a 20th century church likely influenced by the traditional rural Ontario church with elements of Gothic and Gothic Revival architecture. According to the Ontario Heritage Trust website: Gothic Revival is an architectural movement that sought to revive the Gothic style, which flourished in Europe in the medieval period. The Gothic Revival movement began in the 1740s in England; interest in reviving the style soon spread to North America. With regard to religious architecture, the Gothic Revival was intertwined with the “High Church” movement and the Anglo-Catholic concern with the growth of religious non-conformism.17 In the second half of the 19th century, Gothic Revival architecture emerged as a popular residential building style in Ontario (with the Gothic Revival Cottage popularized by the Canada Farmer) and a common style for religious buildings in the mid- to late 19th century. As such, a number of Gothic Revival subcategories developed with buildings 15 Davidson’s great grandfather was an esteemed Toronto architect Henry Langley. Langley was the founding partner of the architectural firm Langley & Langley which later became Langley, Langley & Burke. The other partners were Henry’s son Charles Langley and Charle’s cousin Edmund Burke. The firm was responsible for many ecclesiastical buildings across Ontario. Their portfolio included several notable structures in Toronto such as the Necropolis, the spire of St. James Cathedral, and the Horticultural Pavillion at Allan Gardens 16 At the site tour, staff recalled the brick had been salvaged from a building in Oakville. 17 Ontario Heritage Trust, Architectural styles. www.heritagetrust.on.ca - 276 - 46 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER often displaying a mix. The following features are found in Gothic Revival architecture: pointed arch windows; rib vaulted ceilings; buttresses; steeply pitched roofs; and, an overall emphasis on height. The following is a description of St. Paul’s on-the-Hill with observations: • The church is located on the top of a gently sloped hill and with a view south over Kingston Road and the 401 to Lake Ontario. The site also includes the rectory building west of the church, three parking areas, a large cross and a cell tower. See figure 63 for site plan and figure 64 for an aerial view. • The church is a one-storey building with a lower level set into the hillside, and a square tower at its south-east corner. • The original St. Paul’s on-the-Hill was a one-story building with a basement. • The building is constructed with buff coloured brick laid in a common bond pattern and with stone detailing at the windows, doors, buttresses and tower roof parapet. • The 1934 floor plan was composed of three rectangular elements - the tower / entry, the nave, and the alter. • The two-storey brick tower is located at the south-west corner of the building. The corners are defined by tall brick buttresses with stone caps where the buttress steps out. The tower has a flat roof and the parapet displays a crenellated treat- ment finished with capstones.18 The primary entry to the church was located at the doorway on the south-facing elevation; this remains as the ceremonial entrance. It is a double door opening with a pointed arch. Typical to all openings, the arch has a stone keystone and rectangular stones at its base. The original door has been replaced with a set of wood panelled doors and panelled infill above. • The nave was divided into four equal bays. Each is defined by the brick buttresses and has a tall pointed arch window at its centre and, at the north elevation, a small basement window with a brick arch below. The stone window sills have angled stooling. The east elevation displays a grouping of three windows with a larger circle window above. The existing windows are repalacements. • The alter was removed as part of the 1990 addition. • The 1990 addition extended the congregation space west and introduced a new wing running south from the west end of the building. • The original building was maintained as the congregation space with the addition of a three-sided or hexagonal apse at the west end. The 1990 wing houses the main entrance, offices, meeting spaces on the second floor, and a daycare with a dedicated entrance on the lower level. 18 Staff noted that the brick parapet had been rebuilt to match existing. - 277 - 47 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 • Similar to the original building, the masonry exterior is buff coloured brick with stone details and follows with rhythm of the bays. The wing generally follows the architectural detailing of the original building, with variation limited to the new entrances. • The new doorways have a half circle or Palladian style transom and flanking side- lights (with the exception of the west entrance does not have sidelights). The main entrance also has a peaked canopy with exposed cross-bracing similar to the congregation space. • The roof has a gable roof profile set at a medium pitch. The roof is covered in asphalt shingle, the eaves and rain gear are painted metal. - 278 - 48 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 69. Aerial view looking north, 2020. (Google streetview) 70. Cross. (BA)71. Cell tower. (BA) - 279 - 49 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 72. North elevation as viewed from Sheppard Avenue. (Google streetview) 73. North elevation, original bays at left and addition at right. (BA) - 280 - 50 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 74. Addition, west elevation. (BA) 75. Addition, exterior at apse. (BA)76. Addition, west entrance. (BA) - 281 - 51 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 77. Addition, south elevation. (BA)78. Addition, south entrance. (BA) 79. Addition, circular window and brick cross at top of south wall. (BA) 80. Addition, south windows. (BA) - 282 - 52 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 81. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill as viewed from the base of the stairs at the south parking lot. (BA) 82. Addition, east elevation with main entrance. (BA) - 283 - 53 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 83. Original building, south elevation. (BA) 84. Addition, main entrance with 1990 date stone at left. (BA) 85. Original building, west entrance with 1934 date stone at left. (BA) 86. Original building, south elevation. (BA) - 284 - 54 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 87. Addition, typical bay. (BA)88. Original building, typical bay. (BA) 89. Original building, typical window at tower. (BA) 90. Original building, base of buttress with salvaged capstone. (BA) - 285 - 55 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 91. Original tower, west and south elevations. (BA) 92. Original tower, east and north elevations. (BA) 93. Original tower, plaque at interior. (BA) - 286 - 56 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 94. Nave looking to balcony. (BA)95. Nave looking to altar. (BA) 96. View from balcony. (BA) - 287 - 57 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 97. Samples of stained glass works throughout the church. (BA) - 288 - 58 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 6.4 Evaluation The following evaluates 882 and 886 Kingston Road in relation to Ontario Regulation 9/06. Criteria Description Assessment Design or Physical Value i. is a rare, unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method; The church is a representa- tive example of a masonry Gothic-style church in Ontario. The use of masonry salvaged from the former Church of Ascension in Toronto is a unique aspect of its construction. ii. displays a high degree of crafts- manship or artistic merit, or; No. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. No. Historical or Associative Value i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organi- zation, or institution that is significant to a community; The property is historically linked to Pickering’s Anglican community. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or; No. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community. The original church is associ- ated with Toronto architect Leo Hunt Stanford. Contextual Value i. is important in defining, maintain- ing, or supporting the character of an area; No. ii. is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings, or; The church is historically linked to the development of Dunbarton. iii. is a landmark.St. Paul’s on-the-Hill’s setting atop the hill at Kingston and Fairport roads make is a visual landmark along Kingston Road. - 289 - 59 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 7 Discussion This assessment finds that all the properties included in this assessment have cultural heri- tage value to the City of Pickering. They were all found to satisfy one or more criteria set out in O. Reg 9/06. Based on the findings of this evaluation, I recommend that the City include these prop- erties on its Municipal Heritage Register s: • List 1 Evelyn Avenue, 301 Kingston Road and 401 Kingston Road; and, • Designate 882 & 886 Kingston Road, St. Paul’s On-the-Hill under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. - 290 - 60 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER Appendix 1: Sources 1. Commonwealth Resource Management Ltd. Manual of Guidelines. Prepared for the Management Board Secretariat Government of Ontario, June 1994. 2. Fram, Mark. Well-Preserved. Toronto: The Boston Mills Press, 1998. 3. J.H. Beers & Co. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario. Toronto: J.H.Beers & Co., 1877. 4. McKay, William A. The Pickering Story. Pickering: The Township of Pickering Historical Society, 1961. 5. Wood, William. Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Commmunity. Toronto: William Briggs, 1911. 6. MacRae, Marion and Anthony Adamson. Hallowed Walls: Church Architecture in Upper Canada. Toronto: Clarke, Irwin & Co., 1975. 7. McIlwraith, Thomas F. Looking For Old Ontario: Two Centuries of Landscape Change. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997. 8. Mikel, Robert. Ontario House Styles. Toronto: James Lorimer & Co. Ltd., 2004. 9. Sabean, John W. The Palmer Family: Settling in South Pickering. Pickering Township Historical Society Pathmaster, Summer Edition Vol. 2 no. 4, 1999. 10. Sabean, John W. Time Present and Time Past: A Pictorial History of Pickering. Pickering: Altona Editions, 2000. 11. Sears, Roebuck and Co. Honor Bilt Modern Homes. Chicago - Philadelphia. 1921. 12. Shumovich, Elizabeth. St. Paul’s On-The-Hill: 1925-1985. Anglican Church of Canada. 13. ---. The Village of Pickering 1880-1970. Pickering: The Corporation of the Village of Pickering, 1970. Websites • Ancentry. www.ancestry.ca • Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950, www.dictionaryofarchitectsin- canada.org. • Davidson-Langley Incorporated Architects. www.dlia.ca. • Library and Archives of Canada. www.bac-lac.gc.ca • Ontario Architecture, www.ontarioarchitecture.com. • Ontario Archives. www.archives.gov.on.ca • Ontario Land Registry Access. www.onland.ca • Pickering Archives. www.coporate.pickering.ca • St. Paul’s on-the-Hill Anglican Church. www.stpaulonthehill.com - 291 - 61 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 Appendix 2: Summary of Land Records Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 27 / 882-886 Kingston Road Instrument Date1 Grantor Grantee Notes Patent May 28, 1796 Holmes, William B&S Jan. 27, 1832 Holmes, William Galbraith, John All B&S Mar. 17, 1838 Galbraith, John Cowan, Henry 111a N pt. B&S “Cowan, Henry Galbraith, Nancy 11 acres B&S Sept. 19, 1840 Cowan, Henry Courtis, Thomas 100 acres B&S Jan. 2, 1849 Richards, Thos. M W Courtis, Thomas 11 acres B&S Oct. 22, 1874 Courtice, Thomas Courtice Andrew, James N111 acres B&S -----Annis, Levi Pt of N lot, N. 111 ac. ex. 3 3.4 ac. +7.00 B&S Aug. 29, 1856 Courtice, Thomas Trustee of School No. 3 1/4 acre B&S ---2 ---Trustee of School No. 3 N. of Kingston Rd Grant Jan. 1, 1924 Newman, Harry A & Wife Public School Board of School No. 3 2 acres, $1200 plus exchange Grant Jan 1, 1924 Trustees of Public School Board of School No. 3 Newman, Mary A part N. of Kingston Rd. Grant Dec. 10, 1975 Newman, Harry A + wife The Incumbent and Church wardens of St. Paul’s on the Hill, Dunbarton Part of sketch attached. 1 This is the date of the instrument, not the “date of registry”. 2 Likely in the 1880s, definitely between 1877 and 1893. - 292 - 62 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 31 Transaction Date Grantor Grantee Notes Patent Oct. 20, 1846 Crown Palmer, Seneca 200 acres Will May 16, 1866 Palmer, Seneca Mort Jan 27, 1877 Palmer, George S + wife The Freehold L&S Co. 120 acres, $1500 B&S Mar. 15, 1882 Palmer, Mary J and G.S. Kinlock, George 27 acres - land covered by Plan 230 Will --- ------27 acres Grant June 26, 1919 --- 1 Clarke, Griffith B 27 acres Grant Oct. 5, 1920 Clarke, Griffith B +wife Rowe, Elmore J part, $5600 Grant Dec. 1, 1921 Rowe, Elmore Morgan, Edwin 27 acres Grant Feb. 24, 1922 Morgan, Edwin+wife Dixon, Mildred $2,200,note about plan Plan 230 Mar. 13, 1922 Morgan & Dixon’s Plan part 1 Notes where writing on land abstract is illegible. This likely relates to the executors of the will. - 293 - 63 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 1 Evelyn Avenue - Plan 230, Lot 10 Instrument Date of Sale / Grant1 Grantor Grantee Notes Grant Mar. 7, 1930 Dixon, Mildred M.Dixon, Silas R.All, $1 Hwy. Plan 18 Sept. 1927 Province Hwy. Plan 45 Dec. 1938 Province Grant Nov. 19, 1943 Dixon, Silas Russell Daniell-Jenkins John H + Dorothea All except hwy. $1 Grant Mar. 21, 1946 Daniell-Jenkins John H + Dorothea The Director, The Veterans Land Act All except hwy. $5050 By-law May 9, 1955 By-law No. 2091 - City of Pickering Designating Areas of Subdivision Control ALL Grant May 7, 1959 The Director, The Veterans Land Act Daniell-Jenkins John H + Dorothea All except hwy. $1 Plan 40-R-535 June 3, 1971 Grant July 29, 1980 Daniell-Jenkins, Dorothea Wolf, Heinz W + Ilse M All except hwy. $2 Notice 31 05 89 Wolf, Heinz W + Ilse M Lindo, Mike - in trust $790,000 Plan 40R-12418 Part 1 26 07 89 Transfer 15 08 89 Wolf, Heinz W + Ilse M Lindo, Mike $790,000 Transfer 92 12 99 Federal Business Development Bank 1000683 Ontario Ltd. $360,000 1 This is the date of the instrument, not the “date of registry”. - 294 - 64 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 401 Kingston Road - Plan 230, Lot 19 Instrument Date1 Grantor Grantee Notes Mort.July 6, 1922 Dixon, Millicent M.Gates, Peter S.All, $2500 Grant May 1, 1923 Dixon, Mildred M.Branson, Annie & Horace All, $4,500 Mort.May 1, 1923 Branson, Annie & Horace Dixon, Mildred M.$1,000 not recorded in full QC Sept. 3, 1936 Dixon, Mildred M.Colletta, Hazel Mae (Estate of Peter S Gates, deceased) All, $1 Grant Sept. 14, 1939 Estate of Peter S. Gates Dixon, Silas All, $1,600 Grant Mar 14, 1944 Dixon, Silas (and others) Dixon, Alexander part, $1 Grant Aug 15, 1946 Dixon, Alexander + wife Staley, Louis E. Grant Nov. 1951 Staley, Louis E.Quigg, Kathleen C + John P $3,200 By-law May 19, 1955 By-law No. 2091 - City of Pickering Designating Areas of Subdivision Control All Grant June 15, 1967 Quigg, Kathleen C + John P Belcourt, John A + Margaret L All - except Hwy. Grant June 22, 1970 Belcourt, John A + Margaret L Knowles, Jack (trustee) All - except Hwy. Grant June 26, 1973 Knowles, Jack (trustee) Mastrogicomos, Victor + Felicia All - except Hwy. Grant Aug 22, 1975 Mastrogicomos, Victor + Felicia Binns, Brian D & Christine A. All - except Hwy. Grant 16 02 87 Binns, Brian D & Christine A. Francis, Walter All? 1 This is the date of the instrument, not the “date of registry”. - 295 - 65 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 Instrument Date1 Grantor Grantee Notes Grant 20 05 87 Francis, Walter N. Bigioni Management Services Ltd. Hollow Holdings Ltd. All - except Hwy. Transfer 22 08 89 N. Bigioni Management Services Ltd. (25% int) Hollow Holdings Ltd. (50% int) Cesaroni Holdings Ltd. (75% int) $525,000 Plan 40R-16060 95 03 28 Parts 1,2&3 Transfer 95 10 05 Cesaroni Holdings Ltd. (75% int), N. Bigioni Management Services Ltd. (25% int) 1138224 Ontario Ltd. $975,000 Part 1 on 40R-16060 - 296 - 66 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 32 / 301 Kingston Road No.Transaction Date Grantor Grantee Notes Patent May 22, 1798 Crown Holmes, William BS June 26, 1843 Holmes, William Wesley, John 195 acres, 150 pounds Will May 11, 1868? --June --, 1874 Cochrane, Samuel?? Rodd, Richard 5572 B&S Dec. 1, 1881 or 1891 Rodd, Richard Moody, ------ 10046 B&S Mar. 18, 1902 Moody, Naomi + Robert Toyne, George S. of Kingston Rd. $8,000 as in No. 5572 21217 Grant Mar. 31,1934 Toyne, George + wife Toyne, George Edward 21050 Grant Nov. 21, 1936 Toyne, George Edward Toyne, Helen Davidson part, as in No. 20217 all restriction 24411 Grant Sept. 1, 1944 Toyne, Helen Davidson Alderice, John Alfred; Alderice, Alcona 1 ac. on S. side Kingston Rd. $1,000 + mort. No. 21050 31434 Mortgage May 25, 1951 Alderice, John Alfred; Alderice, Alcona Toyne, Helen Davidson S. side of Kingston Rd. $5,500 as No 24411 175120 Grant July 23, 1968 Alderdice, Alcona Pfeiffer, Manfred; Page, Delmar F (partner- ship property) part S. of Kingston Rd. As des. in No 31434 - 297 - 67 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 No.Transaction Date Grantor Grantee Notes 205389 Grant Jan. 4, 1971 Pfeiffer, Manfred; Page, Delmar F (partner- ship property) Smith, Ruth C (trustee) part S. of Kingston Rd.; part of land in No. 175120 ex. hwy - lying N of lot 7 in Plan 350 (see hwy plan 785) (0.80ac)+- 205500 Grant Jan. 16, 1971 Smith, Ruth C (trustee) Salmon, Ernest A.J. pt. S of Kingston Rd (0.80 ac+-) as des. in No. 205389 - 298 - AT T A C H M E N T # 7 TO Rr : P o R 1 u e L N , 1 - 1 e 0 - • Attachment #13 - 299 - Heritage Assessment -4993 Old Brock Rd., Claremont Table of Contents 1.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 3.0 3 .1 3.2 3.3 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 Introduction History 4993 Old Brock Road , Claremont Context and Setting Heritage Assessment Design or Physical value Historical or Associative value Contextual Value Landscape Discussion End Note Bibliography Heritage Consultant: PHILIP GOLDSMITH I ARCHITECT 46 Dorset Street East, Port Hope, Ontario, L 1 A 1 E3 t-905-885-0348 e-philgoldmith@sympatico.ca 1 2 2 2 8 9 10 11 13 13 14 15 27th September 2017 • ... ·1'~~1::f *:·;' •.t\/l~ ,·'t{::.~ ·t~r '.··• ,: 1 ._.;; ..... -,~-·;Ii<'• . 7--..;, .).~ ~ :• ---. ,it_lll.· ~~i ~t'··; ·t \_-' .. ~•~;_;·_;:_:·:·.__:. __ :s--:-'h._,; ) . •._ ... . . ~-..:·;1;•:.:;a -~-·-~;, .--~-,!,_ -:.1.•-:-·, .. -· i ••• · •. ,'..,, --.• --?"" ,t i ~----.. --i: t ~---, ; ... ;-~.: .. • ...... ~'~~· V) ~". 7 · ~:; .... ',ID'-~~'!'" r •... 'J!I-.'' · 7 ~~ \!'-~ ,o&. ,,i," ' l 'If • ,~ •:a· · · _ ':\ Iv•.";:\•• '. ~~, .... -_, -~--r ~-,,.___.. , • _ ~-:1 · -~v~ ..;.,'{·-.,-_'"' ,, ·::;-~--~ • /1;.-·•~ • . • ~ -,, r ~-••• ,,. •, • "'-........ ' ~ •·.-'~-' •• -· -. \ "'Ji' •••.• , .• ,.,.., '! ~>-.,. . 'tl•..JiF~-V --:: . "'f ' ~ .:;....__ -_. -~ -: .. ; :f :s'~"\: .. · . ., ll ' :.:;--, }~--er -,' }--i . -... -:--.,-, ·,•; > _ _;.-~°1:'-~.:0-~--~ ~ :--_.,...=,. < _. ~-•• r) .t' 1 , I ,.'_'...'.".._::,_• ,s.r~;_•"'-'::•~ ~: ~ • 41 i' ·, . ' I' -:,. · ",;,.. ~-1 ' ~ i ·:-e"•:. ,, ·· r~ _, -',, '-f 'c.:.-r ~ . \ ~· ~· . : .. ~~.-"1 1.·.,._--,1' (~ ·t···-,.(1..~:t 1I ~ ~ yr · • •_g 1/,k t.,,J' · ( 'i if • l! .Ji -~ ,: ·-=:m-.uri -:· ij!, t. ~, ,~,.. ,.. -- r:, · Jt"F n •1 1 .J/1,. ·e.Ja""."'" r, 1'C ., ;,:ii_ " • • ~ °'r ""J JII ... -,· ' , .• _ .::-..._ ~ .. . ,(·, y~ ,._., --~ ~ .0 9';-~. ._ J , .. .• .r .'~; ~\~ -~--~~; '. -:-:~:--=_·--_ ~-:-· ~---~~---- :0 '):,. ~~ :0 C') _, ::r: -II, :s:: m 2 _, 'It, - 300 - Heritage Assessment -4993 Old Brock Rd., Claremont 1.0 Introduction 4993 Old Brock Road is a small 1-1 /2 storey Ontario Cottage built in 1851. It is located one property from the corner of Old Brock Road and Central St. (CR #5) in the heart of the small village of Claremont. This property includes the historic house and a garage I carriage shed which has been altered and converted to a second residence on the property. The Owners of the property ware considering the demolition of the existing buildings ~nd their replacement with a new two unit structure to the designs of Avtech Designs . This heritage assessment of the property has been undertaken to determine if there is heritage value in the structures in place at this time. This property is not listed or designated currently. My opinions are based on a site visit and historic research undertaken in September 2017. The building was viewed only from the exterior from the street and for privacy, the site nor the building was entered. S!2!.~L~ (' 27th September 2017 Well1nQ?on·s, Siteci. '',,,11 ... ,._ •-1le 1y.,1 CJ.a. ~ ~ ,. G 01s1~~tl O -w>.tClub O r."-------'·-' j 1. Site location. Goog le Based on my research and observations I feel the house at 4993 Old Brock Road • _ . has heritage value , It is an early building dating to the first years of the f-F"r ,.,{~-...=-t:"". establishment of Claremont and is a classic Ontario Cottage design. Further investigations would be required to adequately comment on the condition of the building. From an initial review it appears largely unaltered but requires some repair. PHILIP GOLDSMITH I ARCHITECT 2. Site aerial , building indicated. Google Page 1 :::0 l> q; =I 0 )> ::o n -I ::t: 'II, ~ m 2 -I 'lt, - 301 - Heritage Assessment -4993 Old Brock Rd., Claremont 2.0 History 2.1 · 4993 Old Brock Road, Claremont 4993 Old Brock Road, Claremont is a frame one-and-a-half storey house with a central door and two flanking windows and a central gable with a pointed-arch window. The house was constructed on lot 3 directly behind the brick commercial building constructed by John Michell in 1851 at the corner of Brock Rdad and Central Street East in Claremont. 2.2 Context and Setting The hamlet of Claremont is part of the Town of Pickering within the Regional Municipality of Durham. The community was· settled in the early 1840s. In the 1830s, the only roads constructed in Pickering Township was Brock Road and Kingston Road. Brock Road would later intersect with the 9th concession creating the four corners of the hamlet of Claremont. Joseph and Joshua Wixon , who were of English descent, came from New York and were the first pioneer settlers in the area. Joseph Wixon owned all the land west of Brock Road and the 9th concession. Joseph 's house was located north of the four corners. Joshua owned all the land on the east side of Brock Road. The first grist mill was owned by Joshua Wixon located east of the village. In the late 1830s, settlers from England began to settle in the north Pickering area which was a very good farming location. The land on the southwest corner of the four corners was originally owned by John Hamilton, and the land on the southeast by Alexander Spears. By 1846, the hamlet was already the centre of many thriving businesses, including two blacksmith shops, two shoemaker shops, two carpenters , a harness maker, and a cooper. John C. Michell was one of the first merchants in the area and established a business a half a mile south of the four corners on the east side of Brock Road in PHILIP GOLDSMITH I ARCHITECT 27th September 2017 3. Site aerial, building indicated. Google Page 2 ~~ 0 )> :0 C") -I ::c 'II, 5 m 2 -j ·1t2 r'II, ~ --I 0 - 302 - Heritage Assessment -4993 Old Brock Rd., Claremont 1844. In 1847, there was a stone building erected on the southwest corner of Brock Road and the 9th concession on the farmland owned by John Hamilton. Thomas Noble was the owner of the first general store and rented the stone building on the southwest corner. Claremont was originally known as Nobles Corners after the early local bus iness man. In 1850 , the hamlet needed to establish a post office. William Michell , the first reeve of the township in 1850, suggested the name Claremont named after Clermont in France , the ancestral home of the Michell family. The post office was set up by 1851 , and Thomas_ Noble was the first postmaster. In 1853 , William and John McNab of Scotland bought Thomas Noble's grocery business on the southwest corner. In the mid-1850s, the McNab's purchased a lot on the northwest corner from Mr. Dow who had subdivided his land into one fifth of an acre lots. The McNab's moved a frame building from the hamlet of Greenwood to this lot and expanded their business. In July 1875, the McNab's purchased the brick store on the southeast corner of the four corners. The land on this corner had originally been owned by Alexander Spears and subdivided into lots in the mid-nineteenth century. John C . Michell built a red brick store on the southeast corner in 1851. The McNab's continued to operate their business from this building until 1899 when the business transferred to the sons of the McNab brothers. The first school house was established in the early 1840s in a log building on the northeast corner of Brock Road and Concession Nine. A new school constructed of red brick was opened on 27th September 2017 v'ILLACE OF -CLARE,.'\f01VT Scale HJ Rd.,·.per i 11 rh. r----• • ---7 ,fl l' /,l 1 . ' Loi: !!J ,. '-'. ,Jft"ldu:ll • /fr., m ilt>v Loi. l !J L _____ _ .. F..R {"F,r/ . j l ! :::: I ,;i-' I .1.Spau:,· L----.. ___: J.,,/: • I / ------. ----. -_J_ __ _J January 1 , 1865. In 1886, a new school building was constructed 4 _ Map of Village in 1877 west of the log building designed by architect Albert Asa Post (1850-1926). In 1925, the Claremont Public and Continuation School was re-built PHILIP GOLDSMITH I ARCHITECT Page 3 ::0)::, rT' -I ,:> -I 0)::, ::0 C') -4 ::i:: ~5 m z -4 J~ -I 0 - 303 - Heritage Assessment -4993 Old Brock Rd., Claremont again and the design was considered a modern school for the period. The school later had an addition added in 1972. The Claremont Hotel was built in the 1840s on the northeast corner originally constructed of logs and operated by Mr. O'Brien. The original building was replaced by a larger frame structure which burned down in 1937 and was replaced by another building that burned down in 1970. In 1884, the Canadian Pacific Railway established a station in Claremont one mile north of the four corners which contributed to the growth of the community. The line connected Claremont west to Toronto and eastward to Perth. The Claremont train station was closed in the 1960 and torn down in the 1980s. The railway attracted additional business to the hamlet which had been growing rapidly since the 1860s with industries such as saw mills, grist and flour mills, woolen mills, cider mills and feed mills. Churches were built in the hamlet including a Wesleyan Methodist Church completed in 1853 and later replaced with a new church in 1889. The Claremont Baptist Church was built on Central Street in red brick in 1865. The Presbyterian Church was built in 1876 and the building was used as the Claremont Community Hall since 1925 when the church disbanded with the union of Methodism and the creation of the United Church. In 1907, Claremont had a population of about 300. In 1908, the hamlet was separated from Pickering Township to become a police village. In 1968, the hamlet of 600 residents re-joined the Town of Pickering. In 1972, the Government of Canada expropriated 7,530 ha of land west of Claremont to be used for a future airport called the Pickering International Airport to relieve congestion at Pearson International Airport. Airport traffic declined and the airport has not been built to date. · PHILIP GOLDSMITH I ARCHITECT 27th September 2017 =-....:.---- 5. Claremont CPR Station built in 1884. Photo Credit: From Time Present and Time Past 6. Claremont Baptist Church completed in 1865. Photo Credit: From Time Present and Time Past Page 4 :::0 ::t:> ~~ ::o n -I :c ~ 5 m z -I 'II, - 304 - r- -T" 0 N .. . Q) .c E Q) +- ' C. Q) en .c +- ' r- -N +- ' C: 0 E ~ (1 l u -t i a: .l i : (J e al "O 0 (" ) a, a, '< ! ' I +- ' C: Q) E (I ) (I ) Q) (I ) (I ) < Q) Cl (I I +- ' -~ Q) :: c AT T A C H M E N T # ·7 TO Rc P O R 1 # PL - N 11 .. f B J ' f l , i , -. , ., . ,, ,,: .. "· ' '1 _ I I I J 11 I , 11 • ,L /I • I , , '. / r, 1 1 7 ;. -~ ., . • II i . ,. I ' l • JI I •L I ~ J ,~ • • I ~\ I 0 ·;: : _ __ _ , 1 _ , ; _ _ __ _ ~ • • • C , l. , l l t f 4• r , i t • • Q fl • .- · . ~ ,~ ~;i i ( ~ 0 " 11 i tJ (. , u . ? /J I / •.r M 6 () LO Q) en (U 0. . t; w !: : : :: c 0 a: < I I-~ Cf ) 0 :. . . J 0 0 0. . :: : : i I 0. . - 305 - Heritage Assessment -4993 Old Brock Rd., Claremont }'-;,1,. ,,,.. ·I .. .... ,; ·1 I I 1 .; ----I - . ~~•.::.. __ 8 . View of the southeast corner of Brock Street and Central Street. The tree to the rear of the building is in front of 4993 Brock Road. The corner store burned down in 2009. 27th September 2017 1}1~0~. -~l ·•:··ii:c1 9. View of the southeast corner of Brock Street and Central Street. The tree to the rear of the building is in front of 4993 Brock Road. Photo credit: From 1ime Presen t and 1i me Past ----------------------------------------------, PHILIP GOLDSMITH I ARCHITECT 1 O. View of the the Stone Store , the Brick Store and the Bowling Green from Claremont Past and Present: historic sketch written upon the occasion of the centennial celebration 1938. The arrow ind icates the location of 4993 Old Brock Road. Page 6 ::IJ )::, n • -I 7:' -I 0 l> ::0 0 -I :::c: ~ s: m 2 -l i"O "II,· r - 306 - Heritage Assessment -4993 Old Brock Rd., Claremont - PHILIP GOLDSMITH I ARCHITECT 27th September 2017 11. Left , Top Photo: Central Street West with the school house on the left. Bottom Photo: North Brock Street. Photo Credit: From Time Present and Time Past 12. The Claremont Public School (S.S. #15) on Central Street. Photo Credit: From Time Present and Time Past Page 7 q;~ 0 )> ::0 C) _, :::c ~s m 2 --! "'lb i l--J J -~ 0 - 307 - Heritage Assessment -4993 Old Brock Rd., Claremont 3.0 Heritage Assessment Heritage assessments are based on Provincial criteria under Reg 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act. These are as follows: 1. The property has design value or physical value because it ; i. is a rare, unique, repre$entative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it; 1. has direct associations with a theme , event , belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community ii. yields, or has the potential to yield , information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture , or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 3. The property has conte?(tual value because it; i. is important in defining , maintaining or supporting the character of an area , ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. 0 . Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2). PHILIP GOLDSMITH I ARCHITECT 27th September 2017 Page 8 :::0 ::t:,, IT' -I -:'-f o::i:, :on -I :t: 'It, 5 m 2 -I "lb - 308 - Heritage Assessment -4993 Old Brock Rd., Claremont 3.1 Design or Physical value The property at 4993 Old Brock Road includes two building structures, a house, and a garage now converted to a residence. The house is a 1-1/2 storey Ontario Cottage style building constructed, we believe, in 1851 . This makes it one of the very earliest buildings constructed in Claremont, a Village that was settled in the 1840s. The house is a simple rectangular form surmounted by a front to back pitched roof with a large central gable over the front door. The roof includes a small overhanging eave trimmed to the wall. At the rear of the building is a "saltbox" single storey rear addition. W ithin the gable is a window with a pointed arched head fitting into the roof slope and highlighted by heavy wood trim. There is a small wood final above the window at the apex of the dormer The ground floor is 3 bays in width with a central doorway between two windows. The doorway, typica l to the style, has a central door flanked and overarched by windows with small divided lites . The doorway is rimmed with a pilaster on each side supporting an expressed lintel with small projecting cornice. The ground floor windows are similarly trimmed with smaller elements including side trim and lintel with cornice. The bu ilding is mostly clad in wood board and batten siding, with one wall, the north side wall, finished in cement plaster stucco. This house is a typical Ontario cottage likely built to available traditional builders 27th September 2017 13. House from the NW, note store to the left. There are no windows on the north , which would be typ ical, a reflection of its historic relationship to the store. Both Buildings were originally constructed in 1851. PG A plans at the time. 14. House from the SW. PG A PHILIP GOLDSMITH I ARCHITECT Page 9 :::0 ):> q; =l 0):> :::Oc, -I ::i::: ~ $ m 2 -I ~ - 309 - Heritage Assessment -4993 Old Brock Rd., Claremont It is my opinion that is this house is of a type that i$ becoming increasingly rare but not unique . It is a good example that is representative of an early style that has survived largely intact, and of a typical wood frame construction and cladding of the 1850s period. The converted carriage house/ garage. I do not believe to be of the same period , its general appearance with the Gambrel. roof and wood siding suggests a date in the 19QQ., 1930 period. Old but not of the same significance as the house. We were not able to determine specific historic information about the carriage house / garage. In this classification I would rate the house of med-high value and the carriage house/garage of low value. 3.2 Historical or Associative value Although constructed in the same year as the red brick store at the SE corner of Central St. and Old Brock Rd., built by John Mitchell , it is uncerta in if the house had a relationship to the store , it may have had. As a simple traditional house, therefore, this building can only be associated with the history of Claremont in general. It has existing in Claremont since its earliest days. On that basis it does have some potential to yield , information that . contributes to an understanding of the community. Finally, a a simple traditional design , it is my opinion, the house does not demonstrate or reflect the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. In this classification I would rate the house of med-low value and the carriage house/garage of low value. PHILIP GOLDSMITH I ARCHITECT 27th September 2017 15. Detail view of entrance by with a class ic traditional arrangement of entrance , dormer and windows. PGA 16. View to rear of house , the Carriage House/ Garage converted to a residence. PGA Page 10 - 310 - Heritage Assessment -4993 Old Brock Rd., Claremont 3.3 Contextual Value Claremont has changed over the years. As can be seen in the historic images above what was a well defined crossroads village in the 19th century, the character of the village has been eroded through time. This is in part through the loss of a number of key historic buildings as well as through construction of more contemporary ones not necessarily built in a traditional village manner. The loss of the SE Corner store was very unfortunate as was the more historic loss of the NE corner buildings over the years resulting in a garage. There are a few buildings remaining, however, that are original and do anchor the village in time. Several of these need restoration to recapture their architectural potential, but are important in the village context. This house at 4993 is one of those buildings. It is my opinion that the house at 4993 Old Brock Road is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of the area and is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. It however, not a landmark. In this classification I would rate the house of med-high value and the carriage house/garage of low value. PHILIP GOLDSMITH I ARCHITECT 27th September 2017 17. View to house from Central St. near the corner of Old Brock Rd. PGA 18. View past house, on the right, to the corner of Central St. and Old Brock Rd. PGA Page 11 ::0 )::, n" -l -c>--1 0)::, :::0 C") -I :r: ~s: m 2 -I 'It, - 311 - Heritage Assessment -4993 Old Brock Rd., Claremont --.;;;,;..--' ~ 19. View across Central St. looking south on Old Brock Rd. PG A 21. View looking south on Old Brock Rd near house. PG A PHILIP GOLDSMITH I ARCHITECT 27th September 2017 ~-i•~ -t . ~:~:. __ 20. Similar view in the 1870s looking south to store and 4993 Old Brock Rd .. PG A -•-• . ....._ ....... ...,. --------on. -•-_...._ .. _.. -• _...,_ 22. View looking south on Old Brock Rd near house located at far left. II ·I LL. 1 Page 12 :0 ):> ,,.., -I 7J -I 0 ):> :O c, --I ::c ct!, 5 m 2 --t _'II:, - 312 - Heritage Assessment -4993 Old Brock Rd., Claremont 4.0 Landscape There is little landscape associated with the property. It is a normal small village lot with only a narrow north side yard, a wider south side yard utilized as a driveway and a back yard that includes the Carriage House/ Garage. The Front of the house has a narrow set back from the street. None of the open area of the lot is landscaped to a significant degree. It is my opinion that the landscape of the property has no heritage value. 5.0 Discussion ~--- 27th September 2017 ' ... r 23 . North wall of house, note cement plaster Based on the criteria set out in the Ontario Heritage Act Reg 9/06 It is my opinion stucco finish and lack of any windows except a this house does have heritage value , and particularly in the context of historic small window in the addition . PGA Claremont village . Although th is report is not intended to reflect upon the condition of the house it is worth commenting on , some condition issues are immediately apparent. The house is quite complete and in its form and appearance largely unaltered from it historic beginnings. In terms of original design, some on site investigation L _ is required to confirm if the mix of sidings is original, or if it was at first a cement stuccoed house, which is possible , or a woof clad house also possible. Windows appear to have been replaced , it would be expected for a building of this age that original windows would be true divided lites, multi-lited , possibly 6/6 designs. There are also indications that some of the window sills require repair or replacement from rot. The roofing is at the end of its life and requires replacement. There are obvious signs that repairs are required near grade in the lower wall at the building sills and possibly at the supporting frame sill plate. PHILIP GOLDSMITH I ARCHITECT 24. Detail view at front door sill , note rot in the door sill. PG A Page 13 :0 ::i:,. IT' -I -0 -I 0 );:, :Oc, -I ::x:: 'II, s: m 2 -I 'II, - 313 - Heritage Assessment -· 4993 Old Brock Rd., Claremont A full condition review would have to be undertaken to determine the full extent of deterioration and repairs required to conserve the building and if that is even possible. Despite a number of condition issues heritage value of the house should be considered in planning the future of the property. 6.0 End Note This is an opinion which considers the Heritage Value of the property based on historic research and a site visit. Access to the interior of the building was not 27th September 2017 available and the interior was not reviewed. Nor is this to be construed as a 25. Detail view at upper south window, note condition review, which was not undertaken at this time and will also factor in deterioration in the window sill. PGA determining what conservation if any is possible. The opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not represent any assurance that the City of Pickering will come to similar conclusions. They will assess the building(s) using the same Provincial criteria , however. Should a specific proposal for the site be considered, I recommend that a meeting be held with Historic Preservation staff in Pickering, to review the findings of this report and initial plans for any development to confirm their position. PHILIP GOLDSMITH I ARCHITECT . Page 14 - 314 - Heritage Assessment -4993 Old Brock Rd., Claremont 7.0 Bibliography Books Claremont Past and Present: historic sketch written upon the occasion of the centennial celebration 1938. Sabean, John. Time Present and Time Past: A Pictorial History of Pickering. Altona Editions, Pickering, 2000. Wood, William R. Past Years in Pickering. William Briggs, Toronto, 1911. On-line Sources "Albert Asa Post" entry in the Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada PHILIP GOLDSMITH I ARCHITECT 27th September 2017 Page 15 ~~ -0 -l 0 )> ::0 C, -I :c: 'ti, $ m 2 --1 '1 I -t -o - 315 - Page 1 April 29, 2016 Cristina Celebre, Senior Planner Development Review and Heritage City Development Department City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 E: ccelebre@pickering.ca RE: 1027 Dunbarton Road – Our Project NO. 12-074-02 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Dear Cristina, The purpose of this letter is to advise on the possible listing of the 1027 Dunbarton Road property on the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register. It is our understanding that the local heritage advisory committee is considering a recommendation to list the property on the Municipal Heritage Register and has requested preliminary cultural heritage research be undertaken. The scope of this cultural heritage evaluation (as determined with Town staff) includes: •Undertake a site review of the property; •Conduct background research on the history of the property and its context; •Photo documentation of the property and building (as viewed from the street); and •Prepare a letter summarizing the findings of the research and site review, and provide a recommendation regarding listing the property on the Municipal Heritage Register. ERA undertook a site visit on April 20, 2016. This consisted of walking around the property and immediate context, and completing a visual review of the building exterior. The property was found to have cultural heritage value related to is design, associations and context. The building is a unique example of a 1880s brick building designed to accommodate both a business and a residence. The building was constructed for local harness-maker George Falconer. The building once formed part of the Village of Dunbarton - a community that is historically featured alongside Claremont, Whitevale and other communities in Pickering’s archival records. Based on this review of the 1027 Dunbarton Road property, we support the Pickering Heritage Committee’s interest in having the property listed on the Municipal Heritage Register. Of note, the Official Plan identifies the Village of Dunbarton as a ‘historic village’ and Community Improvement Area. It encourages “opportunities to rejuvenate the historic Village of Dunbarton” and new development that is compatible with the historic character of the area. To this purpose, the listing of culturally significant properties in Dunbarton on the Municipal Heritage Register provides the City with a framework to consider future development and permit applications in relation to the heritage character of the area. Attachment #14 - 316 - Page 2 PROPERTY LOCATION The 1027 Dunbarton Road property is located on the east corner of Dunbarton Road and Dunchurch Street in the City of Pickering. The property once formed part of the Village of Dunbarton. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Village of Dunbarton is named for William Dunbar (1786-1869). Dunbar arrived in Quebec from Scotland in 1831. He proceeded to the Town of York and later purchased lands east of Toronto in 1840 (Pickering Township).1 It was here that he laid out this largely Scottish settlement on Kingston Road. Dunbar was involved in the community as an elder in the Presbyterian church, a Justice of the Peace and a school commissioner. He also helped found the Pickering Harbour Company where he worked as a superintendent. His son William Dunbar Jr. inherited the property and spent his life working as a blacksmith in Dunbarton.2 His son, William T. Dunbar, owned and operated a general store in Duffins Creek (now Pickering Village) from 1880 to 1905, and constructed the Dunbar House on the north side of Dunbarton Road in the 1890s. The Village of Dunbarton was located along Kingston Road and had access to Frenchman’s Bay via an adjoining harbour. The April 3, 1896 edition of The Pickering News presents the following summary of the history and development of the village: The village of Dunbarton derived its name as well as its origin from its first proprietor and 1 William Dunbar’s deed to west 1/2 of Lot 25, Concession 1, Pickering, Upper Canada dated 19th Octo- ber 1840. The Pickering Story conjectures the time spent securing the property purchase can be linked to the families membership in the Reform Party as they were apprehended and kept under guard during the Rebel- lion of 1837. 2 Past Years in Pickering by Wm. R. Wood, pg.235. 1. Location map indicating 1027 Dunbarton Road. (Google maps) - 317 - Page 3 projector, the late William Dunbar, Esq. Half a century ago he, with his household, settled on the lot of land he had bought, and on which he lived till the day of his death, in 1869. Then, the now well cleared and cultured farms were but large woods and little clearings. . . Somewhere about thirty years ago, the villages and the adjoining harbour both had their inception, and in both Mr. Dunbar ever took an active interest, being in the latter not only a large shareholder but superintendent of the work. . . The village plots when laid out, was rapidly bought up and built upon. . . Three stores now, and for a long time past, have readily and reasonably supplied the wants of the community. In one of them is the Post Office, with its mails twice each day. On the establishment of the Post Office the inhabitants agreed to call it Dunbarton, in honour of its originator, the name first got and ever retained. Prominent as it ever ought to be, stands the church, a commodious and substantial brick building, belonging to the Presbyterians, while the outskirts is the goodly brick school house. Thus the spiritual and the intellectual are wisely cared for. For a considerable time a tannery did good service in the village, but the removal of the railway station did much to injure the village and incommode the surrounding community. . . The situation is pleasant, having the beautiful bay with its harbour, in front, and the wide stretching lake beyond. The locality is while its inhabitants alike in enterprise and intelligence will favourably compare with those of any other community. The Pickering Story by William A. McKay describes the village of Dunbarton in the mid-1800s as follows: Dunbarton had three general stores, a saddler, two carpenters, a tailor, a leather dealer, a hotel keeper and a teacher, Jonathan Holmes. Land in the vicinity was valued at $50 per acre. 2. Village of Dunbarton and W. Dunbar lands as shown on the 1877 Ontario County Atlas. (The County Atlas Project, McGill University) - 318 - Page 4 In 1951, The Telegram (Toronto) reported on a second wave of settlers arriving in Dunbarton to find work in local factories like GM in Oshawa and Johns-Mansville in Port Union. With this trend, farms were replaced with suburban housing developments. According to the Town of Pickering Community Improvement Policy and Background Study from 1986, the Village of Dunbarton once offered a full range of facilities to the surrounding rural area including a general store, restaurant, two gas stations a real estate office, doctor’s office and a garden centre as well as recreation facilities in the Kiwanis Park. When the C.N.R. introduced a new freight rail line in the 1960s, Kingston Road was rerouted to bypass the hamlet and the road way through the hamlet was renamed Dunbarton Road. With the changes to the highway and CNR railway line, the public park was lost and the residential portion of Dunbarton on the north side of the rail line was divided from the newer commercial area to the south. The Study’s description of the north part of the village is as follows: The lands to the north of the tracks contain 16 residences with only two extremely large homes on the north side of Dunbarton and the remainder located on the south side and on Dunchruch Street. A number of buildings on the south side appear to be old commercial buildings which have been converted to residential use. 3. View looking east with 1027 Dunbarton Road storefront at right. (Time Present and Time Past - A Pictorial History of Pickering, pg. 22) 4. View looking east with 1027 Dunbarton Road storefront at right. Photo by George Dunbar in 2001. (Pickering-Ajax Digital Archive) - 319 - Page 5 The building at 1027 Dunbarton Road was constructed as a house and store for George Falconer, the local harness maker, circa 1886. George Falconer (February 17, 1862 - April 21, 1917). The census of 1901 identifies him as a Scottish Presbyterian harness-maker married to Hattie Olive Falconer (May 3, 1871 - April 29, 1953) and with two daughters, Rena and Birdie. George inherited the harness- making business from his father James Falconer. In his obituary, George Falconer is described as one of Dunbarton’s most prominent citizens and a successful business owner. He is also identified as a member of the Presbyterian Church and a Liberal in Politics.3 Of interest, on March 15, 1091, the Dunbarton ratepayers submitted a petition to the Reeve and Members of the Council of the Township of Pickering, requesting, “. . . the privilege of spending all the statute labour monies inside Dunbarton Village. . .” The petition recommended that George Falconer be appointed commissioner for the Village of Dunbarton, suggesting that he was a leader and prominent figure in the community.4 3 The Pickering News, April 27, 1917. 4 Petition to the Municipal Council of the Township of Pickering. Pickering Public Library [2007-00298] 5. Postcard of 1027 Dunbarton Road postmarked 30 Dec 1914 Dunbarton. (Brian Winters collection, Pickering Public Library) 6. “Former home & shop of George Falconer Sadler on Dunbarton St. (formerly Kingston Rd.), 2001” Photo by George Dunbar (Pickering-Ajax Digital Archive) - 320 - Page 6 The March 5, 1886 edition of The Pickering News noted the construction of the building in the Dunbarton local happenings column: Our enterprising harness-maker, Mr. George Falconer, having purchased the lot on the corner of King and Bay streets, intends building a fine brick structure, to be used as a harness shop. Whether it is owing to increase of business and want of room, or whether Mr. Falconer intends to make two people one, remains to be discovered. Part of the material is already on the ground. . . This work coincided with the construction of a new Presbyterian church in the village; the church cornerstone was laid in June of 1886. BUILDING DESCRIPTION The Victorian style building is made up of two primary components, a house (east) and a store (west). In the 19th century, Victorian influenced buildings emerged as a popular style in rural Upper Canada. The houses were generally one-and-a-half stories with a gable roof and windows within the gables or dormers. A common type, the Ontario Farmhouse, often followed an L-shaped plan, displayed dichromatic brickwork and featured a front porch or verandah. The house is a one-and-a-half storey brick building with a gable roof. The front gable displays a pair of windows with a single window above. Within the recess is a wood entrance vestibule that forms part of the verandah. Above is a gable dormer with a single window. Directly to the west is the one-and-a- half storey brick store, also with a gable roof. At the street, the front facade extends up past the roof to display a two-storey frontage. The front facade consists of a glazed storefront with a central entrance and a pair of windows above. Based on historic photographs, the house was constructed with red brick and decorative buff brickwork including quoined corners and square windows arches. The original house had a wood shingle roof and a corbelled brick chimney. The windows were wood and appear to match the existing configuration. Similar to the house, the store was red brick with buff brick at the corners, window arches and parapet. It also had a wood shingle roof and a chimney at the rear (modified). At the front facade, the original entry appears recessed and the storefront windows were divided into four equal lights, similar to the window pattern above. The building today displays much of the integrity of the original building configuration. Visible changes include the painting of the masonry, minor modifications to the verandah and storefront, an asphalt shingle roof and painted aluminium raingear, and alterations to the chimneys. Sincerely, Lindsay Reid, Associate E.R.A. Architects Inc. - 321 - Page 7 7. Property as viewed looking east on Dunbarton Road. (ERA) 8. North (front) and east elevations. (ERA) SITE PHOTOGRAPHS - 322 - Page 8 9. Front (north) elevation. (ERA) 10. North (front) and west elevations. (ERA) - 323 - Page 9 11. South (rear) elevation. (ERA) 12. Vestibule Entry. (ERA)13. Storefront entry. (ERA) - 324 -