The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJune 8, 2026 Addendum Planning and Development Committee Meeting Agenda Electronic Meeting June 08, 2026 07:00 PM Chair: Councillor Pickles Please be advised that in accordance with Section 10.04 of the Procedure By-law, the City of Pickering is holding Council and Committee Meetings in an electronic format until further notice. Members of the public may observe the meeting proceedings by viewing the livestream on the HTML Agenda or the archived video available on the City's website. How to Participate Individuals looking to make a verbal delegation may do so in accordance with the City’s Procedure By-law. In lieu of a verbal delegation, individuals may also submit written comments to clerks@pickering.ca. To register as a delegation, please submit a Delegation Request Form by visiting pickering.ca/meetings. Please note that matters marked with an asterisk (*) have been amended or added. For inquiries related to accessibility, please contact Legislative Services Phone: 905.420.4611 | Email: clerks@pickering.ca. Call to Order/Roll Call Disclosure of Interest Delegations Elizabeth Howson, Principal, Macaulay Shiomi Howson Ltd. (Seaton TFPM Inc.) Re: Report PLN 12-26 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-004P 1. 2. 3. 3.1 Seaton TFPM Inc. Brock Road and Highway 407 Seaton Community (Refer to Item 4.1) John McDermott, Principal Planner, McDermott & Associates Limited Re: Report PLN 15-26 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/25 (Part 2) Amendment to Consolidated Zoning By-law 8149/24, as amended Four Seasons Country Club City Initiated (Refer to Item 4.3) Helena Shao, Shao Law Professional Corporation and Ahmed Zaved Choudhury, Owner, 681 Pleasant Street Re: Report PLN 13-26 Notice of Objection to Part IV Designation of 681 Pleasant Street (Refer to Item 4.2) Planning and Development Reports Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 12-26 Page 5 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-004P Seaton TFPM Inc. Brock Road and Highway 407 Seaton Community Recommendation: That Report PLN 12-26 regarding Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-004P be received; 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-004P, submitted by Seaton TFPM Inc., to amend the Region of Durham Official Plan, the City of Pickering Official Plan, and the Thompson's Corners Neighbourhood Plan, to redesignate certain Prestige Employment Node and Community Node lands to Low and Medium Density, Community Node, Mixed Corridors Type 2, and Seaton Natural Heritage System, and to permit additional employment uses on lands designated as Prestige Employment located in the vicinity of Brock 2. *3.2 *3.3 4. 4.1 Addendum Planning and Development Committee Meeting Agenda June 08, 2026 - 2 - Road and Highway 407 to ensure consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024, and permit a broader range of land uses, including institutional, office, service commercial, high-density residential and other community-serving uses compatible with the emerging land use context of the Thompson's Corner Neighbourhood Plan area, be approved; That the draft By-law to adopt Amendment 58 to the Pickering Official Plan, as set out Attachment 1 to Report PLN 12-26, be finalized and forwarded to Council for adoption; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 4. Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 13-26 Page 34 Notice of Objection to Part IV Designation of 681 Pleasant Street Recommendation: That Report PLN 13-26 regarding the Notice of Objection to the Part IV Designation of 681 Pleasant Street be received; 1. That Council decline the objection, and affirm the February 23, 2026, Council Resolution #946/26, to designate 681 Pleasant Street under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act; 2. That the By-law included as Attachment 1 to Report PLN 13-26, designating the property at 681 Pleasant Street, in accordance with Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; 3. That Council direct staff to serve a Notice of Passing for the property located at 681 Pleasant Street, known as the “Mansfield House”, as a property of cultural heritage value or interest pursuant to Section 29(8) of the Ontario Heritage Act; 4. That, should an appeal be filed with the Ontario Land Tribunal, Council direct staff to retain such external legal counsel and subject matter experts, as required, to support the decision of Council at the Ontario Land Tribunal; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take such actions as necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 6. Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 15-26 Page 277 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/25 (Part 2) Amendment to Consolidated Zoning By-law 8149/24, as amended Four Seasons Country Club City Initiated 4.2 4.3 Addendum Planning and Development Committee Meeting Agenda June 08, 2026 - 3 - Recommendation: That Report PLN 15-26 regarding the Four Seasons Golf Course be received;1. That Part 2 of City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/25, to permit an amendment to Zoning By-law 8149/24, as amended, to reinstate permissions for two existing residential units, and permit an accessory residential unit in conjunction with the existing permitted golf course at Four Seasons Country Club, 1850-1900 Eighth Concession Road, be approved; 2. That the Draft By-law implementing Part 2 of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/25, as set out in Attachment 2 to Report PLN 15-26, be finalized and forwarded to Council for adoption; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 4. Member Updates on Committees Adjournment 5. 6. Addendum Planning and Development Committee Meeting Agenda June 08, 2026 - 4 - Report to Planning and Development Committee Report Number: PLN 12-26 Date: June 8, 2026 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-004P Seaton TFPM Inc. Brock Road and Highway 407 Seaton Community Recommendation: 1. That Report PLN 12-26 regarding Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-004P be received; 2. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-004P, submitted by Seaton TFPM Inc., to amend the Region of Durham Official Plan, the City of Pickering Official Plan, and the Thompson's Corners Neighbourhood Plan, to redesignate certain Prestige Employment Node and Community Node lands to Low and Medium Density, Community Node, Mixed Corridors Type 2, and Seaton Natural Heritage System, and to permit additional employment uses on lands designated as Prestige Employment located in the vicinity of Brock Road and Highway 407 to ensure consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024, and permit a broader range of land uses, including institutional, office, service commercial, high-density residential and other community-serving uses compatible with the emerging land use context of the Thompson's Corner Neighbourhood Plan area, be approved; 3. That the draft By-law to adopt Amendment 58 to the Pickering Official Plan, as set out Attachment 1 to Report PLN 12-26, be finalized and forwarded to Council for adoption; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 1.0 Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval of an Official Plan Amendment submitted by Seaton TFPM Inc. to amend both the Durham Regional Official Plan and the City - 5 - PLN 12-26 June 8, 2026 Page 2 of Pickering Official Plan for lands located near Brock Road and Highway 407 within the Thompson’s Corners Neighbourhood of the Seaton Community. The Seaton Employment Area was originally planned to accommodate high-quality employment opportunities, with the Brock Road and Highway 407 interchange envisioned as a gateway supporting major office and prestige employment uses. However, changes to provincial planning policy, including revisions to the definition of employment areas through the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS), together with evolving market conditions and reduced demand for office development, have affected the long-term viability of the original employment vision. The subject lands are located adjacent to Highway 407, Brock Road, planned transportation corridors, and approved residential communities, making them appropriate for a broader mix of uses. The proposed Official Plan Amendment redesignates the lands to Community Node, Mixed Corridor, and Residential designations to support a more complete and integrated community structure. The proposal also expands employment uses on lands designated as Prestige Employment. The proposed redesignation would permit a mix of institutional, office, service commercial, residential, and community-serving uses while supporting the orderly and coordinated development of adjacent lands and integration with planned infrastructure, transportation networks, and public services. Detailed development matters will be addressed through future applications, including Zoning By-law amendments, draft plans of subdivision, and site plan approval. Staff are satisfied that the proposed redesignation will maintain opportunities for employment generating uses and will not negatively impact the long-term viability of the broader Seaton Employment Area or the City’s ability to accommodate forecast employment growth. 2.0 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority of Advance Innovation & Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced Community. 3.0 Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated due to the proposed development. 4.0 Discussion: The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval of Official Plan Amendment application OPA 25-004P, submitted by Seaton TFPM Inc. The application proposes to redesignate lands within the Thompson’s Corners Neighbourhood Plan area near Brock Road and Highway 407 - 6 - PLN 12-26 June 8, 2026 Page 3 to permit a broader mix of institutional, office, service commercial, residential and community- serving uses. The amendment is intended to align the planning framework with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (PPS) and support a more flexible, mixed-use community structure compatible with the evolving Seaton community. 5.0 Background: 5.1 Property Description The subject lands consist of multiple parcels situated in the northeast quadrant of the Seaton Community, within the Thompson’s Corners Neighbourhood (see Location Map and Air Photo Map, Attachments 2 and 3). The subject lands are generally bounded by the following: North: Highway 7 and the Hamlet of Brougham, which contains a mix of residential, commercial, and public uses. West: Seaton Natural Heritage System, beyond lies the Seaton Innovation Corridor, which permits prestige employment uses and includes the Kubota head office. East: Seaton Natural Heritage System and Sideline 16. South: Lands within the Thompson’s Corners Neighbourhood designated and zoned for community node and medium-density uses, and beyond lands for an elementary school and a village green. Highway 407 runs east–west, while Brock Road runs north–south through the neighbourhood. A Pickering GO Bus Carpool facility is located west of Brock Road, south of Highway 407. The majority of the subject lands have received Draft Plan of Subdivision approval and are intended to be developed in phases to accommodate a range of land uses over time. The construction of residential units has commenced west of Brock Road and north of Alexander Knox Road, consisting primarily of detached and townhouse dwellings. 5.2 Applicant’s Proposal Seaton TFPM Inc. has submitted an application to amend both Durham Region’s Official Plan and the City’s Official Plan for several properties located near Brock Road and Highway 407 within the Thompson’s Corners Neighbourhood in the Seaton Community, as outlined in black on Figure 1. The lands in the Brock Road and Highway 407 area are predominately designated “Prestige Employment Node”, as shown in purple on Figure 1. These lands were originally intended to develop as corporate office business parks, primarily focused on office uses, standalone office buildings and employment uses that integrate office and prestige industrial operations. - 7 - PLN 12-26 June 8, 2026 Page 4 Figure 1: Thompson’s Corners Neighbourhood Plan (Brock Road and Highway 407) The PPS revised the definition of “employment uses” to include only industrial-type employment uses. Institutional, commercial, and standalone office uses (i.e., office uses not associated with a primary employment use) are no longer included within the definition. As a result, the existing Prestige Employment Node lands no longer align with the PPS definition of an employment area. The applicant proposes to redesignate the subject lands to Community Node, Mixed Corridor and Residential (Low and Medium Density) land uses. The proposed Community Node designation would provide greater flexibility to accommodate a broader mix of land uses, including institutional, office, service commercial, high density residential, and other community-serving uses that are compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed Mixed Corridor and Residential designations provide for a variety of housing forms commercial uses. In addition, the proposal also expands employment uses on lands designated as Prestige Employment. The proposed amendments to the Thompson’s Corners Neighbourhood Plan are outlined below and illustrated in Figure 2. A detailed summary of the proposed land use permissions for each designation is provided in Attachment 4. Area 1: Prestige Employment Node to Community Node Area 2: Prestige Employment Node to Low Density Area Type 1 - 8 - PLN 12-26 June 8, 2026 Page 5 Area 3: Prestige Employment Node to Medium Density Area with Village Green symbol on lands west of Brock Road south of Highway 407 Area 4: Prestige Employment Node to Mixed Corridor Type 2 Area 5: Prestige Employment Node and Community Node to Mixed Corridor Type 2 Area 6: Prestige Employment Node to Community Node Area 7: Community Node to Mixed Corridor Type 2 Area 8: Add a Village Green symbol Area 9: Prestige Employment Node to Seaton Natural Heritage System Area 10: Permit additional uses on the Prestige Employment lands Figure 2: Proposed Amendments to Thompson’s Corners Neighbourhood Plan (Brock Road and Highway 407) Following circulation of the original application and in response to comments from City departments and external agencies, the applicant has refined the proposal. Specifically, the “Community Node” policies have been refined to establish distinct land use permissions based on location, including lands north and south of Highway 407, as well as lands east of Brock Road, south of Highway 407, as follows: - 9 - PLN 12-26 June 8, 2026 Page 6 • Lands North of Highway 407 (Area 1) Residential uses are prohibited. Permitted uses include community, cultural, and recreational facilities, medical offices and laboratories, and institutional uses such as hospitals. • Lands South of Highway 407 (Area 1) A mixed-use development framework permitting high-density residential, retail and service commercial uses, office uses, restaurants and hotel uses. • Lands East of Brock Road, South of Highway 407 (Area 6) Permitted uses are limited to retail and service commercial uses. Residential uses are not permitted at this time but may be considered through an Official Plan Amendment, subject to justification demonstrating market needs. Additional refinements to the policies and schedule include: • removal of permissions for light industrial, manufacturing, and similar employment-type uses within the Community Node lands north of Highway 407; • refinement of the Community Node boundary to recognize two Seaton Natural Heritage System areas located north and south of Highway 407, east of Mowbray Street; • addition of a “Village Green” symbol on lands designated Medium Density Residential, located south of Highway 407 and west of Elsa Storry Avenue (Area 8), to permit a future village green; and, • identification of a potential future elementary school, subject to confirmation of need and location through the Draft Plan of Subdivision process based on school board requirements and servicing considerations. Detailed design considerations for the subject lands will be addressed through future applications for Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision and Site Plan Approval. As part of these future applications, the applicant will be required to submit supporting technical plans and studies, including traffic impact studies, servicing and grading plans, geotechnical investigations, hydrogeological studies, noise and vibration studies, site plans, landscape drawings and architectural details. The future planning applications will also provide additional opportunities for public engagement. 6.0 Comments Received: 6.1 March 9, 2026, Electronic Statutory Public Meeting An electronic Statutory Public Meeting was held on March 9, 2026. Notice of the meeting was mailed to all property owners within 150 metres of the subject lands, and seven notice signs were installed on the subject lands. - 10 - PLN 12-26 June 8, 2026 Page 7 No residents spoke at the public meeting. However, as of the writing of this report, three written comments have been received regarding the application, summarized as follows: • Support for retaining the employment lands for future headquarters, hotels, and office developments, and oppose low and medium density residential development; • Support for the proposed Official Plan Amendment in principle, with a request that future development applications be carefully reviewed to ensure appropriate transitions, compatibility, and integration with Brougham’s existing built form and landscape character. The resident also requested that further study be undertaken to better understand and evaluate Brougham’s cultural heritage value; and, • A request that future public meetings be held in-person at the newly reopened Brougham Hall to encourage greater participation from residents living near the development area. At the Statutory Public Meeting, the Chair inquired whether the applicant is currently proposing high-density residential development on the subject lands, whether the Seaton Natural Heritage System lands are included within the application, and whether those lands will continue to be protected. 6.2 Comments from External Agencies 6.2.1 Region of Durham • No objections to the application; and, • Future development applications for the subject lands will require submission of Functional Servicing Report, Traffic Impact Study or Brief to demonstrate the capacity of the existing servicing and transportation infrastructure to accommodate the proposed uses. 6.2.2 Toronto Region and Conservation Authority (TRCA) • No objections to the application; and • Outstanding technical comments, including the requirement for a Feature Based Water Balance as part of the supporting studies during detailed site design, will be addressed through the future Zoning By-law Amendment and/or Draft Plan of Subdivision processes, with the expectation that they will be resolved to TRCA’s satisfaction prior to further approvals. 6.3 Comments from City Departments 6.3.1 Engineering • No objections to the application; and, • Future development applications including Zoning By-law Amendment and/or Draft Plan of Subdivision processes will require the submission of servicing, grading, geotechnical, - 11 - PLN 12-26 June 8, 2026 Page 8 hydrogeological, noise/vibration, environmental, and landscape studies. Updated stormwater management analysis, infrastructure upgrades, and a Functional Servicing and Stormwater Report will also be required. 6.3.2 Sustainability • No objections to the application; and, • Future development applications for the subject lands will be guided by the applicable sustainability policies of the City’s Official Plan. This approach supports ongoing implementation of the City’s Seaton Sustainable Guidelines (2011), or any updated City endorsed sustainability guidelines in effect at the time of development. 7.0 Planning Analysis: 7.1 The proposal is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) On October 20, 2024, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing released a new Provincial Planning Statement (2024), which replaced the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019). Through Bill 97, the definition of “area of employment” in the Planning Act was amended on June 8, 2023, and came into effect on October 20, 2024. The definition is maintained in the PPS. The new definition has been revised to include only industrial-type employment uses. More specifically, it excludes institutional, public, service and commercial uses, as well as office uses not associated with a primary employment use. The PPS requires municipalities to plan for, protect and preserve employment areas for current and future uses, while ensuring that the necessary infrastructure is available to support growth. Prior to the PPS (2024), employment area conversions were considered only through a municipal comprehensive review. Under the current PPS, an applicant can apply for an employment area conversion at any time, subject to the following criteria. The PPS requires that: • the lands are not required for employment purposes over the long term; • there is a clear and identified need for the conversion; • the lands are not required over the horizon of the projected growth for the employment purposes for which they are designated; • sufficient employment lands remain to accommodate forecast employment growth to the horizon of Pickering’s Official Plan; and, • the conversion will not adversely affect the viability of the broader employment areas or the achievement of the minimum intensification and density targets in Pickering’s Official Plan. - 12 - PLN 12-26 June 8, 2026 Page 9 Through the City’s ongoing Official Plan Review “Pickering Forward”, Watson & Associates Ltd., prepared a Growth Management Strategy to assess how population and employment growth can be accommodated to 2051. The Growth Management Strategy identified the Brock Road and Highway 407 Prestige Employment lands as an area requiring further review due to changes in provincial legislation and evolving market conditions, particularly reduced demand for large-format office development. The Prestige Employment Node lands were originally envisioned to develop as corporate office business parks focused on office and prestige employment uses. However, changes to provincial planning policy and shifts in office market demand have significantly affected the long-term viability of that original land use vision. Despite the changes in provincial legislation, the lands in the vicinity of Brock Road and the Highway 407 interchange still maintain the ability to accomplish some aspects of its original vision including office, personal service and institutional uses. The proposed Official Plan Amendment would maintain opportunities for employment-generating uses along the Brock Road corridor through the Community Node designation, including office, service commercial, institutional, and community uses, while permitting residential uses on lands that are less suitable for traditional prestige employment uses due to parcel size, location, and adjacency to planned residential communities. Staff are satisfied that the proposed redesignation will not negatively affect the long-term viability of the broader Seaton Employment Area and that sufficient employment lands remain to accommodate forecast employment growth to the planning horizon of the Pickering Official Plan. Accordingly, staff are of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the PPS. 7.2 Amendments to the Durham Regional Official Plan, “Envision Durham,” and to the Pickering Official Plan are required On January 1, 2025, Durham Region became an upper-tier municipality without land use planning responsibilities. Pursuant to subsection 70.13(2) of the Planning Act, the Region of Durham Official Plan (ROP) is deemed to constitute an official plan of the City of Pickering for lands to which it applies and will remain in effect until the City revokes or amends it. Envision Durham designates the subject lands as “Employment Areas” with a Regional Corridor overlay along Brock Road. Employment Areas are the primary locations of employment generating uses such as manufacturing, assembly, processing warehousing, and similar uses that require access to highway, rail shipping facilities and/or separation from sensitive land uses. - 13 - PLN 12-26 June 8, 2026 Page 10 The Pickering Official Plan designates the subject lands “Employment Areas” - “Prestige Employment” and “Mixed Use Areas” - Community Node.” The lands are located within the Seaton Urban Area and the Thompson’s Corners Neighbourhood Plan designates the lands “Prestige Employment Node”, “Prestige Employment”, and “Community Node”, as shown in Figure 1 in Section 5.2 of this report. The Seaton Employment Area was originally planned to accommodate high-quality employment opportunities within Pickering and the Region. The Brock Road and Highway 407 interchange was specifically envisioned as a gateway into the Seaton Employment Area and intended to support major office and prestige employment uses. Since the approval of the original Seaton planning framework, two key factors support re- examination of the long-term vision for the subject lands and the broader Seaton Employment Area. First, changes to provincial planning policy, including revisions to the definition and function of employment areas, have altered the planning framework for employment lands. Second, evolving market conditions, particularly reduced demand for office development, have significantly affected the viability of the original employment vision. The subject lands are strategically located adjacent to Highway 407 and Brock Road, which are planned transportation corridors, and existing approved residential communities, making them appropriate for a broader mix of uses. The proposed Official Plan Amendment redesignates the lands to Community Node, Mixed Corridor, and Residential to support a more complete and integrated community structure. The proposed Community Node designation will provide flexibility to accommodate institutional, office, service commercial, high-density residential, and other community serving uses compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed Mixed Corridor and Residential designations will permit a range of housing forms and complementary commercial uses while ensuring appropriate transitions to surrounding development, mitigating any potential adverse impacts. The revised Prestige Employment designation policies will permit a broader range of employment uses, including the removal of the existing prohibition on warehousing, light manufacturing, assembly, and processing of goods in combination with a permitted use, such as an office. In addition, the revised proposal includes lands redesignated to the Seaton Natural Heritage System. The proposed redesignation will support the orderly and coordinated development of adjacent lands by establishing a logical extension of the planned land use pattern, promote connectivity between uses, and facilitate efficient integration with existing and planned infrastructure, public services, and transportation networks. Accordingly, staff recommend that Council approve the Official Plan Amendment application and adopt Amendment 58, as set out in the Draft By-law (see Attachment 1). - 14 - PLN 12-26 June 8, 2026 Page 11 7.3 Response to Comments from the Chair at the Statutory Public Meeting and public comments As outlined in Section 6.1 of this report, written comments were received regarding the application. The table below provides responses to comments received from the public, as well as questions raised by the Chair at the Statutory Public Meeting. Comments Response The Chair asked whether the applicant is currently proposing high-density residential development on the subject lands. The applicant has confirmed that there are currently no plans to develop the subject lands for high-density residential uses. No applications proposing higher- density built forms have been submitted or are under review at this time. The Chair asked whether the Seaton Natural Heritage System lands are included within the application and whether those lands will continue to be protected. The application does not propose development within the Seaton Natural Heritage System. These lands will continue to be protected. Through the review of the application, the proposed Community Node designation was refined to recognize two Seaton Natural Heritage System areas located north and south of Highway 407, east of Mowbray Street. A resident expressed support for reserving the lands for future headquarters, hotel, and office development, and opposes low and medium density residential development. The revised application includes site-specific Community Node policies for lands north of Highway 407 adjacent to Brougham, where residential development is prohibited. The revised policies also expand permitted uses to include community, cultural and recreation uses, medical offices, laboratories, and institutional uses such as hospitals. A resident requested that future development be compatible with Brougham’s existing built form and landscape character, and requested further study of Brougham’s cultural heritage value. The existing Thompson’s Corners neighbourhood policies will continue to apply and require appropriate transitional design, buffering, and compatibility between new development and the Hamlet of Brougham. Future development applications, including zoning subdivision, and site plan approvals, will provide further opportunities to ensure appropriate design transition measures, pedestrian connections, and compatibility with existing community character. A resident requested that future public meetings be held in-person at the newly reopened Brougham Hall to encourage greater participation from nearby residents. Additional planning approvals will be required for the development of the subject lands, including Zoning By- law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision and/or Site Plan Approval. These processes will provide additional opportunities for public engagement. At the request of the Ward Councillors, consideration will be given to - 15 - PLN 12-26 June 8, 2026 Page 12 holding future open house meetings at Brougham Hall for new development proposals adjacent to the Hamlet of Brougham. 8.0 Conclusion: Staff have completed a detailed review of the proposed Official Plan Amendment application, including applicable provincial policy, the Durham Regional Official Plan, the Pickering Official Plan, technical agency comments and public input. Staff are satisfied that the proposed redesignation appropriately responds to changes in provincial employment land use policies, maintains opportunities for employment-generating uses, and will not compromise the long-term viability of the broader Seaton Employment Area. Furthermore, the redesignation will permit a mix of institutional, office, service commercial, residential, and community-serving uses while supporting the orderly and coordinated development of the area and integration with planned infrastructure and transportation networks. Accordingly, staff recommend that Council approve the proposed Official Plan Amendment application and that the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 58, as set out in Attachment 1 to this report, be finalized and forwarded to Council for adoption. 9.0 Applicant’s Comments: The applicant has been advised of, and concurs with, the recommendations of this report. Attachments: 1. Recommended Official Plan Amendment 58 for Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-004P 2. Location Map 3. Air Photo Map 4. Summary of the Proposed Land Use Designations Prepared By: Cristina Celebre, Principal Planner, Strategic Initiatives Prepared By: Nilesh Surti, Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, Chief Planner Approved/Endorsed By: Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development & CBO - 16 - PLN 12-26 June 8, 2026 Page 13 CC:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 17 - Attachment 1 to Report PLN 12-26 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/26 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 58 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 25-004P) Whereas pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p. 13, subsections 17(22) and 21(1), the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering may, by by-law, adopt amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.That Amendment 58 to the Official Plan for the Region of Durham and Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, is hereby adopted; and 2.That this By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing hereof. By-law passed this XX day of XXXX, 2026. __________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor __________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 18 - Exhibit “A” to By-law XXXX/26 Recommended Amendment 58 to the Region of Durham Official Plan and the City of Pickering Official Plan - 19 - Recommended Amendment 58 to the Durham Official Plan and Pickering Official Plan Purpose: The purpose of this Amendment is to amend both the Durham Regional Official Plan and the City of Pickering Official Plan for lands located in the Brock Road and Highway 407 area, within the Thompson’s Corners Neighbourhood in the Seaton community. The Amendment proposes to redesignate lands currently designated as Prestige Employment Node and Community Node to Community Node, Mixed Corridor, Low and Medium Density Areas, and Seaton Natural Heritage System designations. The Amendment also proposes to permit additional employment uses on lands designated as Prestige Employment. The proposed Amendment is intended to ensure consistency with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS). Location: This Amendment applies to lands located in the vicinity of Brock Road and Highway 407, situated on the north and south sides of Highway 407 and on the east and west sides of Brock Road, within the Thompson’s Corners Neighbourhood 20. The location of the subject lands is shown on the attached Location Map. The Location Map is provided for information purposes only and does not form part of this Amendment. Basis: Through the review of Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25 -004P, City Council has determined that the policies proposed by the Amendment will facilitate a broader range of land uses, including mixed -use development, commercial and residential uses, as well as community, cultural, and recreational facilities. The Amendment also permits medical offices, laboratories, and institutional uses, such as hospitals. Collectively, these land uses will support the efficient use of existing and planned infrastructure and services, maintain the area’s role as a gateway into Seaton, contribute to the development of a complete community, and ensure appropriate land use transitions and compatibility with the adjacent Hamlet of Brougham. The Prestige Employment Node lands located in the Brock Road and Highway 407 area were originally intended to develop primarily as corporate office business parks. The policy framework permitted office development together with limited supporting commercial, cultural, and institutional uses. Recent changes to the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024, including the revised definition of “employment area”, no longer permit standalone office, public service, limited retail or institutional uses within employment areas. As a result, the designation of the subject lands as Prestige Employment Node no longer fully aligns with the current provincial policy framework for employment areas. Amendments were required to address this change, including the addition of a - 20 - broader range of permissible uses to provide greater flexibility for long-term development opportunities within the Brock Road and Highway 407 area. Accordingly, City Council is satisfied that the proposed Official Plan Amendment is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, and conforms with the intent and objectives of both the Durham Regional Official Plan and the Pickering Official Plan. Actual Amendment: The Region of Durham Official Plan “Envision Durham” is hereby amended by: 1. Amending Map 1, Region Structure – Urban and Rural Systems by redesignating the subject lands from “Urban System – Employment Lands” to “Urban System – Community Areas”, as illustrated on Schedule ‘A’ attached to this amendment. Actual Amendment: The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: (New text is shown as underlined text, deleted text is shown as strikeout text, and retained text is shown as unchanged text.) 1. Amending Schedule I – Land Use Structure, by replacing the “Employment Areas – Prestige Employment” designation with “Mixed Use Areas – Community Nodes”, “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas”, “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas”, and “Open Space System – Seaton Natural Heritage System” designations as illustrated on Schedule ‘B’ attached to this Amendment. 2. Amending Schedule XII – Neighbourhood 20: Thompon’s Corners Neighbourhood Plan by replacing the “Prestige Employment Node” with “Community Node”, “Mixed Corridor Type 2”, “Medium Density Area”, “Low Density Area Type 1”, and “Seaton Natural Heritage System”, and replacing “Community Node” with “Mixed Corridor Type 2”, and adding a Village Green symbol, as illustrated on Schedule ‘C’ attached to this Amendment. 3. Revising City policy 12.22, Thompson’s Corners Neighbourhood Policies, in Chapter 12 – Urban Neighbourhoods, by removing and replacing sub-section (e), (f) and (g), with a new sub-section (e), so that it reads as follows: (e) shall provide greater direction on employment uses and densities in the Prestige Employment designation by applying two subcategories to the Prestige Employment land use category set out in Tables 2 and 7 as follows: (i) Prestige Employment General: (A) in addition to the prohibited uses in Section 11.32, warehousing shall be prohibited except for warehousing accessory to a permitted use; (ii) Prestige Employment Node: - 21 - (A) in addition to the prohibited uses in Section 11.32, warehousing, and light manufacturing, assembly and processing of goods shall be prohibited except in combination with a permitted use in the same building; and (B) a minimum density of 2.0 FSI shall be required for freestanding office buildings which shall be directed to locations close to the interchanges within the Prestige Employment Node. However interim development of no less than 0.5 FSI may be permitted provided a development concept and intensification plan is submitted demonstrating how the property can be intensified including: (1) the siting and orientation of buildings which do not preclude future intensification; (2) the location of parking for the initial development and changes to parking to accommodate the intensification process; and (3) the phasing of the intensification of the site to realize the ultimate built form; (f) shall require appropriate transitional design, compatibility and buffering from the Prestige Employment designation to the Hamlet of Brougham and its existing character through the implementing draft plan of subdivision, zoning by-law and site plan approval. The implementing draft plan of subdivision shall also provide for adequate road and pedestrian connections between Brougham and the surrounding Prestige Employment lands; (g) shall facilitate the long-term intensification of Highway 407 ETR/Transitway station located at Brock Road and Highway 407 ETR/Transitway based on the underlying land use of Prestige Employment Node; (e) shall provide greater direction on uses and development parameters in the Community Node land use subcategory as follows: (A) for lands located on the north side of Highway 407, east and west sides of Mowbray Street, south of Highway 7: (i) despite Section 11.4 and Table 5, all residential uses are prohibited; (ii) permitted uses in the Community Node shall include community, cultural and recreation uses, medical offices, laboratories, as well as institutional uses such as hospitals; (ii) shall require appropriate transitional design, compatibility and buffering between the Community Node designation and the Hamlet of Brougham to protect and maintain its existing character, - 22 - and through the implementing draft plan of subdivision, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan approval shall provide for appropriate setbacks and adequate road and pedestrian connections between the Hamlet of Brougham and the surrounding Community Node lands; (B) for lands located on the south side of Highway 407, north of Dawes Road and west of Brock Road: (i) shall facilitate the long-term intensification of the area adjacent to the Highway 407 ETR/Transitway station located at Brock Road and the Highway 407 ETR/Transitway based on the underlying land use of Community Node; (ii) adding permitted uses in the Community Node, including mixed- use development that includes high density residential, retailing of goods and services, offices, restaurants, and hotels; (C) for lands located on the east side of Brock Road, south of Highway 407: (i) despite Section 11.4 and Table 5, permitted uses shall be limited to retailing of goods and services. The intent of the designation is to facilitate the development of a neighbourhood commercial development. Redevelopment for residential uses may be considered in the future only through an Official Plan Amendment. Any such amendment shall be supported by an economic feasibility and market demand analysis demonstrating that retail uses and services are no longer needed to serve the neighbourhood or can be satisfactorily incorporated within a mixed use residential redevelopment, that the proposed residential use is appropriate, having regard to current and projected market conditions, and that it will not adversely impact the planned function of the area; and, renumbering sub-sections (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l) to sub-sections (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j) so that it reads as follows: (f) shall require the proponent, prior to submission of draft plans of subdivision for development adjacent to the Brougham Pioneer Christian Cemetery to seek confirmation from the Brougham United Church to acquire additional lands in the area of the current cemetery, or not, as described in the CPDP; (g) shall, along Type A and Type B Arterial Roads, as shown on Schedule II, not permit direct access to lots but will encourage the Region to allow for full movement intersections at the locations shown on Schedule XII Neighbourhood 20: Thompson’s Corners and allow for right-in/right-out intersections at a shorter intersection spacing in order to promote walkability and connectivity; - 23 - (h) shall along Collector Roads require direct access to be minimized, due to traffic volumes and built forms, through a range of alternatives including rear lanes, slip lanes, shared drives, hybrid local roads, connector lanes or other means to limit direct access to individual lots. Where direct access is proposed, Council shall require applicants to demonstrate through appropriate transportation studies that direct access can be supported; (i) shall establish a pedestrian and bicycle systems plan for the neighbourhood, which is illustrated on Schedule XII – Neighbourhood 20: Thompson’s Corners and consists of the road network, bikeways, trails and trailheads. Further details on how cyclists will be accommodated in the road network shall be set out in the Sustainable Placemaking Guidelines; (j) shall identify the location of existing Heritage Lots on Schedule XII – Neighbourhood 20: Thompson’s Corners and require Heritage Lots to be integrated into the design of the surrounding employment area through appropriate landscaping and built form transition as per the policies set out in Sections 11.62, 11.63 and 11.64 where applicable; and, renumbering subsection (m) to subsection (k), and adding new subsections (vi) and (vii) so that it reads as follows: (k) shall recognize that the locations of: (i) local roads constructed through the Seaton Natural Heritage System will be subject to satisfying the Environmental Assessment process; (ii) Type A and Type B Arterial Roads are currently the subject of an Environmental Assessment, and the road alignments will be confirmed through that process, which may require further refinements to Schedule XII – Neighbourhood 20: Thompson’s Corners; (iii) local roads, school sites, parks and village greens may be refined through the draft plans of subdivision without an amendment to this Plan, provided the location, size and layout are consistent with the design intent shown on Schedule XII – Neighbourhood 20: Thompson’s Corners and the policies of this Plan; (iv) the number, size and location of stormwater management facilities will be confirmed through the Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Report and may change without an amendment to this Plan; and (v) a district energy facility on Schedule XII – Neighbourhood 20: Thompson’s Corners is conceptually shown and its location is to be determined by a feasibility study that demonstrates such a facility can be successfully operated and integrated into the community in consultation with the landowners and utility providers; v) a district energy facility on Schedule XII – Neighbourhood 20: Thompson’s Corners is conceptually shown, and its location is to be determined by a feasibility study that demonstrates such a facility can - 24 - be successfully operated and integrated into the community in consultation with the landowners and utility providers; (vi) the Village Green symbol located in the Medium Density Area designation immediately south of Highway 407, west of Elsa Storry Avenue, may be refined through the draft plan of subdivision process without an amendment to this Plan; and (vii) the need for an elementary school site, in addition to those sites designated on Schedule XII, shall be determined through the draft plan of subdivision process. If required, such a site may be located anywhere in Neighbourhood 20 consistent with the design intent shown on Schedule XII; And renumbering sub-section (n) to sub-section (l), and adding a new subsection (m) so that it reads as follows: (l) shall require applicants for draft plan of subdivision, rezoning or site plan approval to submit to the satisfaction of the City: (i) a Sustainability Report that demonstrates how the proposal ranks against the sustainable checklist in the Sustainable Placemaking Guidelines; and (ii) a Design Brief that demonstrates how the proposal is consistent with the urban design components of the Sustainable Placemaking Guidelines. (m) despite the Prestige Employment permitted uses in Table 7, City Council shall permit the following uses on lands designated Prestige Employment located on the north side of Highway 407, west of the Hamlet of Brougham: (i) light manufacturing, assembly and processing of goods, light service industries, warehousing, equipment and vehicle suppliers, and retail sales and office as accessory and minor components of an industrial operation; and (ii) prohibit the uses identified within Section 11.32 and convenience commercial uses. Implementation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amend ed, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. Interpretation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. Seaton TFPM Inc. OPA 25-004P - 25 - [7 -04;6/- PlCKERlNG City Development Department Location Ma File: OPA 25-004P Applicant: Seaton TFPM Inc. © Th e Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under li cense from:© Kin g's Printer, Ontario Min istry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Hi s Majesty the King in Right of Canada , Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Teranet Enterprises In c. and its suppli ers. All rights reserved.;© Municipa l Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. l:\PLANNING\01 -MapFiles\02 -Applications\OPA\2025\OPA 25-004PIOPA 25-004P.aprx N A Date: May. 19, 2026 SCALE : 1 :15,000 - 26 - Schedule 'A' to Amendment '58' Existing Official Plan of the Regional Municipality of Durham , , , , , Redesignate from "Urban System - Employment Areas" to "Urban System - Community Areas" I I I TownsNpoflJxoodge Area Shown on Th is~ City of Pickering City Development Department ~May, 2026 This Map Forms Part of Map 1: Regional Structure - Urban & Rura l Systems Official Plan of the Regional Municipality of Durham and Must Be Read in Conjunction with the Other Maps and the Text Extract of Map 1 to the Official Plan of the Regional Municipality of Durham Hi --------- BR.©l!J G f.t~M Regional Structure -Urban & Rural Systems Urban System Urban Area Boundary "'f. Regional Corridor Community Areas -Employment Areas Greenlands System Major Open Space Areas .......... Greenbelt Boundary (excluding Urban River Valleys) Rural System -Hamlets Prime Agricultural Areas Infrastructure I (±) I Future Airport Special Areas !__ ______ ! Special Study Areas D Specific Policy Areas rom "Urban System - reas" to "Urban System II - 27 - es1gnate rom mp restige Employment" to reas -Medium Density Edition 9 TownsNpoflJxoodge Area Shown on This~ City of Pickering City Development Department ~April, 2026 This Map Forms Part of Edition 9 of the Pickering Official Plan and Must Be Read in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text Extract of Schedule I to the Pickering Official Plan Schedule 'B' to Amendment '58' Existing Official Plan Redesignate from "Employment Areas - Prestige Employment" to "Open Space System - ~"?~~~..;;J==::J Seaton Natural Heritage Land Use Structure Open Space System -Seaton Natural Heritage System -Natural Areas Rural Settlements Rural Hamlets Urban Residential Areas Low Density Areas ~ Medium Density Areas Mixed Use Areas Community Nodes Employment Areas ~ Prestige Employment Freeways and Major Utilities ~ = I Controlled Access Areas System" Redesignate from "Employment Areas - Prestige Employment" to "Mixed Use Areas - Community Nodes" Other Designations Prime Agricultural Areas :-••~ Federal Lands ···-· ~ Greenbelt Boundary [52] Airport Lands - 28 - City of Pickering City Development Department © May, 2026 This Map Forms Part of Edition 9 of the Pickering Official Plan and Must Be Read in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Schedule 'C’ to Amendment '58' Existing Schedule XII - Neighbourhood 20: Thompson’s Corners Extract of Schedule XII to the Pickering Official Plan NEdition 9 Land Use Structure Subject Lands Remove the "Pedestrian Predominant Street" designation “Prestige Employment Node” to “Community Node” “Prestige Employment Node” to “Seaton Natural Heritage System” “Prestige Employment Node” to “Community Node” “Prestige Employment Node” to “Mixed Use Corridor Type 2" “Prestige Employment Node” to “Medium Density Area” “Community Node” to “Mixed Use Corridor Type 2" “Prestige Employment Node” and “Community Node” to “Mixed Use Corridor Type 2" “Prestige Employment Node” to “Medium Density Area” “Prestige Employment Node” to “Low Density Area Type 1" Added “VG” symbol - 29 - [7 -04;6/- PlCKERlNG City Development Department Attachment 2 to Report PLN 12-26 N A Location Ma File: OPA 25-004P Applicant: Seaton TFPM Inc. © Th e Corpo rati on of th e City of Pi ckerin g Produce d (in part ) un de r li ce nse from:© Kin g's Printer, Ontari o Mini stry of Date: May. 19, 2026 Natural Resources . All ri ghts reserved.;© Hi s Majesty th e Kin g in Ri ght of Ca nada, Departm ent of Natural Resources . ,__ __________ ____, All rig hts reserved.;© Teranet En te rpr ises In c. and its su pp li ers. All rig hts reserved.;© Munici pal Property Assessment SCALE : 1 : 15,000 Corporati on and its suppl ie rs. A ll rig hts reserved. mis isNOTAPLANoF suRVEv. l:\PLANNING\01 -MapFiles\02 -Applications\OPA\2025\OPA 25-004PIOPA 25-004P.aprx - 30 - -04;6/- PlCKERlNG City Development Department Air Photo Ma File: OPA 25-004P A licant: Seaton TFPM Inc. © The Corporation of the C ity of Pickering Produced (in part) under li cense from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© His Majesty the King in Right of Canada , Department of Natural Resources. A ll rights reserved.;© Teranet Enterpri ses Inc. and its suppliers. A ll ri ghts reserved .;© Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its supp li ers . All rights reserved . l:\PLANNING\01 -MapFiles\02 -Applications\OPA\2025\OPA 25-004PIOPA 25-004P.aprx Date: May. 19, 2026 - 31 - Attachment 4 to Report PLN 12-26 Summary of Proposed Land Use Designations Neighbourhood 20: Thompon’s Corners Neighbourhood Plan Area 1: Community Node – Lands north of Highway 407 •residential uses prohibited •medical offices and laboratories, as well as institutional uses such as hospitals •retailing of goods and services, offices and restaurants •community, cultural, and recreational uses •existing policies remain with respect to appropriate transitional design, compatibility and buffering from this designation to the Hamlet of Brougham Area 1: Community Node – Lands south of Highway 407 •mixed-use development, including high-density residential uses, retailing of goods and services, offices, restaurants and hotels •community, cultural, and recreational uses Area 2: Low Density Area Type 1 •detached dwellings, semi-detached and townhouse forms •residential density over 25 units per net hectare and up to and including 40 units per net hectare Area 3: Medium Density Area •detached dwellings, semi-detached and townhouse forms •detached and semi-detached to comprise no more than 25 percent of all unit types, with the designation •residential density over 40 units per net hectare and up to and including 80 units per net hectare Areas 4, 5 and 7: Mixed Corridor Type 2 •variety of townhouse forms, apartment buildings •detached and semi-detached dwellings prohibited •interim sole commercial uses, where market conditions are not conducive to high density residential development •retail uses permitted at grade •residential density over 60 units per net hectare and up to and including 180 units per net hectare Area 6: Community Node – Lands east of Brock Road, south of Highway 407 •limited to retailing of goods and services •residential uses are not permitted; however, they may be considered in the future only through an Official Plan Amendment application - 32 - Area 8: Village Green symbol • village green symbol located in the Medium Density Area designation immediately south of Highway 407, west of Elsa Storry Avenue • the location will be refined through the draft plan of subdivision process without an amendment to this Plan • village greens are intended to provide greenspace for each neighbourhood and accommodate play structures, open informal play areas and community mail boxes Area 9: Seaton Natural Heritage System (NHS) • Seaton NHS designation is a large protected network of natural areas in Seaton designed to preserve forests, wetland, valleys, streams and wildlife habitat • only low-impact and compatible activities permitted including passive recreation uses such as walking trails Area 10: Prestige Employment • prestige employment designation retained • policies revised to permit a broader range of employment uses, including free -standing warehousing, light manufacturing, assembly, and processing of goods - 33 - Report to Planning and Development Committee Report Number: PLN 13-26 Date: June 8, 2026 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Notice of Objection to Part IV Designation of 681 Pleasant Street File: A-3300-109 Recommendation: 1. That Report PLN 13-26 regarding the Notice of Objection to the Part IV Designation of 681 Pleasant Street be received; 2. That Council decline the objection, and affirm the February 23, 2026, Council Resolution #946/26, to designate 681 Pleasant Street under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act; 3. That the By-law included as Attachment 1 to Report PLN 13-26, designating the property at 681 Pleasant Street, in accordance with Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; 4. That Council direct staff to serve a Notice of Passing for the property located at 681 Pleasant Street, known as the “Mansfield House”, as a property of cultural heritage value or interest pursuant to Section 29(8) of the Ontario Heritage Act; 5. That, should an appeal be filed with the Ontario Land Tribunal, Council direct staff to retain such external legal counsel and subject matter experts, as required, to support the decision of Council at the Ontario Land Tribunal; and, 6. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take such actions as necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 1.0 Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to provide Council with information, analysis, and recommendations regarding an objection to the City’s Notice of Intention to Designate 681 Pleasant Street, which was approved by Council earlier this year at the February 23rd Council meeting. - 34 - PLN 13-26 June 8, 2026 Page 2 Under Section 29(5) of the Ontario Heritage Act, any person may serve the City Clerk with a notice of objection within 30 days of the publication of the Notice of Intention to Designate, triggering Council’s statutory obligation to consider the objection. On April 2, 2026, the City received an objection letter from Shao Law Professional Corporation, the property owner’s legal representative. The objection letter requests that Council withdraw the Notice of Intention to Designate in accordance with Sections 29(7) and (8) of the Ontario Heritage Act, and states that, in the opinion of the owner’s consultant, the property does not meet the threshold for designation under the Act. Staff have reviewed the objection raised by the applicant’s lawyer and remain of the opinion that the property meets Ontario Regulation 9/06, the criteria prescribed for designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, including under the categories of physical, historical/associative, and contextual value. In accordance with Section 29(6) of the Ontario Heritage Act, Council must consider the objection and determine whether to withdraw the Notice of Intention to Designate within 90 days following the end of the objection period. Based on the statutory timeline, Council’s decision must be made no later than July 4, 2026. 2.0 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of Champion Economic Leadership & Innovation; Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community; and Strengthen Existing & Build New Partnerships. 3.0 Financial Implications: There are no direct costs associated with this report. However, should Council proceed with the Part IV designation of the property, the owner will have the right to appeal the designation to the Ontario Land Tribunal. In that circumstance, defending the designation may require the City to retain additional outside legal assistance, to appear before the tribunal, creating additional costs for the City. 4.0 Discussion: The purpose of this report is to provide Council with information, analysis and recommendations regarding the objection to the City’s Notice of Intention to Designate 681 Pleasant Street. The subject property is located just south of the southeast corner of Commerce Street and Pleasant Street in the Fairport neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment 2). The property contains a one-and-a-half storey, Ontario vernacular Gothic Farmhouse as well as two smaller single storey shed structures. - 35 - PLN 13-26 June 8, 2026 Page 3 On October 22, 2025, heritage staff consulted with the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee (HPAC) regarding their concern for the above noted building and its potential demolition, as it is currently not listed under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. HPAC subsequently passed a motion recommending that Council designate 681 Pleasant Street under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. At the February 2, 2026 Planning & Development Committee Meeting, the Committee considered the proposed designation, as recommended by HPAC (see Attachment 3, Report PLN 01-26) and endorsed the recommendation. At the February 23, 2026 Council Meeting, Council subsequently endorsed Planning & Development Committee’s recommendation. A Notice of Intention to Designate was issued on March 6, 2026, to the owner, the Ontario Heritage Trust and was published on the City of Pickering’s website, fulfilling notice requirements under Sections 29(3) and 29(4) of the Ontario Heritage Act. Image 1: 681 Pleasant Street, Source: LHC Consulting (2025) 4.1 A Letter of Objection has been Received On April 2, 2026, Shao Law Professional Corporation (acting on behalf of the owner) filed a Notice of Objection to the City’s Notice of Intention to Designate the property (see Letter of Objection, Attachment 4). The objection was received within 30 days of the publication of the Notice of Intention to Designate and is therefore compliant with the timelines outlined in Section 29(5) of the Ontario Heritage Act. In accordance with Section 29(6) of the Act, Council must consider the objection and determine whether to withdraw the Notice of Intention to Designate within 90 days following the end of the objection period. - 36 - PLN 13-26 June 8, 2026 Page 4 The Letter of Objection disputes the City’s evaluation of the property under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and relies, on a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) prepared by LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc., which was commissioned by the owner. The LHC report concluded that the property met only one criterion under the Regulation and would not be eligible for designation. The owner’s objection, supported by the CHER, raises the following assertions under Ontario Regulation 9/06: Design/Physical Value (Criteria 1-3) • The building is not considered a rare, unique, or representative example of a particular architectural style, type, or construction method within the City of Pickering. • Changes to the building have reduced its architectural integrity and how it reflects its original design and construction. • The building is not considered to display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, nor to demonstrate technical or scientific achievement. Historical/Associative Value (Criteria 4–6) • The property’s associations with identified individuals are not considered to be of significance enough to meet the threshold for designation. • The property is not considered to yield new or unique information that contributes to an understanding of local history or culture. • The architect, builder, or designer is unknown or not recognized as significant, and therefore does not support designation under this criterion. Contextual Value (Criteria 7–9) • The building is not considered important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of the area, particularly given changes to the surrounding context. • The building is not considered to be strongly linked (physically, visually, or historically) to its surroundings in a manner that supports designation. • The building is not considered to be a landmark within the local community. 5.0 Options for Council Consideration: According to Sections 29(7) and (8) of the Ontario Heritage Act, when a Letter of Objection for designation is received within 30 days of the Notice of Intention to Designate being published, Council has 90 days to either: • proceed with the designation within 120 days of the Notice of Intention to Designate, and serve a copy of the By-law to the property owner, any persons who objected, and the Ontario Heritage Trust; or - 37 - PLN 13-26 June 8, 2026 Page 5 • withdraw the Notice of Intention to Designate and serve a notice of withdrawal to the property owner, any persons who objected, the Ontario Heritage Trust, and publish a Notice of Withdraw on the City’s website. Based on timelines noted above, Council must make a decision regarding the designation of the property by July 4, 2026. 6.0 Staff Recommend Proceeding with Designation: Staff recommend that Council affirm the February 23, 2026, Council Decision to designate the property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, and enact the designation By- law (see Draft Designation By-law, Attachment 1). The subject property is a well-preserved example of a late nineteenth-century vernacular Gothic Revival dwelling that retains key heritage attributes, including its red brick construction, steep front gable, segmental-arched window openings, and historic massing and orientation toward Pleasant Street. As one of the few surviving nineteenth-century brick dwellings within the historic hamlet of Fairport, the building contributes to an understanding of the community’s transition from a seasonal lakeside settlement to a more established village. The property also has associative value through its historic relationship with Thomas Mansfield Sr. and the nearby Mansfield General Store. Together, these properties reflect the historic pattern of merchants residing within walking distance of their businesses and contribute to an understanding of Fairport’s historical development as Pickering’s original port and commercial centre on Frenchman’s Bay. In addition, the property maintains contextual value through its continued relationship to the historic village streetscape along Pleasant Street and Commerce Street and contributes to the remaining historic character Based on the evaluation undertaken by staff and supporting technical studies, the subject property demonstrates cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06. The property retains sufficient physical and contextual attributes, and associative value when considered within its broader historical context, to warrant designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Proceeding with designation would ensure that the identified heritage attributes are conserved and appropriately managed over time, while allowing for future change in a manner that is consistent with good heritage conservation practice. 7.0 Conclusion: Based on a comprehensive review of all information submitted by the owner and their representatives, as well as staff’s background research, staff are of the professional opinion - 38 - PLN 13-26 June 8, 2026 Page 6 that 681 Pleasant Street merits designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Staff recommend that Council reaffirm its decision to designate the property and enact the heritage designation By-law included as Attachment 1 to this report. Should the owner appeal Council’s decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal, staff recommend that Council direct staff to retain external legal counsel, as required, to support Council’s position before the Ontario Land Tribunal. Attachments: 1. Draft Designating By-law – 681 Pleasant Street 2. Location Map 3. Report PLN 01-26, from February 2, 2026 4. Letter of Objection – Shao Law Professional Corporation, April 2, 2026 Prepared By: Matt Somerville, Senior Planner Heritage Prepared By: Nilesh Surti, Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, Chief Planner Approved/Endorsed By: Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development & CBO MS:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 39 - Attachment 1 to Report PLN 13-26 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/26 Being a by-law designate the lands legally described as that Plan 65 Block D Lot 6 (the “Mansfield House”) and municipally known as 681 Pleasant Street, Pickering, as being cultural heritage value or interest. Whereas the Ontario Heritage Act authorizes the Council of a municipality to enact a by-law to designate real property, including all buildings and structures thereon, to be of cultural heritage value or interest; and Whereas on June, 22, 2026, Council endorsed the recommendations of its Heritage Advisory Committee to designate 681 Pleasant Street as being of cultural heritage value or interest; and Whereas the Reasons for Designation are set out in Schedule “A” to this by-law; and Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering has caused to be served on the owners of 681 Pleasant Street and upon the Ontario Heritage Trust, Notice of Intention to designate the property and has caused the Notice of Intention to be published in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality as requested by the Ontario Heritage Act; and Now therefore, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering enacts as follows: 1.The Mansfield House, known municipally as 681 Pleasant Street, is designated as being of cultural heritage value or interest for reasons set out in Schedule “A” attached hereto. 2.The City Solicitor is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be registered on title to 681 Pleasant Street (the Mansfield House). 3.The City Clerk is authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be served upon the owners of 681 Pleasant Street (the Mansfield House) and the Ontario Heritage Trust and to publish notice of this by-law in a newspaper having general circulation in the City of Pickering as required by the Ontario Heritage Act. By-law passed on this 22nd of June, 2026. ________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 40 - Schedule “A” By-law No. XXXX/26 Reasons for Designation Description of Property The Mansfield House, located at 681 Pleasant Street, is located on Plan 65, Block D, Lot 6 in the historic hamlet of Fairport, now part of the City of Pickering in the Region of Durham. The property is on the east side of Pleasant Street between Commerce Street to the north and Annland Street to the south. The property is approximately 0.1 hectares (0.25 acres) in size and contains a c.1872 one-and-a-half-storey red-brick dwelling constructed in the vernacular Gothic Revival style, and includes the surrounding residential lot, rear yard, and associated landscape. Reason for Designation 681 Pleasant Street is of cultural heritage value or interest as a well-preserved example of a nineteenth-century Gothic Revival farmhouse, significant for its architectural design, direct associations with prominent historical figures in Fairport’s development, and integral role in defining the character of the village core. The property exhibits the design/physical value required by Ontario Regulation 9/06. Its red- brick construction, T-shaped plan, steeply pitched gable with a pointed -arch window, segmental-arched openings, and original massing and proportions illustrate craftsmanship, stylistic expression, and architectural integrity. The property also has historical/associative value by virtue of its connections with Thomas Mansfield Sr., a key merchant and community leader in Fairport, and its long -term relationship with the nearby Mansfield General Store. The house embodies the nineteenth-century pattern of merchant-residence integration in small lakeport villages. Description of Heritage Attributes Key exterior elements that contribute to the property’s cultural heritage value include the following: Exterior Design/Physical Attributes: • Original form, scale, and massing; • Red brick construction with buff brick detailing; • Steeply pitched front gable with pointed-arch window; • Segmental-arched window openings with decorative voussoirs; • Tall, narrow windows and symmetrical front façade; and • Bracketed eaves; • Orientation of the house towards Pleasant Street with a shallow setback consistent with the historic village grid; and • The property’s visual and historical relationship with the Mansfield General Store at 1291 Commerce Street. - 41 - Historical/Associative Attributes: • Association with Thomas Mansfield Sr., a prominent early local merchant in Fairport; and • Historical associations between Thomas Mansfield Sr., his place of residence at 681 Pleasant Street and his place of work nearby at 1291 Commercial Street. Contextual Attributes: • Proximity and visual relationship to 1291 Commercial Street; • Location within the historic core of Fairport; • Contribution to the streetscape and understanding of village life in the late 1800s. - 42 - af:j of PlCKERlNG City Development Department C "' (/) "' Q) ii >¢,~ J' Location Map ~ Commerce Street ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-- Subject Lands Annland Street Municipal Address:681 Pleasant Street © Th e 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 Natura l Resources. All rights rese rved .;© Teranet Enterprises In c. and its suppl iers. All rights reserved.,© Mun icipa l Property Assessment Corporation and its suppl iers. All rights rese rved. L:\PLANNI NGIO 1-MapFiles\01 -City Development\A-3300 Historical Heritage Conservation\681 Pleasant St_ LocationMap\681 PleasantSt_ LocationMap.aprx "O "' 0 a:: 0 0 C. .; > :.:::; Cl C (/) (/) e () ::, (9 Broadview Street /y >----A Date: Sep. 05, 2025 SCALE: 1:1,500 I THIS ISNOTAPLANa= SURVEY. Attachment 2 to Report PLN 13-26 - 43 - Attachment 3 to Report PLN 13-26 Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 01-26 Date: February 2, 2026 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: 681 Pleasant Street Notice of Intention to Designate a Property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act File: A-3300-109 Recommendation: 1.That Council endorse the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, dated October 22, 2025, to designate the property located at 681 Pleasant Street under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; 2.That Council direct staff to serve a Notice of Intention to Designate the property municipally known as 681 Pleasant Street as a property of cultural heritage value or interest, pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act; 3.That, should no Notice of Objection be received by the City Clerk within 30 days of the publication of the Notice of Intention to Designate, the Designation By-law for 681 Pleasant Street be forwarded to Council for enactment, and that staff be directed to carry out the notice requirements as prescribed under Section 29(8) of the Ontario Heritage Act; and 4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take such actions as necessary to give effect to this report. Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s approval to designate 681 Pleasant Street under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act (see Location Map, Attachment 1). At its meeting held on October 22, 2025, the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee (HPAC) passed a motion recommending that City Council designate 681 Pleasant Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and serve the property owner with a Notice of Intention to Designate (see Notice of Intention to Designate, Attachment 2). The proposed designation is recommended to ensure the long-term conservation of a rare, surviving, nineteenth-century brick dwelling within the historic Village of Fairport. Pursuant to Ontario Regulation 9/06, Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, City staff determined that the property satisfies multiple criteria across all three value categories. The dwelling is a well-preserved example of a vernacular Gothic Revival residence dating to circa 1872 and is directly associated with Thomas Mansfield Sr., a prominent Fairport merchant and postmaster, and contributes to the historic village streetscape near the intersection of - 44 - PLN 01-26 February 2, 2026 Page 2 Pleasant Street and Commerce Street. Together, these attributes illustrate Fairport’s historical development as Pickering’s original maritime port and commercial centre on Frenchman’s Bay. Designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act will provide Council with the authority to review demolition and alterations to the property through the heritage permit process, thereby preventing the loss of a significant cultural heritage resource and reinforcing the historic character of the Fairport village core. Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of Champion Economic Leadership & Innovation; Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community; and Strengthen Existing & Build New Partnerships. Financial Implications: No direct financial implications for the City are associated with the recommended action to designate. Discussion: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s approval to designate 681 Pleasant Street under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The subject property is located on the east side of Pleasant Street, north of Commerce Street, within the historic port community of Fairport (see Location Map, Attachment 1). The property has an area of approximately 0.10 of a hectare and is situated within the original nineteenth- century village street grid. It is surrounded by residential properties to the north, east, and south. The property contains a one-and-a-half storey, red-brick dwelling constructed circa 1872. The building is representative of the vernacular Gothic Revival style, and is sited close to the street with a shallow front-yard setback, reflecting historic village development patterns. Vehicular access is provided by a short driveway located at the northwest corner of the lot, with a narrow pedestrian walkway leading to the enclosed front porch. The subject property is included in the City of Pickering’s 2002 Heritage Property Inventory, which identifies properties with potential heritage value. However, it is not currently included on the City of Pickering’s Heritage Register under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act, and therefore does not benefit from interim protection. - 45 - PLN 01-26 February 2, 2026 Page 3 Photograph 1: View of 681 Pleasant Street (LHC, 2024) 1.Previous Land Severance Application In 2022, the owner of 681 Pleasant Street applied to sever the property into two residential lots. The proposal included demolishing the existing dwelling and constructing two new three- storey, single-detached houses. The application was reviewed by Durham Region Planning staff, who recommended that it be supported in principle, subject to several conditions, including zoning compliance, environmental review, and the preparation of a Heritage Impact Assessment. On May 9, 2022, the Regional Land Division Committee considered the application. During the hearing, the owner confirmed their intention to demolish the existing house. In response to concerns raised by City staff and members of the public regarding zoning deficiencies and the potential heritage value of the dwelling, the Committee tabled the application for a period of up to two years to allow the owner to address zoning matters and heritage considerations prior to any approval of the severance. Upon the expiry of the two-year deferral period, the severance application was returned to the City of Pickering Committee of Adjustment on May 8, 2024. City Development staff reiterated that the proposed lots did not meet the minimum lot frontage requirements of the zoning by-law and would therefore require minor variances. Staff also advised that the dwelling at 681 Pleasant Street had been identified on the City’s 2002 Inventory of Heritage Properties as one of the remaining nineteenth-century dwellings in Fairport exhibiting Gothic Revival influences. Accordingly, staff recommended that the application remain tabled pending the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment acceptable to the City. - 46 - PLN 01-26 February 2, 2026 Page 4 2.Review of submitted Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report In response to the City’s comments, the owner retained LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. to prepare a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER), dated November 2024 (see Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Attachment 3). The CHER was undertaken to assess whether the existing dwelling met the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06, and to inform the City’s review of the proposed severance and potential demolition. The CHER identified the dwelling as a two-storey, red-brick residence constructed circa 1872, and recognized its association with nineteenth-century development in Fairport. The consultant concluded that the property satisfied one criterion under Ontario Regulation 9/06, namely design or physical value as a representative example of a vernacular Gothic Revival house. However, LHC determined that the property did not meet additional criteria related to historical, associative, or contextual value, and therefore concluded that it did not meet the threshold for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. In particular, the CHER placed limited weight on the associative relationship between the dwelling and the Mansfield family’s commercial activities in Fairport, and characterized the surrounding area as having experienced sufficient change to diminish the property’s contextual value. As a result, the consultant did not recommend designation and advised that demolition could be considered from a heritage perspective. 3.Staff undertook supplemental heritage research Recognizing the potential significance of one of Fairport’s few remaining nineteenth-century dwellings, City heritage staff undertook an independent review of the CHER and conducted additional heritage research to assess whether the conclusions reached by the consultant fully captured the property’s cultural heritage value or interest. The staff review included a broader examination of archival materials, historical mapping, assessment rolls, and secondary historical sources available through local archives and the Pickering Public Library, as well as consultation with local historians familiar with the historic development of Fairport. This supplementary research focused on the early evolution of Fairport as Pickering’s original port community, the historic relationship between residential and commercial uses in the village core, and the Mansfield family’s role in the community's social and economic life. The following section provides additional historical information regarding the community and the impact of the Mansfield family, which staff consider significant to the property's potential heritage value. 4.Historical context and evolution of Fairport The development of Fairport, a lakeshore port community situated at Frenchman’s Bay, began in the mid-nineteenth century. Initially, it served as a strategic location for shipping and trade, as Indigenous peoples and later settlers had long used the area due to its naturally sheltered inland harbour. Frenchman’s Bay, originally known as Gandatsetiagon by the Seneca, provided access to Lake Ontario while offering protection from direct exposure to the lake. - 47 - PLN 01-26 February 2, 2026 Page 5 In the early 1800s, the surrounding forests were cleared for farming, and by the 1840s, Fairport had established itself as a regional port. The opening of a channel into the bay in 1843 by William Edwards and William Henderson, using a horse-drawn dredge, significantly enhanced the harbour’s utility. By 1845, piers had been installed, which are still visible in the bay, and the Port began shipping significant quantities of masts, pine logs, and square timber. By the mid-nineteenth century, the area was particularly active in the export of lumber, reportedly over three million board feet annually, as well as substantial quantities of barley export to the United States. Photograph 2: The Pickering Harbour Company Grain Elevator, 1890 Fairport’s prosperity reached its peak in the 1870s following government investment in port infrastructure, including a lighthouse, wharf, and a 50,000-bushel grain elevator. These improvements bolstered the village’s role in international trade, particularly to Oswego, New York, via the Erie Canal. The creation of the Pickering Harbour Company in 1853 further formalized port operations. However, increased competition from Toronto, and the shift from ship-based to rail-based, led to a gradual decline in commercial shipping activity by the 1880s. During its economic peak, Fairport developed a compact commercial core containing a general store, boarding houses, a hotel, a post office, and related maritime support buildings. One of the most prominent families of this period was the Mansfield family. Thomas Mansfield Sr. immigrated to Canada in 1867 and later operated a general store and post office at 1291 Commercial Street. The residence at 681 Pleasant Street, built in 1872 by John Fisher, is illustrative of the historical pattern of merchants residing in close proximity to their businesses for security and operational reasons. The nineteenth-century village grid formed by Commerce Street and Pleasant Street remains intact, and the contextual relationship between the former store and the residence is still discernible today. - 48 - PLN 01-26 February 2, 2026 Page 6 Photograph 3: Thomas Mansfield Sr. General Store, 1900 Photograph 4: the New Mansfield General Store, 1924 In addition to shipping and commerce, Fairport supported niche industries such as stone hooking. From the 1820s through the early 20th century, schooners operating from Frenchman’s Bay extracted flat stones from the lakebed for use in urban construction. This labour-intensive industry played an important role in Ontario’s early building-material economy, and linked Fairport to a broader regional network that included Port Credit, Whitby, and Oakville. Fairport was also home to the Lake Simcoe Ice and Fuel Company, which harvested ice from Frenchman’s Bay each winter for sale and distribution prior to the advent of electric refrigeration. Large sawdust-insulated icehouses allowed the ice to be preserved through the summer months, supporting regional demand for cold storage in the early twentieth century. - 49 - PLN 01-26 February 2, 2026 Page 7 By the late nineteenth century, Fairport began transitioning into a seasonal destination for urban vacationers, particularly from Toronto and Rochester. Its lakefront setting and recreation opportunities drew cottagers and day-trippers, supported by amenities such as the Glen-Avis Pavilion, boat liveries, and regular train service. Many seasonal visitors later became permanent residents, contributing to the gradual densification of the community. One notable household during this transition period was the O’Brien family at 1279 Commerce Street. From the 1920s to the 1960s, May O’Brien operated the local post office and soda shop, which functioned not only as a mail service but also as an important community gathering space. Her husband, William O’Brien, previously served as the lighthouse keeper and worked at the grain elevator before his death in a work-related accident at the Fairport Granary. These stories underscore the strong historical relationship between Fairport’s port functions and its local residents. By the mid-twentieth century, Fairport’s port-related activities had largely ceased. Postwar suburban expansion transformed surrounding neighbourhoods, such as Bay Ridges and West Shore, into residential neighbourhoods. Today, the surviving streets and heritage structures clustered around the intersection of Pleasant Street and Commerce Street serve as important reminders of Fairport’s historical and nautically oriented identity. This concentration of potential heritage properties includes: 1. 681 Pleasant Street (c.1872) – subject property 2. 1291 Commerce Street – Fairport General Store (c.1921) – not currently on heritage register 3. 1279 Commerce Street – former Lighthouse Keeper’s Home/Post Office/Ice Cream Shop (c.1860s/1920s) – land severance approved; existing dwelling intended for demolition 4. 1285 Commerce Street (c.1880s) – not currently on heritage register 5. 1290 Commerce Street (c.1870s) – not currently on heritage register - 50 - PLN 01-26 February 2, 2026 Page 8 5. Staff recommendation relating to Part IV designation Staff reviewed the CHER prepared by LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc., conducted additional historical research, and met with the owner and their representatives. Based on this work, staff recommended to the HPAC on October 22, 2025, that the property municipally known as 681 Pleasant Street be designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. While the owner’s consultant concluded that the property met only one of the criteria under Ontario Regulation 9/06, staff’s independent review identified additional design/physical, historical or associative, and contextual values that were not fully addressed in the original evaluation. Staff determined that the dwelling represents one of the remaining nineteenth- century residences within the historic port community of Fairport, retains a high degree of physical integrity, and is directly associated with the Mansfield family, whose commercial activities were integral to Fairport’s historical development as Pickering’s original maritime community. Staff further concluded that the property contributes to the historic village streetscape along Pleasant Street, and remains physically, functionally, and historically linked to the former Mansfield General Store site and the original nineteenth-century street grid. In staff’s opinion, the loss of the dwelling would further erode the remaining historic fabric of the Fairport village core. Table 1 below summarizes how the property meets the criteria set out in Ontario Regulation 9/06 under the Ontario Heritage Act for determining whether a property merits designation. Table 1: Summary of potential heritage value of 681 Pleasant Street under Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria Y/N Comments 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, Y The dwelling is a well-preserved and increasingly rare example of a vernacular Gothic Revival brick residence dating to circa 1872. Its form, materials, massing, and stylistic features are representative of mid- to late-nineteenth-century vernacular rural architecture in Ontario. ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, Y The building exhibits a high level of period craftsmanship, including refined red brick masonry, buff brick detailing, segmental- arched window openings with decorative brick voussoirs, and coherent Gothic Revival architectural detailing typical of the era. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. N - 51 - PLN 01-26 February 2, 2026 Page 9 O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria Y/N Comments 2. The property has historical value or associative value because, it i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, Y The property is directly associated with Thomas Mansfield Sr., a prominent Fairport merchant and postmaster, and his family. The Mansfield family operated the nearby Fairport General Store and post office at 1291 Commerce Street, playing a key role in Fairport’s commercial development during its peak as Pickering’s original port community. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or Y The property contributes to an understanding of nineteenth-century life in Fairport, particularly the historic live–work relationship in which merchants resided within walking distance of their businesses for functional, social, and security reasons. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. N 3. The property has contextual value because, it i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, Y The dwelling supports and reinforces the historic character of Fairport’s core through its scale, shallow front-yard setback, and relationship to Pleasant and Commerce Streets, consistent with the original nineteenth-century lotting patterns. ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or Y The property is physically and historically linked to nearby heritage resources, including the former Mansfield General Store site. Together, these two properties illustrate the historical pattern of merchants residing near their places of business. iii. is a landmark. N Accordingly, staff recommended that the HPAC support the designation of 681 Pleasant Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act to ensure the long-term conservation of the property and to enable Council to review demolition and alterations through the heritage permit process. - 52 - PLN 01-26 February 2, 2026 Page 10 6. Staff and owner explored alternative heritage and context sensitive development options Throughout the review of the proposed land severance, the submitted CHER, and the evaluation of the property’s cultural heritage value or interest, staff maintained ongoing communication with the owner to ensure they were informed of staff’s heritage considerations and to understand their objectives for the property better. As noted earlier in this report, there was a lack of staff support for the severance application, as the proposed lot widths were well below the minimum width requirement in the zoning by-law. In light of these concerns, staff met with the owner to discuss alternative approaches that could address their stated objectives while retaining the existing house. During these discussions, the owner indicated that their primary objective was to redevelop the property to allow them to reside on the site while also providing a separate dwelling for a family member. In response, staff explored and presented alternative site-intensification strategies that would avoid demolition of the existing dwelling and retain its heritage attributes. These alternatives included retaining the historic house, accommodating a sensitively designed rear addition, and introducing a separate coach house or ancillary residential unit at the rear of the property, subject to applicable zoning, planning approvals, and heritage review. These concepts were supported by zoning staff and presented to the owner in the spring of 2025 as part of staff’s efforts to identify a potential solution that balanced the owner’s objectives with the conservation of the property’s cultural heritage value or interest. The owner has indicated that they do not wish to pursue these alternatives. 7. The designation of the property aligns with the City of Pickering's Official Plan policies Chapter 8 of the Official Plan outlines the City’s cultural heritage goal, which is for City Council to respect and conserve important cultural heritage resources from all time periods and integrate them into the community. In consultation with its heritage committee, where warranted, City Council shall implement the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, including the designation of heritage sites. When considering the use and reuse of heritage resources, City Council shall maintain, if possible, the original use of heritage structures and sites, and if possible, retain their original location and orientation. City Council shall work to prevent, to the extent possible, the demolition, destruction, or inappropriate alteration of significant cultural heritage resources. Additionally, where possible, Council shall restore, rehabilitate, maintain, and enhance heritage resources owned by the City, and encourage private owners to do the same. - 53 - PLN 01-26 February 2, 2026 Page 11 8. The Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee review and recommendation On October 22, 2025, City heritage staff consulted with HPAC. The committee passed a motion recommending that Council designate the property under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. 9. Notice of Intention to Designate The Notice of Intention to Designate has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act and is subject to Council’s approval. If adopted, a Notice of Intent to Designate will be sent to the owner, published on the City’s website and a copy sent to the Ontario Heritage Trust (see Notice of Intention to Designate, Attachment 2). If no objection is received by the City Clerk within the 30-day timeframe, staff recommend that Council enact the draft designation by-law (see Draft Designation By-law – 681 Pleasant Street, Attachment 4) and serve a Notice of Passing in accordance with Section 29(8) of the Ontario Heritage Act. 10. Conclusion The designation of a property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act gives the Council authority to prevent the demolition of a building or structure on a heritage property. The owner of a designated property must obtain written consent from Council before demolishing any building on a heritage property. Additionally, owners of properties designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act must acquire a Heritage Permit for most alterations, the construction of new buildings, and hard landscaping. To ensure its conservation, and to enable the City to provide resources to the owner through the heritage permitting process, City staff recommend proceeding with serving a Notice of Intention to Designate the property. It is recommended that Council designate 681 Pleasant Street under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, in accordance with the Draft Designation By-law. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Notice of Intention to Designate 3. Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER), 681 Pleasant Street, prepared by LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc., dated November 2024 4. Draft Designation By-law – 681 Pleasant Street - 54 - PLN 01-26 February 2, 2026 Page 12 Prepared By: Original Signed By Matthew Somerville Senior Planner, Heritage Original Signed By Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO MS:NS:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 55 - af:j of PlCKERlNG City Development Department C "' (/) "' Q) ii >¢,~ J' Location Map ~ Commerce Street ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-- Subject Lands Annland Street Municipal Address:681 Pleasant Street © Th e 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 Natura l Resources. All rights rese rved .;© Teranet Enterprises In c. and its suppl iers. All rights reserved.,© Mun icipa l Property Assessment Corporation and its suppl iers. All rights rese rved. L:\PLANNI NGIO 1-MapFiles\01 -City Development\A-3300 Historical Heritage Conservation\681 Pleasant St_ LocationMap\681 PleasantSt_ LocationMap.aprx "O "' 0 a:: 0 0 C. .; > :.:::; Cl C (/) (/) e () ::, (9 Broadview Street /y >----A Date: Sep. 05, 2025 SCALE: 1:1,500 I THIS ISNOTAPLANa= SURVEY. Attachment 1 to Report PLN 01-26 - 56 - Attachment 2 to Report PLN 01-26 Notice of Intent to Designate Property Of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Take Notice that the Council of the City of Pickering intends to designate the following property as a property of cultural heritage value or interest under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18 681 Pleasant Street, Pickering Ontario Lot 6, Block D, Plan 65 Description of Property 681 Pleasant Street is located on the east side of Pleasant Street, north of Commerce Street, within the historic Village of Fairport. Reason for Designation 681 Pleasant Street is of cultural heritage value or interest as a well-preserved example of a nineteenth-century Gothic Revival farmhouse. It is significant for its architectural design, its direct associations with prominent historical figures in Fairport’s development, and its integral role in defining the character of the village core. The property exhibits design or physical value as an increasingly rare example of a vernacular Gothic Revival residence, characterized by its T-shaped plan and steeply pitched gable with a pointed-arch window. The building is representative of mid-to-late nineteenth century village and rural architecture in Ontario. It demonstrates a high degree of period craftsmanship through its use of refined red brick masonry, buff brick detailing, and segmental-arched openings with decorative brick voussoirs, which illustrate stylistic expression and architectural integrity. The property also has historical and associative value through its connections with Thomas Mansfield Sr., a key merchant and community leader in Fairport, and its long- term relationship with the nearby Mansfield General Store. The house embodies the nineteenth-century pattern of merchant-residence integration in small lakeport villages. Description of Key Heritage Attributes Exterior Design / Physical Attributes: •original form, scale, and massing •red brick construction with buff brick detailing •steeply pitched front gable with pointed-arch window •segmental-arched window openings with decorative voussoirs •tall, narrow windows and symmetrical front façade •bracketed eaves •orientation of the house towards Pleasant Street with a shallow setback consistent with the historic village grid, and •the property’s visual and historical relationship with the Mansfield General Store at 1291 Commerce Street - 57 - Historical / Associative Attributes: • association with Thomas Mansfield Sr., a prominent early local merchant in Fairport, and • historical associations between Thomas Mansfield Sr., his place of residence at 681 Pleasant Street and his place of work nearby at 1291 Commercial Street Contextual Attributes: • proximity and visual relationship to 1291 Commercial Street • location within the historic core of Fairport, and • contribution to the streetscape and understanding of village life in the late 1800s Any person may, within 30 days of the publication of this Notice, send to the City Clerk, by email to clerks@pickering.ca, a notice of their objection to the proposed designation, together with a statement of reasons for the objection and all relevant facts. A copy of the Historical/Architectural Designation Report PLN 01-26 is available at the Clerk’s Office, Pickering Civic Complex, One The Esplanade, Monday to Friday, 8:30 am to 4:30 pm or by calling 905.420.4611 or by email at clerks@pickering.ca. DATED at the City of Pickering this XX day of XXXX, 2026 Susan Cassel, City Clerk City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 - 58 - CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT 681 Pleasant Street, Pickering, ON FINAL REPORT Date: 22 November 2024 Project #: LHC0476 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. 400-837 Princess Street Kingston, Ontario K7L 1G8 Phone: (613)507-7817 Toll Free: 1-833-210-7817 Email: info@lhcheritage.com Web: www.lhcheritage.com Attachment 3 to Report PLN 01-26 - 59 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 ii This page has been left blank deliberately - 60 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 iii Report prepared for: Ahmed Chowdhury Banalata Consultants Ltd. 3400 Danforth Avenue, Unit #5 Scarborough, ON M1L 1E1 Report prepared by: Diego Maenza, MPl CAHP-Intern Graphics prepared by: Jordan Greene, BA (Hons.) Reviewed by: Benjamin Holthof, MPl MMA RPP MCIP CAHP Christienne Uchiyama, MA CAHP - 61 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 iv RIGHT OF USE The information, recommendations, and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of Banalata Consultants Ltd. Any other use of this report by others without permission is prohibited and is without responsibility to LHC. The report, all plans, data, drawings, and other documents as well as all electronic media prepared by LHC are considered its professional work product and shall remain the copyright property of LHC, who authorizes only Banalata Consultants Ltd., and approved users (including municipal review and approval bodies) to make copies of the report, but only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report by those parties. Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations, and opinions given in this report are intended only for the guidance of Banalata Consultants Ltd. and approved users. REPORT LIMITATIONS The qualifications of the heritage consultants who authored this report are provided in Appendix A. This report reflects the professional opinion of the authors and the requirements of their membership in various professional and licensing bodies. All comments regarding the condition of any buildings on the Property are based on a superficial visual inspection and are not a structural engineering assessment of the buildings unless directly quoted from an engineering report. The findings of this report do not address any structural or physical condition related issues associated with any buildings on the property or the condition of any heritage attributes. Concerning historical research, the purpose of this report is to evaluate the cultural heritage value or interest and heritage attributes the property at 681 Pleasant Street, and the surrounding area. The authors are fully aware that there may be additional historical information that has not been included. Nevertheless, the information collected, reviewed, and analyzed is sufficient to conduct this assessment. The review of policy and legislation was limited to that information directly related to cultural heritage management and is not a comprehensive planning review. Additionally, soundscapes, cultural identity, and sense of place analyses were not integrated into this report. Archaeological potential has not been assessed as part of this CHER. A separate archaeological assessment may be required as part of a complete application. - 62 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary only provides key points from the report. The reader should examine the complete report including background, results, as well as limitations. LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. (LHC) was retained by Banalata Consultants Ltd. (the Client) on 18 September 2024 to prepare a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) to evaluate the cultural heritage value or interest of the property at 681 Pleasant Street (the Property), in the City of Pickering (the City), in the Regional Municipality of Durham (the Region). This CHER was completed in accordance with the City of Pickering Official Plan (OP). It follows cultural heritage best practices drawing upon applicable frameworks, such as the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism’s (MCM) Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Property Evaluation (2006). The purpose of this CHER is to evaluate the Property for Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI). It has been prepared in response to a municipal request for a third-party evaluation of the Property for heritage value. In our professional opinion, LHC finds that the Property at 681 Pleasant Street meets one criterion of O. Reg. 9/06 (criterion 1). The Property is not eligible for designation under Part IV Section 29 of the OHA. - 63 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction to the Property .......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Report Purpose .............................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Description of the Property............................................................................................ 1 1.4 Heritage Recognition...................................................................................................... 1 2 Study Approach ...................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Legislation and Policy Review ....................................................................................... 4 2.2 Historical Research ......................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Enquiries ......................................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Site Visit .......................................................................................................................... 5 3 Legislative and Policy Context ............................................................................................... 6 3.1 Provincial Context .......................................................................................................... 6 3.1.1 Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18 ................................................................. 6 3.1.1.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 ..................................................................................... 6 3.1.2 Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 ........................................................................................... 8 3.1.3 Provincial Planning Statement (2024) ....................................................................... 8 3.1.4 Provincial Planning Context Summary ..................................................................... 9 3.2 Local Framework .......................................................................................................... 10 3.2.1 Durham Region Official Plan (1991) ......................................................................... 10 3.2.2 City of Pickering Official Plan (1997, 2022 Consolidation) ...................................... 10 3.2.3 Local Planning Context Summary ........................................................................... 11 4 Background Research and Analysis ..................................................................................... 12 4.1 Early Indigenous History .............................................................................................. 12 4.1.1 Paleo Period (9500 – 8000 BCE) ............................................................................... 12 4.1.2 Archaic Period (8000 – 1000 BCE) ............................................................................ 13 4.1.3 Woodland Period (1000 BCE – 1650 CE) .................................................................. 13 4.2 Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Historic Context (1600s and 1700s) ............. 14 4.3 The Johnson-Butler Purchase and Williams Treaty .................................................... 15 - 64 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 vii 4.4 Post Euro-Canadian Contact History ........................................................................... 16 4.5 Survey and European Settlement in the Area ............................................................. 16 4.5.1 Township of Pickering .............................................................................................. 16 4.5.2 Village of Fairport ..................................................................................................... 18 4.6 Property History ........................................................................................................... 19 4.6.1 People Associated with the Property ...................................................................... 27 4.6.1.1 John Fisher (1836-1900) ................................................................................... 27 4.6.1.2 Thomas Mansfield Sr. (1851-1927) ................................................................... 28 4.6.1.3 James C. Clark (1908-1998) .............................................................................. 30 5 Assessment of Existing Conditions ...................................................................................... 31 5.1 Surrounding Context .................................................................................................... 31 5.2 The Property ................................................................................................................. 34 5.2.1 Front Yard .................................................................................................................. 34 5.2.2 The Rear Yard and Shed Structure ........................................................................... 35 5.2.3 Main House Exterior ................................................................................................. 38 5.2.4 Main House Interior .................................................................................................. 43 5.2.4.1 Basement .......................................................................................................... 43 5.2.4.2 First Floor .......................................................................................................... 51 5.2.4.3 Second Floor ..................................................................................................... 56 5.3 Design ........................................................................................................................... 60 5.3.1 Ontario Farmhouse / Gothic Revival Style (1850-1900) .......................................... 60 5.3.2 Prevalence of local Ontario Farmhouse / Gothic Revival Style Buildings .............. 61 6 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest ................................................................ 62 6.1 Heritage Status ............................................................................................................. 62 6.2 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation ............................................................................ 62 6.2.1 Summary of Evaluation ............................................................................................ 62 7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 67 8 Signatures ............................................................................................................................. 68 9 References ............................................................................................................................ 69 - 65 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 viii List of Tables Table 1. Chain of Property Ownership for 681 Pleasant Street. ................................................. 19 Table 2. Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation for the Property at 681 Pleasant Street............... 62 Table 3: City of Pickering Relevant Official Plan Policies ............................................................ 81 List of Images Image 1. View east of Commerce Street and Pleasant Street with the Property at centre, annotated by LHC, 1920. ................................................................................................ 21 Image 2. View southeast of the T-intersection of Commerce Street and Pleasant Street with the Property at centre-left, annotated by LHC, 1923. ................................................... 21 Image 3. View of the south elevation of the house, 1940. .......................................................... 22 Image 4. View of the west elevation of the house, 2012. ............................................................ 22 Image 5. View of the west elevation of the house, 2014. ............................................................ 23 Image 6. Thomas Mansfield Sr.’s general store on Lot 7, Block E on the south side of Commercial Street, 1900s. ............................................................................................. 29 Image 7. Thomas Mansfield Sr.’s general store on Lot 7, Block E, 1291 Commercial Street, 1924. ....................................................................................................................................................... 30 Image 8. Illustration of a suburban villa or farmhouse, 1864. .................................................... 61 List of Figures Figure 1. Location of the Property. ................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2. Current Conditions of the Property ................................................................................ 3 Figure 3: Map of Williams Treaties and Pre-Confederation Treaties. ......................................... 17 Figure 4. 1837, 1860, 1874, and 1877 Historic Mapping Showing the Property. ........................ 24 Figure 5. 1914 and 1943 Historic Topographic Maps Showing the Property. ............................. 25 Figure 6. 1961 and 2002 Aerial Photographs Showing the Property. ......................................... 26 - 66 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 ix List of Photos Photo 1. View west towards Frenchman’s Bay. ........................................................................... 32 Photo 2. View south along Pleasant Street. ................................................................................ 32 Photo 3. View north along Pleasant Street towards Commercial Street. .................................. 33 Photo 4. View east along Commercial Street. ............................................................................. 33 Photo 5. View west along Commercial Street. ............................................................................ 34 Photo 6. View northeast at the front of the Property .................................................................. 35 Photo 7. View east of the rear yard. ............................................................................................. 36 Photo 8. View north of a well in the rear yard. ............................................................................ 36 Photo 9. View east of the west and south elevations of the shed structure............................... 37 Photo 10. View east of the north and west elevations of the shed structure. ............................ 37 Photo 11. View of the interior of the shed structure. .................................................................. 38 Photo 12. View east of the west (front) elevation. ....................................................................... 39 Photo 13. View north of the south elevation. .............................................................................. 40 Photo 14. View south of the north elevation. .............................................................................. 41 Photo 15. View northwest of the south and east rear wing elevations. ..................................... 41 Photo 16. View west of the east rear wing elevation. .................................................................. 42 Photo 17. View west of the east elevation and the rear wing. .................................................... 42 Photo 18. View south of the north elevation. .............................................................................. 43 Photo 19. View of the wooden staircase from the first floor to the basement. .......................... 44 Photo 20. View of the warped wooden boards of the first floor. ................................................ 45 Photo 21. View of rusticated CMU blocks supporting the wooden staircase. ............................ 45 Photo 22. View of a parged cement wall and two three-pane windows with wooden surrounds. ....................................................................................................................................................... 46 Photo 23. View of the fieldstone foundation wall with concrete wall below. ............................ 46 Photo 24. View of the fieldstone foundation wall with concrete wall below. ............................ 47 Photo 25. View of the fieldstone foundation parged with cement. ............................................ 47 Photo 26. View of rusticated CMU blocks, heating equipment and metal ductwork. ............... 48 - 67 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 x Photo 27. A chimney plate stamped “J. Smart Manufacturing Co. Limited Brockville Ont.”, pre- 1912. ............................................................................................................................. 48 Photo 28. Sill plate beams. ........................................................................................................... 49 Photo 29. View of a large square hewn timber beam adjacent to a steel beam supported by a steel pillar. .................................................................................................................... 49 Photo 30. View of a wooden board supported by a steel beam. ................................................ 50 Photo 31. View of a wooden sill plate. ......................................................................................... 50 Photo 32. View of the ceiling boards supported on wooden joists. ........................................... 51 Photo 33. View of the enclosed porch. ........................................................................................ 52 Photo 34. View of the red brick voussoirs with cracks. ............................................................... 52 Photo 35. View of cracked and chipped brick below the windowsill. ........................................ 53 Photo 36. View of the parlour room. ............................................................................................ 53 Photo 37. View of the bay window. .............................................................................................. 54 Photo 38. View of the fireplace in the living room area. ............................................................. 54 Photo 39. View towards the living room with the access door to the basement at right. ......... 55 Photo 40. View of the stamped pattern ceiling. .......................................................................... 55 Photo 41. View of the kitchen. ..................................................................................................... 56 Photo 42. View of the warped wooden second floor staircase. .................................................. 57 Photo 43. View of the second-floor staircase with handrails and newel posts. ......................... 57 Photo 44. View of the corridor to various bedrooms. ................................................................. 58 Photo 45. View of a bedroom. ...................................................................................................... 58 Photo 46. View of a bedroom. ...................................................................................................... 59 Photo 47. View of the washroom. ................................................................................................ 59 - 68 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPERTY LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. (LHC) was retained by Banalata Consultants Ltd. (the Client) on 18 September 2024 to prepare a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) to evaluate the cultural heritage value or interest of the property at 681 Pleasant Street (the Property), in the City of Pickering (the City), in the Regional Municipality of Durham (the Region). This CHER was completed in accordance with objectives of the City of Pickering Official Plan (OP). It follows cultural heritage best practices drawing upon applicable frameworks, such as the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism’s (MCM) Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Property Evaluation (2006). 1.2 REPORT PURPOSE The purpose of this CHER is to evaluate the Property for Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI). It has been prepared in response to a municipal request for a third-party evaluation of the Property for cultural heritage value. 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY The Property is in the geographic Pickering Township in the City of Pickering. It is on the east side of Pleasant Street, to the south of Commerce Street and to the north of Annland Street (Figure 1). The Property is legally described as “LT 6, BLK D, PL 65 (PIN 26320-0307)”. The Property is a long, deep, rectangle-shaped lot. It is in a block bound by Pleasant Street to the west, Commerce Street to the north, Liverpool Road to the east and Annland Street to the south. The Property is bound by Pleasant Street to the west and residential properties to the north, east and south. Surrounding residential properties include 685 Pleasant Street on the north, part of 1295 Commer Street on the east, part of 682 Liverpool Road on the east and 675 Pleasant Street to the south (Figure 2). 1.4 HERITAGE RECOGNITION The Property is not Listed on the City of Pickering MHR under Part IV Section 27 of the OHA. It is not Designated under Part IV Section 29 of the OHA. It is not designated as part of a Heritage Conservation District under Part V Section 41 of the OHA. - 69 - - 70 - - 71 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 4 2 STUDY APPROACH LHC follows a three-step approach to understanding and planning for cultural heritage resources based on the understanding, planning and intervening guidance from the Canada’s Historic Places Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada and the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit.0F 1 Understanding the cultural heritage resource involves: • Understanding the significance of the cultural heritage resource (known and potential) through research, consultation and evaluation–when necessary. • Understanding the setting, context and condition of the cultural heritage resource through research, site visit and analysis. • Understanding the heritage planning regulatory framework around the cultural heritage resource. This CHER is guided by the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Property Evaluation. The evaluation considers the Property against the Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest from Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O. Reg. 9/06) under the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). Evaluation is based on research conducted into the history of the area and the property along with a site visit to understand the design, construction and current condition of the buildings on the Property. A glossary of terms used in this CHER is provided in Appendix B. 2.1 LEGISLATION AND POLICY REVIEW This CHER includes a review of provincial legislation, plans and cultural heritage guidance, and relevant municipal policy and plans. This review outlines the cultural heritage legislative and policy framework that applies to the Property (Section 3). 2.2 HISTORICAL RESEARCH Historical research for this CHER included local history research. LHC consulted primary and secondary research sources including: • Local histories; • Historic maps; • Aerial photographs; and, • Online sources about local history. 1 Canada’s Historic Places, “Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada”, 2010, 3; Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries, “Heritage Property Evaluation”, Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, 2006, 18. - 72 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 5 Online sources consulted included (but was not limited to): • The Archives of Ontario; • Library and Archives Canada; • The Ontario Council of University Libraries, Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project; • The Canadian County Atlas Digital Project; • City of Pickering; • Pickering Public Library; • University of Toronto Library; • McMaster University Library; • Ancestry; • FamilySearch; and, • The Internet Archive. 2.3 ENQUIRIES LHC contacted: • Pickering Public Library on 12 November 2024 for archival research. 2.4 SITE VISIT A site visit was conducted on 5 November 2024 by Senior Heritage Planner, Benjamin Holthof and Heritage Planner, Diego Maenza. The purpose of this site visit was to document the current conditions of the Property, adjacent properties, and their surrounding context. Unless otherwise attributed all photographs in this CHER were taken during the site visit. A selection of photographs from the site visit that document the Property are included in Section 5. - 73 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 6 3 LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY CONTEXT 3.1 PROVINCIAL CONTEXT In Ontario, cultural heritage is considered a matter of provincial interest and cultural heritage resources are managed under Provincial legislation, policy, regulations, and guidelines. Cultural heritage is established as a key provincial interest directly through the provisions of the OHA, Planning Act, the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), and the Environmental Assessment Act. Other provincial legislation deals with cultural heritage indirectly or in specific cases. These various acts and the policies under these acts indicate broad support for the protection of cultural heritage by the Province. 3.1.1 ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C. O.18 The OHA (consolidated on 1 July 2024) and associated regulations set minimum standards for the evaluation of heritage resources in the province and give municipalities power to identify and conserve individual properties, districts, or landscapes of cultural heritage value or interest.1F 2 Part I (2) of the OHA enables the Minister to determine policies, priorities, and programs for the conservation, protection, and preservation of the heritage of Ontario. Part IV, Section 27(1) requires the clerk of a municipality to keep a register of property in the municipality that is of cultural heritage value or interest—often known as a Municipal Heritage Register (MHR). A Property may be Listed on the MHR if it meets one or more of the prescribed criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest. A municipality may Designate individual properties under Section 29 Part IV of the OHA if the property meets two or more of the criteria of O. Reg. 9/06. An OHA designation applies to real property rather than individual structures. An evaluation of the Property using the criteria from O. Reg. 9/06 under the OHA is outlined in Section 6. 3.1.1.1 ONTARIO REGULATION 9/06 O. Reg. 9/06 identifies the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Part IV Section 27(3), 29(1)(a) and Part V Section 41(1)(b) of the OHA.2F 3 A Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (SCHVI) is created based on evaluation using these criteria. These criteria are used in determining if an individual property or HCD has CHVI. The regulation has 2 Province of Ontario, Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, last modified 1 July 2024, accessed 30 October 2024, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18. 3 Province of Ontario, Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, last modified 1 January 2023, accessed 30 October 2024, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060009. - 74 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 7 nine criteria for evaluation of individual properties and nine criteria for evaluation of properties in HCDs. The two sets of criteria are substantially similar. The criteria for evaluation of individual properties under Part IV of the OHA are: 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. 5. The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark.3F 4 Properties that meet one of these criteria may be listed on a MHR under Part IV, Section 27 of the OHA. Properties that meet at least two of these criteria may be designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the OHA. 4 Province of Ontario, “Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest”, last modified 1 January 2023. - 75 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 8 3.1.2 PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990 The Planning Act is the primary document for municipal and provincial land use planning in Ontario and was consolidated on 1 July 2024. This Act sets the context for provincial interest in heritage. It states under Part I (2, d): The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as…the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest.4F 5 Details about provincial interest as it relates to land use planning and development in the province are outlined in the PPS, which is used under the authority of Part 1 (3). 3.1.3 PROVINCIAL PLANNING STATEMENT (2024) The PPS provides direction for municipalities regarding provincial requirements. The PPS includes cultural heritage in its Vision for shaping how communities grow and prosper, indicating that “cultural heritage and archaeology in Ontario will provide people with a sense of place (Chapter 1).” Section 4.6 of the PPS outlines provincial policy regarding cultural heritage and archaeology (relevant definitions are outlined in Appendix B of this CHER). The subsections state: 4.6.1 Protected heritage property, which may contain built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes, shall be conserved. 4.6.2. Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless the significant archaeological resources have been conserved. 4.6.3. Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property unless the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. 4.6.4. Planning authorities are encouraged to develop and implement: a) archaeological management plans for conserving archaeological resources; and b) proactive strategies for conserving significant built heritage resources 5 Province of Ontario, Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, last modified 20 October 2024, accessed 30 October 2024, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13, Part I (2, d). - 76 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 9 and cultural heritage landscapes. 4.6.5 Planning authorities shall engage early with Indigenous communities and ensure their interests are considered when identifying, protecting and managing archaeological resources, built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes.5F 6 Land use planning decisions made by municipalities, planning boards, the Province, or a commission or agency of the government must be consistent with the PPS. The PPS makes the consideration of cultural heritage equal to all other considerations in relation to planning and development within the province. The PPS definition of a Protected heritage property is property designated under Part IV or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; property included in an area designated as a heritage conservation district under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act; property subject to a heritage conservation easement or covenant under Part II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; property identified by a provincial ministry or a prescribed public body as a property having cultural heritage value or interest under the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal heritage legislation; and UNESCO World Heritage Sites.6F 7 The Property is not a Protected Heritage Property as defined in the PPS. 3.1.4 PROVINCIAL PLANNING CONTEXT SUMMARY In summary, cultural heritage resources are considered an essential part of the land use planning process with their own unique considerations. As directed by the province, these policies and guidelines must be considered by the local planning context. In general, the province requires significant cultural heritage resources to be conserved. The Property is not a Protected Heritage Property. This CHER is intended to determine if it meets the relevant criteria for heritage Listing or Designation and if it could be eligible to become a Protected Heritage Property. 6 Province of Ontario, Provincial Policy Statement, 2024: Under the Planning Act, 2024, accessed 28 October 2024, 28, https://www.ontario.ca/files/2024-10/mmah-provincial-planning-statement-en-2024-10-23.pdf. 7 Province of Ontario, PPS, 2024, pg. 50. - 77 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 10 3.2 LOCAL FRAMEWORK 3.2.1 DURHAM REGION OFFICIAL PLAN (1991) The Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP) was adopted by Regional Council on 5 June 1991 and approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on 24 November 1993. The ROP was most recently consolidated on 26 May 2020. The ROP serves to guide growth and land use decisions to 2031. Section 2 includes cultural heritage resource policies with the goal “to preserve and foster the attributes of communities and the historic and cultural heritage of the Region”.7F 8 Policy 2.3.49 states that: 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 districts and properties as provided for in the Ontario Heritage Act.8F 9 The ROP does not include a section dedicated to cultural heritage resources and directs the development of these policies to the area municipalities. 3.2.2 CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN (1997, 2022 CONSOLIDATION) The City of Pickering Official Plan (OP) (1997, 2022 Consolidation) was approved by Council on 3 March 1997 and approved by the Ontario Municipal Board on 21 October 1997. The OP was most recently consolidated in March 2022. A new Draft OP is currently being prepared. The OP provides a long-term set of visions, goals, and direction for the City to help appropriately address changes resulting from anticipated growth. Cultural heritage policies are addressed in Chapter 8 with the goal to conserve Pickering’s heritage in coordination with the City’s planning needs. The OP cultural heritage objectives are: 8 Durham Region, Durham Regional Official Plan. 1997, last modified 26 May 2020, accessed 30 October 2024, 3, https://www.durham.ca/en/doing-business/resources/Documents/PlanningandDevelopment/Official- Plan/2020-Durham-Regional-Official-Plan-Consolidation---Revised-1.pdf. 9 Durham Region, Durham Regional Official Plan, 15. - 78 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 11 8.2 City Council shall: (a) identify important cultural heritage resources from all time periods, so that they can be appropriately conserved and integrated into the community fabric, including:  significant heritage structures, features and sites;  buildings, sites, and artifacts of historical, archaeological and architectural significance including modern or recent architecture;  significant landscape features and characteristics, including vistas and ridge lines; and  other locally important cultural heritage resources; (b) foster public awareness and appreciation of the City’s cultural heritage; (c) prevent the demolition, destruction or inappropriate alteration of important cultural heritage resources to the extent possible; (d) where possible, restore, rehabilitate, maintain and enhance important cultural heritage resources owned by the City, and encourage the same for those owned by others; (e) where possible, ensure development, infrastructure, capital works and other private and public projects conserve, protect and enhance important cultural heritage resources; and (f) involve the public, business-people, landowners, local heritage experts, heritage committees, relevant public agencies, and other interested groups and individuals in cultural heritage decisions affecting the City.9F 10 Commentary on the Property and the City’s broad cultural heritage policies is in Appendix C (Table 3 ). The Property has not been identified by the City as a significant or important heritage structure or cultural heritage resource. 3.2.3 LOCAL PLANNING CONTEXT SUMMARY The Region and the City consider cultural heritage resources to be of value to the community and value them in the land use planning process. Through ROP and OP policies, the Region and the City have committed to identifying and conserving cultural heritage resources. However, the Property is not a Protected Heritage Property and has not been added to the Municipal Heritage Register. It is not identified by the municipality as a cultural heritage resource. 10 City of Pickering, Pickering Official Plan, Edition 9, 1997, office consolidation March 2022, accessed 30 October 2024, https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/resources/Official-Plan---Main-Page/Edition-9/OP9ACC.pdf - 79 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 12 4 BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS 4.1 EARLY INDIGENOUS HISTORY The City of Pickering website includes the following Indigenous Territorial Land Acknowledgment: We acknowledge that the City of Pickering resides on land within the Treaty and Traditional Territories of the Mississauga, the Scugog Island First Nation, and Williams Treaty signatories, the Mississauga and Chippewa Nations. Pickering is also home to many Indigenous persons and communities who represent other diverse, distinct, and autonomous Indigenous nations. This acknowledgement reminds us of our responsibilities and relationships with the First Peoples of Canada, and to the ancestral lands of which we share, learn, work, and live.10F 11 The following section provides a brief overview of early Indigenous history of the general area, followed by a general overview of early Euro-Canadian settlement. The pre-European contact (pre-contact) history of this area is long and diverse. Archaeologists generally divide the chronology of pre-contact land use in Southern Ontario into three primary periods based on characteristics of settlement patterns and material culture: Paleo, Archaic, and Woodland. 4.1.1 PALEO PERIOD (9500 – 8000 BCE) The cultural history of southern Ontario began around 11,000 years ago following the retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet.11F 12 During this archaeological period, known as the Paleo period (9500-8000 BCE), the climate was similar to the present-day sub-arctic and vegetation was largely spruce and pine forests.12F 13 The initial occupants of the province had distinctive stone tools. They were nomadic big-game hunters (i.e., caribou, mastodon, and mammoth) who lived in small groups and travelled over vast areas, possibly migrating hundreds of kilometres in a single year.13F 14 11 City of Pickering, “Council Meeting, November 27”, 27 November 2023, accessed 12 November 2024, https://www.viddler.com/v/18753fba?secret=57115818. 12 Christopher Ellis and D. Brian Deller, “Paleo-Indians”, in The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, ed. Christopher Ellis and Neal Ferris, London, ON: Ontario Archaeological Society, London Chapter, 1990, 37. 13 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, in Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks, prepared by the Toronto Region Conservation Authority, 2001, http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/37523.pdf 14 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001. - 80 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 13 4.1.2 ARCHAIC PERIOD (8000 – 1000 BCE) During the Archaic archaeological period (8000-1000 BCE) the occupants of southern Ontario continued their migratory lifestyles, although they lived in larger groups and over time occupied smaller territories of land – possibly remaining within specific watersheds. People refined their stone tools during this period and developed polished or ground stone tool technologies. Evidence of long-distance trade has been found on archaeological sites from the Middle and Later Archaic times; including items such as copper from Lake Superior, and marine shells from the Gulf of Mexico.14F 15 4.1.3 WOODLAND PERIOD (1000 BCE – 1650 CE) The Woodland archaeological period in southern Ontario (1000 BCE – CE 1650) represents a marked change in subsistence patterns, burial customs, and tool technologies, as well as the introduction of pottery making. The Woodland period is sub-divided into the Early Woodland (1000–400 BCE), Middle Woodland (400 BCE – CE 500) and Late Woodland (CE 500 - 1650).15F 16 The Early Woodland is defined by the introduction of clay pots which allowed for preservation and easier cooking.16F 17 During the Early and Middle Woodland, communities grew and were organized at a band level. Peoples continued to follow subsistence patterns focused on foraging and hunting. Woodland populations transitioned from a foraging subsistence strategy towards a preference for agricultural village-based communities around during the Late Woodland. During this period people began cultivating maize in southern Ontario. The Late Woodland period is divided into three distinct stages: Early Iroquoian (CE 1000–1300); Middle Iroquoian (CE 1300– 1400); and Late Iroquoian (CE 1400–1650).17F 18 The Late Woodland is generally characterised by an increased reliance on cultivation of domesticated crop plants, such as corn, squash, and beans, and a development of palisaded village sites which included more and larger longhouses. By the 1500s, Iroquoian communities in southern Ontario – and more widely across northeastern North America –organized themselves politically into tribal confederacies. South of Lake Ontario, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy comprised the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas, while Iroquoian communities in southern Ontario included the Petun, Huron, and Neutral Confederacies.18F 19 15 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001. 16 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001. 17 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001. 18 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001. 19 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001; Haudenosaunee Confederacy, “Who Are We”, Haudenosaunee Confederacy, 2020, https://www.haudenosauneeconfederacy.com/who-we-are/ - 81 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 14 Adjacent to the Pickering border, an intact late 1600s village was founded by Seneca peoples by the Rouge River and is known as the Bead Hill National Historic Site of Canada. It was designated a National Historic Site of Canada in 1991.19F 20 4.2 SEVENTEENTH- AND EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY HISTORIC CONTEXT (1600S AND 1700S) French explorers and missionaries began arriving in southern Ontario during the first half of the 17th century, bringing with them diseases for which the Indigenous peoples had no immunity, contributing to the collapse of the three southern Ontario Iroquoian confederacies. Also contributing to the collapse and eventual dispersal of the Huron, Petun, and Attiwandaron, was the movement of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy from south of Lake Ontario. Between 1649 and 1655, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy waged war on the Huron, Petun, and Attiwandaron, pushing them out of their villages and the general area.20F 21 As the Haudenosaunee Confederacy moved across a large hunting territory in southern Ontario, they began to threaten communities further from Lake Ontario, specifically the Ojibway (Anishinaabe). The Anishinaabe had occasionally engaged in conflict with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy over territories rich in resources and furs, as well as access to fur trade routes; but in the early 1690s, the Ojibway, Odawa and Patawatomi, allied as the Three Fires, initiated a series of offensive attacks on the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, eventually forcing them back to the south of Lake Ontario.21F 22 Oral tradition indicates that the Mississauga played an important role in the Anishinaabe attacks against the Haudenosaunee.22F 23 A large group of Mississauga established themselves in the area between present-day Toronto and Lake Erie around 1695, the descendants of whom are the Mississaugas of the Credit.23F 24 Artifacts from all major Indigenous communities have been discovered in the Greater Toronto Area at over 300 archaeological sites.24F 25 20 Parks Canada, “Bead Hill National Historic Site of Canada”, Directory of Federal Heritage Designations, accessed 30 October 2024, https://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/page_nhs_eng.aspx?id=531. 21 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, “The History of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation,” Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, 2018, http://mncfn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/The- History-of-MNCFN-FINAL.pdf 22 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, “History”, 3-4. 23 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, “History”, 3-4. 24 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, “History”, 3-4. 25 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Archaeology Opens a Window on the History of Indigenous Peoples in the GTA,” News, 2018, https://trca.ca/news/archaeology-indigenous-peoples-gta/ - 82 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 15 In 1669, Sulpician missionary priests, Francois de Fenelon and Michel Trouve, explored the Rouge River and Gandatsekwyagon.25F 26 The Rouge River Portage extended from the mouth of the Rouge River northwards on the east bank along the river. 4.3 THE JOHNSON-BUTLER PURCHASE AND WILLIAMS TREATY The Johnson-Butler Purchase, or “Gunshot Treaty” was entered into in 1788 by representatives of the Crown and certain Anishinaabe peoples.26F 27 The Treaty contained no exact description of the land covered and was meant to cover land as far as a person could hear a gunshot from the shore of Lake Ontario. The treaty covers the north shore of Lake Ontario, beginning at the eastern boundary of the Toronto Purchase and continuing east to the Bay of Quinte, where it meets the Crawford Purchase. As the Williams Treaties First Nations write: The Gunshot Treaty was made in a series of Councils, first in 1787 with Sir John Johnson and in 1788 with Lt. Colonel John Butler and then confirmed with Lt. Governor Simcoe between the Chippewas of Lake Huron and Lake Simcoe and the Mississaugas of Rice Lake, Mud Lake and Scugog, circa 1794-1795. This treaty concerned lands along the shore of Lake Ontario west of the Crawford Purchase and south of Lake Simcoe.27F 28 Due to the uncertainty of land surrendered and breach of terms from European settlers, several Indigenous groups contested the earlier Treaty. A commission was set up by the Crown in 1916, led by R.V. Sinclair.28F 29 Sinclair concluded: The Indian title to these lands has never been extinguished and I am of the opinion that some arrangement should be made for quieting the title by the payment to the claimants of compensation in the same way that the Crown has dealt with other Indians whose title has been extinguished by treaty.29F 30 In 1923, to settle the matters as quickly as possible, A.S. Williams set out to resolve the land claim issues and offered the provincial limit of $500,000.30F 31 The Williams Treaty encompassed 26 Melba E. McKay, Pickering Women’s Institute, 1957, 11. 27 Government of Ontario, “Johnson-Butler Purchase”, 23 April 2024, accessed 30 October 2024, https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-ontario-treaties -and-reserves#t4. 28 Williams Treaties First Nations, “Gunshot Treaty,” Pre-Confederation Treaties, n.d. 29 Robert J. Surtees, “Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties”, Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1986. 30 Robert J. Surtees, “Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties”, Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1986. 31 Robert J. Surtees, “Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties”, Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1986, 19. - 83 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 16 approximately 52,000 km2 and was signed by seven Anishinaabe Nations and Crown representatives in 1923 (Figure 3). The haste to sign the Williams Treaty was in part due to European settlement on land that was not yet ceded by the First Nations groups. The unforeseen problem with the Williams Treaty was it overlapped with earlier Treaties, including Treaty 20, and omitted hunting and fishing rights – that were covered in earlier Treaties.31F 32 4.4 POST EURO-CANADIAN CONTACT HISTORY Prior to the nineteenth century, the area saw only limited European or Euro-Canadian activity. French fur traders and Jesuit missionaries travelled with and lived with Indigenous communities in what would become Ontario from the early seventeenth-century until the British gained control of the area in the late eighteenth-century.32F 33 International conflicts including the Seven Years War (1756-1763) between Great Britain and France, leading to the 1763 Royal Proclamation, and the American Revolution (1775-1783) lead to a push by the British Crown for greater settlement in Canada which in turn led to efforts to sign treaties with Indigenous peoples.33F 34 The western part of the Province of Quebec, west of the Ottawa River (which would eventually become Ontario) saw little settlement until Loyalists moved north following the American Revolution. 4.5 SURVEY AND EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT IN THE AREA 4.5.1 TOWNSHIP OF PICKERING In 1791, the Township of Pickering was first surveyed by Provincial Land Surveyor, Augustus Jones. It was initially known as Township No. 9, and then given the name Edinburgh. The Township was primarily settled after Asa Danforth completed construction of Kingston Road in 1796. This was a major road from Ancaster to Kingston, which was designed to be two rods wide to accommodate horses and situated a safe distance from Lake Ontario. The crossing of the Rouge River was across a rudimentary wooden bridge constructed by 1811. A majority of the Township was taken up by military and additional grants allocated to largely absentee landholders. Large portions of Township, in particular desirable lands along the shoreline, remained wild well into the 1800s when the original landowners began selling off parcels to new settlers. 32 Robert J. Surtees, “Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties”, Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1986, 20. 33 Toronto Public Library, “Local History & Genealogy, Selections and Full PDFs of “The Jesuit Relations”: Sainte- Marie among the Hurons and Beyond,” accessed 30 October 2024, https://torontopubliclibrary.typepad.com/local-history-genealogy/2020/01/sainte-marie-among-the-hurons- selections-from-the-jesuit-relations-and-allied-documents.html 34 Peel Art Gallery, Museum, and Archives [PAMA], “About Peel,” 2022, accessed 30 October 2024, https://peelarchivesblog.com/about-peel/. - 84 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 17 Figure 3: Map of Williams Treaties and Pre -Confederation Treaties.34F 35 The first Euro-Canadian settler in Pickering was William Peak, who arrived in 1798 and settled along the lakeshore at the mouth of Duffins Creek, working as a trader and interpreter with Indigenous peoples.35F 36 By the beginning of the nineteenth century, the southeastern portion of the Township began to be settled by Quakers from the eastern United States. In 1809, the population of the Township numbered at 180 inhabitants.36F 37 In 1811, Pickering Township became a separate municipality. In 1821, the Township was included in the East Riding of York County. As the Township was characterized by rolling hills covered in hardwood trees, settlement of the area flourished. By 1846, approximately 63,061 acres of land out of the total 74,660 acres in the Township were taken up and in use.37F 38 35 Williams Treaties First Nations, Map of William Treaties and Pre-Confederation Treaties, accessed 30 October 2024, https://williamstreatiesfirstnations.ca/maps-of-our-treaties/. 36 J.E. Farewell, Ontario County: A Short Sketch of Its Settlement, Physical Features, and Resources with Brief Historical Notes, Whitby, ON: Gazette-Chronicle Press, 1907, 11-13; William R. Wood, Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Community, Toronto, ON: William Briggs, 1911, 16-18. 37 W.C. Murkar, “Early Settlers in Pickering”, Pickering News, 29 June 1961. 38 William H. Smith, Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer: Comprising Statistical and General Information Respecting All Parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West, Toronto, C.W.: H. & W. Rowsell, 1846, 146. - 85 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 18 In 1842, the population increased to 3,752 inhabitants.38F 39 By 1850, it had increased to 6,385 inhabitants.39F 40 Throughout the 1850s, in part due to the Crimean War and the resulting economic boom in Canada, the Township was considered one of the best settled townships in the County of Ontario and contained a number of fine farms. The economic centres were Audley and Duffins Creek (later Pickering Village).40F 41 4.5.2 VILLAGE OF FAIRPORT With the continuation of settlement along the north shore of Lake Ontario, the lake itself became a highway of communication and exports. At Frenchman’s Bay, a natural enclosed harbour was proposed as a location for a commercial harbour. It became increasingly important as a port for the export of ship’s masts, pine logs, cordwood, and squared timber. In the 1840s, the Pickering Harbour Company was formed for the development and management of the harbour. By 1845, a channel was opened along the gravel bar that enclosed the harbour, and within a few years, Pickering Harbour, or Port of Liverpool, was a busy port exporting pine logs, timber and agricultural products.41F 42 In 1848, the Village of Fairport was surveyed by John Shier, Provincial Land Surveyor with each rectangular lot in Block D being 1 chain (20.11 m) in length by 2.50 chains (50.29 m) in width, and 0.25 acres in area. When the Grand Trunk Railway (GTR) was opened through Pickering Township in 1856, use of Frenchman’s Bay as a port declined sharply.42F 43 The 1873 Lovell’s Gazetteer of British North America noted that Frenchman’s Bay had a population of 100 inhabitants.43F 44 However, the provincial government funded an upgrade of port facilities in 1875. A new wharf replaced the old one, a lighthouse was built, a new channel was dredged, and a 50 000-bushel elevator was constructed.44F 45 These improvements allowed for the export of large quantities of barley grown in the Township to the United States. 39 William H. Smith, Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer: Comprising Statistical and General Information Respecting All Parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West, Toronto, C.W.: H. & W. Rowsell, 1846, 146. 40 William H. Smith, Canada: Past, Present and Future, Being A Historical, Geographical, Geological and Statistical Account of Canada West, Vol. II, Toronto, C.W.: Thomas Maclear, 1851, 21. 41 R.A. Murison, The Village of Pickering 1800-1970, Pickering, ON: The Corporation of the Village of Pickering, 1970, 3. 42 William R. Wood, Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Community, Toronto, ON: William Briggs, 1911, 163-164. 43 John W. Sabean, “A Capsule History of the Township of Pickering”, Pickering Township Historical Society, Pathmaster, Vol. 1, No. 1, 7 May 1997, 9, accessed 14 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/0/edoc/171049/191.pdf. 44 John Lovell, Lovell’s Gazetteer of British North America, Montreal, QC: John Lovell, 1873. 121. 45 Pickering Township Historical Society, Pathmaster, No. 7, Fall 2022, 10, accessed 11 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=254410&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING&searchid=41c e09cc-f1d7-4882-b6e8-d6f6c73c8ca9 - 86 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 19 Other businesses survived for short periods in Frenchman’s Bay including commercial fisheries and especially the harvesting of ice in wintertime. In the early 1900s, Fairport began to develop as a centre for recreation. In time, many of the cottages were winterized and the number of residents stabilized.45F 46 4.6 PROPERTY HISTORY Table 1. Chain of Property Ownership for 681 Pleasant Street. Property Owner Years of Ownership Instrument Remarks Captain George Hill 1796-1834 Crown Patent All Richard Gardiner 1834-1852 Inst. 1737. ¼ acres. James Youmans 1854 --- Scott James 1854-1866 Inst. 17007. --- William Taylor 1866 Inst. 28010. Through Court of Chancery George White 1866-1868 Inst. 28010. --- John Fisher 1868-1874 Inst. 106. --- Patrick Ure 1874 Inst. 2100. --- John and Susan Fisher 1875-1888 Inst. 3238. --- William Palmer 1888-1893 Inst. 8472. --- Charles Palmer 1893-1895 Inst. 7165. --- Elizabeth Taylor 1895-1897 --- --- Thomas Mansfield Sr. 1897-1906 Inst. 9064. --- Julia Dunn 1906-1917 Inst. 11537. $425. Charles Clarke and Annie A. Clarke 1917-1944 Inst. 14211. $1,400. James C. Clark 1944-1999 Inst. 24221. $3,000. James Peter Russell 1999-2010 Inst. LT892085. All. Kiera Brown 2010-2021 Inst. DR914723. All. Ahmed Chowdhury 2021-Present Inst. DR2033191. All. 46 Pickering Township Historical Society, Pathmaster, No. 7, Fall 2022, 10, accessed 11 November 2024. - 87 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 20 The Crown Patent for Township Lot 23, Broken Front, Concession 3 was granted to Captain George Hill in 1796. The Township Lot was sold to Richard Gardiner in 1834 and he subdivided and surveyed the Township Lot into smaller lots, including the Property as Lot 6, Block D under Plan 65 in 1848. In 1854, the Property was sold to James Youmans and then sold again to Scott James the same year. In 1866, it was foreclosed and sold to William Taylor through the Court of Chancery, who then sold it to George White the same year. In 1868, the Property was purchased by John Fisher. Around 1872, he had the two-storey red brick residential building constructed. The 1874 Kingford Map of Frenchman’s Bay shows the Property at the south side of Commerce Street and Pleasant Street is unmarked. The Property including the adjacent Lot 8 and Lot 9 were sold to Patrick Ure in 1874, and the following year, it was purchased by Susan Fisher. In 1888, the Property was purchased by William Palmer. The 1888 tax assessment roll notes that William Palmer owned Block D, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12; Block E Lots 1 & 12, and Water Lot 1, totalling 2.75 acres valued at $500.46F 47 During the 1890s, the Property changed hands multiple times. In 1897, the Property was purchased by Thomas Mansfield Sr, a local general store merchant. In 1906, he sold the Property to Julia Dunn for a sum of $425. The 1914 topographic map illustrates the Property as being one of two brick or stone buildings in Fairport Village (the other building was located at the southeast corner of Liverpool Road and Wharf Street). In 1917, the Property was purchased by Charles Clarke and Annie A. Clarke for a sum of $1,400. The 1921 Census notes that Charles Clarke and Annie A. Clarke were living in a single- detached brick house and his occupation was manufacturer.47F 48 Photographs from 1920 and 1923 demonstrate the location of the Property within Fairport (Image 1 and Image 2). A 1940 photograph shows the south elevation of the house on the Property with a symmetrical fenestration pattern, a crowning wooden finial above the gable roof end, a red brick chimney centered at the main gable roof, and a red brick chimney at the rear wing gable end (Image 3). In 1944, the Property was purchased by James C. Clarke for a sum of $3,000 who resided there for over 50 years. In 1999, the Property was sold to James P. Russell. In 2010, the Property was sold to Kiera Brown. Photos from 2012 and 2014 demonstrate the addition of decorative bargeboard (gingerbread) to the west (front) elevation of the gable roof and removal of the finials. In 2021, the Property was sold to the current owner. 47 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1888. Line 1229. 48 Library and Archives Canada, Sixth Census of Canada, 1921, Enumeration District No. 109 Ontario South, Sub- district No. 3 Pickering, 4, Line 7, accessed 8 November 2024, https://www.ancestry.ca/discoveryui- content/view/2220182:8991. - 88 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 21 Image 1. View east of Commerce Street and Pleasant Street with the Property at centre, annotated by LHC, 1920.48F 49 Image 2. View southeast of the T-intersection of Commerce Street and Pleasant Street with the Property at centre-left, annotated by LHC, 1923.49F 50 49 “Frenchman’s Bay – Fairport, Ontario”, Pickering Public Library, The P.E.S.C.A. Collection, Item ID: 96-01660, 1920, accessed 8 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=166942&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING&searchid=ff98 146d-6e13-49de-8f78-dc5a62f388cd. 50 “An Aeroplane View of Frenchman’s Bay, Ont”, Canadian Post Card Co., Frenchmans Bay 01. Pickering Public Library, Item ID: 2009-00175, July 1923, accessed 11 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=171324&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING. - 89 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 22 Image 3. View of the south elevation of the house, 1940.50F 51 Image 4. View of the west elevation of the house, 2012.51F 52 51 Brian Winter, “Frenchman’s Bay, Ontario”, Pickering Public Library, The P.E.S.C.A. Collection, Item ID: 96-01657, 1940, accessed 6 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=166947&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING. 52 Google Street View, August 2012, accessed 8 November 2024. - 90 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 23 Image 5. View of the west elevation of the house, 2014.52F 53 53 Google Street View, August 2014, accessed 8 November 2024. - 91 - - 92 - - 93 - - 94 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 27 4.6.1 PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY 4.6.1.1 JOHN FISHER (1836-1900) John Fisher was born in Stonegrave, North Yorkshire, England to parents Joseph Fisher (1800- 1848) and Elizabeth Fisher (née Snowden) (1807-1888). He emigrated with his parents and siblings to Pickering Township in 1842, where they settled on 100 acres of Lot 33, Concession 1. After his father's early death in 1848, John and his mother continued to farm. The 1860 Tremaine’s Map illustrates the ownership of Lot 33, Concession 1 by John Fisher. The 1861 Census notes that he lived in a one storey log building with his family.53F 54 He married Susan Bellchambers (1839-1926) in 1861 at Dunbarton & Canton Church in Pickering Township. They had 6 children and continued to live in Pickering. The 1865 Tax Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering notes that he worked as a sailor and owned 0.25 acres of land in Broken Front, Township Lot 23 valued at $200.54F 55 In 1866, he along with James Hiltz purchased Water Lot 1 in Fairport. After selling 50 acres of the family farm, he and his wife moved to Fairport Village in 1868 where John worked as a wharfinger and sailed a schooner.55F 56 The 1868 Tax Assessment roll for Pickering Township notes that he worked as a wharfinger and owned 1.5 acres of land valued at $925.56F 57 That same year, he purchased the Property on Lot 6, Block D, and other properties including Lot 8 and Lot 9, Block D which fronted Liverpool Road, and Lot 1 and Lot 12, Block E on the south side of Pleasant Street. Lot 1 and Lot 12 of Block E was the location of a large two-storey hotel and adjacent wharf known as the Fairport House or Fairport Hotel upon which he purchased the land with James Hiltz.57F 58 In 1869, he received a hotel licence.58F 59 The 1869 Conner and Coltson’s County of Ontario Directory notes that he worked as a wharfinger.59F 60 In 1870, a contract was awarded by Pickering Township Council to John Fisher and William Bellchambers for the construction of a bridge over Lot 20 and Lot 21 on what is now Sandy Beach Road.60F 61 The 1870 Tax Assessment Roll notes that he worked as an innkeeper and his property was valued at $925.61F 62 54 Library and Archives Canada, Personal Census, Enumeration District Pickering Township, 1861, 105, 29, accessed 7 November 2024, https://www.ancestry.ca/imageviewer/collections/1570/images/4391564_00367?pId=797977095 55 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1865, Line 67. 56 “Highland Creek”, The Pickering News, 26 January 1900, 8. 57 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1868, Line 368. 58 Land Registry Ontario, Durham (LRO 40), Book 348, Plan 65, Lot 1, Block E, 1868. Inst. 28300.; Lot 12, Block E, 1867; Water Lot 1, 1866. 59 “Pickering Township Council”, Whitby Chronicle, 11 March 1869, 2. 60 J.W. Coltson and J.C. Conner, The County of Ontario Directory for 1869-70, Toronto, ON: Conner and Coltson, 1870, 123. 61 “Whitby Chronicle 10 September 1870. 62 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1870, Line 313. - 95 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 28 The 1871 Census notes that his occupation was tavern keeper.62F 63 The 1871 Tax Assessment Roll notes that he worked as an innkeeper and his property was valued at $1,200. In 1872, he received a tavern licence as the owner and proprietor of the Fairport Hotel.63F 64 The 1876 Tax Assessment Roll notes that he worked as a sailor and owned Block D, Lots 6, 8, 9, and Block E, Lot 1 and 12 (1.5 acres) valued at $1,200.64F 65 The 1877 Tax Assessment Roll notes that he worked as a sailor and owned 1.75 acres of land which included Water Lot 1, valued at $1,200. The 1877 H. Belden & Co. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario notes that he continued to own 50 acres of Lot 33, Concession 1 which was his family’s farmstead.65F 66 The 1881 Tax Assessment Roll noted that he owned the south ½ of Lot 23, Broken Front known as the “Whiteside Property”, totalling 10.5 acres valued at $1,500; and Block D, Lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7; Block E, Lot 1, 12, Water Lot 1, totalling 2.75 acres valued at $400.66F 67 The 1885 Tax Assessment Roll (Lot 1-7), 500. And south half Lot 23, 9.5 acres values at $1,200.67F 68 The 1886 Tax Assessment Roll notes he worked as a sailor and owned Block D, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7; Block E, Lot 1, 12, Water Lot 1, totalling 2.75 acres valued at $600.68F 69 He moved to Toronto around 1887 and worked as a grocer.69F 70 In 1888, the Property and Lot 1, Block E were sold. He passed away in 1900 and was buried in Highland Creek Wesleyan Cemetery in Scarborough. 4.6.1.2 THOMAS MANSFIELD SR. (1851-1927) Thomas Mansfield Sr. was born in London, United Kingdom to parents Henry Mansfield. His family immigrated to Canada in 1867. In the 1870s and 1880s, he worked as a sailor and fisherman. He married Ardelia Mansfield (née Marks) (1858-1929) and they had three sons and six daughters. Until 1914, he operated a general store located at 1291 Commercial Street, which was taken over by his son Thomas Mansfield Jr. (Image 6).70F 71 In 1922, he constructed the 63 Library and Archives Canada, Census of 1871, Enumeration District South Ontario, Sub-district Pickering, 1871, 46, Line 20, accessed 6 November 2024, https://www.ancestry.ca/discoveryui-content/view/1934820:1578. 64 City of Pickering, “Frenchman’s Bay History 1763-1965”, X2023-013-070, 27, accessed 22 October 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=252387&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING. 65 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1876, Line 379. 66 H. Belden., Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario, Ont., Toronto, ON: H. Belden & Co., 1877. 67 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1881, Line 429. 68 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1885, Line 475. 69 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1886, Line 527. 70 Find-a-Grave, “John Fisher (1836-1900), n.d., accessed 22 October 2024, https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/58800954/john-fisher. 71 “Death of Thomas Mansfield”, Pickering News, 28 October 1927, 4, accessed 8 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/0/edoc/179470/PN1927_10_28.pdf. - 96 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 29 current building at 1291 Commercial Street which was used as a general store, post office, and residence (Image 7).71F 72 He passed away in 1927 and was buried at Fairport United Cemetery.72F 73 Image 6. Thomas Mansfield Sr.’s general store on Lot 7, Block E on the south side of Commercial Street, 1900s. 72 “Fairport”, Pickering News, 26 May 1922, 1, accessed 11 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=179179&page=1&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING&sear chid=94856b80-93a0-4604-8f8e-b0022eeac325. 73 Find-a-Grave. “Thomas Mansfield (1851-1927) accessed 15 November 2024, https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/137433331/thomas-mansfield. - 97 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 30 Image 7. Thomas Mansfield Sr.’s general store on Lot 7, Block E, 1291 Commercial Street, 1924.73F 74 4.6.1.3 JAMES C. CLARK (1908-1998) James C. Clark was born in Toronto and grew up in England. From 1925 until the 1960s, he worked at Consumers Gas Company and was a Member of the Chemical Institute of Canada. In 1933, he married Fanny Bond and they moved to Fairport Village in 1944. In the 1950s, he was president and a charter member of the Rouge Hill Lions Club, a member of the Frenchman’s Bay Ratepayer and Community Association, secretary of the Frenchman’s Bay Yacht Club, and the Toronto Foreman’s Club.74F 75 He also helped assist with local municipal elections as a returning officer.75F 76 74 Pickering Public Library, “Fairport Village 1”, Item ID: 2009-00168, n.d. accessed 11 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=171318&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING. 75 “To Head Rouge Lions Club.”, The Pickering News, 22 June 1956, 1. 76 The Corporation of the Township of Pickering, By-law No. 4072/71. 15 November 1971, 2. - 98 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 31 5 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.1 SURROUNDING CONTEXT The Property is located in Peel Plain physiographic region. The Peel Plain is characterized by level-to-undulating clay soils, gently rolling topography which slopes westerly towards the Rouge River valley from the Property. The Credit, Humber, Don, and Rouge Rivers and streams such as the Bronte, Oakville, and Etobicoke Creeks have cut deep valleys across the plain. Soils in the area are predominantly imperfectly drained and stone-free clay loam. The Property is in the Rouge River watershed and the most prominent natural feature, Frenchman’s Bay is found 100 metres to the west. The surrounding area can be characterised as urban with a mixture of commercial and residential properties. Commercial properties are clustered along Liverpool Road to the south. Residential buildings are located immediately around the Property along Pleasant Street and Commercial Street. They are generally one-to - two storeys in height. Many residential buildings are of contemporary construction. However, there are several buildings that appear to have been constructed during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Pleasant Street is a two-lane street which runs in a north-to-south direction. It has utility poles, light fixtures, concrete curbs, and concrete sidewalks on the west and east sides of the street (Photo 1 and Photo 2 ). Commercial Street is a two-lane street which runs in a north-to - south direction. It has utility poles, light fixtures, concrete curbs, and concrete sidewalks on the west and east sides of the street (Photo 3 and Photo 4). - 99 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 32 Photo 1. View west towards Frenchman’s Bay.76F 77 Photo 2. View south along Pleasant Street. 77 HouseSigma, “681 Pleasant St Pickering - Bay Ridges”, Listing ID: E5202121, 23 April 2021, accessed 8 November 2024, https://housesigma.com/on/pickering-real-estate/681-pleasant- st/home/gJRv53KJnrx7VPW4?id_listing=dXze3eKzgMgy8m9K&utm_campaign=listing&utm_source=user- share&utm_medium=desktop&ign=. - 100 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 33 Photo 3. View north along Pleasant Street towards Commercial Street. Photo 4. View east along Commercial Street. - 101 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 34 Photo 5. View west along Commercial Street. 5.2 THE PROPERTY 5.2.1 FRONT YARD The front yard of the Property includes a parking space, sidewalk to the front door, small area of grass, a birch tree and some shrubs (Photo 6). The house has a short, approximately 7 m, setback from the street edge. A narrow concrete sidewalk extends straight from the street to the front door. The Property includes a short, narrow asphalt driveway in the northwest corner and a wood gate blocking access to the side yard north of the house. Concrete pavers extend along the front of the house to a wide concrete step in front of the front door. - 102 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 35 Photo 6. View northeast at the front of the Property 5.2.2 THE REAR YARD AND SHED STRUCTURE The Property contains a large rear yard (Photo 7) with a well (Photo 8) and a wood-frame shed structure. The shed structure has a gable roof with a rectangular red brick chimney and the exterior cladding is comprised of horizontal wood siding and vertical metal siding (Photo 9 through Photo 11). - 103 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 36 Photo 7. View east of the rear yard. Photo 8. View north of a well in the rear yard. - 104 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 37 Photo 9. View east of the west and south elevations of the shed structure. Photo 10. View east of the north and west elevations of the shed structure. - 105 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 38 Photo 11. View of the interior of the shed structure. 5.2.3 MAIN HOUSE EXTERIOR The c.1872 red brick building is two-storeys in height and on an irregular T-shaped plan with a rear wing. The foundation of the house is stone and concrete. The front foundation wall is even coursed cut stone (Photo 12). The north and south walls of the house have a coursed rubble foundation with rough mortar (Photo 13). The rear wing appears to be a slab on grade section. The exterior brickwork is laid in a common bond pattern. The mortar has been scribed with a double line mark. The house has an offset gable roof clad in asphalt shingles. It has projecting eaves with a plain fascia and soffit over most of the house and decorated fascia (bargeboard trim) on the front (west) and south elevations. As mentioned in Section 4.6 the decorated fascia elements are recent additions to the house (2012-2014). There is evidence of partial removal of wooden finials above the roof line after 1940 and before 2021 (See Image 3 and Image 4 in Section 4.6). The plain fascia and soffit are covered in metal flashing. The building contains an enclosed wooden porch with a hipped roof (Photo 12 ). The front door to the porch is an aluminum storm door. One-over-one sash windows line the front porch with fixed narrow top lites over the door and each window. The wood wall panel sections of the porch are tongue and groove. The base of the porch is concrete. - 106 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 39 Typical windows on the house include two-over-two, wood sash windows with segmental brick arches and concrete sills (Photo 12 and Photo 13). One window on the façade and on the second floor, north side are two-over-one sash pointed arch (lancet shape) windows with pointed brick arches (Photo 12 and Photo 14). False shutters have been added to house walls next to two of the front windows and one second storey window on the south elevation (Photo 12 and Photo 13). On the south elevation there is a large, modern, three-pane bay window (Photo 13). Evidence of the historic window and a former eaves trough are still present on the wall. The rear wing includes a narrow porch with shed roof on the south side (Photo 15). Windows on the rear wing are rectangular, fixed windows with flat concrete headers and sills (Photo 15 and Photo 16). Photo 12. View east of the west (front) elevation. - 107 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 40 Photo 13. View north of the south elevation. - 108 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 41 Photo 14. View south of the north elevation. Photo 15. View northwest of the south and east rear wing elevations. - 109 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 42 Photo 16. View west of the east rear wing elevation. Photo 17. View west of the east elevation and the rear wing. - 110 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 43 Photo 18. View south of the north elevation. 5.2.4 MAIN HOUSE INTERIOR 5.2.4.1 BASEMENT The basement is accessed from the first floor via a narrow wooden staircase (Photo 19). The staircase is supported on rusticated CMU blocks and the first floor appears warped (Photo 20 and Photo 21). The fieldstone foundation (Photo 23) has been dug out with a formed concrete wall underneath—with wide concrete form board marks present—and parged with cement (Photo 22 through Photo 25). Rusticated CMU blocks (c. 1905-1930s) appear to support the structure in other areas of the basement (Photo 26). A pre-1912 chimney stamp is marked “J. Smart Manufacturing Co. Limited Brockville Ont” (Photo 27). The sill plate of the house appears to be large hewn timber beams (Photo 28). Large square hewn timber beams, milled timbers—laid on their sides—(Photo 29) and steel beams (Photo 30) support milled wooden joists and support the wooden floor boards above (Photo 31 and Photo 32). Some steel and timber beams are supported with steel jack posts. The rusticated CMU blocks, chimney plate, concrete foundations with form marks indicate modifications in the early twentieth century. This may indicate that the house had a crawl space which was excavated into a deeper basement. The steel beams, timber laid on their sides, jack posts and rusticated CMU blocks may also indicate various attempts to renovate the basement over time to attempt to stabilize the house or correct sagging or sloping floors. - 111 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 44 Photo 19. View of the wooden staircase from the first floor to the basement. - 112 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 45 Photo 20. View of the warped wooden boards of the first floor. Photo 21. View of rusticated CMU blocks supporting the wooden staircase. - 113 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 46 Photo 22. View of a parged cement wall and two three-pane windows with wooden surrounds. Photo 23. View of the fieldstone foundation wall with concrete wall below. - 114 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 47 Photo 24. View of the fieldstone foundation wall with concrete wall below. Photo 25. View of the fieldstone foundation parged with cement. - 115 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 48 Photo 26. View of rusticated CMU blocks, heating equipment and metal ductwork. Photo 27. A chimney plate stamped “J. Smart Manufacturing Co. Limited Brockville Ont.”, pre - 1912. - 116 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 49 Photo 28. Sill plate beams. Photo 29. View of a large square hewn timber beam adjacent to a steel beam supported by a steel pillar. - 117 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 50 Photo 30. View of a wooden board supported by a steel beam. Photo 31. View of a wooden sill plate. - 118 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 51 Photo 32. View of the ceiling boards supported on wooden joists. 5.2.4.2 FIRST FLOOR The first floor is accessed through an enclosed porch which leads to the front of the house. The enclosed porch is constructed out of wood and features long vertical sash windows and smaller stained glass transom windows above (Photo 31). The red brick masonry wall features a double line scribe mark in the mortar. However, there are cracks evident above the brick window voussoirs, cracks and chipped brick below the window sills (Photo 32 and Photo 33). Inside the front door a hall leads to stairs to the second floor. Two doorways lead to other rooms. The house includes a large parlour room with windows that look out towards Pleasant Street (Photo 34). In the living room there is a large bay window with a view towards the side yard (Photo 35), a large red brick fireplace (Photo 36 and Photo 37), and a stamped patterned ceiling (Photo 38. The kitchen contains plain, painted, shaker style cabinetry, access to an attic space, and access to the rear yard through a side door (Photo 39). - 119 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 52 Photo 33. View of the enclosed porch. Photo 34. View of the red brick voussoirs with cracks. - 120 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 53 Photo 35. View of cracked and chipped brick below the windowsill. Photo 36. View of the parlour room. - 121 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 54 Photo 37. View of the bay window. Photo 38. View of the fireplace in the living room area. - 122 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 55 Photo 39. View towards the living room with the access door to the basement at right. Photo 40. View of the stamped pattern ceiling. - 123 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 56 Photo 41. View of the kitchen. 5.2.4.3 SECOND FLOOR The second floor is accessed from the first floor via a wooden staircase which has warped treads at the top landing (Photo 40). It has wooden handrails and newel posts (Photo 41). A corridor (Photo 42) provides access to four bedrooms (Photo 43 and Photo 44)and a washroom constructed from a converted closet (Photo 45). - 124 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 57 Photo 42. View of the warped wooden second floor staircase. Photo 43. View of the second-floor staircase with handrails and newel posts. - 125 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 58 Photo 44. View of the corridor to various bedrooms. Photo 45. View of a bedroom. - 126 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 59 Photo 46. View of a bedroom. Photo 47. View of the washroom. - 127 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 60 5.3 DESIGN The c. 1872 building on the Property includes design elements of the Gothic Revival architectural style. This style was popularized in Ontario during the mid-nineteenth century through a vernacular form known as the Ontario Farmhouse. 5.3.1 ONTARIO FARMHOUSE / GOTHIC REVIVAL STYLE (1850-1900) The Ontario Farmhouse (also known as the Ontario Cottage/Gothic Cottage) is a subset of Gothic Revival architecture, commonly found in Ontario and throughout the northeastern United States. The Gothic Revival architectural style was developed by early British settlers to Ontario. Architectural details were translated from English Gothic and medieval stone architecture into wood, creating an eclectic and ornate appearance. The Gothic Revival or Gothic Cottage architectural style was the most pervasive Ontario residential style between 1850 and 1900.77F 78 The growing focus on the rural Picturesque was due to the conditions of workers’ housing in cities and the respect given to the aesthetics of the rural landscape.78F 79 An 1864 article in The Canada Farmer journal from the architect James Avon Smith (1832-1918) (of the firm Smith and Gemmell) provides a study on the ‘suburban villa or farmhouse’ with subtle Gothic elements that could be constructed from brick or stone.79F 80 Being rather larger than Gothic Cottage, his design featured two floors, a cross-gable roof configuration with exterior gingerbread bargeboard, multiple bedrooms, rooms for lounging, second-storey Gothic lancet windows, an asymmetrical front elevation with projecting bay window and verandah on an L- shaped plan.80F 81 This particular design was introduced in pattern-books and proved to be versatile, found in many vernacular manifestations across Ontario in which this design was added to or simplified depending on location and cost concerns.81F 82 These buildings showed that the farmer and his family were very successful. These homes reflected the prosperity of the time, as a result of high grain and livestock prices during the Crimean and American Civil War periods and concerns for style and appearance (Image 8).82F 83 78 Shannon Kyles, “Gothic Revival”, OntarioArchitecture, accessed 15 November 2024, http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/gothicrevival.html. 79 Jessica Mace, Beautifying the Countryside: Rural and Vernacular Gothic in Late Nineteenth-Century Ontario, JSSAC, Vol 38, No. 1, 2013, 30. 80 The Canada Farmer, Rural Architecture, Vol. 1, No. 9, 16 May 1864, accessed 21 November 2022, https://www.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.8_04206_9/5. 81 The Canada Farmer, Rural Architecture, Vol. 1, No. 9, 16 May 1864, accessed 21 November 2022, https://www.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.8_04206_9/5. 82 Jessica Mace, Beautifying the Countryside: Rural and Vernacular Gothic in Late Nineteenth-Century Ontario, JSSAC, Vol 38, No. 1, 2013, 34. 83 Shannon Kyles, “Gothic Revival”, OntarioArchitecture, accessed 15 November 2024, http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/gothicrevival.html. - 128 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 61 Image 8. Illustration of a suburban villa or farmhouse, 1864.83F 84 5.3.2 PREVALENCE OF LOCAL ONTARIO FARMHOUSE / GOTHIC REVIVAL STYLE BUILDINGS The City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register includes four properties with Heritage Value descriptions that describe houses with Gothic Revival style influences. Other entries describe Victorian or Ontario Cottage designs, which based on a Google Streetview review of the addresses appear to be consistent with Ontario Farmhouse / Gothic Revival designs. Several designated heritage properties in the City, including 2390 Rosebank Road, 2319 Wildwood Court, 1505 Whitevale Road, 1200 Whitevale Road and 1860 7th Concession Road appear –based on a Google Streetview review—to have Gothic Revival influences in their form, massing, roof style, gables, window designs and materials. Furthermore, the Heritage Building Inventory in the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guidelines shows several properties that appear to be in the Gothic Revival style or demonstrate influences from the style. 84 The Canada Farmer, Rural Architecture, Vol. 1, No. 9, 16 May 1864, accessed 15 November 2024. - 129 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 62 6 EVALUATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST 6.1 HERITAGE STATUS 6.2 ONTARIO REGULATION 9/06 EVALUATION The Property at 681 Pleasant Street was evaluated against O. Reg. 9/06 under the OHA using research and analysis presented in Sections 4.5.2, 4.6, and 5 of this CHER. The findings are presented in Table 2 below. 6.2.1 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION In our professional opinion, LHC finds that the Property at 681 Pleasant Street meets one criterion of O. Reg. 9/06 (criterion 1). The Property is not eligible for designation under Part IV Section 29 of the OHA. Table 2. Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation for the Property at 681 Pleasant Street Criteria Criteria Met Justification 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. Yes The Property meets this criterion. The 1872 red-brick vernacular farmhouse building contains Gothic Revival influences. However, it is not an early example of the style—which first appeared in Ontario approximately 20 years earlier. It is not rare or unique. As described in Section 5.3.2 Gothic Revival style buildings are common throughout the City. The Property is representative of a Gothic Revival vernacular farmhouse building. It includes features of the Gothic Revival style including the T-shaped plan, brick cladding, segmental arch window openings and pointed arch window openings and gable roof. However as discussed in Sections 4.6 and 5, the significant alteration to the building have been made over time. Finials have been removed from the peaks of the gables, modern metal flashing has been installed over the fascia and soffits, the parlour window has been replaced with a modern bay - 130 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 63 Criteria Criteria Met Justification window, a chimney was removed from the rear wing, contemporary decorative wooden bargeboard has been added to some -but not all—of the gables, and a red brick chimney has been added in the centre of the roof. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The Property does not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. There is no evidence to suggest that the 1872 two-storey brick building has greater craftsmanship than a standard residential brick building at its time of construction (see Section 4.6). The warped floors and various interventions in the basement to stabilize and support the house indicate that it does not demonstrate a high level of craftsmanship. Features to make the house look more historic such as the bargeboard and shutters are contemporary. 3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The Property does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. There is no evidence to suggest that the 1872 two-storey brick building meets this criterion. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The building on the Property is one of last remaining brick buildings from Fairport Village in the 1870s However, there are no direct associations between this Property and specific events, activities, organizations or institutions that are significant to Fairport Village, to the wider Pickering Township or to the City of Pickering. Historic research found that the Property is connected to John Fisher (built the house in 1872), - 131 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 64 Criteria Criteria Met Justification Thomas Mansfield Sr. and James C. Clark. These men participated in community affairs but no evidence has been found that suggests any of these men were historically significant figures for Fairport Village or the wider Pickering community. 5. The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The Property does not yield, or have the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. There is no evidence to suggest that the Property meets this criterion. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The 1872 red brick building on the Property does not demonstrate or reflect the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is important to a community. There is no evidence to suggest that John Fisher may have designed or constructed the building in 1872. An architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist was not identified. Plans or designs for the building were not identified. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. No The Property does not meet this criterion. As discussed in Sections 4.5.2 and 5.1, the character of the village of Fairport is identified as being a mix of properties with buildings dating from the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries. Buildings from the twentieth century and contemporary buildings are predominant in the area. The area can be - 132 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 65 Criteria Criteria Met Justification described as an evolved, largely 20th and 21st century residential area instead of a 19th century village. Surrounding and adjacent properties along the west and east sides of Pleasant Street and along the north and south sides of Commerce Street maintain similar 0.25-acre lot sizes, setbacks, vegetation, massing and lot patterns to the Property due to being situated on lots surveyed under the 1848 Plan of the Village of Fairport. However, the building on the Property does not define, maintain, or support the local character of the area. 8.The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The Inventory of heritage properties, City of Pickering, prepared by Unterman McPhail Associates for the City of Pickering in 2002, notes that the Property is one of the few historic buildings remaining from the settlement of Fairport Village in the 1870s. However, due to surrounding contemporary developments around the Property, no significant historical links between the Property and a 19th century village context are present. The Property is not physically, functionally, visually or historically linked in a meaningful way to the surrounding area, to the wider Pickering Township, or the City of Pickering. 9.The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The MCM defines landmark as: …a recognizable natural or human-made feature used for a point of reference that helps orienting in a - 133 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 66 Criteria Criteria Met Justification familiar or unfamiliar environment; it may mark an event or development; it may be conspicuous.84F 85 There is no evidence to suggest that the Property is a landmark. 85 Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, “Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties, Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process.” - 134 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 67 7 CONCLUSION LHC was retained by Banalata Consultants Ltd. on 18 September 2024 to prepare a CHER to evaluate the cultural heritage value or interest of the Property at 681 Pleasant Street, in the City of Pickering, in the Regional Municipality of Durham. This CHER was completed in accordance with objectives of the City of Pickering Official Plan. It follows cultural heritage best practices drawing upon applicable frameworks, such as the MCM’s Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Property Evaluation (2006). The purpose of this CHER is to evaluate the Property for CHVI. It has been prepared in response to a municipal request for a third-party evaluation of the Property for heritage value. In our professional opinion, LHC finds that the Property at 681 Pleasant Street meets one criterion of O. Reg. 9/06 (criterion 1). The Property is not eligible for designation under Part IV Section 29 of the OHA. - 135 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 68 8 SIGNATURES Sincerely, Benjamin Holthof, MPl, MMA, RPP, MCIP, CAHP Senior Heritage Planner LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. Diego Maenza, MPl, CAHP Intern Heritage Planner LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. - 136 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 69 9 REFERENCES Archives of Ontario. 2015. The Changing Shape of Ontario. “The Evolution of Ontario’s Boundaries 1774-1912”. Accessed 31 October 2024. http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/en/maps/ontario-boundaries.aspx. City of Pickering. 1997. Pickering Official Plan. Edition 9, Office consolidation March 2022. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/resources/Official-Plan---Main- Page/Edition-9/OP9ACC.pdf 27 November 2023. “Council Meeting, November 27”. Accessed 12 November 2024. https://www.viddler.com/v/18753fba?secret=57115818. Coltson, J.W. and Conner, J.C. 1870. The County of Ontario Directory for 1869-70, Toronto, ON: Conner and Coltson, 123. The Corporation of the Township of Pickering. 15 November 1971. By-law No. 4072/71. 2. Durham Region. 1997. Durham Regional Official Plan. Last modified 26 May 2020. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.durham.ca/en/doing- business/resources/Documents/PlanningandDevelopment/Official-Plan/2020- Durham-Regional-Official-Plan-Consolidation---Revised-1.pdf. Farewell, J.E. 1907. Ontario County: A Short Sketch of Its Settlement, Physical Features, and Resources with Brief Historical Notes. Whitby, ON: Gazette-Chronicle Press. Find-a-Grave. N.d. “John Fisher (1836-1900). Accessed 22 October 2024. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/58800954/john-fisher. Find-a-Grave. “Thomas Mansfield (1851-1927). Accessed 15 November 2024. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/137433331/thomas-mansfield. Government of Ontario. 3 April 2024. “Johnson-Butler Purchase”. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-ontario-treaties-and-reserves#t4. H. Belden & Co. 1878. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the Counties of Northumberland and Durham Ont. Toronto, ON: H. Belden & Co. Kyles, Shannon. “Gothic Revival”. OntarioArchitecture. Accessed 15 November 2024. http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/gothicrevival.html. Land Registry Ontario. Durham (LRO 40), “Lot 23, Concession 3, Broken Front”, Pickering Township. - 137 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 70 Durham (LRO 40), “Lot 6, Block D, Plan 65”, Pickering Township, Book 348. Library and Archives Canada. 1861. Personal Census, Enumeration District Pickering Township, 105, 29. Accessed 7 November 2024. https://www.ancestry.ca/imageviewer/collections/1570/images/4391564_00367?pId= 797977095. 1871. Census of 1871. Enumeration District South Ontario, Sub-district Pickering. 46, Line 20. Accessed 6 November 2024. https://www.ancestry.ca/discoveryui- content/view/1934820:1578. 1921. Sixth Census of Canada. Enumeration District No. 109 Ontario South, Sub-district No. 3 Pickering. 4, Line 7. Accessed 8 November 2024. https://www.ancestry.ca/discoveryui-content/view/2220182:8991. Lovell, John Lovell. 1873. Lovell’s Gazetteer of British North America. Montreal, QC: John Lovell. Mace, Jessica. 2013. Beautifying the Countryside: Rural and Vernacular Gothic in Late Nineteenth- Century Ontario. JSSAC. Vol 38, No. 1. 30. 2 September 2022. “A Cheap Farm House”, c. 1864-onward”. SmartHistory. 2 September 2022. Accessed 15 November 2024. https://smarthistory.org/a-cheap-farm- house-1864-onward/. Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. N.d. Physiography. Google Earth Pro extension. Accessed 11 July 2024. https://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/ogsearth.html. N.d. Surficial Geology. Google Earth Pro extension. Accessed 11 July 2024. https://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/ogsearth.html. Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery. N.d. “The Changing Shape of Ontario: Early Districts and Counties 1788-1899.” Accessed 11 July 2024. http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/en/maps/ontario-districts.aspx. Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. N.d. “History.” Accessed 8 August 2024. https://mncfn.ca/about-mncfn/community- profile/. - 138 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 71 2018. “The History of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation”. Accessed 30 October 2024. http://mncfn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/The-History-of-MNCFN- FINAL.pdf. Murison, R.A. 1970. The Village of Pickering 1800-1970. Pickering, ON: The Corporation of the Village of Pickering. Parks Canada. N.d. “Bead Hill National Historic Site of Canada”, Directory of Federal Heritage Designations. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/page_nhs_eng.aspx?id=531. Peel Art Gallery, Museum, and Archives [PAMA], “About Peel,” 2022, accessed 30 October 2024, https://peelarchivesblog.com/about-peel. Pickering Public Library. 1865. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 67. 1868. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 368. 1870. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 313. 1876. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 379. 1881. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 429. 1885. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 475. 1886. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 527. 1888. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 1229. 1920. “Frenchman’s Bay – Fairport, Ontario”. The P.E.S.C.A. Collection, Item ID: 96- 01660,. Accessed 8 November 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=166942&dbid=0&repo= PICKERING&searchid=ff98146d-6e13-49de-8f78-dc5a62f388cd. July 1923. “An Aeroplane View of Frenchman’s Bay, Ont”. Canadian Post Card Co. Frenchmans Bay 01, Item ID: 2009-00175. Accessed 11 November 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=171324&dbid=0&repo= PICKERING. N.d. “Fairport Village 1”. Item ID: 2009-00168. Accessed 11 November 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=171318&dbid=0&repo= PICKERING. - 139 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 72 N.d. “Frenchman’s Bay History 1763-1965”. X2023-013-070, 27. Accessed 22 October 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=252387&dbid=0&repo= PICKERING. Winter, Brian. 1940. “Frenchman’s Bay, Ontario”. The P.E.S.C.A. Collection, Item ID: 96- 01657. Accessed 6 November 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=166947&dbid=0&repo= PICKERING. Pickering News. 26 January 1900. “Highland Creek”, 8. 26 May 1922. “Fairport”. 1. 28 October 1927. “Death of Thomas Mansfield”, 4. 22 June 1956. “To Head Rouge Lions Club”. 1. W.C. Murkar. 29 June 1961. “Early Settlers in Pickering”. Pickering Township Historical Society. Pathmaster. No. 7, Fall 2022. 10. Accessed 11 November 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=254410&dbid=0&repo= PICKERING&searchid=41ce09cc-f1d7-4882-b6e8-d6f6c73c8ca9. Province of Ontario. “Map of Ontario Treaties and Reserves.” Last updated 23 April 2024. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-ontario-treaties-and-reserves. 1990. Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18. Last modified 20 October 2024. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18. 1990. Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13. Last modified 20 October 2024. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13. 2005. Places to Grow Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 13. Last modified 22 February 2024. Accessed 28 October 2024. 2006. Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Last modified 1 January 2023. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060009. 2021. Ontario Regulation 385/21. Last modified 1 July 2024. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/210385. - 140 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 73 2024. Provincial Policy Statement, 2024: Under the Planning Act. Accessed 28 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/files/2024-10/mmah-provincial-planning-statement-en- 2024-10-23.pdf. Roberts, Arthur. 1984. “Paleo-Indian on the North Shore of Lake Ontario”. Archaeology of Eastern North America. No. 8. 28-45. 1985. Paleo-Indian, “Preceramic Occupations Along the North Shore of Lake Ontario”. National Museum of Man, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mercury Series, Paper 132. Sabean, John W. 7 May 1997. “A Capsule History of the Township of Pickering”, Pickering Township Historical Society. Pathmaster. Vol. 1, No. 1, 9. Accessed 14 November 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/0/edoc/171049/191.pdf. Six Nations Elected Council. “About,” Six Nations of the Grand River. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.sixnations.ca/about. Smith, William H. 1846. Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer: Comprising Statistical and General Information Respecting All Parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West. Toronto, C.W.: H. & W. Rowsell. 1851. Canada: Past, Present and Future, Being A Historical, Geographical, Geological and Statistical Account of Canada West. Vol. II, Toronto, C.W.: Thomas Maclear. Surtees, Robert J. 1986. “Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties”, Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. The Canada Farmer. 16 May 1864. Rural Architecture. Vol. 1, No. 9. Accessed 15 November 2024. https://www.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.8_04206_9/5 Toronto Public Library, “Local History & Genealogy, Selections and Full PDFs of “The Jesuit Relations”: Sainte-Marie among the Hurons and Beyond,” accessed 30 October 2024, https://torontopubliclibrary.typepad.com/local-history-genealogy/2020/01/sainte- marie-among-the-hurons-selections-from-the-jesuit-relations-and-allied- documents.html. Toronto Region Conservation Authority. 2018. “Archaeology Opens a Window on the History of Indigenous Peoples in the GTA,” News. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://trca.ca/news/archaeology-indigenous-peoples-gta. - 141 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 74 University of Waterloo. “Land acknowledgment,” Faculty Association. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://uwaterloo.ca/faculty-association/about/land-acknowledgement. Watson, Gordon. Prehistoric Peoples of the Rideau Waterway. (Ontario Archaeology 1982), 5- 26.Accessed 30 October 2024. https://ontarioarchaeology.org/Resources/Publications/oa50-1-watson.pdf. Whitby Chronicle. March 1869. “Pickering Township Council”. 10 September 1870. White, Randall. 1985. Ontario 1610-1985 a political and economic history, Toronto, ON: Dundurn Press Limited. Williams Treaties First Nations. N.d. “Gunshot Treaty,” Pre-Confederation Treaties. N.d. Map of William Treaties and Pre-Confederation Treaties. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://williamstreatiesfirstnations.ca/maps-of-our-treaties/. Wood, William R. 1911. Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Community. Toronto, ON: William Briggs. - 142 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 75 APPENDIX A Qualifications Christienne Uchiyama, MA CAHP - Principal, LHC Christienne Uchiyama MA CAHP is Principal and Manager - Heritage Consulting Services with LHC. She is a Heritage Consultant and Professional Archaeologist (P376) with two decades of experience working on heritage aspects of planning and development projects. She is currently Past President of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals and received her MA in Heritage Conservation from Carleton University School of Canadian Studies. Her thesis examined the identification and assessment of impacts on cultural heritage resources in the context of Environmental Assessment. Chris has provided archaeological and heritage conservation advice, support and expertise as a member of numerous multi-disciplinary project teams for projects across Ontario and New Brunswick, including such major projects as: all phases of archaeological assessment at the Canadian War Museum site at LeBreton Flats, Ottawa; renewable energy projects; natural gas pipeline routes; railway lines; hydro powerline corridors; and highway/road realignments. She has completed more than 300 cultural heritage technical reports for development proposals at all levels of government, including cultural heritage evaluation reports, heritage impact assessments, and archaeological licence reports. Her specialties include the development of Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, under both O. Reg. 9/06 and 10/06, and Heritage Impact Assessments. Diego Maenza, MPl CAHP Intern – Heritage Planner Diego Maenza is a Heritage Planner with LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. He holds a B.A. in Human Geography and Urban Studies from the University of Toronto and a Master of Planning degree from Dalhousie University. His thesis considered the urban morphological changes of railway infrastructure, landscapes, and neighbourhoods before and after the 1917 Halifax Explosion. Diego is a heritage professional with three years of public sector experience in Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Ontario through team-based and independent roles. He is an intern member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and a candidate member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI). At LHC, Diego has worked on numerous projects dealing with all aspects of Ontario’s cultural heritage. He has been lead author or co-author of over twelve cultural heritage technical reports for development proposals including Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, Heritage Impact Assessments, and Heritage Documentation Reports. Diego has also provided heritage planning advisory support for the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake and the Municipality of Port - 143 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 76 Hope which included work on heritage permit applications and work with municipal heritage committees. His work has involved a wide range of cultural heritage resources including institutional, infrastructural, industrial, agricultural. and residential sites in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Benjamin Holthof, MPl, MMA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP – Senior Heritage Planner Ben Holthof is a heritage consultant, planner and marine archaeologist with experience working in heritage consulting, archaeology and not-for-profit museum sectors. He has a Master of Urban and Regional Planning degree from Queens University; a Master of Maritime Archaeology degree from Flinders University of South Australia; a Bachelor of Arts degree in Archaeology from Wilfrid Laurier University; and a certificate in Museum Management and Curatorship from Fleming College. Ben has consulting experience in heritage planning, cultural heritage screening, evaluation, heritage impact assessment, cultural strategic planning, cultural heritage policy review, historic research and interpretive planning. He has been a project manager for heritage consulting projects including archaeological management plans and heritage conservation district studies. Ben has also provided heritage planning support to municipalities including work on heritage permit applications, work with municipal heritage committees, along with review and advice on municipal cultural heritage policy and process. His work has involved a wide range of cultural heritage resources including on cultural landscapes, institutional, industrial, commercial, and residential sites as well as infrastructure such as wharves, bridges and dams. Ben spent over 7 years working in museums as a curator which included caring for collections and exhibit development. He has experience with museum strategic planning, interpretive planning and policy development. His experience includes caring for historic museum buildings, sites and specialized large artifacts such as ships, boats and railway cars. Ben is also a maritime archaeologist having worked on terrestrial and underwater sites in Ontario and Australia. He has an Applied Research archaeology license from the Government of Ontario (R1062). Jordan Greene, B.A. (Hons) – Mapping Technician Jordan Greene, B.A., joined LHC as a mapping technician following the completion of her undergraduate degree. In addition to completing her B.A. in Geography at Queen’s University, Jordan also completed certificates in Geographic Information Science and Urban Planning Studies. During her work with LHC Jordan has been able to transition her academic training into professional experience and has deepened her understanding of the applications of GIS in the fields of heritage planning and archaeology. Jordan has contributed to over 100 - 144 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 77 technical studies and has completed mapping for projects including, but not limited to, cultural heritage assessments and evaluations, archaeological assessments, environmental assessments, hearings, and conservation studies. In addition to GIS work she has completed for studies Jordan has begun developing interactive maps and online tools that contribute to LHC’s internal data management. In 2021 Jordan began acting as the health and safety representative for LHC. - 145 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 78 APPENDIX B Glossary Definitions are based on those provided in the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 (PPS), Ontario Heritage Act (OHA), the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties – Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process (I&E Process), and the Durham Region Official Plan (OP). Adjacent lands: means for the purposes of policy 4.6.3, those lands contiguous to a protected heritage property or as otherwise defined in the municipal official plan. (PPS) Archaeological resources: includes artifacts, archaeological sites and marine archaeological sites, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act. The identification and evaluation of such resources are based upon archaeological assessments carried out by archaeologists licensed under the Ontario Heritage Act. (PPS) Built heritage: means one or more significant buildings (including fixtures or equipment located in or forming part of a building), structures, monuments, installations, or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic, or military history and identified as being important to a community. For the purposes of these Standards and Guidelines, “structures” does not include roadways in the provincial highway network and in- use electrical or telecommunications transmission towers. (I&E Process) Built heritage resource: means a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Indigenous community. (PPS) Character the combination of physical elements that together provide a place with a distinctive sense of identity. It may include geomorphology, natural features, pattern of roads, open spaces, buildings and structures, but it may also include the activities or beliefs that support the perceptions associated with the character. (I&E Process) 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. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has been approved, accepted or adopted by the relevant planning authority and/or decision-maker. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches should be included in these plans and assessments. (PPS) - 146 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 79 Cultural heritage landscape: means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Indigenous community. The area may include features such as buildings, structures, spaces, views, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. (PPS) Development means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures requiring approval under the Planning Act, but does not include: a) activities that create or maintain infrastructure authorized under an environmental assessment process; b) works subject to the Drainage Act; or c) for the purposes of policy 2.1.4(a), underground or surface mining of minerals or advanced exploration on mining lands in significant areas of mineral potential in Ecoregion 5E, where advanced exploration has the same meaning as under the Mining Act. Instead, those matters shall be subject to policy 2.1.5(a). (PPS) Development: means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures, any of which require approval under the Planning Act, or that are subject to the Environmental Assessment Act, but does not include: a) the construction of facilities for transportation, infrastructure and utilities used by a public body; b) activities or works under the Drainage Act. (In the case of lands on the Oak Ridges Moraine, this applies only to the reconstruction, repair or maintenance of an existing drain approved under the Drainage Act.); and c) the carrying out of agricultural practices on land that continues to be used for agriculture uses. (ROP) Heritage attributes means, in relation to real property, and to the buildings and buildings on the real property, the attributes of the property, buildings and buildings that contribute to their cultural heritage value or interest (“attributs patrimoniaux”). (OHA) Heritage attributes: means, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act, in relation to real property, and to the buildings and structures on the real property, the attributes of the property, buildings and structures that contribute to their cultural heritage value or interest. (PPS) Heritage attributes means the physical features or elements that contribute to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property’s built or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting. (I&E Process) - 147 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 80 Integrity means the degree to which a property retains its ability to represent or support the cultural heritage value or interest of the property. (I&E Process) Landmark means a recognizable natural or human-made feature used for a point of reference that helps orienting in a familiar or unfamiliar environment; it may mark an event or development; it may be conspicuous (I&E Process) Protected heritage property: means property designated under Part IV or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; property included in an area designated as a heritage conservation district under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act; property subject to a heritage conservation easement or covenant under Part II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; property identified by a provincial ministry or a prescribed public body as a property having cultural heritage value or interest under the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal heritage legislation; and UNESCO World Heritage Sites. (PPS) Qualified person(s) means individuals – professional engineers, architects, archaeologists, etc. – having relevant, recent experience in the conservation of cultural heritage resources. (I&E Process) Significant: means in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act. While some significant resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others can only be determined after evaluation. (PPS) Spatial configuration means the arrangement of a property’s elements in relation to each other, to the site and to adjacent sites. (I&E Process) Statement of Cultural Heritage Value means a concise statement explaining why a property is of heritage interest; this statement should reflect one or more of the criteria found in Ontario Heritage Act O. Regs. 9/06 and 10/06. (I&E Process) View means a visual setting experienced from a single vantage point, and includes the components of the setting at various points in the depth of field. (I&E Process) - 148 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 81 APPENDIX C Policy Tables City of Pickering Official Plan Table 3: City of Pickering Relevant Official Plan Policies85F 86 Policy Policy Text Commentary 8.4 (Ontario Heritage Act) City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, where warranted shall implement the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, including the designation under the Act of heritage sites and heritage districts. The Property is not Designated or Listed under provisions of the OHA. 8.7 (Cultural Heritage Inventory) City Council, in association with its heritage committee, shall: (a)conduct an inventory of heritage resources owned by the City, its boards and commissions, and establish an overall program for the maintenance, use, reuse or, if warranted, disposal of these resources; (b)maintain an inventory of heritage resources designated or worthy of designation under the Ontario Heritage Act; and (c) store and disseminate cultural heritage resource inventories and databases in convenient and publicly accessible locations and formats, and maintain an archive of heritage conservation information. The Property is not Designated or Listed under provisions of the OHA. 86 City of Pickering, Pickering Official Plan, 1997 (2022), 109 - 149 - Attachment 4 to Report PLN 01-06 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/26 Being a by-law that designates the lands legally described as Lot 6, Block D, Plan 65 (the “Mansfield House”) and municipally known as 681 Pleasant Street (Fairport), Pickering, as being cultural heritage value or interest. Whereas the Ontario Heritage Act authorizes the Council of a municipality to enact a by-law to designate real property, including all buildings and structures thereon, to be of cultural heritage value or interest; and Whereas on XXXX XX, 2026, Council endorsed the recommendations of its Heritage Advisory Committee to designate 681 Pleasant Street as being of cultural heritage value or interest; and Whereas the Reasons for Designation are set out in Schedule “A” to this by-law; and Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering has caused to be served on the owners of 681 Pleasant Street and upon the Ontario Heritage Trust, Notice of Intention to designate the property, and has caused the Notice of Intention to be published in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality as requested by the Ontario Heritage Act; and Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering enacts as follows: 1. The Mansfield House, municipally known as 681 Pleasant Street, is designated as being of cultural heritage value or interest for reasons set out in Schedule “A” attached hereto. 2.The City Solicitor is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be registered on title to 681 Pleasant Street (the Mansfield House). 3.The City Clerk is authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be served upon the owner of 681 Pleasant Street and the Ontario Heritage Trust and to publish notice of this by-law on the City’s website, in accordance with the City of Pickering’s Public Notice Policy ADM100. By-law passed on this XX of XXXX, 2026. ________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 150 - Schedule “A” By-law No. XXXX/26 Reasons for Designation Description of Property 681 Pleasant Street is located on the east side of Pleasant Street, south of Commerce Street, within the historic Village of Fairport. Reason for Designation 681 Pleasant Street is of cultural heritage value or interest as a well-preserved example of a nineteenth-century Gothic Revival farmhouse. It is significant for its architectural design, its direct associations with prominent historical figures in Fairport’s development, and its integral role in defining the character of the village core. The property exhibits design or physical value as an increasingly rare example of a vernacular Gothic Revival residence, characterized by its T-shaped plan and steeply pitched gable with a pointed-arch window. The building is representative of mid-to-late nineteenth century village and rural architecture in Ontario. It demonstrates a high degree of period craftsmanship through its use of refined red brick masonry, buff brick detailing, and segmental-arched openings with decorative brick voussoirs, which illustrate stylistic expression and architectural integrity. The property also has historical and associative value through its connections with Thomas Mansfield Sr., a key merchant and community leader in Fairport, and its long-term relationship with the nearby Mansfield General Store. The house embodies the nineteenth-century pattern of merchant-residence integration in small lakeport villages. Description of Key Heritage Attributes Exterior Design / Physical Attributes: • original form, scale, and massing • red brick construction with buff brick detailing • steeply pitched front gable with pointed-arch window • segmental-arched window openings with decorative voussoirs • tall, narrow windows and symmetrical front façade • bracketed eaves • orientation of the house towards Pleasant Street with a shallow setback consistent with the historic village grid, and • the property’s visual and historical relationship with the Mansfield General Store at 1291 Commerce Street Historical / Associative Attributes: • association with Thomas Mansfield Sr., a prominent early local merchant in Fairport, and • historical associations between the Thomas Mansfield Sr., his place of residence at 681 Pleasant Street and his place of work nearby at 1291 Commercial Street - 151 - Contextual Attributes: • proximity and visual relationship to 1291 Commercial Street • location within the historic core of Fairport, and • contribution to the streetscape and understanding of village life in the late 1800s - 152 - Shao Law Professional Corpora�on 487 Lawrence Ave W, Toronto, ON M5M 1C6 April 2, 2026 BY email to clerks@pickering.ca Corporate Services Department, Legislative Services City of Pickering Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Dear Sir/Madam Re: Notice of Objection of the City’s intent to designate 681 Pleasant Street, Pickering, Ontario I represent the owners of 681 Pleasant Street, Pickering, Ontario, L1W 1P8 (the “Property”) to object to the City of Pickering’s intention to designate the property for cultural heritage value or interest for the following reasons. Statement of Reasons According to Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, the property may be designated under Section 29 of the Act if it meets two or more of the criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value: 1.The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2.The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4.The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. Attachment 4 to Report PLN 13-26 - 153 - Shao Law Professional Corpora�on 487 Lawrence Ave W, Toronto, ON M5M 1C6 5.The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. 6.The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 7.The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. 8.The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. The property itself fails to meet any of the above nine criteria. The City agrees that the property does not meet 3, 6, 9 of the above nine criteria. So I will only address Criteria No 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 which was found to be met by the City and which we disagree. We disagree with the City regarding Criteria No.1. The property is not rare, unique, representative or early example of Gothic Revival style. The property was constructed around 1872 whereas Gothic Revival Style started to appear in Ontario as early as 1830s. We disagree with the City regarding Criteria No. 2. The property has no design value or physical value because the property does not display a high degree of craftmanship or artistic merit. On the contrary, the evidence showed that the warped floors and various interventions in the basement to stabilize and support the house indicated poor craftsmanship. See Tab A for photos of the exterior and interior of the property. We disagree with the City regarding Criteria No. 4. The property has no direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. The City made this conclusion relied on the property’s association with Thomas Mansfield Sr. There is no evidence that this man were historically significant figures for Fairport Village. We disagree with the City regarding Criteria No. 5. There is no historical value or associate value to live close to one’s business. The City claimed that this criteria was met because Thomas Sr.’s association with the General store at 1291 Commerce Street yields information as it relates to an understanding of a culture relating to a long held historical norm of merchant living close to their places of business for security and commuting. There is no evidence to proof the reason why the family choose to live close to their business. But there are evidence to show that they in fact moved - 154 - Shao Law Professional Corpora�on 487 Lawrence Ave W, Toronto, ON M5M 1C6 away while still operating the business. According to the City, Thomas Sr. operated the general store and his son, Thomas Jr continued to reside at property until 1920. This was not true. Thomas Sr. purchased the property in 1897 and sold the property to Julia Dunn in 1906 while Thomas Jr. continued to operate the general store until 1914. We disagree with the City regarding Criteria No. 7. The property is not important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. On the contrary, the area has been evolved into modern residential area rather than 19th century village. See Tab B for photos of surrounding area. Instead of defining the area, this property looks dilapidated and decrepit comparing with the surrounding area. We disagree with the City regarding Criteria No. 8. For the same reason above, the property is not physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. The surrounding area has been contemporary developed. See Tab C for a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report prepared by LHC Heritage Planning & Archeaology Inc. on November 22, 2024. Conclusion In conclusion, this property fails to meet any of the criteria required for designation. In conclusion, this property has no cultural heritage value and should not be designated for cultural heritage. Aside from the age of the building, the property bears no cultural significance nor historical value in its design. The supposed key cultural and historical architectural design was the Gothic Revival Architecture style that ended up being a modern addition that could be recreated for any property. Furthermore, the property has not been maintained. The property is dilapidated and inhabitable. On behalf of the owners, we respectfully object to the proposed designation. Yours very truly, Helena Yiran Shao Shao Law Professional Corporation - 155 - TAB A - 156 - - 157 - - 158 - - 159 - - 160 - - 161 - - 162 - - 163 - - 164 - - 165 - - 166 - - 167 - - 168 - - 169 - - 170 - - 171 - - 172 - - 173 - - 174 - - 175 - - 176 - - 177 - - 178 - - 179 - TAB B - 180 - - 181 - - 182 - - 183 - - 184 - TAB C - 185 - CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT 681 Pleasant Street, Pickering, ON FINAL REPORT Date: 22 November 2024 Project #: LHC0476 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. 400-837 Princess Street Kingston, Ontario K7L 1G8 Phone: (613)507-7817 Toll Free: 1-833-210-7817 Email: info@lhcheritage.com Web: www.lhcheritage.com - 186 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 ii This page has been left blank deliberately - 187 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 iii Report prepared for: Ahmed Chowdhury Banalata Consultants Ltd. 3400 Danforth Avenue, Unit #5 Scarborough, ON M1L 1E1 Report prepared by: Diego Maenza, MPl CAHP-Intern Graphics prepared by: Jordan Greene, BA (Hons.) Reviewed by: Benjamin Holthof, MPl MMA RPP MCIP CAHP Christienne Uchiyama, MA CAHP - 188 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 iv RIGHT OF USE The information, recommendations, and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of Banalata Consultants Ltd. Any other use of this report by others without permission is prohibited and is without responsibility to LHC. The report, all plans, data, drawings, and other documents as well as all electronic media prepared by LHC are considered its professional work product and shall remain the copyright property of LHC, who authorizes only Banalata Consultants Ltd., and approved users (including municipal review and approval bodies) to make copies of the report, but only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report by those parties. Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations, and opinions given in this report are intended only for the guidance of Banalata Consultants Ltd. and approved users. REPORT LIMITATIONS The qualifications of the heritage consultants who authored this report are provided in Appendix A. This report reflects the professional opinion of the authors and the requirements of their membership in various professional and licensing bodies. All comments regarding the condition of any buildings on the Property are based on a superficial visual inspection and are not a structural engineering assessment of the buildings unless directly quoted from an engineering report. The findings of this report do not address any structural or physical condition related issues associated with any buildings on the property or the condition of any heritage attributes. Concerning historical research, the purpose of this report is to evaluate the cultural heritage value or interest and heritage attributes the property at 681 Pleasant Street, and the surrounding area. The authors are fully aware that there may be additional historical information that has not been included. Nevertheless, the information collected, reviewed, and analyzed is sufficient to conduct this assessment. The review of policy and legislation was limited to that information directly related to cultural heritage management and is not a comprehensive planning review. Additionally, soundscapes, cultural identity, and sense of place analyses were not integrated into this report. Archaeological potential has not been assessed as part of this CHER. A separate archaeological assessment may be required as part of a complete application. - 189 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary only provides key points from the report. The reader should examine the complete report including background, results, as well as limitations. LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. (LHC) was retained by Banalata Consultants Ltd. (the Client) on 18 September 2024 to prepare a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) to evaluate the cultural heritage value or interest of the property at 681 Pleasant Street (the Property), in the City of Pickering (the City), in the Regional Municipality of Durham (the Region). This CHER was completed in accordance with the City of Pickering Official Plan (OP). It follows cultural heritage best practices drawing upon applicable frameworks, such as the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism’s (MCM) Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Property Evaluation (2006). The purpose of this CHER is to evaluate the Property for Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI). It has been prepared in response to a municipal request for a third-party evaluation of the Property for heritage value. In our professional opinion, LHC finds that the Property at 681 Pleasant Street meets one criterion of O. Reg. 9/06 (criterion 1). The Property is not eligible for designation under Part IV Section 29 of the OHA. - 190 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction to the Property .......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Report Purpose .............................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Description of the Property............................................................................................ 1 1.4 Heritage Recognition...................................................................................................... 1 2 Study Approach ...................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Legislation and Policy Review ....................................................................................... 4 2.2 Historical Research ......................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Enquiries ......................................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Site Visit .......................................................................................................................... 5 3 Legislative and Policy Context ............................................................................................... 6 3.1 Provincial Context .......................................................................................................... 6 3.1.1 Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18 ................................................................. 6 3.1.1.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 ..................................................................................... 6 3.1.2 Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 ........................................................................................... 8 3.1.3 Provincial Planning Statement (2024) ....................................................................... 8 3.1.4 Provincial Planning Context Summary ..................................................................... 9 3.2 Local Framework .......................................................................................................... 10 3.2.1 Durham Region Official Plan (1991) ......................................................................... 10 3.2.2 City of Pickering Official Plan (1997, 2022 Consolidation) ...................................... 10 3.2.3 Local Planning Context Summary ........................................................................... 11 4 Background Research and Analysis ..................................................................................... 12 4.1 Early Indigenous History .............................................................................................. 12 4.1.1 Paleo Period (9500 – 8000 BCE) ............................................................................... 12 4.1.2 Archaic Period (8000 – 1000 BCE) ............................................................................ 13 4.1.3 Woodland Period (1000 BCE – 1650 CE) .................................................................. 13 4.2 Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Historic Context (1600s and 1700s) ............. 14 4.3 The Johnson-Butler Purchase and Williams Treaty .................................................... 15 - 191 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 vii 4.4 Post Euro-Canadian Contact History ........................................................................... 16 4.5 Survey and European Settlement in the Area ............................................................. 16 4.5.1 Township of Pickering .............................................................................................. 16 4.5.2 Village of Fairport ..................................................................................................... 18 4.6 Property History ........................................................................................................... 19 4.6.1 People Associated with the Property ...................................................................... 27 4.6.1.1 John Fisher (1836-1900) ................................................................................... 27 4.6.1.2 Thomas Mansfield Sr. (1851-1927) ................................................................... 28 4.6.1.3 James C. Clark (1908-1998) .............................................................................. 30 5 Assessment of Existing Conditions ...................................................................................... 31 5.1 Surrounding Context .................................................................................................... 31 5.2 The Property ................................................................................................................. 34 5.2.1 Front Yard .................................................................................................................. 34 5.2.2 The Rear Yard and Shed Structure ........................................................................... 35 5.2.3 Main House Exterior ................................................................................................. 38 5.2.4 Main House Interior .................................................................................................. 43 5.2.4.1 Basement .......................................................................................................... 43 5.2.4.2 First Floor .......................................................................................................... 51 5.2.4.3 Second Floor ..................................................................................................... 56 5.3 Design ........................................................................................................................... 60 5.3.1 Ontario Farmhouse / Gothic Revival Style (1850-1900) .......................................... 60 5.3.2 Prevalence of local Ontario Farmhouse / Gothic Revival Style Buildings .............. 61 6 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest ................................................................ 62 6.1 Heritage Status ............................................................................................................. 62 6.2 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation ............................................................................ 62 6.2.1 Summary of Evaluation ............................................................................................ 62 7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 67 8 Signatures ............................................................................................................................. 68 9 References ............................................................................................................................ 69 - 192 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 viii List of Tables Table 1. Chain of Property Ownership for 681 Pleasant Street. ................................................. 19 Table 2. Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation for the Property at 681 Pleasant Street............... 62 Table 3: City of Pickering Relevant Official Plan Policies ............................................................ 81 List of Images Image 1. View east of Commerce Street and Pleasant Street with the Property at centre, annotated by LHC, 1920. ................................................................................................ 21 Image 2. View southeast of the T-intersection of Commerce Street and Pleasant Street with the Property at centre-left, annotated by LHC, 1923. ................................................... 21 Image 3. View of the south elevation of the house, 1940. .......................................................... 22 Image 4. View of the west elevation of the house, 2012. ............................................................ 22 Image 5. View of the west elevation of the house, 2014. ............................................................ 23 Image 6. Thomas Mansfield Sr.’s general store on Lot 7, Block E on the south side of Commercial Street, 1900s. ............................................................................................. 29 Image 7. Thomas Mansfield Sr.’s general store on Lot 7, Block E, 1291 Commercial Street, 1924. ....................................................................................................................................................... 30 Image 8. Illustration of a suburban villa or farmhouse, 1864. .................................................... 61 List of Figures Figure 1. Location of the Property. ................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2. Current Conditions of the Property ................................................................................ 3 Figure 3: Map of Williams Treaties and Pre-Confederation Treaties. ......................................... 17 Figure 4. 1837, 1860, 1874, and 1877 Historic Mapping Showing the Property. ........................ 24 Figure 5. 1914 and 1943 Historic Topographic Maps Showing the Property. ............................. 25 Figure 6. 1961 and 2002 Aerial Photographs Showing the Property. ......................................... 26 - 193 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 ix List of Photos Photo 1. View west towards Frenchman’s Bay. ........................................................................... 32 Photo 2. View south along Pleasant Street. ................................................................................ 32 Photo 3. View north along Pleasant Street towards Commercial Street. .................................. 33 Photo 4. View east along Commercial Street. ............................................................................. 33 Photo 5. View west along Commercial Street. ............................................................................ 34 Photo 6. View northeast at the front of the Property .................................................................. 35 Photo 7. View east of the rear yard. ............................................................................................. 36 Photo 8. View north of a well in the rear yard. ............................................................................ 36 Photo 9. View east of the west and south elevations of the shed structure............................... 37 Photo 10. View east of the north and west elevations of the shed structure. ............................ 37 Photo 11. View of the interior of the shed structure. .................................................................. 38 Photo 12. View east of the west (front) elevation. ....................................................................... 39 Photo 13. View north of the south elevation. .............................................................................. 40 Photo 14. View south of the north elevation. .............................................................................. 41 Photo 15. View northwest of the south and east rear wing elevations. ..................................... 41 Photo 16. View west of the east rear wing elevation. .................................................................. 42 Photo 17. View west of the east elevation and the rear wing. .................................................... 42 Photo 18. View south of the north elevation. .............................................................................. 43 Photo 19. View of the wooden staircase from the first floor to the basement. .......................... 44 Photo 20. View of the warped wooden boards of the first floor. ................................................ 45 Photo 21. View of rusticated CMU blocks supporting the wooden staircase. ............................ 45 Photo 22. View of a parged cement wall and two three-pane windows with wooden surrounds. ....................................................................................................................................................... 46 Photo 23. View of the fieldstone foundation wall with concrete wall below. ............................ 46 Photo 24. View of the fieldstone foundation wall with concrete wall below. ............................ 47 Photo 25. View of the fieldstone foundation parged with cement. ............................................ 47 Photo 26. View of rusticated CMU blocks, heating equipment and metal ductwork. ............... 48 - 194 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 x Photo 27. A chimney plate stamped “J. Smart Manufacturing Co. Limited Brockville Ont.”, pre- 1912. ............................................................................................................................. 48 Photo 28. Sill plate beams. ........................................................................................................... 49 Photo 29. View of a large square hewn timber beam adjacent to a steel beam supported by a steel pillar. .................................................................................................................... 49 Photo 30. View of a wooden board supported by a steel beam. ................................................ 50 Photo 31. View of a wooden sill plate. ......................................................................................... 50 Photo 32. View of the ceiling boards supported on wooden joists. ........................................... 51 Photo 33. View of the enclosed porch. ........................................................................................ 52 Photo 34. View of the red brick voussoirs with cracks. ............................................................... 52 Photo 35. View of cracked and chipped brick below the windowsill. ........................................ 53 Photo 36. View of the parlour room. ............................................................................................ 53 Photo 37. View of the bay window. .............................................................................................. 54 Photo 38. View of the fireplace in the living room area. ............................................................. 54 Photo 39. View towards the living room with the access door to the basement at right. ......... 55 Photo 40. View of the stamped pattern ceiling. .......................................................................... 55 Photo 41. View of the kitchen. ..................................................................................................... 56 Photo 42. View of the warped wooden second floor staircase. .................................................. 57 Photo 43. View of the second-floor staircase with handrails and newel posts. ......................... 57 Photo 44. View of the corridor to various bedrooms. ................................................................. 58 Photo 45. View of a bedroom. ...................................................................................................... 58 Photo 46. View of a bedroom. ...................................................................................................... 59 Photo 47. View of the washroom. ................................................................................................ 59 - 195 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPERTY LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. (LHC) was retained by Banalata Consultants Ltd. (the Client) on 18 September 2024 to prepare a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) to evaluate the cultural heritage value or interest of the property at 681 Pleasant Street (the Property), in the City of Pickering (the City), in the Regional Municipality of Durham (the Region). This CHER was completed in accordance with objectives of the City of Pickering Official Plan (OP). It follows cultural heritage best practices drawing upon applicable frameworks, such as the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism’s (MCM) Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Property Evaluation (2006). 1.2 REPORT PURPOSE The purpose of this CHER is to evaluate the Property for Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI). It has been prepared in response to a municipal request for a third-party evaluation of the Property for cultural heritage value. 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY The Property is in the geographic Pickering Township in the City of Pickering. It is on the east side of Pleasant Street, to the south of Commerce Street and to the north of Annland Street (Figure 1). The Property is legally described as “LT 6, BLK D, PL 65 (PIN 26320-0307)”. The Property is a long, deep, rectangle-shaped lot. It is in a block bound by Pleasant Street to the west, Commerce Street to the north, Liverpool Road to the east and Annland Street to the south. The Property is bound by Pleasant Street to the west and residential properties to the north, east and south. Surrounding residential properties include 685 Pleasant Street on the north, part of 1295 Commer Street on the east, part of 682 Liverpool Road on the east and 675 Pleasant Street to the south (Figure 2). 1.4 HERITAGE RECOGNITION The Property is not Listed on the City of Pickering MHR under Part IV Section 27 of the OHA. It is not Designated under Part IV Section 29 of the OHA. It is not designated as part of a Heritage Conservation District under Part V Section 41 of the OHA. - 196 - - 197 - - 198 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 4 2 STUDY APPROACH LHC follows a three-step approach to understanding and planning for cultural heritage resources based on the understanding, planning and intervening guidance from the Canada’s Historic Places Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada and the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit.0F 1 Understanding the cultural heritage resource involves: • Understanding the significance of the cultural heritage resource (known and potential) through research, consultation and evaluation–when necessary. • Understanding the setting, context and condition of the cultural heritage resource through research, site visit and analysis. • Understanding the heritage planning regulatory framework around the cultural heritage resource. This CHER is guided by the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Property Evaluation. The evaluation considers the Property against the Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest from Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O. Reg. 9/06) under the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). Evaluation is based on research conducted into the history of the area and the property along with a site visit to understand the design, construction and current condition of the buildings on the Property. A glossary of terms used in this CHER is provided in Appendix B. 2.1 LEGISLATION AND POLICY REVIEW This CHER includes a review of provincial legislation, plans and cultural heritage guidance, and relevant municipal policy and plans. This review outlines the cultural heritage legislative and policy framework that applies to the Property (Section 3). 2.2 HISTORICAL RESEARCH Historical research for this CHER included local history research. LHC consulted primary and secondary research sources including: • Local histories; • Historic maps; • Aerial photographs; and, • Online sources about local history. 1 Canada’s Historic Places, “Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada”, 2010, 3; Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries, “Heritage Property Evaluation”, Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, 2006, 18. - 199 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 5 Online sources consulted included (but was not limited to): • The Archives of Ontario; • Library and Archives Canada; • The Ontario Council of University Libraries, Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project; • The Canadian County Atlas Digital Project; • City of Pickering; • Pickering Public Library; • University of Toronto Library; • McMaster University Library; • Ancestry; • FamilySearch; and, • The Internet Archive. 2.3 ENQUIRIES LHC contacted: • Pickering Public Library on 12 November 2024 for archival research. 2.4 SITE VISIT A site visit was conducted on 5 November 2024 by Senior Heritage Planner, Benjamin Holthof and Heritage Planner, Diego Maenza. The purpose of this site visit was to document the current conditions of the Property, adjacent properties, and their surrounding context. Unless otherwise attributed all photographs in this CHER were taken during the site visit. A selection of photographs from the site visit that document the Property are included in Section 5. - 200 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 6 3 LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY CONTEXT 3.1 PROVINCIAL CONTEXT In Ontario, cultural heritage is considered a matter of provincial interest and cultural heritage resources are managed under Provincial legislation, policy, regulations, and guidelines. Cultural heritage is established as a key provincial interest directly through the provisions of the OHA, Planning Act, the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), and the Environmental Assessment Act. Other provincial legislation deals with cultural heritage indirectly or in specific cases. These various acts and the policies under these acts indicate broad support for the protection of cultural heritage by the Province. 3.1.1 ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C. O.18 The OHA (consolidated on 1 July 2024) and associated regulations set minimum standards for the evaluation of heritage resources in the province and give municipalities power to identify and conserve individual properties, districts, or landscapes of cultural heritage value or interest.1F 2 Part I (2) of the OHA enables the Minister to determine policies, priorities, and programs for the conservation, protection, and preservation of the heritage of Ontario. Part IV, Section 27(1) requires the clerk of a municipality to keep a register of property in the municipality that is of cultural heritage value or interest—often known as a Municipal Heritage Register (MHR). A Property may be Listed on the MHR if it meets one or more of the prescribed criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest. A municipality may Designate individual properties under Section 29 Part IV of the OHA if the property meets two or more of the criteria of O. Reg. 9/06. An OHA designation applies to real property rather than individual structures. An evaluation of the Property using the criteria from O. Reg. 9/06 under the OHA is outlined in Section 6. 3.1.1.1 ONTARIO REGULATION 9/06 O. Reg. 9/06 identifies the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Part IV Section 27(3), 29(1)(a) and Part V Section 41(1)(b) of the OHA.2F 3 A Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (SCHVI) is created based on evaluation using these criteria. These criteria are used in determining if an individual property or HCD has CHVI. The regulation has 2 Province of Ontario, Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, last modified 1 July 2024, accessed 30 October 2024, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18. 3 Province of Ontario, Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, last modified 1 January 2023, accessed 30 October 2024, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060009. - 201 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 7 nine criteria for evaluation of individual properties and nine criteria for evaluation of properties in HCDs. The two sets of criteria are substantially similar. The criteria for evaluation of individual properties under Part IV of the OHA are: 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. 5. The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark.3F 4 Properties that meet one of these criteria may be listed on a MHR under Part IV, Section 27 of the OHA. Properties that meet at least two of these criteria may be designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the OHA. 4 Province of Ontario, “Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest”, last modified 1 January 2023. - 202 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 8 3.1.2 PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990 The Planning Act is the primary document for municipal and provincial land use planning in Ontario and was consolidated on 1 July 2024. This Act sets the context for provincial interest in heritage. It states under Part I (2, d): The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as…the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest.4F 5 Details about provincial interest as it relates to land use planning and development in the province are outlined in the PPS, which is used under the authority of Part 1 (3). 3.1.3 PROVINCIAL PLANNING STATEMENT (2024) The PPS provides direction for municipalities regarding provincial requirements. The PPS includes cultural heritage in its Vision for shaping how communities grow and prosper, indicating that “cultural heritage and archaeology in Ontario will provide people with a sense of place (Chapter 1).” Section 4.6 of the PPS outlines provincial policy regarding cultural heritage and archaeology (relevant definitions are outlined in Appendix B of this CHER). The subsections state: 4.6.1 Protected heritage property, which may contain built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes, shall be conserved. 4.6.2. Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless the significant archaeological resources have been conserved. 4.6.3. Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property unless the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. 4.6.4. Planning authorities are encouraged to develop and implement: a) archaeological management plans for conserving archaeological resources; and b) proactive strategies for conserving significant built heritage resources 5 Province of Ontario, Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, last modified 20 October 2024, accessed 30 October 2024, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13, Part I (2, d). - 203 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 9 and cultural heritage landscapes. 4.6.5 Planning authorities shall engage early with Indigenous communities and ensure their interests are considered when identifying, protecting and managing archaeological resources, built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes.5F 6 Land use planning decisions made by municipalities, planning boards, the Province, or a commission or agency of the government must be consistent with the PPS. The PPS makes the consideration of cultural heritage equal to all other considerations in relation to planning and development within the province. The PPS definition of a Protected heritage property is property designated under Part IV or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; property included in an area designated as a heritage conservation district under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act; property subject to a heritage conservation easement or covenant under Part II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; property identified by a provincial ministry or a prescribed public body as a property having cultural heritage value or interest under the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal heritage legislation; and UNESCO World Heritage Sites.6F 7 The Property is not a Protected Heritage Property as defined in the PPS. 3.1.4 PROVINCIAL PLANNING CONTEXT SUMMARY In summary, cultural heritage resources are considered an essential part of the land use planning process with their own unique considerations. As directed by the province, these policies and guidelines must be considered by the local planning context. In general, the province requires significant cultural heritage resources to be conserved. The Property is not a Protected Heritage Property. This CHER is intended to determine if it meets the relevant criteria for heritage Listing or Designation and if it could be eligible to become a Protected Heritage Property. 6 Province of Ontario, Provincial Policy Statement, 2024: Under the Planning Act, 2024, accessed 28 October 2024, 28, https://www.ontario.ca/files/2024-10/mmah-provincial-planning-statement-en-2024-10-23.pdf. 7 Province of Ontario, PPS, 2024, pg. 50. - 204 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 10 3.2 LOCAL FRAMEWORK 3.2.1 DURHAM REGION OFFICIAL PLAN (1991) The Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP) was adopted by Regional Council on 5 June 1991 and approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on 24 November 1993. The ROP was most recently consolidated on 26 May 2020. The ROP serves to guide growth and land use decisions to 2031. Section 2 includes cultural heritage resource policies with the goal “to preserve and foster the attributes of communities and the historic and cultural heritage of the Region”.7F 8 Policy 2.3.49 states that: 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 districts and properties as provided for in the Ontario Heritage Act.8F 9 The ROP does not include a section dedicated to cultural heritage resources and directs the development of these policies to the area municipalities. 3.2.2 CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN (1997, 2022 CONSOLIDATION) The City of Pickering Official Plan (OP) (1997, 2022 Consolidation) was approved by Council on 3 March 1997 and approved by the Ontario Municipal Board on 21 October 1997. The OP was most recently consolidated in March 2022. A new Draft OP is currently being prepared. The OP provides a long-term set of visions, goals, and direction for the City to help appropriately address changes resulting from anticipated growth. Cultural heritage policies are addressed in Chapter 8 with the goal to conserve Pickering’s heritage in coordination with the City’s planning needs. The OP cultural heritage objectives are: 8 Durham Region, Durham Regional Official Plan. 1997, last modified 26 May 2020, accessed 30 October 2024, 3, https://www.durham.ca/en/doing-business/resources/Documents/PlanningandDevelopment/Official- Plan/2020-Durham-Regional-Official-Plan-Consolidation---Revised-1.pdf. 9 Durham Region, Durham Regional Official Plan, 15. - 205 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 11 8.2 City Council shall: (a) identify important cultural heritage resources from all time periods, so that they can be appropriately conserved and integrated into the community fabric, including:  significant heritage structures, features and sites;  buildings, sites, and artifacts of historical, archaeological and architectural significance including modern or recent architecture;  significant landscape features and characteristics, including vistas and ridge lines; and  other locally important cultural heritage resources; (b) foster public awareness and appreciation of the City’s cultural heritage; (c) prevent the demolition, destruction or inappropriate alteration of important cultural heritage resources to the extent possible; (d) where possible, restore, rehabilitate, maintain and enhance important cultural heritage resources owned by the City, and encourage the same for those owned by others; (e) where possible, ensure development, infrastructure, capital works and other private and public projects conserve, protect and enhance important cultural heritage resources; and (f) involve the public, business-people, landowners, local heritage experts, heritage committees, relevant public agencies, and other interested groups and individuals in cultural heritage decisions affecting the City.9F 10 Commentary on the Property and the City’s broad cultural heritage policies is in Appendix C (Table 3 ). The Property has not been identified by the City as a significant or important heritage structure or cultural heritage resource. 3.2.3 LOCAL PLANNING CONTEXT SUMMARY The Region and the City consider cultural heritage resources to be of value to the community and value them in the land use planning process. Through ROP and OP policies, the Region and the City have committed to identifying and conserving cultural heritage resources. However, the Property is not a Protected Heritage Property and has not been added to the Municipal Heritage Register. It is not identified by the municipality as a cultural heritage resource. 10 City of Pickering, Pickering Official Plan, Edition 9, 1997, office consolidation March 2022, accessed 30 October 2024, https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/resources/Official-Plan---Main-Page/Edition-9/OP9ACC.pdf - 206 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 12 4 BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS 4.1 EARLY INDIGENOUS HISTORY The City of Pickering website includes the following Indigenous Territorial Land Acknowledgment: We acknowledge that the City of Pickering resides on land within the Treaty and Traditional Territories of the Mississauga, the Scugog Island First Nation, and Williams Treaty signatories, the Mississauga and Chippewa Nations. Pickering is also home to many Indigenous persons and communities who represent other diverse, distinct, and autonomous Indigenous nations. This acknowledgement reminds us of our responsibilities and relationships with the First Peoples of Canada, and to the ancestral lands of which we share, learn, work, and live.10F 11 The following section provides a brief overview of early Indigenous history of the general area, followed by a general overview of early Euro-Canadian settlement. The pre-European contact (pre-contact) history of this area is long and diverse. Archaeologists generally divide the chronology of pre-contact land use in Southern Ontario into three primary periods based on characteristics of settlement patterns and material culture: Paleo, Archaic, and Woodland. 4.1.1 PALEO PERIOD (9500 – 8000 BCE) The cultural history of southern Ontario began around 11,000 years ago following the retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet.11F 12 During this archaeological period, known as the Paleo period (9500-8000 BCE), the climate was similar to the present-day sub-arctic and vegetation was largely spruce and pine forests.12F 13 The initial occupants of the province had distinctive stone tools. They were nomadic big-game hunters (i.e., caribou, mastodon, and mammoth) who lived in small groups and travelled over vast areas, possibly migrating hundreds of kilometres in a single year.13F 14 11 City of Pickering, “Council Meeting, November 27”, 27 November 2023, accessed 12 November 2024, https://www.viddler.com/v/18753fba?secret=57115818. 12 Christopher Ellis and D. Brian Deller, “Paleo-Indians”, in The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, ed. Christopher Ellis and Neal Ferris, London, ON: Ontario Archaeological Society, London Chapter, 1990, 37. 13 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, in Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks, prepared by the Toronto Region Conservation Authority, 2001, http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/37523.pdf 14 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001. - 207 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 13 4.1.2 ARCHAIC PERIOD (8000 – 1000 BCE) During the Archaic archaeological period (8000-1000 BCE) the occupants of southern Ontario continued their migratory lifestyles, although they lived in larger groups and over time occupied smaller territories of land – possibly remaining within specific watersheds. People refined their stone tools during this period and developed polished or ground stone tool technologies. Evidence of long-distance trade has been found on archaeological sites from the Middle and Later Archaic times; including items such as copper from Lake Superior, and marine shells from the Gulf of Mexico.14F 15 4.1.3 WOODLAND PERIOD (1000 BCE – 1650 CE) The Woodland archaeological period in southern Ontario (1000 BCE – CE 1650) represents a marked change in subsistence patterns, burial customs, and tool technologies, as well as the introduction of pottery making. The Woodland period is sub-divided into the Early Woodland (1000–400 BCE), Middle Woodland (400 BCE – CE 500) and Late Woodland (CE 500 - 1650).15F 16 The Early Woodland is defined by the introduction of clay pots which allowed for preservation and easier cooking.16F 17 During the Early and Middle Woodland, communities grew and were organized at a band level. Peoples continued to follow subsistence patterns focused on foraging and hunting. Woodland populations transitioned from a foraging subsistence strategy towards a preference for agricultural village-based communities around during the Late Woodland. During this period people began cultivating maize in southern Ontario. The Late Woodland period is divided into three distinct stages: Early Iroquoian (CE 1000–1300); Middle Iroquoian (CE 1300– 1400); and Late Iroquoian (CE 1400–1650).17F 18 The Late Woodland is generally characterised by an increased reliance on cultivation of domesticated crop plants, such as corn, squash, and beans, and a development of palisaded village sites which included more and larger longhouses. By the 1500s, Iroquoian communities in southern Ontario – and more widely across northeastern North America –organized themselves politically into tribal confederacies. South of Lake Ontario, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy comprised the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas, while Iroquoian communities in southern Ontario included the Petun, Huron, and Neutral Confederacies.18F 19 15 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001. 16 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001. 17 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001. 18 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001. 19 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001; Haudenosaunee Confederacy, “Who Are We”, Haudenosaunee Confederacy, 2020, https://www.haudenosauneeconfederacy.com/who-we-are/ - 208 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 14 Adjacent to the Pickering border, an intact late 1600s village was founded by Seneca peoples by the Rouge River and is known as the Bead Hill National Historic Site of Canada. It was designated a National Historic Site of Canada in 1991.19F 20 4.2 SEVENTEENTH- AND EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY HISTORIC CONTEXT (1600S AND 1700S) French explorers and missionaries began arriving in southern Ontario during the first half of the 17th century, bringing with them diseases for which the Indigenous peoples had no immunity, contributing to the collapse of the three southern Ontario Iroquoian confederacies. Also contributing to the collapse and eventual dispersal of the Huron, Petun, and Attiwandaron, was the movement of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy from south of Lake Ontario. Between 1649 and 1655, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy waged war on the Huron, Petun, and Attiwandaron, pushing them out of their villages and the general area.20F 21 As the Haudenosaunee Confederacy moved across a large hunting territory in southern Ontario, they began to threaten communities further from Lake Ontario, specifically the Ojibway (Anishinaabe). The Anishinaabe had occasionally engaged in conflict with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy over territories rich in resources and furs, as well as access to fur trade routes; but in the early 1690s, the Ojibway, Odawa and Patawatomi, allied as the Three Fires, initiated a series of offensive attacks on the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, eventually forcing them back to the south of Lake Ontario.21F 22 Oral tradition indicates that the Mississauga played an important role in the Anishinaabe attacks against the Haudenosaunee.22F 23 A large group of Mississauga established themselves in the area between present-day Toronto and Lake Erie around 1695, the descendants of whom are the Mississaugas of the Credit.23F 24 Artifacts from all major Indigenous communities have been discovered in the Greater Toronto Area at over 300 archaeological sites.24F 25 20 Parks Canada, “Bead Hill National Historic Site of Canada”, Directory of Federal Heritage Designations, accessed 30 October 2024, https://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/page_nhs_eng.aspx?id=531. 21 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, “The History of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation,” Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, 2018, http://mncfn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/The- History-of-MNCFN-FINAL.pdf 22 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, “History”, 3-4. 23 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, “History”, 3-4. 24 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, “History”, 3-4. 25 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Archaeology Opens a Window on the History of Indigenous Peoples in the GTA,” News, 2018, https://trca.ca/news/archaeology-indigenous-peoples-gta/ - 209 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 15 In 1669, Sulpician missionary priests, Francois de Fenelon and Michel Trouve, explored the Rouge River and Gandatsekwyagon.25F 26 The Rouge River Portage extended from the mouth of the Rouge River northwards on the east bank along the river. 4.3 THE JOHNSON-BUTLER PURCHASE AND WILLIAMS TREATY The Johnson-Butler Purchase, or “Gunshot Treaty” was entered into in 1788 by representatives of the Crown and certain Anishinaabe peoples.26F 27 The Treaty contained no exact description of the land covered and was meant to cover land as far as a person could hear a gunshot from the shore of Lake Ontario. The treaty covers the north shore of Lake Ontario, beginning at the eastern boundary of the Toronto Purchase and continuing east to the Bay of Quinte, where it meets the Crawford Purchase. As the Williams Treaties First Nations write: The Gunshot Treaty was made in a series of Councils, first in 1787 with Sir John Johnson and in 1788 with Lt. Colonel John Butler and then confirmed with Lt. Governor Simcoe between the Chippewas of Lake Huron and Lake Simcoe and the Mississaugas of Rice Lake, Mud Lake and Scugog, circa 1794-1795. This treaty concerned lands along the shore of Lake Ontario west of the Crawford Purchase and south of Lake Simcoe.27F 28 Due to the uncertainty of land surrendered and breach of terms from European settlers, several Indigenous groups contested the earlier Treaty. A commission was set up by the Crown in 1916, led by R.V. Sinclair.28F 29 Sinclair concluded: The Indian title to these lands has never been extinguished and I am of the opinion that some arrangement should be made for quieting the title by the payment to the claimants of compensation in the same way that the Crown has dealt with other Indians whose title has been extinguished by treaty.29F 30 In 1923, to settle the matters as quickly as possible, A.S. Williams set out to resolve the land claim issues and offered the provincial limit of $500,000.30F 31 The Williams Treaty encompassed 26 Melba E. McKay, Pickering Women’s Institute, 1957, 11. 27 Government of Ontario, “Johnson-Butler Purchase”, 23 April 2024, accessed 30 October 2024, https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-ontario-treaties -and-reserves#t4. 28 Williams Treaties First Nations, “Gunshot Treaty,” Pre-Confederation Treaties, n.d. 29 Robert J. Surtees, “Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties”, Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1986. 30 Robert J. Surtees, “Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties”, Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1986. 31 Robert J. Surtees, “Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties”, Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1986, 19. - 210 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 16 approximately 52,000 km2 and was signed by seven Anishinaabe Nations and Crown representatives in 1923 (Figure 3). The haste to sign the Williams Treaty was in part due to European settlement on land that was not yet ceded by the First Nations groups. The unforeseen problem with the Williams Treaty was it overlapped with earlier Treaties, including Treaty 20, and omitted hunting and fishing rights – that were covered in earlier Treaties.31F 32 4.4 POST EURO-CANADIAN CONTACT HISTORY Prior to the nineteenth century, the area saw only limited European or Euro-Canadian activity. French fur traders and Jesuit missionaries travelled with and lived with Indigenous communities in what would become Ontario from the early seventeenth-century until the British gained control of the area in the late eighteenth-century.32F 33 International conflicts including the Seven Years War (1756-1763) between Great Britain and France, leading to the 1763 Royal Proclamation, and the American Revolution (1775-1783) lead to a push by the British Crown for greater settlement in Canada which in turn led to efforts to sign treaties with Indigenous peoples.33F 34 The western part of the Province of Quebec, west of the Ottawa River (which would eventually become Ontario) saw little settlement until Loyalists moved north following the American Revolution. 4.5 SURVEY AND EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT IN THE AREA 4.5.1 TOWNSHIP OF PICKERING In 1791, the Township of Pickering was first surveyed by Provincial Land Surveyor, Augustus Jones. It was initially known as Township No. 9, and then given the name Edinburgh. The Township was primarily settled after Asa Danforth completed construction of Kingston Road in 1796. This was a major road from Ancaster to Kingston, which was designed to be two rods wide to accommodate horses and situated a safe distance from Lake Ontario. The crossing of the Rouge River was across a rudimentary wooden bridge constructed by 1811. A majority of the Township was taken up by military and additional grants allocated to largely absentee landholders. Large portions of Township, in particular desirable lands along the shoreline, remained wild well into the 1800s when the original landowners began selling off parcels to new settlers. 32 Robert J. Surtees, “Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties”, Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1986, 20. 33 Toronto Public Library, “Local History & Genealogy, Selections and Full PDFs of “The Jesuit Relations”: Sainte- Marie among the Hurons and Beyond,” accessed 30 October 2024, https://torontopubliclibrary.typepad.com/local-history-genealogy/2020/01/sainte-marie-among-the-hurons- selections-from-the-jesuit-relations-and-allied-documents.html 34 Peel Art Gallery, Museum, and Archives [PAMA], “About Peel,” 2022, accessed 30 October 2024, https://peelarchivesblog.com/about-peel/. - 211 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 17 Figure 3: Map of Williams Treaties and Pre -Confederation Treaties.34F 35 The first Euro-Canadian settler in Pickering was William Peak, who arrived in 1798 and settled along the lakeshore at the mouth of Duffins Creek, working as a trader and interpreter with Indigenous peoples.35F 36 By the beginning of the nineteenth century, the southeastern portion of the Township began to be settled by Quakers from the eastern United States. In 1809, the population of the Township numbered at 180 inhabitants.36F 37 In 1811, Pickering Township became a separate municipality. In 1821, the Township was included in the East Riding of York County. As the Township was characterized by rolling hills covered in hardwood trees, settlement of the area flourished. By 1846, approximately 63,061 acres of land out of the total 74,660 acres in the Township were taken up and in use.37F 38 35 Williams Treaties First Nations, Map of William Treaties and Pre-Confederation Treaties, accessed 30 October 2024, https://williamstreatiesfirstnations.ca/maps-of-our-treaties/. 36 J.E. Farewell, Ontario County: A Short Sketch of Its Settlement, Physical Features, and Resources with Brief Historical Notes, Whitby, ON: Gazette-Chronicle Press, 1907, 11-13; William R. Wood, Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Community, Toronto, ON: William Briggs, 1911, 16-18. 37 W.C. Murkar, “Early Settlers in Pickering”, Pickering News, 29 June 1961. 38 William H. Smith, Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer: Comprising Statistical and General Information Respecting All Parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West, Toronto, C.W.: H. & W. Rowsell, 1846, 146. - 212 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 18 In 1842, the population increased to 3,752 inhabitants.38F 39 By 1850, it had increased to 6,385 inhabitants.39F 40 Throughout the 1850s, in part due to the Crimean War and the resulting economic boom in Canada, the Township was considered one of the best settled townships in the County of Ontario and contained a number of fine farms. The economic centres were Audley and Duffins Creek (later Pickering Village).40F 41 4.5.2 VILLAGE OF FAIRPORT With the continuation of settlement along the north shore of Lake Ontario, the lake itself became a highway of communication and exports. At Frenchman’s Bay, a natural enclosed harbour was proposed as a location for a commercial harbour. It became increasingly important as a port for the export of ship’s masts, pine logs, cordwood, and squared timber. In the 1840s, the Pickering Harbour Company was formed for the development and management of the harbour. By 1845, a channel was opened along the gravel bar that enclosed the harbour, and within a few years, Pickering Harbour, or Port of Liverpool, was a busy port exporting pine logs, timber and agricultural products.41F 42 In 1848, the Village of Fairport was surveyed by John Shier, Provincial Land Surveyor with each rectangular lot in Block D being 1 chain (20.11 m) in length by 2.50 chains (50.29 m) in width, and 0.25 acres in area. When the Grand Trunk Railway (GTR) was opened through Pickering Township in 1856, use of Frenchman’s Bay as a port declined sharply.42F 43 The 1873 Lovell’s Gazetteer of British North America noted that Frenchman’s Bay had a population of 100 inhabitants.43F 44 However, the provincial government funded an upgrade of port facilities in 1875. A new wharf replaced the old one, a lighthouse was built, a new channel was dredged, and a 50 000-bushel elevator was constructed.44F 45 These improvements allowed for the export of large quantities of barley grown in the Township to the United States. 39 William H. Smith, Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer: Comprising Statistical and General Information Respecting All Parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West, Toronto, C.W.: H. & W. Rowsell, 1846, 146. 40 William H. Smith, Canada: Past, Present and Future, Being A Historical, Geographical, Geological and Statistical Account of Canada West, Vol. II, Toronto, C.W.: Thomas Maclear, 1851, 21. 41 R.A. Murison, The Village of Pickering 1800-1970, Pickering, ON: The Corporation of the Village of Pickering, 1970, 3. 42 William R. Wood, Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Community, Toronto, ON: William Briggs, 1911, 163-164. 43 John W. Sabean, “A Capsule History of the Township of Pickering”, Pickering Township Historical Society, Pathmaster, Vol. 1, No. 1, 7 May 1997, 9, accessed 14 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/0/edoc/171049/191.pdf. 44 John Lovell, Lovell’s Gazetteer of British North America, Montreal, QC: John Lovell, 1873. 121. 45 Pickering Township Historical Society, Pathmaster, No. 7, Fall 2022, 10, accessed 11 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=254410&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING&searchid=41c e09cc-f1d7-4882-b6e8-d6f6c73c8ca9 - 213 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 19 Other businesses survived for short periods in Frenchman’s Bay including commercial fisheries and especially the harvesting of ice in wintertime. In the early 1900s, Fairport began to develop as a centre for recreation. In time, many of the cottages were winterized and the number of residents stabilized.45F 46 4.6 PROPERTY HISTORY Table 1. Chain of Property Ownership for 681 Pleasant Street. Property Owner Years of Ownership Instrument Remarks Captain George Hill 1796-1834 Crown Patent All Richard Gardiner 1834-1852 Inst. 1737. ¼ acres. James Youmans 1854 --- Scott James 1854-1866 Inst. 17007. --- William Taylor 1866 Inst. 28010. Through Court of Chancery George White 1866-1868 Inst. 28010. --- John Fisher 1868-1874 Inst. 106. --- Patrick Ure 1874 Inst. 2100. --- John and Susan Fisher 1875-1888 Inst. 3238. --- William Palmer 1888-1893 Inst. 8472. --- Charles Palmer 1893-1895 Inst. 7165. --- Elizabeth Taylor 1895-1897 --- --- Thomas Mansfield Sr. 1897-1906 Inst. 9064. --- Julia Dunn 1906-1917 Inst. 11537. $425. Charles Clarke and Annie A. Clarke 1917-1944 Inst. 14211. $1,400. James C. Clark 1944-1999 Inst. 24221. $3,000. James Peter Russell 1999-2010 Inst. LT892085. All. Kiera Brown 2010-2021 Inst. DR914723. All. Ahmed Chowdhury 2021-Present Inst. DR2033191. All. 46 Pickering Township Historical Society, Pathmaster, No. 7, Fall 2022, 10, accessed 11 November 2024. - 214 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 20 The Crown Patent for Township Lot 23, Broken Front, Concession 3 was granted to Captain George Hill in 1796. The Township Lot was sold to Richard Gardiner in 1834 and he subdivided and surveyed the Township Lot into smaller lots, including the Property as Lot 6, Block D under Plan 65 in 1848. In 1854, the Property was sold to James Youmans and then sold again to Scott James the same year. In 1866, it was foreclosed and sold to William Taylor through the Court of Chancery, who then sold it to George White the same year. In 1868, the Property was purchased by John Fisher. Around 1872, he had the two-storey red brick residential building constructed. The 1874 Kingford Map of Frenchman’s Bay shows the Property at the south side of Commerce Street and Pleasant Street is unmarked. The Property including the adjacent Lot 8 and Lot 9 were sold to Patrick Ure in 1874, and the following year, it was purchased by Susan Fisher. In 1888, the Property was purchased by William Palmer. The 1888 tax assessment roll notes that William Palmer owned Block D, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12; Block E Lots 1 & 12, and Water Lot 1, totalling 2.75 acres valued at $500.46F 47 During the 1890s, the Property changed hands multiple times. In 1897, the Property was purchased by Thomas Mansfield Sr, a local general store merchant. In 1906, he sold the Property to Julia Dunn for a sum of $425. The 1914 topographic map illustrates the Property as being one of two brick or stone buildings in Fairport Village (the other building was located at the southeast corner of Liverpool Road and Wharf Street). In 1917, the Property was purchased by Charles Clarke and Annie A. Clarke for a sum of $1,400. The 1921 Census notes that Charles Clarke and Annie A. Clarke were living in a single- detached brick house and his occupation was manufacturer.47F 48 Photographs from 1920 and 1923 demonstrate the location of the Property within Fairport (Image 1 and Image 2). A 1940 photograph shows the south elevation of the house on the Property with a symmetrical fenestration pattern, a crowning wooden finial above the gable roof end, a red brick chimney centered at the main gable roof, and a red brick chimney at the rear wing gable end (Image 3). In 1944, the Property was purchased by James C. Clarke for a sum of $3,000 who resided there for over 50 years. In 1999, the Property was sold to James P. Russell. In 2010, the Property was sold to Kiera Brown. Photos from 2012 and 2014 demonstrate the addition of decorative bargeboard (gingerbread) to the west (front) elevation of the gable roof and removal of the finials. In 2021, the Property was sold to the current owner. 47 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1888. Line 1229. 48 Library and Archives Canada, Sixth Census of Canada, 1921, Enumeration District No. 109 Ontario South, Sub- district No. 3 Pickering, 4, Line 7, accessed 8 November 2024, https://www.ancestry.ca/discoveryui- content/view/2220182:8991. - 215 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 21 Image 1. View east of Commerce Street and Pleasant Street with the Property at centre, annotated by LHC, 1920.48F 49 Image 2. View southeast of the T-intersection of Commerce Street and Pleasant Street with the Property at centre-left, annotated by LHC, 1923.49F 50 49 “Frenchman’s Bay – Fairport, Ontario”, Pickering Public Library, The P.E.S.C.A. Collection, Item ID: 96-01660, 1920, accessed 8 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=166942&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING&searchid=ff98 146d-6e13-49de-8f78-dc5a62f388cd. 50 “An Aeroplane View of Frenchman’s Bay, Ont”, Canadian Post Card Co., Frenchmans Bay 01. Pickering Public Library, Item ID: 2009-00175, July 1923, accessed 11 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=171324&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING. - 216 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 22 Image 3. View of the south elevation of the house, 1940.50F 51 Image 4. View of the west elevation of the house, 2012.51F 52 51 Brian Winter, “Frenchman’s Bay, Ontario”, Pickering Public Library, The P.E.S.C.A. Collection, Item ID: 96-01657, 1940, accessed 6 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=166947&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING. 52 Google Street View, August 2012, accessed 8 November 2024. - 217 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 23 Image 5. View of the west elevation of the house, 2014.52F 53 53 Google Street View, August 2014, accessed 8 November 2024. - 218 - - 219 - - 220 - - 221 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 27 4.6.1 PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY 4.6.1.1 JOHN FISHER (1836-1900) John Fisher was born in Stonegrave, North Yorkshire, England to parents Joseph Fisher (1800- 1848) and Elizabeth Fisher (née Snowden) (1807-1888). He emigrated with his parents and siblings to Pickering Township in 1842, where they settled on 100 acres of Lot 33, Concession 1. After his father's early death in 1848, John and his mother continued to farm. The 1860 Tremaine’s Map illustrates the ownership of Lot 33, Concession 1 by John Fisher. The 1861 Census notes that he lived in a one storey log building with his family.53F 54 He married Susan Bellchambers (1839-1926) in 1861 at Dunbarton & Canton Church in Pickering Township. They had 6 children and continued to live in Pickering. The 1865 Tax Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering notes that he worked as a sailor and owned 0.25 acres of land in Broken Front, Township Lot 23 valued at $200.54F 55 In 1866, he along with James Hiltz purchased Water Lot 1 in Fairport. After selling 50 acres of the family farm, he and his wife moved to Fairport Village in 1868 where John worked as a wharfinger and sailed a schooner.55F 56 The 1868 Tax Assessment roll for Pickering Township notes that he worked as a wharfinger and owned 1.5 acres of land valued at $925.56F 57 That same year, he purchased the Property on Lot 6, Block D, and other properties including Lot 8 and Lot 9, Block D which fronted Liverpool Road, and Lot 1 and Lot 12, Block E on the south side of Pleasant Street. Lot 1 and Lot 12 of Block E was the location of a large two-storey hotel and adjacent wharf known as the Fairport House or Fairport Hotel upon which he purchased the land with James Hiltz.57F 58 In 1869, he received a hotel licence.58F 59 The 1869 Conner and Coltson’s County of Ontario Directory notes that he worked as a wharfinger.59F 60 In 1870, a contract was awarded by Pickering Township Council to John Fisher and William Bellchambers for the construction of a bridge over Lot 20 and Lot 21 on what is now Sandy Beach Road.60F 61 The 1870 Tax Assessment Roll notes that he worked as an innkeeper and his property was valued at $925.61F 62 54 Library and Archives Canada, Personal Census, Enumeration District Pickering Township, 1861, 105, 29, accessed 7 November 2024, https://www.ancestry.ca/imageviewer/collections/1570/images/4391564_00367?pId=797977095 55 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1865, Line 67. 56 “Highland Creek”, The Pickering News, 26 January 1900, 8. 57 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1868, Line 368. 58 Land Registry Ontario, Durham (LRO 40), Book 348, Plan 65, Lot 1, Block E, 1868. Inst. 28300.; Lot 12, Block E, 1867; Water Lot 1, 1866. 59 “Pickering Township Council”, Whitby Chronicle, 11 March 1869, 2. 60 J.W. Coltson and J.C. Conner, The County of Ontario Directory for 1869-70, Toronto, ON: Conner and Coltson, 1870, 123. 61 “Whitby Chronicle 10 September 1870. 62 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1870, Line 313. - 222 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 28 The 1871 Census notes that his occupation was tavern keeper.62F 63 The 1871 Tax Assessment Roll notes that he worked as an innkeeper and his property was valued at $1,200. In 1872, he received a tavern licence as the owner and proprietor of the Fairport Hotel.63F 64 The 1876 Tax Assessment Roll notes that he worked as a sailor and owned Block D, Lots 6, 8, 9, and Block E, Lot 1 and 12 (1.5 acres) valued at $1,200.64F 65 The 1877 Tax Assessment Roll notes that he worked as a sailor and owned 1.75 acres of land which included Water Lot 1, valued at $1,200. The 1877 H. Belden & Co. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario notes that he continued to own 50 acres of Lot 33, Concession 1 which was his family’s farmstead.65F 66 The 1881 Tax Assessment Roll noted that he owned the south ½ of Lot 23, Broken Front known as the “Whiteside Property”, totalling 10.5 acres valued at $1,500; and Block D, Lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7; Block E, Lot 1, 12, Water Lot 1, totalling 2.75 acres valued at $400.66F 67 The 1885 Tax Assessment Roll (Lot 1-7), 500. And south half Lot 23, 9.5 acres values at $1,200.67F 68 The 1886 Tax Assessment Roll notes he worked as a sailor and owned Block D, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7; Block E, Lot 1, 12, Water Lot 1, totalling 2.75 acres valued at $600.68F 69 He moved to Toronto around 1887 and worked as a grocer.69F 70 In 1888, the Property and Lot 1, Block E were sold. He passed away in 1900 and was buried in Highland Creek Wesleyan Cemetery in Scarborough. 4.6.1.2 THOMAS MANSFIELD SR. (1851-1927) Thomas Mansfield Sr. was born in London, United Kingdom to parents Henry Mansfield. His family immigrated to Canada in 1867. In the 1870s and 1880s, he worked as a sailor and fisherman. He married Ardelia Mansfield (née Marks) (1858-1929) and they had three sons and six daughters. Until 1914, he operated a general store located at 1291 Commercial Street, which was taken over by his son Thomas Mansfield Jr. (Image 6).70F 71 In 1922, he constructed the 63 Library and Archives Canada, Census of 1871, Enumeration District South Ontario, Sub-district Pickering, 1871, 46, Line 20, accessed 6 November 2024, https://www.ancestry.ca/discoveryui-content/view/1934820:1578. 64 City of Pickering, “Frenchman’s Bay History 1763-1965”, X2023-013-070, 27, accessed 22 October 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=252387&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING. 65 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1876, Line 379. 66 H. Belden., Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario, Ont., Toronto, ON: H. Belden & Co., 1877. 67 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1881, Line 429. 68 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1885, Line 475. 69 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1886, Line 527. 70 Find-a-Grave, “John Fisher (1836-1900), n.d., accessed 22 October 2024, https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/58800954/john-fisher. 71 “Death of Thomas Mansfield”, Pickering News, 28 October 1927, 4, accessed 8 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/0/edoc/179470/PN1927_10_28.pdf. - 223 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 29 current building at 1291 Commercial Street which was used as a general store, post office, and residence (Image 7).71F 72 He passed away in 1927 and was buried at Fairport United Cemetery.72F 73 Image 6. Thomas Mansfield Sr.’s general store on Lot 7, Block E on the south side of Commercial Street, 1900s. 72 “Fairport”, Pickering News, 26 May 1922, 1, accessed 11 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=179179&page=1&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING&sear chid=94856b80-93a0-4604-8f8e-b0022eeac325. 73 Find-a-Grave. “Thomas Mansfield (1851-1927) accessed 15 November 2024, https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/137433331/thomas-mansfield. - 224 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 30 Image 7. Thomas Mansfield Sr.’s general store on Lot 7, Block E, 1291 Commercial Street, 1924.73F 74 4.6.1.3 JAMES C. CLARK (1908-1998) James C. Clark was born in Toronto and grew up in England. From 1925 until the 1960s, he worked at Consumers Gas Company and was a Member of the Chemical Institute of Canada. In 1933, he married Fanny Bond and they moved to Fairport Village in 1944. In the 1950s, he was president and a charter member of the Rouge Hill Lions Club, a member of the Frenchman’s Bay Ratepayer and Community Association, secretary of the Frenchman’s Bay Yacht Club, and the Toronto Foreman’s Club.74F 75 He also helped assist with local municipal elections as a returning officer.75F 76 74 Pickering Public Library, “Fairport Village 1”, Item ID: 2009-00168, n.d. accessed 11 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=171318&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING. 75 “To Head Rouge Lions Club.”, The Pickering News, 22 June 1956, 1. 76 The Corporation of the Township of Pickering, By-law No. 4072/71. 15 November 1971, 2. - 225 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 31 5 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.1 SURROUNDING CONTEXT The Property is located in Peel Plain physiographic region. The Peel Plain is characterized by level-to-undulating clay soils, gently rolling topography which slopes westerly towards the Rouge River valley from the Property. The Credit, Humber, Don, and Rouge Rivers and streams such as the Bronte, Oakville, and Etobicoke Creeks have cut deep valleys across the plain. Soils in the area are predominantly imperfectly drained and stone-free clay loam. The Property is in the Rouge River watershed and the most prominent natural feature, Frenchman’s Bay is found 100 metres to the west. The surrounding area can be characterised as urban with a mixture of commercial and residential properties. Commercial properties are clustered along Liverpool Road to the south. Residential buildings are located immediately around the Property along Pleasant Street and Commercial Street. They are generally one-to - two storeys in height. Many residential buildings are of contemporary construction. However, there are several buildings that appear to have been constructed during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Pleasant Street is a two-lane street which runs in a north-to-south direction. It has utility poles, light fixtures, concrete curbs, and concrete sidewalks on the west and east sides of the street (Photo 1 and Photo 2 ). Commercial Street is a two-lane street which runs in a north-to - south direction. It has utility poles, light fixtures, concrete curbs, and concrete sidewalks on the west and east sides of the street (Photo 3 and Photo 4). - 226 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 32 Photo 1. View west towards Frenchman’s Bay.76F 77 Photo 2. View south along Pleasant Street. 77 HouseSigma, “681 Pleasant St Pickering - Bay Ridges”, Listing ID: E5202121, 23 April 2021, accessed 8 November 2024, https://housesigma.com/on/pickering-real-estate/681-pleasant- st/home/gJRv53KJnrx7VPW4?id_listing=dXze3eKzgMgy8m9K&utm_campaign=listing&utm_source=user- share&utm_medium=desktop&ign=. - 227 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 33 Photo 3. View north along Pleasant Street towards Commercial Street. Photo 4. View east along Commercial Street. - 228 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 34 Photo 5. View west along Commercial Street. 5.2 THE PROPERTY 5.2.1 FRONT YARD The front yard of the Property includes a parking space, sidewalk to the front door, small area of grass, a birch tree and some shrubs (Photo 6). The house has a short, approximately 7 m, setback from the street edge. A narrow concrete sidewalk extends straight from the street to the front door. The Property includes a short, narrow asphalt driveway in the northwest corner and a wood gate blocking access to the side yard north of the house. Concrete pavers extend along the front of the house to a wide concrete step in front of the front door. - 229 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 35 Photo 6. View northeast at the front of the Property 5.2.2 THE REAR YARD AND SHED STRUCTURE The Property contains a large rear yard (Photo 7) with a well (Photo 8) and a wood-frame shed structure. The shed structure has a gable roof with a rectangular red brick chimney and the exterior cladding is comprised of horizontal wood siding and vertical metal siding (Photo 9 through Photo 11). - 230 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 36 Photo 7. View east of the rear yard. Photo 8. View north of a well in the rear yard. - 231 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 37 Photo 9. View east of the west and south elevations of the shed structure. Photo 10. View east of the north and west elevations of the shed structure. - 232 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 38 Photo 11. View of the interior of the shed structure. 5.2.3 MAIN HOUSE EXTERIOR The c.1872 red brick building is two-storeys in height and on an irregular T-shaped plan with a rear wing. The foundation of the house is stone and concrete. The front foundation wall is even coursed cut stone (Photo 12). The north and south walls of the house have a coursed rubble foundation with rough mortar (Photo 13). The rear wing appears to be a slab on grade section. The exterior brickwork is laid in a common bond pattern. The mortar has been scribed with a double line mark. The house has an offset gable roof clad in asphalt shingles. It has projecting eaves with a plain fascia and soffit over most of the house and decorated fascia (bargeboard trim) on the front (west) and south elevations. As mentioned in Section 4.6 the decorated fascia elements are recent additions to the house (2012-2014). There is evidence of partial removal of wooden finials above the roof line after 1940 and before 2021 (See Image 3 and Image 4 in Section 4.6). The plain fascia and soffit are covered in metal flashing. The building contains an enclosed wooden porch with a hipped roof (Photo 12 ). The front door to the porch is an aluminum storm door. One-over-one sash windows line the front porch with fixed narrow top lites over the door and each window. The wood wall panel sections of the porch are tongue and groove. The base of the porch is concrete. - 233 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 39 Typical windows on the house include two-over-two, wood sash windows with segmental brick arches and concrete sills (Photo 12 and Photo 13). One window on the façade and on the second floor, north side are two-over-one sash pointed arch (lancet shape) windows with pointed brick arches (Photo 12 and Photo 14). False shutters have been added to house walls next to two of the front windows and one second storey window on the south elevation (Photo 12 and Photo 13). On the south elevation there is a large, modern, three-pane bay window (Photo 13). Evidence of the historic window and a former eaves trough are still present on the wall. The rear wing includes a narrow porch with shed roof on the south side (Photo 15). Windows on the rear wing are rectangular, fixed windows with flat concrete headers and sills (Photo 15 and Photo 16). Photo 12. View east of the west (front) elevation. - 234 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 40 Photo 13. View north of the south elevation. - 235 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 41 Photo 14. View south of the north elevation. Photo 15. View northwest of the south and east rear wing elevations. - 236 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 42 Photo 16. View west of the east rear wing elevation. Photo 17. View west of the east elevation and the rear wing. - 237 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 43 Photo 18. View south of the north elevation. 5.2.4 MAIN HOUSE INTERIOR 5.2.4.1 BASEMENT The basement is accessed from the first floor via a narrow wooden staircase (Photo 19). The staircase is supported on rusticated CMU blocks and the first floor appears warped (Photo 20 and Photo 21). The fieldstone foundation (Photo 23) has been dug out with a formed concrete wall underneath—with wide concrete form board marks present—and parged with cement (Photo 22 through Photo 25). Rusticated CMU blocks (c. 1905-1930s) appear to support the structure in other areas of the basement (Photo 26). A pre-1912 chimney stamp is marked “J. Smart Manufacturing Co. Limited Brockville Ont” (Photo 27). The sill plate of the house appears to be large hewn timber beams (Photo 28). Large square hewn timber beams, milled timbers—laid on their sides—(Photo 29) and steel beams (Photo 30) support milled wooden joists and support the wooden floor boards above (Photo 31 and Photo 32). Some steel and timber beams are supported with steel jack posts. The rusticated CMU blocks, chimney plate, concrete foundations with form marks indicate modifications in the early twentieth century. This may indicate that the house had a crawl space which was excavated into a deeper basement. The steel beams, timber laid on their sides, jack posts and rusticated CMU blocks may also indicate various attempts to renovate the basement over time to attempt to stabilize the house or correct sagging or sloping floors. - 238 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 44 Photo 19. View of the wooden staircase from the first floor to the basement. - 239 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 45 Photo 20. View of the warped wooden boards of the first floor. Photo 21. View of rusticated CMU blocks supporting the wooden staircase. - 240 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 46 Photo 22. View of a parged cement wall and two three-pane windows with wooden surrounds. Photo 23. View of the fieldstone foundation wall with concrete wall below. - 241 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 47 Photo 24. View of the fieldstone foundation wall with concrete wall below. Photo 25. View of the fieldstone foundation parged with cement. - 242 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 48 Photo 26. View of rusticated CMU blocks, heating equipment and metal ductwork. Photo 27. A chimney plate stamped “J. Smart Manufacturing Co. Limited Brockville Ont.”, pre - 1912. - 243 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 49 Photo 28. Sill plate beams. Photo 29. View of a large square hewn timber beam adjacent to a steel beam supported by a steel pillar. - 244 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 50 Photo 30. View of a wooden board supported by a steel beam. Photo 31. View of a wooden sill plate. - 245 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 51 Photo 32. View of the ceiling boards supported on wooden joists. 5.2.4.2 FIRST FLOOR The first floor is accessed through an enclosed porch which leads to the front of the house. The enclosed porch is constructed out of wood and features long vertical sash windows and smaller stained glass transom windows above (Photo 31). The red brick masonry wall features a double line scribe mark in the mortar. However, there are cracks evident above the brick window voussoirs, cracks and chipped brick below the window sills (Photo 32 and Photo 33). Inside the front door a hall leads to stairs to the second floor. Two doorways lead to other rooms. The house includes a large parlour room with windows that look out towards Pleasant Street (Photo 34). In the living room there is a large bay window with a view towards the side yard (Photo 35), a large red brick fireplace (Photo 36 and Photo 37), and a stamped patterned ceiling (Photo 38. The kitchen contains plain, painted, shaker style cabinetry, access to an attic space, and access to the rear yard through a side door (Photo 39). - 246 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 52 Photo 33. View of the enclosed porch. Photo 34. View of the red brick voussoirs with cracks. - 247 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 53 Photo 35. View of cracked and chipped brick below the windowsill. Photo 36. View of the parlour room. - 248 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 54 Photo 37. View of the bay window. Photo 38. View of the fireplace in the living room area. - 249 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 55 Photo 39. View towards the living room with the access door to the basement at right. Photo 40. View of the stamped pattern ceiling. - 250 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 56 Photo 41. View of the kitchen. 5.2.4.3 SECOND FLOOR The second floor is accessed from the first floor via a wooden staircase which has warped treads at the top landing (Photo 40). It has wooden handrails and newel posts (Photo 41). A corridor (Photo 42) provides access to four bedrooms (Photo 43 and Photo 44)and a washroom constructed from a converted closet (Photo 45). - 251 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 57 Photo 42. View of the warped wooden second floor staircase. Photo 43. View of the second-floor staircase with handrails and newel posts. - 252 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 58 Photo 44. View of the corridor to various bedrooms. Photo 45. View of a bedroom. - 253 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 59 Photo 46. View of a bedroom. Photo 47. View of the washroom. - 254 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 60 5.3 DESIGN The c. 1872 building on the Property includes design elements of the Gothic Revival architectural style. This style was popularized in Ontario during the mid-nineteenth century through a vernacular form known as the Ontario Farmhouse. 5.3.1 ONTARIO FARMHOUSE / GOTHIC REVIVAL STYLE (1850-1900) The Ontario Farmhouse (also known as the Ontario Cottage/Gothic Cottage) is a subset of Gothic Revival architecture, commonly found in Ontario and throughout the northeastern United States. The Gothic Revival architectural style was developed by early British settlers to Ontario. Architectural details were translated from English Gothic and medieval stone architecture into wood, creating an eclectic and ornate appearance. The Gothic Revival or Gothic Cottage architectural style was the most pervasive Ontario residential style between 1850 and 1900.77F 78 The growing focus on the rural Picturesque was due to the conditions of workers’ housing in cities and the respect given to the aesthetics of the rural landscape.78F 79 An 1864 article in The Canada Farmer journal from the architect James Avon Smith (1832-1918) (of the firm Smith and Gemmell) provides a study on the ‘suburban villa or farmhouse’ with subtle Gothic elements that could be constructed from brick or stone.79F 80 Being rather larger than Gothic Cottage, his design featured two floors, a cross-gable roof configuration with exterior gingerbread bargeboard, multiple bedrooms, rooms for lounging, second-storey Gothic lancet windows, an asymmetrical front elevation with projecting bay window and verandah on an L- shaped plan.80F 81 This particular design was introduced in pattern-books and proved to be versatile, found in many vernacular manifestations across Ontario in which this design was added to or simplified depending on location and cost concerns.81F 82 These buildings showed that the farmer and his family were very successful. These homes reflected the prosperity of the time, as a result of high grain and livestock prices during the Crimean and American Civil War periods and concerns for style and appearance (Image 8).82F 83 78 Shannon Kyles, “Gothic Revival”, OntarioArchitecture, accessed 15 November 2024, http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/gothicrevival.html. 79 Jessica Mace, Beautifying the Countryside: Rural and Vernacular Gothic in Late Nineteenth-Century Ontario, JSSAC, Vol 38, No. 1, 2013, 30. 80 The Canada Farmer, Rural Architecture, Vol. 1, No. 9, 16 May 1864, accessed 21 November 2022, https://www.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.8_04206_9/5. 81 The Canada Farmer, Rural Architecture, Vol. 1, No. 9, 16 May 1864, accessed 21 November 2022, https://www.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.8_04206_9/5. 82 Jessica Mace, Beautifying the Countryside: Rural and Vernacular Gothic in Late Nineteenth-Century Ontario, JSSAC, Vol 38, No. 1, 2013, 34. 83 Shannon Kyles, “Gothic Revival”, OntarioArchitecture, accessed 15 November 2024, http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/gothicrevival.html. - 255 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 61 Image 8. Illustration of a suburban villa or farmhouse, 1864.83F 84 5.3.2 PREVALENCE OF LOCAL ONTARIO FARMHOUSE / GOTHIC REVIVAL STYLE BUILDINGS The City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register includes four properties with Heritage Value descriptions that describe houses with Gothic Revival style influences. Other entries describe Victorian or Ontario Cottage designs, which based on a Google Streetview review of the addresses appear to be consistent with Ontario Farmhouse / Gothic Revival designs. Several designated heritage properties in the City, including 2390 Rosebank Road, 2319 Wildwood Court, 1505 Whitevale Road, 1200 Whitevale Road and 1860 7th Concession Road appear –based on a Google Streetview review—to have Gothic Revival influences in their form, massing, roof style, gables, window designs and materials. Furthermore, the Heritage Building Inventory in the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guidelines shows several properties that appear to be in the Gothic Revival style or demonstrate influences from the style. 84 The Canada Farmer, Rural Architecture, Vol. 1, No. 9, 16 May 1864, accessed 15 November 2024. - 256 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 62 6 EVALUATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST 6.1 HERITAGE STATUS 6.2 ONTARIO REGULATION 9/06 EVALUATION The Property at 681 Pleasant Street was evaluated against O. Reg. 9/06 under the OHA using research and analysis presented in Sections 4.5.2, 4.6, and 5 of this CHER. The findings are presented in Table 2 below. 6.2.1 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION In our professional opinion, LHC finds that the Property at 681 Pleasant Street meets one criterion of O. Reg. 9/06 (criterion 1). The Property is not eligible for designation under Part IV Section 29 of the OHA. Table 2. Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation for the Property at 681 Pleasant Street Criteria Criteria Met Justification 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. Yes The Property meets this criterion. The 1872 red-brick vernacular farmhouse building contains Gothic Revival influences. However, it is not an early example of the style—which first appeared in Ontario approximately 20 years earlier. It is not rare or unique. As described in Section 5.3.2 Gothic Revival style buildings are common throughout the City. The Property is representative of a Gothic Revival vernacular farmhouse building. It includes features of the Gothic Revival style including the T-shaped plan, brick cladding, segmental arch window openings and pointed arch window openings and gable roof. However as discussed in Sections 4.6 and 5, the significant alteration to the building have been made over time. Finials have been removed from the peaks of the gables, modern metal flashing has been installed over the fascia and soffits, the parlour window has been replaced with a modern bay - 257 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 63 Criteria Criteria Met Justification window, a chimney was removed from the rear wing, contemporary decorative wooden bargeboard has been added to some -but not all—of the gables, and a red brick chimney has been added in the centre of the roof. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The Property does not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. There is no evidence to suggest that the 1872 two-storey brick building has greater craftsmanship than a standard residential brick building at its time of construction (see Section 4.6). The warped floors and various interventions in the basement to stabilize and support the house indicate that it does not demonstrate a high level of craftsmanship. Features to make the house look more historic such as the bargeboard and shutters are contemporary. 3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The Property does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. There is no evidence to suggest that the 1872 two-storey brick building meets this criterion. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The building on the Property is one of last remaining brick buildings from Fairport Village in the 1870s However, there are no direct associations between this Property and specific events, activities, organizations or institutions that are significant to Fairport Village, to the wider Pickering Township or to the City of Pickering. Historic research found that the Property is connected to John Fisher (built the house in 1872), - 258 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 64 Criteria Criteria Met Justification Thomas Mansfield Sr. and James C. Clark. These men participated in community affairs but no evidence has been found that suggests any of these men were historically significant figures for Fairport Village or the wider Pickering community. 5. The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The Property does not yield, or have the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. There is no evidence to suggest that the Property meets this criterion. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The 1872 red brick building on the Property does not demonstrate or reflect the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is important to a community. There is no evidence to suggest that John Fisher may have designed or constructed the building in 1872. An architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist was not identified. Plans or designs for the building were not identified. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. No The Property does not meet this criterion. As discussed in Sections 4.5.2 and 5.1, the character of the village of Fairport is identified as being a mix of properties with buildings dating from the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries. Buildings from the twentieth century and contemporary buildings are predominant in the area. The area can be - 259 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 65 Criteria Criteria Met Justification described as an evolved, largely 20th and 21st century residential area instead of a 19th century village. Surrounding and adjacent properties along the west and east sides of Pleasant Street and along the north and south sides of Commerce Street maintain similar 0.25-acre lot sizes, setbacks, vegetation, massing and lot patterns to the Property due to being situated on lots surveyed under the 1848 Plan of the Village of Fairport. However, the building on the Property does not define, maintain, or support the local character of the area. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The Inventory of heritage properties, City of Pickering, prepared by Unterman McPhail Associates for the City of Pickering in 2002, notes that the Property is one of the few historic buildings remaining from the settlement of Fairport Village in the 1870s. However, due to surrounding contemporary developments around the Property, no significant historical links between the Property and a 19th century village context are present. The Property is not physically, functionally, visually or historically linked in a meaningful way to the surrounding area, to the wider Pickering Township, or the City of Pickering. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The MCM defines landmark as: …a recognizable natural or human-made feature used for a point of reference that helps orienting in a - 260 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 66 Criteria Criteria Met Justification familiar or unfamiliar environment; it may mark an event or development; it may be conspicuous.84F 85 There is no evidence to suggest that the Property is a landmark. 85 Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, “Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties, Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process.” - 261 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 67 7 CONCLUSION LHC was retained by Banalata Consultants Ltd. on 18 September 2024 to prepare a CHER to evaluate the cultural heritage value or interest of the Property at 681 Pleasant Street, in the City of Pickering, in the Regional Municipality of Durham. This CHER was completed in accordance with objectives of the City of Pickering Official Plan. It follows cultural heritage best practices drawing upon applicable frameworks, such as the MCM’s Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Property Evaluation (2006). The purpose of this CHER is to evaluate the Property for CHVI. It has been prepared in response to a municipal request for a third-party evaluation of the Property for heritage value. In our professional opinion, LHC finds that the Property at 681 Pleasant Street meets one criterion of O. Reg. 9/06 (criterion 1). The Property is not eligible for designation under Part IV Section 29 of the OHA. - 262 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 68 8 SIGNATURES Sincerely, Benjamin Holthof, MPl, MMA, RPP, MCIP, CAHP Senior Heritage Planner LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. Diego Maenza, MPl, CAHP Intern Heritage Planner LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. - 263 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 69 9 REFERENCES Archives of Ontario. 2015. The Changing Shape of Ontario. “The Evolution of Ontario’s Boundaries 1774-1912”. Accessed 31 October 2024. http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/en/maps/ontario-boundaries.aspx. City of Pickering. 1997. Pickering Official Plan. Edition 9, Office consolidation March 2022. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/resources/Official-Plan---Main- Page/Edition-9/OP9ACC.pdf 27 November 2023. “Council Meeting, November 27”. Accessed 12 November 2024. https://www.viddler.com/v/18753fba?secret=57115818. Coltson, J.W. and Conner, J.C. 1870. The County of Ontario Directory for 1869-70, Toronto, ON: Conner and Coltson, 123. The Corporation of the Township of Pickering. 15 November 1971. By-law No. 4072/71. 2. Durham Region. 1997. Durham Regional Official Plan. Last modified 26 May 2020. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.durham.ca/en/doing- business/resources/Documents/PlanningandDevelopment/Official-Plan/2020- Durham-Regional-Official-Plan-Consolidation---Revised-1.pdf. Farewell, J.E. 1907. Ontario County: A Short Sketch of Its Settlement, Physical Features, and Resources with Brief Historical Notes. Whitby, ON: Gazette-Chronicle Press. Find-a-Grave. N.d. “John Fisher (1836-1900). Accessed 22 October 2024. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/58800954/john-fisher. Find-a-Grave. “Thomas Mansfield (1851-1927). Accessed 15 November 2024. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/137433331/thomas-mansfield. Government of Ontario. 3 April 2024. “Johnson-Butler Purchase”. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-ontario-treaties-and-reserves#t4. H. Belden & Co. 1878. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the Counties of Northumberland and Durham Ont. Toronto, ON: H. Belden & Co. Kyles, Shannon. “Gothic Revival”. OntarioArchitecture. Accessed 15 November 2024. http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/gothicrevival.html. Land Registry Ontario. Durham (LRO 40), “Lot 23, Concession 3, Broken Front”, Pickering Township. - 264 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 70 Durham (LRO 40), “Lot 6, Block D, Plan 65”, Pickering Township, Book 348. Library and Archives Canada. 1861. Personal Census, Enumeration District Pickering Township, 105, 29. Accessed 7 November 2024. https://www.ancestry.ca/imageviewer/collections/1570/images/4391564_00367?pId= 797977095. 1871. Census of 1871. Enumeration District South Ontario, Sub-district Pickering. 46, Line 20. Accessed 6 November 2024. https://www.ancestry.ca/discoveryui- content/view/1934820:1578. 1921. Sixth Census of Canada. Enumeration District No. 109 Ontario South, Sub-district No. 3 Pickering. 4, Line 7. Accessed 8 November 2024. https://www.ancestry.ca/discoveryui-content/view/2220182:8991. Lovell, John Lovell. 1873. Lovell’s Gazetteer of British North America. Montreal, QC: John Lovell. Mace, Jessica. 2013. Beautifying the Countryside: Rural and Vernacular Gothic in Late Nineteenth- Century Ontario. JSSAC. Vol 38, No. 1. 30. 2 September 2022. “A Cheap Farm House”, c. 1864-onward”. SmartHistory. 2 September 2022. Accessed 15 November 2024. https://smarthistory.org/a-cheap-farm- house-1864-onward/. Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. N.d. Physiography. Google Earth Pro extension. Accessed 11 July 2024. https://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/ogsearth.html. N.d. Surficial Geology. Google Earth Pro extension. Accessed 11 July 2024. https://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/ogsearth.html. Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery. N.d. “The Changing Shape of Ontario: Early Districts and Counties 1788-1899.” Accessed 11 July 2024. http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/en/maps/ontario-districts.aspx. Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. N.d. “History.” Accessed 8 August 2024. https://mncfn.ca/about-mncfn/community- profile/. - 265 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 71 2018. “The History of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation”. Accessed 30 October 2024. http://mncfn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/The-History-of-MNCFN- FINAL.pdf. Murison, R.A. 1970. The Village of Pickering 1800-1970. Pickering, ON: The Corporation of the Village of Pickering. Parks Canada. N.d. “Bead Hill National Historic Site of Canada”, Directory of Federal Heritage Designations. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/page_nhs_eng.aspx?id=531. Peel Art Gallery, Museum, and Archives [PAMA], “About Peel,” 2022, accessed 30 October 2024, https://peelarchivesblog.com/about-peel. Pickering Public Library. 1865. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 67. 1868. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 368. 1870. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 313. 1876. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 379. 1881. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 429. 1885. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 475. 1886. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 527. 1888. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 1229. 1920. “Frenchman’s Bay – Fairport, Ontario”. The P.E.S.C.A. Collection, Item ID: 96- 01660,. Accessed 8 November 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=166942&dbid=0&repo= PICKERING&searchid=ff98146d-6e13-49de-8f78-dc5a62f388cd. July 1923. “An Aeroplane View of Frenchman’s Bay, Ont”. Canadian Post Card Co. Frenchmans Bay 01, Item ID: 2009-00175. Accessed 11 November 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=171324&dbid=0&repo= PICKERING. N.d. “Fairport Village 1”. Item ID: 2009-00168. Accessed 11 November 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=171318&dbid=0&repo= PICKERING. - 266 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 72 N.d. “Frenchman’s Bay History 1763-1965”. X2023-013-070, 27. Accessed 22 October 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=252387&dbid=0&repo= PICKERING. Winter, Brian. 1940. “Frenchman’s Bay, Ontario”. The P.E.S.C.A. Collection, Item ID: 96- 01657. Accessed 6 November 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=166947&dbid=0&repo= PICKERING. Pickering News. 26 January 1900. “Highland Creek”, 8. 26 May 1922. “Fairport”. 1. 28 October 1927. “Death of Thomas Mansfield”, 4. 22 June 1956. “To Head Rouge Lions Club”. 1. W.C. Murkar. 29 June 1961. “Early Settlers in Pickering”. Pickering Township Historical Society. Pathmaster. No. 7, Fall 2022. 10. Accessed 11 November 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=254410&dbid=0&repo= PICKERING&searchid=41ce09cc-f1d7-4882-b6e8-d6f6c73c8ca9. Province of Ontario. “Map of Ontario Treaties and Reserves.” Last updated 23 April 2024. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-ontario-treaties-and-reserves. 1990. Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18. Last modified 20 October 2024. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18. 1990. Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13. Last modified 20 October 2024. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13. 2005. Places to Grow Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 13. Last modified 22 February 2024. Accessed 28 October 2024. 2006. Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Last modified 1 January 2023. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060009. 2021. Ontario Regulation 385/21. Last modified 1 July 2024. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/210385. - 267 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 73 2024. Provincial Policy Statement, 2024: Under the Planning Act. Accessed 28 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/files/2024-10/mmah-provincial-planning-statement-en- 2024-10-23.pdf. Roberts, Arthur. 1984. “Paleo-Indian on the North Shore of Lake Ontario”. Archaeology of Eastern North America. No. 8. 28-45. 1985. Paleo-Indian, “Preceramic Occupations Along the North Shore of Lake Ontario”. National Museum of Man, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mercury Series, Paper 132. Sabean, John W. 7 May 1997. “A Capsule History of the Township of Pickering”, Pickering Township Historical Society. Pathmaster. Vol. 1, No. 1, 9. Accessed 14 November 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/0/edoc/171049/191.pdf. Six Nations Elected Council. “About,” Six Nations of the Grand River. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.sixnations.ca/about. Smith, William H. 1846. Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer: Comprising Statistical and General Information Respecting All Parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West. Toronto, C.W.: H. & W. Rowsell. 1851. Canada: Past, Present and Future, Being A Historical, Geographical, Geological and Statistical Account of Canada West. Vol. II, Toronto, C.W.: Thomas Maclear. Surtees, Robert J. 1986. “Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties”, Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. The Canada Farmer. 16 May 1864. Rural Architecture. Vol. 1, No. 9. Accessed 15 November 2024. https://www.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.8_04206_9/5 Toronto Public Library, “Local History & Genealogy, Selections and Full PDFs of “The Jesuit Relations”: Sainte-Marie among the Hurons and Beyond,” accessed 30 October 2024, https://torontopubliclibrary.typepad.com/local-history-genealogy/2020/01/sainte- marie-among-the-hurons-selections-from-the-jesuit-relations-and-allied- documents.html. Toronto Region Conservation Authority. 2018. “Archaeology Opens a Window on the History of Indigenous Peoples in the GTA,” News. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://trca.ca/news/archaeology-indigenous-peoples-gta. - 268 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 74 University of Waterloo. “Land acknowledgment,” Faculty Association. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://uwaterloo.ca/faculty-association/about/land-acknowledgement. Watson, Gordon. Prehistoric Peoples of the Rideau Waterway. (Ontario Archaeology 1982), 5- 26. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://ontarioarchaeology.org/Resources/Publications/oa50-1-watson.pdf. Whitby Chronicle. March 1869. “Pickering Township Council”. 10 September 1870. White, Randall. 1985. Ontario 1610-1985 a political and economic history, Toronto, ON: Dundurn Press Limited. Williams Treaties First Nations. N.d. “Gunshot Treaty,” Pre-Confederation Treaties. N.d. Map of William Treaties and Pre-Confederation Treaties. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://williamstreatiesfirstnations.ca/maps-of-our-treaties/. Wood, William R. 1911. Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Community. Toronto, ON: William Briggs. - 269 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 75 APPENDIX A Qualifications Christienne Uchiyama, MA CAHP - Principal, LHC Christienne Uchiyama MA CAHP is Principal and Manager - Heritage Consulting Services with LHC. She is a Heritage Consultant and Professional Archaeologist (P376) with two decades of experience working on heritage aspects of planning and development projects. She is currently Past President of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals and received her MA in Heritage Conservation from Carleton University School of Canadian Studies. Her thesis examined the identification and assessment of impacts on cultural heritage resources in the context of Environmental Assessment. Chris has provided archaeological and heritage conservation advice, support and expertise as a member of numerous multi-disciplinary project teams for projects across Ontario and New Brunswick, including such major projects as: all phases of archaeological assessment at the Canadian War Museum site at LeBreton Flats, Ottawa; renewable energy projects; natural gas pipeline routes; railway lines; hydro powerline corridors; and highway/road realignments. She has completed more than 300 cultural heritage technical reports for development proposals at all levels of government, including cultural heritage evaluation reports, heritage impact assessments, and archaeological licence reports. Her specialties include the development of Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, under both O. Reg. 9/06 and 10/06, and Heritage Impact Assessments. Diego Maenza, MPl CAHP Intern – Heritage Planner Diego Maenza is a Heritage Planner with LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. He holds a B.A. in Human Geography and Urban Studies from the University of Toronto and a Master of Planning degree from Dalhousie University. His thesis considered the urban morphological changes of railway infrastructure, landscapes, and neighbourhoods before and after the 1917 Halifax Explosion. Diego is a heritage professional with three years of public sector experience in Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Ontario through team-based and independent roles. He is an intern member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and a candidate member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI). At LHC, Diego has worked on numerous projects dealing with all aspects of Ontario’s cultural heritage. He has been lead author or co-author of over twelve cultural heritage technical reports for development proposals including Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, Heritage Impact Assessments, and Heritage Documentation Reports. Diego has also provided heritage planning advisory support for the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake and the Municipality of Port - 270 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 76 Hope which included work on heritage permit applications and work with municipal heritage committees. His work has involved a wide range of cultural heritage resources including institutional, infrastructural, industrial, agricultural. and residential sites in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Benjamin Holthof, MPl, MMA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP – Senior Heritage Planner Ben Holthof is a heritage consultant, planner and marine archaeologist with experience working in heritage consulting, archaeology and not-for-profit museum sectors. He has a Master of Urban and Regional Planning degree from Queens University; a Master of Maritime Archaeology degree from Flinders University of South Australia; a Bachelor of Arts degree in Archaeology from Wilfrid Laurier University; and a certificate in Museum Management and Curatorship from Fleming College. Ben has consulting experience in heritage planning, cultural heritage screening, evaluation, heritage impact assessment, cultural strategic planning, cultural heritage policy review, historic research and interpretive planning. He has been a project manager for heritage consulting projects including archaeological management plans and heritage conservation district studies. Ben has also provided heritage planning support to municipalities including work on heritage permit applications, work with municipal heritage committees, along with review and advice on municipal cultural heritage policy and process. His work has involved a wide range of cultural heritage resources including on cultural landscapes, institutional, industrial, commercial, and residential sites as well as infrastructure such as wharves, bridges and dams. Ben spent over 7 years working in museums as a curator which included caring for collections and exhibit development. He has experience with museum strategic planning, interpretive planning and policy development. His experience includes caring for historic museum buildings, sites and specialized large artifacts such as ships, boats and railway cars. Ben is also a maritime archaeologist having worked on terrestrial and underwater sites in Ontario and Australia. He has an Applied Research archaeology license from the Government of Ontario (R1062). Jordan Greene, B.A. (Hons) – Mapping Technician Jordan Greene, B.A., joined LHC as a mapping technician following the completion of her undergraduate degree. In addition to completing her B.A. in Geography at Queen’s University, Jordan also completed certificates in Geographic Information Science and Urban Planning Studies. During her work with LHC Jordan has been able to transition her academic training into professional experience and has deepened her understanding of the applications of GIS in the fields of heritage planning and archaeology. Jordan has contributed to over 100 - 271 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 77 technical studies and has completed mapping for projects including, but not limited to, cultural heritage assessments and evaluations, archaeological assessments, environmental assessments, hearings, and conservation studies. In addition to GIS work she has completed for studies Jordan has begun developing interactive maps and online tools that contribute to LHC’s internal data management. In 2021 Jordan began acting as the health and safety representative for LHC. - 272 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 78 APPENDIX B Glossary Definitions are based on those provided in the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 (PPS), Ontario Heritage Act (OHA), the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties – Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process (I&E Process), and the Durham Region Official Plan (OP). Adjacent lands: means for the purposes of policy 4.6.3, those lands contiguous to a protected heritage property or as otherwise defined in the municipal official plan. (PPS) Archaeological resources: includes artifacts, archaeological sites and marine archaeological sites, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act. The identification and evaluation of such resources are based upon archaeological assessments carried out by archaeologists licensed under the Ontario Heritage Act. (PPS) Built heritage: means one or more significant buildings (including fixtures or equipment located in or forming part of a building), structures, monuments, installations, or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic, or military history and identified as being important to a community. For the purposes of these Standards and Guidelines, “structures” does not include roadways in the provincial highway network and in- use electrical or telecommunications transmission towers. (I&E Process) Built heritage resource: means a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Indigenous community. (PPS) Character the combination of physical elements that together provide a place with a distinctive sense of identity. It may include geomorphology, natural features, pattern of roads, open spaces, buildings and structures, but it may also include the activities or beliefs that support the perceptions associated with the character. (I&E Process) 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. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has been approved, accepted or adopted by the relevant planning authority and/or decision-maker. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches should be included in these plans and assessments. (PPS) - 273 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 79 Cultural heritage landscape: means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Indigenous community. The area may include features such as buildings, structures, spaces, views, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. (PPS) Development means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures requiring approval under the Planning Act, but does not include: a) activities that create or maintain infrastructure authorized under an environmental assessment process; b) works subject to the Drainage Act; or c) for the purposes of policy 2.1.4(a), underground or surface mining of minerals or advanced exploration on mining lands in significant areas of mineral potential in Ecoregion 5E, where advanced exploration has the same meaning as under the Mining Act. Instead, those matters shall be subject to policy 2.1.5(a). (PPS) Development: means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures, any of which require approval under the Planning Act, or that are subject to the Environmental Assessment Act, but does not include: a) the construction of facilities for transportation, infrastructure and utilities used by a public body; b) activities or works under the Drainage Act. (In the case of lands on the Oak Ridges Moraine, this applies only to the reconstruction, repair or maintenance of an existing drain approved under the Drainage Act.); and c) the carrying out of agricultural practices on land that continues to be used for agriculture uses. (ROP) Heritage attributes means, in relation to real property, and to the buildings and buildings on the real property, the attributes of the property, buildings and buildings that contribute to their cultural heritage value or interest (“attributs patrimoniaux”). (OHA) Heritage attributes: means, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act, in relation to real property, and to the buildings and structures on the real property, the attributes of the property, buildings and structures that contribute to their cultural heritage value or interest. (PPS) Heritage attributes means the physical features or elements that contribute to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property’s built or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting. (I&E Process) - 274 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 80 Integrity means the degree to which a property retains its ability to represent or support the cultural heritage value or interest of the property. (I&E Process) Landmark means a recognizable natural or human-made feature used for a point of reference that helps orienting in a familiar or unfamiliar environment; it may mark an event or development; it may be conspicuous (I&E Process) Protected heritage property: means property designated under Part IV or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; property included in an area designated as a heritage conservation district under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act; property subject to a heritage conservation easement or covenant under Part II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; property identified by a provincial ministry or a prescribed public body as a property having cultural heritage value or interest under the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal heritage legislation; and UNESCO World Heritage Sites. (PPS) Qualified person(s) means individuals – professional engineers, architects, archaeologists, etc. – having relevant, recent experience in the conservation of cultural heritage resources. (I&E Process) Significant: means in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act. While some significant resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others can only be determined after evaluation. (PPS) Spatial configuration means the arrangement of a property’s elements in relation to each other, to the site and to adjacent sites. (I&E Process) Statement of Cultural Heritage Value means a concise statement explaining why a property is of heritage interest; this statement should reflect one or more of the criteria found in Ontario Heritage Act O. Regs. 9/06 and 10/06. (I&E Process) View means a visual setting experienced from a single vantage point, and includes the components of the setting at various points in the depth of field. (I&E Process) - 275 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 81 APPENDIX C Policy Tables City of Pickering Official Plan Table 3: City of Pickering Relevant Official Plan Policies85F 86 Policy Policy Text Commentary 8.4 (Ontario Heritage Act) City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, where warranted shall implement the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, including the designation under the Act of heritage sites and heritage districts. The Property is not Designated or Listed under provisions of the OHA. 8.7 (Cultural Heritage Inventory) City Council, in association with its heritage committee, shall: (a)conduct an inventory of heritage resources owned by the City, its boards and commissions, and establish an overall program for the maintenance, use, reuse or, if warranted, disposal of these resources; (b)maintain an inventory of heritage resources designated or worthy of designation under the Ontario Heritage Act; and (c) store and disseminate cultural heritage resource inventories and databases in convenient and publicly accessible locations and formats, and maintain an archive of heritage conservation information. The Property is not Designated or Listed under provisions of the OHA. 86 City of Pickering, Pickering Official Plan, 1997 (2022), 109 - 276 - Report to Planning and Development Committee Report Number: PLN 15-26 Date: June 8, 2026 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/25 (Part 2) Amendment to Consolidated Zoning By-law 8149/24, as amended Four Seasons Country Club City Initiated Recommendation: 1. That Report PLN 15-26 regarding the Four Seasons Golf Course be received; 2. That Part 2 of City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/25, to permit an amendment to Zoning By-law 8149/24, as amended, to reinstate permissions for two existing residential units, and permit an accessory residential unit in conjunction with the existing permitted golf course at Four Seasons Country Club, 1850-1900 Eighth Concession Road, be approved; 3. That the Draft By-law implementing Part 2 of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/25, as set out in Attachment 2 to Report PLN 15-26, be finalized and forwarded to Council for adoption; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 1.0 Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s approval of a zoning by-law that will reinstate the residential permission for two dwelling units at Four Seasons Country Club, 1850-1900 Eighth Concession Road, that were previously allowed under the former “A/GC” – Agricultural/Golf Course zoning of Zoning By‑law 3037, as amended, and recognizes an existing Dwelling Unit within the golf course clubhouse. The report represents Part 2 of City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/25. It is recommended that the draft implementing Zoning By-law, as set out in Attachment 1, be finalized and forwarded to Council for adoption. - 277 - PLN 15-26 June 8, 2026 Page 2 2.0 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority of Advance Innovation & Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced Community. 3.0 Financial Implications: This report has no direct financial implications to the City. 4.0 Discussion: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s approval of a zoning by-law that will reinstate the residential permission for two dwelling units at Four Seasons Country Club that were allowed by the former “A/GC” – Agricultural/Golf Course zoning under Zoning By-law 3037, as amended. The by-law will also recognize an existing Dwelling Unit within the golf course clubhouse. This report outlines how the proposal conforms to the Provincial Planning Statement, the Greenbelt Plan, the Durham Regional Official Plan, and the Pickering Official Plan. A draft implementing Zoning By-law is provided as Attachment 1. 4.1 Background On December 16, 2024, Council adopted the Consolidated Zoning By-law 8149/24, which came into force and took effect immediately. By-law 8149/24 applies to the entire City of Pickering, except for the lands that are within the Kingston Road Corridor Intensification and Special Retailing Node and subject to Official Plan Amendment 38. On June 16, 2025, preliminary information about City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/25 was presented at a virtual Statutory Public Meeting, which was initiated to address corrections to errors and omissions in the text and mapping of Zoning By-law 8149/24. On December 1, 2025, the Planning and Development Committee recommended approval of Part 1 of Zoning By‑law Amendment Application A 03/25, which addressed errors and omissions in the text of Zoning By‑law 8149/24 and corrected a site-specific mapping error. In Report PLN 24-25, staff also identified that Part 2 of the City Initiated amendment was on- going to allow additional time for discussions with the representative for Four Seasons Country Club, 1850–1900 Eighth Concession Road, to address comments related to the zoning of the subject lands. 4.2 Public Engagement – Comments received at the June 16, 2025, Statutory Public Meeting The Statutory Public Meeting was advertised on the corporate website, including the City’s Development Applications website, and promoted through the City’s social media channels. The Statutory Public Meeting was held on June 16, 2025. - 278 - PLN 15-26 June 8, 2026 Page 3 One delegation spoke on behalf of the owner of the Four Seasons Country Club at the Statutory Public Meeting. The delegation advised that the zoning applied through Zoning By‑law 8149/24 was inconsistent with the permissions previously in place under former Zoning By‑law 3037, as amended by By-law 3155/89. The delegation requested that the zoning for the long-established golf course and banquet facility uses recognize the dwelling with two units (originally established under the Agricultural Zoning), as well as the accessory residential dwelling unit above the clubhouse, as these three dwelling units have historically been associated with the operation, management, maintenance, and security of the property. The delegation further advised that no new residential units or new development were proposed as part of the application. 4.3 Property Location and Description The subject lands are located approximately 250 metres east of Brock Road, along the north side of Eighth Concession Road (see Location Map, Attachment 2). The property has an approximate area of 36.8 hectares and frontage along Eighth Concession Road. The site is developed with an existing golf course, clubhouse and banquet facilities, maintenance facilities, parking areas, and a detached residential building containing two dwelling units associated with the operation of the golf course. The site also contains ancillary structures related to golf course operations and maintenance. The surrounding area is characterized by rural, open space, and environmental land uses. Portions of the property contain valleyland and woodland features associated with the Natural Heritage System and Greenbelt Plan area. 4.4 Property History Property records indicate that the detached residential building existed on the subject lands, some time prior to the Council adoption of Zoning By‑law 3037 in 1965. The detached residential building originally contained two units associated with the agricultural operation of the property. In the mid-1950s, the lands were developed for a golf course, clubhouse, pro shop, and outdoor amphitheatre. The detached residential building remained on the property as an accessory component of the overall operation. Over time, the clubhouse was expanded to include banquet facilities and additional residential accommodation associated with the operation and security of the golf course property. Until late 2024, five dwelling units existed on the property, including: • three dwelling units within the detached residential building; • one dwelling unit above the clubhouse; and, • one dwelling unit above the maintenance building. The property owner has advised that one dwelling unit within the detached residential building and the dwelling unit above the maintenance building are in the process of being removed. - 279 - PLN 15-26 June 8, 2026 Page 4 Following these removals, three dwelling units are proposed to remain on the property, consisting of: • two dwelling units within the detached residential building; and, • one dwelling unit above the clubhouse. No new dwelling units are proposed through this application. 4.5 Zoning History Prior to the implementation of Consolidated Zoning By-law 8149/24, the subject lands were zoned “A/GC” – Agricultural/Golf Course under former Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 3155/89. The former zoning permitted agricultural, recreational, and residential uses on the property. In addition, By-law 8037/23 recognized an additional dwelling unit within the existing detached residential building. Through the Consolidated Zoning By-law Review Project, the subject lands were rezoned to “GC” – Golf Course. While the “GC” zone continued to permit the golf course and associated recreational functions, the previous residential permissions associated with the historical operation of the property were omitted. The proposed amendment is intended to restore and clarify these limited residential permissions through a site-specific zoning exception. 4.6 Applicant’s Proposal No new development is proposed as part of this application. The purpose of the application is to recognize existing uses and conditions on the subject lands, which were permitted under the former Zoning By-law 3037, as amended. Through the Consolidated Zoning By‑law Review Project, the property was rezoned from “A/GC” – Agricultural/Golf Course to “GC” – Golf Course, which inadvertently removed previously existing legal residential permissions. The site currently contains three dwelling units within the existing detached residential building (two as part of the original construction plus one as a more recent renovation), one dwelling unit above the clubhouse, which the owners indicate support on‑site operations and provide security for the property, and one dwelling unit above the maintenance building. The owner is in the process of removing the recently added dwelling unit in the existing detached dwelling, and the dwelling unit above the maintenance building. A total of three dwelling units are proposed to be maintained on the subject lands – the two in the detached residential building and one unit above the clubhouse. - 280 - PLN 15-26 June 8, 2026 Page 5 5.0 Planning Analysis: 5.1 The proposal is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) The proposal is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS), as it maintains an existing major recreational use within the Rural Lands. The PPS supports a diversified rural economy and recognizes major recreational uses, such as golf courses, as appropriate and desirable rural land uses. The zoning amendment does not introduce new development or intensification of the subject lands. It seeks to recognize and permit existing conditions on the property, including the existing residential dwelling units. Because no new construction or servicing extensions are proposed, the amendment is consistent with PPS direction that development on rural lands be appropriate for the capacity of existing servicing and infrastructure. The continued use of the site for golf course operations does not alter natural heritage features or hazard lands, maintaining consistency with PPS policies protecting ecological systems and directing development away from natural hazards. Overall, the proposal is consistent with the PPS by supporting a rural recreational use, recognizing existing residential uses tied to the functioning of the property, and ensuring that development remains compatible with rural land uses. 5.2 The proposal conforms to the Greenbelt Plan (2017) A portion of the subject lands is located within the Protected Countryside Area of the Greenbelt Plan. The lands contain an existing golf course and associated clubhouse facilities that constitute an established major recreational use. The Greenbelt Plan permits major recreational uses within the Protected Countryside, provided such uses are compatible with the rural landscape and do not negatively impact the natural heritage system or require extensive infrastructure. The Plan also recognizes that accessory facilities supporting the operation, management, and security of major recreational uses may be appropriate where ancillary to the principal recreational use. The proposal does not facilitate expansion of the golf course, additional residential development, new buildings, or site alteration. The amendment is limited to recognizing three existing accessory dwelling units associated with the long-standing operation of the golf course property. Residential dwelling units intended for an employee associated with the recreation use is a permitted use. The existing dwelling unit above the clubhouse supports the function and security of the golf course. The subject lands contain an existing golf course and associated clubhouse facilities, and no new development or expansion of the recreational use is proposed. The proposal does not introduce new buildings, site alteration, or changes to the scale or intensity of the recreational use, it does not create additional impacts on natural heritage features, agricultural lands, or rural character. The continued operation of the golf course and the recognition of existing accessory residential uses are consistent with the Greenbelt Plan, to allow major recreational uses that are appropriately located, compatible with the rural landscape, and do not require - 281 - PLN 15-26 June 8, 2026 Page 6 significant infrastructure or servicing. The proposal conforms to the policies of the Greenbelt Plan. 5.3 The proposal conforms to the Durham Regional Official Plan “Envision Durham” The subject lands are located in the Greenland System and are designated as Major Open Space Areas. This designation is intended to protect connected open space systems while permitting recreational and rural uses compatible with environmental and landscape functions. Major Open Space Areas are predominantly for conservation and a full range of agricultural, agricultural-related and secondary uses. Major recreational uses, including golf courses, may be permitted subject to applicable Regional and Greenbelt policies. The proposal maintains an existing recreational use and recognizes accessory residential uses historically associated with the operation of the property. No new development, expansion of use, or site alteration is proposed. The amendment does not introduce additional impacts on the environmental functions of the Greenland System or alter the rural character of the area. The proposal conforms to the Regional Official Plan. 5.4 The proposal conforms to the Pickering Official Plan The subject lands are located in the Open Space System – Active Recreational Areas within Pickering’s Official Plan. This designation permits conservation, environmental protection, restoration, education passive recreation and similar uses, subject to the provisions of the relevant Greenbelt Plan policies. Active recreational and other related uses, including an outdoor golf course, are also permitted uses on lands with this designation. A portion of the subject lands is part of the Natural Heritage System. A valleyland feature transverses the northern portion of the site and significant woodland features are located throughout the subject lands. The Official Plan requires environmental studies where development or site alteration is proposed within areas of influence associated with natural heritage features. As no new development, grading, vegetation removal, site alteration, or expansion of the recreational use is proposed, an Environmental Study is not required in support of the application. The amendment does not alter the existing development envelope or create additional impacts on natural heritage features. Overall, the proposal conforms to the Pickering Official Plan. 5.5 Zoning By-law 8149/24 The subject property is zoned “GC” – Golf Course within Zoning By-law 8149/24, as amended. Only a golf course use is permitted on the subject property. The golf course can include ancillary buildings or structures operated for the purpose of playing golf, and includes a golf course, driving range, miniature golf facilities and such accessory uses as a restaurant, - 282 - PLN 15-26 June 8, 2026 Page 7 banquet facility, retail store, fitness centre and other buildings or structures devoted to the maintenance and operation of the golf course. The applicant is proposing to restore the residential use permissions that existed prior to the adoption of Zoning By-law 8149/24. It is proposed to zone the property to include an exception that permits three existing residential dwelling units which support the golf club use, two in the existing detached dwelling and one above the clubhouse. 5.6 The existing dwelling unit in the clubhouse supports the golf course use The applicant has indicated that the existing club house has contained a residential dwelling unit since the 1980’s, which has provided security for the golf course. However, the City is unable to find building permit records for the residential dwelling unit. The Greenbelt Plan outlines policies regarding major recreational uses and recognizes that such uses often require on‑site facilities to support their operation, management, and security. In this context, the existing dwelling unit above the clubhouse functions as an accessory component to the golf course use and contributes to the security and maintenance of the property. The unit does not introduce new development, does not expand the recreational use, and does not generate additional impacts on surrounding natural heritage features or agricultural lands. The residential use is compatible with the surrounding rural and recreational character and does not require new or expanded servicing. Recognizing the existing dwelling unit maintains the intent of the Greenbelt Plan by supporting the major recreational use while ensuring that development remains appropriate to the rural landscape. 6.0 Conclusion: The proposed zoning amendment is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the Greenbelt Plan, the Durham Regional Official Plan, and the Pickering Official Plan. The amendment addresses an omission resulting from the enactment of Consolidated Zoning By-law 8149/24 and restores limited residential permissions associated with the long-standing operation of the golf course property. The by-law also establishes permission for a dwelling unit above the clubhouse that has become an integral part of the operation of the Four Seasons Country Club. The proposal does not permit new development, or an expansion of the golf course use. The proposed zoning exception establishes clear limitations on the number and location of dwelling units and recognizes that the residential uses remain accessory to the principal golf course operation. The applicant is working with City staff regarding applicable Building Code requirements associated with the retained residential units. Any required permits or approvals necessary to maintain occupancy will continue to be addressed through the building permit application review process, as appropriate. - 283 - PLN 15-26 June 8, 2026 Page 8 Staff support Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/25, and recommend that the site- specific by-law, as set out in Attachment 2 of this report, be approved and forwarded to Council for enactment. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Draft By-law to amend By-law 8149/24, 1850 to 1900 Eighth Concession Road Prepared By: Kerry Yelk, Senior Planner, Zoning Prepared By: Deborah Wylie, Manager, Zoning & Administration Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, Chief Planner Approved/Endorsed By: Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development & CBO KY:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 284 - -04!0/- P](KER]NG City Development Department Attachment 1 to Report PLN 15-26 mi 1b ct:-------1 ~------j N@t1:e.onc-7 _o:ai:t ;:::~~~~ '--1 ___ J-_ ""'-' -,._ -_ -~ __ .... ;_ ~--1 ubject ~-- ands Location Ma File: A 03/25 Munici al Address: 1900 1850 Eighth Concession Road © The Corporation of the C ity of Pickering Produced (in part) under li cense 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 re served .;© Teranet Enterprises Inc. and it s suppliers. A ll ri g hts reserved .;© Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its supp li ers . All rights reserved. ~ - Date: May. 21, 2026 SCALE : 1:24,00 THIS ISNOTAPL.ANOF SURVEY. l:\PLANNING\01 -MapFiles\02 -Applications\A\2025\A03-25 City lniliated\A03-25 City lnitiated.aprx - 285 - Attachment 2 to Report PLN 15-26 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/26 Being a by-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 8149/24, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, for land City wide (A 03/25) Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering initiated an application to rezone the subject lands, being Part of Lot 17 and 18, Concession 8, Now Parts 1 to 3, 40R-16072 in the City of Pickering, to restore residential zoning permissions for a Detached Dwelling containing two dwelling units that were previously allowed under the “A/GC” – Agricultural/Golf Course zoning which existed prior to the passing of By-law 8149/24; And whereas the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering also initiated the application to rezone the subject lands to recognize an existing Dwelling Unit within the golf course club house as an accessory to activities normally considered incidental and subordinate to a golf course; And whereas the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering considers it appropriate to amend Zoning By-law 8149/24 to recognize the use of the subject lands for the purposes of a golf course inclusive of ancillary uses and activities, and these three existing dwelling units, as accessory to activities normally considered incidental and subordinate a golf course; And whereas an amendment to By-law 8149/24, as amended, is therefore deemed necessary; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.Schedule 1 of By-law 8149/24, as amended, is hereby amended to delete the existing notation “GC” and replaced by the notation X### (GC) as depicted on Schedule I to this By-law. 1.The provisions of this By-law shall apply to the lands being Part of Lot 17 and 18, Concession 8, Now Parts 1 to 3, 40R-16072, in the City of Pickering, designated “X### (GC)” on Schedule I to this By-law. 2.Section 15, Exceptions, of By-law 8149/24, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding a new Exception Zone X### as follows: Exception Zone ### (By-law XXXX/26) 1.Provisions (“X### (GC)” Zone) No person shall within the lands zoned “X### (GC)” on Schedule I attached hereto use any lot or erect, alter or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: a)Permitted Uses - 286 - By-law No. XXXX/26 Page 2 i. Golf Course inclusive of an ancillary special events tent and banquet facility, having an area of not greater than 465 square metres and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, is used for golf tournaments, wedding ceremonies and receptions, and, other similar functions and activities. ii. Detached Dwelling, containing two dwelling units, provided that the total gross floor area of the detached dwelling does not exceed 300 square metres. iii. Dwelling Unit, having a gross floor area of not greater than 90 square metres, within a portion of the golf course club house. iv. Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures as are considered incidental and subordinate to the uses permitted in subsections (i), (ii) and (iii) above inclusive of a maintenance building, which includes an office and meeting room together with facilities intended to serve the daily needs of persons employed on the property, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes the use of shipping containers for the storage of equipment, goods and materials utilized in association with the operation and maintenance for the golf course and related ancillary facilities. b) Zone Regulations i. Minimum Lot Area – 30 hectares ii. Minimum Lot Frontage – 500 metres iii. Minimum Yard Requirements – All Buildings and Structures: a. Front Yard – 30 metres b. Interior Side Yard – 15 metres c. Rear Yard – 370 metres iv. Maximum Lot Coverage – 5 percent v. Maximum Height of Buildings and Structures – 12 metres c) Special Provisions i. notwithstanding Section 2(b)(iii)(b) above, the minimum required interior side yard between the easterly property line and the easterly wall of the club house shall be 6 metres. ii. Shipping Containers a. the maximum gross floor area of all shipping containers shall not exceed 300 square metres in area. - 287 - By-law No. XXXX/26 Page 3 b. notwithstanding the provisions of Section 4.37 of By-law 8149/24, no shipping container shall be located within 30 metres of the front lot line or within 6 metres of an interior side lot line or rear lot line. 3. By-law 8149/24, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 8149/24, as amended. 4. This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. By-law passed this XX day of XXXX, 2026. ________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 288 - "'O ro 0 0:: ~ C) 0 ,_ ((l I ' E 00 ..... tO s:j" ..... -45.85 m E ('") ~ ~ 350.47 m 59.56 ,n - E r--- ~ C") 0 L{) X###(GC) 201.07 m ~ 1nnrn ( 'l"\nt"'0cc-1nn Rl"\<:>rl ~ 561.08 m Schedule I to By-Law XXXX/26 Passed This XX rd Day of XXXX 2026 Mayor Clerk E O"l "-: C") C") ..... E ..... ~ r-- 0 ..... E s:j" O"l s:j" 00 s:j" t IV - 289 -