Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 7, 2022 - Special Agenda Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Special Meeting September 7, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Members of the public may observe the meeting proceedings by viewing the livestream. Page 1. Review and Approval of Agenda 2. Disclosure of Interest 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1 June 22, 2022 1 4. New Business 4.1 Caplink Limited Proposed Applications for a Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2022-02 Zoning By-law Amendment A 04/22 4 4.2 Caplink Limited 815 Highway 7 Demolition Application (2022 009639 DP) 275 5. Other Business 6. Next Meeting – September 28, 2022 7. Adjournment Page 1 of 3 Minutes/Meeting Summary Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee June 22, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Attendees: J. Dempsey E. John A. Khan R. Smiles S. Croteau E. Martelluzzi, Senior Planner, Development Review & Heritage (Staff Liaison) A. MacGillivray, Committee Coordinator (Recording Secretary) Absent: J. Irwin D. Fellin C. Sopher Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 1. Review and Approval of Agenda E. Martelluzzi reviewed the agenda Moved by S. Croteau That the June 22, 2022 Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Agenda be approved. Carried 2. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1 April 21, 2022 Moved by R. Smiles That the Minutes of the April 21, 2022 Meeting of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee be approved. Carried - 1 - Page 2 of 3 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 3.2 May 12, 2022, Special Meeting Moved by E. John That the Minutes of the May 12, 2022 Special Meeting of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee be approved. Carried 4. Presentations/Delegations 5. Business Arising from Minutes 6. New Business 6.1 Summary of Heritage Permits issued in 2021 & 2022 E. Martelluzzi provided an overview of the Heritage Permits that were issued in 2021 & 2022. 6.2 Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Year in Review & Work Plan E. Martelluzzi provided an overview of the draft Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Year in Review & Work Plan and solicited feedback from the Committee. Members provided positive feedback pertaining to the draft report. Moved by S. Croteau That the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee endorse the 2021-2022 Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Year in Review & Work Plan. Carried - 2 - Page 3 of 3 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 6.3 Special Meeting for July 2022 E. Martelluzzi informed the Committee that a Special Meeting will be called for July 20, 2022 at 7:00 pm and solicited the availability of members for that meeting. S. Croteau, A. Khan, J. Dempsey, E. John indicated they would be likely available for that date. R. Smiles indicated that he may be able to attend depending on his circumstances as he will be away. 7. Correspondence There were no items of correspondence. 8. Other Business There was no other business. 9. Next Meeting - July 20, 2022 10. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:29 p.m. - 3 - Memo To: Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee September 1, 2022 From: Nilesh Surti Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Copy: Principal Planner, Strategic Initiatives Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2022-02 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/22 Caplink Limited 745 & 815 Highway 7 File: A-3300-93 The subject lands are located at the southwest corner of Highway 7 and Whites Road and are municipally known as 745 and 815 Highway 7 (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The lands are bounded by Highway 7 to the north, Whites Road to the east, Highway 407 to the south and West Duffins Creek to the west. The lands are approximately 26 hectares in size (see Figure 1 below), and are located within Neighbourhood 21: Pickering Innovation Corridor, within the Seaton Community. The western portion of the lands, 745 Highway 7, is occupied by a two-storey brick dwelling and accessory structure. The lands are not listed or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. The eastern portion of the lands, 815 Highway 7, is occupied by a one-and-a-half-storey brick dwelling, 2 gambrel barns and attached silos. This portion of the property is identified as a Heritage Lot in the City of Pickering Official Plan and is listed as a non-designated property under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Figure 1: Air Photo Map - 4 -- 4 - September 1, 2022 Page 2 of 7 745 & 815 Highway 7 Background The dwelling located at 745 Highway 7 is a 2-storey building cladded in red veneer brick, and the 2nd storey of the rear elevation is cladded in buff brick (see Figure 2 below). The structure is built to a rectangular plan with a low-pitched hipped roof. One interior chimney is present on the west side of the rear elevation. It was likely built in the early 20th century (1910s-1920s). While it is possible that the existing house was built upon the foundations of an earlier structure, the current house was not built over the earlier one-and-a-half frame farmhouse shown on the 1877 Historical Atlas map and noted in the 1861 census. Figure 2: 745 Highway 7 (WSP, 2022) The dwelling located at 815 Highway 7 is known as the Percy House, which is described as a one-and-a-half-storey brick Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical and Georgian influences (see Figure 3 below). It was constructed in 1853 with a side gable roof and rectangular plan, it also has a one-storey rear addition projecting from the south elevation. The main façade was constructed using a fine example of a Flemish bond, while the other elevations were constructed using a Common Bond. The dwelling is sited on a fieldstone foundation. Figure 3: 845 Highway 7 (WSP, 2022) - 5 - September 1, 2022 Page 3 of 7 745 & 815 Highway 7 The 1861 census lists John Percy, his wife Elizabeth, and their eight children as living in the house. The Percy family retained ownership until the late nineteenth century. All of Lot 27, Concession 5 was expropriated by the Province of Ontario in 1974. Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications Caplink Limited (FGF Brands) has submitted applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment (City Files SP-2022-02 and A 04/22) to facilitate a food manufacturing facility consisting of five buildings, including four manufacturing plants and one distribution centre. The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision contains four blocks for employment uses, one block for a stormwater management facility, one block for a natural heritage feature, one block for a future road widening and a new public street (see Submitted Draft Plan, Attachment #2). The Zoning By-law Amendment proposes to rezone the lands to an appropriate zone category to permit the proposed uses and establish appropriate development standards. The applicant plans to demolish the existing dwelling and associated structures at 745 Highway 7. The Percy House, at 815 Highway 7, will be relocated to the southeast corner of Highway 7 and a new municipal road. The applicant is proposing to demolish the rear addition to the farmhouse and construct a 185 square metre modern addition. The building will be sited within a landscaped area and will be used for a learning centre/office (see Submitted Conceptual Site Plan, Attachment #3). The barns and silos, and landscape features on the property are proposed to be demolished with select building materials salvaged for use on or off-site. On August 25, 2022, Caplink Limited submitted a Demolition application to demolish/dismantle the two barns and two silos on the subject lands. The Demolition application is included on the September 7th, 2022 Heritage Pickering Agenda (see Memo to the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, dated September 1, 2022, Demolition Application). At this time, the applicant has not submitted a Demolition application to remove the rear addition of the Percy House. In addition, a Fill & Top Soil permit is currently under review to enable the applicant to commence earthworks in early Fall. Supporting Documents In support of the applications, the applicant submitted a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report and a Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by WSP, dated May 18, 2022, and updated on August 19, 2022. The applicant also submitted a Structural Assessment and Feasibility Study, prepared by WSP, dated May 27, 2022; Peer Review Response Matrix, prepared by WSP, dated August 19, 2022; HIA Addendum Memorandum, prepared by WSP, dated August 19, 2022; Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report, prepared by WSP, dated August 22, 2022, and Temporary Protection and Mothball Plans, prepared by WSP, dated August 22, 2022. The Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER), was completed for the western property at 745 Highway 7 (see CHER, dated August 19, 2022, Attachment #4). The purpose of the CHER is to determine if the property demonstrates Cultural Heritage Value or Interest through the evaluation of the property against the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06. The study determined that the property does not merit designation criteria under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. - 6 - September 1, 2022 Page 4 of 7 745 & 815 Highway 7 The Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was completed for 815 Highway 7 (see HIA, dated August 19, 2022, Attachment #5), and notes options for inclusion and reuse of the building into the site, and lists potential impacts to the heritage attributes as a result of the planned development. The HIA also recommends that 815 Highway 7 meets the criteria for designation as set out in Ontario Regulation 9/06. The HIA considered four options to conserve the cultural heritage attributes of the property: 1. Do nothing: preserve and maintain Percy House, Barns 1 and 2, Silos 1 and 2, and all landscape heritage attributes in situ with no further development of the property. 2. Preserve and maintain Percy House, barns and silos in situ with adaptive reuse of these structures and development of a manufacturing campus around these structures on the property. 3. Relocate the Percy House within the site to a more convenient location with adaptive reuse, dismantle and salvage heritage attributes from Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2 and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. 4. Remove Percy House, Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2, salvaging heritage attributes from the structures and developing the manufacturing campus on the property. The HIA indicates that while Option 1 is the preferred approach from a cultural heritage perspective, this option is not feasible within the existing land-use planning framework, given that the lands are designated Prestige Employment in the Pickering Official Plan, and therefore advises proceeding with Option 3 with several conservation/mitigation strategies. The evaluation of potential negative impacts (direct and indirect) of Option 3 as per the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit guidance on land-use planning indicates that undertaking this option will have “major” impacts on the property related to: • destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes, or features; • alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; • isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; • a change in land use such as rezoning a field from open space to residential use; and, • facilitation of a new development or site alteration to fill unused, open spaces. The HIA proposes to reduce the impact of this option to “minor” through the implementation of the following mitigation measures (see Section 10.1 of the HIA for a detailed summary of the impact of this option): • undertake a Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) for the property; • undertake a Mothballing Plan for Percy House; • undertake a Conservation Plan detailing how the cultural heritage resources will be conserved; • design new buildings immediately surrounding the Percy House to reflect a similar massing, height and materials; • undertake a Landscape Plan for the area around the Percy House incorporating vegetative screening between it and the new buildings; - 7 - September 1, 2022 Page 5 of 7 745 & 815 Highway 7 • complete a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report to document barns, silos and rear addition, and identify materials for salvage; • salvage identified materials; • complete adaptive reuse of Percy House in a sympathetic and compatible manner; and • monitor dust emissions and vibrations during construction. A peer review was undertaken by Branch Architecture The City retained Branch Architecture to peer review the cultural heritage material submitted as part of the applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment, and more recently the Demolition Application submission. Branch Architecture visited the site with City Development staff on June 24, 2022, and provided a thorough assessment of the earlier versions of the HIA and the CHER, and provided detailed comments in the Preliminary Peer Review Letters, dated July 17, 2022, and August 28, 2022, Attachments #6 and #7. The peer review found that the submitted heritage reports have been completed in keeping with best practices and that they provide a responsible plan for the conservation of the most significant built attributes on the property. The HIA indicates that the original Percy House is to be restored and rehabilitated as a learning centre, and recommends that the salvaged elements from the rear addition be reused. Two barns and a wood crib silo (Silo 1) are reused, interpreted and meaningfully integrated into a larger development. With respect to the updated HIA and CHER, they have been generally been updated to reflect the peer review comments provided in the Branch Architecture letter, dated July 17, 2022. The HIA has deferred providing additional information in response to comments #2, #3, and #4 (from the July 17, 2022 letter) to the Conservation Plan, Commemoration Plan and/or Landscape Plan. These comments are repeated for information, and are important design considerations to be resolved as the project progresses: Comment #2: Provide an explanation for why the Percy House is a good candidate for relocation. Building relocation is considered a last resort to conserve a built heritage resource. This is articulated in the City of Pickering Official Plan (Section 8.9), the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines (Standard 1); and the Eight guiding principles in the conservation of historical properties (No. 2). This discussion should speak to the following: • the proposed placement, orientation and setting of Percy House; and • that an experienced heritage building mover has determined that Percy House can be moved safely. Comment #3: Provide more information regarding the conservation of Percy House: • the general scope of building restoration/repairs; • drawings showing how the building will be rehabilitated for use as a learning centre including interior upgrades and uses, and the complete design of the rear addition; - 8 - September 1, 2022 Page 6 of 7 745 & 815 Highway 7 • drawings showing the landscape around Percy House and considering: preserving views of the Percy House from Highway 7; providing an appropriately sized landscape buffer between the Percy House and the adjacent roads, parking and building; the use of landscaping to frame the house and provide a visual buffer between it and the adjacent manufacturing facility; the building's traditional setting within a farmstead; the incorporation of salvaged elements from the barns and silos; and other related design approaches; and, • Commemoration and/or interpretation scope and themes. Comment #4: Provide a discussion on how the design of the manufacturing facility – buildings, landscape and urban design – is compatible with Percy House. This should address how the proposed site intensification – siting, massing, scale, and materials of the new construction – are sympathetic to and conserve the heritage attributes of the property and serve to conserve the heritage value of the property on the whole. As stated in the preliminary peer review, the reviewer advises that the Percy House property merits designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and, as such, should be conserved in keeping with heritage best practices. Staff Comments Staff have reviewed the initial and updated HIA reports and the peer review letters, and concur with Branch Architecture’s comments and suggestions to revise the Heritage Impact Assessment. In general, the concept provides a thoughtful approach to conserving the Percy House and acknowledges the impacts of the proposed development. Staff agree that the proposal needs to be refined to provide adequate space, landscaping and buffer area between the proposed dwelling and the surrounding new development. The landscape strategy should be informed by the building’s agricultural setting. While it is regrettable that the barns and silo will be demolished, staff recommend that the applicant provides a thoughtful approach to documentation and salvage. Subsequent submissions should include details as to what will be salvaged and where or how they will be located on the site. Staff offer the following recommendations to the Committee: 1. That Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee supports the applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment (Files SP-2022-02 and A 04/22), which retains and relocates the Percy House within the development, and that before the issuance of Site Plan Approval, Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee be consulted on the final siting of the Percy House, the addition and proposed landscaping; 2. That the Heritage Impact Assessment be revised as per the recommendations of Branch Architecture in their comment letter dated August 28, 2022, and the concerns be addressed with respect to the details regarding the conservation, restoration and reuse of the Percy House; 3. That the applicant provide a Conservation Plan, prior to the issuance of Site Plan Approval, and the Conservation Plan shall include: • a conservation strategy/design rationale addressing the overall site plan and discussing the compatibility of the new construction with the retained heritage buildings and attributes; - 9 - September 1, 2022 Page 7 of 7 745 & 815 Highway 7 • a detailed description of the conservation (restoration and rehabilitation) scope of work for Percy House is supported by architectural and landscape drawings; • a commemoration plan; and, • a long-term building conservation and maintenance plan. 4. That the property at 815 Highway 7, be designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and that a heritage designation by-law be enacted by Council following the final siting of the Percy House; 5. That the City enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the Owner to ensure the ongoing maintenance, protection and repair of the Percy House in keeping with the heritage designation by-law and the Ontario Heritage Act; and, 6. That the comments and discussion of Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee be included by staff in a future recommendation report to the Planning & Development Committee. Next Steps A Statutory Public Meeting is scheduled for September 6, 2022, to obtain public comments on the applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the food manufacturing facility on the subject lands. At the time of writing the report, staff did not receive comments from the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee regarding the applications. The applicant will be required to address all staff, public, and agency comments prior to staff bringing forward a recommendation report to the Planning and Development Committee. As noted, on August 25, 2022, Caplink Limited submitted a Demolition Application to demolish/dismantle the two barns and two silos located on 815 Highway 7. The Demolition Application is included on September 7, 2022, Heritage Pickering Agenda, please refer to the Demolition Application Memo, dated September 1, 2022. Heritage Pickering comments on this matter will be included in staff’s recommendation report for the September 19, 2022, Council meeting. Furthermore, the development is subject to Site Plan Approval. Through the Site Plan Review process, Heritage Pickering will have additional opportunities to review and comment on the conservation plan, details regarding the restoration of the Percy House, and siting and landscaping surrounding the building. CC:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3200\2022\SP-2022-02, A 04-22 Caplink Limited (FGF)\Heritage\Special Heritage Meeting Sept 7\memo - Applications\Memo to Committee, Aug 31 (Final).docx Attachment #1: Location Map Attachment #2: Submitted Draft Plan Attachment #3: Submitted Conceptual Site Plan Attachment #4: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, prepared by WSP, dated August 19, 2022 Attachment #5: Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by WSP, dated August 19, 2022 Attachment #6: Peer Review Letter, prepared by Branch Architecture, dated July 17, 2022 Attachment #7: Peer Review Letter, prepared by Branch Architecture, dated August 28, 2022 - 10 - Highway 7 W h i t es Road 407 Highway Si d e l i n e 2 6 Si d e l i n e 2 8 City Development Department Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: SP-2022-02 & A 04/22 Date: Jul. 21, 2022 Caplink Limited 745 Highway 7 and 815 Highway 7 L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\SP\2022\SP-2022-02, A 04-22 Caplink Limited\SP-2022-03_LocationMap_v2.mxd 1:7,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. 745 Highway 7 815 Highway 7 SubjectLands Attachment #1 - 11 - L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\SP\2021 July 20, 2022DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department SP-2022-02 & A 04/22 Caplink Limited 745 Highway 7 and 815 Highway 7 N Attachment #2 - 12 - L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\SP\2021 August 16, 2022DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Submitted Conceptual Site Plan FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department SP-2022-02 & A 04/22 Caplink Limited 745 Highway 7 and 815 Highway 7 N Attachment #3 - 13 - CAPLINK LIMITED CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT 745 HIGHWAY 7, CITY OF PICKERING AUGUST 19, 2022 ORIGINAL REPORT Attachment #4 - 14 - CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT 745 HIGHWAY 7, CITY OF PICKERING CAPLINK LIMITED ORIGINAL REPORT ORIGINAL REPORT WSP PROJECT NO.: 211-03925-00 DATE: AUGUST 19, 2022 WSP 582 LANCASTER STREET WEST KITCHENER, ON N2K 1M3 T: +1 519-743-8778 WSP.COM - 15 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page iii S I G N A T U R E S PREPARED BY Emily Game, BA Cultural Heritage Specialist August 19, 2022 Date APPROVED BY Joel Konrad, PhD, CAHP Cultural Heritage Lead - Ontario August 19, 2022 Date WSP Canada Inc. (“WSP”) prepared this report solely for the use of the intended recipient, Caplink Limited, in accordance with the professional services agreement between the parties. In the event a contract has not been executed, the parties agree that the WSP General Terms for Consultant shall govern their business relationship which was provided to you prior to the preparation of this report. The report is intended to be used in its entirety. No excerpts may be taken to be representative of the findings in the assessment. The conclusions presented in this report are based on work performed by trained, professional and technical staff, in accordance with their reasonable interpretation of current and accepted engineering and scientific practices at the time the work was performed. The content and opinions contained in the present report are based on the observations and/or information available to WSP at the time of preparation, using investigation techniques and engineering analysis methods consistent with those ordinarily exercised by WSP and other engineering/scientific practitioners working under similar conditions, and subject to the same time, financial and physical constraints applicable to this project. WSP disclaims any obligation to update this report if, after the date of this report, any conditions appear to differ significantly from those presented in this report; however, WSP reserves the right to amend or supplement this report based on additional information, documentation or evidence. WSP makes no other representations whatsoever concerning the legal significance of its findings. The intended recipient is solely responsible for the disclosure of any information contained in this report. If a third party makes use of, relies on, or makes decisions in accordance with this report, said third party is solely responsible for such use, reliance or decisions. W SP does not accept responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken by said third party based on this report. WSP has provided services to the intended recipient in accordance with the professional services agreement between the parties and in a manner consistent with that degree of care, skill and diligence normally provided by members of the same profession performing the same or comparable services in respect of projects of a similar nature in similar circumstances. It is understood and agreed by WSP and the recipient of this report that WSP provides no warranty, express or implied, of any kind. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it is agreed and understood by WSP and the recipient of this report that WSP makes no representation or warranty what soever as to the sufficiency of its scope of work for the purpose sought by the recipient of this report. In preparing this report, WSP has relied in good faith on information provided by others, as noted in the report. WSP has reasonably assumed that the information provided is correct and WSP is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of such information. Benchmark and elevations used in this report are primarily to establish relative elevation differences between the specific testing and/or sampling locations and should not be used for other purposes, such as grading, excavating, construction, planning, development, etc. - 16 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page iv The original of this digital file will be kept by WSP for a period of not less than 10 years. As the digital file transmitted to the intended recipient is no longer under the control of WSP, its integrity cannot be assured. As such, WSP does not guarantee any modifications made to this digital file subsequent to its transmission to the intended recipient. This limitations statement is considered an integral part of this report. - 17 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page v E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y WSP was retained by the Biglieri Group on behalf of Caplink Limited to complete a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for the property located at 745 Highway 7 in the City of Pickering. The report was undertaken to accompany the submission of a Site Plan Application for the 23.8 hectare development of two properties on Highway 7, including: 815 and 745 Highway 7 (the project location), which is proposing the phased construction of five industrial buildings as part of the development of the FGF Pickering Manufacturing Campus. The principal built heritage resource on the subject property is a vernacular residence likely built in the early 20th century. The property is not included as a listed or designated property on the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register (2021). The property at 745 Highway 7 is currently owned by: Infrastructure Ontario Suite 2000, 1 Dundas Street West Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1Z3 In June 2022, property ownership will be transferred to: CapLink Limited 1295 Ormont Drive Toronto, Ontario M9L 2W6 The CHER was prepared in accordance with the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (2010) and Heritage Identification and Evaluation Process (2014). The primary purpose of this report is to evaluate the property using Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.) 9/06 and , if applicable, O. Reg. 10/06 to determine if it retains cultural heritage value or interest. Based on the results of research, site investigation, and application of the criteria in O. Reg. 9/06, 745 Highway 7 does not possess cultural heritage value or interest. The property was not found to have design or physical value as it is a modest, vernacular expression of rural residential construction common across Ontario. Similarly, it was not found to possess historical or associative value as it is not associated with any notable individuals, associations, institutions or themes or demonstrative of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist significant to the community. While the subject property is located within its historical context, it is not significantly physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to the surrounding Highway 7 streetscape . While the residence on the property is believed to date to the mid-nineteenth century, it has been highly altered and no longer reflects the characteristics of a nineteenth century farmstead. Additionally, the barn from the subject property was removed between 2002 and 2005, further removing the prope rty’s connection to the surrounding rural character. Accordingly, the property has not been recommended for consideration as a Provincial Heritage Property. - 18 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page vi The completion of this study has resulted in the following recommendations: 1 The property at 745 Highway 7 was determined not to possess cultural heritage value or interest. No further cultural heritage reporting is recommended. 2 Once finalized, a copy of this CHER should be distributed to the City of Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive . - 19 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page vii P R O J E C T P E R S O N N E L CLIENT Client Contact Martin Ng, P. Eng CapLink Limited WSP Project Manager Emily Game Cultural Heritage Specialist, B.A Report Preparation Emily Game Cultural Heritage Specialist GIS and Mapping Tanya Peterson, HBA Senior GIS Technician Report Review Joel Konrad, PhD, CAHP Cultural Heritage Lead – Ontario - 20 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page viii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1 1.1 Report Objectives ................................................ 1 1.2 Project Description .............................................. 2 2 LEGISLATION AND POLICY CONTEXT ........ 6 2.1 Federal, Provincial and Municipal Context and Policies ................................................................. 6 2.1.1 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ....... 6 2.1.2 Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement ................................... 7 2.1.3 Ontario Heritage Act (2005) ............................................................. 8 2.1.4 Region of Durham Official Plan ........................................................ 9 2.1.5 City of Pickering Official Plan ......................................................... 10 3 METHODOLOGY .......................................... 13 4 CONSULTATION .......................................... 14 5 HISTORICAL CONTEXT ............................... 15 5.1 Pre-European Contact Period ........................... 15 5.2 Post-Contact Period .......................................... 21 5.3 Ontario County .................................................. 22 5.4 Pickering Township ........................................... 23 5.5 Community of Whitevale ................................... 24 5.6 Community of Green River ............................... 24 5.7 Site-Specific History: 745 Highway 7 ............... 25 6 EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................. 28 6.1 Description of Study Area and Landscape Context ............................................................... 28 6.2 Residence .......................................................... 28 6.2.1 Exterior Description ....................................................................... 28 6.2.2 Driveshed ..................................................................................... 37 - 21 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page ix TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.2.3 Alteration History .......................................................................... 42 6.3 Discussion of Integrity ...................................... 42 6.4 Architectural Style ............................................. 46 6.4.1 Edwardian .................................................................................... 46 6.4.2 Comparative Analysis ................................................................... 49 7 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION ........ 53 7.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 .................................... 53 8 CONCLUSIONS ............................................ 55 9 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 56 10 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................ 57 TABLES TABLE 6-1: HERITAGE INTEGRITY ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPERTY ......................................... 43 TABLE 6-3: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HERITAGE PROPERTIES OF A SIMILAR AGE, STYLE AND/OR TYPOLOGY ............................... 50 TABLE 7-1: EVALUATION OF 745 HIGHWAY 7 AS PER O. REG. 9/06 ................................................ 53 FIGURES FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION ........................ 3 FIGURE 2: STUDY AREA ..................................... 4 FIGURE 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS .................... 5 FIGURE 4: TREMAINE’S MAP OF THE COUNTY OF ONTARIO (1860) .......................................... 61 FIGURE 5: ILLUSTRATED HISTORICAL ATLAS OF THE COUNTY OF PICKERING (J.H. BEERS & CO., 1877) .......................................................... 62 FIGURE 6: 1914 TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING ..... 63 FIGURE 7: 1933 TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING ..... 64 FIGURE 8: 1943 TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING ..... 65 FIGURE 9: 1954 AERIAL IMAGERY ................... 66 - 22 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page x TABLE OF CONTENTS FIGURE 10: 2002 AERIAL IMAGERY ................. 67 APPENDICES A HISTORICAL MAPPING B SITE PLAN CONCEPT (MARCH 2022) C DRONE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS - 23 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 REPORT OBJECTIVES WSP was retained by the Biglieri Group on behalf of Cap Link Limited to complete a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for the property located at 745 Highway 7 in the City of Pickering (Figure 1). The CHER was undertaken to accompany the submission of a Site Plan Application for the 23.8 hectare development of two properties on Highway 7, including: 815 and 745 Highway 7 (the project location), which is proposing the phased construction of five industrial buildings as part of the development of the FGF Pickering Manufacturing Campus. The property at 745 Highway 7 is situated on Lot 28, Concession V, in the former Geographic Township of Pickering, in the historical County of Ontario. The property is located on the south side of Highway 7 between Sideline 28 and Whites Road . The principal built heritage resource on the subject property is a vernacular residence in the early 20th century. The property is not included as a listed or designated property on the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register (2021). The property at 745 Highway 7 is owned by Infrastructure Ontario, CapLink Limited will take ownership of the subject property in June 2022. The CHER was prepared in accordance with the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (S&Gs) (2010) and Heritage Identification and Evaluation Process (2014), the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA); Section 2(d) of the Planning Act; and Section 2.6.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020). The purpose of this CHER is to determine if 745 Highway 7 demonstrates Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) through an evaluation of the p roperty against the criteria of Ontario Regulation (O. Reg. 9/06), and if applicable, Ontario Regulation 10/06 (O. Reg. 10/06). This CHER documents the results of the research, site visit, evaluation of the property and provides a recommendation to the level of heritage significance of 745 Highway 7 and provides: • A background on the project and introduction to the development site; • A description of the methodology used to investigate and evaluate the subject property; • A summary of background research and a nalysis related to the subject property; • An assessment of exterior existing conditions; and • An evaluation of the subject property for CHVI and a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes, if applicable . - 24 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 2 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed development concept for the project location consists of five food manufacturing buildings on the lot, to be built in two phases with Buildings 1 , 2 and 3 constructed first, followed by Buildings 4, and 5. The lot is currently zoned Rural Agricultural, however, it is designated Prestige Employment and Seaton Natural Heritage System in the Picke ring Official Plan. The total site area for the proposed development is 23.8 hectares with frontage on Highway 7 and Whites Road. The building footprints are approximately 21,471 (Building 1), 23,378 m2 (Building 2), 21,471 m2 (Building 3), 21,471 m2 (Building 4), and 9,858 m2 (Building 5). The site will contain approximately 87 truck loading bays, 690 parking stalls and 120 spaces for trailer parking. Vehicular access is proposed via signalized access point from Highway 7 with proposed municipal roads providing access to the proposed development. - 25 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: ESRI TOROPGRAPHIC BASEMAP CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT: 745 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:50,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: CAPLINK LIMITED FIGURE 1: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA IN THE CITY OF PICKERING CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\745\MXD\221-03925-00 745 Figure 2 Study Area.mxd Service Layer Credit Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance 0 1,900950 m - 26 - H I G H W A Y 7 H I G H W A Y 4 0 7 W H I T E S R O A D H I G H W A Y 4 0 7 S I D E L I N E 2 8 PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: LAND INFORMATION ONTARIO CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT: 745 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:4,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: CAPLINK LIMITED FIGURE 2: PROJECT LOCATION CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\745\MXD\221-03925-00 745 Figure 1 Location.mxd Service Layer Credit Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 0 16080 m - 27 - S I D E L I N E 2 8 H I G H W A Y 7 PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: REGION OF DURHAM CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT: 745 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:1,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\745\MXD\221-03925-00 745 Figure 3 Existing Condtions.mxd Service Layer Credit © 2021 Regional Municipality of Durham; 2020 Orthophotography provided by © First Base Solutions Inc.; © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2021. 0 4020 m DrivewayDriveway DriveshedDriveshed ResidenceResidence - 28 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 6 2 LEGISLATION AND POLICY CONTEXT 2.1 FEDERAL, PROVINCIAL AND MUNICIPAL CONTEXT AND POLICIES 2.1.1 UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES On June 21, 2021, the Canadian federal government enacted United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and confirmed that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Declaration - 2007) “must be implemented in Canada.” As a result, Indigenous peoples in Canada are recognized as having unique rights, including those that pertain to the conservation of Indigenous heritage. As per Articles 11 and 31 of the Declaration: 11. 1) Indigenous peoples have the right to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature. 31. 1) Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and pe rforming arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions. 2) In conjunction with Indigenous peoples, States shal l take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these rights. These rights to historical sites, ceremonies, cultural traditions, etc. (collectively understood as Indigenous heritage) are pertinent to the EA process through Articles 25 an d 26 of the Declaration, which state that: 25. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard. - 29 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 7 26. 1) Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired. 2) Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acq uired. 3) States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions, and land tenure systems of the Indigenous peoples concerned 2.1.2 PLANNING ACT AND PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT The Planning Act (1990) and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) [Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), 2020] issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act, provide Ontario-wide policy direction on land use plann ing. All decisions affecting land use planning “shall be consistent with” the PPS, which identifies that properties and features demonstrating significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological, technical or scientific interest are of provinci al interest and should be conserved. The importance of identifying, evaluating and conserving built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes is noted in two sections of the PPS 2020: — Section 2.6.1 – “Significant built heritage resources and sig nificant heritage landscapes shall be conserved”; and, — Section 2.6.3 – “Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved.” The following concepts, as defined in the PPS, are fundamental to an understanding of the conservation of cultural heritage resources in Ontario: Built heritage resources (BHR) are defined as “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. Built heritage resources are located on property that may be designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA), or that may be included on local, provincial, federal and/or international registers.” Conserved is defined as “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 can be included in these plans and assessments .” - 30 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 8 Cultural heritage landscapes (CHL) “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, archaeologic al sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Cultural heritage landscapes may be properties that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act, or have been included on federal and/or international registers, and/or protected through official plan, zoning by -law, or other land use planning mechanisms.” Heritage attributes “means the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritage property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property’s built, constructed, or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (e.g. significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage property).” 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.” 2.1.3 ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT (2005) The OHA gives municipalities and the provincial government powers to preserve the heritage of Ontario, with a primary focus on protecting heritage properties and archaeological sites. The OHA grants authority to municipalities and the province to identify and designate properties of heritage significance, provide standards and guidelines for the preservation of heritage properties and enhance prote ction of heritage conservation districts, marine heritage sites and archaeological resources. Properties can be designated individually (Part IV of the OHA) or as part of a larger group of properties, known as a Heritage Conservation District (Part V of th e OHA). Designation offers protection for the properties under Sections 33 and 34 of the OHA, prohibiting the owner of a designated property from altering, demolishing or removing a building or structure on the property unless the owner applies to the coun cil of the municipality and receives written consent to proceed with the alteration, demolition or removal. In addition to designated properties, the OHA allows municipalities to list properties that are considered to have CHVI on their Register, which provides interim protection against demolition in the form of a 60-day delay in issuing a demolition permit. Under Part IV, Section 27, municipalities must maintain a Register of properties situated in the municipality that are of CHVI. Section 27 (1.1) states that the Register shall be kept by the Clerk and that it must list all designated properties (Part IV and V). Under Section 27 (1.2), the Register may include a property that has not been designated, but that the municipal council believes to possess CHVI. Listed properties, although recognized as having CHVI, are not protected under the OHA as designated properties are, but are acknowledged under Section 2 of the PPS (MMAH, 2020). - 31 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 9 The evaluation of cultural heritage resources is guided by O. Reg 9/06, which provides three principal criteria with nine sub-criteria for determining CHVI. The criteria set out in the regulation were developed to identify and evaluate properties for desig nation under the OHA. Best practices in evaluating properties that are not yet protected employ O. Reg. 9/06 to determine if they have CHVI. These criteria include: design or physical value, historical or associative value and contextual value. 1. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 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 communit y, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a comm unity. 3. The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2). If a potential cultural heritage resources is found to meet any one of these criteria, it can then be considered an identified resource. 2.1.4 REGION OF DURHAM OFFICIAL PLAN The Durham Regional Official Plan (2020 - Office Consolidation) provides a series of policies for the conservation of cultural heritage resources. Section 2.3.49 of the document provides a policy for Built and Culture Heritage Resources, which states that the 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. The plan is clear to be consistent with the policies and direction provided through the PPS and encourages local municipalities to address cultural heritage resources in greater detail within their local official plans. - 32 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 10 2.1.5 CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN The City of Pickering Official Plan (2018) provides cultural heritage conservation policies in Chapter 8. The following policies provide guidance for development proposals that may impact cultural heritage resources. Cultural Heritage Objectives 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: (i) significant heritage structures, features and sites; (ii) buildings, sites, and artifacts of historical, archaeological and architectural significance including modern or recent architecture; (iii) significant landscape features and characteristics, including vistas and ridge lines; and (iv) 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. Cooperation with Others 8.3 City Council shall: (a) assist in identifying, protecting and promoting cultural heritage resources in the municipality, in cooperation with Federal, Provincial and Regional levels of government, as well as private agencies and individuals; - 33 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 11 (b) consult with its local architectural conservation advisory committee and other heritage committees, and participate with these committees and others in protecting important heritage resources, as necessary, through assembling, resale, public-private partnerships, acquisition or other forms of involvement; (c) ensure that plans, programs and strategies prepared by or for the City and its boards or commissions, shall respect the character and significance of the City’s heritage resources; and (d) use and encourage the use of available government and non -government funding and programs to assist in cultural heritage resource conservation. Ontario Heritage Act 8.4 City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, where warranted shall implement the provisions of the OHA, including the designation under the Act of heritage sites and heritage districts. Cultural Heritage Inventory 8.7 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 OHA; 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. Cultural Heritage Alteration and Demolition 8.8 City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, shall: (a) allow alterations, additions or repairs to buildings designated under the OHA, provided the changes to the building do not detrimentally affect the heritage value; (b) allow new buildings, or alterations, a dditions or repairs to existing buildings within a Heritage Conservation District that are consistent with the District Conservation Guidelines; (c) discourage or prevent the demolition or inappropriate alteration of a heritage resource, but where demolition or inappropriate alteration is unavoidable: (i) consider the acquisition and conservation of the resource; and (ii) if acquisition is not possible, conduct a thorough review and documentation of the resource for archival purposes; and - 34 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 12 (d) ensure that designated cultural heritage buildings, and other important cultural heritage resources that are vacant for an extended period of time are inspected regularly to discourage vandalism and monitor conformity with the Guidelines for Use and Reuse 8.9 City Council shall consider the following guidelines on the use and reuse of heritage resources: (a) maintain, if possible, the original use of heritage structures and sites, and if possible, retain the original location and orientation of such structures; (b) where original uses cannot be maintained, support the adaptive reuse of heritage structures and sites to encourage resource conservation; and (c) where no other alternative exists for maintaining heritage structures in their original locations, allow the relocation of the structure to appropriate sites or areas. - 35 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 13 3 METHODOLOGY The recommendations of this CHER are based on an understanding of the physical values of the property, a documentation of its history through research, an analysis of its social and physical context, comparisons with similar properties , and mapping. This CHER is guided by key documents such as the Ontario Heritage Toolkit (MHSTCI, 2006) and the Guidelines for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments (MHSTCI, 1992). A CHER examines a property in its entirety, including its relationship to its surroundings, as well as its individual elements, i.e., engineering works, landscape, etc. This report will include: • A summary of the history of the immediate context informed by a review of archival sources and historical maps; • A summary of the land-use history of the property including key transfers of land and milestones informed by Land Registry records and additional archival research into prominent owners of tenants such as tax assessments or City Directories; • Thorough photographic documentation of the subject property and context; • A written description of the existing conditions and immediate context; • A discussion of consultation with loca l communities; • A comparative analysis, using buildings of a similar age, style, typology, context and history to inform the evaluation of CHVI; • An evaluation of whether the property satisfies criteria under O. Reg. 9/06 , and if applicable, O. Reg. 10/06; • Discussion of the integrity of the property; and • A draft statement of CHVI if appropriate . - 36 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 14 4 CONSULTATION WSP consulted multiple online resources relating to the City of Pickering as well as provincial and federal databases and inventories in order to gain further insight into the potential significance of the property a t 745 Highway 7. The MHSTCI’s current list of Heritage Conservation Districts was consulted. No designated districts included the subject property (MHSTCI, 2019). The Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) plaque database (OHT, 2021), the Canadian Register of Historic Places (Parks Canada, n.d.a) and the Directory of Federal Heritage Designations (Parks Canada, n.d.b) were searched. Neither the property nor its grounds are commemorated with an OHT plaque or listed on the Canadian Register of Historic Places or the Federal Canadian Heritage Database. The City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register was consulted to confirm that the subject property is neither designated under Part IV or Part V of the OHA, nor listed on the Municipal Heritage Register in accordance with Section 27 of the OHA. Furthermore, WSP has worked closely with the City of Pickering project team for the FGF Pickering Manufacturing Campus and no additional information, historical research, archival photographs, etc. was available for the subject property. - 37 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 15 5 HISTORICAL CONTEXT 5.1 PRE-EUROPEAN CONTACT PERIOD The pre-contact period in Ontario has been reconstructed, primarily, from the archaeological record and interpretations made by archaeologists through an examination of material culture and site settlement patterns. Technological and temporal divisions of the pre -contact period have been defined by archaeologists based on changes to natural, cultural, and political environments that are observable in the archaeological record. It is pertinent to state that although these divisions provide a generalized framework for understanding the broader events of the pre-contact period, they are not an accurate reflection of the fluidity and intricacies of cultural practices that spanned thousands of years. The following sections present a sequence of Indigenous land-use during periods defined by archaeologists from the earliest human occupation of Ontario following deglaciation to the period when Europeans began to settle the land. These periods are: • The Paleo Period • The Archaic Period • The Woodland Period PALEO PERIOD Paleo period populations were the first to occupy what is now Southern Ontario, moving into the region following the retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet approximately 11,000 years before present (BP). The first Paleo period populations to occupy Southern Ontario are referred to by archaeologists as Early Paleo (Ellis & Deller, 1990). Early Paleo period groups are identified by their distinctive projectile point morphological types, exhibiting long grooves, or ‘flutes’, that likely functioned as a hafting me chanism (method of attaching the point to a wooden shaft). These Early Paleo group projectile point types include Gainey (ca. 10,900 BP), Barnes (ca. 10,700), and Crowfield (ca. 10,500) (Ellis & Deller, 1990). By approximately 10,400 BP, Paleo projectile p oints transitioned to various unfluted varieties, such as Holcombe (ca. 10,300 BP), Hi Lo (ca. 10,100 BP), and Unstemmed and Stemmed Lanceolate (ca. 10,400 to 9,500 BP). These tool types were used by Late Paleo period groups (Ellis & Deller, 1990). Both Ea rly and Late Paleo period populations were highly mobile, participating in the hunting of large game animals. Paleo period sites often functioned as small campsites where stone tool production and maintenance occurred (Ellis & Deller, 1990). ARCHAIC PERIOD By approximately 8,000 BP, climatic warming supported the growth of deciduous forests in Southern Ontario. These forests introduced new flora and faunal resources, which resulted in subsistence shifts and a number of cultural adaptations. This change is r eflected in the archaeological record by new tool-kits that are reflective of a shift in subsistence strategies and has been categorized as the Archaic period. - 38 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 16 The Archaic period in Southern Ontario is sub-divided into the Early Archaic (ca. 10,000 to 8,000 BP), Middle Archaic (ca. 8,000 to 4,500 BP), and the Late Archaic (ca. 4,500 to 2,800 BP) periods. Generally, in North America, the Archaic period represents a transition from big game hunting to broader, more generalized subsistence strategies based on local resource availability. This period is characterized by the following traits: • An increase in stone tool variation and reliance on local stone sources, • The emergence of notched and stemmed projectile point types, • A reduction in extensively flaked tools, • The use of native copper, • The use of bone tools for hooks, gorges, and harpoons, • An increase in extensive trade networks, and • The production of ground stone tools and an increase in larger, less portable tools. The Archaic period is also marked by population growth with archaeological evidence suggesting that, by the end of the Middle Archaic period (ca. 4,500 BP), populations had steadily increased in size (Ellis et al., 1990). Over the course of the Archaic period, populations began to rely on more localized hunting and gathering territories and were shifting to more seasonal encampments. From the spring into the fall, settlements were focused in lakeshore/riverine locations where a variety of different resources could be exploited. Settlement in the late fall and winter months moved to interior sites where the focus shifted to deer hunting and the foraging of wild plants (Ellis et al., 1990, p. 114). The steady increase in population size and the adoption of a more localized seasonal subsistence strategy led to the transition into the Woodland period. EARLY AND MIDDLE WOODLAND PERIODS The beginning of the Woodland period is defined by the emergence of ceramic technology. Similar to the Archaic period, the Woodland period is separated into three t imeframes: the Early Woodland (ca. 2,800 to 2,000 BP), the Middle Woodland (ca. 2,000 to 1,200 BP), and the Late Woodland (ca. 1,200 to 350 BP) (Spence et al., 1990; Fox, 1990). The Early Woodland period is represented in Southern Ontario by two cultural complexes: the Meadowood Complex (ca. 2,900 to 2,500 BP), and the Middlesex Complex (ca. 2,500 to 2,000 BP). During this period, the life ways of Early Woodland populations differed little from that of the Late Archaic with hunting and gathering representing the primary subsistence strategies. The pottery of this period is characterized by its relatively crude construction and lack of decoration. These early ceramics exhibit cord impressions, which are likely the result of the techniques used during manufacture rather than decoration (Spence et al., 1990). The Middle Woodland period has been differentiated from the Early Woodland period by changes in lithic tool forms (e.g. projectile points, expedient tools), and the increased decorative elaboration of ceramic vessels (Spence et al., 1990). Additionally, archaeological evidence suggests the rudimentary use of maize (corn) horticulture by the end of the Middle Woodland period (Warrick, 2000). - 39 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 17 In Southern Ontario, the Middle Woodland has been divided into three different complexes based on regional cultural traditions: the Point Peninsula Complex, the Couture Complex, and the Saugeen Complex. These groups are differentiated by sets of characteristics that are unique to regions within the province, specifically regarding ceramic decorations. The Point Peninsula Complex extends from south -central and eastern Ontario into southern Quebec. The northernmost borders of the complex can be found along the Mattawa and French Rivers. Ceramics are coil constructed with conical bases, outflaring rims, and flat, rounded, or pointed lips. The interior surfaces of vessels are often channelled with a comb -like implement, creating horizontal striations throughout. The exterior is smoothed, or brushed, and decoration generally includes pseudo-scallop stamps or dentate impressions. Occasionally, ceramics will have been treated with a red ochre wash (Spence et al, 1990). The Saugeen Complex is found generally in south-central Ontario and along the eastern shores of Lake Huron. The Saugeen Complex ceramics are similar in style to the Point Peninsula Complex; however, the vessels tended to be cruder than their Point Peninsula counterparts. They were characterized by coil construction with thick walls, wide necks, and poorly defined shoulders. Usually, the majority of the vessel was decorated with pseudo -scallop stamps or dentate impressions, with the latter occurring more frequently at later dates (Spence et al., 1990). The Couture Complex is found in southwestern Ontario and outside of the scope of the study area. LATE WOODLAND PERIOD There is much debate as to whether a transitional phase between the Middle and Late Woodland Periods is present in Ontario, but it is generally agreed that the Late Woodland period of occupation begins around 1,100 BP. The Late Woodland period in Southern Ontario can be divided into three cultural sub -phases: The early, middle, and late Late Woodland periods. The early Late Woodland is characterized by the Glen Meyer and Pickering cultures and the middle Late Woodland is characterized by the Uren and Middleport cultures. These groups are ancestral to the Iroquoian -speaking Neutral-Erie (Neutral), the Huron-Wendat (Huron), and Petun Nations that inhabited Southern Ontario during the late Late Woodland period (Smith, 1990, p. 285). The Pickering and Glen Meyer cultures co -existed within Southern Ontario during the early Late Woodland period (ca. 1250 -700 BP). Pickering territory is understood to encompass the area north of Lake Ontario to Georgian Bay and Lak e Nipissing (Williamson, 1990). Glen Meyer is centred around Oxford and Norfolk counties, but also includes the southeastern Huron basin and the western extent is demarcated by the Ekfrid Clay Plain southwest of London, Ontario (Noble, 1975). Villages of e ither tradition were generally smaller in size (~1 ha) and composed of smaller oval structures, which were later replaced by larger structures in the Late Woodland period. Archaeological evidence suggested a mixed economy where hunting and gathering played an important role, but small-scale horticulture was present, indicating a gradual shift from hunting-gathering to a horticultural economy (Williamson, 1990). The first half of the middle Late Woodland period is represented by the Uren culture (700 -650 BP) and the second half by the Middleport (650 -600 BP). Uren and Middleport sites of the middle Late Woodland share a similar distribution pattern across much of southwestern and - 40 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 18 south-central Ontario. (Dodd et al., 1990). Significant changes in material cul ture and settlement-subsistence patterns are noted during this short time. Iroquois Linear, Ontario Horizontal, and Ontario Oblique pottery types are the most well -represented ceramic assemblages of the middle Late Woodland period (Dodd et al., 1990). At M iddleport sites, material culture changes included an increase in the manufacture and use of clay pipes as well as bone tools and adornments (Dodd et al., 1990; Ferris & Spence, 1995). The appearance of evidence of small year-round villages, secondary ossuary burials, and what are thought to be semi-subterranean sweat lodges suggest a marked increase in sedentism in Southern Ontario during the Uren and Middleport cultures (Ferris & Spence, 1995). The increasing permanency of settlements resulted in the development of small-scale cultivation and a subsequent increased reliance on staple crops such as maize, beans, and squash (Dodd et al., 1990; Warrick, 2000; Ferris & Spence, 1995). Archaeological evidence from the middle Late Woodland sites also documents increases in population size, community organization and village fissioning, and the expansion of trade networks. The development of trade networks with northern Algonquian peoples has also been inferred from findings at Middleport sites along the northern parts of southwestern and south- central Ontario. These changes resulted in the more organized and complex social structures observed in the late Late Woodland period. During the late Late Woodland period, village size significantly increased as did the c omplexity of community and political systems. Villages were often fortified with palisade walls and ranged in size from a few longhouses to over 100 longhouses observed on major sites. Larger longhouses oriented differently than others in the village have been associated with primary familial groups and it has been suggested that longhouses that were located outside of palisade walls may have been for groups visiting for trade or social gatherings (Ramsden, 1990). More recent research has indicated that sma ller, temporary camp or cabin sites were often used seasonally for the tending of agricultural fields or as fishing camps (Ramsden, 1990). By this time, large-scale agriculture had taken hold, making year-round villages even more practical as a result of the ability to store large crop yields over winter. The villages in the vicinity of the were typically associated with the Huron -Wendat nation who occupied areas as far east as the Trent River and as far west as the Niagara Escarpment. They typically inhabited each village for several decades until the agricultural land was exhausted and communities moved to more fertile areas. Throughout the fifteenth and sixteenth century, community movement often included northern migrations and the incorporation of mult iple smaller villages into larger coalescent villages (Birch, 2012). The Huron-Wendat eventually dispersed from the Toronto area in the seventeenth century, during the period of French contact, to settle in their historic homeland of Wendake, which included territory in present-day Simcoe and Grey Counties. Today, “Wendake” is the name of the Huron-Wendat reserve located in Quebec, Ontario, which was formerly known as the village of Huronia. This coalescence and subsequent movement northward was thought to be the result of a number of socio-political factors, including increased conflict with the Haudenosaunee, an increased complexity in political organization, stronger trade relations with northern Algonquian groups, and interactions with early European traders (Ramsden, 1990; Birch, 2012; Ferris & Spence, 1995). - 41 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 19 Oral histories of the Michi Saagiig (Mississauga Anishinaabeg) reflect increasing levels of inter - community relationships, integration, and trade between different groups. For example, these oral histories speak to the arrival of, and relationships with, the Huron “corn growers” (Migizi & Kapyrka, 2015, pp. 127-136). Before Europeans arrived in the region that is now Southern Ontario, several Indigenous Peoples inhabited the area north of Lake Ontar io at various times. Curve Lake First Nation’s history within the area, as described by Gitiga and Kapyrka (2015), is provided below: The traditional homelands of the Michi Saagiig (Mississauga Anishinaabeg) encompass a vast area of what is now known as Southern Ontario. The Michi Saagiig occupied and fished the north shore of Lake Ontario where the various tributaries emptied into the lake. Their territories extended north into and beyond the Kawarthas as winter hunting grounds on which they would break off into smaller social groups for the season, hunting and trapping on these lands, then returning to the lakeshore in spring for the summer months. The Michi Saagiig were a highly mobile people, travelling vast distances to procure subsistence for their people. They were also known as the “Peacekeepers” among Indigenous nations. The Michi Saagiig homelands were located directly between two very powerful Confederacies: The Three Fires Confederacy to the north and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy to the south. The Michi Saagiig were the negotiators, the messengers, the diplomats, and they successfully mediated peace throughout this area of Ontario for countless generations. Michi Saagiig oral histories speak to their people being in this area of Ontario for thousands of years. These stories recount the “Old Ones” who spoke an ancient Algonquian dialect. The histories explain that the current Ojibwa phonology is the 5th transformation of this language, demonstrating a linguistic connection that spans back into deep time. The Michi Saagiig of today are the descendants of the ancient peoples who lived in Ontario during the Archaic and Paleo periods. They are the original inhabitants of Southern Ontario, and they are still here today. The traditional territories of the Michi Saagiig span from Gananoque in the east, all along the north shore of Lake Ontario, west to the north shore of Lake Erie at Long Point. The territory spreads as far north as the tributaries that flow into these lakes, from Bancroft and north of the Haliburton highlands. This also includes all the tributaries that flow from the height of land north of Toronto like the Oak Ridges Moraine, and all of the rivers that flow into Lake Ontario (the Rideau, the Salmon, the Ganaraska, the Moira, the Trent, the Don, the Rouge, the Etobicoke, the Humber, and the Credit, as well as Wilmot and 16 Mile Creeks) through Burlington Bay and the Niagara region including the Welland and Niagara Rivers, and beyond. The western side of the Michi Saagiig Nation was located around the Grand River which was used as a portage route as the Niagara portage was too dangerous. The Michi Saagiig would portage from present-day Burlington to the Grand River and travel south to the open water on Lake Erie. Michi Saagiig oral histories also speak to the occurrence of people coming into their territories sometime between 500 -1000 A.D. seeking to establish villages and a corn growing economy – these newcomers included peoples that would later be known as the Huron-Wendat, Neutral, Petun/Tobacco Nations. The Michi Saagiig made Treaties with these newcomers and granted them permission to stay with the - 42 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 20 understanding that they were visitors in these lands . Wampum was made to record these contracts, ceremonies would have bound each nation to their respective responsibilities within the political relationship, and these contracts would have been renewed annually (see Gitiga Migizi and Kapyrka 2015). These vi sitors were extremely successful as their corn economy grew as well as their populations. However, it was understood by all nations involved that this area of Ontario were the homeland territories of the Michi Saagiig. The Odawa Nation worked with the Mich i Saagiig to meet with the Huron-Wendat, the Petun, and Neutral Nations to continue the amicable political and economic relationship that existed – a symbiotic relationship that was mainly policed and enforced by the Odawa people. Problems arose for the Michi Saagiig in the 1600s when the European way of life was introduced into Southern Ontario. Also, around the same time, the Haudenosaunee were given firearms by the colonial governments in New York and Albany which ultimately made an expansion possible for them into Michi Saagiig territories. There began skirmishes with the various nations living in Ontario at the time. The Haudenosaunee engaged in fighting with the Huron -Wendat and between that and the onslaught of European diseases, the Iroquoian speaking peoples in Ontario were decimated. The onset of colonial settlement and missionary involvement severely disrupted the original relationships between these Indigenous nations. Disease and warfare had a devastating impact upon the Indigenous peoples of Ontario, especially the large sedentary villages, which mostly included Iroquoian speaking peoples. The Michi Saagiig were largely able to avoid the devastation caused by these processes by retreating to their wintering grounds to the north, essentially waiting for the smoke to clear. Often times, Southern Ontario is described as being “vacant” after the dispersal of the Huron-Wendat peoples in 1649 (who fled east to Quebec and south to the United States). This is misleading as these territories remained the homelands of the Michi Saagiig Nation. The Michi Saagiig participated in eighteen treaties from 1781 to 1923 to allow the growing number of European settlers to establish in Ontario. Pressures from increased settlement forced the Michi Saagiig to slowly move into small family groups around the present day communities: Curve Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation, Alderville First Nation, Scugog Island First Nation, New Credit First Nation, and Mississauga First Nation. The Michi Saagiig have been in Ontario for thousands of years, and they remain here to this day. Migizi and Kapyrka pp. 127-136 (2015) The Odawa Nation worked with the Michi Saagiig to meet with the Huron-Wendat, the Petun, and Neutral Nations to continue the amicable political and economic relationship that existed – a symbiotic relationship that was mainly policed and enforced by the Odawa people. Early contact with European settlers at the end of the Late Woodland period resulted in extensive changes to the traditional lifestyles of most populations inhabiting Ontario including settlement size, population distribution, and material culture. The introduction of European -borne diseases significantly increased mortality rates, resulting in a drastic drop in population s ize (Warrick, 2000). - 43 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 21 5.2 POST-CONTACT PERIOD The post-contact period in Ontario is defined as when Euro -Canadians began to permanently settle within what would later become the province. The following presents a generalized history of the settlement and historical industry around where the burial is located. It is important to note that while much of these histories focus on Euro -Canadian settlers, First Nation peoples had occupied the area for thousands of years before the arrival of Europeans and did not di sappear after their arrival. The Michi Saagiig were always in Southern Ontario. They did not “move into” Southern Ontario, rather they had already been there for thousands of years. Problems arose for the Michi Saagiig in the 1600s when the European way o f life was introduced into Southern Ontario… The onset of colonial settlement and missionary involvement severely disrupted the original relationships between these Indigenous nations. Disease and warfare had a devastating impact upon the Indigenous people s of Ontario, especially the large sedentary villages, which mostly included Iroquoian speaking peoples. Gitiga and Kapyrka (2015) state that the Michi Saagiig were largely able to avoid the devastation caused by these processes by retreating to their wintering grounds to the north, essentially waiting for the smoke to clear. Often times, Southern Ontario is described as being “vacant” after the dispersal of the Huron-Wendat peoples in 1649 (who fled east to Quebec and south to the United States). This is misleading as these territories remained the homelands of the Michi Saagiig Nation. The Michi Saagiig participated in eighteen treaties from 1781 to 1923 to allow the growing number of European settlers to establish in Ontario. Pressures from increased settlement forced the Michi Saagiig to slowly move into small family groups around the present day communities: Curve Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation, Alderville First Nation, Scugog Island First Nation, New Credit First Nation, and Mississauga First Nation. The Michi Saagiig have been in Ontario for thousands of years, and they remain here to this day. (Gitiga & Kapyrka, 2015) Early European presence began as early as 1615 with the exploration of this part of Southern Ontario by the French explorer Etienne Brulé, who travelled with the Huron along the major portage route known as the Toronto Carrying Place Trail, which connected Lake Ontario with Lake Simcoe to the north by way of the Humber River and the Holland Marsh (Steckley, 1987; Ramsden, 1990). In 1615-1616, Samuel De Champlain also travelled with the Huron northward to Georgian Bay. By the 1640s, the Huron, Petun, and Mis sissauga Anishinaabeg (Michi Saagiig) had been dispersed out of this region as a result of increasing conflicts with the Haudenosaunee and the warfare and disease that had arrived with European colonization. The large-scale population dispersals gave way for the Haudenosaunee to occupy the territory north of Lake Ontario where they settled along inland -running trade routes (Steckley, 1987; Ramsden, 1990). Due to increased military pressure from the French, and the return of the Anishinaabe Nations (Mississauga, Ojibwa, Odawa, and Potawatomi) from their previously retreat north, the Iroquois abandoned their villages along Lake Ontario. - 44 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 22 By the 1680s, the Anishinaabeg had returned and re -occupied the Lake Ontario area, as well as northward beyond the Haliburton Highlands. The Anishinaabeg later participated in a significant number of treaty agreements with the British Crown, establishing the foundation of Euro - Canadian settlement in Southern Ontario (Ferris & Spence, 1995). After the American Revolution ended in 1783, many United Empire Loyalists began to move into Southern Ontario creating a greater demand for land to settle. In 1787, senior officials from the Indian Department met with several Anishinaabe peoples to acquire land along the northern shores of Lake Ontario extending northward toward Lake Simcoe. Known as the 1787 Johnson - Butler Purchase, it is often known as the “Gunshot Treaty” as the treaty was said to cover as far inland as a gunshot could be heard from Lake Ontario. The treaty lands extended from the established Toronto Purchase (Treaty No. 13) and Cook’s Bay in the west to the Bay of Quinte and the 1783 Crawford Purchase in the east (Surtees, 1994, p. 107). Due to irregularities in the 1787 Johnson -Butler Purchase, the Williams Commission negotiated two new treaties with the Chippewa and the Mississauga to address lands that had not yet been surrendered. The treaties were signed in 1923 by seven Anishinaabe First Nations and Crown representatives, transferring 2,000,000 ha of land to the Canadian Government between Lake Ontario and Lake Nipissing. The first of the Williams Treaties was signed by the First Nations of the Chippewa of Lake Simcoe (Beausoleil, Georgina Island, and Rama First Nations), and the second by the Mississauga of the north shore of Lake Ontario (Alderville, Curve Lake, Hiawatha, and Scugog Island First Nations). These land surrenders were combined into the Williams Treaties (Surtees, 1994). The Williams Treaties also surrendered Indigenous hunting and fishing r ights to off-reserve lands, a stipulation that differed from other land cessions. At the time of signing, given that this was a departure from the common practice of previous treaties, it was unclear that the Chippewa and Mississauga signatories were relinquishing these rights, and the territory covered by the Williams Treaties has been subject to several legal disputes between the descendants of the Indigenous signatories and the federal and provincial governments . 5.3 ONTARIO COUNTY The District of Nassau, created in 1788, was one of four original districts dividing what is now the Province of Ontario. This district was later renamed the Home District, which stretched form the Trent River to Long Point and north to the Severn River. Over the following years th ese districts were divided until there were 20 districts in all. In 1853, Ontario was separated to become its own County from the United Counties of Ontario, York and Peel. In 1869 its area was estimated at 360,000 acres with 210,000 acres of which were cleared and under cultivation (Conner and Coltson, 1869). By 1854, Ontario County included nine townships: Brock, Mara, Pickering, Rama, Reach, Scott, Thorah, Uxbridge, and Whitby. In the latter half of the nineteenth century the County was known for the qua lity of its grains and the principal manufactures were flour and lumber (Conner and Coltson, 1869). Ontario County was dissolved in 1974 and the Townships of Rama and Mara were added to Simcoe County. - 45 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 23 5.4 PICKERING TOWNSHIP Pickering Township was established in 1791 when Augustus Jones began to survey the area on behalf of the government of Upper Canada. The eastern part of the township was settled by Loyalists, disbanded soldiers, emigrants from the United Kingdom, and a large number of Quakers from both Ireland and the US (Farewell, 1907). Loyalists and their relatives held the vast majority of land grants in Pickering Township in the years following the revolution (Johnson, 1973). By 1793, the Kingston Road was opened to serve as a horse path extending east f rom Simcoe’s Dundas Street, and in 1799, a rough roadway had been cut from Duffin’s Creek to Port Hope. While early roadworks made the Township more accessible to prospective settlers, actual settlement of Pickering Township proceeded very slowly. Although the first land patent was awarded to Major John Smith in 1792, the first legal settler in Pickering was William Peak in 1798 (Armstrong, 1985; Farewell, 1907). Difficulty clearing the forest led Peak and other early settlers to pursue non-agricultural means to augment income, including trading with Indigenous Peoples in the area (Johnson, 1973). Population growth and Township development remained slow during the early nineteenth century. The War of 1812 halted much of the county and township’s developmen t. After the conflict, increased road traffic provided a boost in business to local innkeepers while soldiers worked to improve existing road conditions. With improved roadways, and a substantial water course in Duffin’s Creek, Pickering Township was soon able to establish saw and grist mills for the production of lumber and grain for export through Toronto. By 1817 the population was 330 (Johnson, 1973). Changes in land-granting policies in the 1820s led to further sales of land in Pickering Township and by 1820 the population was 575 (Johnson, 1973), which grew to 830 by 1825 (Johnson, 1973; Welch and Payne, 2015). A post office was established in 1829 but the hamlet of Duffin's Creek developed slowly. That same year, the Crown worked with the New England Company, a missionary group, to encourage farming and education for the First Nations people. The community that is now known as Curve Lake First Nation was established (Curve Lake First Nation, n.d.). The construction of the Grand Trunk Railway in 1856 and growing agricultural prosperity stimulated the community's development as an important grist -milling and local commercial centre. However, Pickering Township was slow to develop. By 1861 growth had stalled and between 1861 and 1891 a decline in populatio n occurred. Inflation and a depression between 1874-76 did little to help. The population of Pickering Township peaked at 8,002 in 1861 (Johnson, 1973) and by 1891 numbered 5,998 (Johnson, 1973). The Country of Ontario Directory for 1869 describes Pickerin g Township as: The township of township of Pickering is bounded on the north by the township of Uxbridge, on the south, by Lake Ontario, on the east by the township of Whitby and on the west by the townships of Markham and Scarboro, county of York. This t ownship being the largest, together with the richness of its soil makes it one of the most wealthy - 46 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 24 municipalities in the county. Its principal villages are, Whitevale, Brougham, Claremont and Duffin's Creek. Population over 7,000 (Conner & Colston, 1869). Through most of the nineteenth and twentieth century the township remained primarily agricultural. As many communities on the periphery of Toronto, development increased following the Second World War. Manufacturing companies also moved to the township following the construction of Highway 401 in the 1950s. In the 1974 the township was divided into eastern and northern parts. In 1974 the villages of Brougham, Claremont, Green River, Greenwood and Whitevale became the Town of Pickering. In 2000 the Town became incorporated as a City. 5.5 COMMUNITY OF WHITEVALE Situated approximately one kilometre southwest of the subject property, the community of Whitevale was founded in 1820 by John Major who built a sawmill along Duffin’s Creek. The community was first known as Majorville as John Major and multiple members of his family lived on the surrounding properties. In 1845, Ira White arrived in Majorville and took over the sawmill. In 1855, the sawmill was purchased by his son, Truman P. White, who also constructed a grist mill and a cooperage. In the same year, the community constructed its first general store (Wood, 1911). White later constructed a planing factory in 1866, a brick woollen mill in 1867, and a schoolhouse sometime later. Truman White became a central pillar of the community, and the small hamlet was named Whitevale after him. By 1874, Whitevale contained three general stores, three dressmakers, three gardeners, two shoemaker shops, two churches, two blacksmiths, two wagon shops, a stave and heading factory, a barrel factory, a wagon and carriage factory, a cheese factory, a merchant and tailoring firm, a butcher shop, a tinsmith shop, a school house , an undertakers, a harness shop, a grist mill, a brush factory, a grindstone factory, a barber shop, a post office, and a hotel (Wood, 1911; Whitevale, n.d.). The continued prosperity of Whitevale did not last the turn of the century. The last quarter of the nineteenth century saw the community struck by separate fires at the cooperage, the carriage factory, the public hall, planing mill, grist mill, and the woollen mill. These problems were compounded when Whitevale was bypassed by the Ontario -Quebec railway line, built in 1884 (Whitevale, n.d.). Whitevale remains as an unincorporated community of the City of Pickering. 5.6 COMMUNITY OF GREEN RIVER Situated approximately 3 kilometres west of the subject property, the community of Green River was first settled by Benjamin Doten. Doten arrived in 1849 and established a wagon and blacksmith shop known as Dotenville Carriage Works. Osburn, Rice, Runnals, Vardon, Ferrier, Turner, MacIntyre, Poucher, and the Winter families were among the early families to settle in Green River. William Barnes built a sawmill in 1857 and by 1870, he added a factory to produce tubs, fork and brush handles and baskets. Edward and John Smith were an integral part of the development of Green River, in the early 1870s, they purchased a sa wmill and restored it to - 47 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 25 working order, they also erected a grist mill, a store, and a public hall in the village; they also aided in the establishment of a post office in 1870 (Mika & Mika, 1981). In 1974, Green River was incorporated into the newly crea ted Town of Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham 5.7 SITE-SPECIFIC HISTORY: 745 HIGHWAY 7 The subject property is within Lot 2 8, Concession V, in the Geographic Township of Pickering, now the City of Pickering. The property history has been completed with land registry records, historical maps, census records and archival photos. It should be noted that the absence of structures or other features shown on the historical maps does not preclude their presence on these properties. Illustrating all homesteads on the historical atlas maps would have been beyond the intended scope of the atlas and, often, homes were only illustrated for those landowners who purchased a subscription. According to the abstract inde x, on June 3, 1825, Kings College received a patent from The Crown for all 200 acres (Book 211, Page 133). The 1837 City of Toronto and the Home District Commercial Directory and Register (Walton, 1837) indicates several occupants for Lot 27, Concession V, they include: William Findlay, James Reynolds and Isaac Reynolds. Roswell’s City of Toronto Directory and County of York for 1850-1851 (Armstrong, 1850) lists two o ccupants for Lot 28, Concession V, including John Clifton and William White. No information regarding the presence of structures is provided in the 1837 or 1850-1851 directories. In 1854, a transaction takes place between the University of Toronto and Chan cery Crosby for the north half of the property, the exact date and transaction type are illegible (Book 211, Page 133, Instrument illegible). Crosby sells the north half of Lot 28, Concession V to Uriah Young on September 9, 1854 (Book 211, Page 133, Instrument illegible). The transactions in Book 211 between 1854 and 1924 are illegible. Original concession roads are illustrated on the 1860 Tremaine Map of Ontario County (Figure 4, Appendix A), including present-day Highway 7 and Whites Road, as are the settlements of Brunswick Hill and Brougham located north and east of the subject property, respectively. The lands surrounding the subject property constituted a rural landscape. The Tremaine map indicates that Lot 28 is divided into two 100 acre lots, with the northern half owned by Uriah Young. No structures are illustrated within the subject property on the 186 0 Tremaine Map. The 1861 Census lists Esther Young (44) and her children, George (24) Jemima (21), Uriah (19), Esther (13), John (13), Joesph (12), Jane (10), Martha (7), Elizabeth (5), Lucy (2) and Nancy (1), as living in a one-and-a-half story frame house (Item No. 2747106, Page 131). Uriah Young is included in the census records as the head of household, his name however is crossed out and no information regarding his age, birthplace, etc., was provided. The family is listed as belonging to the Wesleyan Methodist Church. - 48 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 26 The 1861 Agricultural Census identifies Uriah Young as holding a total of 100 acres in Lot 28, Concession V; approximately 75 of the 100 acres was under cultivation, four were under pasture, 25 acres were under wood or wild and one acre were under orchards or garden (Item No. 4391948, Page 35). The Country of Ontario Directory for 1869 – 1870 lists Uriah Young, a farmer and Amos B, Ferrier, a teacher, as occupying Lot 28, Concession V. Similar to previous city directories, no information regarding structures on the property is provided (Conner & Colston, 1869). The 1871 Census lists Uriah Young as living in Pickering Township, recorded as a farmer of English descent, and his wife Esther, born in the United States. In 1871, both Uriah and Esther are 54 years old and are recorded as belonging to the Wesleyan Methodist church (Item No. 1752120, Page 40). The Young children, Joseph (21), Jane (A), Martha (16), Elizabeth (14), Lucy (12) and Susan (10), are also listed. One structure is illustrated on the 1877 Pickering Township Map (Figure 5, Appendix A). J. Young is shown as owning a 100 acres within Lot 28. The 1881 Census identifies Uriah and Esther, now 64, as living with their children Martha (26), and Susan (10). No information regarding structures is included in the 1881 Census (Item No. 3432777, Page 36). Uriah Young died on December 30, 1887, of heart disease (MS935; Reel: 51, page 225). He is interred at the Whitevale Cemetery, located south of the subject property on Whitevale Road, west of Whites Road. Uriah Young Jr., (48) and his wife, Mary (44) are listed in the 1891 Census as liv ing in a one- and-a-half storey frame house with six rooms, with their child, Clarena C, now 11 years old (Item No. 2260370, Page 25). Uriah, Mary and Clarena Young are enumerated in the 1901 Census (Item No. 3683267, Page 8), however there is no indication of the Youngs in the 1911 Census records. It is presumed that Uriah Young Jr. sold the subject property between 1902 and 1911. The 1914 NTS map indicates a brick structure in the approximate location of the subject property, although no indication of massing or architectural style is provided on the NTS map (Figure 6, Appendix A). Given the structure is laid in the stretcher bond, however, it is more likely that the building is of frame construction, which has been clad in a brick veneer. The structure is also present on the 1936 (Figure 7, Appendix A) and 1943 NTS maps (Figure 8, Appendix A). These maps show no change in the lands surrounding the subject property, as they continued to be rural in nature. Uriah Young Jr. died on November 28, 1923, from influenza. His death certificate indicates he died on Main Street in Markham Village at the age of 81 (Collection: MS935; Reel: 308, Page 18). Aerial photographs from 1954 to 2002 were reviewed to assist in documenting changes to the rural landscape. A 1954 aerial photograph (Figure 9, Appendix A) of the subject property was reviewed, and while the quality of the photograph is poor, the house and the driveshed are - 49 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 27 visible. A large barn structure, south of the house was also visible. Although it cannot be confirmed from the aerial photograph, the barn appears to be a large Central Ontario barn with a gambrel roof. On November 3, 1972, the north half of the lot is Granted from Oliver M. Strong and Veronica M. Strong to Her Majesty The Queen, for $2.00, etc. (Book 211, Page 136A, Instrument 232787). The entirety of Lot 28, Concession V is Granted on August 31, 1979, f rom the Minister of Housing to the Ontario Land Corporation for $2.00 (Book 211, Page 136A, Instrument D101249). Development within the study area between 1954 and 2002 was relatively slow. The 2002 aerial photograph (Figure 10, Appendix A) clearly shows the house, barn and driveshed on the subject property; Highway 407 is also present, south of the subject property. The surrounding lands remain under cultivation. The large barn south of the residence is visible on the property, and the majority of the adjacent lands remain under cultivation. - 50 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 28 6 EXISTING CONDITIONS The following descriptions of the subject property are based on a field survey conducted on April 19, 2022, and June 24, 2022, by Emily Game, Cultural Heritage Specialist. The field survey was undertaken to record any features that could enhance the understanding of the setting in the landscape and contribute to the cultural heritage evaluation process. The site visit was conducted on the entire property including landscape features. Permission to enter the residence was not granted as part of the initial scope of work, as such, interior photo documentation of the residence is not included in this report. During the June 24, 2022 field review, however, the tenant allowed WSP to enter the ground floor and basement of 745 Highway 7. 6.1 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA AND LANDSCAPE CONTEXT The property at 745 Highway 7 comprises a 19.5 hectare lot under active cultivation (Photograph 1). The property includes a two-storey brick vernacular residence with Edwardian influences; likely built in the early 20th century. A one-storey driveshed is also located on the property (Figure 3). The residence and drive shed are accessed by a long, tree lined driveway, which terminates north of the driveshed (Photograph 2). The property is located on the south side of Highway 7, east of Sideline 28 in the City of Pickering. The residential building is oriented toward Highway 7. The residence is set back on the property approximately 42 metres, the driveshed, located south east of the residence has an approximate setback of 68 metres. 6.2 RESIDENCE The building is clad in red brick and the second story of the rear elevation is clad in buff brick. The brick is laid in a stretcher bond pattern and set upon a granite foundation. The structure is built to a rectangular plan with a low pitched hipped roof clad in asphalt shingles with overhanging eaves (Photographs 3 to 5); one interior chimney is present on the west side of the rear elevation. The architecture is unornamented, the windows and doors are modern, vinyl replacements, and the façade has been modified through the addition of an enclosed porch. A covered deck spans a portion of the rear façade. 6.2.1 EXTERIOR DESCRIPTION North Elevation The main façade, or north elevation, of the residence is two -storeys and includes two bays. The building is clad of red and buff brick, laid in a stretcher bond pattern and set upon a granite foundation (Photograph 6). The first storey consists of an enclosed porch with a hip roof, the porch is slightly off-centred. The porch, sited on a concrete foundation, is clad in a combination - 51 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 29 of vertical and horizontal siding (Photograph 7). The porch is accessed by two concrete steps, and is flanked by two rectangular windows with jack arches, the sills are capped with metal. The second storey is composed of two asymmetrically placed windows in each bay set immediately beneath the roof line. The windows have wood sills and are topped with a single row of bricks. The windows and doors on the main façade are all modern vinyl replacements. East Elevation The east elevation is two bays wide, composed of two window openings in the basement level , two windows on the main floor and a single rectangular window opening in the second storey (Photographs 8 and 9). The basement windows are small, rectangular openings with brick jack arches. The two windows on the main floor are rectangular and have jack arches. The window in the upper storey is also rectangular and is topped with a single row of brick. The sills on the first and second storey windows are capped with metal . There are no other window or door openings on this elevation. South Elevation The rear, or south elevation of the residence is asymmetrical and three bays wide, a modern porch spans a portion of the elevation (Photographs 9 and 10). The elevation is composed of at least one window opening in the basement level, two doors and one window on the main floor and two window openings in the second storey. The first storey of the south elevation is clad in red brick while the upper storey is clad in buff brick, all laid in the stretcher bond. Ghost lines of a former addition or porch are visible on the south façade (Photographs 11 and 12). The first storey consists of a two door openings, one of which is covered with horizontal siding and one window opening . The door openings are approximately the same size and are topped with a single row of bricks. The window opening features a jack arch and a sill capped with metal. The windows in the upper storey are also rectangular and are topped with a single row of brick and the sills are capped with metal. West Elevation The west elevation is two bays wide, composed of two window openings in the basement level, two windows on the main floor and two window openings in the second storey (Photograph 13). Of the basement windows, one has been enclosed and conta ins an exhaust pipe, the other basement window is a small rectangular opening, both feature jack arches. The two windows on the main floor are rectangular and have jack arches. The windows in the upper storey are also rectangular and are topped with a single row of brick. The sills on the first and second storey windows are capped with metal. - 52 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 30 Photograph 1: View to the south of active agricultural fields (WSP, 2022) Photograph 2: View to north of the tree-lined driveway, Highway 7 and active agricultural fields (WSP, 2022) - 53 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 31 Photograph 3: View to the residence from Highway 7 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 4: View to south of residence, driveshed and mature trees on the subject property (WSP, 2022) - 54 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 32 Photograph 5: Detail of granite foundation and brick laid in stretcher bond (WSP, 2022) Photograph 6: Detail of overhanging eaves (WSP, 2022) - 55 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 33 Photograph 7: Main façade of 745 Highway 7 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 8: Detail of modern enclosed porch on concrete foundation (WSP, 2022) - 56 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 34 Photograph 9: East elevation of residence (WSP, 2022) Photograph 10: Three-quarter view of east and south elevations (WSP, 2022) - 57 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 35 Photograph 11: South (rear) elevation of residence (WSP, 2022) Photograph 12: Detail of intersection of red and buff brick on south façade (WSP, 2022) - 58 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 36 Photograph 13: Ghost lines on south façade from removed addition or porch (WSP, 2022) Photograph 14: West elevation of residence at 745 Highway 7 (WSP, 2022) - 59 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 37 6.2.2 DRIVESHED The driveshed is located on the east side of the gravel driveway south of the residence. The driveshed has vertical board walls on timber-frame construction, the medium gable roof is clad in aluminum panels. With the exception of two square concrete block s on the southern corners, it does not have a foundation. A small addition with a gable roof is located on the west side of the driveshed, it is also of timber-frame construction and clad with vertical boards and an aluminum roof. The driveshed and addition are constructed using a combination of mortise and tenon joinery as well as dimensional lumber. The driveshed is accessed by a large opening on the south façade and a door on the north façade of the addition (Photographs 14 to 21). The driveshed and addition do not appear to be significant built heritage resources, nor do they display any notable interior features. Determining the date of construction for the driveshed is difficult, as historical maps typically only recorded dwelling locations. The driveshed features drop tie -beams, which are tie-beams that are mortised into the posts below the plates, and these have been documented i n Pennsylvania barns dating to after 1870 -80 (Huber 2017:162). The beams, however, appear to be cut to suit the height of the driveshed, indicating they were likely salvaged from another structure. The posts and beams are supported by dimensional cut timber of varying sizes, indicating a post-1880 construction date. The four corners of the driveshed are supported by concrete blocks, which typically dates to the turn of the twentieth century and beyond. As the driveshed was built using a combination of salvaged hand-hewn components, dimensional cut rafters, and the concrete blocks supporting the driveshed, the construction date of the driveshed is likely post-1900. - 60 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 38 Photograph 15: Three-quarter view of north and east façades of the driveshed (WSP, 2022) Photograph 16: South façade of drive shed (WSP, 2022) - 61 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 39 Photograph 17: West façade of driveshed with addition with gable roof (WSP, 2022) Photograph 18: View to south within driveshed (WSP, 2022) - 62 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 40 Photograph 19: Interior framing system using dimensional lumber and hand-hewn beams (WSP, 2022) Photograph 20: Example of mortice and tenon construction combined with dimensional lumber (WSP, 2022) - 63 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 41 Photograph 21: Addition on west façade (WSP, 2022) Photograph 22: Example of framing on western addition to driveshed (WSP, 2022) - 64 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 42 6.2.3 ALTERATION HISTORY As noted in Section 5.8, a one -and-a-half storey frame structure, with six rooms, was enumerated in the 1861 and 1891 Census es. The residence, in its current form, consists of a two-storey structure, clad in brick, with Edwardian influences. The 1914 NTS map indicates a brick structure in the approximate location of the subject property. Given the structure is laid in the stretcher bond, however, it is more likely that the building is of frame construction, which has been clad in a brick veneer. This type of brick pattern is not typically used as a structural bond as stretcher bonds are no t stable enough to support long spans and heights. Stretcher bonds were only used when the brick was a facing or veneer for the actual structure, which are typically frame, log, or log butt (Rempel, 1980). The use of milled true size lumber observed in wood framing in the basement indicates that the house was constructed in the early twentieth century. Given the building is sited on a well- constructed granite foundation, it is possible that the existing house was built upon the foundations of the structure noted in the 1861 Census. 6.3 DISCUSSION OF INTEGRITY In a heritage conservation context, the concept of integrity is linked not with structural condition, but rather to the literal definition of “wholeness” or “honesty” of a place. The MHSTCI Heritage Identification & Evaluation Pro cess (2014:13) and Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Property Evaluation (2006:26) both stress the importance of assessing the heritage integrity in conjunction with evaluation under O. Reg. 9/06 yet provide no guidelines for how this should be carried out beyond referencing the US National Park Service Bulletin 8: How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property (US NPS n.d.). In this latter document, integrity is defined as ‘the ability of a property to convey its significance’, so can only be judged once the significance of a place is known. Other guidance suggests that integrity instead be measured by understa nding how much of the asset is “complete” or changed from its original or “valued subsequent configuration” (English Heritage 2008:45; Kalman 2014:203). Kalman’s Evaluation of Historic Buildings, for example, includes a category for “Integrity” with sub -elements of “Site”, “Alterations”, and “Condition” to be determined and weighted independently from other criteria such as historical value, rather than linking them to the known significance of a place. Kalman’s approach is selected here and combined with research commissioned by Historic England (The Conservation Studio, 2004), which proposed a method for determining levels of change in conservation areas that also has utility for evaluating the integrity of individual structures. The results for the prope rty are presented in Table 6-1, and are considered when determining the CHVI of the property (see Section 7.0). - 65 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 43 Table 6-1: Heritage Integrity Analysis for the Property Element Original Material / Type Alteration Survival (%) Rating Comment Setting Rural with two lane (one in each direction) roads and farmhouses, outbuilding complexes, and agricultural lands on larger lots Highway 407, constructed south of the residence, has bisected lot 28, Concession V in an east to west direction. Several warehouse buildings are under construction east of the subject property. 75 Good Despite the current development of warehouse facilities east of the subject property, and the construction Highway 407, of the subject property maintains the rural character of the surrounding area, including active agricultural fields and stands of mature trees. Site location Set back and facing the nearest road Residence: no alterations to site location Driveshed: no alterations to site location Barn: the barn was demolished between 2002 and 2005 40 Poor Based on aerial photographs, the barn was demolished between 2002 and 2005. Footprint Residence: rectangular Driveshed: rectangular Large barn: rectangular Residence: porches on north and south façades Driveshed: no change Barn: the barn was demolished between 2002 and 2005 70 Good The north and south additions were likely constructed in the later half of the twentieth century and they do not obscure the original footprint. Wall Residence: frame construction with red and buff brick veneer Driveshed: timber and dimensional frame Large barn: timber frame construction Residence: frame construction with red and buff brick veneer Driveshed: no known alterations Barn: the barn was demolished between 2002 and 2005 100 Very good House was likely built in the early twentieth century. - 66 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 44 Element Original Material / Type Alteration Survival (%) Rating Comment Foundation Residence: granite Driveshed: concrete blocks Barn: unknown Residence: no change Driveshed: not applicable Barn: the barn was demolished between 2002 and 2005 100 Very good Note that this rating refers to heritage integrity, not structural integrity Exterior doors Residence: panelled wood Driveshed: not applicable Barn: wood Residence: doors have been replaced with modern metal doors Driveshed: not applicable Barn: the barn was removed from the property 0 Poor No additional comment Windows Residence: Wood, divided into small lites Driveshed: not applicable Large barn: wood Residence: All windows have been replaced with modern vinyl sash Driveshed: not applicable Barn: the barn was demolished between 2002 and 2005 0 Poor No additional comments Roof Residence: possibly wood shingle Driveshed: possibly wood shingle Barn: possibly wood shingle Residence: original replaced with asphalt shingle Driveshed: reclad in metal Barn: the barn was demolished between 2002 and 2005 0 Poor No additional comments Water systems Residence: unknown, possibly copper Driveshed: n/a Large barn: unknown, possibly copper Residence: all water systems replaced Barn: then barn was demolished between 2002 and 2005 20 Poor No additional comments - 67 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 45 Element Original Material / Type Alteration Survival (%) Rating Comment Exterior additions Residence: no known additions Driveshed: no known additions Barn: addition on south facade Residence: south and north additions Driveshed: one addition on the west façade Barn: the barn was demolished between 2002 and 2005 70 Very good The south and north additions to the house slightly obscure parts of the north and south façades Landscape features Domestic yard and farmyard features such as gardens and fencing and surrounding fields No significant alterations to domestic yard, or farmyard features and fields. 100 Very Good The property’s landscape features have not been significantly altered through the 21st century AVERAGE OF RATE OF CHANGE/HERITAGE INTEGRITY 52 Poor Rating of Good is based on original element survival rate of between 50 and 75% - 68 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 46 6.4 ARCHITECTURAL STYLE 6.4.1 EDWARDIAN The subject property at 745 Highway 7 contains a vernacular residence influenced by the Edwardian architectural style; it was likely constructed in the early twentieth century. The subject residence reflects a vernacular style common to residential communities established in the early twentieth century in Southern Ontario. Vernacular architecture is a term used to describe buildings constructed of local, easily available material often without the help of a professional architect that exhibit local design characteristics, and which are influenced by but not defined by a widely recognized style of architecture (Raue, 2015). The Edwardian architectural style, popular from 1900 to 1930, is associated with the reign of King Edward VII (1901-10) (Kyles, 2017; OHT, n.d.). In residential expressions, it features simple, balanced designs, box-like massing, straight rooflines and detailing, low pitched hip roofs with overhanging eaves and an emphasis on horizontal lines (VHF, 2020). Cornice brackets and braces are block-like and most doors and windows have flat arches or plain stone lintels. This style of structure generally has smooth surfaces and many windows. Compared to the more elaborately decorated Victorian styles that preceded Edwardian architecture, it exhibits more compact and simplified massing, a restrained use of ornamentation and less elaborate colour schemes (OHT, n.d.). This style was most popularly applied to residential, commercial and institutional buildings at the turn of the twentieth century. A derivative expression of the style, known as Four Square in the United States, was interpreted by a group of Chicago architects led by Frank Lloyd Wright, known collectively as the Prairie School (VHF, 2020). The influence of Four Square architecture is observed in vernacular expressions of Edwardian architecture in Southern Ontario, likely due to the prevalen ce of pattern books available at the time (VHF, 2020). Characteristic elements of residential Edwardian architecture (Plate 1) often include the following: • Two plus storeys; • Square, box-like massing; • A balanced façade and simple but formal composition with an emphasis on Classical motifs; • A façade of smooth brick with multiple windows; • Simple, but large hip and gable roofs with heavy cornices and at least one dormer window; • Tall undecorated chimneys; • Sash, paned, usually one-over-one plain windows with flat arches or stone lintels, and key stones and voussoir on larger buildings; • An entrance with classic detailing, keystones, and a door in a portico or porch; and • Wide front porch with short colonettes and brick piers (Parks, 2018:62; HRC, 2009:18) - 69 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 47 Plate 1: Representative illustration of an Edwardian residence in Southern Ontario (City of Vaughan, 2009: 42) The popularity of more modest expressions of Edwardian architecture, such as the Four Square style, was in part due to its functionality and affordabili ty. Many examples of the style were organized around four rooms on both the main and upper level (VHF, 2020). To make efficient use of small urban lots, the boxy shape characteristic of this style provided the maximum amount of interior space for multiple rooms. Although an American example, Plate 2 below, taken from the Montgomery Ward & Co. architectural pattern book, illustrates a typical 1930 floor plan of a modest Four Square residence organized around four rooms per floor (AHS, 2015). - 70 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 48 Plate 2: Example of typical 1930 Four Square residential floor plan detailed in Montgomery Ward & Co. architectural pattern book (AHS, 2015). - 71 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 49 6.4.2 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS A comparative analysis was undertaken to establish a baseline understanding of similar recognized cultural heritage properties across Ontario, and to determine if the subject residence “is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, e xpression, material or construction method” as described in O. Reg. 9/06. Canada’s Historic Places Register was reviewed to find designated heritage properties with Edwardian dwellings across Ontario, however, no comparable Edwardian dwellings were identified. Examples were drawn from Part IV and Part V designated properties from other municipalities across Southern Ontario. A comparative analysis was not undertaken for the driveshed at 745 Highway 7 as the Part IV designated properties in the City of Pickering did not specifically identify any drivesheds. Additionally, the structure has been significantly altered over the course of the twentieth century. It does not reflect a discernible architectural style nor a vernacular adaptation of any architectural style. - 72 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 50 Table 6-2: Comparative analysis of heritage properties of a similar age, style and/or typology Address Recognition Picture Age Material Style 55 Court Street South, Milton Listed on Milton’s Heritage Register Unknown Red-brick Foursquare (as identified by the Town of Milton); square plan; two-storey; two-bay width; gable roof; rectangular window openings with masonry sills and lintels as well as shutters; hipped roofed front porch across front elevation; off-centre front door; front stairs. 363 Indian Road, Windsor Part V designated (Sandwich Heritage Conservation District [HCD]) c. 1925 Red-brick Foursquare; square plan; two-storey; two- bays wide; hipped roof with central dormer and brick chimney; rectangular window openings with concrete sills; hipped roof enclosed front porch across front elevation; masonry front stairs. 348 Rosedale Avenue, Windsor Part V designation (Sandwich HCD) c. 1921 Red-brick Foursquare; square plan; two-storey; two- bays wide; hipped roof with central dormer and brick chimney; rectangular window openings with concrete sills and window shutters; hipped roofed front porch across front elevation; off-centre front door; front stairs. - 73 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 51 Address Recognition Picture Age Material Style 61 Byron Avenue East, London Part V designation (Wortley Village/ Old South HCD) Between 1915- 1922 (Based on Fire Insurance Plans) Red brick Foursquare; rectangular plan; two- storey; hipped roof with central front dormer; front porch across front elevation; off-centre front door; rectangular windows; chimney; front stairs. 169 Duchess Avenue, London Part V designation (Wortley Village/Old South HCD) 1914 Red brick Foursquare; rectangular plan; two-storey; hipped roof with central front dormer; hipped roof front porch across front elevation; off- centre front door; rectangular windows; double windows; chimney; front stairs. 7826 Kipling Avenue, Vaughan Part V designation (Woodbridge HCD) 1900- 1930 Red brick Foursquare; rectangular plan; two-storey; hipped roof with brick chimneys; segmentally arched window openings with masonry sills; hipped roof front porch across front elevation; masonry foundation; masonry front stairs - 74 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 52 Of these examples, the following architectural elements characteristic of the Italianate style were observed: • Type: All six are residential examples of Foursquare. • Plan: Three examples are built to a square shaped plan, and three are built to a rectangular shaped plan. • Roof: Five examples have hipped roofs, four of which have a central hipped roof dormer and one has a gable roof. • Cladding: All examples have red-brick. • Façade: All the examples have asymmetrical façades and are two-bays wide. • Main Entrance: All the examples have off-centre front doors. • Front Porch: All examples have a front porch, one of which has been enclosed and one of which has been partially enclosed. • Windows: Five examples have rectangular window openings, one example has segmentally arched window opening. • Window Detailing: All examples have masonry sills and two examples have masonry lintels. • Alterations: Although it is difficult to confirm when viewed from the public right of way, it appears that all six examples have minimal alterations, except for small rear additions. This comparative analysis suggests that the residence on the subject property at 745 Highway 7 is not a representative example of a Foursquare dwelling. As demonstrated by the recognized examples of Foursquare architecture across Ontario, the Foursquare st yle is distinct in its use of a square or rectangular footprint, hipped roof, two storey massing, rectangular window openings and front porch. Rather, this residence appears to be an earlier building that was altered to include Edwardian elements. As such, the residence on the subject property is considered to be of a vernacular style demonstrating influences consistent with the Edwardian era including a hip roof, brick cladding and rectangular plan. It is acknowledged that the small number of examples rev iewed means that this comparative analysis could be misleading. It was also challenging to fully assess the architectural details of each structure from the public right of way. As such, the cultural heritage evaluations included in Section 7 have not only considered the results of this comparative analysis, but typical architectural trends across Ontario. - 75 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 53 7 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION 7.1 ONTARIO REGULATION 9/06 The principal structure on the subject property at 745 Highway 7 is a one-and-a-half storey vernacular residence influenced by the Edwardian style. The property is not municipally designated under the OHA or listed as a non -designated property on the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register. O. Reg. 9/06 of the OHA provides criteria for determini ng whether a property has CHVI. If a property meets one or more of the criteria, it is eligible for designation under the OHA. Table 7-1 presents the evaluation of the subject property using O. Reg. 9/06. Table 7-1: Evaluation of 745 Highway 7 as per O. Reg. 9/06 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 N The subject property contains a two-storey vernacular frame residence influenced by the Edwardian architectural style; it was likely constructed in the early twentieth century. As demonstrated in Section 6.4, the residence at 745 Highway 7 is not a rare, representative or early example of an Edwardian style residence, but is rather an earlier structure which has been modified to express vernacular elements of the style. The driveshed on the subject property is also not considered to be rare, unique, representative or early examples of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, the structure does not display any notable interior features or characteristics of an early barn construction. ii. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit N The residence and driveshed do not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit but rather reflects modest and vernacular construction techniques and materials common to their era of construction. iii. Demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement N The residence and drive shed do not reflect a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. The structure displays construction techniques common to its era and style guided by functionality and affordability. - 76 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 54 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 N The subject building was likely constructed in the early twentieth century, while under the ownership of Uriah Young. No notable individuals, associations, institutions or themes are associated with the building. Therefore, the property does not meet this criterion. ii. Yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture N The results of research did not indicate that 745 Highway 7 yields information that could contribute to the understanding of a community or culture. iii. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community N The building is not associated with a known architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist, and therefore the property does not meet this criterion. The architect and builder of the residence at 745 Highway 7 is unknown. 3. The property has contextual value because it, i. Is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area N While the residence on the property is believed to date to the mid- nineteenth century, it has been highly altered and no longer reflects the characteristics of a nineteenth century farmstead. Additionally, the barn from the subject property was removed between 2002 and 2005, further removing the property’s connection to the surrounding rural character. As such, the subject property is not considered to define, maintain or support the character of the surrounding area. ii. Is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings N While the subject building is located within its historical context, it is not significantly physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to the surrounding Highway 7 streetscape. The residence has been highly altered from its original one-and-a-half storey frame dwelling. iii. Is it a landmark N The building has not been identified as a landmark. No significant views into the property distinguish the building as a notable or distinct property. Therefore, the property does not meet this criterion. - 77 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 55 8 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of research, site investigation, and application of the criteria in O. Reg. 9/06 the property at 745 Highway 7 does not retain CHVI . Accordingly, a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes has no t been prepared. - 78 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 56 9 RECOMMENDATIONS The property at 745 Highway 7 consists of a one-and-a-half storey vernacular residence influenced by the Edwardian architectural style ; likely constructed in the early twentieth century. Based on the results of research, site investigation, and application of the criteria in O. Reg. 9/06, it was determined that 745 Highway 7 does not possess CHVI. Accordingly, no further cultural heritage reporting is required. The completion of this study has resulted in the following recommendations: 1 The property at 745 Highway 7 was determined not to possess CHVI. No further cultural heritage reporting is recommended. 2 Once finalized, a copy of this CHER should be distributed to the City of Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. - 79 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 57 10 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ellis, C.J. and D.B. Deller 1990 Paleo-Indians. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 37-74. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. Ellis, C.J. and Ferris, N. 1990 The Odawa. In the Archa Ecology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 65-124. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter OAS No. 5, London: Ontario Archaeological Society. Ellis, C.J., I.T. Kenyon, and M.W. Spence 1990 The Archaic. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 65-124. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. Fox, W. 1990 The Middle Woodland to Late Woodland Transition . In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 171 -188. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. Huber, Gregory D. 2017 The Historic Barns of Southeastern Pennsylvania: Architecture & Preservation, Built 1 750-1900. Schiffer Books, Atglen, PA. J.H. Beers & Co. 1877 Illustrated historical atlas of the County of Ontario, Ont. Toronto: J.H. Beers & Co. Kalman, Harold 2014 Heritage Planning: Principles and Process. Routledge, New York. 1979 The Evaluation of Historic Buildings. Parks Canada. Kalman, Harold and Marcus Létourneau 2020 Heritage Planning: Principles and Process. Routledge, New York. Library and Archives Canada 2021 Canadian Censuses. [accessed April 2022]. https://www.bac- lac.gc.ca/eng/census/Pages/census.aspx McIlwraith, Thomas F. 1997 Looking for Old Ontario: Two Centuries of Landscape Change. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Mika, N., & Mika, H. 1983 Places in Ontario, Their Name Origins and History, Part III N-Z. Belleville, Ontario: Mika Publishing Company. - 80 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 58 1977 Places in Ontario: Their Name Origins and History. Belleville: Mika Publishing Company. Ontario Land Registry Access 2021 Abstract Index Books, Land Registry Office 40 (Pickering). [accessed April 2022]. https://www.onland.ca/ui/40/books/60706/viewer/838941323?page=1 Raue, B. 2015 Waterloo Ontario Book 1 in Colour Photos. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Rempel, J. 1980 Building with Wood and other aspects of nineteenth-century building in Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Spence, M.W., Pihl, R.H., and Murphy. C. 1990 Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis a nd N. Ferris, pp. 125-170. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. Warrick, G. 2000 The Precontact Iroquoian Occupation of Southern Ontario. Journal of World Prehistory 14(4):415-456. Williamson, R. F. 1990 The Early Iroquoian Period of Southern Ontario. In C.J. Ellis & N. Ferris (Eds.) The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650 (pp. 291-320). London, Ontario: London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society. Whitevale (n.d.). History of Whitevale. Retrieved at: http://www.whitevale.ca/history.html Wood, W. R. (1911). Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Community . Toronto: William Briggs. Provincial Standards and Resources Government of Ontario 2005 Ontario Heritage Act. Retrieved from: www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18 1990 Environmental Assessment Act. Retrieved from: www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90e18 Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) 2019 List of Heritage Conservation Districts. Retrieved from: www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/heritage_conserving_list.shtml 2014 Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties: Heritage Identification and Evaluation . Retrieved from: www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/MHSTCI_Heritage_IE_Process.pdf. 2010 Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties . Retrieved from: www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Standards_Conservation.pdf 2007 Heritage Conservation Principle’s for Land Use Planning. Retrieved from: www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/heritage/info_sheets/info_sheet_landuse_planning.htm - 81 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 745 Highway 7 WSP Project No. 211-03925-00 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 59 2007 Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties . Retrieved from: www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/heritage/info_sheets/info_sheet_8principles.htm 2006 Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Retrieved from: www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/heritage/Toolkit/toolkit.ht Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) 2020 Provincial Policy Statement. Retrieved from: www.ontario.ca/page/provincial-policy- statement-2020 Ministry of Transportation (MTO) 2007 Environmental Guide for Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes. Retrieved from: http://govdocs.ourontario.ca/node/27208 Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) 2021 Provincial Plaque Program Database . Retrieved from: www.heritagetrust.on.ca/en/pages/programs/provincial-plaque-program National and International Standards and Resources Parks Canada n.d.a Canadian Register of Historic Places. Retrieved from: www.historicplaces.ca/visit- visite/rep-reg_e.aspx n.d.b Directory of Federal Heritage Designations. Retrieved from: www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/search-recherche_eng.aspx - 82 - A HISTORICAL MAPPING - 83 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: TREMAINE, 1860 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT: 745 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:10,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 4: 1860 TREMAINE'S MAP OF THE COUNTY OF ONTARIO CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\745\MXD\221-03925-00 745 Figure 4 1860 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 400200 m - 84 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: J.H. BEERS & CO., 1877 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT: 745 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:10,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 5: 1877 ILLUSTRATED HISTORICAL ATLAS OF THE COUNTY OF WATERLOO CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\745\MXD\221-03925-00 745 Figure 5 1877 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 400200 m - 85 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: DEPARTMENT OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE, 1914 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT: 745 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:20,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 6: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ON 1914 NTS MAP CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\745\MXD\221-03925-00 745 Figure 6 1914 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 800400 m - 86 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE, 1933 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:20,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 7: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ON 1933 NTS MAP CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\745\MXD\221-03925-00 745 Figure 7 1933 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 800400 m - 87 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE, 1943 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT: 745 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:20,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 8: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ON 1943 NTS MAP CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\745\MXD\221-03925-00 745 Figure 8 1943 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 800400 m - 88 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO MAP AND DATA LIBRARY CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT: 745 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:10,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 9: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ON 1954 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\745\MXD\221-03925-00 745 Figure 9 1954 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 400200 m - 89 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: GOOGLE CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT: 745 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:8,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 10: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ON 2002 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\745\MXD\221-03925-00 745 Figure 10 2002 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 320160 m - 90 - B SITE PLAN CONCEPT (MARCH 2022) - 91 - 93.3[306'-3"] 21 4 . 6 [7 0 4 ' - 0 " ] 7.6[25'-0"] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 21.34 [70'-0"] 21.34 [70'-0"] 21.34 [70'-0"] 21.34 [70'-0"] 12 D O C K S 2 Storey Office & TMWelfare Areas (22,700 sf)2109 sm 15.27 [50'-1"] 24 . 7 4 [8 1 ' - 2 " ] AM M O N I A R O O M 4 , 0 0 0 s f 24 ' c l e a r h e i g h t St r u c t u r a l P l a t f o r m a b o v e fo r 4 c o o l i n g t o w e r s 24 . 3 9 [8 0 ' - 0 " ] 17 D O C K S 10x500KW Generators 2x3000kva SUBSTATION Fl o u r Si l o s DRIVE IN RAMP 14 ' W x 1 6 ' H O H D o o r Ele c t r i c a l R o o m 1 2 0 0 s f Sp r i n k l e r R o o m 1 1 0 0 s f Me c h a n i c a l R o o m 1 3 0 0 s f Pro c e p t e r G r e a s e In t e r c e p t e r 3 0 0 0 g a l ro u g h i n f o r D A F S y s t e m 10.67 [35'-0"] 10.67 [35'-0"] 16.46 [54'-0"] 16.46 [54'-0"] 16.46 [54'-0"] 16.46 [54'-0"] 16.46 [54'-0"] 16.46 [54'-0"] 16.46 [54'-0"] 16.46 [54'-0"] 16.46 [54'-0"] 148.66 [487'-9"] 64 . 5 5 [2 1 1 ' - 9 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 2nd Floor Office 3,800 SF Date: March 26, 2022 PROPOSED FGF FOOD MANUFACTURING CAMPUS 60 ACRES SITE PLAN CONCEPT # 6A FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE 19.92 [65'-4"] TRAILER STAGING 7. 5 0 [2 4 ' - 7 " ] 31.45 [103'-2"] 6.50 [21'-4"] 5.0 0 [1 6 ' - 5 " ] 10.00[32'-10"] FI R E R O U T E FI R E R O U T E TOTAL CAR PARKING 220 10.00 [32'-10"] FI R E R O U T E FI R E R O U T E 32 TOTAL CAR PARKING 200 30.47 [100'-0"] 39.63 [130'-0"] 62.01 [203'-5"] 39.63 [130'-0"] 10.00 [32'-10"] 20 . 0 Access Point Access Point FIRE ROU TE FI RE ROUTE TRUCK TURN COURTYARD FI R E R O U T E FI R E R O U T E FI R E R O U T E FI R E R O U T E Gross Developable - 50.6 acres minus internal road - 3.5 acres Net Developable = 47.1 acres EXISTING SUB DIVISION BLOCKS: *BLOCK 1 - 7.43 Acres *BLOCK 2 - 18.55 Acres *BLOCK 3 - 5.01 Acres *BLOCK 5 - 5.58 Acres *BLOCK 6 - 14.03 Acres *BLOCK 22 - 5.43 Acres (Storm water Pond) *BLOCK 30 - 2.11 Acres (Natural Heritage) *BLOCK 49 - 0.73 Acres (Heritage Lot & House) TOTAL - 58.87 Acres 15.49[50'-10"] TRAILER PARKING TRAILER PARKING 40 . 7 1 [1 3 3 ' - 7 " ] 18 . 3 0 [6 0 ' - 1 " ] 18 . 4 0 [6 0 ' - 4 " ] TRAILER PARKING TRAILER PARKING 50 20 89 ACRES PARCEL 25 . 2 8 [8 2 ' - 1 1 " ] FG F W a y Wonder Drive Screen Wall Screen Wall FI R E R O U T E FI R E R O U T E 6.00[19'-8"] FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE Access Point Access Point Access Point FI R E R O U T E FI R E R O U T E 19 FI R E R O U T E FI R E R O U T E 32 . 4 7 [1 0 6 ' - 6 " ] TRUCK TURN COURTYARD Relocate Heritage House 45.0 22 .0 Heritage Lot: 815 HWY 7 S I D E L I N E 2 6 N68°52'05"E 291.575 N 6 3°01'40"E 47 .5 15 N 6 3°01'40"E 23 .3 65 N4 1 °2 7'5 5 "E 9 9 .0 4 5 N12°43'35"E 96.305 N10°4 5'40"W 75.400 N10°4 5'40"W 125.080 N2 6 °1 3 '0 5"E 20 . 6 75 N19 °1 9'2 0 "W 92. 180 N64°29'10" W 21.155 N70°21'05"E 174.065N71°18'20"E 123.335N71°18'20"E 279.420N71°18'20"E59.820N71°18'20"E62.515 N71°18'20"E20.130 N68°52'05"E 20.120 N68°52'05"E 100.910 N68°51'30"E60.035 N06°11'40"E 50.300 N3 8°57'3 0 "E 23 .8 0 5 N70°14'40"E44.030N71°41'40"E20.160N70°21'05"E28.300 N25°30'50"E 21.275 N19 °1 9'2 0" W 92. 905 N63 °46'55"W 21.6 10 N0 3°07'20"E 33.760 N 28°0 9'2 0"E 2 2.89 0 2 6.840 1.2 60 BLOCK 49 Heritage Lot 0.73Acres 0.30Ha 45.6 BLOCK 30 Natural Heritage 2.11Acres 0.85Ha BLOCK 32 Natural Heritage 3.95Acres 1.60Ha BLOCK 31 Natural Heritage 3.07Acres 1.24Ha 18 .5 8.6 1 6 . 1 14 .0 27 . 0 2 8 .9 4 3 . 7 62.6 4 1 . 4 30 .0 12 .8 14.1 3 5 . 6 1 3 2 . 1 59.6 64 .8 45.7 65 .1 64 .8 45.7 65 .1 1 4 1 . 7 39. 4 93.8 54.2 37.1 45. 7 21.9 9 8 . 4 NEW BLOCK 22 Stormwater Pond 1.7 Acres +/- 6 . 9 8 2.0 184.0 1 2 3 . 6 57 .698.6114.4 8 2 .9 6.0 1 1 7 . 1 74.9 7 2 .7 10 2. 8 47.520.9 BLOCK 8 Prestige Employment Gen eral 42.30Acres 17.12Ha HIGHWAY 407 HIGHWAY 407 WHITES ROAD INTERCHANGE HIGHWAY 7 (MTO)HIGHWAY 7 (MTO) Northern Boundry of Seaton Neighboor 21 ACCESS POINT Current Road & Bridge Alignment Future New Road & Bridge Alignment to Phase 2 (89 Acres land NEW BLOCK 22 Stormwater Pond 1.6 Acres +/- 14 . 0 0 [4 5 ' - 1 1 " ] 14m MTO Setback 14m MTO Setback 14m MTO Setback14m MTO Setback 22m 22 m 14 . 0 0 [4 5 ' - 1 1 " ] 14 . 0 0 [4 5 ' - 1 1 " ] 14 . 0 0 [4 5 ' - 1 1 " ] Federal Airport Land 22.00 [72'-2"] 11.00 [36'-1"] 22 . 0 0 [7 2 ' - 2 " ] 11 . 0 0 [3 6 ' - 1 " ] 10 . 0 0 [3 2 ' - 1 0 " ] WH I T E S R O A D 29 . 9 9 [9 8 ' - 5 " ] 12.19 [40'-0"] Cul-de-sac TRANSIT WAY 14.00 [45'-11"] 14m MTO Setback14.00 [45'- 11"] 14m MTO Setback 14.00 [45'-11"] 1 4.00 [ 4 5 '- 1 1"] 1 4.00 [ 4 5 '- 1 1"] 14.00[45'-11"] 14.00[45'-11"] 14.00[45'-11"] 1 4 m MTO S e tb ac k 14m M T O Setback 7. 0 0 [2 3 ' - 0 " ] 86 TRAILER PARKING 51 36 . 0 0 [1 1 8 ' - 1 " ] TRAILER PARKING FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE Screen Wall 35 . 0 7 [1 1 5 ' - 1 " ] FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE BUILDING 3 TOTAL GFA 231,000 sf (21471 sm) 1st Floor 220,000 sf (20449 sm) 2nd Floor 11,400 sf (1060 sm) BUILDING 4 TOTAL GFA 231,000 sf (21471 sm) 1st Floor 220,000 sf (20449 sm) 2nd Floor 11,400 sf (1060 sm) FIR E R O U T E FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE 93.3[306'-3"] 21 4 . 6 [7 0 4 ' - 0 " ] 7.6[25'-0"] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 21.34[70'-0"]21.34[70'-0"]21.34[70'-0"]21.34[70'-0"] 12 D O C K S 10x500KW Generators 2 S t o r e y Of f i c e & T M We l f a r e A r e a s ( 2 2 , 7 0 0 s f ) 21 0 9 s m 15.27 [50'-1"] 24 . 7 4 [8 1 ' - 2 " ] AM M O N I A R O O M 4 , 0 0 0 s f 24 ' c l e a r h e i g h t St r u c t u r a l P l a t f o r m a b o v e fo r 4 c o o l i n g t o w e r s 24 . 3 9 [8 0 ' - 0 " ] 17 D O C K S 2x3000kva SUBSTATION Fl o u r Si l o s DRIVE IN RAMP 14 ' W x 1 6 ' H OH D o o r Ele c t r i c a l R o o m 1 2 0 0 s f Sp r i n k l e r R o o m 1 1 0 0 s f Me c h a n i c a l R o o m 1 3 0 0 s f Pro c e p t e r G r e a s e In t e r c e p t e r 3 0 0 0 g a l ro u g h i n f o r D A F S y s t e m 10.67 [35'-0"] 10.67 [35'-0"] BUILDING 2 TOTAL GFA 230,000 sf (21378 sm) 1st Floor 219,000 sf (20356 sm) 2nd Floor 11,400 sf (1060 sm) BUILDING 1 TOTAL GFA 231,000 sf (21471 sm) 1st Floor 220,000 sf (20449 sm) 2nd Floor 11,400 sf (1060 sm) 93 . 3 [3 0 6 ' - 3 " ] 214.6[704'-0"] 7. 6 [2 5 ' - 0 " ] 16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 12 DOCKS 2x3000kva SUBSTATION 10x500KW Generators 2 StoreyOffice & TMWelfare Areas (22,700 sf)2109 sm Flour Silos 15 . 2 7 [5 0 ' - 1 " ] 24.74 [81'-2"]AMMONIA ROOM 4,000 sf 24' clear height Structural Platform abovefor 4 cooling towers24.39 [80'-0"] 17 DOCKS DRIVE IN RAMP 14'W x16'H OH Door Electrical Room 1200 sf Sprinkler Room 1100 sf Mechanical Room 1300 sf Procepter Grease Intercepter 3000 galrough in for DAF System 10 . 6 7 [3 5 ' - 0 " ] 10 . 6 7 [3 5 ' - 0 " ] BUILDING 5 DISTRIBUTION CTR. Cross Dock TOTAL GFA 106,800 sf (9853 sm) 1st Floor 103,000 sf (9574 sm) 2nd Floor 3,800 sf (278 sm) 10 . 0 0 [3 2 ' - 1 0 " ] 10 . 0 0 [3 2 ' - 1 0 " ] Access Point 60 . 3 2 [1 9 7 ' - 1 1 " ] 5.00 [16'-5"] 5.00 [16'-5"] 10.00 [32'-10"] 5.0 0 [1 6 ' - 5 " ] 5.00 [16'-5"] 5.0 0 [1 6 ' - 5 " ] Total Phase 1 (60 Acres) *4 Plants & 1 DC (1.1 million sf) *1st 2 Plants- (Building 1 &2) 2022/2023 (460,000 sf) FI R E R O U T E 3.00 [9'-10"] 38 . 1 0 [1 2 5 ' - 0 " ] 5. 0 0 [1 6 ' - 5 " ] 33 923 6 14 22 21 Sc r e e n W a l l 621.07 [69'-1"] 17 . 6 0 [5 7 ' - 9 " ] 5. 0 0 [1 6 ' - 5 " ] 7.50 [24'-7"] 7.50 [24'-7"] 6. 2 0 [2 0 ' - 4 " ] 7. 0 0 [2 3 ' - 0 " ] 7. 0 0 [2 3 ' - 0 " ] 32 . 1 2 [1 0 5 ' - 5 " ] 14 . 9 5 [4 9 ' - 1 " ] 10 . 0 0 [3 2 ' - 1 0 " ] 4. 0 0 [1 3 ' - 1 " ] 10 . 0 0 [3 2 ' - 1 0 " ] 4.0 0 [1 3 ' - 1 " ] 21 . 3 8 [7 0 ' - 2 " ] 25 . 1 1 [8 2 ' - 4 " ] 90 9 26 31 22.37 [73'-5"] 6 6 6 PATIO PATIO PATIO PATIO TOTAL CAR PARKING 230 31 37 32 37 7.00 [23'-0"] 7.00 [23'-0"] 19 38 7.00 [23'-0"] Sc r e e n W a l l Sc r e e n W a l l 38 3.00 [9'-10"] 10.00 [32'-10"] 10.00 [32'-10"] 93 . 3 [3 0 6 ' - 3 " ] 214.6[704'-0"] 7. 6 [2 5 ' - 0 " ] 16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 12 DOCKS 2 StoreyOffice & TMWelfare Areas (22,700 sf)2109 sm 15 . 2 7 [5 0 ' - 1 " ] 24.74[81'-2"]AMMONIA ROOM 4,000 sf 24' clear heightStructural Platform abovefor 4 cooling towers 24.39 [80'-0"] 17 DOCKS 10x500KW Generators 2x3000 KVA Substation Flour Silos DR I V E I N R A M P 14'W x16'H OH Door Electrical Room 1200 sf Sprinkler Room 1100 sf Mechanical Room 1300 sf Procepter GreaseIntercepter 3000 galrough in for DAF System 10 . 6 7 [3 5 ' - 0 " ] 10 . 6 7 [3 5 ' - 0 " ] 19 FI R E R O U T E 6.50 [21'-4"] 6.50 [21'-4"] Screen Wall Relocated Heritage House (FGF Learning Studi0) TRAILER STAGING 41.98 [137'-9"] TRUCK TURN COURTYARD 16.71[54'-10"] 6.20[20'-4"] 16.71[54'-10"] 6.5 0 [2 1 ' - 4 " ] Sc r e e n W a l l 6 8 23 7 7 23 23 22 47 41 9 39 16 TOTAL CAR PARKING 271 PATIO PATIO PATIO PATIO PATIOPATIO - 92 - C DRONE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS - 93 - - 94 - - 95 - CAPLINK LIMITED HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING AUGUST 19, 2022 Attachment #5 - 96 - HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING CAPLINK LIMITED ORIGINAL REPORT DATE: AUGUST 19, 2022 WSP 582 LANCASTER STREET WEST KITCHENER, ON N2K 1M3 T: +1 519 743 8777 WSP.COM WSP PROJECT NUMBER: 221-03925-00 - 97 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page iii S I G N A T U R E S PREPARED BY Emily Game, BA. Cultural Heritage Specialist August 19, 2022 Date APPROVED1 BY (must be reviewed for technical accuracy prior to approval) Joel Konrad, PhD, CAHP Cultural Heritage Lead - Ontario August 19, 2022 Date WSP Canada Inc. (“WSP”) prepared this report solely for the use of the intended recipient, CapLink Limited, in accordance with the professional services agreement between the parties. In the event a contract has not been executed, the parties agree that the WSP General Terms for Consultant shall govern their business relationship which was provided to you prior to the preparation of this report. The report is intended to be used in its entirety. No excerpts may be taken to be representative of the findings in the assessment. The conclusions presented in this report are based on work performed by trained, professional and technical staff, in accordance with their reasonable interpretation of current and accepted engineering and scientific practices at the time the work w as performed. The content and opinions contained in the present report are based on the observations and/or information available to WSP at the time of preparation, using investigation techniques and engineering analysis methods consistent with those ordin arily exercised by WSP and other engineering/scientific practitioners working under similar conditions, and subject to the same time, financial and physical constraints applicable to this project. 1 Approval of this document is an administrative function indicating readiness for release and does not impart legal liability on to the Approver for any technical content contained herein. Technical accuracy and fit-for-purpose of this content is obtained through the review process. The Approver shall ensure the applicable review process has occurred prior to signing the document. - 98 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page iv WSP disclaims any obligation to update this report if, af ter the date of this report, any conditions appear to differ significantly from those presented in this report; however, WSP reserves the right to amend or supplement this report based on additional information, documentation or evidence. WSP makes no other representations whatsoever concerning the legal significance of its findings. The intended recipient is solely responsible for the disclosure of any information contained in this report. If a third party makes use of, relies on, or makes decisions in accordance with this report, said third party is solely responsible for such use, reliance or decisions. WSP does not accept responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken by said third party based on this report. WSP has provided services to the intended recipient in accordance with the professional services agreement between the parties and in a manner consistent with that degree of care, skill and diligence normally provided by members of the same profession performing the same or comparable services in respect of projects of a similar nature in similar circumstances. It is understood and agreed by WSP and the recipient of this report that WSP provides no warranty, express or implied, of any kind. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it is agreed and understood by WSP and the recipient of this report that WSP makes no representation or warranty whatsoever as to the sufficiency of its scope of work for the purpose sought by the recipient of this report. In preparing this report, WSP has relied in good faith on information provided by others, as noted in the report. WSP has reasonably assumed that the information provided is correct and WSP is not responsible for the accuracy or comple teness of such information. The original of this digital file will be kept by WSP for a period of not less than 10 years. As the digital file transmitted to the intended recipient is no longer under the control of WSP, its integrity cannot be assured. As such, WSP does not guarantee any modifications made to this digital file subsequent to its transmission to the intended recipient. This limitations statement is considered an integral part of this report. - 99 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page v C O N T R I B U T O R S CLIENT CapLink Limited Martin Ng, P. Eng CapLink Limited 1295 Ormont Drive, Toronto, ON M9L 2W6 WSP Report Preparation Emily Game, B.A. Cultural Heritage Specialist Mapping/GIS Tanya Peterson, B.A. (Hons) Senior GIS Technician Report Review Joel Konrad, PhD, CAHP Cultural Heritage Lead, Ontario Cultural Heritage Specialist - 100 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WSP was retained by the Biglieri Group on behalf of CapLink Limited to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the property located at 815 Highway 7 in the City of Pickering. The report was undertaken to accompany the submission of a Site Plan Application for the 23.8- hectare development of two properties on Highway 7, including: 815 and 745 Highway 7 (the project location), which is proposing the phased construction of five industrial buildings as part of the development of the FGF Pickering Manufacturing Campus . The property at 815 Highway 7 is comprised of a one-and-a-half storey Ontario Cottage (the Percy House) with Neo-Classical and Georgian influences, constructed of brick in 1853, as well as two Central Ontario bank barns and two silos. The subject property is listed as a non- designated property on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register pursuant to Section 27 (1.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. This HIA has evaluated the subject property against the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06 and Ontario Regulation 10/06 criteria and determined that it possesses cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI) for its design or physical value, tied to the architecture, rarity and craftsmanship of the residence and bank barns. As such, a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes has been compiled. Evaluating the proposed development plan for the project location at 815 Highway 7 against the CHVI and List of Heritage Attributes, it was determined that the new industrial development would have major impacts on the property at 815 Highway 7, especially related to the removal of the two Central Ontario bank barns and the relocation of the Percy House. The following alternatives, mitigation measures and conservation options were considered to avoid or reduce these adverse impacts to the heritage attributes of the property: 1) Do nothing: preserve and maintain the Percy House, Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2 and all landscape heritage attributes in situ with no further development of the property. 2) Preserve and maintain the Percy House, barns and silos in situ with adaptive reuse of these structures and development of manufacturing campus around these structures on the property. 3) Relocate the Percy House within the site to a more convenient location with an adaptive reuse, dismantle and salvage heritage attribut es from Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2 and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. 4) Remove the Percy House, Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2, salvaging heritage attributes from the structures and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. Based on a review of the alternatives, mitigation and conservation options analysis, Option 1, do nothing, is the preferred option from a cultural heritage perspective. However, a “do nothing” approach is not feasible as the subject property is designated Prestige Employment and Seaton Natural Heritage System in the Pickering Official Plan . As such, this approach would be a - 101 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page vii constraint on the proposed concept plan and future development. Option 2 and Option 3 are the next preferred options, followed finally by Option 4. The following conservation/mitigation strategies are recommended for Option 3: 1. The following should be implemented through the development application process: a. In accordance with the MHSTCI’s Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting and materials is a mitigation measure to reduce impacts to cultural heritage resources, including the preparation of a Landscape Plan around the Percy House. b. Complete a Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) to stabilize and conserve the Percy House in its current location before construction of the surrounding development begins and during construction . This includes the installation of temporary construction fencing between the Percy House and the proposed development. c. A Mothballing Plan be completed to examine the current condition of the Percy House and to suggest stabilization and maintenance measures necessary to temporarily mothball and secure the structures. d. Prepare a Conservation Plan detailing the conservation methods, required actions and trades for the conservation methods and an implementati on schedule to conserve the heritage attributes of the landscape in the long-term. e. Prepare a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report for Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2, and if necessary, the one -storey south addition. f. Given the proximity of the adjacent heritage properties to the proposed limits of grading, a comprehensive pre -construction survey should be completed and a Zone of Influence Construction Vibration Study to monitor and mitigate vibration impacts during construction. Where possible pre vent heavy equipment traffic from being routed in the vicinity of the Percy House to minimize potential effects from vibration. g. Fugitive dust emissions should be managed by creating a fugitive dust emissions plan following practices outlined in the Ontario Standards Development Branch Technical Bulletin: Management Approaches for Industrial Fugitive Dust Sources (2017). 2) Contract documentation should include information regarding the CHVI of the aforementioned properties, specifically the List of Heritage At tributes. 3) WSP recommends that 815 Highway 7 meets the criteria for heritage designation under O. Reg. 9/06 as a representative example of an early Ontario Cottage with Neo - Classical and Georgian influences, for its connection to the nineteenth century agricultural development of the City of Pickering as well as for its contribution to the surrounding Highway 7 streetscape. 4) Should development plans change significantly in scope or design after approval of this HIA, additional cultural heritage investigations may be required. Once finalized, a copy of this HIA should be distributed to the City of Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. - 102 - 815 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page viii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1 2 POLICY FRAMEWORK .................................. 5 2.1 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ............................................. 5 2.2 Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement .. 6 2.3 Ontario Heritage Act ............................................ 7 2.4 Ontario Regulation 9/06 ...................................... 7 2.5 Ontario Regulation 10/06 .................................... 8 2.6 Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries Heritage Resources in The Land Use Planning Process ................................................ 9 2.7 Region of Durham Official Plan ........................ 10 2.8 City of Pickering Official Plan ........................... 10 3 PROJECT METHODOLOGY ........................ 13 4 HISTORICAL CONTEXT ............................... 14 4.1 Pre-European Contact Period ........................... 14 4.2 Pre-Confederation Treaties ............................... 15 4.3 Ontario County .................................................. 16 4.4 Pickering Township ........................................... 16 4.5 Community of Whitevale ................................... 17 4.6 Community of Green River ............................... 18 4.7 Site Specific History: 815 Highway 7 ............... 18 815 Highway 7 .............................................................................. 18 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................. 22 5.1 815 Highway 7 .................................................... 22 Residence .................................................................................... 22 - 103 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page ix 5.1.1.1 Exterior ........................................................................................ 22 5.1.1.2 Interior ......................................................................................... 30 Bank Barn 1 and Silo 1 Exterior ..................................................... 51 Barn 1 Interior ............................................................................... 55 Bank Barn 2 and Silo 2.................................................................. 61 Barn 2 Interior ............................................................................... 64 Landscape Conditions ................................................................... 69 5.2 Study Area Context ........................................... 71 5.3 Architectural Style ............................................. 75 Ontario Cottage ............................................................................ 75 Comparative Analysis ................................................................... 76 Central Ontario Barn ..................................................................... 80 Comparative Analysis – Bank Barns at 815 Highway 7 ................... 80 6 CONSULTATION .......................................... 84 6.1 City of Pickering ................................................ 84 6.2 Federal and Provincial Review ......................... 84 7 DISCUSSION OF INTEGRITY ...................... 85 8 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION ........ 90 8.1 Evaluation using Ontario Regulation 9/06 ....... 90 8.2 Ontario Regulation 10/06 .................................. 92 8.3 Results of the Cultural Heritage Evaluation..... 94 8.4 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest ............................................................................ 94 Description of Historic Place .......................................................... 94 Heritage Value .............................................................................. 95 List of Heritage Attributes .............................................................. 95 9 PROPOSED UNDERTAKING AND IMPACTS ...................................................................... 98 9.1 Description of Proposed Undertaking.............. 98 Development Concept ................................................................... 98 - 104 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page x 9.2 Potential Impacts ............................................... 98 9.3 Evaluation of Impacts...................................... 101 9.4 Results of Impact Assessment ....................... 103 10 ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION OPTIONS....................... 104 10.1 Alternatives, Mitigation and Conservation Options Analysis.............................................. 104 10.2 Options Analysis ............................................. 109 10.3 Implementation and Monitoring...................... 112 11 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 114 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................... 116 - 105 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page xi TABLES TABLE 5-1: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HERITAGE PROPERTIES OF A SIMILAR AGE, STYLE AND/OR TYPOLOGY ............................. 77 TABLE 5-2: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF BARNS OF A SIMILAR AGE, STYLE AND/OR TYPOLOGY ........................................................ 82 TABLE 7-1: HERITAGE INTEGRITY ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPERTY ........................................ 86 TABLE 8-1: EVALUATION OF 815 HIGHWAY 7 AS PER O. REG. 9/06 ........................................ 90 TABLE 8-2: EVALUATION OF 815 HIGHWAY 7 AS PER O. REG. 10/06....................................... 92 TABLE 9-1: IMPACT GRADING........................ 100 TABLE 9-2: EVALUATION OF IMPACTS TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AT 815 HIGHWAY 7 .... 101 TABLE 10-1: ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION OPTIONS ............................ 105 TABLE 10-2: SHORT-TERM, MEDIUM-TERM AND LONG-TERM ACTIONS FOR OPTION 3 .......... 113 FIGURES FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION ........................ 2 FIGURE 2: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ............ 3 FIGURE 3: MAP OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ..... 4 FIGURE 4: ILLUSTRATED HISTORICAL ATLAS OF THE COUNTY OF PICKERING (J.H. BEERS & CO., 1877) ........................................................ 121 FIGURE 5: 1877 ILLUSTRATED HISTORICAL ATLAS OF ONTARIO COUNTY, PICKERING TOWNSHIP....................................................... 122 FIGURE 6: 1914 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ............ 123 FIGURE 7: 1933 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ............ 124 FIGURE 8: 1943 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ............ 125 FIGURE 9: 1954 AERIAL IMAGE...................... 126 FIGURE 10: 2000 AERIAL IMAGE .................... 127 - 106 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page xii APPENDICES A HISTORICAL MAPPING B SITE CONCEPT PLAN (MARCH 2022) C DRONE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS - 107 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 1 1 INTRODUCTION WSP was retained by the Biglieri Group on behalf of Cap Link Limited to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the property located at 815 Highway 7 in the City of Pi ckering. The report was undertaken to accompany the submission of a Site Plan Application for the 23.8-hectare development of two properties on Highway 7, including: 815 and 745 Highway 7 (the project location, Figures 1 and 2), which is proposing the phased construction of five industrial buildings as part of the development of the FGF Pickering Manufacturing Campus. The property at 815 Highway 7 is composed of a one-and-a-half storey Ontario Cottage (the Percy House) constructed c. 1853 of brick with Neo-Classical and Georgian influences, as well as two Central Ontario bank barns and two silos (Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2) (Figure 3). The subject property is listed as a non-designated property on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register pursuant to Section 27 (1.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). The property owner’s contact information is as follows: Infrastructure Ontario Suite 2000, 1 Dundas Street West Toronto, ON, M5G 1Z3 In June 2022, ownership of the property will be transferred to : CapLink Limited 1295 Ormont Drive, Toronto, ON M9L 2W6 This HIA has been structured to adhere to the City of Pickering’s Terms of Reference: Heritage Impact Assessments (2022) and guidance provided in the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process (2006); the OHA; Section 2(d) of the Planning Act; and Section 2.6.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020). This document will provide: • A background on the project and introduction to the development site; • A description of the methodology used to investigate and evaluate the subject property; • A summary of background research and analysis related to the subject property; • An assessment of exterior existing conditions; • An evaluation of the subject property for Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) and a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes, if applicable; • A description of the proposed development and a summary of potentially adverse impacts; and • An assessment of alternative options, mitigation measures and conservation methods to be considered to avoid or limit negative impacts to the CHVI of the subject property. - 108 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: ESRI TOROPGRAPHIC BASEMAP HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:50,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 1: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA IN THE CITY OF PICKERING CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 2 Study Area.mxd Service Layer Credit Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance 0 1,900950 m - 109 - W H I T E S R O A D S I D E L I N E 2 6 H I G H W A Y 4 0 7 H I G H W A Y 7 H I G H W A Y 4 0 7 S I D E L I N E 2 8 PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: LAND INFORMATION ONTARIO HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:4,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 2: PROJECT LOCATION CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 1 Location.mxd Service Layer Credit Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 0 16080 m - 110 - RESIDENCE DRIVEWAY SILO 1 BARN 1 SILO 2 BARN 2 W H I T E S R O A D H I G H W A Y 7 W H I T E S R O A D PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: REGION OF DURHAM HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:1,236 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 3 Existing Condtions.mxd Service Layer Credit © 2021 Regional Municipality of Durham; 2020 Orthophotography provided by © First Base Solutions Inc.; © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2021. 0 5025 m - 111 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 5 2 POLICY FRAMEWORK 2.1 UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES On June 21st, 2021, the Canadian federal government enacted United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and confirmed that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Declaration - 2007) “must be implemented in Canada.” As a result, Indigenous peoples in Canada are recognized as having unique rights, including those that pertain to the conservation of Indigenous heritage. As per Articles 11 and 31 of the Declaration: 11. 1) Indigenous peoples have the right to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature. 31. 1) Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions. 2) In conjunction with Indigenous peoples, States shall take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these rights. These rights to historical sites, ceremonies, cultural traditions, etc. (collectively understood as Indigenous heritage) are pertinent to the Environmental Assessment process through Articles 25 and 26 of the Declaration, which state that: 25. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and o ther resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard. 26. 1) Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired. 2) Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired. 3) States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions, and land tenure systems of the Indigenous peoples concerned. - 112 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 6 2.2 PLANNING ACT AND PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT The Planning Act (1990) and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) [Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), 2020] issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act, provide Ontario-wide policy direction on land use planning. All decisions affecting land use planning “shall be consistent with” the PPS, which identifies that properties and features demonstrating significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological, technical or scientific interest are of provincial intere st and should be conserved. The importance of identifying, evaluating and conserving built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes is noted in two sections of the PPS 2020: — Section 1.7.1 – Long-term economic prosperity should be supported by: e) encouraging a sense of place, by promoting well-designed built form and cultural planning, and by conserving features that help define character, including built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes — Section 2.6.1 – “Significant built heritage resources and significant heritage landscapes shall be conserved”; and, — Section 2.6.3 – “Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved.” The following concepts, as defined in the PPS, are fundamental to an understanding of the conservation of cultural heritage resources in Ontario: Built heritage resources (BHR) are defined as “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. Built heritage resources are located on property that may be designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or that may be included on local, provincial, federal and/or international registers.” Conserved is defined as “the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage va lue 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 can be included in these plans and assessments .” Cultural heritage landscapes (CHL) “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. Cultural heritage landscapes may be properties that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act, or - 113 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 7 have been included on federal and/or inte rnational registers, and/or protected through official plan, zoning by-law, or other land use planning mechanisms.” Heritage attributes “means the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritage property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property’s built, constructed, or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (e.g. significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage property).” 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 u nder the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act.” 2.3 ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT The OHA gives municipalities and the provincial government powers to preserve the heritage of Ontario, with a primary focus on protecting heritage properties and archaeological sites. The OHA grants authority to municipalities and the province to identify and designate properties of heritage significance, provide standards and guidelines for the preservation of heritage properties and enhance protection of heritage conservation districts, marine heritage sites and archaeological resources. Properties can be designated individually (Part IV of the OHA) or as part of a larger group of properties, known as a Heritage Conservation District (Part V of the OHA). Designat ion offers protection for the properties under Sections 33 and 34 of the OHA, prohibiting the owner of a designated property from altering, demolishing or removing a building or structure on the property unless the owner applies to the council of the munic ipality and receives written consent to proceed with the alteration, demolition or removal. In addition to designated properties, the OHA allows municipalities to list properties that are considered to have CHVI on their Register, which provides interim protection against demolition in the form of a 60-day delay in issuing a demolition permit . Under Part IV, Section 27, municipalities must maintain a Register of properties situated in the municipality that are of CHVI. Section 27 (1.1) states that the Register shall be kept by the Clerk and that it must list all designated properties (Part IV and V). Under Section 27 (1.2), the Register may include a property that has not been designated, but that the municipal council believes to possess CHVI. Listed pro perties, although recognized as having CHVI, are not protected under the OHA as designated properties are, but are acknowledged under Section 2 of the PPS (MMAH, 2020). 2.4 ONTARIO REGULATION 9/06 The evaluation of cultural heritage resources is guided by Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O. Reg 9/06), which provides three principal criteria with nine sub-criteria for determining CHVI. The criteria set - 114 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 8 out in the regulation were developed to identify and evaluate properties for designation under the OHA. Best practices in evaluating properties that are not yet protected employ O. Reg. 9/06 to determine if they have CHVI. These criteria include: design or physical value, historical or associative value and contextual value . 1. The property has design value or physical val ue because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 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, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 3. The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2). If a potential cultural heritage resources is found to meet any one of these criteria, it can then be considered an identified resource. 2.5 ONTARIO REGULATION 10/06 Ontario Regulation 10/06 provides the Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Inte rest of Provincial Significance. This regulation was created in 2006 to be utilised to identify properties of provincial heritage significance under the Ontario Heritage Act. 1. (1) The criteria set out in subsection (2) are prescribed for the purposes of clause 34.5 (1) (a) of the Act. O. Reg. 10/06, s. 1 (1). (2) A property may be designated under section 34.5 of the Act if it meets one or more of the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest of provincial significance: 1. The property represents or demonstrates a theme or pattern in Ontario’s history. 2. The property yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of Ontario’s history. 3. The property demonstrates an uncommon, rare or unique aspect of Ontario’s cultural heritage. 4. The property is of aesthetic, visual or contextual importance to the province. - 115 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 9 5. The property demonstrates a high degree of excellence or creative, technical or scientific achievement at a provincial level in a given period. 6. The property has a strong or special association with the entire province or with a community that is found in more than one part of the province. The association exists for historic, social, or cultural reasons or because of traditional use. 7. The property has a strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organization of importance to the province or with an event of importance to the province. 8. The property is located in unorganized territory and the Minister determines that there is a provincial interest in the protection of the property. O. Reg. 10/06, s. 1 (2). 2.6 MINISTRY OF HERITAGE, SPORT, TOURISM AND CULTURE INDUSTRIES HERITAGE RESOURCES IN THE LAND USE PLANNING PROCESS The MHSTCI’s Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process (2006) identifies HIAs as an important tool to evaluate cultural heritage resources and to determine appropriate conservation options. The document identifies what an HIA should contain and any specific municipal requirements. To determine the effect that a proposed development or site alteration may have on a significant cultural heritage resource, Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process outlines seven potential negative or indirect impacts: • Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features; • Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; • Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden; • Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; • Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; • A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; • Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource. The MHSTCI’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties (2007), provide guiding principles for the development of appropriate conservation or mitigation measures: 1. Respect for documentary evidence Do not base restoration on conjecture. Conservation work should be based on historical documentation, such as historical photographs, drawings and physical evidence. - 116 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 10 2. Respect for the original location Do not move buildings unless there is no other means to save them. Site is an integral component of a building. Any change in site diminishes heritage value considerably. 3. Respect for historical material Repair or conserve rather than replace building materials and finishes, except where absolutely necessary. Minimal intervention maintains the historical content of the resource. 4. Respect for original fabric Repair with like materials, to return the resource to its prior condition without altering its integrity. 5. Respect for the building’s history Do not restore to one period at the expense of another. Do not destroy later additions to a house solely to restore it to a single time period. 6. Reversibility Alterations should be able to be returned to original conditions. This cons erves earlier building design and technique. For instance, when a new door opening is put in a stone wall, the original stones are numbered, removed and stored, allowing for future restoration. 7. Legibility New work should be distinguishable from old. Buildings should be recognized as products of their own time, and new additions should not blur the distinction between old and new. 8. Maintenance With continuous care, future restoration will not be necessary. With regular upkeep, major conservation projects and their high costs can be avoided. 2.7 REGION OF DURHAM OFFICIAL PLAN The Durham Regional Official Plan (2020 - Office Consolidation) provides a series of policies for the conservation of cultural heritage resources. Section 2.3.49 of the document provides a pol icy for Built and Culture Heritage Resources, which states that the 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. The plan is clear to be consistent with the policies and direction provided through the PPS and encourages local municipalities to address cultural heritage resources in greater detail within their local official plans. 2.8 CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN The City of Pickering Official Plan (2018) provides cultural heritage conservation policies in Chapter 8. The following policies provide guidance for development proposals that may impact cultural heritage resources. 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: - 117 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 11 (i) significant heritage structures, features and sites; (ii) buildings, sites, and artifacts of historical, archaeological and architectural significance including modern or recent architecture; (iii) significant landscape features and characteristics, including vistas and ridge lines; and (iv) 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. Cooperation with Others 8.3 City Council shall: (a) assist in identifying, protecting and promoting cultural heritage resources in the municipality, in cooperation with Federal, Provincial and Regional levels of government, as well as private agencies and individuals; (b) consult with its local architectural conservation advisory committee and other heritage committees, and participate with these committees and others in protecting important heritage resources, as necessary, through assembling, resale, public- private partnerships, acquisition or other forms of involvement; (c) ensure that plans, programs and strategies prepared by or for the City and its boards or commissions, shall respect the character and significance of the City’s heritage resources; and (d) use and encourage the use of available government and non -government funding and programs to assist in cultural heritage resource conservation. Ontario Heritage Act 8.4 City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, where warranted shall implement the provisions of the OHA, including the designation under the Act of heritage sites and heritage districts. Cultural Heritage Inventory - 118 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 12 8.7 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 OHA; 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. Cultural Heritage Alteration and Demolition 8.8 City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, shall: (a) allow alterations, additions or repairs to buildings designated under the OHA, provided the changes to the building do not detrimentally affect the heritage value; (b) allow new buildings, or alterations, additions or repairs to existing buildings within a Heritage Conservation District that are consistent with the District Conservation Guidelines; (c) discourage or prevent the demolition or inappropriate alteration of a heritage resource, but where demolition or inappropriate alteration is unavoidable: (i) consider the acquisition and conservation of the resource; and (ii) if acquisition is not possible, conduct a thorough review and documentation of the resource for archival purposes; and (d) ensure that designated cultural heritage buildings, and other important cultural heritage resources that are vacant for an extended period of time are inspected regularly to discourage vandalism and monitor conformity with the City’s Maintenance and Occupancy By-law. Guidelines for Use and Reuse 8.9 City Council shall consider the following guidelines on the use and reuse of heritage resources: (a) maintain, if possible, the original use of heritage structures and sites, and if possible, retain the original location and orientation of such structures; (b) where original uses cannot be maintained, support the adaptive reuse of heritage structures and sites to encourage resource conservation; and (c) where no other alternative exists for maintaining heritage structures in their original locations, allow the relocation of the structure to appropriate sites or areas. - 119 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 13 3 PROJECT METHODOLOGY An HIA evaluates the proposed impact of development on the heritage attributes of a property of potential CHVI. This HIA is guided by the MHSTCI Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process; the OHA; Section 2(d) of the Planning Act; Section 2.6.3 of the PPS, and the City of Pickering Terms of Reference: Heritage Impact Assessments (2022). To address the requirements of an HIA, this report provides the following information: • A summary of the history of the immediate context informed by a review of archival sources and historical maps; • Exterior and interior photographic documentation of the subject property, project location, and context; • A written description of the existing conditions and context of the subject property; • An evaluation of the subject property according to O. Reg. 9/06 and O. Reg. 10/06; • Preparation of a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes, if applicable; • A review of the proposed intervention; • Identification of impacts; • The identification and analysis of mitigat ion opportunities, as required; • The preferred strategy recommended to best protect and enhance the CHVI and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource; and • A summary statement and conservation recommendations. - 120 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 14 4 HISTORICAL CONTEXT 4.1 PRE-EUROPEAN CONTACT PERIOD The first populations to occupy southern Ontario are referred to as Paleoindians (Ellis a nd Deller, 1990:39). Paleo period populations moved into the region following the retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet approximately 11,000 years before present (BP). Early Paleo period groups are identified by their distinctive projectile point morphologies, exhibiting long grooves, or ‘flutes’, that likely functioned as a hafting me chanism. These Early Paleo group projectile morphologies include Gainey (c.10,900 BP), Barnes (c.10,700 BP), and Crowf ield (c.10,500 BP) (Ellis and Deller, 1990:39 -43). By approximately 10,400 BP, Paleo projectile points transitioned to various un -fluted varieties such as Holocombe (c.10,300 BP), Hi-Lo (c.10,100 BP), and Unstemmed and Stemmed Lanceolate (c.10,400 to 9,500 BP). These morphologies were utilized by Late Paleo period groups (Ellis and Deller, 1990:40). Both Early and Late Paleo period populations were highly mobile, participating in the hunting of large game animals. Paleo period sites often functioned as sm all campsites (less than 200 m2) where stone tool production and maintenance occurred (Ellis and Deller, 1990). By approximately 8,000 BP the climate of Ontario began to warm. As a result, deciduous flora began to colonize the region. With this shift in f lora came new faunal resources, resulting in a transition in the ways populations exploited their environments. This transition resulted in a change of tool-kits and subsistence strategies recognizable in the archaeological record, resulting in what is referred to archaeologically as the Archaic period. The Archaic period in southern Ontario is dived into three phases: the Early Archaic (c.10,000 to 8,000 BP), the Middle A rchaic (c.8,000 to 4,500 BP) and the Late Archaic (c.4,500 to 2,800 BP) (Ellis et al., 1990). The Archaic period is differentiated from earlier Paleo populations by several traits such as: 1) an increase in tool stone variation and reliance on local tool stone sources, 2) the emergence of notched and stemmed projectile point morphologies, 3) a reduction in extensively flaked tools, 4) the use of native copper, 5) the use of bone tools for hooks, gorges, and harpoons, 6) an increase in extensive trade networks and 7) the production of ground stone tools. Also noted is an increase in the recovery of large woodworking tools such as chisels, adzes, and axes (Ellis and Deller, 1990:65- 66). The Archaic period is also marked by population growth. Archaeological evidence suggests that by the end of the Middle Archaic period (c.4,500 BP) population s were steadily increasing in size (Ellis et al., 1990). Over the course of the Archaic period populations began to rely on more localized hunting and gathering territories. By the end of the Archaic period, populations were utilizing more seasonal rounds. From spring to fall, settlements would exploit lakeshore/riverine locations where a broad -based subsistence strategy could be employed, while the late fall and winter months would be spent at interior site where deer hunting was likely a - 121 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 15 primary focus with some wild edibles likely being collected (Ellis and Deller, 1990:114). This steady increase in population size and adoption of a more localized seasonal subsistence strategy eventually evolved into what is termed the Woodland period. The Woodland period is characterized by the emergence of ceramic technology for the manufacture of pottery. Like the Archaic period, the Woodland period is separated into three primary timeframes: the Early Woodland (approximately 800 BC to 0 AD), the Middle Woodland (approximately 0 AD to 700/900 AD) and the Late Woodland (approximately 900 AD to 1600 AD) (Spence et al., 1990; Fox, 1990). The Early Woodland period is represented in southern Ontario by two different cultural complexes: the Meadowood Complex (c.900 to 500 BC) and the Middlesex Complex (c.500 BC to 0 AD). During this period the life ways of Early Woodland population differed little from that of the Late Archaic with hunting and gathering representing the primary subsistence strategies. The pottery of this period is characterized by its relatively crude construction and lack of decorations. These early ceramics exhibit cord impressions, likely resulting from the techniques used during manufacture (Spence et al., 1990). The Middle Woodland period is differentiated from the Early Woodland period by changes in lithic tool morphologies (projectile points) and the increased elaboration of ceramic vessels (Spence et al., 1990). In southern Ontario , the Middle Woodland is observed in three different cultural complexes: the Point Peninsula Complex to the north and northeast of Lake Ontario, the Couture Complex near Lake St. Claire and the Saugeen Complex throughout the remainder of southern Ontario. These groups can be identified by their use of either dentate or pseud o-scalloped ceramic decorations. It is by the end of the Middle Woodland period that archaeological evidence begins to suggest the rudimentary use of maize (corn) horticulture (Warrick, 2000). The adoption and expansion of maize horticulture during the Late Woodland period allowed for an increase in population size, density, and complexity among Late Woodland populations. As a result, a shift in subsistence and settlement patterns occurred, with the adoption of a more sedentary village life and reliance on maize horticulture, with beans, squash and tobacco also being grown. Nearing the end of the Late Woodland Period (approximately 1400 AD) villages reached their maximum size. During this period, increased warfare resulted in the development of larger villages with extensive palisades. Early contact with European settlers at the end of the Late Woodland, Late Ontario Iroquoian period resulted in extensive change to the traditional lifestyles of most populations inhabiting southern Ontario. 4.2 PRE-CONFEDERATION TREATIES The study area, located in the City of Pickering, is situated on the lands of the William Treaties and the Johnson-Butler Purchase. The Williams Treaties were signed in October and November of - 122 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 16 1923 between the Crown and seven First Nations groups, including the Chippewa of Lake Simcoe (Beausoleil First Nation, Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, Chippewas of Rama First Nation) and the Mississauga of the north shore of Lake Ontario (Alderville First Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation, and Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation). The Williams Treaties were the last of the land cession treaties to be signed in Canada, which transferred over 20, 000 square kilometers of land in south -central Ontario to the Crown. 4.3 ONTARIO COUNTY The District of Nassau, created in 1788, was one of four original districts dividing what is now the Province of Ontario. This district was later renamed the Home District, which stretched form the Trent River to Long Point and north to the Seve rn River. Over the following years these districts were divided until there were 20 districts in all. In 1853, Ontario was separated to become its own County from the United Counties of Ontario, York and Peel. In 1869 its area was estimated at 360,000 acres with 210,000 acres of which were cleared and under cultivation (Conner and Coltson, 1869). By 1854, Ontario County included nine townships: Brock, Mara, Pickering, Rama, Reach, Scott, Thorah, Uxbridge, and Whitby. In the latter half of the nineteenth century the County was known for the quality of its grains and the principal manufactures were flour and lumber (Conner and Coltson, 1869). Ontario County was dissolved in 1974 and the Townships of Rama and Mara were added to Simcoe County . 4.4 PICKERING TOWNSHIP Pickering Township was established in 1791 when Augustus Jones began to survey the area on behalf of the government of Upper Canada. The eastern part of the township was settled by Loyalists, disbanded soldiers, emigrants from the United Kingdom, and a large number of Quakers from both Ireland and the US (Farewell, 1907). Loyalists and their relatives hel d the vast majority of land grants in Pickering Township in the years following the revolution (Johnson, 1973). By 1793, the Kingston Road was opened to serve as a horse path extending east from Simcoe’s Dundas Street, and in 1799, a rough roadway had been cut from Duffin’s Creek to Port Hope. While early roadworks made the Township more accessible to prospective settlers, actual settlement of Pickering Township proceeded very slowly. Although the first land patent was awarded to Major John Smith in 1792, the first legal settler in Pickering was William Peak in 1798 (Armstrong, 1985; Farewell, 1907). Difficulty clearing the forest led Peak and other early settlers to pursue non-agricultural means to augment income, including trading with Indigenous Peoples in the area (Johnson, 1973). Population growth and Township development remained slow during the early nineteenth century. The War of 1812 halted much of the county and township’s development. After the conflict, increased road traffic provided a boost in business to local innkeepers while soldiers worked to improve existing road conditions. With improved roadways, and a substantial water course in - 123 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 17 Duffin’s Creek, Pickering Township was soon able to establish saw and grist mills for the production of lumber and grain for export through Toronto. By 1817 the population was 330 (Johnson, 1973). Changes in land-granting policies in the 1820s led to further sales of land in Pickering Township and by 1820 the population was 575 (Johnson, 1973), which grew to 830 by 1825 (Johnson, 1973; Welch and Payne, 2015). A post office was established in 1829 but the hamlet of Duffin's Creek developed slowly. That same year, the Crown worked with the New England Company, a missionary group, to encourage farming and education for the First Nations people. The community that is now known as Curve Lake First Nation was established (Curve Lake First Nation, n.d.). The construction of the Grand Trunk Railway in 1856 and growing agricultural prosperity stimulated the community's development as an important grist-milling and local commercial centre. However, Pickering Township was slow to develop. By 1861 growth had stalled and between 1861 and 1891 a decline in population occurred. Inflation and a depression between 1874 -76 did little to help. The population of Pickering Township peaked at 8,002 in 1861 (Johnson, 1973) and by 1891 numbered 5,998 (Johnson, 1973). Through most of the nineteenth and twentieth centur ies, the township remained primarily agricultural. As many communities on the periphery of Toronto, d evelopment increased following the Second World War. Manufacturing companies also moved to the township following the construction of Highway 401 in the 1950s and in 1974 the township was divided into eastern and northern parts. Following this, in 1974, the villages of Brougham, Claremont, Green River, Greenwood and Whitevale became the Town of Pickering. In 2000 the Town became incorporated as a City. 4.5 COMMUNITY OF WHITEVALE Situated 1.3 km to the southwest of the study area, the community of Whitevale was founded in 1820 by John Major who built a sawmill along Duffin’s Creek. The community as first known as Majorville as John Major and multiple members of his family lived on the surrounding properties. In 1845, Ira White arrived in Majorville and took over the sawmill. In 1855, the sawmill was purchased by his son, Truman. P. White, who also constructed a grist mill and a cooperage. In the same year, the community also constructed its first general store (Wood, 1911). He later constructed a planning factory in 1866, a brick woollen mill in 1867, and a schoolhouse sometime later. Truman White became a central pillar of the community, and the small hamlet was named Whitevale after him. By 1874, Whitevale contained three general stores, three dressmakers, thre e gardeners, two shoemaker shops, two churches, two blacksmiths, two wagon shops, a stave and heading factory, a barrel factory, a wagon and carriage factory, a cheese factory, a merchant and tailoring firm, a - 124 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 18 butcher shop, a tinsmith shop, a school house, an undertakers, a harness shop, a grist mill, a brush factory, a grindstone factory, a barber shop, a post office, and a hotel (Wood, 1911; Whitevale, n.d.). The continued prosperity of Whitevale did not last the turn of the century. The last quarter of the nineteenth century saw the community struck by separate fires at the cooperage, the carriage factory, the public hall, planning mill, grist mill, and the woollen mill. These problems were compounded when Whitevale was bypassed by the Ontario -Quebec railway line, built in 1884 (Whitevale, n.d.). Whitevale remains as an unincorporated community of the City of Pickering . 4.6 COMMUNITY OF GREEN RIVER Situated approximately 3 kilometres west of the subject property, the community of Green River was first settled by Benjamin Doten. Doten arrived in 1849 and established a wagon and blacksmith shop known as Dotenville Carriage Works. Osburn, Rice, Runnals, Vardon, Ferrier, Turner, MacIntyre, Poucher, and the Winter families were among the early families to settle i n Green River. William Barnes built a sawmill in 1857 and by 1870, he added a factory to produce tubs, fork and brush handles and baskets. Edward and John Smith were an integral part of the development of Green River, in the early 1870s, they purchased a s awmill and restored it to working order, the also erected a grist mill, a store, and a public hall in the village; t hey also aided in the establishment of a post office in 1870 (Mika & Mika, 1981). In 1974, Green River was incorporated into the newly cre ated Town of Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham. 4.7 SITE SPECIFIC HISTORY: 815 HIGHWAY 7 The Euro-Canadian land use history for 815 Highway 7, Pickering was produced using census returns, land registry records, city directories, historical mapping, and other primary and secondary sources, where available. 815 HIGHWAY 7 The subject property is within Lot 27, Concession V, in the Geographic Township of Pickering, now the City of Pickering. The property history has been completed with land registry records, historical maps, census records and archival photographs. It should be noted that the absence of structures or other features shown on the historical maps does not preclude their presence on these properties. Illustrating all homesteads on the historical atlas maps would have been beyond the intended scope of the atlas and, often, homes were only illustrated for those landowners who purchased a subscription. - 125 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 19 According to the abstract index, on August 4, 1821, Charles Denison received a patent from The Crown for all 200 acres (Book 211, Page 134). On the same day, Charles released all 200 acres to William Baldwin (Book 211, Page 134, Instrument 5083). On August 20, 1821, the lot is sold to William Sleigh (Book 211, Page 134, Instrument 5084). On December 9, 1826, William Sleigh sold Archibald Barker the northwest half of the lot (Book 211, Page 134, Instrument illegible), Barker purchased the northeast half of the lot from Wu rz Landon On February 24, 1837. In 1871, a transaction occured between John Percy and William Major for the north half of the lot, the type of transaction, exact date and compensation, however, is illegible (Book 211, Page 134). The 1837 City of Toronto and the Home District Commercial Directory and Register (Walton, 1837) indicates several occupants for Lot 27, Concession V, they include: George Crowthers, Stephen Hubbard, William Sleigh and Albert Smith. No information regarding the presence of structures is provided in the directory. Roswell’s City of Toronto Directory and County of York for 1850 -1851 (Armstrong, 1850) lists several occupants for Lot 27, Concession V, including Benjamin Milligan, John Percy and John Sleigh. No information regarding the presence of structures is provided in the directory. The 1851 Census lists John Percy, a 43-year old farmer, born in England as living his wife Elizabeth (née Young), also 43 (Plates 1 and 2), and their children Archibald (19), William (17), Mary Anne (9), James (8), Sylvenus (6), Uriah (5), John (3) and Frederick (3). The family is listed as belonging to the Wesleyan Methodist Church (Item No. 1126581, Page 215). J. Percy is assessed for the north quarter of Lot 7, Concession V i n 1853, at this time he was identified as both a Householder and a Freeholder (Scheinman, 2004). Original concession roads are illustrated on the 1860 Tremaine Map of Ontario County (Figure 4, Appendix A), including present-day Highway 7 and Whites Road, as are the settlements of Brunswick Hill and Brougham located north and east of the subject property, respectively. The lands surrounding the subject property constituted a rural landscape. The Tremaine map indicates that Lot 27 is divided into two 50 acre and one 100 acre lots, with 815 Highway 7 located within the lot owned by J. Pursey [sic]. One structure is illustrated within the subject property on the 1861 Tremaine Map. The 1861 census lists John (51), Elizabeth (51) and their children, Archibald (27), William (25), Mary Anne (19), Uriah (17), John (13), Venice (17), Frederick (11), and Leslie (7), as living in a one-and-a-half storey brick house. The census indicates that two families were living in the house in 1861, however no information regarding the second family was provided (Item no. 2747140, Page 133). The 1871 Census lists John, 60, his wife Elizabeth, 61 and their children Uriah and Frederick, aged 21 and 25 respectively (Instrument 649389, Page 50). In 1871, the north half of Lot 27, Concession V is willed to Major William (Book 211, Page 134, Instrument illegible). To additional transactions between Barker Archibald et. ux and Uriah Percy et. ux and John Scott occur between 1871 and 1892, however the transaction type, exact date and compensation are illegible (Book 211, Page 134). - 126 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 20 John Percey died on October 10, 1872, he is interred with his wife, who died in 1884, at the Green River Baptist Cemetery, located at 600 Highway 7 (Photograph 100). Plate 1: Portrait of John Percy, date unknown (findagrave.com) Plate 2: Portrait of Elizabeth Percy, date unknown (findagrave.com) Similar to the 1860 Tremaine Map, one structure is illustrated on the 1877 Pickering Township Map (Figure 5, Appendix A). A. Percy is shown as owning a 50 acres within Lot 27, Concession V. A brick structure is shown on the 1914 NTS map, in the approximate location of the subject property (Figure 6, Appendix A). The brick structure is also present on the 1933 (Figure 7, Appendix A) and 1943 NTS maps (Figure 8, Appendix A). These maps show no change in the lands surrounding the subject property, as they continued to be rural in nature. The Percy Family retained ownership of Lot 27, Concession V until the late nineteenth century, when ownership was transferred to C. Berevell (Scheinman, 2004). All of Lot 27, Concession V was expropriated by the Crown and granted to the Ministry of Housing, Province of Ontario, on February 4, 1974 (Book 211, Page 134a, Instrument 252578). The lot is granted from the Ontario Land Corporation to Her Majesty The Queen in right of the Province of - 127 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 21 Ontario represented by the Minister of Transportation and communications for the Province of Ontario (Book 211, Page 134a, Instrument D136577). Aerial photographs from 1954 to 2006 were reviewed to assist in documenting changes to the rural landscape. A 1954 aerial photograph (Figure 9, Appendix A) of the subject property was reviewed, and while the quality of the photograph is poor, the house and t he bank barns are visible. Development within the study area between 1954 and 2006 was relatively slow. The 2002 aerial photograph (Figure 10, Appendix A) clearly shows the house and two barns subject property; Highway 407 is also present, south of the su bject property. Construction began on the Whites Road extension and the Highway 407 on -and off-ramps in 2018, and is in use as of 2022. The majority of the lands adjacent to 815 Highway 7 remain under active cultivation. - 128 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 22 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.1 815 HIGHWAY 7 The subject property at 815 Highway 7 is currently under active cultivation, on an approximately 18.7-hectare irregular shaped lot that includes a one-and-a-half storey brick Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical influences constructed c. 1853, two bank barns and two silos (Figure 3). The Percy House is currently vacant. The property is located on the south side of Highway 7, west of Whites Road, it is bounded on the east and west by lands associated with the Seaton Natural Heritage System in the City of Pickering. The residential building is oriented toward Highway 7 and barns are located south of the residence. The house is setback from Highway 7 approximately 30 metres. The following description of the subject property is based on site visit s conducted on April 19, and April 29, 2022, by Emily Game, Cultural Heritage Specialist. Access to the project location was provided by the proponent, as such there were no limitations to the on-site investigation. RESIDENCE The one-and-a-half storey Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical and Georgian influences is set back from Highway 7 approximately 30 metres. The structure is oriented with its façade to Highway 7, slightly west of a straight, gravel driveway (Photograph 1). Constructed c. 1853, the one-and-a-half storey brick structure with a side gable roof was originally built to a rectangular plan, with one rear addition projecting from the south elevation. The main façade of the one-and-a-half storey structure was constructed using a fine example of Flemish bond, while the east, south, and west elevations were constructed using the Common bond. Flemish bond was considered to be of higher quality as more bricks were required to construct the wall, it also reflects a higher degree of craftsmanship. A 1913 contractors’ estimating book specifies that a mason should be able to lay 600 bricks in the Common bond per day in veneer work but only 200 when laid as fancy brickwork (Radford, 1913: 377). The one-and-a-half storey structure is sited on a foundation comprised of granite and field stone. The one-storey addition has a gable roof which spans south elevation is also of brick construction. The addition is laid in the Common bond pattern and is sited on a fieldstone foundation. 5.1.1.1 EXTERIOR North Elevation (Main Façade) The symmetrical three-bay north elevation represents the building’s main façade (Photograph 2). The centrally placed entrance features a wide surround, with a transom, sidelights and recessed panels; the entrance is topped with a flat arch in buff brick (Photograph 3). The entrance is - 129 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 23 flanked by a pair of rectangular window openings with flat arches in buff brick (Photograph 4). The windows retain their original six-over-six double-hung sash windows. The façade features buff brick quoins and a patterned stringcourse below the moulded cornice, this is an early example of dichromatic brickwork, a style that would come to characterize the region. A buff brick stringcourse is also present, immediately above the coursed and split granite foundation (Photograph 5). East Elevation The two-bay east elevation is symmetrical, and features an interior corbelled chimney; the return eaves are no longer extant on the east elevation . The interior chimney is flanked by two windows on both the main and upper storeys (Photographs 6 and 7). The windows on the east elevation are rectangular and have wooden sills, they retain their original six-over-six double-hung sash windows. The east elevation has been covered in stucco, however, the buff brick stringcourse is visible above the foundation, which on the east elevation, is comprised of fieldstone (Photograph 8). The east elevation of the rear addition is symmetrical with three bays, it is constructed using brick laid in the Common bond and is located on a fieldstone foundation (Photograph 9). The rectangular windows retain their six-over-six double-hung sash windows and have wood sill; they are topped with a jack arch. The door has been replaced with an aluminum screen door and a wood door. The porch appears to be original the structure and feature s a roof with exposed curved rafters (Photograph 10). South Elevation The original portion of the south elevation (Photograph 11) is largely obscured by the one-storey addition projecting from the rear elevation. One door is present on the south elevation of the addition. No windows were observed on the south elevation of the one -and-a-half storey structure. A large concrete block with brick fill is positioned against the door opening, this is likely support ing rear brick wall which appears to be collapsing. West Elevation The two-bay west elevation is symmetrical, and features an interior corbelled chimney; one return eave remains on the northwest corner of the house . The chimney is flanked by two windows on both the main and upper storeys. The windows on the east elevation are rectangular and have wooden sills and feature jack arches of buff brick; they retain their original six-over-six double-hung sash windows. The buff brick stringcourse extends on the west elevation above the foundation, which on the west elevation, is comprised of fieldstone (Photographs 12 and 13). The west façade of the rear addition is also symmetrical with three bays. The windows on the west façade have been removed and are covered with wood sheeting. The wood door on the west façade appears to be original (Photograph 14). - 130 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 24 Photograph 1: View to Percy House from gravel driveway (WSP, 2022) Photograph 2: Main façade of the Percy House (WSP, 2022) - 131 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 25 Photograph 3: Detail of wood door surround (WSP, 2022) Photograph 4: Detail of six-over-six window (WSP, 2022) Photograph 5: Detail of granite and fieldstone foundation and buff brick string course and quoins (WSP, 2022) - 132 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 26 Photograph 6: East façade and rear addition (WSP, 2022) Photograph 7: Overview of the east façade (WSP, 2022) - 133 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 27 Photograph 8: Detail of coursed fieldstone foundation and stuccoed exterior on the east façade (WSP, 2022) Photograph 9: East façade of the rear addition (WSP, 2022) - 134 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 28 Photograph 10: View to the north of the rear addition and east façade (WSP, 2022) Photograph 11: South façade of the rear addition (WSP, 2022) - 135 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 29 Photograph 12: Overview of the west façade (WSP, 2022) Photograph 13: Detail of return eaves on the west façade (WSP, 2022) - 136 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 30 Photograph 14: West façade of the rear addition (WSP, 2022) 5.1.1.2 INTERIOR MAIN FLOOR The Percy House is a well-crafted example of an Ontario Cottage with Neo -Classical and Georgian influences. The one-and-a-half storey portion of the house follows Georgian design principles as seen through its centre hall plan (Photographs 15 and 16). Both floors of the one- and-a-half story building are composed of four approximately equal sized rooms and one staircase, all laid out to a rectangular plan. All four of the rooms are accessed by the centre hall and each of the rooms has a door allowing access to the adjacent space. The walls and ceilings are constructed of lath and plaster and metal and stone fireplace collars are present in most of the rooms. The floors consist of wide pine boards. Few alterations have been made to the house, with the exception of the addition of a bathroom on the main floor; the floorplan is unchanged. The newel posts, handrail and balusters are simple in form; the balusters are lathe-turned, with two balusters on each step (Photographs 17 and 19). The baseboards within the hallway are tall with a simple cap molding and a quarter round trim (Photograph 18). The floors in the hallway are covered in modern vinyl flooring. The room at the northeast corner of the house originally functioned as the parlour. The room features a corner cupboard with Gothic glazing, well-considered proportions and a Neo-Classical inspired cornice (Photograph 20). The floor-to-ceiling windows in the parlour have simple fielded - 137 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 31 panels below the sills and wide moulded surrounds (Photographs 21 and 22). The baseboards in the room are tall, and have a cap moulding (Photograph 23). The room at the northwest corner of the house features a fireplace mantel with a simple pilastered surround (Photographs 24 to 27). The window surrounds are less elaborate than those in the parlour and do not have fielded panels. The baseboards in the room are tall, and have a cap moulding topped with a bead. The room at the southeast corner of the house most recently functioned as a kitchen. The window surround has a similar profile to those in the northwest room. The baseboards are tall, have a quarter round trim and are topped with a half round moulding. A door, now covered, once provided access to the rear addition. The floors in the kitchen are covered in modern vinyl flooring (Photographs 28 to 30). The room at the southwest corner of the house was divided to accommodate the placement of a modern bathroom. The window surround has a similar profile to those in the northwest and southeast rooms. The baseboards in the room are tall, and are capped with a half round bead. The floors are covered in modern vinyl flooring (Photographs 31 and 32). The one-story addition is composed of two rooms, the northernmost room being the larger of the two. The exterior walls and ceilings are constructed of lath and plaster, while the dividing wall is constructed of dimensional lumber. The bottom three quarters of the walls in the addition are clad in a beaded wainscotting. The window and door frames are mostly unornamented and feature a simple bead. The ceiling in both rooms is covered in wood beadboard and the floors consist of unpainted tongue-and-groove boards. A fireplace is located on the southern wall of the addition (Photographs 33 to 42). - 138 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 32 Photograph 15: Centre hall of the Percy House (WSP, 2022) Photograph 16: Transom and sidelights in hall (WSP, 2022) Photograph 17: Detail of staircase in centre hall (WSP, 2022) - 139 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 33 Photograph 18: Detail of baseboard in centre hall (WSP, 2022) Photograph 19: Detail of newel post in centre hall (WSP, 2022) Photograph 20: Detail of cupboard in first floor room (WSP, 2022) - 140 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 34 Photograph 21: Detail of window in first floor room (WSP, 2022) Photograph 22: Detail of door in first floor room (WSP, 2022) Photograph 23: Overview of first floor room, showing door trim and baseboards (WSP, 2022) - 141 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 35 Photograph 24: Overview of first floor room (WSP, 2022) Photograph 25: Detail of window (WSP, 2022) Photograph 26: Detail of door trim (WSP, 2022) - 142 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 36 Photograph 27: Detail of mantle (WSP, 2022) Photograph 28: Overview of former kitchen (WSP, 2022) - 143 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 37 Photograph 29: Covered door in kitchen (WSP, 2022) Photograph 30: Modified trim in kitchen (WSP, 2022) Photograph 31: Overview of first floor room (WSP, 2022) Photograph 32: Example of wood door (WSP, 2022) - 144 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 38 Photograph 33: North wall of addition with two doors and wainscotting (WSP, 2022) Photograph 34: East wall of addition showing window, door and wainscotting (WSP, 2022) - 145 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 39 Photograph 35: Dividing wall in addition, showing door trim and wainscotting (WSP, 2022) Photograph 36: West wall of addition showing wainscoting, covered door and window trim (WSP, 2022) - 146 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 40 Photograph 37: Beadboard ceiling in addition (WSP, 2022) Photograph 38: Detail of window and picture rail in addition (WSP, 2022) - 147 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 41 Photograph 39: Detail of dimensional lumber wall (WSP, 2022) Photograph 40: Door on south wall of addition (WSP, 2022) Photograph 41: Detail of window and wainscotting in rear addition (WSP, 2022) - 148 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 42 Photograph 42: Fireplace on south wall of first floor addition (WSP, 2022) SECOND FLOOR The second floor is accessed via the staircase in the centre hall. The banister and lathe-turned baluster continue to the second story and the newel post in the second floor is identical to that on the main floor. The second floor consists of the landing/hallway, four bedrooms and two closets. The floor retains both painted and unpainted wide pine boards. The baseboards and window surrounds on the second floor are very simple and do not feature any moulding or decorative elements. The doors to each of the rooms consist of wood panelled doors, all the original locking mechanisms and doorknobs have been removed (Photographs 43 to 52). A stone fireplace collar is embedded in the floor of the bedroom in the southwest corner of the house (Photograph 53). - 149 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 43 Photograph 43: Overview of second floor landing (WSP, 2022) Photograph 44: Railing and newel post on second floor (WSP, 2022) Photograph 45: Example of door trim on second floor (WSP, 2022) - 150 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 44 Photograph 46: Overview of bedroom on second floor (WSP, 2022) Photograph 47: Overview of bedroom on second floor (WSP, 2022) Photograph 48: Overview of bedroom on second floor (WSP, 2022) - 151 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 45 Photograph 49: Overview of bedroom on second floor (WSP, 2022) Photograph 50: Overview of bedroom on second floor (WSP, 2022) - 152 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 46 Photograph 51: Overview of bedroom on second floor (WSP, 2022) Photograph 52: Overview of bedroom on second floor (WSP, 2022) - 153 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 47 Photograph 53: Stone fireplace collar in second floor bedroom (WSP, 2022) BASEMENT The basement is accessed by a simple wood staircase via the centre hall (Photograph 54). It is composed of two rooms, separated by a brick wall. The foundation is constructed of fieldstone which has been painted white. The room on the east side of the house has a dirt floor with has been covered with unmortared bricks. The room on the east side of the house has a poured concrete floor. The machine-cut, cross braced floor joists and subfloor are visible above (Image 83), and one hand-hewn beams is present in the middle of the basement for support. A door opening on the east wall of the basement provides access to the exterior via a storm door (Photographs 55 to 61). - 154 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 48 Photograph 54: Stairs in basement (WSP, 2022) Photograph 55: Detail of door in basement (WSP, 2022) Photograph 56: Overview of basement (WSP, 2022) - 155 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 49 Photograph 57: Overview of basement (WSP, 2022) Photograph 58: Fieldstone construction in basement (WSP, 2022) - 156 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 50 Photograph 59: Detail of hand-hewn beam in basement (WSP, 2022) Photograph 60: Exterior access on east wall of basement (WSP, 2022) Photograph 61: Example of window in basement (WSP, 2022) - 157 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 51 BANK BARN 1 AND SILO 1 EXTERIOR Barn 1 is oriented east to west, with a wooden silo (Silo 1) located west of the barn. The barn retains its original rectangular plan and was built into the natural topography of the lot, which slopes to the south. As such, entrances to the barn are provided on both the north (banked) and south eave-sides, with access to the upper level for crop and implement storage and working space provided on the north elevation, and access to the lower stable area provided via the south and west elevations. The barn is clad in vertical wood boards and features a gambrel roof clad in sheet metal, remnants of red paint are visible on the exterior. Vents are located at both the east and west ends of the roof line as are three evenly spaced lightening rods. The north elevation contains large sliding wood doors roughly in the centre of the elevation (Photograph 62). The foundation on the north façade is capped with cast-in-place concrete. Much of the exterior cladding from the main level of the east elevation has been lost, and with the exception of two windows in the lower level, there are no intentional openings (Photograph s 63 and 64). The granite foundation appears intact on the east elevation. The south elevation of Barn 1 is partially clad in vertical wood board and board and batten, it appears there was at least one opening on the upper level of the barn which is now covered (Photograph 65). The lower level of the barn contains three door openings and one window opening. The western portion of the foundation has been capped in concrete and a portion of the interior wall has been rebuilt using the same material. The centre portion of the foundation also appears to have undergone repair; the exterior foundation is constructed using field stone of varying sizes. The eastern corner of the southern façade is likely the original building material; it consists of finely cut and laid granite blocks (Photograph 66). The west elevation of Barn 1 contains one window and one door in the lower level, there are no other openings on the west façade, including in the upper levels. A portion of the foundation, south of the door opening has collapsed (Photograph 67). The remains of a wooden silo are located immediately west of Barn 1. Silo 1 is an increasingly rare example of its type, constructed of vertical boards, bound with lapped planks (Photograph 68). Grain silos became part of Ontario agriculture about 1880, as silage reduced the incidences of sour hay and therefore bad tasting milk from cattle (McIlwraith, 1997: 187). The earliest silage containers were rectangular, lined bins inside barns. The first tower silos were built with vertical tongue-and-groove staves wrapped in iron hoops or wooden cribs (McIlwraith, 1997: 187). Some silos in the early twentieth century were constructed with cl ay tiles, but silos of poured concrete with steel reinforcing rods was much more common (McIlwraith, 1997: 187). As such, the wood silo on the property was likely constructed between 1880 and 1900. - 158 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 52 Photograph 62: North (banked) façade of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 63: East façade of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) - 159 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 53 Photograph 64: Window with wood frame in basement level of the east elevation (WSP, 2022) Photograph 65: South façade of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) - 160 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 54 Photograph 66: Detail of finely laid granite foundation on south foundation of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 67: Window, door and collapsed wall on the west elevation of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) - 161 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 55 Photograph 68: Remains of Silo 1 (WSP, 2022) BARN 1 INTERIOR The barn interior is divided into two levels; the lower stable level and the threshing floor.2 The lower level of the barn is accessed by three doors on the south elevation as well as one door on the west elevation. The lower level is comprised of animal stalls divided by a series of aisles providing access between the stalls and to doors on the south and west elevations. Portions of the floor in the stable level are covered in buff and red brick pavers. Large hand -hewn timbers and uncut logs support the upper storey (Photographs 69 to 72). The threshing floor of Barn 1 is accessed via an earthen ra mp on the north façade. The threshing floor is open except for a granary at the western end of the barn, which is divided into several rooms for storage (Photographs 73 to 78). 2 Photographs of the threshing floors of Barn 1 and Barn 1 were taken from window, door and wall openings. Portions of the lower levels of Barns 1 and 2 were accessed only where it was deemed safe to do so. - 162 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 56 Photograph 69: Stalls and aisle in lower level of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 70: Stalls and interior wall of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) - 163 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 57 Photograph 71: Interior support wall in lower level of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 72: Brick pavers used as flooring in lower level of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) - 164 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 58 Photograph 73: Threshing floor of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 74: Granary in western end of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) - 165 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 59 Photograph 75: View of interior gambrel roof construction (WSP, 2022) Photograph 76: Detail of treenails used in construction of framing (WSP, 2022) - 166 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 60 Photograph 77: Detail of treenails used in construction of framing (WSP, 2022) Photograph 78: Wide boards on floor of the haymow (WSP, 2022) - 167 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 61 BANK BARN 2 AND SILO 2 Barn 2 is oriented on a north to south axis, with a reinforced concrete silo located north of the barn. The barn retains its original rectangular plan and was built into the natural topography of the lot, which slopes to the south and west. As such, entrances to the barn are provided on both the east (banked) and north eave -sides, with access to the upper level for crop and implement storage and working space provided on the east elevation, and access to the lower stable area provided via the north and west elevations. The northwest, southwest and southeast corners of Barn 2 are supported by large concrete blocks. The barn is clad in vertical wood boards and features a gambrel roof clad in sheet metal. One vent is located at the south end of the roof line as well as three stacks located on the east and west gambrel roof lines. The northern façade of the barn is partially covered by the adjacent silo. There appears to be one door and two windows in the lower level, and one window on the threshing floor (Photograph 79). The foundation on the north façade consist s of large granite blocks of a uniform size (Photograph 80). The east elevation contains large sliding wood doors roughly in the centre of the elevation (Photograph 81). The foundation on the east façade consist s of large granite blocks and fieldstone of varying sizes. The south elevation of Barn 2 is almost entirely covered by thick vegetation, making it challenging to discern the configuration. It does not appear however, that there are any window or door openings on the south elevation (Photograph 82). Much of the exterior cladding from the west elevation of Barn 2 has been lost, however, it appears there is at least one door in the upper level. The lower level of the west façade of Barn 2 is highly altered, and it appears the stone foundation has been removed. At least three door openings and one window are visible on the lower level (Photograph 83). A concrete silo (Silo 2) with a domed top is located immediately north of Barn 2. Access to the silo is via a small opening on the south elevation of the structure and a built -in ladder provides access to the top of the silo. Given the silo is constructed of reinforced concrete, it was likely constructed in the first half of the twentieth century. - 168 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 62 Photograph 79: North elevation of Barn and Silo 2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 80: Window openings and large granite blocks on north façade of Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) - 169 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 63 Photograph 81: West elevation of Barn 2 and Silo 2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 82: South elevation of Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) - 170 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 64 Photograph 83: West elevation of Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) BARN 2 INTERIOR The barn interior is divided into two levels; the lower stable level and the threshing floor. The lower level of the barn is accessed by three doors on the west elevation as well as one door on the nort h elevation. The lower level is comprised of animal stalls divided by a series of aisles providing access between the stalls and to doors on the west and north elevations. Portions of the floor in the stable level are covered in buff and red brick pavers. Large hand-hewn timbers and uncut logs support the upper storey (Photographs 84 to 88). The threshing floor of Barn 2 is accessed via an earthen ramp on the west façade. The threshing floor is open except for a granary at the northern end of the barn, which is divided into several rooms for storage (Photographs 89 to 91). - 171 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 65 Photograph 84: Stalls in lower level of Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 85: Aisles in lower level of Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) - 172 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 66 Photograph 86: Example of hand-hewn beam in Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 87: Detail of hand-hewn support beam (WSP, 2022) - 173 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 67 Photograph 88: Red and buff brick pavers in lower level of Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 89: Threshing floor and granary in Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) - 174 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 68 Photograph 90: Detail of framing system in Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 91: Floorboards of threshing floor in Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) - 175 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 69 LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS The subject property consists of an 18.7-hectare irregular shaped lot with a generally flat topography, while the surrounding lands are actively farmed, the residence is vacant . The built elements of the property include a residence and two large bank barns and two silos, the residence is setback from Highway 7 approximately 30 metres, and the barns have an approximately 120 metre set back. The property is accessed via a straight gravel drive that connects Highway 7 to the cluster of buildings. Mature coniferous and deciduous trees are located on either side of the driveway. The north and eastern sides of the house are surrounded by a manicured grass law, dotted with mature trees and has open views to the surrounding agricultural fields and to Highway 7. A fenced paddock is located south of the house. The drive provides access to the property’s circulation route, which connects the property to the surrounding agricultural fields. A number of mature trees are located around the cluster of buildings and line the boundary of the agricultural fields to the east, south, and west. The lands east, west, and south of the residence and barns are comprised of agricultural fields; Ganatsekiagon Creek is located east of the buildings (Photograph 92 to 95). Photograph 92: Barn and silo 1 (right) and barn and silo 2 (left) (WSP, 2022) - 176 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 70 Photograph 93: View to west from front yard (WSP, 2022) Photograph 94: View from paddock to Barns 1 and 2 (WSP, 2022) - 177 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 71 Photograph 95: Barn yard south of barn 1 and west of barn 2 (WSP, 2022) 5.2 STUDY AREA CONTEXT The subject property is located in an evolving portion of the City that was historically characterized by nineteenth century agricultural farmsteads. Today the subject property is surrounded by agricultural fields proposed for development (Photographs 96 and 97). A nineteenth century farmstead with twentieth century modifications (745 Highway 7) (Photograph 98), is located west of the subject property. The demolition of 745 Highway 7 is proposed as part of this development. While there are no other structures immediately adjacent to the subject property, the lands east of 24 Sideline are also undergoing development as part of the Kubota Canada office and warehouse facility. On-ramps, off-ramps, and the extension of Whites Road associated with Highway 407 have been constructed within the eastern boundary of the subject property (Photograph 99). - 178 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 72 Photograph 96: View to south towards Highway 407 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 97: View to north across Highway 7 (WSP, 2022) - 179 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 73 Photograph 98: Main façade of 745 Highway 7, west of the subject property (WSP, 2022) Photograph 99: View to south of Whites Road (WSP, 2022) - 180 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 74 Photograph 100: John, Elizabeth and John Junior’s grave within the Green River Cemetery (WSP, 2022) - 181 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 75 5.3 ARCHITECTURAL STYLE ONTARIO COTTAGE The property at 815 Highway 7 is a vernacular structure and example of a historic Workers’ Cottage with Neo-Classical influences and Georgian. The term 'cottage' is derived from the Scottish word 'cotter', which was used to describe a person who owned a small shanty or lean-to as a residence, a garden and a plot of land large enough to feed a family (Kyles, 2017). Workers’ Cottages are characterized by a small building oftentimes constructed by the owner of a factory or farm and intended for the living qu arters of individuals or families employed by the business (Kyles, 2017). In towns, factory owners built rows of Worker's Cottages, which were often dedicated as residences for good workers (Kyles, 2017). Cottages for labourers were illustrated in various early British and American books such as Lamond’s A Narrative of the Rise and Progress of Emigration (1821), Loudon’s An Encyclopaedia of Cottage, Farm, and Villa Architecture and Furniture (1839), Allen’s Rural Architecture: Farm Houses, Cottages and Out Buildings (1853), and Tarbuck’s The Builder’s Practical Director or Buildings for All Classes (c. 1856), as single or multiple units and inspired the design of cottages built for workers’ in Ontario throughout the nineteenth century (McKendry, 2016). Examp les of these cottage designs are illustrated in Plate 3. In Ontario, Workers’ Cottages are observed as simple and vernacular frame structures to more elaborately detailed examples built of brick or stone and inspired by the Georgian, Regency and Gothic Rev ival styles. Some of these well-appointed examples are referred to as the Ontario Cottage, notably if they reflect the vernacular design of the Regency Cottage. This style generally includes an ornate doorway with a partial or full verandah surrounding it and the roof can have a dormer, a belvedere, and often two chimneys (Kyles, 2017). - 182 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 76 Plate 3: Simple Workers’ Cottages in nineteenth century architectural pattern books (McKendry, 2016) COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS A comparative analysis was undertaken to establish a baseline unde rstanding of similar recognized rural heritage properties in the City of Pickering, to determine if the subject property “is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, m aterial or construction method” as described in O. Reg. 9/06. Comparative examples were drawn from Part IV designated and listed, non -designated properties within the City of Pickering. Residential dwellings were selected from this data set, with a preference for buildings of similar age, style, typology and material . Two comparable designated properties and four listed properties were identified within the City (see Table 5-1). Given that a large number of stylistically similar structures are not visible from the public right of way, this analysis does not represent all available properties, but the examples are intended to provide a representative sample of similar building typologies. - 183 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 77 Table 5-1: Comparative analysis of heritage properties of a similar age, style and/or typology Address Recognition Photograph Age Material Style 560 Park Crescent (Nesbit-Newman House) Designated (Part IV) (Google Street View©) 1850s Stone Ontario Cottage with Georgian influences; one-and-a-half storey; fieldstone construction; side gable roof with return eaves; symmetrical three-bay façade; eight-over-eight double-hung sash windows; rectangular window opening with jack arches; centrally placed entrance with transom and sidelights; pair of interior end chimneys. 615 Whitevale Road (Henry Major House) Designated (Part IV) (Google Street View©) 1830s Timber frame Ontario Cottage with Georgian Classical influences; one- and-a-half storey; timber frame construction; side gable roof with return eaves; symmetrical five-bay façade; 12- over-eight double-hung sash windows; rectangular window openings; centrally placed entrance with sidelights; rear fieldstone addition. 450 Finch Avenue Listed (PHC, 2020) c. 1850 Stone Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical influences; one-and- a-half storey; fieldstone construction; side gable roof with return eaves; symmetrical three-bay façade; six-over-six double-hung sash windows; rectangular window opening with jack arches; centrally placed entrance with transom and sidelights; pair of interior end chimneys. - 184 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 78 Address Recognition Photograph Age Material Style 3535 Mowbray Street Listed (Google Street View©) 1860 Brick Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical influences; one-and- a-half storey; dichromatic brick construction; side gable roof with return eaves; symmetrical three-bay façade; six- over-six double-hung sash windows; rectangular window opening with radiating brick voussoirs; centrally placed entrance with transom and sidelights; pair of interior end chimneys. 750 Whitevale Road Listed (Laurie Smith Consulting, 2015) Between 1851 and 1861 Stone Ontario Cottage with Georgian influences; one-and-a-half storey; fieldstone construction; side gable roof with return eaves; symmetrical five-bay façade; six-over-six double- hung sash windows; rectangular window opening with jack arches; centrally placed entrance with transom and sidelights; pair of interior end chimneys. 1390 Whitevale Road Listed (Laurie Smith Consulting, 2015a) Between 1832 and 1851 Stone Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical influences; one-and- a-half storey; fieldstone construction; side gable roof with return eaves; symmetrical three-bay façade; six-over-six double-hung sash windows; rectangular window opening with jack arches; centrally placed entrance; single end chimneys. - 185 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 79 Of these examples, the following architectural elements characteristic of the Ontario Cottage style were observed: • Type: All six are residential examples of Ontario Cottages with Georgian or Neo-Classical influences. • Plan: All examples are built to a square or rectangular plan. • Height: Each example is one-and-a-half storeys. • Roof: All examples have side gable roofs with return eaves. • Construction Material: Four examples are stone, one is timber frame, and one dichromatic brick. • Facade: Four of the examples are three-bays wide, two are five-bays wide, all have symmetrical facades. • Chimneys: Four examples have twin brick chimneys; one example has one brick chimney; and one example does not have chimneys. • Main Entrance: All examples have central front doors; four examples have both transoms and sidelights; one example has just sidelights and one example has neither a transom nor sidelights. • Windows: All examples have rectangular window opening s. One example has eight-over- eight wood windows; one example had 12-over-eight wood windows; the remaining four examples have six-over-six double-hung sash windows. • Decorative elements: One example includes decorative dichromatic brick detail. • Alterations: Although it is difficult to confirm when viewed from the public ROW, it appears that two examples have undergone alterations through the addition of front-facing dormers. This comparative analysis suggests that the residence on the subject property at 815 Highway 7 demonstrates representative elements of the Ontario Cottage style including the: one-and-a-half storey height; dichromatic brick construction; rectangular plan and symmetrical three-bay façade; side gable roof with return eaves; paired chimneys; entrance details; and multipaned windows. Constructed c. 1853, the structure is one of two examples of a brick Ontario Cottage in the City of Pickering, making the Percy House one of the earliest structures in the area retaining its original exterior form. As such, when comparing the expression of the style at 815 Highway 7 to other local examples, it is unique in its dichromatic brickwork, wide door surround, heavily mortared granite foundation, and fine detailing and craftsmanship. It is acknowledged that the small number of examples reviewed means that this comparative analysis could be misleading. It was also challenging to fully assess the architectural details of each structure from the public ROW. As such, the cultural heritage evaluations included in Section 7 have not only considered the results of this comparative analysis, but typical architectural trends across Ontario. - 186 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 80 CENTRAL ONTARIO BARN The barns at 815 Highway 7 are representative examples of the Central Ontario style, a common barn design in southern Ontario dating to the last quarter of the nineteenth century (Ennals, 1972). The construction date of the barn is thought to date to roughly the same time period of the house, between 1861-1881, which is consistent with the building style and development history of the property. The Central Ontario barn is distinguished by its large size, usually 40-50 feet in width and 60-100 feet in length built to a rectangular plan, and is most often constructed of wood on a stone foundation with a gable or gambrel roof (Ennals, 1972). The two roof styles associated with the Central Ontario barn are indicative of the period of construction. Gable roofs were used up to about 1880, after which gambrel roofs were introduced. The barn on the subject property features a gambrel roof, which supports its estimated construction date prior to 1881 (Ennals, 1972). The gambrel roof was a design element adopted from Dutch style barns for functional reasons as it significantly increased the storage capacity of the loft. This was an important development as farmers began to practice mixed farming after 1880 and needed to store more feed to maintain their growing herds of livestock. The Central Ontario barn style is two storeys with a lower stable area and an upper level for crop and implement storage and working space. Access to the ground floor is provided by doorways leading to the farmyard and entry to the upper level is by means of an earth ramp leading to a large door in the eave-side (long side) (Ennals, 1972). The large double door and height of the second floor allowed wagons and machinery to be brought in for unloading and repair. This type of barn is known as a bank barn in southern Ontario. As is the case with the subject property, the barn is often set into a slope so that the upper level can be entered directly from the top of the slope. Typical of the Central Ontario barn, the second level is often constructed of heavy timber frames or “bents” and includes a drive -floor, which would serve as a work space and tool and machine storage; a granary (a room or series of rooms facing onto a passageway set at right angles to the drive floor); and an area for hay, straw, grain and crop storage (Ennals, 1972). The lower level would serve as a stable arranged to accommodate stalls for horses and livestock and may include space for root crop storage. The animals and water supply on the ground floor were protected in the winter by the hay insulation on the second floor, which preserved the animal’s body heat. Silos began to appear on Ontario farms in the 1870s to provide better storage for the grains and corn needed to feed the livestock (Kyles, 2016). First these silos were constructed of concrete block, then poured concrete, and later metal, which provided a more efficient curing environment (Kyles, 2016). COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS – BANK BARNS AT 815 HIGHWAY 7 A comparative analysis was undertaken to establish a baseline understanding of similar recognized mid-to -late nineteenth century Central Ontario style barns in the City of Pickering to determine if the barns at 815 Highway 7 “is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method” as described in O. Reg. 9/06. - 187 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 81 Upon a review of the City’s Heritage Properties Register, only one comparative example of a Part IV designated property containing a Central Ontario barn was identified in the municipality, making it challenging to compare contextually appropriate properties with recognized CHVI. Given the lack of Part IV designated barns within the City of Pickering, this O. Reg. 9/06 evaluation has also considered barn trends across Southern Ontario, rather than only locally within the City of Pickering (see Table 5-2). This approach was taken because the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register does not include any Part IV designated Central Ontario bank barns. Moreover, while some barns would inevitably be included on non -designated properties included on the Register, these were not readily identified, nor would a review of ba rns (which are often well set back) from the public right-of-way provide a reliable comparative analysis, making it challenging to compare contextually appropriate properties with recognized CHVI. This analysis does not represent all available properties, rather the examples are intended to provide a representative sample of similar building typologies - 188 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 82 Table 5-2: Comparative analysis of barns of a similar age, style and/or typology Address Recognition Photograph Age Material Style 1860 Seventh Concession Road (Thistle Ha’ Farm) Designated Part IV of the OHA (By-Law 2140/86), National Historic Site, protected by a heritage conservation easement agreement with the OHT No photo available Stone foundation, timber frame, clad in board and batten Mid-nineteenth century bank barn; rectangular plan; two storeys; gambrel roof; wood-frame construction with board; sheathing metal roof; fieldstone foundation; surviving evidence of a silo, component of an agricultural landscape. 13831, Leslie Street, Aurora, Ontario Part IV Designated (By- law 4729-05) c. 1840 Stone foundation, timber frame, clad in board and batten Mid-nineteenth century bank barn; rectangular plan; two storeys; gable roof; clad in board and batten; stone foundation. 748 Zeller Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Part IV Designated (By- law 98-177) c. 1870 Stone foundation, timber frame, clad in board and batten Late-nineteenth century bank barn; rectangular plan; two storeys; gable roof; clad in board and batten; stone foundation. 536 County Road 18, Fergus, Ontario National Historic Site of Canada No photo available 1877 Stone foundation, timber frame, clad in board and batten. Late-nineteenth century bank barn; rectangular plan; two storeys; gable roof; clad in board and batten; stone foundation; earthen ramp leading to sliding doors. - 189 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 83 Of these three examples, all are expressions of Central Ontario barns built in the mid -to-late nineteenth century. The following architectural elements characteristic of Central Ontario barns in the City of Pickering were observed: • Style: All three examples are bank barns with two levels, each accessed from ground -level. Two of the barns appear characteristically large. • Plan: The original portion of each example appears to have been built to a rectangular plan. • Roof: Three examples has a gable roof, one has a gambrel roof. All feature roofs clad in sheet metal. • Cladding: All three examples are clad in wood barn board, and one appear to have been painted. • Fieldstone Foundations: Each example has a fieldstone foundation. • Silos: One example includes a silo on the property. • Landscape: All examples appear to be a component of an agricultural landscape. • Alterations: Although it is difficult to confirm when viewed from the public ROW, it appears that all examples have undergone alterations through large and small additions, likely reflective of the evolving use of the structures for agricultural purposes through the decades. This comparative analysis suggests that the barn s at 815 Highway 7 are a representative expression of the Central Ontario barn style. In assessing the architectural elements of the subject property reflective of the style, those observed include: the banked access and two storey height; original rectangular plan; wood barn board cladding; the gambrel roof clad in sheet metal; granite and fieldstone foundations; and the silos. Silo 1 is an increasingly rare example of its type, constructed of vertical boards, bound with lapped planks. Grain silos became part of Ontario agriculture about 1880, as silage reduced the incidences of sour hay and therefore bad tasting milk from cattle (McIlwraith, 1997: 187). The earliest silage containers were rectangular, lined bins inside barns. The first tower silos were built with vertical tongue -and-groove staves wrapped in iron hoops or wooden cribs (McIlwraith, 1997: 187). Some silos in the early twen tieth century were constructed with clay tiles, but silos of poured concrete with steel reinforcing rods was much more common (McIlwraith, 1997: 187). As such, the wood silo on the property was likely constructed between 1880 and 1900. It is acknowledged that the small number of examples reviewed means that this comparative analysis could be misleading. It was also challenging to fully assess the architectural details of each comparative structure from the public ROW. As such, the cultural heritage evaluations included in Section 7 have not only considered the results of this comparative analysis, but typical architectural trends across Ontario. - 190 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 84 6 CONSULTATION 6.1 CITY OF PICKERING The City of Pickering’s Senior Planner – Heritage was contacted via email on April 7, 2022, to inquire about heritage interests related to the subject property at 815 Highway 7 and to confirm the scope of this HIA. A response was received the same day confirming that the scope of the HIA should reflect the City’s Terms of Reference: Heritage Impact Assessments (2022). The City’s Senior Planner – Heritage also confirmed the following: • 815 Highway 7 is a listed, non-designated property on the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register; and • At present, the City has no intention to designate the property and a municipal heritage easement agreement does not exist for the property. For information, on April 7, 2022, the Senior Planner – Heritage shared a Planning and Development Committee staff report dated March 17, 2008, that went to Council recommending 815 Highway 7 be added to the City’s Heritage Register. The Seaton Built Heritage Assessment: Prepared for the North Pickering Land Exchange Team, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Planning and Development Division (Scheinman, 2004) was also provided. The City of Pickering Official Plan was reviewed and it was confirmed that 815 Highway 7 is not located within an identified Cultural Heritage Landscape. 6.2 FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL REVIEW The MHSTCI’s list of Heritage Conservation Districts was reviewed, and the study area was not found to be located within a designated district (MHSTCI, 2019). The Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) plaque database was searched, as was the Federal Canadian Heritage Database. The subject property is not commemorated with an OHT plaque nor recognized with a federal heritage designation. It also does not appear that 815 Highway 7 is subject to an OHT conservation easement. - 191 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 85 7 DISCUSSION OF INTEGRITY In a heritage conservation context, the concept of integrity is linked not with structural condition, but rather to the literal definition of “wholeness” or “honesty” of a place. The MHSTCI Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process (2014:13) and Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Property Evaluation (2006:26) both stress the importance of assessing the heritage integrity in conjunction with evaluation under O. Reg. 9/06 yet provide no guidelines for how this should be carried out beyond referencing the US National Park Service Bulletin 8: How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property (US NPS n.d.). In this latter document, integrity is defined as ‘the ability of a property to convey its significance’, so can only be judged once the significance of a place is known. Other guidance suggests that integrity instead be measured by understanding how much of the asset is “complete” or changed from its original or “valued subsequent configuration” (English Heritage 2008:45; Kalman 2014:203). Kalman’s Evaluation of Historic Buildings, for example, includes a category for “Integrity” with sub -elements of “Site”, “Alterations”, and “Condition” to be determined and weighted independently from other criteria such as historical value, rather than linking them to the known significance of a place. Kalman’s approach is selected here and combined with research commissioned by Historic England (The Conservation Studio 2004), which proposed a method for determining levels of change in conservation areas that also has utility for evaluating the integrity of individual structures. The results for the property are presented in Table 7-1, and are considered when determining the CHVI of the property (see Section 8.0). - 192 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 86 Table 7-1: Heritage Integrity Analysis for the Property Element Original Material / Type Alteration Survival (%) Rating Comment Setting Rural with two lane (one in each direction) roads and farmhouses, outbuilding complexes, and agricultural lands on larger lots Highway 407, constructed south of the residence, has bisected lot 28, Concession V in an east to west direction. The extension of Whites Road is located east of the property. Several warehouse buildings are under construction east of the subject property. 75% Good Despite the current development of warehouse facilities east of the subject property, the presence Highway 407, and Whites Road, of the subject property maintains the rural character of the surrounding area, including active agricultural fields and stands of mature trees. Site location Set back and facing the nearest road Farmhouse: no alterations Barn 1: no alterations Barn 1: no alterations 100% Very good No additional comments Footprint Farmhouse: rectangular Barn 1: rectangular Barn 2: rectangular Farmhouse: south addition Barn 1: no change Barn 2: no change 100% Very good The rear wing on the farmhouse appears to be original to the farmhouse. The south additions to the farmhouse do obscure part of the south façade but have not impacted the front façade. Wall Farmhouse: brick load bearing Barn 1: timber frame construction Barn 2: timber frame construction Farmhouse: no change Barn 1: no change Barn 2: no change 100% Very good No additional comments Foundation Farmhouse: granite Barn 1: granite Barn 2: granite Farmhouse: some minor repairs around window using red brick Barn 1: repairs to the foundation using concrete and fieldstone 90% Very good Note that this rating refers to heritage integrity, not structural integrity - 193 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 87 Element Original Material / Type Alteration Survival (%) Rating Comment Barn 2: repairs to the foundation using concrete Exterior doors Farmhouse: panelled wood Barn 1: vertical board Barn 2: vertical board Farmhouse: two out of the three doors are replacements Barn 1: some vertical boards may have been replaced Barn 2: some vertical boards may have been replaced 40% Poor No additional comments Windows Farmhouse: wood Barn 1: wood Barn 2: wood Farmhouse: appears to retain all of the original wood windows and most of the wood storm windows Barn 1: retains all of the original wood windows, the glass however, is broken in some Barn 1: retains all of the original wood windows, the glass however, is broken in some 95% Very good No additional comments Roof Farmhouse: possibly wood shingle Barn 1: possibly wood shingle Barn 2: possibly wood shingle Farmhouse: original replaced in asphalt shingle Barn 1: reclad in metal Barn 2: reclad in metal 0% Poor No additional comments Chimneys Farmhouse: two interior chimneys Barn 1: n/a Barn 2: n/a Farmhouse: chimneys may require some repointing 90% Very good No additional comments Water systems Farmhouse: unknown, possibly copper Barn 1: unknown Barn 2: unknown Farmhouse: all water systems replaced Barn 1: unknown Barn 2: unknown 20% Poor No additional comments - 194 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 88 Element Original Material / Type Alteration Survival (%) Rating Comment Exterior decoration Farmhouse: dichromatic brickwork (quoins, decorative brickwork , window trim; red- brick Flemish bond on all sides Barn 1: vertical board Barn 2: vertical board Farmhouse: no changes Barn 1: no changes Barn 2: no changes 100% Very good No additional comments Exterior additions Farmhouse: no known additions Barn 1: no known additions Barn 2: no known additions Farmhouse: south addition Large barn: addition in severe state of disrepair, but likely no original to the barn 70% Very good The rear wing on the farmhouse appears to be original to the farmhouse. Interior plan Farmhouse: centre hall plan Barn 1: open and granary Barn 2: open and granary Farmhouse: no change Barn 1: no changes Barn 2: no changes 100% Very good No additional comment s Interior walls and floors Farmhouse: Lathe-and-plaster walls and pine flooring Barn 1: n/a Barn 2: n/a Farmhouse: no changes Barn 1: n/a Barn 2: n/a 100% Very good No additional comments Interior trim Farmhouse: tall baseboard with decorative moulding around openings Barn 1: n/a Barn 2: n/a Farmhouse: no changes Barn 1: n/a Barn 2: n/a 100% Very good No additional comment - 195 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 89 Element Original Material / Type Alteration Survival (%) Rating Comment Interior features (e.g., stairs, doors) Farmhouse: wood stairs, doors, fireplace, wainscotting, corner cupboard Farmhouse: no changes to wood stairs and doors, wood floors have been painted in some areas, corner cupboard and fireplace intact 90% Very good No additional comments Landscape features Domestic yard and farmyard features such as gardens and fencing and surrounding fields No significant alterations to domestic yard, or farmyard features and fields. 100% Very Good The property’s landscape features have not been significantly altered through the 21st century AVERAGE OF RATE OF CHANGE/HERITAGE INTEGRITY 80.58% Very Good Rating of Very Good is based on original element survival rate of between 76 to 100% - 196 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 90 8 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION 8.1 EVALUATION USING ONTARIO REGULATION 9/06 The principal built heritage resources on the subject property at 815 Highway 7 are a one-and-a- half storey Ontario Cottage and two bank barns. The property is a listed, non-designated property on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register. O. Reg. 9/06 of the OHA provides criteria for determining whether a property has CHVI. If a property meets one or more of the criteria in O. Reg. 9/06, it is eligible for designation under the OHA. Table 8-1 presents the evaluation of the subject property using O. Reg. 9/06. Table 8-1: Evaluation of 815 Highway 7 as per O. Reg. 9/06 O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria Criteria Met (Y/N) Justification 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 As demonstrated in Section 5.3.2, the residence at 815 Highway 7 reflects representative elements of the Ontario Cottage architectural style. This is a common architectural expression in the City of Pickering, however the Percy House has an early and increasingly rare example of dichromatic brickwork. The patterned stringcourse below the roof line is an early example of a style that would come to characterize the region. As discussed in Section 5.3.4, the Central Ontario bank barns on the subject property are a representative expression of a Central Ontario barn and are now considered rare with only one Part IV designated barn in the City of Pickering. Barns 1 and 2 appear to maintain their integrity through the retention of much of the original construction materials and application of historic building methods. Similarly the wood silo at 815 Highway 7 is also a rare expression of nineteenth century silo construction using wooden tongue-and-groove staves wrapped in wooden cribs. - 197 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 91 O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria Criteria Met (Y/N) Justification ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or Y The construction of the brick residence on the subject property displays a high degree of craftsmanship. The brickwork on the north façade is an early and increasingly rare example of dichromatic brickwork and displays a high degree of craftsmanship. This craftmanship is evident in the patterned stringcourse below the moulded cornice, buff brick quoins and voussoirs and the fine use of the Flemish bond on the north façade. The central Ontario barns displays mortise and tenon construction that is typical of the nineteenth century, but this is not considered to display a high degree of craftmanship or artistic merit. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. N The property does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. The structures display construction techniques reflective of the era and style. 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 As 815 Highway 7 has functioned as a farm for at least 169 years, it is directly associated with the agricultural development of the former Ontario Township and City of Pickering. This theme is significant as it contributed to the community’s early economy and continues to be practiced today. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or N The results of research did not indicate that 815 Highway 7 yields information that could contribute to the understanding of a community or culture. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. N The architect and builder of the building at 815 Highway 7 is unknown. 3. The property has contextual value because it, - 198 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 92 O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria Criteria Met (Y/N) Justification i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, Y As the property retains 46 acres of the original 50- acre lot and continues to be actively used for agriculture, 815 Highway 7 is important in maintaining the historical agricultural character of the area. ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or Y 815 Highway 7 is associated with the early settlement of the area and is important in maintaining and supporting the rural 19th century landscape along the Highway 7 Road corridor. iii. is a landmark. N No significant views to the property distinguish the building as a notable or distinct property. It does not serve as a local landmark in the community. 8.2 ONTARIO REGULATION 10/06 Ontario Regulation 10/06 establishes the Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of Provincial Significance. This regulation was created in 2006 to be utilised to identify properties of provincial heritage significance under the OHA. All provincially owned properties with potential cultural heritage value or interest must be evaluated using O. Reg. 10/06 to determine provincial significance, if any. Table 8-2 presents the evaluation of the subject property using O. Reg. 9/06. Table 8-2: Evaluation of 815 Highway 7 as per O. Reg. 10/06 O. Reg. 10/06 Criteria Criteria Met (Y/N) Justification 1. The property represents or demonstrates a theme or pattern in Ontario’s history. N While the subject property is associated with the early settlement of the former Ontario County and specifically the area of Green River, it demonstrates this theme at the local / regional level rather than provincial. For this reason, the property does not meet this criterion. - 199 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 93 2. The property yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of Ontario’s history. N While the property reflects the early settlement and agricultural development, other properties – most notably Thistle Ha’ Farm (1860 Seventh Concession Road, Pickering), which is a National Historic Site of Canada – better illustrates the role of agriculture in Ontario’s history. The property does not have the potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of Ontario’s history. 3. The property demonstrates an uncommon, rare or unique aspect of Ontario’s cultural heritage. N While the property is an early example of an Ontario Cottage with dichromatic brickwork within Ontario County, there are many of this type of house found throughout the province; it does not demonstrate an uncommon, rare, or unique aspect of Ontario’s cultural heritage. 4. The property is of aesthetic, visual or contextual importance to the province. N The property’s visual and contextual importance is of a local nature; the property’s associations and contextual significance relate to its connections and role within the settlement of the former Ontario Township, as opposed to within the province. For this reason, the property does not meet this criterion. 5. The property demonstrates a high degree of excellence or creative, technical or scientific achievement at a provincial level in a given period. N While the property holds physical value at a local level, it was not found to exhibit a high degree of excellence or creative, technical, or scientific achievement. 6. The property has a strong or special association with the entire province or with a community that is found in more than one part of the province. The association exists for historic, social, or cultural reasons or because of traditional use. N The residence and barns were built by John Percy c. 1853, a farmer from England. The subject property does not demonstrate a strong or special association with the province as a whole, nor with a community that is significant within the Province of On tario. Therefore, the property does not meet this criterion. - 200 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 94 7. The property has a strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organization of importance to the province or with an event of importance to the province. N The residence and barns were built in c. 1853 by John Percy during the early settlement of Ontario County. The subject property does not have a strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organization of importance to the province or with an event of importance to the province. Therefore, the building does not meet this criterion. 8. The property is located in unorganized territory and the Minister determines that there is a provincial interest in the protection of the property. O. Reg. 10/06, s. 1 (2). N The property is not located within an unorganized territory. Therefore, the subject property does not meet this criterion. 8.3 RESULTS OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION Based on the evaluation of the property at 815 Highway 7, the following results related to the property’s CHVI were identified: • The evaluation using the criteria of O. Reg. 9/06 determined that the subject property does possess CHVI for its design/physical value, associative value and contextual value at a local level; • The evaluation using the criteria of O. Reg. 10/06 determined that the subject property did not meet any of the criteria and . • Therefore, the subject property has been identified as a Provincial Heritage Property. 8.4 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST As the subject property at 815 Highway 7 was found to possess CHVI, the following Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes was prepared . DESCRIPTION OF HISTORIC PLACE 815 Highway 7 is an 18.7-hectare irregular shaped agricultural property situated on the south side of Highway 7, west of Whites Road in the north portion of the City of Pickering. The key - 201 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 95 resources are a one-and-a-half storey Ontario Cottage constructed of brick c. 1853 as well as two, two-storey Central Ontario bank barns and two silos. The property is listed on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register. HERITAGE VALUE The mid-nineteenth century farmstead at 815 Highway 7 possesses design or physical value for the unique, representative and rare built heritage resources displaying a high degree of craftsmanship located on the property. The one -and-a-half storey brick residence constructed c. 1853 demonstrates representative elements of an Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical and Georgian influences including the rectangular plan and symmetrical three-bay façade, side gable roof, entrance details including a wood surround with transom and sidelights, and multipaned windows. The residence reflects a unique vernacular interpretation of the style, characterized by its elaborate dichromatic brickwork, including the decorative stringcourse, quoins and jack arches. The large bank barns are representative expressions of a Central Ontario barn, a common design in Southern Ontario dating to the last quarter of the nineteenth century. The gambrel roof style is indicative of its period of construction, becoming commonly used by 1880 following a transition from gable roofs. The barns maintains their integrity through the retention of much of the original construction materials and application of historic building methods. The barns include many of the features typical of the style, including the banked access and two storey height, original rectangul ar plan, wood barn board cladding, and the gambrel roof clad in sheet metal. The intact concrete block silo and remains of the wood silo also contribute to the design and physical value of the property. Through its function as a farm for at least 169 years, 815 Highway 7 it is directly associated with the agricultural development of the former Ontario Township and City of Pickering. This theme is significant as it historically contributed to the community’s early economic growth and continues to be practiced today. As the property retains 46 acres of the original 50 -acre lot and continues to be actively used for agriculture, 815 Highway 7 is important in maintaining the historical agricultural character of the surrounding area. The property is functionally and historically linked to its surroundings as indicated by the presence and placement of the Percy House, Central Ontario bank barns, the associated circulation patterns including the surrounding agricultural fields that continue to reflect the function of the historic nineteenth century farmstead. LIST OF HERITAGE ATTRIBUTES The heritage attributes that contribute to the cultural heritage value or interest of 815 Highway 7 include: Residence Exterior • One-and-a-half storey massing built to a rectangular plan; - 202 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 96 • Red brick construction using the Flemish bond, dichromatic brickwork including quoins and decorative brickwork under the moulded cornice; • Granite and fieldstone foundation; • Symmetrical three-bay façade and symmetrical two-bay side elevations; • Side gable roof with return eaves (on west façade only) and extant moulded cornice; • Paired interior end chimneys; • Centrally placed entrance with side lights, transom and wood surround with classical detailing; • Rectangular window openings with six-over-six double-hung sash windows, radiating brick voussoirs and wood sills; • Brick, one-storey, gable roof addition built to a rectangular plan projecting from the south elevation; built using the Common bond; • Verandah with a flared roof and exposed curved rafters; and • Its orientation toward Highway 7. Residence Interior • Extant original layout; • Fire place mantle; • Floor boards; • Tall baseboards; • Window and door surrounds; • Wainscotting and beaded ceiling ; • Balustrade and knob capped newel post ; • Stone fireplace collar embedded in second floor bedroom (southwest room); and • Built in corner cupboard in the parlour. Bank Barn 1 • Two-storey massing built to a rectangular plan; • Heavy square timber post and beam framing ; • North eave-side upper level entrance built into banked slope; • Vertical wood board cladding; • Gambrel roof clad in sheet metal with vents and lightening rods; • Extant paver flooring of buff and red brick; • Remains of wood silo adjacent to bank barn. - 203 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 97 Bank Barn 2 • Two-storey massing built to a rectangular plan; • Heavy square timber post and beam framing ; • East eave-side upper level entrance built into banked slope; • Vertical wood board cladding; • Gambrel roof clad in sheet metal; • Extant paver flooring of buff and red brick; • Concrete block silo with a metal domed top located adjacent to bank barn. Landscape • Drive leading from Highway 7 to the collection of nineteenth century structures on the property; • The relationship of the traditional farmstead to its surrounding agricultural tradition; and • Intact circulation routes and building arrangement setback from Highway 7. - 204 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 98 9 PROPOSED UNDERTAKING AND IMPACTS 9.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED UNDERTAKING DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT The proposed development concept for the project location consists of five food manufacturing buildings on the lot, to be built in two phases with Buildings 1, 2, and 3 constructed first, followed by Buildings 4 and 5. The lot is currently zoned Rural Agricultural, however, it is designated Prestige Employment and Seaton Natural Heritage System in the Pickering Official Plan. The total site area for the proposed developme nt is 23.8 hectares with frontage on Highway 7 and Whites Road. The building footprints are approximately 21,471 (Building 1), 23,378 m 2 (Building 2), 21,471 m2 (Building 3), 21,471 m 2 (Building 4), and 9,858 m2 (Building 5). The site will contain approximately 87 truck loading bays, 690 parking stalls and 120 spaces for trailer parking. Vehicular access is proposed via signalized access point from Highway 7 with proposed municipal roads providing access to the proposed development. 9.2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS When determining the effects a development or site alteration may have on known or identified built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes, the MHSTCI Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process advises that the following “negative impacts” be considered: • Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes, or features3 • Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance4 • Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden5 • Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship6 3 This is used as an example of a direct impact in the MHSCTI Info Bulletin 3. 4 A direct impact in the MHSCTI Info Bulletin 3. 5 An indirect impact in the MHSCTI Info Bulletin 3. 6 An indirect impact in the MHSCTI Info Bulletin 3. - 205 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 99 • Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features7 • A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces 8 • Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect a cultural heritage resource9 Other potential impacts may also be considered such as encroachment or construction vibration (Plate 4). Historic structures, particularly tho se built in masonry, are susceptible to damage from vibration caused by pavement breakers, plate compactors, utility excavations, and increased heavy vehicle travel in the immediate vicinity. Like any structure, they are also threatened by collisions with heavy machinery, subsidence from utility line failures, or excessive dust (Randl 2001:3 -6). Plate 4: Examples of negative impacts Although the MHSTCI Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process identifies types of impact, it does not advise on how to describe its nature or extent. For this the MHSTCI Guideline 7 An example of a direct and indirect impact in the MHSCTI Info Bulletin 3. It is a direct impact when significant views or vistas within, from or of built and natural features are obstructed, and an indirect impact when “a significant view of or from the property from a key vantage point is obstructed”. 8 A direct impact in the MHSCTI Info Bulletin 3. 9 In the MHSTCI Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process this refers only to archaeological resources but in the MHSCTI Info Bulletin 3 this is an example of a direct impact to “provincial heritage property, including archaeological resources”. - 206 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 100 for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments (1990:8) provides criteria of: • Magnitude - amount of physical alteration or destruction that can be expected • Severity - the irreversibility or reversibility of an impact • Duration - the length of time an adverse impact persists • Frequency - the number of times an impact can be expected • Range - the spatial distribution, widespread or site specific, of an adverse impact • Diversity - the number of different kinds of activities to affect a heritage resource Since advice to describe magnitude is not included in the MHSTCI Guideline or any other Canadian guidance, the ranking provided in the ICOMOS Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties (ICOMOS 2011: Appendix 3B) is adapted here. While developed specifically for World Heritage Sites, it is based on a general methodol ogy for measuring the nature and extent of impact to cultural resources in urban and rural contexts developed for the UK Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges [DMRB]: Volume 11, HA 208/07 (2007: A6/11) (Bond & Worthing 2016:166 -167) and aligns with approaches developed by other national agencies such as the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (reproduced in Kalman & Létourneau 2020:390) and New Zealand Transport Agency (2015). The grading of impact is based on the “Guide to Assessing Magnitude of Impact” summarized in Table 9-1 below. Table 9-1: Impact Grading Impact Grading Description Major Change to heritage attributes that contribute to the CHVI such that the resource is totally altered. Comprehensive changes to the setting. Moderate Change to many heritage attributes, such that the resource is significantly modified. Changes to the setting of a heritage property, such that it is significantly modified. Minor Change to heritage attributes, such that the asset is slightly different. Change to the setting of a heritage property, such that it is noticeably changed. Negligible/Potential Slight changes to heritage attributes or the setting that hardly affects it. None No change to heritage attributes or setting. An assessment of potential impacts resulting from the proposed development on the property’s CHVI and heritage attributes is presented in Table 9-2. - 207 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 101 9.3 EVALUATION OF IMPACTS Table 9-2: Evaluation of Impacts to Subject Property at 815 Highway 7 POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACT SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACT WITHOUT MITIGATION SUMMARY OF IMPACT WITH MITIGATION Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes, or features As currently proposed, the development includes removal of the two barns and associated silos as well as all landscape features associated with the former farm use. Without mitigation this will result in destruction of heritage attributes, a direct and major impact that is irreversible, site-specific, and will occur once over a short period of time. With mitigation, the impact on the CHVI and heritage attributes of the evolved nineteenth century farm cultural heritage landscape, the farmhouse and the bank barn could be minimized. Major impact from demolition of most of the structures on the subject property and destruction of all the landscape heritage attributes and will occur once over a short period of time. By implementing the mitigation measures recommended in Section 10.1 the potential direct impact from destruction of the two barns and associated silos will be reduced to a moderate to major, irreversible, and site- specific impact that will occur once over a short period of time. Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance As currently proposed the development will include demolition of the two barns and associated silos (discussed above) and will include significant alteration to the agricultural landscape. The introduction of a modern manufacturing facility will result significantly alter the context of the remaining farmhouse. Without mitigation this will result in major impact that is irreversible, site specific, and will occur once over a short period of time. With minimized, Major impact from alteration of the farm landscape that will be irreversible and will occur once over a short period of time. By implementing the mitigation measures recommended in Section 10.1, the potential direct impact from alteration of the agricultural landscape will be reduced to a moderate to major, irreversible, and site- specific impact that will occur once over a short period of time. - 208 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 102 POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACT SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACT WITHOUT MITIGATION SUMMARY OF IMPACT WITH MITIGATION the impact of the alteration could be minimized. Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden As currently proposed, the farmhouse will remain on a reduced sized lot in the proposed development. No shadow impacts are anticipated given the farmhouse will be surrounded by single detached and townhouse dwellings. No shadow impact. No mitigation required. Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship The proposed development will isolate the farmhouse from its current context and sever its relationship with the barns and silos. Without mitigation this will result in a direct, major impact that is irreversible, site-specific, and will occur once over a short period of time. With mitigation, the isolation impacts can be mitigated. Major, direct, irreversible, site specific impact that will occur once over a short period of time. By implementing the mitigation measures recommended in Section 10.1 the potential direct impact from alteration of the agricultural landscape will be reduced to a minor impact. Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features As views to the subject property have not been identified as heritage attributes of 815 Highway 7. No impact No mitigation required. A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, The subject property is Rural Agricultural and designated Prestige Employment and Seaton Natural Heritage System in the Pickering Official Plan. The current permitted uses are Major, irreversible impact as the change in land use and zoning will result in removal of most of the structures By implementing the mitigation measures recommended in Section 10.1, the potential direct impact from change - 209 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 103 POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACT SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACT WITHOUT MITIGATION SUMMARY OF IMPACT WITH MITIGATION allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces agricultural uses and a single detached dwelling. The proposed use will result in a change in land use which will impact the property’s heritage attributes including the open space in fron t of the farmhouse, the driveway, and agricultural fields. Without mitigation measures, the change in land use will result in direct, major, irreversible, site specific impact that will persist over a long period of time. and landscape features on the property. in land use will be reduced to a minor, irreversible, and site- specific impact that will persist over a long period of time. Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that may affect a cultural heritage resource. The proposed development will relocate the farmhouse on site and grading will be designed appropriately so that drainage patterns will not negatively impact the farmhouse. No impact. No mitigation required. 9.4 RESULTS OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT The preceding impact assessment has determined that without conservation or mitigation measures, the proposed development will result in major impacts to the identified heritage attributes of the subject property. An options analysis of potential alternatives, mitigation and conservation options is provided in Section 10. - 210 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 104 10 ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION OPTIONS As the property was evaluated to have CHVI and will be impacted by the proposed development, WSP has identified four possible options to reduce or avoid the negative effects. These are informed by the objectives included in the City of Pickering Official Plan and are: 1) “Do Nothing”: Preserve and maintain the Percy House, Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2 and all landscape heritage attributes in situ with no further development of the property. 2) Preserve and maintain the Percy House, barns and silos in situ with adaptive reuse of these structures and development of manufacturing campus around these structures on the property. 3) Relocate the Percy House within the site to a more convenient location with an adaptive reuse, dismantle and salvage heritage attributes from Barns 1 and 2 and Silo s 1 and 2 and develop the manufacturing campus on the property . 4) Remove the Percy House, Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2, salvaging heritage attributes from the structures and develop the manufacturing campus on the pro perty. The advantages and disadvantages of each option are presented in the following subsections, then analysed for feasibility. It is only after an option is determined to be not feasible that the next preferred approach is considered. 10.1 ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION OPTIONS ANALYSIS Table 10-1 weighs the available options and provides mitigation and conservation measures to ensure heritage resources are conserved. - 211 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 105 Table 10-1: Alternatives, Mitigation and Conservation Options OPTIONS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES MITIGATION/ CONSERVATION NOTES 1) “Do nothing”: preserve and maintain the Percy House, Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2 and all landscape heritage attributes in situ with no further development of the property. This option would maintain the general heritage principle that prefers minimal intervention to a heritage resource. It would ensure that the subject property retains all identified heritage attributes. This option is consistent with the Official Plan policy Section 8.2 (c) that states: prevent the demolition, destruction or inappropriate alteration of important cultural heritage resources to the extent possible , and Section 8.2 (d) that states: where possible, restore, rehabilitate, maintain and enhance important cultural heritage resources owned by the City, and encourage the same for those owned by others. Additionally Section 8.9 (a) that encourages retention of cultural heritage resources in their original location. This option is also keeping with the MHSTCI’s Eight Guiding Principles for the Conservation of Historic Places that identify a building should not be removed unless there is no other means to save it and that alterations to a cultural heritage resource should be reversible. Preservation is not a “do nothing” approach: to ensure the buildings do not suffer from rapid deterioratio n, repairs must be carried out and a systematic monitoring and repair program will be required for all exteriors and interiors. As identified in the MHSTCI Eight Guiding Principles (2007), maintenance is required to avoid costly conservation projects in the future. A Heritage Conservation Plan is a document that identifies how cultural heritage resources should be conserved. It should detail the conservation methods, required action s and trades for the conservation methods and an implementation schedule to conserve the landscape’s heritage attributes in the short -, medium-, and long-term. Heritage Conservation Plans are typically completed by structural engineers or architects with experience rehabilitating historic structures. 2) Preserve and maintain the Percy House, barns and silos in situ with adaptive reuse of these structures and development of manufacturing campus around these structures on the property. Although this option would involve a major intervention to the agricultural character of the subject property, it would result in maintenance of the heritage attributes belonging to the residence and barns. Section 8.9 (b) of the Pickering Official Plan requires consideration of adaptive reuse opportunities prior to considering relocation of a resource. While this option would retain the Percy House and barns, it would include removal of all the landscape heritage attributes and alter the agricultural character of the historic landscape and surrounding area. Preservation would require ongoing repair and maintenance to ensure the conservation of the Percy House and barns heritage attributes. The lack of active use will result in continued detrimental physical impacts to the dwelling and barn. Occupation for the dwelling is imperative. To stabilize and conserve the Percy House, barns and silos in their current location before construction of the surrounding development begins and during construction a Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) should be completed. There is often a lengthy period between the formal submission of a planning application and reoccupation of a heritage buildings. During this time, heritage buildings can be vulnerable to neglect, loss and accidental damage. An TPP should be completed by an engineer or architect with demonstrated experience working with historical structures and should include the following: • Marking heritage attributes on the construction plans; • Temporary construction fencing between the Percy House and/or Barns 1 2 and Silos 1 and 2 and the proposed development; • Establish a regular inspection and monitoring schedule; • Communication protocols that identify who should be informed about the heritage attributes and who should be contacted if there is accidental damage; • A plan for potential physical impacts such as accidental damage from machinery; - 212 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 106 OPTIONS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES MITIGATION/ CONSERVATION NOTES It would be difficult to find appropriate adaptive re-use options for the barns in the context of the desired use for large warehouses. Retention of these structures in their current location would also significantly reduce the size of the possible warehouses. Lastly, typical warehouse design is not inherently compatible with nineteenth century residence and barns and thus would present a challenge to successfully integrate. • A plan for appropriate repairs should damage occur to the building(s). • Regular inspection and monitoring protocol. A Mothballing Plan should be completed to examine the current condition of the Percy House and barns and to suggest stabilization and maintenance measures necessary to temporarily mothball and secure the structures and their heritage attributes until a future use is determined. A Heritage Conservation Plan is a document that identifies how cultural heritage resources should be conserved. It should detail the conservation methods, required actions and trades for the conservation methods and an implementation schedule to conserve the landscape’s heritage attributes in the short-, medium-, and long-term. Heritage Conservation Plans are typically completed by structural engineers or architects with experience rehabilitating historic structures. In accordance with the MHSTCI’s Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting and materials is a mitigation measure to reduce impacts to cultural heritage resources. The design of the building immediately surrounding the historic structures should be sensitively designed to reflect a similar massing, height, and materials. A vegetative buffer between the proposed buildings and adjacent Percy House, barns and silos would assist is reducing the visual impact of the modern design against the nineteenth century farm. A landscape plan should incorporate a vegetative screen between the new buildings and remnants of the farm. Construction activities often result in fugitive dust emission which can be detrimental to the long term protection of heritage resources. A fugitive dust emissions plan should follow practices outlined in the Ontario Standards Development Branch Technical Bulletin: Management Approaches for Industrial Fugitive Dust Sources (2017). Given the proximity of the adjacent heritage properties to the proposed development, a comprehensive pre- construction survey should be completed and a Zone of Influence Construction Vibration Study to monitor and mitigate vibration impacts during construction. Where possible prevent heavy equipment traffic from being routed in the vicinity of the Percy House and barns to minimize potential effects from vibration. 3) Relocate the Percy House within the site to a more convenient location with an adaptive reuse, dismantle and salvage heritage attributes from Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2 and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. Although this option would involve a major intervention to the agricultural character of the subject property, it would result in maintenance of some of the heritage attributes belonging to the Percy House. Given the difficulty in moving barns, they would likely have to be dismantled and elements could be salvaged and reused in the proposed development. Moving the Percy House would allow for more convenient placement, allowing the land to be maximized for the proposed warehouse use. While this option would retain the Percy House, it would include removal of all the barns and landscape heritage attributes and alter the agricultural character of the historic landscape and surrounding area. This option is inconsistent the MHSTCI’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historical Properties which encourages respect for original location. Additionally, the Pickering Official Plan states that development To stabilize and conserve the Percy House in its current location before construction of the surrounding development begins and during construction a Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) should be completed . There is often a lengthy period between the formal submission of a planning application and reoccupation of a heritage buildings. During this time, heritage buildings can be vulnerable to neglect, loss and accidental damage. An TPP should be completed by an engineer or architect with demonstrated experience working with historical structures and should include the following: • Marking heritage attributes on the construction plans; • Temporary construction fencing between the Percy House, Barns 1 and 2, Silos 1 and 2 and the proposed development; • Establish a regular inspection and monitoring schedule; - 213 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 107 OPTIONS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES MITIGATION/ CONSERVATION NOTES Section 8.9 (c) of the Official Plan requires consideration of relocation on -site prior to considering relocation of a resource off -site. should not result in any demolition, construction, alteration, remodeling, or any other action that would adversely affect the heritage features of the property. Relocating the Percy House would place the building at risk of accidental damage during the relocation operation, or total loss due to accident or unforeseen structural issues discovered during the relocation process. It is also in direct opposition to the MHSTCI Guiding Principle for “original location” which states that buildings should not be moved “unless there is no other means to save them since any change in site diminishes heritage value considerably”. This would still result in removal of the heritage attributes that reflect the value of the property as an evolved farm cultural heritage landscape. • Communication protocols that identify who should be informed about the heritage attributes and who should be contacted if there is accidental damage; • A plan for potential physical impacts such as accidental damage from machinery; • A plan for appropriate repairs should damage occur to the building(s). • Regular inspection and monitoring protocol. A Mothballing Plan should be completed to examine the current condition of the Percy House to suggest stabilization and maintenance measures necessary to temporarily mothball and secure the structure and its heritage attributes until a future use is determined. A Heritage Conservation Plan is a document that identifies how cultural heritage resources should be conserved. It should detail the conservation methods, required actions and trades for the conservation methods and an implementation schedule to conserve the landscape’s heritage attributes in the short -, medium-, and long-term. Heritage Conservation Plans are typically completed by structural engineers or architects with experience rehabilitating historic structures. In accordance with the MHSTCI’s Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting and materials is a mitigation measure to reduce impacts to cultural heritage resources. The design of the building immediately surrounding the historic structure should be sensitively designed to reflect a similar massing, height, and materials . A vegetative buffer between the proposed buildings and adjacent Percy House would assist is reducing the visual impact of the modern design against the nineteenth century house. A landscape plan should incorporate a vegetative screen between the new buildings and the Percy House. Prior to demolition of the two Central Ontario barns and associated silos, determine what materials can be salvaged and document those elements into a standardized salvage inventory. The results of this inventory should be included a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report (CHRDR). Should the one-storey south addition be deemed not structurally sound for relocation, it should also be subjec t to a CHRDR. A reputable contractor with expertise in salvage should be contracted to salvage the identified building materials. The contractor should prepare an approach for the labelling, storage and reassembly of material salvaged from the property, as appropriate, in accordance with guidance taken from the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, Section 4: Guidelines for Materials; • The ultimate destination of salvaged materials should be determined prior to the in itiation of any salvage process; • Materials should only be salvaged if they are suitable for re -use in other buildings or projects, i.e., the material must not be irreparably damaged or infested; • The material must be extracted in a manner that ensures that it is not irreparably damaged; - 214 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 108 OPTIONS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES MITIGATION/ CONSERVATION NOTES • Should any of the material be damaged during removal, donation to a teaching institution or museum (i.e. Pickering Museum Village) should be considered to allow the material to provide an educational opportunity. Design the project to integrate new physical elements to the Percy House to be sympathetic and compatible with the Ontario Cottage. The Parks Canada’s Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2010) should be considered. Construction activities often result in fugitive dust emission which can be detrimental to the long term protection of heritage resources. A fugitive dust emissions plan should follow practices outlined in the Ontario Standards Development Branch Technical Bulletin: Management Approaches for Industrial Fugitive Dust Sources (2017). Given the proximity of the adjacent heritage properties to the proposed development, a comprehensive pre- construction survey should be completed and a Zone of Influence Constru ction Vibration Study to monitor and mitigate vibration impacts during construction. Where possible prevent heavy equipment traffic from being routed in the vicinity of the Percy House to minimize potential effects from vibration. 4) Remove the Percy House, Barns 1 and 2 and Silo s 1 and 2, salvaging heritage attributes from the structures and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. Some of the Percy House and barn’s heritage attributes could be salvaged and reused in the proposed development. This would result in the complete and irreversible loss of all the identified heritage attributes. This option is inconsistent with the Town of Pickering’s heritage policies in the Official Plan, the MHSTCI’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historical Properties and general heritage conservation best practices. Prior to demolition of the Percy House, two Central Ontario barns and associated silos, determine what materials can be salvaged and document those elements into a standardized salvage inventory. The results of this inventory should be included a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report (CHRDR). A reputable contractor with expertise in salvage should be contracted to salvage the identified building materials. The contractor should prepare an approach for the labelling, storage and reassembly of material salvaged from the property, as appropriate, in accordance with guidance taken from the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, Section 4: Guidelines for Materials; • The ultimate destination of salvaged materials should be determined prior to the initiation of any salvage process; • Materials should only be salvaged if they are suitable for re -use in other buildings or projects, i.e., the material must not be irreparably damaged or infested; • The material must be extracted in a manner that ensures that it is not irreparably damaged; • Should any of the material be damaged during removal, donation to a teaching insti tution or museum (i.e. Pickering Museum Village) should be considered to allow the material to provide an educational opportunity. - 215 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 109 10.2 OPTIONS ANALYSIS Based on the review of the alternatives, mitigation and conservation options analysis presented in Table 10-1, Option 1, preserve and maintain the Pery House, Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2 and all landscape heritage attributes in situ with no further development of the property, is the preferred option from a cultural heritage perspective . While Option 2 is the second choice, adaptive reuse of the farm buildings is challenging given that they were purpose built for farming and may prove difficult to compatibly integrate into the proposed development. Discussions with the Client have determined that Option 3 which involves the relocation of the Percy House to a more convenient site within the proposed development is supported by the Client. As illustrated on the Draft Plan, the Percy House will be relocated northwest of its current location, closer to Highway 7 . Option 3 would see the removal of Barns 1 and 2, Silos 1 and 2, as well as all landscape features. To successfully facilitate Option 3, the MHSTCI’s Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process design guidelines should be consulted. These guidelines aim to harmonize mass, setback, setting and materials is a mitigation measure to reduce impacts to cultural heritage resources. A vegetative buffer between the proposed development and adjacent Percy House would assist in reducing the visual impact of the modern design against the ninete enth century farm. A landscape plan that incorporates a vegetative screen between the new buildings and remnants of the farm would be ideal. To stabilize and conserve the Percy House in its current location before construction of the surrounding development begins and during construction a Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) should be completed. There is often a lengthy period between the formal submission of a planning application and reoccupation of a heritage buildings. During this time, heritage buildings can be vulnerable to neglect, loss and accidental damage. An TPP should be completed by an engineer or architect with demonstrated experience working with historical structures and should include the following: • Marking heritage attributes on the construct ion plans; • Temporary construction fencing between the Percy House and the proposed development; • Establish a regular inspection and monitoring schedule; • Communication protocols that identify who should be informed about the heritage attributes and who should be contacted if there is accidental damage; • A plan for potential physical impacts such as accidental damage from machinery; • A plan for appropriate repairs should damage occur to the building(s); and • Regular inspection and monitoring protocol. Mothballing is a process for protecting a building from the environmental elements, neglect and vandalism. It includes stabilization and maintenance measures to ensure a building does not - 216 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 110 deteriorate. Mothballing is intended to be an interim solution undertake n while a property owner explores options for a building’s adaptive reuse on site, or while a building is vacant or is to be relocated off-stie and/or sold. A Mothballing Plan should be prepared by a qualified individual in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, 2nd Edition (Parks Canada 2010); the Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practices by the Canadian Association of Conservation of Cultural Property and the Canadian Association of Professional Conservators (2009); the MHSTCI’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties (2007); Preservation Briefs 31: Mothballing Historic Buildings (Park, 1993), and Well-Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundation’s Manual of Principl es and Practice for Architectural Conservation (Fram, 1998). A Heritage Conservation Plan is a document that identifies how cultural heritage resources should be conserved. It should detail the conservation methods, required actions and trades for the conservation methods and an implementation schedule to conserve t he landscape’s heritage attributes in the short-, medium-, and long-term. Heritage Conservation Plans are typically completed by structural engineers or architects with experience rehabilitating historic structures. Detailed documentation and salvage is often the preferred mitigation strategy when retention or relocation of a structure is neither feasible nor warranted. While documentation and salvage can never truly mitigate the loss of a heritage resource, documentation creates a public record the structure and provides researchers and the public with a land use history, construction details and photographic record of the resource. The documentation and photographs contained within this report may serve as a sufficient record of the house and the outbuildings and this determination should be made by City staff. The purpose of salvaging heritage building material is to preserve portions of features of building s or structures that have historical, architectural or cultural value and divert them from becomi ng land fill material. Sourcing materials for repair and replacement can be challenging, especially if the materials are from a historical source that no longer exists, such as a quarry, or a manufacturing facility that has closed (Parks Canada, 2010). As such, the careful salvage of these materials from one historic structure can represent an opportunity for the in -kind replacement of quality historical material on another. Some of these materials can also be incorporated into the new design if appropriate. If any materials are incorporated into the manufacturing campus, there should be an interpretive display to convey that these materials were reused from the previous structures on the site. In order to ensure heritage fabric is salvaged responsibly the following recommendations for salvage and reuse of materials includes: o A reputable contractor(s) with proven expertise in cultural heritage resource removal should be obtained to salvage the identified building components listed above; - 217 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 111 The contractor should prepare an approach for the labelling, storage and reassembly of material salvaged from the property, as appropriate, in accordance with guidance taken from the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada , Section 4: Guidelines for Materials; The ultimate destination of salvaged materials should be determined prior to the initiation of any salvage process • Materials should only be salvaged if they are suitable for re -use in other buildings or projects, i.e., the material must not be irreparably damaged or infested; • The material must be extracted in a manner that ensures that it is not irreparably damaged; • Should any of the material be damaged during removal, donation to a teaching institution should be considered to allow the material to provide an educational opportunity. A list of Conservation Programs in Ontario is available on the National Trust for Canada’s website here: www.nationaltrustcanada.ca/resources/education/ conservation -programs. Construction activities often result in fugitive dust emission which can be detrimental to the long term protection of heritage resources. A fugitive dust emissions plan should follow practices outlined in the Ontario Standards Development Branch Technical Bulletin: Management Approaches for Industrial Fugitive Dust Sources (2017). Given the proximity of construction activities in proximity to the Percy House, the current proposed development has the potential to create vibrations that could negatively im pact the structure. Ground vibration monitoring works should be conducted at the Percy House and Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2. The monitoring should use a digital seismograph capable of measuring and recording ground vibration intensities in digital format in each of three (3) orthogonal directions. This instrument should also be equipped with a wireless cellular modem for remote access and transmission of data. The installed instrument should be programmed to record continuously, providing peak groun d vibration levels at a specified time interval (e.g., 5 minutes) as well as waveform signatures of any ground vibrations exceeding a threshold level that would be determined during monitoring (e.g., between 6-12 mm/s). The instrument should also be programmed to provide a warning should the peak ground vibration level exceed the guideline limits specified. In the event of either a threshold trigger or exceedance warning, data would be retrieved remotely and forwarded to designated recipients. If vibration has exceeded the guideline limits specified, a stop work order should be issued immediately and the adjacent Federal Heritage Buildings promptly inspected for any indication of disruption or damage. If identified, the evidence of disturbance or damage sho uld be documented, then closely monitored during construction for further change in existing conditions. Once work is complete, a post-construction vibration monitoring report or technical memorandum should be - 218 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 112 prepared to document the condition of the heri tage attributes of the properties listed above and recommend appropriate repairs, if necessary. Designation under Part IV of the OHA for the property including the Percy House, Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2 would provide long term protection against demolition and unsympathetic alterations. If designated under the OHA, the property owner would be required to request permission from the Town to make any alterations or to demolish any of the designated structures. Commemoration, also know as symbolic conservation is often a mitigation strategy when retention or relocation of heritage attributes is not feasible. It can often include the adaptive reuse of salvaged items from buildings (i.e. Creating benches from beams from the barn, creating landscape features from foundation stones) as well as an interpretive plaque that outlines the history of a site and its importance to the local community. If any salvaged items are used for a commemorative display, they should be appropriately catalogued and stored until they can be reused on-site. This should also be clearly communicator to the contractor. 10.3 IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING While Option 1 is the preferred alternative, an Implementation and Monitoring Plans have been identified for Option 3 in Table 10-2 below. The purpose of this plan is to conserve cultural heritage resources as the development is undertaken. The requirement for these heritage mitigation measures may be incorporated by the City of Pickering into the development application decision as a condition prior to the issuance of a Building Permit or during the development application process. - 219 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 113 Table 10-2: Short-term, medium-term and long-term actions for Option 3 CONSTRUCTION PHASE MITIGATION MEASURES DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CONDITIONS Pre- Construction In accordance with the MHSTCI’s Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting and materials is a mitigation measure to reduce impacts to cultural heritage resources, including the preparation of a Landscape Plan around the Percy House. ✓ Complete a Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) for the Percy House ✓ Complete a Mothballing Plan for the Percy House ✓ Complete a Heritage Conservation Plan for the Percy House Prepare a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report for Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2, and if necessary, the one-storey south addition ✓ Prepare a comprehensive pre-construction survey should be completed followed by a Zone of Influence Construction Vibration Study to identity the vibration zone of influence ✓ City of Pickering to consider designation of the subject property under Part IV of the OHA ✓* Manage fugitive dust emissions by creating a fugitive dust emissions plan following practices outlined in the Ontario Standards Development Branch Technical Bulletin: Management Approaches for Industrial Fugitive Dust Sources (2017). ✓ Construction Establish a plan to avoid impact to the resources during construction including a buffer around the structures with a silt fence and appropriate location of staging and construction materials and equipment. ✓ Manage fugitive dust emissions by following recommendations in the fugitive dust emissions plan n/a Post- Construction Implement any recommendations from the conservation plan ✓ *within 90 days of the receipt of a complete application - 220 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 114 11 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of the historical research, field review, site analysis and evaluation of the subject property against the criteria for heritage designation under O. Reg. 9/06 of the OHA, 815 Highway 7 was confirmed to possess CHVI. The proposed development, consisting of the construction of five food manufacturing buildings on the lot was evaluated and determined to pose major impacts to the identified heritage attributes of 815 Highway 7. Based on the review of the alternatives, mitigation and conservation options analysis, Option 1, Do Nothing, is the preferred option from a cultural heritage perspective. However, a Do Nothing approach is not feasible as the subject property is designated Prestige Employment and Seaton Natural Heritage System in the Pickering Official Plan, this approach would be a constraint on the proposed concept plan and future development . As such, Options 2 and Option 3 are the next preferred options, followed lastly by Option 4. The following conservation/mitigation strategies are recommended: 2. The following should be implemented through the development application process: h. In accordance with the MHSTCI’s Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting and materials is a mitigation measure to reduce impacts to cultural heritage resources, including the preparation of a Landscape Plan around the Percy House. i. Complete a Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) to stabilize and conserve the Percy House in its current location before construction of the surrounding development begins and during construction. This includes the installation of temporary construction fencing between the Percy House and the proposed development. j. A Mothballing Plan be completed to examine the current condition of the Percy House and to suggest stabilization and maintenance measures necessary to temporarily mothball and secure the structures. k. Prepare a Conservation Plan detailing the conservation methods, required actions and trades for the conservation methods and an implementation schedule to conserve the heritage attributes of the landscape in the long-term. l. Prepare a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report for Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2, and if necessary, the one -storey south addition. m. Given the proximity of the adjacent heritage properties to the proposed limits of grading, a comprehensive pre-construction survey should be completed and a Zone of Influence Construction Vibration Study to monitor and mitigate vibration impacts during construction. Where possible prevent heavy equipment traffic from being routed in the vicinity of the Percy House to minimize potential effects from vibration. n. Fugitive dust emissions should be managed by creating a fugitive dust emissions plan following practices outlined in the Ontario Standards Development Branch Technical Bulletin: Management Approaches for Industrial Fugitive Dust Sources (2017). 5) Contract documentation should include information regarding the CHVI of the aforementioned properties, specifically the List of Heritage Attributes. 6) WSP recommends that 815 Highway 7 meets the criteria for heritage designation under O. Reg. 9/06 as a representative example of an early Ontario Cottage with Neo -Classical and - 221 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 115 Georgian influences, for its connection to the nineteenth century agricultural development of the City of Pickering as well as for its contribution to the surrounding Highway 7 streetscape. 7) Should development plans change significantly in scope or design after approval of this HIA, additional cultural heritage investigations may be required. 8) Once finalized, a copy of this HIA should be distributed to the City of Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive - 222 - 815 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 116 BIBLIOGRAPHY Armstrong, Frederick H. (1985). Handbook of Upper Canadian Chronology. Hamilton: Dundurn Press, Ltd. Curve Lake First Nation. (n.d.) History. Retrieved from: https://curvelakefirstnation.ca/ Connor & Coltson. (1869). The County of Ontario directory for 1869 -70. Toronto: Hunter, Rose & Co. Canada’s Historic Places (2010) Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Second Edition. Canada’s Historic Places, Ottawa. Ellis, C.J. and D.B. Deller. (1990). Paleo-Indians. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 37-74. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. Ellis, C.J., I.T. Kenyon, and M.W. Spence. (1990). The Archaic. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 65-124. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. Ennals, P.M. (1972). “Nineteenth-Century Barns in Southern Ontario.” In The Canadian Geographer, pp. 256-269. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Farewell, J. E. (1907). County of Ontario: short notes as to the early settlement and progress of the county and brief references to the pioneers and some Ontario County men who have taken a prominent part in provincial and dominion affair. Whitby, ON: Gazette-Chronicle Press. Find a Grave. John Percy. Retrieved from: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/119333949/john - percy Fram, Mark (1993) Well-Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundation’s Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation. Third edition. Boston Mills Press, Erin, Ontario. Heritage Resources Centre (HRC). (2009). Ontario Architectural Style Guide . Retrieved from: www.therealtydeal.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/06 /Heritage-Resource-Centre-Achitectural-Styles-Guide.pdf Historic England (2016) Understanding Historic Buildings: A Guide to Good Recording Practice . English Heritage, Swindon, UK. Historic England - 223 - 815 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 117 International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). (2011). Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties . Retrieved from: www.icomos.org/world_heritage/HIA_20110201.pdf Laurie Smith Consulting. (2015). Cultural Heritage Property Evaluation Report : 1390 Whitevale Road, Pickering, Ontario. Retrieved from: https://corporate.pickering.ca/weblink/1/doc/152704/Electronic.aspx Laurie Smith Consulting. (2015 a). Cultural Heritage Property Evaluation Report: 750 Whitevale Road, Pickering, Ontario . Retrieved from: https://corporate.pickering.ca/weblink/1/doc/152699/Electronic.aspx Kalman, Harold (1979) The Evaluation of Historic Buildings. Parks Canada. Kalman, Harold (2014) Heritage Planning: Principles and Process. Routledge, New York. Kalman, Harold and Marcus Létourneau (2020) Heritage Planning: Principles and Process. Routledge, New York. Kyles, S. (2016). Barns. Retrieved from: www.ontarioarchitecture.com/barn.htm Library and Archives Canada (2021) Canadian Censuses. [accessed April 2022]. https://www.bac lac.gc.ca/eng/census/Pages/census.aspx McIlwraith, Thomas F. (1997) Looking for Old Ontario: Two Centuries of Landscape Change. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism & Culture Industries (MHSTCI). (2019). List of Heritage Conservation Districts. Retrieved from: www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/ heritage_conserving_list.shtml Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism & Culture Industries (MHSTCI). (2007). Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties. Retrieved from: www.heritagetrust.on.ca/en/pages/tools/tools -for-conservation/eight-guiding-principles Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism & Culture Industries (MHSTCI). (2006). - 224 - 815 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 118 Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process . Retrieved from: www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage_Tool_Kit_Heritage_PPS_infoSheet.pdf Ministry of Indigenous Affairs (2020) Map of Ontario Treaties and Reserves. Retrieved from: www.ontario.ca/page/map-ontario- treaties-and-reserves Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). (2020). Provincial Policy Statement. Retrieved from: www.ontario.ca/page/provincial-policy-statement- 2020 New Zealand Transport Agency (2015) Historic Heritage Impact Assessment Guide for State Highway Projects. New Zealand Government, Wellington. Ontario Council of University Libraries (n.d.) Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project: Bolton Sheets. [accessed April 2022]. https://ocul.on.ca/topomaps/collection/) Ontario Land Registry Access 2021 Abstract Index Books, Land Registry Office 40 (Pickering). [accessed April 2022]. https://www.onland.ca/ui/40/books/6070 6/viewer/838941323?page=1 Parks Canada. (2010). The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada 2 nd Edition. Retrieved from: www.historicplaces.ca/media/18072/81468-parks-s+g-eng-web2.pdf Parslow Heritage Consulting Inc. Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report- 450 Finch Avenue, Part Lot 31, Concession 2, Geographical Township of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario. Retrieved from: file:///C:/Users/CAEG074036/Desktop/PHC%20Cultural-Heritage- Evaluation-Report.pdf Spence, M.W., R.H. Pihl, and C. Murphy. (1990). Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 125 -170. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. Tremaine, George (1859) Tremaine’s Map of the Wellington County, Canada West. George R. and George M. Tremaine, Toronto Walton, George. (1837). The City of Toronto and the Home District Commercial Directory and Register with Almanack and Calendar for 1837. Toronto, Upper Canda, Dalton and W.J. Coates. - 225 - 815 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 119 Warrick, G. (2000). The Precontact Iroquoian Occupation of Southern Ontario. Journal of World Prehistory 14(4):415-456. Walker & Miles. (1877). Map of Toronto Township. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Peel, Ontario . Toronto, ON. - 226 - APPENDIX A HISTORICAL MAPPING - 227 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: TREMAINE, 1860 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:10,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 4: 1860 TREMAINE'S MAP OF THE COUNTY OF ONTARIO CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 4 1860 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 400200 m - 228 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: J.H. BEERS & CO., 1877 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:10,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 5: 1877 ILLUSTRATED HISTORICAL ATLAS OF THE COUNTY OF WATERLOO CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 5 1877 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 400200 m - 229 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: DEPARTMENT OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE, 1914 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:20,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 6: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ON 1914 NTS MAP CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 6 1914 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 800400 m - 230 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE, 1933 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:20,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 7: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ON 1933 NTS MAP CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 7 1933 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 800400 m - 231 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE, 1943 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:20,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 8: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ON 1943 NTS MAP CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 8 1943 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 800400 m - 232 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO MAP AND DATA LIBRARY HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:12,500 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 9: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ON 1954 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 9 1954 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 500250 m - 233 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: GOOGLE HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:10,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 10: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ON 2002 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 10 2002 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 400200 m - 234 - APPENDIX B SITE CONCEPT PLAN (MARCH 2022) - 235 - 93.3[306'-3"] 21 4 . 6 [7 0 4 ' - 0 " ] 7.6[25'-0"] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 21.34 [70'-0"] 21.34 [70'-0"] 21.34 [70'-0"] 21.34 [70'-0"] 12 D O C K S 2 StoreyOffice & TMWelfare Areas (22,700 sf)2109 sm 15.27 [50'-1"] 24 . 7 4 [8 1 ' - 2 " ] AM M O N I A R O O M 4 , 0 0 0 s f 24 ' c l e a r h e i g h t St r u c t u r a l P l a t f o r m a b o v e fo r 4 c o o l i n g t o w e r s 24 . 3 9 [8 0 ' - 0 " ] 17 D O C K S 10x500KW Generators 2x3000kva SUBSTATION Fl o u r Si l o s DRIVE IN RAMP 14 ' W x 1 6 ' H O H D o o r El e c t r i c a l R o o m 1 2 0 0 s f Sp r i n k l e r R o o m 1 1 0 0 s f Me c h a n i c a l R o o m 1 3 0 0 s f Pro c e p t e r G r e a s e In t e r c e p t e r 3 0 0 0 g a l ro u g h i n f o r D A F S y s t e m 10.67 [35'-0"] 10.67 [35'-0"] 16.46 [54'-0"] 16.46[54'-0"] 16.46 [54'-0"] 16.46 [54'-0"] 16.46 [54'-0"] 16.46 [54'-0"] 16.46 [54'-0"] 16.46 [54'-0"] 16.46 [54'-0"] 148.66 [487'-9"] 64 . 5 5 [2 1 1 ' - 9 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 2nd Floor Office3,800 SF Date: March 26, 2022 PROPOSED FGF FOOD MANUFACTURING CAMPUS 60 ACRES SITE PLAN CONCEPT # 6A FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE 19.92 [65'-4"] TRAILER STAGING 7. 5 0 [2 4 ' - 7 " ] 31.45 [103'-2"] 6.50 [21'-4"] 5.0 0 [1 6 ' - 5 " ] 10.00[32'-10"] FI R E R O U T E FI R E R O U T E TOTAL CAR PARKING 220 10.00 [32'-10"] FI R E R O U T E FI R E R O U T E 32 TOTAL CAR PARKING 200 30.47 [100'-0"] 39.63 [130'-0"] 62.01 [203'-5"] 39.63 [130'-0"] 10.00 [32'-10"] 20 . 0 Access Point Access Point FIRE ROU TE FI RE ROUT E TRUCK TURN COURTYARD FI R E R O U T E FI R E R O U T E FI R E R O U T E FI R E R O U T E Gross Developable - 50.6 acres minus internal road - 3.5 acres Net Developable = 47.1 acres EXISTING SUB DIVISION BLOCKS: *BLOCK 1 - 7.43 Acres *BLOCK 2 - 18.55 Acres *BLOCK 3 - 5.01 Acres *BLOCK 5 - 5.58 Acres *BLOCK 6 - 14.03 Acres *BLOCK 22 - 5.43 Acres (Storm water Pond) *BLOCK 30 - 2.11 Acres (Natural Heritage) *BLOCK 49 - 0.73 Acres (Heritage Lot & House) TOTAL - 58.87 Acres 15.49[50'-10"] TRAILER PARKING TRAILER PARKING 40 . 7 1 [1 3 3 ' - 7 " ] 18 . 3 0 [6 0 ' - 1 " ] 18 . 4 0 [6 0 ' - 4 " ] TRAILER PARKING TRAILER PARKING 50 20 89 ACRES PARCEL 25 . 2 8 [8 2 ' - 1 1 " ] FG F W a y Wonder Drive Screen Wall Screen Wall FI R E R O U T E FI R E R O U T E 6.00 [19'-8"] FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE Access Point Access Point Access Point FI R E R O U T E FI R E R O U T E 19 FI R E R O U T E FI R E R O U T E 32 . 4 7 [1 0 6 ' - 6 " ] TRUCK TURN COURTYARD Relocate Heritage House 45.0 22 .0 Heritage Lot: 815 HWY 7 SI D E L I N E 2 6 N68°52'05"E 291.575 N 63°0 1 '4 0 "E 47 .515 N 6 3°01'40"E 23 .3 65 N4 1 °2 7 '5 5 "E 9 9 .0 4 5 N12°43'35"E 96.305 N10°4 5'40"W 75.400 N10°4 5'40"W 125.080 N2 6 °1 3 '0 5"E 20 . 6 75 N19 °1 9'2 0" W 92. 180 N64°29'10" W 21.155 N70°21'05"E 174.065N71°18'20"E 123.335N71°18'20"E 279.420N71°18'20"E59.820N71°18'20"E62.515 N71°18'20"E20.130 N68°52'05"E 20.120 N68°52'05"E 100.910 N68°51'30"E60.035 N06°11'40"E 50.300 N3 8°57'3 0 "E 23 .8 0 5 N70°14'40"E44.030N71°41'40"E20.160N70°21'05"E28.300 N 25°30'50"E 21.275 N19 °1 9'2 0 "W 92. 905 N63 °46'55"W 21.6 10 N0 3°07'2 0"E 33.760 N 28°0 9'2 0"E 2 2.89 0 2 6.84 0 1.260 BLOCK 49 Heritage Lot 0.73Acres 0.30Ha 45.6 BLOCK 30 Natural Heritage 2.11Acres 0.85Ha BLOCK 32 Natural Heritage 3.95Acres 1.60Ha BLOCK 31 Natural Heritage 3.07Acres 1.24Ha 18 .5 8.6 1 6 . 1 14 .0 27 . 0 2 8 . 9 4 3 . 7 62.6 4 1 . 4 30 .0 12 .8 1 4 . 1 3 5 . 6 1 3 2 . 1 59.6 64 .8 45.7 65 .1 64 .8 45.7 65 .1 1 4 1 . 7 39.4 93.8 54.2 37.1 45. 7 21.9 9 8 . 4 NEW BLOCK 22 Stormwater Pond 1.7 Acr es +/- 6 . 9 82.0 184.0 1 2 3 . 6 57 .698.6114.4 82.9 6 .0 1 1 7 . 1 74.9 7 2 . 7 10 2. 8 47.520.9 BLOCK 8 Prestige Empl o yme nt General 42.30Acres 17.12Ha HIGHWAY 407 HIGHWAY 407 WHITES ROAD INTERCHANGE HIGHWAY 7 (MTO)HIGHWAY 7 (MTO) Northern Boundry of Seaton Neighboor 21 ACCESS POINT Current Road & Bridge Alignment Future New Road & Bridge Alignment to Phase 2 (89 Acres land NEW BLOCK 22 Stormwater Pond 1.6 Acr es +/- 14 . 0 0 [4 5 ' - 1 1 " ] 14m MTO Setback 14m MTO Setback 14m MTO Setback14m MTO Setback 22m 22 m 14 . 0 0 [4 5 ' - 1 1 " ] 14 . 0 0 [4 5 ' - 1 1 " ] 14 . 0 0 [4 5 ' - 1 1 " ] Federal Airport Land 22.00 [72'-2"] 11.00 [36'-1"] 22 . 0 0 [7 2 ' - 2 " ] 11 . 0 0 [3 6 ' - 1 " ] 10 . 0 0 [3 2 ' - 1 0 " ] WH I T E S R O A D 29 . 9 9 [9 8 ' - 5 " ] 12.19 [40'-0"] Cul-de-sac TRANSIT WAY 14.00 [45'-11"] 14m MTO Setback14.00 [45'- 11"] 14m MTO Setback 14.00 [45'-11"] 1 4.00 [ 4 5 '- 1 1"] 1 4.00 [ 4 5 '- 1 1"] 14.00[45'-11"] 14.00[45'-11"] 14.00[45'-11"] 1 4 m MTO S e t b a ck 14m M T O Setbac k 7.0 0 [2 3 ' - 0 " ] 86 TRAILER PARKING 51 36 . 0 0 [1 1 8 ' - 1 " ] TRAILER PARKING FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE Screen Wall 35 . 0 7 [1 1 5 ' - 1 " ] FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE BUILDING 3 TOTAL GFA 231,000 sf (21471 sm) 1st Floor 220,000 sf (20449 sm) 2nd Floor 11,400 sf (1060 sm) BUILDING 4 TOTAL GFA 231,000 sf (21471 sm) 1st Floor 220,000 sf (20449 sm) 2nd Floor 11,400 sf (1060 sm) FIR E R O U TE FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE 93.3[306'-3"] 21 4 . 6 [7 0 4 ' - 0 " ] 7.6[25'-0"] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 21.34 [70'-0"] 21.34 [70'-0"] 21.34 [70'-0"] 21.34 [70'-0"] 12 D O C K S 10x500KW Generators 2 S t o r e y Of f i c e & T M We l f a r e A r e a s ( 2 2 , 7 0 0 s f ) 21 0 9 s m 15.27 [50'-1"] 24 . 7 4 [8 1 ' - 2 " ] AM M O N I A R O O M 4 , 0 0 0 s f 24 ' c l e a r h e i g h t St r u c t u r a l P l a t f o r m a b o v e fo r 4 c o o l i n g t o w e r s 24 . 3 9 [8 0 ' - 0 " ] 17 D O C K S 2x3000kva SUBSTATION Fl o u r Si l o s DRIVE IN RAMP 14 ' W x 1 6 ' H O H D o o r Ele c t r i c a l R o o m 1 2 0 0 s f Sp r i n k l e r R o o m 1 1 0 0 s f Me c h a n i c a l R o o m 1 3 0 0 s f Pro c e p t e r G r e a s e In t e r c e p t e r 3 0 0 0 g a l ro u g h i n f o r D A F S y s t e m 10.67 [35'-0"] 10.67 [35'-0"] BUILDING 2 TOTAL GFA 230,000 sf (21378 sm) 1st Floor 219,000 sf (20356 sm) 2nd Floor 11,400 sf (1060 sm) BUILDING 1 TOTAL GFA 231,000 sf (21471 sm) 1st Floor 220,000 sf (20449 sm) 2nd Floor 11,400 sf (1060 sm) 93 . 3 [3 0 6 ' - 3 " ] 214.6[704'-0"] 7. 6 [2 5 ' - 0 " ] 16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 12 DOCKS 2x3000kva SUBSTATION 10x500KW Generators 2 StoreyOffice & TMWelfare Areas (22,700 sf)2109 sm Flour Silos 15 . 2 7 [5 0 ' - 1 " ] 24.74[81'-2"]AMMONIA ROOM 4,000 sf 24' clear height Structural Platform abovefor 4 cooling towers24.39 [80'-0"] 17 DOCKS DRIVE IN RAMP 14'W x16'H OH Door Electrical Room 1200 sf Sprinkler Room 1100 sf Mechanical Room 1300 sf Procepter Grease Intercepter 3000 galrough in for DAF System 10 . 6 7 [3 5 ' - 0 " ] 10 . 6 7 [3 5 ' - 0 " ] BUILDING 5 DISTRIBUTION CTR. Cross Dock TOTAL GFA 106,800 sf (9853 sm) 1st Floor 103,000 sf (9574 sm) 2nd Floor 3,800 sf (278 sm) 10 . 0 0 [3 2 ' - 1 0 " ] 10 . 0 0 [3 2 ' - 1 0 " ] Access Point 60 . 3 2 [1 9 7 ' - 1 1 " ] 5.00 [16'-5"] 5.00 [16'-5"] 10.00 [32'-10"] 5. 0 0 [1 6 ' - 5 " ] 5.00 [16'-5"] 5.0 0 [1 6 ' - 5 " ] Total Phase 1 (60 Acres) *4 Plants & 1 DC (1.1 million sf) *1st 2 Plants- (Building 1 &2) 2022/2023 (460,000 sf) FI R E R O U T E 3.00 [9'-10"] 38 . 1 0 [1 2 5 ' - 0 " ] 5. 0 0 [1 6 ' - 5 " ] 33 923 6 14 22 21 Sc r e e n W a l l 621.07 [69'-1"] 17 . 6 0 [5 7 ' - 9 " ] 5.0 0 [1 6 ' - 5 " ] 7.50 [24'-7"] 7.50 [24'-7"] 6. 2 0 [2 0 ' - 4 " ] 7. 0 0 [2 3 ' - 0 " ] 7. 0 0 [2 3 ' - 0 " ] 32 . 1 2 [1 0 5 ' - 5 " ] 14 . 9 5 [4 9 ' - 1 " ] 10 . 0 0 [3 2 ' - 1 0 " ] 4. 0 0 [1 3 ' - 1 " ] 10 . 0 0 [3 2 ' - 1 0 " ] 4.0 0 [1 3 ' - 1 " ] 21 . 3 8 [7 0 ' - 2 " ] 25 . 1 1 [8 2 ' - 4 " ] 90 9 26 31 22.37 [73'-5"] 6 6 6 PATIO PATIO PATIO PATIO TOTAL CAR PARKING 238 31 37 9 32 37 7.00 [23'-0"] 7.00 [23'-0"] 19 38 7.00 [23'-0"] Sc r e e n W a l l Sc r e e n W a l l 38 3.00 [9'-10"] 10.00 [32'-10"] 10.00 [32'-10"] 93 . 3 [3 0 6 ' - 3 " ] 214.6[704'-0"] 7. 6 [2 5 ' - 0 " ] 16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 12 DOCKS 2 StoreyOffice & TMWelfare Areas (22,700 sf)2109 sm 15 . 2 7 [5 0 ' - 1 " ] 24.74 [81'-2"]AMMONIA ROOM 4,000 sf 24' clear heightStructural Platform abovefor 4 cooling towers 24.39 [80'-0"] 17 DOCKS 10x500KW Generators 2x3000 KVA Substation Flour Silos DR I V E I N R A M P 14'W x16'H OH Door Electrical Room 1200 sf Sprinkler Room 1100 sf Mechanical Room 1300 sf Procepter GreaseIntercepter 3000 galrough in for DAF System 10 . 6 7 [3 5 ' - 0 " ] 10 . 6 7 [3 5 ' - 0 " ] 19 FI R E R O U T E 6.50 [21'-4"] 6.50 [21'-4"] Screen Wall Relocated Heritage House (FGF Learning Studi0) TRAILER STAGING 41.98 [137'-9"] TRUCK TURN COURTYARD 16.71[54'-10"] 6.20[20'-4"] 16.71[54'-10"] 6. 5 0 [2 1 ' - 4 " ] Sc r e e n W a l l 6 8 23 7 7 23 23 22 47 41 9 39 16 TOTAL CAR PARKING 271 - 236 - APPENDIX C DRONE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS - 237 - - 238 - - 239 - Page 1Caplink CHER & HIA, Preliminary Peer Review July 17, 2022 Elizabeth Martelluzzi Senior Planner, City Development Department City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 T: 905.420.4660 ext.2169 E: emartelluzzi@pickering.ca RE: PRELIMINARY PEER REVIEW CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT, 745 HIGHWAY 7 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 815 HIGHWAY 7 CITY FILE NUMBERS: SP-2022-02 & A04/22 Dear Ms. Martelluzzi, The purpose of this letter is to provide the City of Pickering (‘City’) with an objective and profes- sional preliminary peer review of the Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, 745 Highway 7 (‘CHER’) and the Heritage Impact Assessment, 815 Highway 7 (‘HIA’) submitted as part of the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for the Caplink Limited food manu- facturing facility in Pickering. Following a review of the cultural heritage reports, this letter has been scoped to provide initial comments on the content and findings on the report. The following documents were reviewed so as to inform this letter: Applicant Materials •Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, 745 Highway 7, City of Pickering by WSP, May 18, 2022. •Heritage Impact Assessment, 815 Highway 7, Pickering by WSP, May 18, 2022. •Structural Assessment & Feasibility Study, 815 Highway 7 by WSP, May 27, 2022. •Planning Rationale Report, FGF Manufacturing Campus, 745 Highway 7 and 815 Highway 7, Pickering by Biglieri Group Ltd., June 2022. •Concept Master Plan by Baldassarra Architects Inc., June 2, 2022. •Conceptual Landscape Plan by landscape planning landscape architect, June 2022. •Supplemental material submitted by WSP: Heritage House drawings, July 5, 2022; and, Preliminary Salvage Plan, July 4, 2022. Project Background Materials •Pickering Official Plan, Edition 8, October 2018. Attachment #6 - 240 - Page 2Caplink CHER & HIA, Preliminary Peer Review • Durham Regional Official Plan, Consolidation May 11, 2017. • Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment, July 1994. • Seaton Built Heritage Assessment, November 2004. Additional Reference Materials • Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, 2006. • Ontario Regulation 9/06 - Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. • Provincial Policy Statement, 2020. • Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, 2010. PROJECT BACKGROUND This peer review of the CHER and HIA by WSP provides a professional opinion on whether the reports and their recommendations are consistent with applicable heritage policies as well as the provin- cial and national cultural heritage framework and best practice. As part of this review a site visit was completed on June 24, 2022; in attendance was Elizabeth Martelluzzi (City of Pickering), Emily Game and Miki Brzabovic (WSP), and Lindsay Reid (Branch Architecture). The inspection included walking the property, around the buildings and through interiors (where accessible). The property at 815 Highway 7 is listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Register under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The register refers to the property as the ‘Percy Family Home’ and the heritage value is described as, “Built in 1853, Farmstead, brick house with kitchen tail with side verandah, 2 gambrel barns with attached silos.” 745 Highway 7 is not on the Municipal Heritage Register. Both properties are found in the Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment (July 1994). The report provides information on the archaeological, built heritage, and natural and cultural heritage landscapes of the area. These properties were found to form part of the open rural land- scape south of Highway 7, and to be Built Heritage Resources - 815 Highway 7 (no. 42) is Class B: Significant and 745 Highway 7 (no. 43) is Class C: Relatively High Contextual Value. The tech- nical sheets for these properties are appended to this letter for information. 815 Highway 7 was evaluated in the Seaton Built Heritage Assessment (November 2004). It was determined to be a heritage resource of Regional significance. This assessment is also appended to this letter for information. The Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment applications seek approval for a food manufacturing facility consisting of five new buildings (four manufacturing plants and one distri- bution centre) and the adaptive reuse of the Percy House (from 815 Highway 7) as a learning centre. According to the Planning Rationale Report, the site is designated Prestige Employment Node and Prestige Employment and Seaton Natural Heritage System in the Central Pickering Development Plan, designated Prestige Employment and Seaton Natural Heritage System in the City of Pickering Official Plan, and zoned Rural Agricultural in the City of Pickering Zoning By-law. The application requests changing the zoning category to “Prestige Employment - General” with site-specific exceptions and portions of the site zoned “Stormwater Management” and “Natural Heritage System”. - 241 - Page 3Caplink CHER & HIA, Preliminary Peer Review REVIEW OF CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT (CHER) - 745 HIGHWAY 7 The CHER has been completed in keeping with the direction provided in the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit and common practice in Ontario. It provides: the legislation and policy framework; project methodology; consultation; historical research; a written and photographic description of the existing conditions; a discussion on the architectural style; cultural heritage evaluation in relation to Ontario Regulation 9/06 - Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest; conclu- sions; and recommendations. The study determined that the property does not merit designa- tion under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The following subsections provide additional information, comments, and recommendations as to where revisions and/or further consideration may be required. Historical Research and Analysis The historical research and analysis is generally complete. The following are additional resources that may inform the historical understanding of the property: • The annotated crown lands maps of Pickering Township showing early lot ownership/leases from the Archives of Ontario. See appendices. • The Pickering Library archives includes additional maps that round out the chronology of the area. These include: Map of the Township of Pickering by Charles E. Goad (1895); Gidual Landowners’ Map (c. 1917); and the Centennial map (1967). See appendices. • The Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment includes an assessment and documen- tation of the property in 1994. This provides a snapshot of the property and local context thirty years ago including the presence of a large gambrel roofed bank barn with an adjacent concrete silo (since demolished). Site Description & Analysis The report provides a written and photographic record of the site, dwelling and drive shed followed by discussions about alterations and integrity. The assessment does not include a review of the house interior as access was not available at that time. However, at the site visit access was granted into the house and the group walked through part of the ground floor and basement. The use of milled true size lumber observed in wood framing in the basement indicates that the house was constructed in the early 20th century. The main house is wood frame construction with a brick veneer. While it is possible that the existing house was built upon the foundations of an earlier structure, the current house was not built over the earlier one-and-a-half frame farmhouse shown on the 1877 Historical Atlas map and noted in the 1861 census. One oddity of the house is the use of buff or yellow coloured brick on the second floor of the rear (south-facing) elevation. It is unclear whether this was a deliberate design element (perhaps related to the previous porch/addition here) or simply a reflection of the materials available. - 242 - Page 4Caplink CHER & HIA, Preliminary Peer Review The report also includes an assessment of the integrity of the property based on Harold Kalman’s approach. The assessment, which considered the site as well as the building, found it to have a poor integrity rating. It is likely that this rating would not change significantly if reassessed to account for the site determination of the building’s approximate age and construction. Architectural Style I agree with the assessment that the building is a vernacular example of an Edwardian Four Square style dwelling. This style was popular at the turn of the 20th century and popularized in house catalogs or pattern books such as Halliday Homes in Hamilton and Aladdin Homes in Toronto. A local comparable example was the former house at 1050 Highway 7. Cultural Heritage Evaluation, Conclusion + Recommendations The evaluation of the property with respect to Ontario Regulation 9/06 finds that the property does not satisfy any of the criteria. I agree that this property does not merit designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. While the property forms part of the rural landscape along the south side of Highway 7, it is does not include a significant built heritage resource nor cultural heritage landscape. The integ- rity of the farm setting has been eroded by the loss of agricultural built and landscape features such as the gambrel roofed bank barn and silo noted in the Seaton Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment . I agree with the recommendation to provide the City of Pickering library and archives with a copy of the report for record purposes. Prior to this submission, I recommend that the report is revised to include an updated description of the house based on the findings of the site visit and infor- mation provided in this letter. REVIEW OF HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) - 815 HIGHWAY 7 The HIA generally provides the information requested in the City of Pickering’s Terms of Reference for Heritage Impact Assessment, however, to have a full understanding of the development site’s potential heritage assets the HIA needs to be read alongside other submission materials. These documents include the CHER for 745 Highway 7, the Structural Assessment & Feasibility Study for 815 Highway 7 and the supplemental material provided after the site visit. In addition to the material requested in the City’s terms of reference, the HIA includes: comparative analysis of the buildings/structures; consultation summary; discussion about the integrity of the property; and, evaluation of 815 Highway 7 in relation to Ontario Regulation 10/06 - Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value of Interest of Provincial Significance. It is my professional opinion that the report is generally well researched and thoughtfully prepared. The assessment of the site’s integrity and consideration of four conservation options was helpful in understanding the determination of priorities. The conservation strategy for the Percy House does require further development to ensure this retained heritage attributes is conserved and meaningfully integrated into the larger site plan. - 243 - Page 5Caplink CHER & HIA, Preliminary Peer Review As an aside, this peer review required the review of several documents to gain a full understanding of the cultural heritage issues and conservation intent. In the future I recommend all the cultural heritage material is packaged within a single document and cross referenced to avoid duplica- tion and conflicts. The Development Concept plan shows the original farm house, referred to as ‘Percy House’, relo- cated to Block 49 (Site Plan Concept #6, March 26, 2022). The Planning Rationale Report indicates that Percy House will be renovated for use as a learning centre and receive a rear addition. The other identified heritage attributes - the rear addition to the farm house, the two barns and silos, and the landscape - are to be demolished. The report recommends that these buildings/struc- tures are documented prior to their demolition and, where possible, material salvaged for reuse. I expected the HIA to provide more information on how Percy House would be conserved and the design of the adjacent landscape and buildings. It is my opinion that the Development Concept and HIA needs to provide further consideration of the negative impacts of the proposed devel- opment on the farmstead as a whole, specifically: • Provide an explanation why the buildings cannot be retained in place as part of the site’s rede- velopment, and how the retention of the building(s) in their existing landscape would impact the development potential of the site. • Provide information on the proposed building relocation so as to demonstrate the feasibility of the move and the compatibility of the new location. • Further develop the Conservation Strategy to articulate the conservation scope of work for Percy House in its new landscaped setting and provide guidance on/discuss how the design of the development has been shaped to be compatible with and sympathetic to the retained heritage attributes. The following comments have been organized to follow the structure of the WSP report. Discussion has been limited to providing information and recommending where revisions and/or further consideration is required. Policy Framework The heritage policy framework should include this section of the Provincial Policy Statement: 1.7 Long-Term Economic Prosperity 1.7.1 Long-term economic prosperity should be supported by: e) encouraging a sense of place, by promoting well-designed built form and cultural plan- ning, and by conserving features that help define character, including built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes; Historical Context In addition to the material noted in the historical background, the following resources may inform the final report and/or site interpretation: - 244 - Page 6Caplink CHER & HIA, Preliminary Peer Review • Historical Complexities of Pickering, Markham, Scarborough and Uxbridge by Michelle Greenwald mentions Brunswick Hill. • In Past Years in Pickering by William Wood it is noted that Uriah Percy established and played in several bands in Brougham in the 1870s and 1880s, and the following biography on the Percy family is provided: Percy - John Percy emigrated from England in 1832 and settle on Lot 27, Con. 6. His wife Elizabeth Young, and their family number eleven, of whom four survive - Rev. W. Percy of Stouffville; James Percy, of Toronto; F.G. Percy, of Buffalo, and Uriah Percy, who still lives on the farm. • Other local history books: The Ontario Village of Brougham Past! Present! Future! By Robert A. Milne; Time Present and Time Past by John W. Sabean; The Pickering Story by William A. McKay. • The Seaton Built Heritage Assessment by Andre Scheinman (2004). • The Architectural Evaluation of the North Pickering Project and the Toronto Area Airports Project Sites report by G.M. Yost Associates Ltd (1972) includes photos of this property as well as comparable dwellings in Brougham (noted in HIA) and on Sideline No. 28. See appendices. • The 1851 and 1861 agricultural census records. Other notes: • The 1851 census notes that the Percy family was living in a 1 1/2 frame structure. • This property formed part of the larger Percy homestead. As shown in the historical maps, the Percy family owned and farmed the farms across the highway at Lots 27 and 28 of Concession 6. According to the land abstracts, John Percy purchased acreage at Lot 27 in 1840 and 1852, and William Percy purchased part of Lot 28 (date illegible). Existing Conditions - Site, Context + Architectural Style The HIA provides a description of the buildings and the Structural Assessment & Feasibility Study provides an assessment of the physical condition of the buildings and the feasibility of relocating Percy House. Read together, the material provided provides a full and accurate description of the property and buildings as they are today. For interest, information on the Ontario Cottage or Farmhouse style dwelling popular in Ontario in 1800s can be found in: • ”Rural Architecture: A Cheap Farm House” published in The Canada Farmer in 1864. The article includes drawings that, while published after the construction of this dwelling, show the typical arrangement of rooms in a center hall plan as applied to a one-and-a-half storey Ontario farmhouse. • “The Ontario Cottage: The Globalization of a British Form in the Nineteenth Century” by Lynne D. Distefano published in TDSR Volume XII, No. II, 2001. - 245 - Page 7Caplink CHER & HIA, Preliminary Peer Review Another example of this style of dwelling completed in dichromatic brick can be found at 3815 Sideline No. 28. It may be that, given their design similarities, close proximity and land owner- ship, these three dwellings were constructed by the same builder/family. Further information on barn and silo construction in Ontario can be found in: • The Barn by Eric Arthur and Dudley Witney (1972); and, • Building with Wood and Other Aspects of Nineteenth-Century Building in Central Ontario by John I. Rempel (1980). With respect to the lack of comparative examples of barns in the City of Pickering, each year there are fewer examples of 18th century agricultural structures. Several barns on properties identified in the Seaton reports have recently been demolished (1690 Whitevale Road and 2710 Brock Road) and permission has been granted to dismantle and relocate the barn at Thistle Ha’ Farm to another municipality. I agree with the assessment that the property - its buildings and composition - has a high degree of heritage integrity. Assessment of Cultural Heritage Value I agree with the cultural heritage evaluations of the property and with the finding that it satisfies five of the nine criteria set out in Ontario Regulation 9/06. With respect to the statement of cultural heritage value or interest, I recommend adding the stone fireplace / flue at second floor as heritage attributes. Proposed Undertaking, Impacts + Recommendations As part of the development, the original (front) portion of Percy House is retained on site. The building is to be relocated; it will be moved west within Block 49. The Site Plan appended to the HIA shows Percy House positioned on a landscaped area adjacent to the access point off Highway 7. The immediate context of the building in its new location is Highway 7 to the north, Building 4 with adjacent parking to the east, driveway access to Building 4 to the south, and a new road (FGF Way) to the west. The Site Plan in the Planning Rationale Report indicates that Percy House will be used as a “Learning Studio” and receive a 2,000 square foot addition to the south (rear). The other buildings (barns and silos) and landscaped features identified as heritage attributes are to be demolished with select building elements salvaged for use on or off site. The HIA considers four options to conserve the cultural heritage attributes of the property: 1. Do nothing: preserve and maintain Percy House, Barns 1 and 2, Silos 1 and 2, and all land- scape heritage attributes in situ with no further development of the property. 2. Preserve and maintain Percy House, barns and silos in situ with adaptive reuse of these structures and development of manufacturing campus around these structures on the property. - 246 - Page 8Caplink CHER & HIA, Preliminary Peer Review 3. Relocate Percy House within the site to a more convenient location with an adaptive reuse, dismantle and salvage heritage attributes from Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2 and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. 4. Remove Percy House, Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2, salvaging heritage attributes from the structures and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. The HIA indicates that while Option 1 is the preferred approach from a cultural heritage perspec- tive, that this option is not feasible within the existing land-use planning framework and there- fore advises proceeding with Option 3 with several conservation / mitigation strategies. The evaluation of potential negative impacts (direct and indirect) of Option 3 as per the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit guidance on land-use planning indicates that undertaking this option will have a “major”1 impacts on the property related to: • Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes, or features; • Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; • Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; and, • A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces. The HIA proposes to reduce the impact of this option to “minor” through the implementation of the following mitigation measures in Section 10.1, repeated here in brief: • Undertake a Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) for the property; • Undertake a Mothballing Plan for Percy House; • Undertake a Conservation Plan detailing how the cultural heritage resources will be conserved; • Design new buildings immediately surrounding the Percy House to reflect a similar massing, height and materials; • Undertake a Landscape Plan for the area around the Percy House incorporating vegeta- tive screening between its and the new buildings; • Complete a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report to document barns, silos and rear addition, and identify materials for salvage; • Salvage identified materials; • Complete adaptive reuse of Percy House in a sympathetic and compatible manner; and, • Monitor dust emissions and vibrations during construction. 1 The impact grading chart used by WSP is an adaptation of the ICOMOS Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties, Appendix 3B: example Guide for assessing magnitude of impact. For everyone’s benefit I have provided a copy of this document in the appendices. - 247 - Page 9Caplink CHER & HIA, Preliminary Peer Review I agree with the author’s opinion that the proposed Development Concept will have direct and indirect negative impacts on the heritage attributes. The demolition of the barns, silos and rear addition, and the relocation of the original farm house will, in effect, dissolve the integrity of the farmstead. I also agree that these impacts are irreversible and site specific. However, it is my professional opinion that the implementation of these mitigation measures (as currently presented) will not reduce the impacts to “minor”, but that the impacts will fall within the “moderate” to “major” range.2 The proposed changes will have a significant impact to the site’s heritage attributes related to the removal/demolition of heritage attributes identified in the HIA, and changes to the setting and landscape. The Heritage House drawings (site plan and west elevation) provide additional information on the adaptive reuse Percy House as the FGF Learning Studio. The following are general comments on this schematic design: • The placement of Percy House at the entrance to the proposed development, to the fore of the adjacent new building, and within a uniquely landscaped building serve to preserve the visual prominence of the heritage building. I am concerned that Percy House will still appear isolated within the proposed new development. I encourage the applicant consider other design measures to contextualize the building in its new setting. This may include enlarging the land- scaped area around the building, incorporating landscape and/or urban design features that speak to the agricultural heritage, and ensuring that the design of the adjacent new building is visual compatible with Percy House. As suggested in the Preliminary Salvage Plan, this may also include commemoration through the use of salvaged materials in the landscape / urban design. Commemoration may also include the incorporation of built heritage features as ‘arti- facts’ in the landscape and traditional plaques exploring relevant themes. • The general design of the proposed addition thoughtfully envisions the building’s adaptive reuse as an assembly space. It follows the key principles of additions to heritage buildings such as: placing the addition to the rear of the heritage house to maintain its visual prom- inence from the public realm; designing the addition to be clearly legible as a contempo- rary intervention; proposing an addition of a massing, scale and height compatible with and subordinate to Percy House; and, allow for the conservation the original heritage house in full. As this design develops consideration should be given to compatible uses within Percy House, exterior building materials, and ensuring the connection details between Percy House and the addition are reversible. I recommend that in an effort to further reduce the negative impacts on the heritage attributes, the HIA and Development Concept are further developed to address the following: 1. Provide an explanation for why the all buildings cannot be maintained and conserved in situ as part of the site development. 2 This is based on the ICOMOS example for assessing magnitude of impact provided with respect to “Built heritage or Historic Urban Landscape attributes” and “Historic landscape attributes”. - 248 - Page 10Caplink CHER & HIA, Preliminary Peer Review 2. Provide an explanation for why the Percy House is a good candidate for relocation. Building relocation is considered a last resort to conserve a built heritage resource. This is articulated in the City of Pickering Official Plan (Section 8.9), the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines (Standard 1); and the Eight guiding principles in the conservation of historical properties (No. 2). This discussion should speak to the following: • The proposed placement, orientation and setting of Percy House. • That an experienced heritage building mover has determined that Percy House can be moved safely. 3. Provide more information regarding the conservation of Percy House: • The general scope of building restoration/repairs. • Drawings showing how the building will be rehabilitated for use as a learning centre including interior upgrades and uses, and the complete design of the rear addition. • Drawings showing the landscape around Percy House and considering: preserving views to Percy House from Highway 7; providing an appropriately sized landscape buffer between Percy House and the adjacent roads, parking and building; the use of landscaping to frame the house and provide a visual buffer between it and the adjacent manufacturing facility; the building’s traditional setting within a farmstead; the incorporation of salvaged elements from the barns and silos; and other related design approaches. • Commemoration and/or interpretation scope and themes. 4. Provide discussion on how the design of the manufacturing facility - buildings, landscape and urban design - is compatible with Percy House. This should address how the proposed site intensification - siting, massing, scale, and materials of the new construction - are sympathetic to and conserve the heritage attributes of the property and serve to conserve the heritage value of the property on the whole. The HIA completed by WSP provides a conservation approach that allows for the conservation of the original Percy House structure within the proposed food manufacturing facility. The report presents a good understanding the site’s cultural heritage and is supported by a detailed under- standing of the physical condition of the heritage attributes. The HIA clearly indicates that the conservation approach (Option 3) will have several negative impacts on the heritage attributes of the site. As such, the design requires further development and consideration to ensure that the single retained built heritage asset, Percy House, is thoughtfully and meaningfully integrated into the design for the new complex. It is my professional opinion that the Percy House property merits designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and, as such, should be conserved in compliance with the policy frame- work identified in the HIA and this letter. Within the context of the proposed development, it appears that WSP has prioritized the heritage attributes of the site based on their individual significance and physical condition. I agree that the original Percy House is the most significant built heritage resource, especially given the quality - 249 - Page 11Caplink CHER & HIA, Preliminary Peer Review of the architecture and the physical condition of the existing building. I agree that the barns and silos are a regrettable loss; they should be documented and, where possible, material salvaged for use on or off site. The Documentation and Salvage Plan should also provide direction on how salvaged materials intended for use on site will be stored in a secure and protected manner. I encourage the applicant to salvage and rebuild a section or fragment of the wood crib silo as an interpretive element. While I understand that this built element is in fair-to-poor condition, it is a unique and rare example of the early wood silos in Ontario.3 In terms of next steps, I recommend that the HIA is revised in response to the information, comments and opinions provided in this letter. I also recommend that the applicant provide the supplemental reports recommended in the HIA as part of the ongoing approvals process. These include, but are not limited to: 1. Temporary Protection Plan. 2. Mothballing Plan. 3. Conservation Plan detailing the conservation scope of work for Percy House supported by architectural and landscape drawings, site commemoration / interpretation, and long-term building conservation and maintenance plan guidelines. 4. Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report and Salvage Plan for the barns and silos. 5. Information on protection procedures during construction specifically addressing vibration and fugitive dust emissions. Please contact me should you require any further details or clarifications. Sincerely, Lindsay Reid OAA CAHP LEED Principal, Branch Architecture 3 In Looking for Old Ontario, the author states, “The first tower silos were built with vertical wood- en tongue-and-groove staves wrapped in iron hoops or wooden cribs.” - 250 - Page 12Caplink CHER & HIA, Preliminary Peer Review 1. Crown Lands Map for the Township of Pickering showing the checker board pattern of the Clergy Reserves. The subject lots are identified. (Archives of Ontario, I0050990) APPENDIX 1 : BACKGROUND MAPS + PHOTOGRAPHS - 251 - Page 13Caplink CHER & HIA, Preliminary Peer Review 2. Second version of the Crown Lands Map for the Township of Pickering. The subject lots are identified. (Archives of Ontario, I0050991) P I C K E R I N G T W E M a p 2 8 - 252 - Page 14Caplink CHER & HIA, Preliminary Peer Review 3. Part of Map of the Township of Pickering by Chas E. Goad, 1895. Subject lots identified. (Pickering Archives) 4. Part of Gidual Landowners’ Map of Pickering, c. 1917. (Pickering Archives) - 253 - Page 15Caplink CHER & HIA, Preliminary Peer Review 5. Part of Centennial Map, 1967. Subject lots identified. (Pickering Archives) 6. Photos of Percy House from the 1972 architectural survey. (Pickering Archives, ID: 165040 and164948) - 254 - Page 16Caplink CHER & HIA, Preliminary Peer Review 7. Photo of house on Sideline No. 28 from the 1972 architectural survey. (Pickering Archives, ID: 165006) 8. Photo of house on Brock Road (Brougham) from the 1972 architectural survey. (Pickering Archives, ID: 167228) - 255 - Page 17Caplink CHER & HIA, Preliminary Peer Review Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage properties   16    Low Designated or undesignated assets of local importance. Assets compromised by poor preservation and/or poor survival of contextual associations. Assets of limited value, but with potential to contribute to local research objectives. “Locally Listed” buildings. Historic (unlisted) buildings of modest quality in their fabric or historical associations. Historic Townscape or built-up areas of limited historic integrity in their buildings, or built settings. Robust undesignated historic landscapes. Historic landscapes with importance to local interest groups. Historic landscapes whose value is limited by poor preservation and/or poor survival of contextual associations. Intangible Cultural heritage activities of local significance Associations with particular individuals of local importance Poor survival of physical areas in which activities occur or are associated Negligible Assets with little or no surviving archaeological interest. Buildings or urban landscapes of no architectural or historical merit; buildings of an intrusive character. Landscapes little or no significant historical interest. Few associations or ICH vestiges surviving Unknown potential The importance of the asset has not been ascertained. Buildings with some hidden (i.e. inaccessible) potential for historic significance. n/a Little is known or recorded about ICH of the area Appendix 3B: Example Guide for assessing magnitude of impact Impact Grading Archaeological attributes Built heritage or Historic Urban Landscape attributes Historic landscape attributes Intangible Cultural Heritage attributes or Associations Major Changes to attributes that convey OUV of WH properties Most or all key archaeological materials, including those that contribute to OUV such that the resource is totally altered. Comprehensive changes to setting. Change to key historic building elements that contribute to OUV,, such that the resource is totally altered. Comprehensive changes to the setting. Change to most or all key historic landscape elements, parcels or components; extreme visual effects; gross change of noise or change to sound quality; fundamental changes to use or access; resulting in total change to historic landscape character unit and loss of OUV. Major changes to area that affect the ICH activities or associations or visual links and cultural appreciation. APPENDIX 2 : ICOMOS Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties, Appendix 3B: example Guide for assessing magnitude of impact Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage properties   17    Moderate Changes to many key archaeological materials, such that the resource is clearly modified. Considerable changes to setting that affect the character of the asset. Changes to many key historic building elements, such that the resource is significantly modified. Changes to the setting of an historic building, such that it is significantly modified. Change to many key historic landscape elements, parcels or components; visual change to many key aspects of the historic landscape; noticeable differences in noise or sound quality; considerable changes to use or access; resulting in moderate changes to historic landscape character. Considerable changes to area that affect the ICH activities or associations or visual links and cultural appreciation. Minor Changes to key archaeological materials, such that the resource is slightly altered. Slight changes to setting. Change to key historic building elements, such that the asset is slightly different. Change to setting of an historic building, such that it is noticeably changed. Change to few key historic landscape elements, parcels or components; slight visual changes to few key aspects of historic landscape; limited changes to noise levels or sound quality; slight changes to use or access; resulting in limited change to historic landscape character. Changes to area that affect the ICH activities or associations or visual links and cultural appreciation. Negligible Very minor changes to key archaeological materials, or setting. Slight changes to historic building elements or setting that hardly affect it. Very minor changes to key historic landscape elements, parcels or components; virtually unchanged visual effects; very slight changes in noise levels or sound quality; very slight changes to use or access; resulting in a very small change to historic landscape character. Very minor changes to area that affect the ICH activities or associations or visual links and cultural appreciation. No change No change. No change to fabric or setting. No change to elements, parcels or components; no visual or audible changes; no changes in amenity or community factors. No change - 256 - Page 18Caplink CHER & HIA, Preliminary Peer Review APPENDIX 3 : Seaton Reports, noted assessments - 257 - - 258 - - 259 - SEATON BUILT HERITAGE EVALUATION SHEET Name/Description: History Ma A. 201 Location: Lot z 5 Person Reference: 10 p6Event Categories 30 07 E VO 0 F/P Architecture Max. 25) 2 0 1 Style Tot: 14 15 5 02Conetxec[fon Environment Max. 12 4 O3Age E Continuity 10 Q 2 04Design 5 0 10 ® 2 0 comments Tot: History Ma A. 201 5 Person 15 10 5 p6Event3007g) 07Context820 Tot: 14 Environment Max. 20) E Continuity 10 5 09Setting12g14010Landmark1240 Tat: 10 Integrity Max. 20) 11 Site 5 2 012Alterations02013Condition306Q214Outbuildings1040 Tot: 20 Feasibility for use Max. 15) 15 Compatibility 5 3 16 Adaptibility 0 Q 2 0017Cast1060 Tot: IF GRAND TOTAL: gj CLASSI g comments - 260 - - 261 - SEATON BUILT HERITAGE EVALUATION SHEET Name/Description: S. el H,+6 y 7 Location: ld rB, iFn-z Reference: Imo+ ea3 Categories E VO 0 F/P Architecture Max. 25) 1 Style 15 l0 0 2 Construction 12 0 0 Age 10 5 0 4 Design 10 5 6.i 0 Tot: 13 History Max. 20) 5 Person 15 10 0 6 Event 10 0 I Context 8 5 0 Tot: 11 Environment Max. 20) 8 Continuity 15 to 0 9 Setting 12 3 0 10 Landmark 12 8B 91 0 To[: 17 Integrity Max. 20) 31 site5 2 0 12 Alterations 12 13 Condition 10 6 ql z 14 Outbuildings 10 6 3J 0 Tot: CO Feasibility for use Max. 151 15 Compatibility a 5 3 0 16 Adaptibility 0 D 2 0 17 Cost to 6 04 0 Tot: IS GRAND TOTAL: 76 CLASS: Comments - 262 - UH -5 EVALUATION OF NATURAL AND JCOLTGgRAL/ H_ERHA'GE LA APES FOR SEATON UND:._,C,CII/(.L....F._'.W.lAf..'__-L. d .. . ....... ... ............ ISNOMP ION: LOI':.__....... CAN¢'RIDN: ......... t/ "'0 r u'q SIGMFlGANCE: WdsmP° aesocrated with Mstoric evaN.s:.... ................... .................................................... V_... properees associated With [h lives of sigrvhmnt persarre:............._.................._.__........._.__.._...... larchcapes reprmenliagsigWfimd physiml qua4tvs:.................._..._.....____.__............__.,.._ lands,,Jbstrative If T,,A%cArrY or Msta ' I 011ier Ctlemv: .4UYArt/ ARFASOFSIGNIFIUN(Tc community development and Plwwng ellutic MdtaBe vdnbg lendanfe arthiteciur. 'grichure onchwemg Architecture mason science Arthrology tramPodetien natural heritage Aetaemrxa recreation .................... _............ PERIODOF5IGMFICANCle F t forced of aigndicence: ....... ].. `%_—.../$.Gl.S.....................I................... Second period of nignifiuna: Third Period of eagNKunw:..... .......... ...... _........ .................. .......................... _. IMFLRIIY: Location: geegmPbi<W fa<brs: elimeb, Rolls. etc. alet.................._...._................_......................_............... Design/mmpositionofinemW and cvlmralehmeots: spenW ofgvtizetion, form, pbn q ...P&46:11".. ter...... r.fnRne._4:f,w..._.__...... head._.._..._ ................ 5fling: phyRiNd envlydunene RNQN, rivers, otic.r Giatkwf/L...uv ka.%sx e.....rin.GP:x.®a.Llrk..GnfO..is(t.k9ure>u...._. Mnbriils: m strudianmebrWs of 6aildings, made, fenas,amrcwrm Lr(L ti fllAtF.tt....JLlk1k..CnLLnµ................................._..........._......_.................._.............. Workmamldf: sdd aM lusbricwaysbldoing thing - 263 - Fc,lmg sewe of p ut wreBand plan if"'-""'' M:!i.._L+.'xCY....Ja[ .r. F?d rp,CN/.sM.....rtacYst nHrlcAswoatlon: dvectl leotweeaP Ped dimpar e bor Pavom A{> ...c. Rtti... I... ............ CHANGESANDTHMAt NINIPGRm ml re gnment of teuspomAmnmsrldoro vndesting and resuAndng of Itisbric mndways cbangv5 m'wa/e a pammagement ( snap. ma.e or Telae, ag<aaingl rk cdcG.a;.. n.ha res+s.kMpioweerp tnclusW wmmerdnormevlentidewlopmmkmodemnumag). WLyikutlHhHnes,t BubdievinsW. Mo- a IdGn lossof uegeration (slrce[tlen, ma¢rowa, wooalots) ' eea .. dvteearotion abaMosmm4 olmmHow end aemconon of Iwlodc buadmge/smtceue. dges, anw,,ttc.) .. wmm.ction o(newbwtdings Dods aures and replaceme sHuc (bodges, dums,.tc) bss o[ boundary demarcations, ell smeLL-ude feature (fence, wills, palls, etc) OVEnnLL INIEGIim': Lrl[LIwM Conmtion ane abJiry mmnersl®dt;®ora: r1:.:5jwy._S._.rdeta.Ae:u._lu;q'Hr A.out t scHHtc Anm+rn: J1 A 9Sium+. sere ofMceMvemdy tJ.4d/...... .. a.:./.erliF...a4 [e+rtkA '1°`R P`..-.. a`"" n`'fh rna' ... _................. ........... ................ ................ .-- ...........__. - 264 - - 265 - - 266 - - 267 - - 268 - - 269 - - 270 - Page 1Caplink Demolition Permit Submission, Preliminary Peer Review August 28, 2022 Cristina Celebre Principal Planner, Strategic Objectives City Development City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 T: 905.420.4660 ext.2194 E: ccelebre@pickering.ca RE: PRELIMINARY PEER REVIEW CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT, 745 HIGHWAY 7 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 815 HIGHWAY 7 DEMOLITION PERMIT SUBMISSION CITY FILE NUMBERS: SP-2022-02 & A04/22 Dear Ms. Celebre, The purpose of this letter is to provide the City of Pickering (‘City’) with an objective and profes- sional preliminary peer review of the cultural heritage material submitted as part of the Demolition Permit Submission, and Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for the Caplink Limited food manufacturing facility in Pickering. In addition to the material listed in the original Preliminary Peer Review letter, the following new or revised documents were reviewed in the preparation of this letter: Applicant Materials •Demolition Permit Submission Cover Letter, Related City File No. SP-2022-02 and A04/22 by Biglieri Group Ltd., August 22, 2022. •Peer Review Response Matrix by WSP, August 19, 2022. •Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, 745 Highway 7, City of Pickering by WSP, August 19, 2022. •Heritage Impact Assessment, 815 Highway 7, Pickering by WSP, August 19, 2022. •815 Highway 7, Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) Addendum Memorandum by WSP, August 19, 2022. •Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report, 815 Highway 7, Pickering Ontario by WSP, August 22,2022. •Temporary Protection and Mothball Plan, 815 Highway 7, Pickering Ontario by WSP, August 22, 2022. Attachment #7 - 271 - Page 2Caplink Demolition Permit Submission, Preliminary Peer Review PROJECT BACKGROUND This preliminary peer review of the Demolition Permit submission material by WSP provides a professional opinion on whether the reports and their recommendations are consistent with appli- cable heritage policies as well as the provincial and national cultural heritage framework and best practice. As Branch Architecture reviewed earlier versions of the HIA and CHER, this review pays particular attention to revisions made in response to the Peer Review letter by Branch Architecture (July 17, 2022). The Demolition Permit submission dated August 19, 2022 includes the removal of the rear addi- tion to the Percy House, the two barns, and two silos at 815 Highway 7. The demolition work includes salvaging identified material for storage and reuse on site. COMMENTS It is my professional opinion that the submitted heritage reports have been completed in keeping with best practice and that they provide a responsible plan for the conservation of the most signif- icant built attributes of the property. The HIA indicates that the original Percy House is to be restored and rehabilitated as a learning centre, and recommends that salvaged elements from the rear addition, two barns and wood crib silo (Silo 1) are reused, interpreted and meaningfully integrated into the larger development. As a condition of the Demolition Permit Application, the applicant has provided several docu- ments related to the management of on site heritage resources: •In addition to the material provided in the HIA, the Cultural Heritage Resources Documentation Report, 815 Highway 7 provides documentation of the buildings (written, photographic and plan drawings), an itemized list of suggested materials for salvage for each buildings, and recommendations for how the salvage work should be undertaken. The report recommends the building elements are stored in a covered and secure location, and that salvaged elements are incorporated into the proposed development with interpretation. •The Temporary Protection and Mothball Plan, 815 Highway 7 provides for the ongoing pres- ervation of the original Percy House. It includes a current snapshot of the existing condition of the building, recommends immediate repairs to be undertaken to ensure that the building is secure and weathertight, and a detailed monitoring action plan with a maintenance check- list and schedule. With respect to the updated HIA and CHER, they have generally been updated to reflect the peer review comments. The HIA has deferred providing additional information in response to comments 2, 3 and 4 to the Conservation Plan, Commemoration Plan and/or Landscape Plan. These comments are repeated here for information and are important design considerations to be resolved as the project progresses: - 272 - Page 3Caplink Demolition Permit Submission, Preliminary Peer Review 2. Provide an explanation for why the Percy House is a good candidate for relocation. Building relocation is considered a last resort to conserve a built heritage resource. This is articu- lated in the City of Pickering Official Plan (Section 8.9), the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines (Standard 1); and the Eight guiding principles in the conservation of historical properties (No. 2). This discussion should speak to the following: • The proposed placement, orientation and setting of Percy House. • That an experienced heritage building mover has determined that Percy House can be moved safely. 3. Provide more information regarding the conservation of Percy House: • The general scope of building restoration/repairs. • Drawings showing how the building will be rehabilitated for use as a learning centre including interior upgrades and uses, and the complete design of the rear addition. • Drawings showing the landscape around Percy House and considering: preserving views to Percy House from Highway 7; providing an appropriately sized landscape buffer between Percy House and the adjacent roads, parking and building; the use of landscaping to frame the house and provide a visual buffer between it and the adja- cent manufacturing facility; the building’s traditional setting within a farmstead; the incorporation of salvaged elements from the barns and silos; and other related design approaches. • Commemoration and/or interpretation scope and themes. 4. Provide discussion on how the design of the manufacturing facility - buildings, land- scape and urban design - is compatible with Percy House. This should address how the proposed site intensification - siting, massing, scale, and materials of the new construc- tion - are sympathetic to and conserve the heritage attributes of the property and serve to conserve the heritage value of the property on the whole. As stated in the preliminary peer review, it is my professional opinion that the Percy House property merits designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and, as such, should be conserved in keeping with heritage best practice. I also feel compelled to again encourage the salvage and reconstruction of a section or fragment of the wood crib silo (Silo 1) as an interpre- tive element on site. It is noted that this structure included in the list of suggested materials for salvage. RECOMMENDATIONS In terms of next steps, I recommend that the applicant provide a Conservation Plan as part of the ongoing approvals process. The Conservation Plan should included: • a conservation strategy/design rationale addressing the overall site plan and discussing the compatibility of the new construction with the retained heritage buildings and attributes; - 273 - Page 4Caplink Demolition Permit Submission, Preliminary Peer Review •a detailed description of the conservation (restoration and rehabilitation) scope of work for Percy House supported by architectural and landscape drawings; •a commemoration plan; and, •a long-term building conservation and maintenance plan. Please contact me should you require any further details or clarifications. Sincerely, Lindsay Reid OAA CAHP LEED Principal, Branch Architecture - 274 - Memo To: Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee September 1, 2022 From: Nilesh Surti Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Copy: Principal Planner, Strategic Initiatives Subject: Demolition Application Caplink Limited 815 Highway 7 File: A-3300-93 Background Caplink Limited (FGF Brands) has submitted applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a food manufacturing facility located at the southwest corner of Highway 7 and Whites Road, municipally known as 745 and 815 Highway 7 (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #1). The lands are approximately 26 hectares in size, located in the Pickering Innovation Corridor Neighbourhood, within the Seaton Community. The eastern portion of the lands, 815 Highway 7, is occupied by a one-and-a-half-storey brick dwelling (circa 1853), known as the Percy House, and two barns and silos. The property is listed as a non-designated property on the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register pursuant to Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Percy House will be relocated to the southeast corner of Highway 7 and a new municipal road. The applicant is proposing to demolish the rear addition to the farmhouse and construct a 185 square metre modern addition. The building will be sited within a landscaped area, and be used as a learning centre/office see Submitted Conceptual Landscape Plan, Attachment #2). The barns and silos, and landscape features on the property are proposed to be demolished with select building materials salvaged for use on or off-site. The City received a Demolition Application to remove Barns and Silos On August 25, 2022, Caplink Limited submitted to the City a Demolition Application (City File 2022 009639 DP) to demolish/dismantle 2 barns (Barn 1 and Barn 2) and 2 silos (Silo 1 and Silo 2) located at 815 Highway 7 (see Location Plan of Existing Structures, Attachment #3). At this time, the applicant has not submitted a Demolition Application to remove the rear addition of the Percy House. Given that the subject lands are listed as a non-designated property on the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register, the Ontario Heritage Act provides interim protection against demolition in the form of a 60-day delay in issuing a demolition permit. The City may in that time consider conservation options, including proceeding to designation or removing the property from the Municipal Heritage Register. Council also must consult with its municipal heritage committee. - 275 - September 1, 2022 Demolition Application Page 2 of 3 Heritage Impact Assessment and Cultural Heritage Resources Documentation Report have been submitted As part of the Demolition Permit application, the applicant has submitted a Cultural Heritage Resources Documentation Report (CHRDR), prepared by WSP, dated August 22, 2022 (see CHRDR, Attachment #4) and a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), prepared by WSP, dated August 19, 2022 (see HIA, Attachment #5). The CHRDR provides documentation of the buildings (written, photographic and plan drawings), an itemized list of suggested materials for salvage for each building, and recommendations for how the salvage work should be undertaken. Section 7 of the CHRDR, table 7-1, outlines the materials suggested for salvage and reuse. Section 8 of the CHRDR, provides an overview of the opportunities for salvage and reuse of the buildings including: Barns 1 and 2: • stone foundation material; • exterior cladding; • vents; • lightening rods; • wood beams and uprights; and, • brick pavers. Silo: • all materials from Silo 1 (wooden silo). The City retained Branch Architecture, to review the Demolition Application submission materials prepared by WSP (see Peer Review Letter prepared by Branch Architecture, Attachment #6). The reviewer advises that the submitted heritage reports have been completed in keeping with best practices and that they provide a responsible plan for the conservation of the most significant built attributes of the property. Brach Architecture recommends that the salvaged elements of the two barns and Silo 1 (wood crib silo) is reused and meaningfully integrated into the larger development. Furthermore, the reviewer recommends that the applicant submit a Conservation Plan as part of the ongoing approval process. Staff concur with the analysis and recommendations provided by Branch Architecture. Staff Comments Staff do not object to the request by Caplink Limited to demolish the two barns and silos on the subject lands. The removal of the buildings allows the site to be developed for large-scale employment use, located within a designated employment area within the Seaton Community. Staff support the salvage of materials and incorporating the materials into the proposed development with interpretation. Furthermore, in relation to the greater site redevelopment, staff strongly support the restoration and rehabilitation of the Percy House and the proposed designation of the property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. - 276 - September 1, 2022 Demolition Application Page 3 of 3 Staff offer the following recommendations to the Committee: 1. That Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee does not object to the submitted Demolition Application (file number 2022 009639 DP) to demolish/dismantle two barns (Barn 1 and Barn 2) and two silos (Silo 1 and Silo 2); 2. That the Municipal Heritage Register be updated to record the demolition of the two barns and two silos; 3. That the materials from Barns 1 and 2 and Silo 1 will be salvaged and reused, as outlined in Table 7-1 of Cultural Heritage Resources Documentation Report (815 Highway 7), dated August 22, 2022, prepared by WSP; 4. That salvaged materials be stored in a covered and secured location, and that salvaged elements are incorporated into the proposed development with interpretation; and, 5. That if the salvaged materials cannot be incorporated into the proposed development, the Owner will make efforts to donate to a public body such as the City of Pickering, Pickering Museum Village, Black Creek Pioneer Village, etc.; and deliver at the Owner’s cost, as deemed reasonably fit by the parties. Next Steps The next step is for staff to prepare a recommendation report to Council that will include Heritage Pickering and staff recommendations. A final decision will be made at the September 19, 2022 Council meeting. CC:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3200\2022\SP-2022-02, A 04-22 Caplink Limited (FGF)\Heritage\Special Heritage Meeting Sept 7\Memo - Demolition\Memo to Committee, Demolition (August 31).docx Attachment #1: Air Photo Map Attachment #2: Submitted Conceptual Landscape Plan Attachment #3: Location Plan of Existing Structures Attachment #4: Cultural Heritage Resources Documentation Report (CHRDR) prepared by WSP, dated August 22, 2022 Attachment #5: Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared by WSP, dated August 19, 2022 Attachment #6: Peer Review Letter prepared by Branch Architecture, dated August 28, 2022 - 277 - Highway 7 W h i t es Road 407 Highway Si d e l i n e 2 6 Si d e l i n e 2 8 E n t e rprise Gateway Air Photo MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: Date: Jul. 21, 2022 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\SP\2022\SP-2022-02, A 04-22 Caplink Limited\SP-2021-XX_AirPhoto.mxd 1:7,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City Development Department SP-2022-02 & A 04-22 Caplink Limited 745 Highway 7 and 815 Highway 7 745 Highway 7 815 Highway 7 Attachment #1 - 278 - L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\SP\2021 July 20, 2022DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Submitted Conceptual Landscape Plan FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department SP-2022-02 & A 04/22 Caplink Limited 745 Highway 7 and 815 Highway 7 N Manufacturing Plant Manufacturing Plant Manufacturing Plant Manufacturing Plant Distribution Centre Heritage Building Office/Learning Centre Attachment #2 - 279 - RESIDENCE DRIVEWAY SILO 1 BARN 1 SILO 2 BARN 2 W H I T E S R O A D H I G H W A Y 7 W H I T E S R O A D PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: REGION OF DURHAM CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE DOCUMENTATION REPORT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:1,236 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 3 Existing Condtions.mxd Service Layer Credit © 2021 Regional Municipality of Durham; 2020 Orthophotography provided by © First Base Solutions Inc.; © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2021. 0 5025 m Attachment #3 - 280 - CAPLINK LIMITED PROJECT NUMBER: 221-03925-01 CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE DOCUMENTATION REPORT 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING ONTARIO AUGUST 22, 2022 DRAFT Attachment #4 - 281 - CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE DOCUMENTATION REPORT 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING CALPLINK LIMITED DRAFT PROJECT NO.: 221-03925-01 DATE: AUGUST 22, 2022 WSP 582 LANCASTER STREET WEST KITCHENER, ON N2K 1M3 T: +1 519 743 8777 WSP.COM - 282 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page iii S I G N A T U R E S PREPARED BY DRAFT Emily Game, BA Cultural Heritage Specialist August 22, 2022 Date APPROVED1 BY DRAFT Joel Konrad, PhD, CAHP, Cultural Heritage Lead - Ontario August 22, 2022 Date WSP Canada Inc. (“WSP”) prepared this report solely for the use of the intended recipient in accordance with the professional services agreement between the parties. In the event a contract has not been executed, the parties agree that the WSP General Terms for Consultant shall govern their business relationship which was provided to you prior to the preparation of this report. The report is intended to be used in its entirety. No excerpts may be taken to be representative of the findings in the assessment. The conclusions presented in this report are based on work performed by trained, professional and technical staff, in accordance with their reasonable interpretation of current and accepted engineering and scientific practices at the time the work was performed. The content and opinions contained in the present report are based on the observations and/or information available to WSP at the time of preparation, using investigation techniques and engineering analysis methods consistent with those ordinarily exercised by WSP and other engineering/scientific practitioners working under similar conditions, and subject to the same time, financial and physical constraints applicable to this project. WSP disclaims any obligation to update this report if, after the date of this report, any conditions appear to differ significantly from those presented in this report; however, WSP reserves the right to amend or supplement this report based on additional information, documentation or evidence. WSP makes no other representations whatsoever concerning the legal significance of its findings. The intended recipient is solely responsible for the disclosure of any information contained in this report. If a third party makes use of, relies on, or makes decisions in accordance with this report, said third party is solely responsible for such use, reliance or decisions. W SP does not accept responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken by said third party based on this report. WSP has provided services to the intended recipient in accordance with the professional services agreement between the parties and in a manner consistent with that degree of care, skill and diligence normally provided by members of the same profession performing the same or comparable services in respect of projects of a similar nature in similar circumstances. It is understood and agreed by WSP and the recipient of this report that WSP provides no warranty, express or implied, of any kind. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it is agreed and understood by WSP and the recipient of this report that WSP makes no representation or warranty whatsoever as to the sufficiency of its scope of work for the purpose sought by the recipient of this report. In preparing this report, WSP has relied in good faith on information provided by others, as noted in the report. WSP has reasonably assumed that the information provided is correct and WSP is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of such information. Benchmark and elevations used in this report are primarily to establish relative elevation differences between the specific testing and/or sampling locations and should not be used for other purposes, such as grading, excavating, construction, planning, development, etc. The original of this digital file will be kept by WSP for a period of not less than 10 years. As the digital file transmitted to the intended recipient is no longer under the control of WSP, its integrity cannot be assured. As such, WSP does not guarantee any modifications made to this digital file subsequent to its transmission to the intended recipient. This limitations statement is considered an integral part of this report. 1 Approval of this document is an administrative function indicating readiness for release and does not impart legal liability on to the Approver for any technical content contained herein. Technical accuracy and fit -for-purpose of this content is obtained through the review process. The Approver shall ensure the applicable review process has occurred prior to signing the document. - 283 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page iv C O N T R I B U T O R S CLIENT Contact Martin Ng CapLink Limited 1295 Ormont Drive Toronto, ON M9L 2W6 WSP Project Manager Emily Game, B.A. Cultural Heritage Specialist Report Preparation Emily Game, B.A. Field Review Chelsey Tyers, BES, MCIP, RPP Cultural Heritage Specialist Claire Forward, (Hons.), M.A., M.Sc. Cultural Heritage Specialist Mapping/GIS Tanya Peterson, B.A. (Hons) Senior GIS Technician Miranda Gilliland GIS Analyst Report Review Joel Konrad, PhD, CAHP Cultural Heritage Lead, Ontario Cultural Heritage Specialist - 284 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WSP was retained by the Biglieri Group on behalf of CapLink Limited to complete a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report (CHRDR) for the property located at 815 Highway 7 in the City of Pickering. The report was undertaken to accompany the submission of a Site Plan Application. CapLink Limited is proposing to develop a 23.8-hectare parcel of land that consists of two properties on Highway 7, including: 815 and 745 Highway 7 (the project location). The proposed development consists of the phased construction of five industrial buildings as part of the development of the FGF Pickering Manufacturing Campus. CapLink Limited plans to demolish the addition connected to the Percy House due to structural and architectural deficiencies and relocate the Percy House to a new location. The two barns (Barn 1 and Barn 2) and two silos (Silo 1 and Silo 2) will be demolished and materials from Barns 1 and 2 and Silo 1 will be salvaged. The property at 815 Highway 7 is comprised of a one-and-a-half storey Ontario Cottage (the Percy House) with Neo-Classical and Georgian influences, constructed of brick in 1853, as well as two Central Ontario bank barns and two silos. The subject property is listed as a non-designated property on the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register pursuant to Section 27 (1.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was completed by WSP (WSP, 2022), and identified impacts to the subject property as well as outlined a range of mitigation measures such as adaptive reuse, relocation, demolition, salvage of brick or other material before building removal etc. Ultimately, the HIA determined that the proposed design would have direct adverse impacts on the heritage attributes of the subject property. Retention of the buildings in situ was demonstrated to be unfeasible, as such, the HIA recommended a CHRDR be completed by a Qualified Heritage Professional. As the City of Pickering does not have guidance for completing CHRDRs, this CHRDR was prepared according to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation’s Environmental Guide for Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (November 2007), Section 6.3.1.4 Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report for Built Heritage Resources. This report provides an archival record of the subject building according to the Environmental Guide for Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes and should be deposited with the City of Pickering’s Heritage Planning staff and the Archives at Pickering Public Library. The subject property will be impacted by the construction of the FGF Pickering Manufacturing Campus and as a result, WSP makes the following recommendations: 1 The destination of salvaged materials outlined in Table 7-1 should be determined prior to the initiation of any salvage process. 2 Contract documentation should include information regarding the CHVI of the aforementioned properties, specifically the List of Heritage Attributes. 3 The salvaged materials should be stored in a covered and secured location until they can be used. 4 Consideration should be given to the incorporation of salvaged materials, such as brick and beams, into the proposed development. 5 Incorporation of salvaged materials into the proposed development should be accompanied by interpretation, (i.e. a plaque or other commemoration device), so residents and visitors can understand the provenance of the materials. - 285 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page vi 6 The chosen contractor should propose an approach for the labelling and storage of materials salvaged until they can be incorporated into the proposed development or donated to an architectural salvage. 7 Materials should only be salvaged if they are suitable for re-use in other buildings or projects. As a result, the material must be not irreparably damaged or infested. 8 Materials should be extracted in a way that ensures they will not be irreparably damaged. 9 A copy of this report should be provided to municipal Planning Staff for review and once finalized, submitted to the Archives at Whitby Public Library. - 286 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page vii 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................... 10 2 CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY ............... 14 2.1 Provincial Policy Context ......................................... 14 2.1.1 The Ontario Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement .............. 14 2.1.2 Ontario Heritage Act...................................................................... 15 2.1.3 Environmental Guide for Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes .................................................................................. 15 2.1.4 City of Pickering OFficial Plan ........................................................ 16 3 PROJECT CONTEXT ................................... 18 4 HISTORICAL CONTEXT ............................... 19 4.1 Pre-European Contact Period .................................. 19 4.2 Pre-Confederation Treaties ...................................... 20 4.3 Ontario County.......................................................... 20 4.4 Pickering Township .................................................. 21 4.5 Community of Whitevale .......................................... 22 4.6 Community of Green River ....................................... 22 4.7 Site Specific History: 815 Highway 7, Pickering ...... 23 5 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST ................................. 26 5.1 Context: 815 highway 7 ............................................ 26 5.1.1 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest ............................. 26 5.1.2 Heritage Attributes ........................................................................ 26 6 DOCUMENTATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY................................................... 29 6.1 Context ...................................................................... 29 6.1.1 Percy House, Rear Addition .......................................................... 29 6.1.1.1 Exterior 29 6.1.1.2 Interior 30 6.1.2 Bank Barn 1 ................................................................................. 33 - 287 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page viii 6.1.2.1 Exterior 33 6.1.2.2 Interior 34 6.1.3 Silo 1 ............................................................................................ 34 6.1.4 Bank Barn 2 ................................................................................. 36 6.1.4.1 Exterior 36 6.1.4.2 Interior 36 7 SALVAGE OPPORTUNITIES ....................... 70 7.1 Artifact Curation and Reuse ..................................... 70 7.1.1 Suggested Materials for Salvage ................................................... 70 8 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 75 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................... 77 TABLES TABLE 7-1: SALVAGEABLE MATERIALS: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING ONTARIO ........................................................ 71 FIGURES FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION ............................ 11 FIGURE 2: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ................ 12 FIGURE 3: MAP OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ......... 13 FIGURE 4: FLOOR PLAN OF THE PERCY HOUSE ADDITION WITH PHOTO LOCATIONS .................... 32 FIGURE 5: FLOOR PLAN OF THE LOWER LEVEL OF BARN 1 AND SILO 1 WITH PHOTO LOCATIONS .... 35 FIGURE 6: FLOOR PLAN OF THE LOWER LEVEL OF BARN 2 WITH PHOTO LOCATIONS ........................ 37 FIGURE 7: ILLUSTRATED HISTORICAL ATLAS OF THE COUNTY OF PICKERING (J.H. BEERS & CO., 1877) ........................................................................ 80 FIGURE 8: 1877 ILLUSTRATED HISTORICAL ATLAS OF ONTARIO COUNTY, PICKERING TOWNSHIP ... 81 FIGURE 9: 1914 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP .................... 82 FIGURE 10: 1933 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP .................. 83 FIGURE 11: 1943 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP .................. 84 FIGURE 12: 1954 AERIAL IMAGE............................ 85 FIGURE 13: 2000 AERIAL IMAGE............................ 86 - 288 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page ix APPENDICES A HISTORICAL MAPPING - 289 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 10 1 INTRODUCTION WSP was retained by the Biglieri Group on behalf of CapLink Limited to complete a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report (CHRDR) for the property located at 815 Highway 7 in the City of Pickering. The report was undertaken to accompany the submission of a Site Plan Application for the 23.8-hectare development of two properties on Highway 7, including: 815 and 745 Highway 7 (the project location), which is proposing the phased construction of five industrial buildings as part of the development of the FGF Pickering Manufacturing Campus. The property at 815 Highway 7 is comprised of a one-and-a-half storey Ontario Cottage (the Percy House) with Neo-Classical and Georgian influences, constructed of brick in 1853, as well as two Central Ontario bank barns and two silos. The subject property is listed as a non-designated property on the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register pursuant to Section 27 (1.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was completed by WSP (WSP, 2022), and identified impacts to the subject property as well as outlined a range of mitigation measures such as adaptive reuse, relocation, demolition, salvage of brick or other material before building removal etc. Ultimately, the HIA determined that the proposed design would have direct adverse impacts on the heritage attributes of the subject property. Retention of the buildings in situ was demonstrated to be unfeasible, as such, the HIA recommended a CHRDR be completed by a Qualified Heritage Professional. As the City of Pickering does not have guidance for completing CHRDRs, this report was prepared according to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) Environmental Guide for Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (November 2007), Section 6.3.1.4 Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report for Built Heritage Resources. This report provides an archival record of the aforementioned structures according to the Environmental Guide for Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes. A field review was conducted as part of the CHRDR on August 5, 2022, by Chelsey Tyers and Claire Forward, Cultural Heritage Specialists with WSP. Photographs taken on April 29, 2022, and May 4, 2022 were also used in the preparation of this report. The CHRDR follows guidance set out in the MTO’s Environmental Guide for Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (MTO, 2007) and will provide: • a historical overview of the context of the subject property; • a physical description of the existing landscape and the former landscape; • representative photographs of the site and its associated built heritage resources; • photographic key plan, not to scale; • recent aerial photography, historical aerial photography and available topographic mapping, existing and historical mapping as available; and • a site plan of the landscape showing all built heritage resources and any other character-defining elements, as needed, to graphically illustrate the site. - 290 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: ESRI TOROPGRAPHIC BASEMAP CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE DOCUMENTATION REPORT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:50,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 1: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA IN THE CITY OF PICKERING CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 2 Study Area.mxd Service Layer Credit Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance 0 1,900950 m - 291 - W H I T E S R O A D S I D E L I N E 2 6 H I G H W A Y 4 0 7 H I G H W A Y 7 H I G H W A Y 4 0 7 S I D E L I N E 2 8 PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: LAND INFORMATION ONTARIO CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE DOCUMENTATION REPORT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:4,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 2: PROJECT LOCATION CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 1 Location.mxd Service Layer Credit Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 0 16080 m - 292 - RESIDENCE DRIVEWAY SILO 1 BARN 1 SILO 2 BARN 2 W H I T E S R O A D H I G H W A Y 7 W H I T E S R O A D PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: REGION OF DURHAM CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE DOCUMENTATION REPORT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:1,236 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 3 Existing Condtions.mxd Service Layer Credit © 2021 Regional Municipality of Durham; 2020 Orthophotography provided by © First Base Solutions Inc.; © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2021. 0 5025 m - 293 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 14 2 CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY 2.1 PROVINCIAL POLICY CONTEXT 2.1.1 THE ONTARIO PLANNING ACT AND PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT The Planning Act (1990) and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), 2020) issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act, provide Ontario-wide policy direction on land use planning. All decisions affecting land use planning “shall be consistent with” the PPS, which identifies that properties and features demonstrating significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological, technical, or scientific interest are of provincial interest and should be conserved. The importance of identifying, evaluating, and conserving built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes is noted in two sections of the PPS: — Section 2.6.1 – “Significant built heritage resources and significant heritage landscapes shall be conserved”; and, — Section 2.6.3 – “Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved.” The following concepts, as defined in the PPS, are fundamental to an understanding of the conservation of cultural heritage resources in Ontario: Built heritage resources (BHR) are defined as “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. Built heritage resources are located on property that may be designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or that may be included on local, provincial, federal and/or international registers.” Conserved is defined as “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 can be included in these plans and assessments.” Cultural heritage landscapes (CHL) “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. Cultural heritage landscapes may be properties that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act, or have been included on federal and/or international registers, and/or protected through official plan, zoning by-law, or other land use planning mechanisms.” Heritage attributes “means the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritage property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property’s built, constructed, or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (e.g. significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage property).” - 294 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 15 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.” 2.1.2 ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT The OHA gives municipalities and the provincial government powers to preserve the heritage of Ontario, with a primary focus on protecting heritage properties and archaeological sites. The OHA grants authority to municipalities and the province to identify and designate properties of heritage significance, provide standards and guidelines for the preservation of heritage properties and enhance protection of heritage conservation districts, marine heritage sites and archaeological resources. Properties can be designated individually (Part IV of the OHA) or as part of a larger group of properties, known as a Heritage Conservation District (Part V of the OHA). Designation offers protection for the properties under Sections 33 and 34 of the OHA, prohibiting the owner of a designated property from altering, demolishing or removing a building or structure on the property unless the owner applies to the council of the municipality and receives written consent to proceed with the alteration, demolition or removal. In addition to designated properties, the OHA allows municipalities to list properties that are considered to have Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) on their Register, which provides interim protection against demolition in the form of a 60-day delay in issuing a demolition permit. Under Part IV, Section 27, municipalities must maintain a Register of properties situated in the municipality that are of CHVI. Section 27 (1.1) states that the Register shall be kept by the Clerk and that it must list all designated properties (Part IV and V). Under Section 27 (1.2), the Register may include a property that has not been designated, but that the municipal council believes to possess CHVI. Listed properties, although recognized as having CHVI, are not protected under the OHA against demolition or unsympathetic alteration as are designated properties but are acknowledged under Section 2 of the PPS (MMAH, 2020). 2.1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDE FOR BUILT HERITAGE AND CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES The MTO’s Environmental Guide for Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (MTO, 2007) states that where a resource is to be relocated or demolished, a full historical site research, photographic and map recording, and documentation of the resource to be displaced or disrupted should be completed. The following tasks were undertaken as part of the CHRDR for 815 Highway 7: • A general description of the history of the study area as well as a detailed historical summary of property ownership and building(s) development; • A description of the building’s exterior and interior; • Overall dimensional measurements of the exterior of a building or structure; • Representative photographs of the exterior (front, back and side views) of a building or structure; • Detail photography of character-defining architectural resources or elements on the exterior of a building; • Photographic key plans of the exterior of the building, not to scale; and • A site plan. - 295 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 16 2.1.4 CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN The City of Pickering Official Plan (2018) provides cultural heritage conservation policies in Chapter 8. The following policies provide guidance for development proposals that may impact cultural heritage resources. 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: (i) significant heritage structures, features and sites; (ii) buildings, sites, and artifacts of historical, archaeological and architectural significance including modern or recent architecture; (iii) significant landscape features and characteristics, including vistas and ridge lines; and (iv) 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. Cooperation with Others 8.3 City Council shall: (a) assist in identifying, protecting and promoting cultural heritage resources in the municipality, in cooperation with Federal, Provincial and Regional levels of government, as well as private agencies and individuals; (b) consult with its local architectural conservation advisory committee and other heritage committees, and participate with these committees and others in protecting important heritage resources, as necessary, through assembling, resale, public-private partnerships, acquisition or other forms of involvement; (c) ensure that plans, programs and strategies prepared by or for the City and its boards or commissions, shall respect the character and significance of the City’s heritage resources; and (d) use and encourage the use of available government and non-government funding and programs to assist in cultural heritage resource conservation. Ontario Heritage Act - 296 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 17 8.4 City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, where warranted shall implement the provisions of the OHA, including the designation under the Act of heritage sites and heritage districts. Cultural Heritage Inventory 8.7 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 OHA; 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. Cultural Heritage Alteration and Demolition 8.8 City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, shall: (a) allow alterations, additions or repairs to buildings designated under the OHA, provided the changes to the building do not detrimentally affect the heritage value; (b) allow new buildings, or alterations, additions or repairs to existing buildings within a Heritage Conservation District that are consistent with the District Conservation Guidelines; (c) discourage or prevent the demolition or inappropriate alteration of a heritage resource, but where demolition or inappropriate alteration is unavoidable: (i) consider the acquisition and conservation of the resource; and (ii) if acquisition is not possible, conduct a thorough review and documentation of the resource for archival purposes; and (d) ensure that designated cultural heritage buildings, and other important cultural heritage resources that are vacant for an extended period of time are inspected regularly to discourage vandalism and monitor conformity with the City’s Maintenance and Occupancy By-law. Guidelines for Use and Reuse 8.9 City Council shall consider the following guidelines on the use and reuse of heritage resources: (a) maintain, if possible, the original use of heritage structures and sites, and if possible, retain the original location and orientation of such structures; (b) where original uses cannot be maintained, support the adaptive reuse of heritage structures and sites to encourage resource conservation; and (c) where no other alternative exists for maintaining heritage structures in their original locations, allow the relocation of the structure to appropriate sites or areas. - 297 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 18 3 PROJECT CONTEXT The proposed development concept for the project location consists of five food manufacturing buildings on the lot, to be built in two phases with Buildings 1, 2, and 3 constructed first, followed by Buildings 4 and 5. The lot is currently zoned Rural Agricultural, however, it is designated Prestige Employment and Seaton Natural Heritage System in the Pickering Official Plan. The total site area for the proposed development is 23.8 hectares with frontage on Highway 7 and Whites Road. The building footprints are approximately 21,471 (Building 1), 23,378 m2 (Building 2), 21,471 m2 (Building 3), 21,471 m2 (Building 4), and 9,858 m2 (Building 5). The site will contain approximately 87 truck loading bays, 690 parking stalls and 120 spaces for trailer parking. Vehicular access is proposed via signalized access point from Highway 7 with proposed municipal roads providing access to the proposed development. - 298 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 19 4 HISTORICAL CONTEXT 4.1 PRE-EUROPEAN CONTACT PERIOD The first populations to occupy Southern Ontario are referred to as Paleoindians (Ellis and Deller, 1990:39). Paleo period populations moved into the region following the retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet approximately 11,000 years before present (BP). Early Paleo period groups are identified by their distinctive projectile point morphologies, exhibiting long grooves, or ‘flutes’, that likely functioned as a hafting mechanism. These Early Paleo group projectile morphologies include Gainey (c.10,900 BP), Barnes (c.10,700 BP), and Crowfield (c.10,500 BP) (Ellis and Deller, 1990:39-43). By approximately 10,400 BP, Paleo projectile points transitioned to various un-fluted varieties such as Holocombe (c.10,300 BP), Hi-Lo (c.10,100 BP), and Unstemmed and Stemmed Lanceolate (c.10,400 to 9,500 BP). These morphologies were utilized by Late Paleo period groups (Ellis and Deller, 1990:40). Both Early and Late Paleo period populations were highly mobile, participating in the hunting of large game animals. Paleo period sites often functioned as small campsites (less than 200 m2) where stone tool production and maintenance occurred (Ellis and Deller, 1990). By approximately 8,000 BP the climate of Ontario began to warm. As a result, deciduous flora began to colonize the region. With this shift in flora came new faunal resources, resulting in a transition in the ways populations exploited their environments. This transition resulted in a change of tool-kits and subsistence strategies recognizable in the archaeological record, resulting in what is referred to archaeologically as the Archaic period. The Archaic period in Southern Ontario is dived into three phases: the Early Archaic (c.10,000 to 8,000 BP), the Middle Archaic (c.8,000 to 4,500 BP) and the Late Archaic (c.4,500 to 2,800 BP) (Ellis et al., 1990). The Archaic period is differentiated from earlier Paleo populations by several traits such as: 1) an increase in tool stone variation and reliance on local tool stone sources, 2) the emergence of notched and stemmed projectile point morphologies, 3) a reduction in extensively flaked tools, 4) the use of native copper, 5) the use of bone tools for hooks, gorges, and harpoons, 6) an increase in extensive trade networks and 7) the production of ground stone tools. Also noted is an increase in the recovery of large woodworking tools such as chisels, adzes, and axes (Ellis and Deller, 1990:65- 66). The Archaic period is also marked by population growth. Archaeological evidence suggests that by the end of the Middle Archaic period (c.4,500 BP) populations were steadily increasing in size (Ellis et al., 1990). Over the course of the Archaic period populations began to rely on more localized hunting and gathering territories. By the end of the Archaic period, populations were utilizing more seasonal rounds. From spring to fall, settlements would exploit lakeshore/riverine locations where a broad-based subsistence strategy could be employed, while the late fall and winter months would be spent at interior site where deer hunting was likely a primary focus with some wild edibles likely being collected (Ellis and Deller, 1990:114). This steady increase in population size and adoption of a more localized seasonal subsistence strategy eventually evolved into what is termed the Woodland period. - 299 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 20 The Woodland period is characterized by the emergence of ceramic technology for the manufacture of pottery. Like the Archaic period, the Woodland period is separated into three primary timeframes: the Early Woodland (approximately 800 BC to 0 AD), the Middle Woodland (approximately 0 AD to 700/900 AD) and the Late Woodland (approximately 900 AD to 1600 AD) (Spence et al., 1990; Fox, 1990). The Early Woodland period is represented in Southern Ontario by two different cultural complexes: the Meadowood Complex (c. 900 to 500 BC) and the Middlesex Complex (c. 500 BC to 0 AD). During this period the life ways of Early Woodland population differed little from that of the Late Archaic with hunting and gathering representing the primary subsistence strategies. The pottery of this period is characterized by its relatively crude construction and lack of decorations. These early ceramics exhibit cord impressions, likely resulting from the techniques used during manufacture (Spence et al., 1990). The Middle Woodland period is differentiated from the Early Woodland period by changes in lithic tool morphologies (projectile points) and the increased elaboration of ceramic vessels (Spence et al., 1990). In Southern Ontario, the Middle Woodland is observed in three different cultural complexes: the Point Peninsula Complex to the north and northeast of Lake Ontario, the Couture Complex near Lake St. Claire and the Saugeen Complex throughout the remainder of Southern Ontario. These groups can be identified by their use of either dentate or pseudo-scalloped ceramic decorations. It is by the end of the Middle Woodland period that archaeological evidence begins to suggest the rudimentary use of maize (corn) horticulture (Warrick, 2000). The adoption and expansion of maize horticulture during the Late Woodland period allowed for an increase in population size, density, and complexity among Late Woodland populations. As a result, a shift in subsistence and settlement patterns occurred, with the adoption of a more sedentary village life and reliance on maize horticulture, with beans, squash and tobacco also being grown. Nearing the end of the Late Woodland Period (approximately 1400 AD) villages reached their maximum size. During this period, increased warfare resulted in the development of larger villages with extensive palisades. Early contact with European settlers at the end of the Late Woodland, Late Ontario Iroquoian period resulted in extensive change to the traditional lifestyles of most populations inhabiting Southern Ontario. 4.2 PRE-CONFEDERATION TREATIES The study area, located in the City of Pickering, is situated on the lands of the William Treaties and the Johnson-Butler Purchase. The Williams Treaties were signed in October and November of 1923 between the Crown and seven First Nations groups, including the Chippewa of Lake Simcoe (Beausoleil First Nation, Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, Chippewas of Rama First Nation) and the Mississauga of the north shore of Lake Ontario (Alderville First Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation, and Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation). The Williams Treaties were the last of the land cession treaties to be signed in Canada, which transferred over 20, 000 square kilometers of land in south-central Ontario to the Crown. 4.3 ONTARIO COUNTY The District of Nassau, created in 1788, was one of four original districts dividing what is now the Province of Ontario. This district was later renamed the Home District, which stretched form the Trent River to Long Point - 300 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 21 and north to the Severn River. Over the following years these districts were divided until there were 20 districts in all. In 1853, Ontario was separated to become its own County from the United Counties of Ontario, York and Peel. In 1869 its area was estimated at 360,000 acres with 210,000 acres of which were cleared and under cultivation (Conner and Coltson, 1869). By 1854, Ontario County included nine townships: Brock, Mara, Pickering, Rama, Reach, Scott, Thorah, Uxbridge, and Whitby. In the latter half of the nineteenth century the County was known for the quality of its grains and the principal manufactures were flour and lumber (Conner and Coltson, 1869). Ontario County was dissolved in 1974 and the Townships of Rama and Mara were added to Simcoe County. 4.4 PICKERING TOWNSHIP Pickering Township was established in 1791 when Augustus Jones began to survey the area on behalf of the government of Upper Canada. The eastern part of the township was settled by Loyalists, disbanded soldiers, emigrants from the United Kingdom, and a large number of Quakers from both Ireland and the US (Farewell, 1907). Loyalists and their relatives held the vast majority of land grants in Pickering Township in the years following the revolution (Johnson, 1973). By 1793, the Kingston Road was opened to serve as a horse path extending east from Simcoe’s Dundas Street, and in 1799, a rough roadway had been cut from Duffin’s Creek to Port Hope. While early roadworks made the Township more accessible to prospective settlers, actual settlement of Pickering Township proceeded very slowly. Although the first land patent was awarded to Major John Smith in 1792, the first legal settler in Pickering was William Peak in 1798 (Armstrong, 1985; Farewell, 1907). Difficulty clearing the forest led Peak and other early settlers to pursue non-agricultural means to augment income, including trading with Indigenous Peoples in the area (Johnson, 1973). Population growth and Township development remained slow during the early nineteenth century. The War of 1812 halted much of the county and township’s development. After the conflict, increased road traffic provided a boost in business to local innkeepers while soldiers worked to improve existing road conditions. With improved roadways, and a substantial water course in Duffin’s Creek, Pickering Township was soon able to establish saw and grist mills for the production of lumber and grain for export through Toronto. By 1817 the population was 330 (Johnson, 1973). Changes in land-granting policies in the 1820s led to further sales of land in Pickering Township and by 1820 the population was 575 (Johnson, 1973), which grew to 830 by 1825 (Johnson, 1973; Welch and Payne, 2015). A post office was established in 1829 but the hamlet of Duffin's Creek developed slowly. That same year, the Crown worked with the New England Company, a missionary group, to encourage farming and education for the First Nations people. The community that is now known as Curve Lake First Nation was established (Curve Lake First Nation, n.d.). The construction of the Grand Trunk Railway in 1856 and growing agricultural prosperity stimulated the community's development as an important grist-milling and local commercial centre. However, Pickering Township was slow to develop. By 1861 growth had stalled and between 1861 and 1891 a decline in population occurred. Inflation and a depression between 1874-76 did little to help. The population of Pickering Township peaked at 8,002 in 1861 (Johnson, 1973) and by 1891 numbered 5,998 (Johnson, 1973). - 301 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 22 Through most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the township remained primarily agricultural. As many communities on the periphery of Toronto, development increased following the Second World War. Manufacturing companies also moved to the township following the construction of Highway 401 in the 1950s and in 1974 the township was divided into eastern and northern parts. Following this, in 1974, the villages of Brougham, Claremont, Green River, Greenwood and Whitevale became the Town of Pickering. In 2000 the Town became incorporated as a City. 4.5 COMMUNITY OF WHITEVALE Situated 1.3 km to the southwest of the study area, the community of Whitevale was founded in 1820 by John Major who built a sawmill along Duffin’s Creek. The community as first known as Majorville as John Major and multiple members of his family lived on the surrounding properties. In 1845, Ira White arrived in Majorville and took over the sawmill. In 1855, the sawmill was purchased by his son, Truman. P. White, who also constructed a grist mill and a cooperage. In the same year, the community also constructed its first general store (Wood, 1911). He later constructed a planning factory in 1866, a brick woollen mill in 1867, and a schoolhouse sometime later. Truman White became a central pillar of the community, and the small hamlet was named Whitevale after him. By 1874, Whitevale contained three general stores, three dressmakers, three gardeners, two shoemaker shops, two churches, two blacksmiths, two wagon shops, a stave and heading factory, a barrel factory, a wagon and carriage factory, a cheese factory, a merchant and tailoring firm, a butcher shop, a tinsmith shop, a school house, an undertakers, a harness shop, a grist mill, a brush factory, a grindstone factory, a barber shop, a post office, and a hotel (Wood, 1911; Whitevale, n.d.). The continued prosperity of Whitevale did not last the turn of the century. The last quarter of the nineteenth century saw the community struck by separate fires at the cooperage, the carriage factory, the public hall, planning mill, grist mill, and the woollen mill. These problems were compounded when Whitevale was bypassed by the Ontario-Quebec railway line, built in 1884 (Whitevale, n.d.). Whitevale remains as an unincorporated community of the City of Pickering. 4.6 COMMUNITY OF GREEN RIVER Situated approximately 3 kilometres west of the subject property, the community of Green River was first settled by Benjamin Doten. Doten arrived in 1849 and established a wagon and blacksmith shop known as Dotenville Carriage Works. Osburn, Rice, Runnals, Vardon, Ferrier, Turner, MacIntyre, Poucher, and the Winter families were among the early families to settle in Green River. William Barnes built a sawmill in 1857 and by 1870, he added a factory to produce tubs, fork and brush handles and baskets. Edward and John Smith were an integral part of the development of Green River, in the early 1870s, they purchased a sawmill and restored it to working order, the also erected a grist mill, a store, and a public hall in the village; they also aided in the establishment of a post office in 1870 (Mika & Mika, 1981). In 1974, Green River was incorporated into the newly created Town of Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham - 302 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 23 4.7 SITE SPECIFIC HISTORY: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING The subject property is within Lot 27, Concession V, in the Geographic Township of Pickering, now the City of Pickering. The property history has been completed with land registry records, historical maps, census records and archival photographs. It should be noted that the absence of structures or other features shown on the historical maps does not preclude their presence on these properties. Illustrating all homesteads on the historical atlas maps would have been beyond the intended scope of the atlas and, often, homes were only illustrated for those landowners who purchased a subscription. According to the abstract index, on August 4, 1821, Charles Denison received a patent from The Crown for all 200 acres (Book 211, Page 134). On the same day, Charles released all 200 acres to William Baldwin (Book 211, Page 134, Instrument 5083). On August 20, 1821, the lot is sold to William Sleigh (Book 211, Page 134, Instrument 5084). On December 9, 1826, William Sleigh sold Archibald Barker the northwest half of the lot (Book 211, Page 134, Instrument illegible), Barker purchased the northeast half of the lot from Wurz Landon On February 24, 1837. In 1871, a transaction occurred between John Percy and William Major for the north half of the lot, the type of transaction, exact date and compensation, however, is illegible (Book 211, Page 134). The 1837 City of Toronto and the Home District Commercial Directory and Register (Walton, 1837) indicates several occupants for Lot 27, Concession V, they include: George Crowthers, Stephen Hubbard, William Sleigh and Albert Smith. No information regarding the presence of structures is provided in the directory. Roswell’s City of Toronto Directory and County of York for 1850-1851 (Armstrong, 1850) lists several occupants for Lot 27, Concession V, including Benjamin Milligan, John Percy and John Sleigh. No information regarding the presence of structures is provided in the directory. The 1851 Census lists John Percy, a 43-year old farmer, born in England as living his wife Elizabeth (née Young), also 43 (Plates 1 and 2), and their children Archibald (19), William (17), Mary Anne (9), James (8), Sylvenus (6), Uriah (5), John (3) and Frederick (3). The family is listed as belonging to the Wesleyan Methodist Church (Item No. 1126581, Page 215). J. Percy is assessed for the north quarter of Lot 7, Concession V in 1853, at this time he was identified as both a Householder and a Freeholder (Scheinman, 2004). Original concession roads are illustrated on the 1860 Tremaine Map of Ontario County (Figure 6, Appendix A), including present-day Highway 7 and Whites Road, as are the settlements of Brunswick Hill and Brougham located north and east of the subject property, respectively. The lands surrounding the subject property constituted a rural landscape. The Tremaine map indicates that Lot 27 is divided into two 50 acre and one 100 acre lots, with 815 Highway 7 located within the lot owned by J. Pursey [sic]. One structure is il- lustrated within the subject property on the 1861 Tremaine Map. The 1861 census lists John (51), Elizabeth (51) and their children, Archibald (27), William (25), Mary Anne (19), Uriah (17), John (13), Venice (17), Frederick (11), and Leslie (7), as living in a one-and-a-half storey brick house. The census indicates that two families were living in the house in 1861, however no information regarding the second family was provided (Item no. 2747140, Page 133). The 1871 Census lists John, 60, his wife Elizabeth, 61 and their children Uriah and Frederick, aged 21 and 25 respectively (Instrument 649389, Page 50). In 1871, the north half of Lot 27, Concession V is willed to Major William (Book 211, Page 134, Instrument illegible). To additional transactions between Barker Archibald et. ux and Uriah Percy et. ux and John Scott - 303 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 24 occur between 1871 and 1892, however the transaction type, exact date and compensation are illegible (Book 211, Page 134). John Percy died on October 10, 1872, he is interred with his wife, who died in 1884, at the Green River Baptist Cemetery, located at 600 Highway 7 (Photograph 100). Plate 1: Portrait of John Percy, date unknown (findagrave.com) Plate 2: Portrait of Elizabeth Percy, date unknown (findagrave.com) Similar to the 1860 Tremaine Map, one structure is illustrated on the 1877 Pickering Township Map (Figure 9, Appendix A). A. Percy is shown as owning a 50 acres within Lot 27, Concession V. A brick structure is shown on the 1914 NTS map, in the approximate location of the subject property (Figure 6, Appendix A). The brick structure is also present on the 1933 (Figure 10, Appendix A) and 1943 NTS maps (Figure 11, Appendix A). These maps show no change in the lands surrounding the subject property, as they continued to be rural in nature. The Percy Family retained ownership of Lot 27, Concession V until the late nineteenth century, when ownership was transferred to C. Berevell (Scheinman, 2004). All of Lot 27, Concession V was expropriated by the Crown and granted to the Ministry of Housing, Province of Ontario, on February 4, 1974 (Book 211, Page 134a, Instrument 252578). The lot is granted from the Ontario Land Corporation to Her Majesty The Queen in right of the Province of Ontario represented by the - 304 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 25 Minister of Transportation and communications for the Province of Ontario (Book 211, Page 134a, Instrument D136577). Aerial photographs from 1954 to 2006 were reviewed to assist in documenting changes to the rural landscape. A 1954 aerial photograph (Figure 12, Appendix A) of the subject property was reviewed, and while the quality of the photograph is poor, the house and the bank barns are visible. Development within the study area between 1954 and 2006 was relatively slow. The 2002 aerial photograph (Figure 13, Appendix A) clearly shows the house and two barns subject property; Highway 407 is also present, south of the subject property. Construction began on the Whites Road extension and the Highway 407 on-and off-ramps in 2018, and is in use as of 2022. The majority of the lands adjacent to 815 Highway 7 remain under active cultivation. - 305 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 26 5 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST 5.1 CONTEXT: 815 HIGHWAY 7 The following Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (SCHVI) (Section 5.1.1) and list of heritage attributes (Section 5.1.2) has been reproduced from the 2020 CHIA (WSP, 2022). 5.1.1 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST The mid-nineteenth century farmstead at 815 Highway 7 possesses design or physical value for the unique, representative and rare built heritage resources displaying a high degree of craftsmanship located on the property. The one-and-a-half storey brick residence constructed c. 1853 demonstrates representative elements of an Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical and Georgian influences including the rectangular plan and symmetrical three-bay façade, side gable roof, entrance details including a wood surround with transom and sidelights, and multipaned windows. The residence reflects a unique vernacular interpretation of the style, characterized by its elaborate dichromatic brickwork, including the decorative stringcourse, quoins and jack arches. The large bank barns are representative expressions of a Central Ontario barn, a common design in Southern Ontario dating to the last quarter of the nineteenth century. The gambrel roof style is indicative of its period of construction, becoming commonly used by 1880 following a transition from gable roofs. The barns maintains their integrity through the retention of much of the original construction materials and application of historic building methods. The barns include many of the features typical of the style, including the banked access and two storey height, original rectangular plan, wood barn board cladding, and the gambrel roof clad in sheet metal. The intact concrete block silo and remains of the wood silo also contribute to the design and physical value of the property. Through its function as a farm for at least 169 years, 815 Highway 7 it is directly associated with the agricultural development of the former Ontario Township and City of Pickering. This theme is significant as it historically contributed to the community’s early economic growth and continues to be practiced today. As the property retains 46 acres of the original 50-acre lot and continues to be actively used for agriculture, 815 Highway 7 is important in maintaining the historical agricultural character of the surrounding area. The property is functionally and historically linked to its surroundings as indicated by the presence and placement of the Percy House, Central Ontario bank barns, the associated circulation patterns including the surrounding agricultural fields that continue to reflect the function of the historic nineteenth century farmstead. 5.1.2 HERITAGE ATTRIBUTES The heritage attributes that contribute to the cultural heritage value or interest of 815 Highway 7 include: Residence Exterior • One-and-a-half storey massing built to a rectangular plan; • Red brick construction using the Flemish bond, dichromatic brickwork including quoins and decorative brickwork under the moulded cornice; - 306 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 27 • Granite and fieldstone foundation; • Symmetrical three-bay façade and symmetrical two-bay side elevations; • Side gable roof with return eaves (on west façade only) and extant moulded cornice; • Paired interior end chimneys; • Centrally placed entrance with side lights, transom and wood surround with classical detailing; • Rectangular window openings with six-over-six double-hung sash windows, radiating brick voussoirs and wood sills; • Brick, one-storey, gable roof addition built to a rectangular plan projecting from the south elevation; built using the Common bond; • Verandah with a flared roof and exposed curved rafters; and • Its orientation toward Highway 7. Residence Interior • Extant original layout; • Fire place mantle; • Floor boards; • Tall baseboards; • Window and door surrounds; • Wainscotting and beaded ceiling; • Balustrade and knob capped newel post; and • Built in corner cupboard in the parlour. Bank Barn 1 • Two-storey massing built to a rectangular plan; • Heavy square timber post and beam framing; • North eave-side upper level entrance built into banked slope; • Vertical wood board cladding; • Gambrel roof clad in sheet metal with vents and lightening rods; • Extant paver flooring of buff and red brick; • Remains of wood silo adjacent to bank barn. Bank Barn 2 • Two-storey massing built to a rectangular plan; • Heavy square timber post and beam framing; • East eave-side upper level entrance built into banked slope; • Vertical wood board cladding; - 307 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 28 • Gambrel roof clad in sheet metal; • Extant paver flooring of buff and red brick; • Concrete block silo with a metal domed top located adjacent to bank barn. Landscape • Drive leading from Highway 7 to the collection of nineteenth century structures on the property; • The relationship of the traditional farmstead to its surrounding agricultural tradition; and • Intact circulation routes and building arrangement setback from Highway 7. - 308 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 29 6 DOCUMENTATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY 6.1 CONTEXT A site visit was conducted on August 5, 2022, and access to the exterior and interior of the Percy House and Barns 1 and 2 was provided, as such, there were no limitation to the on-site investigations. The subject property at 815 Highway 7 is currently under active cultivation, on an approximately 18.7-hectare irregular shaped lot that includes a one-and-a-half storey brick Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical influences constructed c. 1853, two bank barns and two silos (Figure 3). The Percy House is currently vacant. The property is located on the south side of Highway 7, west of Whites Road, it is bounded on the east and west by lands associated with the Seaton Natural Heritage System in the City of Pickering. The residential building is oriented toward Highway 7 and barns are located south of the residence. The house is setback from Highway 7 approximately 30 metres. For the purposes of this report, and unless otherwise stated, the measurements for window and door openings will be provided in a width by height format. 6.1.1 PERCY HOUSE, REAR ADDITION 6.1.1.1 EXTERIOR The rear addition of the Percy House consists of a one-storey brick structure with a gable roof which spans a portion of the south elevation; it is constructed of three masonry perimeter walls which are attached to the south elevation of the main section of the house (Photograph 1). The addition is laid in the Common bond pattern and is sited on a fieldstone foundation (Photograph 2); the addition measures 5.48 m by 7.92 m (18’ by 24’). The average brick size height is 6 cm, the headers are 10 cm and the stretchers are 21.5 cm (2.36’ by 3.93” by 8.46”). The east elevation of the rear addition is symmetrical with three bays, it is constructed using brick laid in the Common bond and is located on a fieldstone foundation (Photograph 3). The rectangular windows retain their six-over-six double-hung sash windows and have a wood sill; they are topped with a jack arch. The window openings (W-1 and W-2) measure 1.03 m by 1.53 m (40.5” by 60”) (Photograph 4). The door on the east elevation (D-1) appears to be original to the house; it features simple fielded panels and a metal box lock (the door knob has been removed), the door opening measures 94 cm by 2.10 m (37” by 82”) (Photograph 5). The porch also appears to be original to the structure and features a roof with exposed curved rafters with a beaded edge (Photograph 6 and Photograph 7). The porch extends east 1.78 m from the house and has a total span of 2.36 m (5’10” by 7’8”) and is centrally located between the windows on the east elevation. One door, D-2, is present on the south elevation of the addition (Photograph 8). D-2 is 97 cm by 2.01 m (38” by 79”). The opening of D-2 has partially collapsed and the original height of the door is unknown. No - 309 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 30 windows were observed on the south elevation of the one-and-a-half storey structure. A large concrete block with brick fill is positioned against the door opening, this is supporting the rear brick wall which is structurally unsound (Photograph 9 and Photograph 10). The west façade of the rear addition is also symmetrical (Photograph 11), with two window openings and one door opening (W-3, W-4, and D-3). The window openings measure 1.07 by 1.51 m (42” by 59”) and 1.04 m by 1.51 m (40” by 59”). The windows on the west façade have been removed and are covered with wood sheeting (Photograph 12). The wood door (D-3) on the west façade appears to be original (Photograph 13). The door measures 97 cm by 2.09 m (38” by 82”) and features fielded panels, a porcelain doorknob and a metal escutcheon. With the exception of D-2 and D-3, wood sills are present on all openings on the addition of the Percy House. The window sills are 1.19 m long and range in height from 9.5 cm to 11.25 cm (46” by 3.7” to 4.4”). The sill on D-1 is 1.11 m long and 8.5 cm high (43.7” by 3.3”). 6.1.1.2 INTERIOR The one-story addition is composed of two rooms, for the purposes of this report, they have been identified as Room 1 and Room 2. The exterior walls and ceilings are constructed of lath and plaster, while the dividing wall between Room 1 and Room 2 is constructed of dimensional lumber. ROOM 1 Room 1 is the largest of the two rooms, it immediately abuts the one-and-a-half storey portion of the Percy house. Room 1 measures 5.09 m by 5.09 m (16’70” by 16’70”), the ceiling is 2.41 m (7’91”) high. The original floor of Room 1 is present and consists of medium-width pine boards. A beaded wainscotting is present on the north, east, and west walls of the room, the wainscotting is 81.28 cm (32”) high. The ceiling in Room 1 is covered in wood beadboard, which has been painted (Photograph 14). Room 1 is connected to the one-and-a-half storey portion of the Percy House by two doors on the north wall (D-5 and D-6) and to Room 2 by D-4 on the south wall. Both D-5 and D-6 are 83.82 cm (33”) wide and 2.06 m (79”) high and have a simple beaded trim which measures 11.43 cm (4.5”) wide (Photograph 15). Two openings are present on the east wall of Room 1; W-1 and D-1, each opening is surrounded by a simple beaded trim which measures 11.43 cm (4.5”) wide (Photograph 16, Photograph 17 and Photograph 18). One door is present on the south wall within Room 1. D-4 measures 80.01 cm wide by 2 m high (31.5” by 79”), it is surrounded by plain trim which measures 8.89 cm (3.5”) (Photograph 19), and provides access to Room 2. The west wall of Room 1 features two openings, D-3 and W-4. Similar to the other windows in Room 1, the trim on W-4 a simple beaded surround which measures 11.43 cm (4.5”) wide. D-3 is covered with plywood, as such, no description for the trim was available (Photograph 20 and Photograph 21). ROOM 2 Room 2 measures 5.09 m by 2.33 m (16’70 by 7’6”); exterior access to the room is via D-2 on the south façade and from Room 1 by D-4. Similar to Room 1, the floor and ceiling of Room 2 are covered by medium- width pine boards and beadboard. Due to the partial collapse of the south wall however, these materials are - 310 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 31 damaged and are not suitable for salvage. Wainscotting is present on the east and west walls and a portion of the south wall, it measures 76.2 cm (30”) high. One door (D-4) is located on the north wall of Room 2, the door is surrounded by a plain, flat trim which measures 8.89 cm (3.5”) wide. The framing system of the north wall of Room 2 is exposed and consists of dimensional lumber (Photograph 22). The east and west wall of Room 2 measure 5.09 m (92”). Two windows, W-2 and W-3 are located on the east and west walls of the room, respectively (Photograph 23 and Photograph 24). The trim on W-2 and W-3 is 8.89 cm (3.5”) wide and consists of a simple surround with a bead. The south wall of Room 2 features a fireplace, the mantel of which has been removed (Photograph 25). One door, D-2, is also located on the south wall of Room 2, as previously noted, the door is partially collapsed due to lack of structural integrity (Photograph 26). - 311 - - 312 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 33 6.1.2 BANK BARN 1 6.1.2.1 EXTERIOR Bank Barn 1 measures 12.36 m east to west by 18.46 m north to south (40’6” by 60’6”). The barn retains its original rectangular plan and was built into the natural topography of the lot, which slopes to the south. As such, entrances to the barn are provided on both the north (banked) and south eave-sides, with access to the upper level for crop and implement storage and working space provided on the north elevation, and access to the lower stable area provided via the south and west elevations. The barn is clad in vertical wood boards and features a gambrel roof clad in sheet metal, remnants of red paint are visible on the exterior. Vents (V-1 and V-2) are located at both the east and west ends of the roof line as are three evenly spaced lightening rods (L-1, L-2, and L-3) (Photograph 27). The north elevation has a total length of 18.46 m (60’58”) contains large sliding wood doors roughly in the centre of the elevation (D-1). D-1 on the north elevation of the barn is comprised of two sliding doors of equal size, each door is 3.60 m wide by 3.60 m (142”) high, in total the doors are 7.2 m (248”) wide (Photograph 28). The foundation on the north façade is capped with cast-in-place concrete. Much of the exterior cladding from the main level of the east elevation has been lost, and with the exception of two windows in the lower level (W -1 and W-2), there are no intentional openings (Photograph 29 and Photograph 30). W-1 and W-2 measure 1.49 m by 78 cm and 1.47 m by 83 cm (59” by 31” and 58” by 33”), respectively. The granite foundation appears intact on the east elevation, the foundation ranges in height from approximately 38 cm to 90 cm (15” to 35”). The south elevation of Barn 1 is partially clad in vertical wood board and board and batten, it appears there was at least one opening on the upper level of the barn, which is now covered, given the height of this opening, no measurements were available (Photograph 31). The lower level of the barn contains three door openings (D-2, D-3, and D-4) and four window openings (W-3, W-4, W-5, and W-6) (Photograph 32 and Photograph 33). D-2 measures 1.29 m by 2.03 m (51” by 80”), D-3 measures 1.16 m by 2.03 m (46” by 80”) and D-4 measures 1.19 m by 2.03 m (47” by 80”). W-3 measures 73.66 cm by 63.5 cm (29” by 25”), W-4 measures 60.96 cm by 88.9 cm (24” by 35”), W-5 measures 1.47 m by 81 cm (58” x 32”), and W-6 measures 83.82 cm by 68.58 cm (33” by 27”). The western portion of the south foundation has been capped in concrete and a portion of the interior wall has been rebuilt using the concrete same material. The centre portion of the foundation also appears to have undergone repair; the exterior foundation is constructed using fieldstones of varying sizes. The eastern corner of the southern façade is likely the original building material; it consists of finely cut and laid granite blocks. The west elevation of Barn 1 contains two windows (W-7 and W-8) and one door (D-5) in the lower level, there are no other openings on the west façade, including in the upper levels. W-7 and W-8 are roughly the same size and measure 93.98 cm by 63.5 cm (37” by 25”) and 96.52 cm by 60.96 cm (38” by 24”), respectively. A portion of the foundation, south of the door opening has collapsed (Photograph 34 and Photograph 35). - 313 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 34 6.1.2.2 INTERIOR The barn interior is divided into two levels; the lower stable level and the threshing floor.2 The lower level is comprised of animal stalls divided by a series of aisles providing access between the stalls and to doors on the south and west elevations. Portions of the floor in the stable level are covered in buff and red brick pavers. Large hand-hewn timbers and uncut logs support the upper storey (Photographs 35 to 39). The threshing floor of Barn 1 is accessed via an earthen ramp on the north façade. The threshing floor is open except for a granary at the western end of the barn, which is divided into several rooms for storage (Photographs 40 to 48). The construction method is exposed inside the barn and demonstrates typical large timbers with evidence of hand-hewing, and mortise and tenon and tree nail construction. 6.1.3 SILO 1 The remains of a wooden silo are located immediately west of Barn 1 (Photograph 50). Silo 1 is an increasingly rare example of its type, constructed of vertical boards, bound with lapped planks. The planks are 1.65 m long, 9.5 cm deep and are approximately 4.5 cm high (65” by 3.7” by 1.77”). The silo is octagonal in shape and has an approximate diameter of 3 m (10’). The top of the structure is partially collapsed, it is estimated the remaining portion of the silo is 7.6 m (25’) high. A ladder is located on the east side of the silo. Much of the vertical boards that covered the silo are no longer extant (Photographs 50 to 55). 2 Photographs of the threshing floors of Barn 1 and Barn 1 were taken from window, door and wall openings. Portions of the lower levels of Barns 1 and 2 were accessed only where it was deemed safe to do so. - 314 - - 315 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 36 6.1.4 BANK BARN 2 6.1.4.1 EXTERIOR Barn 2 is oriented on a north to south axis and measures 19 m east to west and 11.23 m north to south (62’5” by 36’10”). A reinforced concrete silo located north of the barn is not included in this documentation report at it was deed by WSP to have no CHVI (WSP, 2022) (Photograph 56). The barn retains its original rectangular plan and was built into the natural topography of the lot, which slopes to the south and west. As such, entrances to the barn are provided on both the east (banked) and north eave-sides, with access to the upper level for crop and implement storage and working space provided on the east elevation, and access to the lower stable area provided via the north and west elevations. The barn is clad in vertical wood boards and features a gambrel roof clad in sheet metal. One vent (V-1) is located at the south end of the roof line as well as three stacks located on the east and west gambrel roof lines (Photograph 57). The northern façade of the barn is partially covered by the adjacent silo. There are three openings within the lower level of the north elevation: one door and two windows (D-2, W-1 and W-2). D- 2 measures 1.09 m by 1.87 m (43” by 74”), W-1 and W-2 measure 78 cm by 83 cm and 88 cm by 1.42 m (31” by 33” and 35” by 56”) (Photograph 58). There is also one window on the threshing floor, a measurement was not obtained for this window The foundation on the north façade consists of large granite blocks of a uniform size. The east elevation contains large sliding wood doors (D-1) roughly in the centre of the elevation (Photograph 81). D-1 is 3.5 m wide and 3.35 m (11’5” by 11’). The foundation on the east façade consists of large granite blocks and fieldstone of varying sizes (Photograph 60). The south elevation of Barn 2 is almost entirely covered by thick vegetation, making it challenging to discern the configuration. It does not appear however, that there are any window or door openings on the south elevation (Photograph 61 and Photograph 62). The northwest, southwest and southeast corners of Barn 2 are supported by large concrete blocks. Much of the exterior cladding from the west elevation of Barn 2 has been lost, however, it appears there is at least one door in the upper level, due to its location within the elevation, a measurement was not obtained (Photograph 63). The lower level of the west façade of Barn 2 is highly altered, and much of the stone foundation has been removed. At least three door openings and one window are visible on the lower level, including, D-3, D-4, D-5 and W-3 (Photograph 64). The openings on the lower level of the west elevation have the following measurements: D-3: 4.44 m by 1.95 (175” by 77”); D-4: 2.41 by 1.98 (95” by 78”); D-5: 1.01 by 2 m (40” by 79”); and W-3: 1.32 by 73 cm (52” by 29”) 6.1.4.2 INTERIOR The barn interior is divided into two levels; the lower stable level and the threshing floor. The lower level of the barn is accessed by three doors on the west elevation as well as one door on the north elevation. The lower level is comprised of animal stalls divided by a series of aisles providing access between the stalls and to doors on the west and north elevations. Portions of the floor in the stable level are covered in buff and red brick pavers. Large hand-hewn timbers and uncut logs support the upper storey (Photographs 65 to 71). The threshing floor of Barn 2 is accessed via an earthen ramp on the west façade. The threshing floor is open except for a granary at the northern end of the barn, which is divided into several rooms for storage (Photographs 72 to 75). - 316 - - 317 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 38 Photograph 1: Three-quarter view of addition (WSP, 2022) Photograph 2: Common Bond construction and fieldstone foundation on east elevation of addition (WSP, 2022) - 318 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 39 Photograph 3: Overview of east façade, from left to right: W-2, D-1, and W-1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 4: Detail of W-2 on the east elevation (WSP, 2022) Photograph 5: Detail of D-1 on the east elevation (WSP, 2022) - 319 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 40 Photograph 6: Detail of porch on east façade of addition (WSP, 2022) Photograph 7: Detail of curved rafters on porch (WSP, 2022) - 320 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 41 Photograph 8: Overview of south façade (WSP, 2022) Photograph 9: Detail of D-2 on south façade (WSP, 2022) Photograph 10: Collapsing wall on south façade (WSP, 2022) - 321 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 42 Photograph 11: Overview of west façade, from left to right: W-4, D-3 and W-3 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 12: Detail of W-4 on west elevation (WSP, 2022) Photograph 13: Detail of D-3 on west elevation (WSP, 2022) - 322 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 43 Photograph 14: Beadboard ceiling in Room 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 15: Wainscotting, D-5 (right) and D-6 (left) on north wall of Room 1 (WSP, 2022) - 323 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 44 Photograph 16: East wall of Room 1 showing W-1 and D-2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 17: Detail of W-1 and wainscotting on east wall (WSP, 2022) Photograph 18: Detail of D-1 on east wall (WSP, 2022) - 324 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 45 Photograph 19: Dividing wall between Room 1 and Room 2, showing D-4 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 20: Overview of West wall of Room 1, showing D-3 (covered in plywood) and W-4 (WSP, 2022) - 325 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 46 Photograph 21: Detail of W-4 on west wall of Room 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 22: North wall of Room 2, showing dimensional lumber construction (WSP, 2022) Photograph 23: Detail of W-2 on east wall of Room 2 (WSP, 202) Photograph 24: Detail of W-3 on west wall of Room 2 (WSP, 2022) - 326 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 47 Photograph 25: Fireplace on south wall of Room 2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 26: Detail of D-2 on south wall of Room 2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 27: North elevation of Barn 1, showing D-1, and V-1, V-2 and L-1, L-2, and L-3 (WSP, 2022) - 327 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 48 Photograph 28: Detail of sliding doors (D-1) on north elevation of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 29: East façade of Barn 1, showing W-1 and W-2 (WSP, 2022) - 328 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 49 Photograph 30: Detail of W-1 on the east façade of Barn 1 (note dry rot on basement sill above window) Photograph 31: South façade of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) - 329 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 50 Photograph 32: Detail of finely laid granite foundation and W-6 and D-4 on south foundation of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 33: Detail of W-3 and D-2 on south elevation of Barn 1 - 330 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 51 Photograph 34: Detail of W-7 and D-5 on west elevation of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 35: Detail of D-5 (left ) and W-8 (right) and collapsed wall on west elevation of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) - 331 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 52 Photograph 36: Stalls and aisle in lower level of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 37: Stalls and interior wall of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) - 332 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 53 Photograph 38: Interior support wall in lower level of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 39: Lower level of Barn 1, showing south wall (left), west wall and hand-hewn beams (WSP, 2022) - 333 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 54 Photograph 40: Brick pavers used as flooring in lower level of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 41: Threshing floor of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) - 334 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 55 Photograph 42: Granary in western end of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 43: View of interior main beams and purlin posts in Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) - 335 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 56 Photograph 44: View of interior main beams and purlin posts in Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 45: View of interior main beams and purlin posts in Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 46: Detail main post in Barn 1 - 336 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 57 Photograph 47: Detail of treenails used in construction of framing (WSP, 2022) Photograph 48: Detail of treenails used in construction of framing (WSP, 2022) - 337 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 58 Photograph 49: Wide boards on floor of the haymow (WSP, 2022) Photograph 50: Remains of Silo 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 51: Detail of Silo 1 construction (WSP, 2022) - 338 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 59 Photograph 52: Detail of Silo 1 construction (WSP, 2022) Photograph 53: Detail of Silo 1 construction (WSP, 2022) Photograph 54: Ladder on Silo 1 (WSP, 2022) - 339 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 60 Photograph 55: Interior view of Silo 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 56: North elevation of Barn and Silo 2 (WSP, 2022) - 340 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 61 Photograph 57: Overview of Barn 2, showing silo and vent (V-1) on roofline Photograph 58: Detail of W-1, W-2, and large granite blocks on north elevation of Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) - 341 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 62 Photograph 59: Window on threshing floor of north elevation of Barn 2 Photograph 60: Sliding door (D-1) on the east elevation of Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) - 342 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 63 Photograph 61: South elevation of Barn 2 in April 2022 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 62: South elevation of Barn 2 in July 2022 (WSP, 2022) - 343 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 64 Photograph 63: West elevation of Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 64: Lower level of west foundation of Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) - 344 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 65 Photograph 65: Lower level in Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 66: Detail of log and fieldstone construction of Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 67: Stalls in lower level of Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) - 345 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 66 Photograph 68: Aisles in lower level of Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 69: Example of hand-hewn beam in Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) - 346 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 67 Photograph 70: Detail of hand-hewn support beam (WSP, 2022) Photograph 71: Red and buff brick pavers in lower level of Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) - 347 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 68 Photograph 72: Threshing floor and granary in Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 73: Threshing floor in Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) - 348 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 69 Photograph 74: Detail of framing system in Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 75: Floorboards of threshing floor in Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) - 349 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 70 7 SALVAGE OPPORTUNITIES 7.1 ARTIFACT CURATION AND REUSE CapLink Limited is proposing to develop a 23.8-hectare parcel of land that consists of two properties on Highway 7, including: 815 and 745 Highway 7 (the project location). The proposed development consists of the phased construction of five industrial buildings as part of the development of the FGF Pickering Manufacturing Campus. CapLink Limited plans to demolish the addition connected to the Percy House due to structural and architectural deficiencies and relocate the Percy House to a new location. The two barns (Barn 1 and Barn 2) and two silos (Silo 1 and Silo 2) will be demolished and materials from Barns 1 and 2 and Silo 1 will be salvaged. Detailed documentation and salvage is often the preferred mitigation strategy when retention or relocation of a structure is neither feasible nor warranted. Documentation creates a public record for the structure and provides researchers and the public with a land use history, construction details and photographic record of the resource. The purpose of salvaging heritage building material is to preserve portions of features of buildings or structures that have historical, architectural or cultural value and divert them from becoming land fill material. Sourcing materials for repair and replacement can be challenging, especially if the materials are from a historical source that no longer exists, such as a quarry, or a manufacturing facility that has closed (Parks Canada, 2010). As such, the careful salvage of these materials from one historic structure can represent an opportunity for the in-kind replacement of quality historical material on another. Some of these materials can also be incorporated into the new design if appropriate. If any materials are incorporated into the design, there should be an interpretive plaque to convey that these materials were reused from the previous building on-site. 7.1.1 SUGGESTED MATERIALS FOR SALVAGE Table 7-1, below, outlines the materials suggested for salvage and re-use. These recommendations are based on the results of the Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report prepared by WSP for the subject property at 815 Highway 7, and the condition of material at the time of the site visit. - 350 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 71 Table 7-1: Salvageable Materials: 815 Highway 7, Pickering Ontario General Location Room Element Element ID Additional Location Information Material Description Measurement (Imperial) Measurement (metric) Photograph Percy House: Rear Addition Exterior (entire structure) n/a Foundation n/a South, east and west elevations Stone Fieldstones that comprise foundation n/a n/a Photograph 2 n/a Exterior walls n/a South, east and west elevations Brick Red bricks that comprise the exterior walls 6 cm x 10 cm x 21.5 cm 2.36’ x 3.93” x 8.46” Photograph 2 East Elevation n/a Porch rafters n/a East elevation Wood Curved wooden rafters with bead n/a n/a Photograph 7 Interior Room 1 Window W-1 East wall Wood; glass Six-over-six double- hung sash 1.03 m x 1.53 m 40.5” x 60” Photograph 17 W-4 West wall Wood Frame only, sash has been damaged / glass broken 1.04 m x 1.51 m 40” x 59” Photograph 12 Window trim / surround W-1 East wall Wood Simple moulding with bead and a half- round detail 11.43 cm 4.5” Photograph 17 W-4 West wall Wood Simple moulding with bead and a half- round detail 11.43 cm 4.5” Photograph 21 Door D-1 East wall Wood; metal Wood door with fielded panels and porcelain doorknob, metal escutcheon 94 cm x 2.10 m 37” x 82” Photograph 3, Photograph 5 D-3 West wall Wood; metal Wood door with two fielded panels and porcelain doorknob, metal escutcheon 97 cm x 2.09 m 38” x 82” Photograph 5, Photograph 13 Door trim / surround D-1 East wall Wood Simple moulding with bead and a half- round detail 11.43 cm 4.5” Photograph 18 D-3 West wall Unknown – door is covered with plywood sheeting n/a n/a D-4* Partition wall between Room 1 and Room 2 Plain wood trim 8.89 cm 3.5” Photograph 19 Floor n/a n/a Wood Pine boards n/a n/a -- Wainscotting n/a All walls Wood Beaded wainscotting that covers lower three quarters of walls 81.28 cm 32” Photograph 15 Bead board n/a Ceiling Wood Bead board that covers entire celling n/a n/a Photograph 14 - 351 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 72 General Location Room Element Element ID Additional Location Information Material Description Measurement (Imperial) Measurement (metric) Photograph Room 2 Window W-2 East wall Wood; glass Six-over-six double- hung sash 1.03 m x 1.53 m 40.5” x 60” Photograph 23 W-3 West wall Wood Frame only, sash has been damaged / glass broken 1.07 m x 1.51 m 42” x 59” Photograph 24 Window trim / surround W-2 East wall Wood Simple moulding with bead and a half- round detail 8.89 cm 3.5” Photograph 23 W-3 West wall Wood Simple moulding with bead and a half- round detail 8.89 cm 3.5” Photograph 24 Door D-2* South wall n/a Door has been removed 97 cm x 2.01 m 38” x 79”* -- Door trim / surround D-2* South wall Wood Trim has been damaged by collapse of brick wall 8.89 cm 3.5”* -- Wainscotting n/a East, south, and west walls Wood Beaded wainscotting that covers lower three quarters of walls 30” -- Bead board* n/a Celling Wood Bead board that covers entire celling n/a n/a -- Barn 1 Exterior (entire structure) n/a Foundation n/a All walls Stone Fieldstones that comprise foundation n/a n/a -- Exterior cladding n/a All walls Wood Vertical barn board that covers exterior n/a n/a -- Exterior n/a Vent V-1 West gable Metal Air vent on ridgeline n/a n/a Photograph 27 V-2 East gable n/a n/a Photograph 27 Lightening rod L-1 West gable Lightening rod on ridgeline n/a n/a Photograph 27 L-2 Middle gable n/a n/a Photograph 27 L-3 East gable n/a n/a Photograph 27 Window W-1* East elevation Wood; glass Window 1.49 m by 78 cm 59” x 31” Photograph 30 W-2* East elevation Wood; glass Window 1.47 m by 83 cm 58” x 33 -- W-3* South 73.66 cm x 63.5 cm 29” x 25” Photograph 33 W-4* elevation 60.96 cm x 88.9 cm 24” x 35 -- W-5* 1.47 m x 81 cm 58” x 32” -- W-6* 83.82 cm x 68.58 33” x 27” -- W-7* West elevation 93.98 cm x 63.5 cm 37” x 25” Photograph 34 - 352 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 73 General Location Room Element Element ID Additional Location Information Material Description Measurement (Imperial) Measurement (metric) Photograph W-8* 96.52 cm x 60.96 cm 38” x 24” Photograph 35 Door D-1* North elevation Wood; metal Sliding door 7.2 m x 3.60 m 248” x 142” Photograph 28 D-2* South Door 1.29 m x 2.03 m 51” x 80” Photograph 33 D-3* elevation 1.16 m x 2.03 m 46” x 80” -- D-4* 1.19 m x 2.03 m 47” x 80” -- D-5* Photograph 34, Photograph 35 Interior Upper level Beams and uprights n/a n/a Wood Hand hewn n/a n/a Photograph 41, Photograph 42, Photograph 43, Photograph 44, Photograph 45, Photograph 46, Photograph 46, Photograph 48 Lower level Beams and uprights n/a n/a Wood Hand hewn n/a n/a Photograph 36, Photograph 37, Photograph 38, Photograph 39 Brick pavers n/a Floor Brick Red and buff brick n/a n/a Photograph 40 Silo 1 Exterior (entire structure) n/a Structural members n/a n/a Wood Wood boards that comprise silo 1.65 m x 9.5 cm x 4.5 cm 65” x 3.7” x 1.77” Photograph 51, Photograph 52, Photograph 53, Photograph 54, Photograph 55 Barn 2 Exterior (entire structure) n/a Foundation n/a All walls Stone Fieldstones that comprise foundation n/a n/a Photograph 58 Exterior cladding n/a All walls Wood Vertical barn board that covers exterior n/a n/a Photograph 57 - 353 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 74 General Location Room Element Element ID Additional Location Information Material Description Measurement (Imperial) Measurement (metric) Photograph Exterior Vent V-1 South gable Metal Air vent on ridgeline n/a n/a Photograph 57 Window W-1* North elevation Wood; glass Window 78 cm x 83 cm 31” x 33” Photograph 58 W-2* 88 cm x 1.42 35” x 56” Photograph 58 W-3* West elevation 1.32 x 73 cm 52” x 29” Door D-1* East elevation Wood Door 3.5 m x 3.35 m 11’5” x 11’ Photograph 60 D-2* North elevation 1.09 m x 1.87 m 43” x 74” -- D-3* West elevation 4.44 m 1.95 175” x 77” -- D-4* 2.41 x 1.98 95” x 78” -- D-5* 1.01 x 2 m 40” x 79” -- Interior Upper level Beams and uprights n/a n/a Wood Hand hewn n/a n/a Photograph 72, Photograph 73, Photograph 74, Photograph 75 Lower level Beams and uprights n/a n/a Wood Hand hewn n/a n/a Photograph 64, Photograph 65, Photograph 66, Photograph 67, Photograph 68, Photograph 69, Photograph 70 Lower level Brick pavers n/a Floor Brick Red and buff brick n/a n/a Photograph 71 *item not recommended for salvage, measurements have been included for descriptive purposes only. - 354 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 75 8 RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with the Ontario Ministry of Transportation Environmental Guide for Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (November 2007), Section 6.3.1.4 Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report for Built Heritage Resources. This report provides an archival record of the subject property at 815 Highway 7, Pickering according to the Environmental Guide for Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes. Opportunities for salvage and reuse include: • Addition of the Percy House: o Stone foundation material; o Red brick; o Curved rafters from porch; o Window sash and trim; o Doors and trim; o Pine flooring; o Wainscoting; o Beadboard from ceiling; • Barns 1 and 2 o Stone foundation material o Exterior cladding; o Vents; o Lightening rods; o Wood beams and uprights; o Brick pavers • Silo o All material from Silo 1 The following recommendations for the curation and/or reuse of salvaged materials are suggested based on the results of the CHRDR prepared by WSP: 1 The destination of salvaged materials outlined in Table 7-1 should be determined prior to the initiation of any salvage process. 2 Contract documentation should include information regarding the CHVI of the aforementioned properties, specifically the List of Heritage Attributes. 3 The salvaged materials should be stored in a covered and secured location until they can be used. 4 Consideration should be given to the incorporation of salvaged materials, such as brick and beams, into the proposed development. 5 Incorporation of salvaged materials into the proposed development should be accompanied by interpretation, (i.e. a plaque or other commemoration device), so residents and visitors can understand the provenance of the materials. - 355 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 76 6 The chosen contractor should propose an approach for the labelling and storage of materials salvaged until they can be incorporated into the proposed development or donated to an architectural salvage. 7 Materials should only be salvaged if they are suitable for re-use in other buildings or projects, i.e. the material must be not irreparably damaged or infested. 8 Materials should be extracted in a way that ensures they will not be irreparably damaged. 9 A copy of this report should be provided to municipal Planning Staff for review and once finalized, submitted to the Archives at Whitby Public Library. - 356 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 77 BIBLIOGRAPHY Armstrong, Frederick H. (1985). Handbook of Upper Canadian Chronology. Hamilton: Dundurn Press, Ltd. Curve Lake First Nation. (n.d.) History. Retrieved from: https://curvelakefirstnation.ca/ Dodd, C. F., Poulton, D. R., Lennox, P. A., Smith, D. G., & Warrick, G. A. (1990). The Middle Ontario Ellis, C.J. and D.B. Deller. (1990). Paleo-Indians. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 37- 74. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. Ellis, C.J., I.T. Kenyon, and M.W. Spence. (1990). The Archaic. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 65- 124. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. Farewell, J. E. (1907). County of Ontario: short notes as to the early settlement and progress of the county and brief references to the pioneers and some Ontario County men who have taken a prominent part in provincial and dominion affair. Whitby, ON: Gazette-Chronicle Press. Find a Grave. John Percy. Retrieved from: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/119333949/john-percy Fox, W (1990). The Middle Woodland to Late Woodland Transition. In C.J. Ellis & N. Ferris (Eds.) The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650 (pp. 177-181). London, Ontario: London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society. International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). (2011). Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties. Retrieved from: www.icomos.org/world_heritage/CHIA_20110201.pdf Library and Archives Canada (2021) Canadian Censuses. [accessed April 2022]. https://www.bac lac.gc.ca/eng/census/Pages/census.aspx Mika, N. & Mika, H. (1983). Places in Ontario: Their Name Origins and History, Part III, M-Z. Belleville, ON: Mika Publishing Company. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2020). Provincial Policy Statement. Retrieved from: www.ontario.ca/page/provincial-policy-statement-2020 Ontario Land Registry Access 2021 Abstract Index Books, Land Registry Office 40 (Pickering). [accessed April 2022]. https://www.onland.ca/ui/40/books/60706/viewer/838941323?page=1 Page & Smith (1875). Illustrated Atlas of the County of Wentworth, Ont. Toronto: Page & Smith. Parks Canada. (2010). The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada 2nd Edition. Retrieved from: www.historicplaces.ca/media/18072/81468-parks-s+g-eng-web2.pdf Spence, M.W., R.H. Phil, and C. Murphy. (1990). - 357 - 815 Highway 7: Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report Project No: 221-03925-01 CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 78 Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 125-170. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. Walker & Miles. (1877). Map of Toronto Township. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Peel, Ontario. Toronto, ON. Warrick, G. (2000). The Precontact Iroquoian Occupation of Southern Ontario. Journal of World Prehistory 14(4):415-456. - 358 - APPENDIX A HISTORICAL MAPPING - 359 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: TREMAINE, 1860 CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE DOCUMENTATION REPORT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:10,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 7: 1860 TREMAINE'S MAP OF THE COUNTY OF ONTARIO CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 4 1860 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 400200 m - 360 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: J.H. BEERS & CO., 1877 CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE DOCUMENTATION REPORT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:10,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 8: 1877 ILLUSTRATED HISTORICAL ATLAS OF THE COUNTY OF WATERLOO CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 5 1877 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 400200 m - 361 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: DEPARTMENT OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE, 1914 CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE DOCUMENTATION REPORT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:20,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 9: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ON 1914 NTS MAP CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 6 1914 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 800400 m - 362 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE, 1933 CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE DOCUMENTATION REPORT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:20,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 10: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ON 1933 NTS MAP CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 7 1933 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 800400 m - 363 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE, 1943 CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE DOCUMENTATION REPORT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:20,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 11: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ON 1943 NTS MAP CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 8 1943 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 800400 m - 364 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO MAP AND DATA LIBRARY CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE DOCUMENTATION REPORT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:12,500 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 12: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ON 1954 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 9 1954 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 500250 m - 365 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: GOOGLE CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE DOCUMENTATION REPORT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:10,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 13: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ON 2002 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 10 2002 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 400200 m - 366 - CAPLINK LIMITED HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING AUGUST 19, 2022 Attachment #5 - 367 - HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING CAPLINK LIMITED ORIGINAL REPORT DATE: AUGUST 19, 2022 WSP 582 LANCASTER STREET WEST KITCHENER, ON N2K 1M3 T: +1 519 743 8777 WSP.COM WSP PROJECT NUMBER: 221-03925-00 - 368 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page iii S I G N A T U R E S PREPARED BY Emily Game, BA. Cultural Heritage Specialist August 19, 2022 Date APPROVED1 BY (must be reviewed for technical accuracy prior to approval) Joel Konrad, PhD, CAHP Cultural Heritage Lead - Ontario August 19, 2022 Date WSP Canada Inc. (“WSP”) prepared this report solely for the use of the intended recipient, CapLink Limited, in accordance with the professional services agreement between the parties. In the event a contract has not been executed, the parties agree that the WSP General Terms for Consultant shall govern their business relationship which was provided to you prior to the preparation of this report. The report is intended to be used in its entirety. No excerpts may be taken to be representative of the findings in the assessment. The conclusions presented in this report are based on work performed by trained, professional and technical staff, in accordance with their reasonable interpretation of current and accepted engineering and scientific practices at the time the work w as performed. The content and opinions contained in the present report are based on the observations and/or information available to WSP at the time of preparation, using investigation techniques and engineering analysis methods consistent with those ordin arily exercised by WSP and other engineering/scientific practitioners working under similar conditions, and subject to the same time, financial and physical constraints applicable to this project. 1 Approval of this document is an administrative function indicating readiness for release and does not impart legal liability on to the Approver for any technical content contained herein. Technical accuracy and fit-for-purpose of this content is obtained through the review process. The Approver shall ensure the applicable review process has occurred prior to signing the document. - 369 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page iv WSP disclaims any obligation to update this report if, af ter the date of this report, any conditions appear to differ significantly from those presented in this report; however, WSP reserves the right to amend or supplement this report based on additional information, documentation or evidence. WSP makes no other representations whatsoever concerning the legal significance of its findings. The intended recipient is solely responsible for the disclosure of any information contained in this report. If a third party makes use of, relies on, or makes decisions in accordance with this report, said third party is solely responsible for such use, reliance or decisions. WSP does not accept responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken by said third party based on this report. WSP has provided services to the intended recipient in accordance with the professional services agreement between the parties and in a manner consistent with that degree of care, skill and diligence normally provided by members of the same profession performing the same or comparable services in respect of projects of a similar nature in similar circumstances. It is understood and agreed by WSP and the recipient of this report that WSP provides no warranty, express or implied, of any kind. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it is agreed and understood by WSP and the recipient of this report that WSP makes no representation or warranty whatsoever as to the sufficiency of its scope of work for the purpose sought by the recipient of this report. In preparing this report, WSP has relied in good faith on information provided by others, as noted in the report. WSP has reasonably assumed that the information provided is correct and WSP is not responsible for the accuracy or comple teness of such information. The original of this digital file will be kept by WSP for a period of not less than 10 years. As the digital file transmitted to the intended recipient is no longer under the control of WSP, its integrity cannot be assured. As such, WSP does not guarantee any modifications made to this digital file subsequent to its transmission to the intended recipient. This limitations statement is considered an integral part of this report. - 370 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page v C O N T R I B U T O R S CLIENT CapLink Limited Martin Ng, P. Eng CapLink Limited 1295 Ormont Drive, Toronto, ON M9L 2W6 WSP Report Preparation Emily Game, B.A. Cultural Heritage Specialist Mapping/GIS Tanya Peterson, B.A. (Hons) Senior GIS Technician Report Review Joel Konrad, PhD, CAHP Cultural Heritage Lead, Ontario Cultural Heritage Specialist - 371 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WSP was retained by the Biglieri Group on behalf of CapLink Limited to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the property located at 815 Highway 7 in the City of Pickering. The report was undertaken to accompany the submission of a Site Plan Application for the 23.8- hectare development of two properties on Highway 7, including: 815 and 745 Highway 7 (the project location), which is proposing the phased construction of five industrial buildings as part of the development of the FGF Pickering Manufacturing Campus . The property at 815 Highway 7 is comprised of a one-and-a-half storey Ontario Cottage (the Percy House) with Neo-Classical and Georgian influences, constructed of brick in 1853, as well as two Central Ontario bank barns and two silos. The subject property is listed as a non- designated property on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register pursuant to Section 27 (1.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. This HIA has evaluated the subject property against the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06 and Ontario Regulation 10/06 criteria and determined that it possesses cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI) for its design or physical value, tied to the architecture, rarity and craftsmanship of the residence and bank barns. As such, a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes has been compiled. Evaluating the proposed development plan for the project location at 815 Highway 7 against the CHVI and List of Heritage Attributes, it was determined that the new industrial development would have major impacts on the property at 815 Highway 7, especially related to the removal of the two Central Ontario bank barns and the relocation of the Percy House. The following alternatives, mitigation measures and conservation options were considered to avoid or reduce these adverse impacts to the heritage attributes of the property: 1) Do nothing: preserve and maintain the Percy House, Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2 and all landscape heritage attributes in situ with no further development of the property. 2) Preserve and maintain the Percy House, barns and silos in situ with adaptive reuse of these structures and development of manufacturing campus around these structures on the property. 3) Relocate the Percy House within the site to a more convenient location with an adaptive reuse, dismantle and salvage heritage attribut es from Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2 and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. 4) Remove the Percy House, Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2, salvaging heritage attributes from the structures and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. Based on a review of the alternatives, mitigation and conservation options analysis, Option 1, do nothing, is the preferred option from a cultural heritage perspective. However, a “do nothing” approach is not feasible as the subject property is designated Prestige Employment and Seaton Natural Heritage System in the Pickering Official Plan . As such, this approach would be a - 372 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page vii constraint on the proposed concept plan and future development. Option 2 and Option 3 are the next preferred options, followed finally by Option 4. The following conservation/mitigation strategies are recommended for Option 3: 1. The following should be implemented through the development application process: a. In accordance with the MHSTCI’s Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting and materials is a mitigation measure to reduce impacts to cultural heritage resources, including the preparation of a Landscape Plan around the Percy House. b. Complete a Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) to stabilize and conserve the Percy House in its current location before construction of the surrounding development begins and during construction . This includes the installation of temporary construction fencing between the Percy House and the proposed development. c. A Mothballing Plan be completed to examine the current condition of the Percy House and to suggest stabilization and maintenance measures necessary to temporarily mothball and secure the structures. d. Prepare a Conservation Plan detailing the conservation methods, required actions and trades for the conservation methods and an implementati on schedule to conserve the heritage attributes of the landscape in the long-term. e. Prepare a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report for Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2, and if necessary, the one -storey south addition. f. Given the proximity of the adjacent heritage properties to the proposed limits of grading, a comprehensive pre -construction survey should be completed and a Zone of Influence Construction Vibration Study to monitor and mitigate vibration impacts during construction. Where possible pre vent heavy equipment traffic from being routed in the vicinity of the Percy House to minimize potential effects from vibration. g. Fugitive dust emissions should be managed by creating a fugitive dust emissions plan following practices outlined in the Ontario Standards Development Branch Technical Bulletin: Management Approaches for Industrial Fugitive Dust Sources (2017). 2) Contract documentation should include information regarding the CHVI of the aforementioned properties, specifically the List of Heritage At tributes. 3) WSP recommends that 815 Highway 7 meets the criteria for heritage designation under O. Reg. 9/06 as a representative example of an early Ontario Cottage with Neo - Classical and Georgian influences, for its connection to the nineteenth century agricultural development of the City of Pickering as well as for its contribution to the surrounding Highway 7 streetscape. 4) Should development plans change significantly in scope or design after approval of this HIA, additional cultural heritage investigations may be required. Once finalized, a copy of this HIA should be distributed to the City of Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. - 373 - 815 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page viii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1 2 POLICY FRAMEWORK .................................. 5 2.1 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ............................................. 5 2.2 Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement .. 6 2.3 Ontario Heritage Act ............................................ 7 2.4 Ontario Regulation 9/06 ...................................... 7 2.5 Ontario Regulation 10/06 .................................... 8 2.6 Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries Heritage Resources in The Land Use Planning Process ................................................ 9 2.7 Region of Durham Official Plan ........................ 10 2.8 City of Pickering Official Plan ........................... 10 3 PROJECT METHODOLOGY ........................ 13 4 HISTORICAL CONTEXT ............................... 14 4.1 Pre-European Contact Period ........................... 14 4.2 Pre-Confederation Treaties ............................... 15 4.3 Ontario County .................................................. 16 4.4 Pickering Township ........................................... 16 4.5 Community of Whitevale ................................... 17 4.6 Community of Green River ............................... 18 4.7 Site Specific History: 815 Highway 7 ............... 18 815 Highway 7 .............................................................................. 18 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................. 22 5.1 815 Highway 7 .................................................... 22 Residence .................................................................................... 22 - 374 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page ix 5.1.1.1 Exterior ........................................................................................ 22 5.1.1.2 Interior ......................................................................................... 30 Bank Barn 1 and Silo 1 Exterior ..................................................... 51 Barn 1 Interior ............................................................................... 55 Bank Barn 2 and Silo 2.................................................................. 61 Barn 2 Interior ............................................................................... 64 Landscape Conditions ................................................................... 69 5.2 Study Area Context ........................................... 71 5.3 Architectural Style ............................................. 75 Ontario Cottage ............................................................................ 75 Comparative Analysis ................................................................... 76 Central Ontario Barn ..................................................................... 80 Comparative Analysis – Bank Barns at 815 Highway 7 ................... 80 6 CONSULTATION .......................................... 84 6.1 City of Pickering ................................................ 84 6.2 Federal and Provincial Review ......................... 84 7 DISCUSSION OF INTEGRITY ...................... 85 8 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION ........ 90 8.1 Evaluation using Ontario Regulation 9/06 ....... 90 8.2 Ontario Regulation 10/06 .................................. 92 8.3 Results of the Cultural Heritage Evaluation..... 94 8.4 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest ............................................................................ 94 Description of Historic Place .......................................................... 94 Heritage Value .............................................................................. 95 List of Heritage Attributes .............................................................. 95 9 PROPOSED UNDERTAKING AND IMPACTS ...................................................................... 98 9.1 Description of Proposed Undertaking.............. 98 Development Concept ................................................................... 98 - 375 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page x 9.2 Potential Impacts ............................................... 98 9.3 Evaluation of Impacts...................................... 101 9.4 Results of Impact Assessment ....................... 103 10 ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION OPTIONS....................... 104 10.1 Alternatives, Mitigation and Conservation Options Analysis.............................................. 104 10.2 Options Analysis ............................................. 109 10.3 Implementation and Monitoring...................... 112 11 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 114 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................... 116 - 376 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page xi TABLES TABLE 5-1: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HERITAGE PROPERTIES OF A SIMILAR AGE, STYLE AND/OR TYPOLOGY ............................. 77 TABLE 5-2: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF BARNS OF A SIMILAR AGE, STYLE AND/OR TYPOLOGY ........................................................ 82 TABLE 7-1: HERITAGE INTEGRITY ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPERTY ........................................ 86 TABLE 8-1: EVALUATION OF 815 HIGHWAY 7 AS PER O. REG. 9/06 ........................................ 90 TABLE 8-2: EVALUATION OF 815 HIGHWAY 7 AS PER O. REG. 10/06....................................... 92 TABLE 9-1: IMPACT GRADING........................ 100 TABLE 9-2: EVALUATION OF IMPACTS TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AT 815 HIGHWAY 7 .... 101 TABLE 10-1: ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION OPTIONS ............................ 105 TABLE 10-2: SHORT-TERM, MEDIUM-TERM AND LONG-TERM ACTIONS FOR OPTION 3 .......... 113 FIGURES FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION ........................ 2 FIGURE 2: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ............ 3 FIGURE 3: MAP OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ..... 4 FIGURE 4: ILLUSTRATED HISTORICAL ATLAS OF THE COUNTY OF PICKERING (J.H. BEERS & CO., 1877) ........................................................ 121 FIGURE 5: 1877 ILLUSTRATED HISTORICAL ATLAS OF ONTARIO COUNTY, PICKERING TOWNSHIP....................................................... 122 FIGURE 6: 1914 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ............ 123 FIGURE 7: 1933 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ............ 124 FIGURE 8: 1943 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ............ 125 FIGURE 9: 1954 AERIAL IMAGE...................... 126 FIGURE 10: 2000 AERIAL IMAGE .................... 127 - 377 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page xii APPENDICES A HISTORICAL MAPPING B SITE CONCEPT PLAN (MARCH 2022) C DRONE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS - 378 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 1 1 INTRODUCTION WSP was retained by the Biglieri Group on behalf of Cap Link Limited to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the property located at 815 Highway 7 in the City of Pi ckering. The report was undertaken to accompany the submission of a Site Plan Application for the 23.8-hectare development of two properties on Highway 7, including: 815 and 745 Highway 7 (the project location, Figures 1 and 2), which is proposing the phased construction of five industrial buildings as part of the development of the FGF Pickering Manufacturing Campus. The property at 815 Highway 7 is composed of a one-and-a-half storey Ontario Cottage (the Percy House) constructed c. 1853 of brick with Neo-Classical and Georgian influences, as well as two Central Ontario bank barns and two silos (Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2) (Figure 3). The subject property is listed as a non-designated property on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register pursuant to Section 27 (1.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). The property owner’s contact information is as follows: Infrastructure Ontario Suite 2000, 1 Dundas Street West Toronto, ON, M5G 1Z3 In June 2022, ownership of the property will be transferred to : CapLink Limited 1295 Ormont Drive, Toronto, ON M9L 2W6 This HIA has been structured to adhere to the City of Pickering’s Terms of Reference: Heritage Impact Assessments (2022) and guidance provided in the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process (2006); the OHA; Section 2(d) of the Planning Act; and Section 2.6.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020). This document will provide: • A background on the project and introduction to the development site; • A description of the methodology used to investigate and evaluate the subject property; • A summary of background research and analysis related to the subject property; • An assessment of exterior existing conditions; • An evaluation of the subject property for Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) and a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes, if applicable; • A description of the proposed development and a summary of potentially adverse impacts; and • An assessment of alternative options, mitigation measures and conservation methods to be considered to avoid or limit negative impacts to the CHVI of the subject property. - 379 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: ESRI TOROPGRAPHIC BASEMAP HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:50,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 1: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA IN THE CITY OF PICKERING CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 2 Study Area.mxd Service Layer Credit Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance 0 1,900950 m - 380 - W H I T E S R O A D S I D E L I N E 2 6 H I G H W A Y 4 0 7 H I G H W A Y 7 H I G H W A Y 4 0 7 S I D E L I N E 2 8 PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: LAND INFORMATION ONTARIO HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:4,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 2: PROJECT LOCATION CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 1 Location.mxd Service Layer Credit Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 0 16080 m - 381 - RESIDENCE DRIVEWAY SILO 1 BARN 1 SILO 2 BARN 2 W H I T E S R O A D H I G H W A Y 7 W H I T E S R O A D PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: REGION OF DURHAM HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:1,236 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 3 Existing Condtions.mxd Service Layer Credit © 2021 Regional Municipality of Durham; 2020 Orthophotography provided by © First Base Solutions Inc.; © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2021. 0 5025 m - 382 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 5 2 POLICY FRAMEWORK 2.1 UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES On June 21st, 2021, the Canadian federal government enacted United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and confirmed that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Declaration - 2007) “must be implemented in Canada.” As a result, Indigenous peoples in Canada are recognized as having unique rights, including those that pertain to the conservation of Indigenous heritage. As per Articles 11 and 31 of the Declaration: 11. 1) Indigenous peoples have the right to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature. 31. 1) Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions. 2) In conjunction with Indigenous peoples, States shall take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these rights. These rights to historical sites, ceremonies, cultural traditions, etc. (collectively understood as Indigenous heritage) are pertinent to the Environmental Assessment process through Articles 25 and 26 of the Declaration, which state that: 25. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and o ther resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard. 26. 1) Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired. 2) Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired. 3) States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions, and land tenure systems of the Indigenous peoples concerned. - 383 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 6 2.2 PLANNING ACT AND PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT The Planning Act (1990) and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) [Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), 2020] issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act, provide Ontario-wide policy direction on land use planning. All decisions affecting land use planning “shall be consistent with” the PPS, which identifies that properties and features demonstrating significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological, technical or scientific interest are of provincial intere st and should be conserved. The importance of identifying, evaluating and conserving built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes is noted in two sections of the PPS 2020: — Section 1.7.1 – Long-term economic prosperity should be supported by: e) encouraging a sense of place, by promoting well-designed built form and cultural planning, and by conserving features that help define character, including built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes — Section 2.6.1 – “Significant built heritage resources and significant heritage landscapes shall be conserved”; and, — Section 2.6.3 – “Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved.” The following concepts, as defined in the PPS, are fundamental to an understanding of the conservation of cultural heritage resources in Ontario: Built heritage resources (BHR) are defined as “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. Built heritage resources are located on property that may be designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or that may be included on local, provincial, federal and/or international registers.” Conserved is defined as “the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage va lue 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 can be included in these plans and assessments .” Cultural heritage landscapes (CHL) “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. Cultural heritage landscapes may be properties that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act, or - 384 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 7 have been included on federal and/or inte rnational registers, and/or protected through official plan, zoning by-law, or other land use planning mechanisms.” Heritage attributes “means the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritage property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property’s built, constructed, or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (e.g. significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage property).” 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 u nder the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act.” 2.3 ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT The OHA gives municipalities and the provincial government powers to preserve the heritage of Ontario, with a primary focus on protecting heritage properties and archaeological sites. The OHA grants authority to municipalities and the province to identify and designate properties of heritage significance, provide standards and guidelines for the preservation of heritage properties and enhance protection of heritage conservation districts, marine heritage sites and archaeological resources. Properties can be designated individually (Part IV of the OHA) or as part of a larger group of properties, known as a Heritage Conservation District (Part V of the OHA). Designat ion offers protection for the properties under Sections 33 and 34 of the OHA, prohibiting the owner of a designated property from altering, demolishing or removing a building or structure on the property unless the owner applies to the council of the munic ipality and receives written consent to proceed with the alteration, demolition or removal. In addition to designated properties, the OHA allows municipalities to list properties that are considered to have CHVI on their Register, which provides interim protection against demolition in the form of a 60-day delay in issuing a demolition permit . Under Part IV, Section 27, municipalities must maintain a Register of properties situated in the municipality that are of CHVI. Section 27 (1.1) states that the Register shall be kept by the Clerk and that it must list all designated properties (Part IV and V). Under Section 27 (1.2), the Register may include a property that has not been designated, but that the municipal council believes to possess CHVI. Listed pro perties, although recognized as having CHVI, are not protected under the OHA as designated properties are, but are acknowledged under Section 2 of the PPS (MMAH, 2020). 2.4 ONTARIO REGULATION 9/06 The evaluation of cultural heritage resources is guided by Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O. Reg 9/06), which provides three principal criteria with nine sub-criteria for determining CHVI. The criteria set - 385 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 8 out in the regulation were developed to identify and evaluate properties for designation under the OHA. Best practices in evaluating properties that are not yet protected employ O. Reg. 9/06 to determine if they have CHVI. These criteria include: design or physical value, historical or associative value and contextual value . 1. The property has design value or physical val ue because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 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, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 3. The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2). If a potential cultural heritage resources is found to meet any one of these criteria, it can then be considered an identified resource. 2.5 ONTARIO REGULATION 10/06 Ontario Regulation 10/06 provides the Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Inte rest of Provincial Significance. This regulation was created in 2006 to be utilised to identify properties of provincial heritage significance under the Ontario Heritage Act. 1. (1) The criteria set out in subsection (2) are prescribed for the purposes of clause 34.5 (1) (a) of the Act. O. Reg. 10/06, s. 1 (1). (2) A property may be designated under section 34.5 of the Act if it meets one or more of the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest of provincial significance: 1. The property represents or demonstrates a theme or pattern in Ontario’s history. 2. The property yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of Ontario’s history. 3. The property demonstrates an uncommon, rare or unique aspect of Ontario’s cultural heritage. 4. The property is of aesthetic, visual or contextual importance to the province. - 386 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 9 5. The property demonstrates a high degree of excellence or creative, technical or scientific achievement at a provincial level in a given period. 6. The property has a strong or special association with the entire province or with a community that is found in more than one part of the province. The association exists for historic, social, or cultural reasons or because of traditional use. 7. The property has a strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organization of importance to the province or with an event of importance to the province. 8. The property is located in unorganized territory and the Minister determines that there is a provincial interest in the protection of the property. O. Reg. 10/06, s. 1 (2). 2.6 MINISTRY OF HERITAGE, SPORT, TOURISM AND CULTURE INDUSTRIES HERITAGE RESOURCES IN THE LAND USE PLANNING PROCESS The MHSTCI’s Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process (2006) identifies HIAs as an important tool to evaluate cultural heritage resources and to determine appropriate conservation options. The document identifies what an HIA should contain and any specific municipal requirements. To determine the effect that a proposed development or site alteration may have on a significant cultural heritage resource, Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process outlines seven potential negative or indirect impacts: • Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features; • Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; • Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden; • Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; • Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; • A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; • Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource. The MHSTCI’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties (2007), provide guiding principles for the development of appropriate conservation or mitigation measures: 1. Respect for documentary evidence Do not base restoration on conjecture. Conservation work should be based on historical documentation, such as historical photographs, drawings and physical evidence. - 387 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 10 2. Respect for the original location Do not move buildings unless there is no other means to save them. Site is an integral component of a building. Any change in site diminishes heritage value considerably. 3. Respect for historical material Repair or conserve rather than replace building materials and finishes, except where absolutely necessary. Minimal intervention maintains the historical content of the resource. 4. Respect for original fabric Repair with like materials, to return the resource to its prior condition without altering its integrity. 5. Respect for the building’s history Do not restore to one period at the expense of another. Do not destroy later additions to a house solely to restore it to a single time period. 6. Reversibility Alterations should be able to be returned to original conditions. This cons erves earlier building design and technique. For instance, when a new door opening is put in a stone wall, the original stones are numbered, removed and stored, allowing for future restoration. 7. Legibility New work should be distinguishable from old. Buildings should be recognized as products of their own time, and new additions should not blur the distinction between old and new. 8. Maintenance With continuous care, future restoration will not be necessary. With regular upkeep, major conservation projects and their high costs can be avoided. 2.7 REGION OF DURHAM OFFICIAL PLAN The Durham Regional Official Plan (2020 - Office Consolidation) provides a series of policies for the conservation of cultural heritage resources. Section 2.3.49 of the document provides a pol icy for Built and Culture Heritage Resources, which states that the 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. The plan is clear to be consistent with the policies and direction provided through the PPS and encourages local municipalities to address cultural heritage resources in greater detail within their local official plans. 2.8 CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN The City of Pickering Official Plan (2018) provides cultural heritage conservation policies in Chapter 8. The following policies provide guidance for development proposals that may impact cultural heritage resources. 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: - 388 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 11 (i) significant heritage structures, features and sites; (ii) buildings, sites, and artifacts of historical, archaeological and architectural significance including modern or recent architecture; (iii) significant landscape features and characteristics, including vistas and ridge lines; and (iv) 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. Cooperation with Others 8.3 City Council shall: (a) assist in identifying, protecting and promoting cultural heritage resources in the municipality, in cooperation with Federal, Provincial and Regional levels of government, as well as private agencies and individuals; (b) consult with its local architectural conservation advisory committee and other heritage committees, and participate with these committees and others in protecting important heritage resources, as necessary, through assembling, resale, public- private partnerships, acquisition or other forms of involvement; (c) ensure that plans, programs and strategies prepared by or for the City and its boards or commissions, shall respect the character and significance of the City’s heritage resources; and (d) use and encourage the use of available government and non -government funding and programs to assist in cultural heritage resource conservation. Ontario Heritage Act 8.4 City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, where warranted shall implement the provisions of the OHA, including the designation under the Act of heritage sites and heritage districts. Cultural Heritage Inventory - 389 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 12 8.7 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 OHA; 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. Cultural Heritage Alteration and Demolition 8.8 City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, shall: (a) allow alterations, additions or repairs to buildings designated under the OHA, provided the changes to the building do not detrimentally affect the heritage value; (b) allow new buildings, or alterations, additions or repairs to existing buildings within a Heritage Conservation District that are consistent with the District Conservation Guidelines; (c) discourage or prevent the demolition or inappropriate alteration of a heritage resource, but where demolition or inappropriate alteration is unavoidable: (i) consider the acquisition and conservation of the resource; and (ii) if acquisition is not possible, conduct a thorough review and documentation of the resource for archival purposes; and (d) ensure that designated cultural heritage buildings, and other important cultural heritage resources that are vacant for an extended period of time are inspected regularly to discourage vandalism and monitor conformity with the City’s Maintenance and Occupancy By-law. Guidelines for Use and Reuse 8.9 City Council shall consider the following guidelines on the use and reuse of heritage resources: (a) maintain, if possible, the original use of heritage structures and sites, and if possible, retain the original location and orientation of such structures; (b) where original uses cannot be maintained, support the adaptive reuse of heritage structures and sites to encourage resource conservation; and (c) where no other alternative exists for maintaining heritage structures in their original locations, allow the relocation of the structure to appropriate sites or areas. - 390 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 13 3 PROJECT METHODOLOGY An HIA evaluates the proposed impact of development on the heritage attributes of a property of potential CHVI. This HIA is guided by the MHSTCI Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process; the OHA; Section 2(d) of the Planning Act; Section 2.6.3 of the PPS, and the City of Pickering Terms of Reference: Heritage Impact Assessments (2022). To address the requirements of an HIA, this report provides the following information: • A summary of the history of the immediate context informed by a review of archival sources and historical maps; • Exterior and interior photographic documentation of the subject property, project location, and context; • A written description of the existing conditions and context of the subject property; • An evaluation of the subject property according to O. Reg. 9/06 and O. Reg. 10/06; • Preparation of a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes, if applicable; • A review of the proposed intervention; • Identification of impacts; • The identification and analysis of mitigat ion opportunities, as required; • The preferred strategy recommended to best protect and enhance the CHVI and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource; and • A summary statement and conservation recommendations. - 391 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 14 4 HISTORICAL CONTEXT 4.1 PRE-EUROPEAN CONTACT PERIOD The first populations to occupy southern Ontario are referred to as Paleoindians (Ellis a nd Deller, 1990:39). Paleo period populations moved into the region following the retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet approximately 11,000 years before present (BP). Early Paleo period groups are identified by their distinctive projectile point morphologies, exhibiting long grooves, or ‘flutes’, that likely functioned as a hafting me chanism. These Early Paleo group projectile morphologies include Gainey (c.10,900 BP), Barnes (c.10,700 BP), and Crowf ield (c.10,500 BP) (Ellis and Deller, 1990:39 -43). By approximately 10,400 BP, Paleo projectile points transitioned to various un -fluted varieties such as Holocombe (c.10,300 BP), Hi-Lo (c.10,100 BP), and Unstemmed and Stemmed Lanceolate (c.10,400 to 9,500 BP). These morphologies were utilized by Late Paleo period groups (Ellis and Deller, 1990:40). Both Early and Late Paleo period populations were highly mobile, participating in the hunting of large game animals. Paleo period sites often functioned as sm all campsites (less than 200 m2) where stone tool production and maintenance occurred (Ellis and Deller, 1990). By approximately 8,000 BP the climate of Ontario began to warm. As a result, deciduous flora began to colonize the region. With this shift in f lora came new faunal resources, resulting in a transition in the ways populations exploited their environments. This transition resulted in a change of tool-kits and subsistence strategies recognizable in the archaeological record, resulting in what is referred to archaeologically as the Archaic period. The Archaic period in southern Ontario is dived into three phases: the Early Archaic (c.10,000 to 8,000 BP), the Middle A rchaic (c.8,000 to 4,500 BP) and the Late Archaic (c.4,500 to 2,800 BP) (Ellis et al., 1990). The Archaic period is differentiated from earlier Paleo populations by several traits such as: 1) an increase in tool stone variation and reliance on local tool stone sources, 2) the emergence of notched and stemmed projectile point morphologies, 3) a reduction in extensively flaked tools, 4) the use of native copper, 5) the use of bone tools for hooks, gorges, and harpoons, 6) an increase in extensive trade networks and 7) the production of ground stone tools. Also noted is an increase in the recovery of large woodworking tools such as chisels, adzes, and axes (Ellis and Deller, 1990:65- 66). The Archaic period is also marked by population growth. Archaeological evidence suggests that by the end of the Middle Archaic period (c.4,500 BP) population s were steadily increasing in size (Ellis et al., 1990). Over the course of the Archaic period populations began to rely on more localized hunting and gathering territories. By the end of the Archaic period, populations were utilizing more seasonal rounds. From spring to fall, settlements would exploit lakeshore/riverine locations where a broad -based subsistence strategy could be employed, while the late fall and winter months would be spent at interior site where deer hunting was likely a - 392 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 15 primary focus with some wild edibles likely being collected (Ellis and Deller, 1990:114). This steady increase in population size and adoption of a more localized seasonal subsistence strategy eventually evolved into what is termed the Woodland period. The Woodland period is characterized by the emergence of ceramic technology for the manufacture of pottery. Like the Archaic period, the Woodland period is separated into three primary timeframes: the Early Woodland (approximately 800 BC to 0 AD), the Middle Woodland (approximately 0 AD to 700/900 AD) and the Late Woodland (approximately 900 AD to 1600 AD) (Spence et al., 1990; Fox, 1990). The Early Woodland period is represented in southern Ontario by two different cultural complexes: the Meadowood Complex (c.900 to 500 BC) and the Middlesex Complex (c.500 BC to 0 AD). During this period the life ways of Early Woodland population differed little from that of the Late Archaic with hunting and gathering representing the primary subsistence strategies. The pottery of this period is characterized by its relatively crude construction and lack of decorations. These early ceramics exhibit cord impressions, likely resulting from the techniques used during manufacture (Spence et al., 1990). The Middle Woodland period is differentiated from the Early Woodland period by changes in lithic tool morphologies (projectile points) and the increased elaboration of ceramic vessels (Spence et al., 1990). In southern Ontario , the Middle Woodland is observed in three different cultural complexes: the Point Peninsula Complex to the north and northeast of Lake Ontario, the Couture Complex near Lake St. Claire and the Saugeen Complex throughout the remainder of southern Ontario. These groups can be identified by their use of either dentate or pseud o-scalloped ceramic decorations. It is by the end of the Middle Woodland period that archaeological evidence begins to suggest the rudimentary use of maize (corn) horticulture (Warrick, 2000). The adoption and expansion of maize horticulture during the Late Woodland period allowed for an increase in population size, density, and complexity among Late Woodland populations. As a result, a shift in subsistence and settlement patterns occurred, with the adoption of a more sedentary village life and reliance on maize horticulture, with beans, squash and tobacco also being grown. Nearing the end of the Late Woodland Period (approximately 1400 AD) villages reached their maximum size. During this period, increased warfare resulted in the development of larger villages with extensive palisades. Early contact with European settlers at the end of the Late Woodland, Late Ontario Iroquoian period resulted in extensive change to the traditional lifestyles of most populations inhabiting southern Ontario. 4.2 PRE-CONFEDERATION TREATIES The study area, located in the City of Pickering, is situated on the lands of the William Treaties and the Johnson-Butler Purchase. The Williams Treaties were signed in October and November of - 393 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 16 1923 between the Crown and seven First Nations groups, including the Chippewa of Lake Simcoe (Beausoleil First Nation, Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, Chippewas of Rama First Nation) and the Mississauga of the north shore of Lake Ontario (Alderville First Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation, and Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation). The Williams Treaties were the last of the land cession treaties to be signed in Canada, which transferred over 20, 000 square kilometers of land in south -central Ontario to the Crown. 4.3 ONTARIO COUNTY The District of Nassau, created in 1788, was one of four original districts dividing what is now the Province of Ontario. This district was later renamed the Home District, which stretched form the Trent River to Long Point and north to the Seve rn River. Over the following years these districts were divided until there were 20 districts in all. In 1853, Ontario was separated to become its own County from the United Counties of Ontario, York and Peel. In 1869 its area was estimated at 360,000 acres with 210,000 acres of which were cleared and under cultivation (Conner and Coltson, 1869). By 1854, Ontario County included nine townships: Brock, Mara, Pickering, Rama, Reach, Scott, Thorah, Uxbridge, and Whitby. In the latter half of the nineteenth century the County was known for the quality of its grains and the principal manufactures were flour and lumber (Conner and Coltson, 1869). Ontario County was dissolved in 1974 and the Townships of Rama and Mara were added to Simcoe County . 4.4 PICKERING TOWNSHIP Pickering Township was established in 1791 when Augustus Jones began to survey the area on behalf of the government of Upper Canada. The eastern part of the township was settled by Loyalists, disbanded soldiers, emigrants from the United Kingdom, and a large number of Quakers from both Ireland and the US (Farewell, 1907). Loyalists and their relatives hel d the vast majority of land grants in Pickering Township in the years following the revolution (Johnson, 1973). By 1793, the Kingston Road was opened to serve as a horse path extending east from Simcoe’s Dundas Street, and in 1799, a rough roadway had been cut from Duffin’s Creek to Port Hope. While early roadworks made the Township more accessible to prospective settlers, actual settlement of Pickering Township proceeded very slowly. Although the first land patent was awarded to Major John Smith in 1792, the first legal settler in Pickering was William Peak in 1798 (Armstrong, 1985; Farewell, 1907). Difficulty clearing the forest led Peak and other early settlers to pursue non-agricultural means to augment income, including trading with Indigenous Peoples in the area (Johnson, 1973). Population growth and Township development remained slow during the early nineteenth century. The War of 1812 halted much of the county and township’s development. After the conflict, increased road traffic provided a boost in business to local innkeepers while soldiers worked to improve existing road conditions. With improved roadways, and a substantial water course in - 394 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 17 Duffin’s Creek, Pickering Township was soon able to establish saw and grist mills for the production of lumber and grain for export through Toronto. By 1817 the population was 330 (Johnson, 1973). Changes in land-granting policies in the 1820s led to further sales of land in Pickering Township and by 1820 the population was 575 (Johnson, 1973), which grew to 830 by 1825 (Johnson, 1973; Welch and Payne, 2015). A post office was established in 1829 but the hamlet of Duffin's Creek developed slowly. That same year, the Crown worked with the New England Company, a missionary group, to encourage farming and education for the First Nations people. The community that is now known as Curve Lake First Nation was established (Curve Lake First Nation, n.d.). The construction of the Grand Trunk Railway in 1856 and growing agricultural prosperity stimulated the community's development as an important grist-milling and local commercial centre. However, Pickering Township was slow to develop. By 1861 growth had stalled and between 1861 and 1891 a decline in population occurred. Inflation and a depression between 1874 -76 did little to help. The population of Pickering Township peaked at 8,002 in 1861 (Johnson, 1973) and by 1891 numbered 5,998 (Johnson, 1973). Through most of the nineteenth and twentieth centur ies, the township remained primarily agricultural. As many communities on the periphery of Toronto, d evelopment increased following the Second World War. Manufacturing companies also moved to the township following the construction of Highway 401 in the 1950s and in 1974 the township was divided into eastern and northern parts. Following this, in 1974, the villages of Brougham, Claremont, Green River, Greenwood and Whitevale became the Town of Pickering. In 2000 the Town became incorporated as a City. 4.5 COMMUNITY OF WHITEVALE Situated 1.3 km to the southwest of the study area, the community of Whitevale was founded in 1820 by John Major who built a sawmill along Duffin’s Creek. The community as first known as Majorville as John Major and multiple members of his family lived on the surrounding properties. In 1845, Ira White arrived in Majorville and took over the sawmill. In 1855, the sawmill was purchased by his son, Truman. P. White, who also constructed a grist mill and a cooperage. In the same year, the community also constructed its first general store (Wood, 1911). He later constructed a planning factory in 1866, a brick woollen mill in 1867, and a schoolhouse sometime later. Truman White became a central pillar of the community, and the small hamlet was named Whitevale after him. By 1874, Whitevale contained three general stores, three dressmakers, thre e gardeners, two shoemaker shops, two churches, two blacksmiths, two wagon shops, a stave and heading factory, a barrel factory, a wagon and carriage factory, a cheese factory, a merchant and tailoring firm, a - 395 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 18 butcher shop, a tinsmith shop, a school house, an undertakers, a harness shop, a grist mill, a brush factory, a grindstone factory, a barber shop, a post office, and a hotel (Wood, 1911; Whitevale, n.d.). The continued prosperity of Whitevale did not last the turn of the century. The last quarter of the nineteenth century saw the community struck by separate fires at the cooperage, the carriage factory, the public hall, planning mill, grist mill, and the woollen mill. These problems were compounded when Whitevale was bypassed by the Ontario -Quebec railway line, built in 1884 (Whitevale, n.d.). Whitevale remains as an unincorporated community of the City of Pickering . 4.6 COMMUNITY OF GREEN RIVER Situated approximately 3 kilometres west of the subject property, the community of Green River was first settled by Benjamin Doten. Doten arrived in 1849 and established a wagon and blacksmith shop known as Dotenville Carriage Works. Osburn, Rice, Runnals, Vardon, Ferrier, Turner, MacIntyre, Poucher, and the Winter families were among the early families to settle i n Green River. William Barnes built a sawmill in 1857 and by 1870, he added a factory to produce tubs, fork and brush handles and baskets. Edward and John Smith were an integral part of the development of Green River, in the early 1870s, they purchased a s awmill and restored it to working order, the also erected a grist mill, a store, and a public hall in the village; t hey also aided in the establishment of a post office in 1870 (Mika & Mika, 1981). In 1974, Green River was incorporated into the newly cre ated Town of Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham. 4.7 SITE SPECIFIC HISTORY: 815 HIGHWAY 7 The Euro-Canadian land use history for 815 Highway 7, Pickering was produced using census returns, land registry records, city directories, historical mapping, and other primary and secondary sources, where available. 815 HIGHWAY 7 The subject property is within Lot 27, Concession V, in the Geographic Township of Pickering, now the City of Pickering. The property history has been completed with land registry records, historical maps, census records and archival photographs. It should be noted that the absence of structures or other features shown on the historical maps does not preclude their presence on these properties. Illustrating all homesteads on the historical atlas maps would have been beyond the intended scope of the atlas and, often, homes were only illustrated for those landowners who purchased a subscription. - 396 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 19 According to the abstract index, on August 4, 1821, Charles Denison received a patent from The Crown for all 200 acres (Book 211, Page 134). On the same day, Charles released all 200 acres to William Baldwin (Book 211, Page 134, Instrument 5083). On August 20, 1821, the lot is sold to William Sleigh (Book 211, Page 134, Instrument 5084). On December 9, 1826, William Sleigh sold Archibald Barker the northwest half of the lot (Book 211, Page 134, Instrument illegible), Barker purchased the northeast half of the lot from Wu rz Landon On February 24, 1837. In 1871, a transaction occured between John Percy and William Major for the north half of the lot, the type of transaction, exact date and compensation, however, is illegible (Book 211, Page 134). The 1837 City of Toronto and the Home District Commercial Directory and Register (Walton, 1837) indicates several occupants for Lot 27, Concession V, they include: George Crowthers, Stephen Hubbard, William Sleigh and Albert Smith. No information regarding the presence of structures is provided in the directory. Roswell’s City of Toronto Directory and County of York for 1850 -1851 (Armstrong, 1850) lists several occupants for Lot 27, Concession V, including Benjamin Milligan, John Percy and John Sleigh. No information regarding the presence of structures is provided in the directory. The 1851 Census lists John Percy, a 43-year old farmer, born in England as living his wife Elizabeth (née Young), also 43 (Plates 1 and 2), and their children Archibald (19), William (17), Mary Anne (9), James (8), Sylvenus (6), Uriah (5), John (3) and Frederick (3). The family is listed as belonging to the Wesleyan Methodist Church (Item No. 1126581, Page 215). J. Percy is assessed for the north quarter of Lot 7, Concession V i n 1853, at this time he was identified as both a Householder and a Freeholder (Scheinman, 2004). Original concession roads are illustrated on the 1860 Tremaine Map of Ontario County (Figure 4, Appendix A), including present-day Highway 7 and Whites Road, as are the settlements of Brunswick Hill and Brougham located north and east of the subject property, respectively. The lands surrounding the subject property constituted a rural landscape. The Tremaine map indicates that Lot 27 is divided into two 50 acre and one 100 acre lots, with 815 Highway 7 located within the lot owned by J. Pursey [sic]. One structure is illustrated within the subject property on the 1861 Tremaine Map. The 1861 census lists John (51), Elizabeth (51) and their children, Archibald (27), William (25), Mary Anne (19), Uriah (17), John (13), Venice (17), Frederick (11), and Leslie (7), as living in a one-and-a-half storey brick house. The census indicates that two families were living in the house in 1861, however no information regarding the second family was provided (Item no. 2747140, Page 133). The 1871 Census lists John, 60, his wife Elizabeth, 61 and their children Uriah and Frederick, aged 21 and 25 respectively (Instrument 649389, Page 50). In 1871, the north half of Lot 27, Concession V is willed to Major William (Book 211, Page 134, Instrument illegible). To additional transactions between Barker Archibald et. ux and Uriah Percy et. ux and John Scott occur between 1871 and 1892, however the transaction type, exact date and compensation are illegible (Book 211, Page 134). - 397 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 20 John Percey died on October 10, 1872, he is interred with his wife, who died in 1884, at the Green River Baptist Cemetery, located at 600 Highway 7 (Photograph 100). Plate 1: Portrait of John Percy, date unknown (findagrave.com) Plate 2: Portrait of Elizabeth Percy, date unknown (findagrave.com) Similar to the 1860 Tremaine Map, one structure is illustrated on the 1877 Pickering Township Map (Figure 5, Appendix A). A. Percy is shown as owning a 50 acres within Lot 27, Concession V. A brick structure is shown on the 1914 NTS map, in the approximate location of the subject property (Figure 6, Appendix A). The brick structure is also present on the 1933 (Figure 7, Appendix A) and 1943 NTS maps (Figure 8, Appendix A). These maps show no change in the lands surrounding the subject property, as they continued to be rural in nature. The Percy Family retained ownership of Lot 27, Concession V until the late nineteenth century, when ownership was transferred to C. Berevell (Scheinman, 2004). All of Lot 27, Concession V was expropriated by the Crown and granted to the Ministry of Housing, Province of Ontario, on February 4, 1974 (Book 211, Page 134a, Instrument 252578). The lot is granted from the Ontario Land Corporation to Her Majesty The Queen in right of the Province of - 398 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 21 Ontario represented by the Minister of Transportation and communications for the Province of Ontario (Book 211, Page 134a, Instrument D136577). Aerial photographs from 1954 to 2006 were reviewed to assist in documenting changes to the rural landscape. A 1954 aerial photograph (Figure 9, Appendix A) of the subject property was reviewed, and while the quality of the photograph is poor, the house and t he bank barns are visible. Development within the study area between 1954 and 2006 was relatively slow. The 2002 aerial photograph (Figure 10, Appendix A) clearly shows the house and two barns subject property; Highway 407 is also present, south of the su bject property. Construction began on the Whites Road extension and the Highway 407 on -and off-ramps in 2018, and is in use as of 2022. The majority of the lands adjacent to 815 Highway 7 remain under active cultivation. - 399 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 22 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.1 815 HIGHWAY 7 The subject property at 815 Highway 7 is currently under active cultivation, on an approximately 18.7-hectare irregular shaped lot that includes a one-and-a-half storey brick Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical influences constructed c. 1853, two bank barns and two silos (Figure 3). The Percy House is currently vacant. The property is located on the south side of Highway 7, west of Whites Road, it is bounded on the east and west by lands associated with the Seaton Natural Heritage System in the City of Pickering. The residential building is oriented toward Highway 7 and barns are located south of the residence. The house is setback from Highway 7 approximately 30 metres. The following description of the subject property is based on site visit s conducted on April 19, and April 29, 2022, by Emily Game, Cultural Heritage Specialist. Access to the project location was provided by the proponent, as such there were no limitations to the on-site investigation. RESIDENCE The one-and-a-half storey Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical and Georgian influences is set back from Highway 7 approximately 30 metres. The structure is oriented with its façade to Highway 7, slightly west of a straight, gravel driveway (Photograph 1). Constructed c. 1853, the one-and-a-half storey brick structure with a side gable roof was originally built to a rectangular plan, with one rear addition projecting from the south elevation. The main façade of the one-and-a-half storey structure was constructed using a fine example of Flemish bond, while the east, south, and west elevations were constructed using the Common bond. Flemish bond was considered to be of higher quality as more bricks were required to construct the wall, it also reflects a higher degree of craftsmanship. A 1913 contractors’ estimating book specifies that a mason should be able to lay 600 bricks in the Common bond per day in veneer work but only 200 when laid as fancy brickwork (Radford, 1913: 377). The one-and-a-half storey structure is sited on a foundation comprised of granite and field stone. The one-storey addition has a gable roof which spans south elevation is also of brick construction. The addition is laid in the Common bond pattern and is sited on a fieldstone foundation. 5.1.1.1 EXTERIOR North Elevation (Main Façade) The symmetrical three-bay north elevation represents the building’s main façade (Photograph 2). The centrally placed entrance features a wide surround, with a transom, sidelights and recessed panels; the entrance is topped with a flat arch in buff brick (Photograph 3). The entrance is - 400 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 23 flanked by a pair of rectangular window openings with flat arches in buff brick (Photograph 4). The windows retain their original six-over-six double-hung sash windows. The façade features buff brick quoins and a patterned stringcourse below the moulded cornice, this is an early example of dichromatic brickwork, a style that would come to characterize the region. A buff brick stringcourse is also present, immediately above the coursed and split granite foundation (Photograph 5). East Elevation The two-bay east elevation is symmetrical, and features an interior corbelled chimney; the return eaves are no longer extant on the east elevation . The interior chimney is flanked by two windows on both the main and upper storeys (Photographs 6 and 7). The windows on the east elevation are rectangular and have wooden sills, they retain their original six-over-six double-hung sash windows. The east elevation has been covered in stucco, however, the buff brick stringcourse is visible above the foundation, which on the east elevation, is comprised of fieldstone (Photograph 8). The east elevation of the rear addition is symmetrical with three bays, it is constructed using brick laid in the Common bond and is located on a fieldstone foundation (Photograph 9). The rectangular windows retain their six-over-six double-hung sash windows and have wood sill; they are topped with a jack arch. The door has been replaced with an aluminum screen door and a wood door. The porch appears to be original the structure and feature s a roof with exposed curved rafters (Photograph 10). South Elevation The original portion of the south elevation (Photograph 11) is largely obscured by the one-storey addition projecting from the rear elevation. One door is present on the south elevation of the addition. No windows were observed on the south elevation of the one -and-a-half storey structure. A large concrete block with brick fill is positioned against the door opening, this is likely support ing rear brick wall which appears to be collapsing. West Elevation The two-bay west elevation is symmetrical, and features an interior corbelled chimney; one return eave remains on the northwest corner of the house . The chimney is flanked by two windows on both the main and upper storeys. The windows on the east elevation are rectangular and have wooden sills and feature jack arches of buff brick; they retain their original six-over-six double-hung sash windows. The buff brick stringcourse extends on the west elevation above the foundation, which on the west elevation, is comprised of fieldstone (Photographs 12 and 13). The west façade of the rear addition is also symmetrical with three bays. The windows on the west façade have been removed and are covered with wood sheeting. The wood door on the west façade appears to be original (Photograph 14). - 401 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 24 Photograph 1: View to Percy House from gravel driveway (WSP, 2022) Photograph 2: Main façade of the Percy House (WSP, 2022) - 402 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 25 Photograph 3: Detail of wood door surround (WSP, 2022) Photograph 4: Detail of six-over-six window (WSP, 2022) Photograph 5: Detail of granite and fieldstone foundation and buff brick string course and quoins (WSP, 2022) - 403 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 26 Photograph 6: East façade and rear addition (WSP, 2022) Photograph 7: Overview of the east façade (WSP, 2022) - 404 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 27 Photograph 8: Detail of coursed fieldstone foundation and stuccoed exterior on the east façade (WSP, 2022) Photograph 9: East façade of the rear addition (WSP, 2022) - 405 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 28 Photograph 10: View to the north of the rear addition and east façade (WSP, 2022) Photograph 11: South façade of the rear addition (WSP, 2022) - 406 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 29 Photograph 12: Overview of the west façade (WSP, 2022) Photograph 13: Detail of return eaves on the west façade (WSP, 2022) - 407 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 30 Photograph 14: West façade of the rear addition (WSP, 2022) 5.1.1.2 INTERIOR MAIN FLOOR The Percy House is a well-crafted example of an Ontario Cottage with Neo -Classical and Georgian influences. The one-and-a-half storey portion of the house follows Georgian design principles as seen through its centre hall plan (Photographs 15 and 16). Both floors of the one- and-a-half story building are composed of four approximately equal sized rooms and one staircase, all laid out to a rectangular plan. All four of the rooms are accessed by the centre hall and each of the rooms has a door allowing access to the adjacent space. The walls and ceilings are constructed of lath and plaster and metal and stone fireplace collars are present in most of the rooms. The floors consist of wide pine boards. Few alterations have been made to the house, with the exception of the addition of a bathroom on the main floor; the floorplan is unchanged. The newel posts, handrail and balusters are simple in form; the balusters are lathe-turned, with two balusters on each step (Photographs 17 and 19). The baseboards within the hallway are tall with a simple cap molding and a quarter round trim (Photograph 18). The floors in the hallway are covered in modern vinyl flooring. The room at the northeast corner of the house originally functioned as the parlour. The room features a corner cupboard with Gothic glazing, well-considered proportions and a Neo-Classical inspired cornice (Photograph 20). The floor-to-ceiling windows in the parlour have simple fielded - 408 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 31 panels below the sills and wide moulded surrounds (Photographs 21 and 22). The baseboards in the room are tall, and have a cap moulding (Photograph 23). The room at the northwest corner of the house features a fireplace mantel with a simple pilastered surround (Photographs 24 to 27). The window surrounds are less elaborate than those in the parlour and do not have fielded panels. The baseboards in the room are tall, and have a cap moulding topped with a bead. The room at the southeast corner of the house most recently functioned as a kitchen. The window surround has a similar profile to those in the northwest room. The baseboards are tall, have a quarter round trim and are topped with a half round moulding. A door, now covered, once provided access to the rear addition. The floors in the kitchen are covered in modern vinyl flooring (Photographs 28 to 30). The room at the southwest corner of the house was divided to accommodate the placement of a modern bathroom. The window surround has a similar profile to those in the northwest and southeast rooms. The baseboards in the room are tall, and are capped with a half round bead. The floors are covered in modern vinyl flooring (Photographs 31 and 32). The one-story addition is composed of two rooms, the northernmost room being the larger of the two. The exterior walls and ceilings are constructed of lath and plaster, while the dividing wall is constructed of dimensional lumber. The bottom three quarters of the walls in the addition are clad in a beaded wainscotting. The window and door frames are mostly unornamented and feature a simple bead. The ceiling in both rooms is covered in wood beadboard and the floors consist of unpainted tongue-and-groove boards. A fireplace is located on the southern wall of the addition (Photographs 33 to 42). - 409 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 32 Photograph 15: Centre hall of the Percy House (WSP, 2022) Photograph 16: Transom and sidelights in hall (WSP, 2022) Photograph 17: Detail of staircase in centre hall (WSP, 2022) - 410 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 33 Photograph 18: Detail of baseboard in centre hall (WSP, 2022) Photograph 19: Detail of newel post in centre hall (WSP, 2022) Photograph 20: Detail of cupboard in first floor room (WSP, 2022) - 411 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 34 Photograph 21: Detail of window in first floor room (WSP, 2022) Photograph 22: Detail of door in first floor room (WSP, 2022) Photograph 23: Overview of first floor room, showing door trim and baseboards (WSP, 2022) - 412 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 35 Photograph 24: Overview of first floor room (WSP, 2022) Photograph 25: Detail of window (WSP, 2022) Photograph 26: Detail of door trim (WSP, 2022) - 413 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 36 Photograph 27: Detail of mantle (WSP, 2022) Photograph 28: Overview of former kitchen (WSP, 2022) - 414 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 37 Photograph 29: Covered door in kitchen (WSP, 2022) Photograph 30: Modified trim in kitchen (WSP, 2022) Photograph 31: Overview of first floor room (WSP, 2022) Photograph 32: Example of wood door (WSP, 2022) - 415 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 38 Photograph 33: North wall of addition with two doors and wainscotting (WSP, 2022) Photograph 34: East wall of addition showing window, door and wainscotting (WSP, 2022) - 416 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 39 Photograph 35: Dividing wall in addition, showing door trim and wainscotting (WSP, 2022) Photograph 36: West wall of addition showing wainscoting, covered door and window trim (WSP, 2022) - 417 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 40 Photograph 37: Beadboard ceiling in addition (WSP, 2022) Photograph 38: Detail of window and picture rail in addition (WSP, 2022) - 418 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 41 Photograph 39: Detail of dimensional lumber wall (WSP, 2022) Photograph 40: Door on south wall of addition (WSP, 2022) Photograph 41: Detail of window and wainscotting in rear addition (WSP, 2022) - 419 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 42 Photograph 42: Fireplace on south wall of first floor addition (WSP, 2022) SECOND FLOOR The second floor is accessed via the staircase in the centre hall. The banister and lathe-turned baluster continue to the second story and the newel post in the second floor is identical to that on the main floor. The second floor consists of the landing/hallway, four bedrooms and two closets. The floor retains both painted and unpainted wide pine boards. The baseboards and window surrounds on the second floor are very simple and do not feature any moulding or decorative elements. The doors to each of the rooms consist of wood panelled doors, all the original locking mechanisms and doorknobs have been removed (Photographs 43 to 52). A stone fireplace collar is embedded in the floor of the bedroom in the southwest corner of the house (Photograph 53). - 420 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 43 Photograph 43: Overview of second floor landing (WSP, 2022) Photograph 44: Railing and newel post on second floor (WSP, 2022) Photograph 45: Example of door trim on second floor (WSP, 2022) - 421 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 44 Photograph 46: Overview of bedroom on second floor (WSP, 2022) Photograph 47: Overview of bedroom on second floor (WSP, 2022) Photograph 48: Overview of bedroom on second floor (WSP, 2022) - 422 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 45 Photograph 49: Overview of bedroom on second floor (WSP, 2022) Photograph 50: Overview of bedroom on second floor (WSP, 2022) - 423 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 46 Photograph 51: Overview of bedroom on second floor (WSP, 2022) Photograph 52: Overview of bedroom on second floor (WSP, 2022) - 424 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 47 Photograph 53: Stone fireplace collar in second floor bedroom (WSP, 2022) BASEMENT The basement is accessed by a simple wood staircase via the centre hall (Photograph 54). It is composed of two rooms, separated by a brick wall. The foundation is constructed of fieldstone which has been painted white. The room on the east side of the house has a dirt floor with has been covered with unmortared bricks. The room on the east side of the house has a poured concrete floor. The machine-cut, cross braced floor joists and subfloor are visible above (Image 83), and one hand-hewn beams is present in the middle of the basement for support. A door opening on the east wall of the basement provides access to the exterior via a storm door (Photographs 55 to 61). - 425 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 48 Photograph 54: Stairs in basement (WSP, 2022) Photograph 55: Detail of door in basement (WSP, 2022) Photograph 56: Overview of basement (WSP, 2022) - 426 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 49 Photograph 57: Overview of basement (WSP, 2022) Photograph 58: Fieldstone construction in basement (WSP, 2022) - 427 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 50 Photograph 59: Detail of hand-hewn beam in basement (WSP, 2022) Photograph 60: Exterior access on east wall of basement (WSP, 2022) Photograph 61: Example of window in basement (WSP, 2022) - 428 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 51 BANK BARN 1 AND SILO 1 EXTERIOR Barn 1 is oriented east to west, with a wooden silo (Silo 1) located west of the barn. The barn retains its original rectangular plan and was built into the natural topography of the lot, which slopes to the south. As such, entrances to the barn are provided on both the north (banked) and south eave-sides, with access to the upper level for crop and implement storage and working space provided on the north elevation, and access to the lower stable area provided via the south and west elevations. The barn is clad in vertical wood boards and features a gambrel roof clad in sheet metal, remnants of red paint are visible on the exterior. Vents are located at both the east and west ends of the roof line as are three evenly spaced lightening rods. The north elevation contains large sliding wood doors roughly in the centre of the elevation (Photograph 62). The foundation on the north façade is capped with cast-in-place concrete. Much of the exterior cladding from the main level of the east elevation has been lost, and with the exception of two windows in the lower level, there are no intentional openings (Photograph s 63 and 64). The granite foundation appears intact on the east elevation. The south elevation of Barn 1 is partially clad in vertical wood board and board and batten, it appears there was at least one opening on the upper level of the barn which is now covered (Photograph 65). The lower level of the barn contains three door openings and one window opening. The western portion of the foundation has been capped in concrete and a portion of the interior wall has been rebuilt using the same material. The centre portion of the foundation also appears to have undergone repair; the exterior foundation is constructed using field stone of varying sizes. The eastern corner of the southern façade is likely the original building material; it consists of finely cut and laid granite blocks (Photograph 66). The west elevation of Barn 1 contains one window and one door in the lower level, there are no other openings on the west façade, including in the upper levels. A portion of the foundation, south of the door opening has collapsed (Photograph 67). The remains of a wooden silo are located immediately west of Barn 1. Silo 1 is an increasingly rare example of its type, constructed of vertical boards, bound with lapped planks (Photograph 68). Grain silos became part of Ontario agriculture about 1880, as silage reduced the incidences of sour hay and therefore bad tasting milk from cattle (McIlwraith, 1997: 187). The earliest silage containers were rectangular, lined bins inside barns. The first tower silos were built with vertical tongue-and-groove staves wrapped in iron hoops or wooden cribs (McIlwraith, 1997: 187). Some silos in the early twentieth century were constructed with cl ay tiles, but silos of poured concrete with steel reinforcing rods was much more common (McIlwraith, 1997: 187). As such, the wood silo on the property was likely constructed between 1880 and 1900. - 429 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 52 Photograph 62: North (banked) façade of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 63: East façade of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) - 430 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 53 Photograph 64: Window with wood frame in basement level of the east elevation (WSP, 2022) Photograph 65: South façade of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) - 431 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 54 Photograph 66: Detail of finely laid granite foundation on south foundation of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 67: Window, door and collapsed wall on the west elevation of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) - 432 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 55 Photograph 68: Remains of Silo 1 (WSP, 2022) BARN 1 INTERIOR The barn interior is divided into two levels; the lower stable level and the threshing floor.2 The lower level of the barn is accessed by three doors on the south elevation as well as one door on the west elevation. The lower level is comprised of animal stalls divided by a series of aisles providing access between the stalls and to doors on the south and west elevations. Portions of the floor in the stable level are covered in buff and red brick pavers. Large hand -hewn timbers and uncut logs support the upper storey (Photographs 69 to 72). The threshing floor of Barn 1 is accessed via an earthen ra mp on the north façade. The threshing floor is open except for a granary at the western end of the barn, which is divided into several rooms for storage (Photographs 73 to 78). 2 Photographs of the threshing floors of Barn 1 and Barn 1 were taken from window, door and wall openings. Portions of the lower levels of Barns 1 and 2 were accessed only where it was deemed safe to do so. - 433 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 56 Photograph 69: Stalls and aisle in lower level of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 70: Stalls and interior wall of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) - 434 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 57 Photograph 71: Interior support wall in lower level of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 72: Brick pavers used as flooring in lower level of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) - 435 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 58 Photograph 73: Threshing floor of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 74: Granary in western end of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) - 436 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 59 Photograph 75: View of interior gambrel roof construction (WSP, 2022) Photograph 76: Detail of treenails used in construction of framing (WSP, 2022) - 437 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 60 Photograph 77: Detail of treenails used in construction of framing (WSP, 2022) Photograph 78: Wide boards on floor of the haymow (WSP, 2022) - 438 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 61 BANK BARN 2 AND SILO 2 Barn 2 is oriented on a north to south axis, with a reinforced concrete silo located north of the barn. The barn retains its original rectangular plan and was built into the natural topography of the lot, which slopes to the south and west. As such, entrances to the barn are provided on both the east (banked) and north eave -sides, with access to the upper level for crop and implement storage and working space provided on the east elevation, and access to the lower stable area provided via the north and west elevations. The northwest, southwest and southeast corners of Barn 2 are supported by large concrete blocks. The barn is clad in vertical wood boards and features a gambrel roof clad in sheet metal. One vent is located at the south end of the roof line as well as three stacks located on the east and west gambrel roof lines. The northern façade of the barn is partially covered by the adjacent silo. There appears to be one door and two windows in the lower level, and one window on the threshing floor (Photograph 79). The foundation on the north façade consist s of large granite blocks of a uniform size (Photograph 80). The east elevation contains large sliding wood doors roughly in the centre of the elevation (Photograph 81). The foundation on the east façade consist s of large granite blocks and fieldstone of varying sizes. The south elevation of Barn 2 is almost entirely covered by thick vegetation, making it challenging to discern the configuration. It does not appear however, that there are any window or door openings on the south elevation (Photograph 82). Much of the exterior cladding from the west elevation of Barn 2 has been lost, however, it appears there is at least one door in the upper level. The lower level of the west façade of Barn 2 is highly altered, and it appears the stone foundation has been removed. At least three door openings and one window are visible on the lower level (Photograph 83). A concrete silo (Silo 2) with a domed top is located immediately north of Barn 2. Access to the silo is via a small opening on the south elevation of the structure and a built -in ladder provides access to the top of the silo. Given the silo is constructed of reinforced concrete, it was likely constructed in the first half of the twentieth century. - 439 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 62 Photograph 79: North elevation of Barn and Silo 2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 80: Window openings and large granite blocks on north façade of Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) - 440 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 63 Photograph 81: West elevation of Barn 2 and Silo 2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 82: South elevation of Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) - 441 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 64 Photograph 83: West elevation of Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) BARN 2 INTERIOR The barn interior is divided into two levels; the lower stable level and the threshing floor. The lower level of the barn is accessed by three doors on the west elevation as well as one door on the nort h elevation. The lower level is comprised of animal stalls divided by a series of aisles providing access between the stalls and to doors on the west and north elevations. Portions of the floor in the stable level are covered in buff and red brick pavers. Large hand-hewn timbers and uncut logs support the upper storey (Photographs 84 to 88). The threshing floor of Barn 2 is accessed via an earthen ramp on the west façade. The threshing floor is open except for a granary at the northern end of the barn, which is divided into several rooms for storage (Photographs 89 to 91). - 442 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 65 Photograph 84: Stalls in lower level of Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 85: Aisles in lower level of Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) - 443 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 66 Photograph 86: Example of hand-hewn beam in Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 87: Detail of hand-hewn support beam (WSP, 2022) - 444 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 67 Photograph 88: Red and buff brick pavers in lower level of Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 89: Threshing floor and granary in Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) - 445 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 68 Photograph 90: Detail of framing system in Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 91: Floorboards of threshing floor in Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) - 446 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 69 LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS The subject property consists of an 18.7-hectare irregular shaped lot with a generally flat topography, while the surrounding lands are actively farmed, the residence is vacant . The built elements of the property include a residence and two large bank barns and two silos, the residence is setback from Highway 7 approximately 30 metres, and the barns have an approximately 120 metre set back. The property is accessed via a straight gravel drive that connects Highway 7 to the cluster of buildings. Mature coniferous and deciduous trees are located on either side of the driveway. The north and eastern sides of the house are surrounded by a manicured grass law, dotted with mature trees and has open views to the surrounding agricultural fields and to Highway 7. A fenced paddock is located south of the house. The drive provides access to the property’s circulation route, which connects the property to the surrounding agricultural fields. A number of mature trees are located around the cluster of buildings and line the boundary of the agricultural fields to the east, south, and west. The lands east, west, and south of the residence and barns are comprised of agricultural fields; Ganatsekiagon Creek is located east of the buildings (Photograph 92 to 95). Photograph 92: Barn and silo 1 (right) and barn and silo 2 (left) (WSP, 2022) - 447 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 70 Photograph 93: View to west from front yard (WSP, 2022) Photograph 94: View from paddock to Barns 1 and 2 (WSP, 2022) - 448 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 71 Photograph 95: Barn yard south of barn 1 and west of barn 2 (WSP, 2022) 5.2 STUDY AREA CONTEXT The subject property is located in an evolving portion of the City that was historically characterized by nineteenth century agricultural farmsteads. Today the subject property is surrounded by agricultural fields proposed for development (Photographs 96 and 97). A nineteenth century farmstead with twentieth century modifications (745 Highway 7) (Photograph 98), is located west of the subject property. The demolition of 745 Highway 7 is proposed as part of this development. While there are no other structures immediately adjacent to the subject property, the lands east of 24 Sideline are also undergoing development as part of the Kubota Canada office and warehouse facility. On-ramps, off-ramps, and the extension of Whites Road associated with Highway 407 have been constructed within the eastern boundary of the subject property (Photograph 99). - 449 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 72 Photograph 96: View to south towards Highway 407 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 97: View to north across Highway 7 (WSP, 2022) - 450 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 73 Photograph 98: Main façade of 745 Highway 7, west of the subject property (WSP, 2022) Photograph 99: View to south of Whites Road (WSP, 2022) - 451 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 74 Photograph 100: John, Elizabeth and John Junior’s grave within the Green River Cemetery (WSP, 2022) - 452 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 75 5.3 ARCHITECTURAL STYLE ONTARIO COTTAGE The property at 815 Highway 7 is a vernacular structure and example of a historic Workers’ Cottage with Neo-Classical influences and Georgian. The term 'cottage' is derived from the Scottish word 'cotter', which was used to describe a person who owned a small shanty or lean-to as a residence, a garden and a plot of land large enough to feed a family (Kyles, 2017). Workers’ Cottages are characterized by a small building oftentimes constructed by the owner of a factory or farm and intended for the living qu arters of individuals or families employed by the business (Kyles, 2017). In towns, factory owners built rows of Worker's Cottages, which were often dedicated as residences for good workers (Kyles, 2017). Cottages for labourers were illustrated in various early British and American books such as Lamond’s A Narrative of the Rise and Progress of Emigration (1821), Loudon’s An Encyclopaedia of Cottage, Farm, and Villa Architecture and Furniture (1839), Allen’s Rural Architecture: Farm Houses, Cottages and Out Buildings (1853), and Tarbuck’s The Builder’s Practical Director or Buildings for All Classes (c. 1856), as single or multiple units and inspired the design of cottages built for workers’ in Ontario throughout the nineteenth century (McKendry, 2016). Examp les of these cottage designs are illustrated in Plate 3. In Ontario, Workers’ Cottages are observed as simple and vernacular frame structures to more elaborately detailed examples built of brick or stone and inspired by the Georgian, Regency and Gothic Rev ival styles. Some of these well-appointed examples are referred to as the Ontario Cottage, notably if they reflect the vernacular design of the Regency Cottage. This style generally includes an ornate doorway with a partial or full verandah surrounding it and the roof can have a dormer, a belvedere, and often two chimneys (Kyles, 2017). - 453 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 76 Plate 3: Simple Workers’ Cottages in nineteenth century architectural pattern books (McKendry, 2016) COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS A comparative analysis was undertaken to establish a baseline unde rstanding of similar recognized rural heritage properties in the City of Pickering, to determine if the subject property “is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, m aterial or construction method” as described in O. Reg. 9/06. Comparative examples were drawn from Part IV designated and listed, non -designated properties within the City of Pickering. Residential dwellings were selected from this data set, with a preference for buildings of similar age, style, typology and material . Two comparable designated properties and four listed properties were identified within the City (see Table 5-1). Given that a large number of stylistically similar structures are not visible from the public right of way, this analysis does not represent all available properties, but the examples are intended to provide a representative sample of similar building typologies. - 454 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 77 Table 5-1: Comparative analysis of heritage properties of a similar age, style and/or typology Address Recognition Photograph Age Material Style 560 Park Crescent (Nesbit-Newman House) Designated (Part IV) (Google Street View©) 1850s Stone Ontario Cottage with Georgian influences; one-and-a-half storey; fieldstone construction; side gable roof with return eaves; symmetrical three-bay façade; eight-over-eight double-hung sash windows; rectangular window opening with jack arches; centrally placed entrance with transom and sidelights; pair of interior end chimneys. 615 Whitevale Road (Henry Major House) Designated (Part IV) (Google Street View©) 1830s Timber frame Ontario Cottage with Georgian Classical influences; one- and-a-half storey; timber frame construction; side gable roof with return eaves; symmetrical five-bay façade; 12- over-eight double-hung sash windows; rectangular window openings; centrally placed entrance with sidelights; rear fieldstone addition. 450 Finch Avenue Listed (PHC, 2020) c. 1850 Stone Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical influences; one-and- a-half storey; fieldstone construction; side gable roof with return eaves; symmetrical three-bay façade; six-over-six double-hung sash windows; rectangular window opening with jack arches; centrally placed entrance with transom and sidelights; pair of interior end chimneys. - 455 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 78 Address Recognition Photograph Age Material Style 3535 Mowbray Street Listed (Google Street View©) 1860 Brick Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical influences; one-and- a-half storey; dichromatic brick construction; side gable roof with return eaves; symmetrical three-bay façade; six- over-six double-hung sash windows; rectangular window opening with radiating brick voussoirs; centrally placed entrance with transom and sidelights; pair of interior end chimneys. 750 Whitevale Road Listed (Laurie Smith Consulting, 2015) Between 1851 and 1861 Stone Ontario Cottage with Georgian influences; one-and-a-half storey; fieldstone construction; side gable roof with return eaves; symmetrical five-bay façade; six-over-six double- hung sash windows; rectangular window opening with jack arches; centrally placed entrance with transom and sidelights; pair of interior end chimneys. 1390 Whitevale Road Listed (Laurie Smith Consulting, 2015a) Between 1832 and 1851 Stone Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical influences; one-and- a-half storey; fieldstone construction; side gable roof with return eaves; symmetrical three-bay façade; six-over-six double-hung sash windows; rectangular window opening with jack arches; centrally placed entrance; single end chimneys. - 456 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 79 Of these examples, the following architectural elements characteristic of the Ontario Cottage style were observed: • Type: All six are residential examples of Ontario Cottages with Georgian or Neo-Classical influences. • Plan: All examples are built to a square or rectangular plan. • Height: Each example is one-and-a-half storeys. • Roof: All examples have side gable roofs with return eaves. • Construction Material: Four examples are stone, one is timber frame, and one dichromatic brick. • Facade: Four of the examples are three-bays wide, two are five-bays wide, all have symmetrical facades. • Chimneys: Four examples have twin brick chimneys; one example has one brick chimney; and one example does not have chimneys. • Main Entrance: All examples have central front doors; four examples have both transoms and sidelights; one example has just sidelights and one example has neither a transom nor sidelights. • Windows: All examples have rectangular window opening s. One example has eight-over- eight wood windows; one example had 12-over-eight wood windows; the remaining four examples have six-over-six double-hung sash windows. • Decorative elements: One example includes decorative dichromatic brick detail. • Alterations: Although it is difficult to confirm when viewed from the public ROW, it appears that two examples have undergone alterations through the addition of front-facing dormers. This comparative analysis suggests that the residence on the subject property at 815 Highway 7 demonstrates representative elements of the Ontario Cottage style including the: one-and-a-half storey height; dichromatic brick construction; rectangular plan and symmetrical three-bay façade; side gable roof with return eaves; paired chimneys; entrance details; and multipaned windows. Constructed c. 1853, the structure is one of two examples of a brick Ontario Cottage in the City of Pickering, making the Percy House one of the earliest structures in the area retaining its original exterior form. As such, when comparing the expression of the style at 815 Highway 7 to other local examples, it is unique in its dichromatic brickwork, wide door surround, heavily mortared granite foundation, and fine detailing and craftsmanship. It is acknowledged that the small number of examples reviewed means that this comparative analysis could be misleading. It was also challenging to fully assess the architectural details of each structure from the public ROW. As such, the cultural heritage evaluations included in Section 7 have not only considered the results of this comparative analysis, but typical architectural trends across Ontario. - 457 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 80 CENTRAL ONTARIO BARN The barns at 815 Highway 7 are representative examples of the Central Ontario style, a common barn design in southern Ontario dating to the last quarter of the nineteenth century (Ennals, 1972). The construction date of the barn is thought to date to roughly the same time period of the house, between 1861-1881, which is consistent with the building style and development history of the property. The Central Ontario barn is distinguished by its large size, usually 40-50 feet in width and 60-100 feet in length built to a rectangular plan, and is most often constructed of wood on a stone foundation with a gable or gambrel roof (Ennals, 1972). The two roof styles associated with the Central Ontario barn are indicative of the period of construction. Gable roofs were used up to about 1880, after which gambrel roofs were introduced. The barn on the subject property features a gambrel roof, which supports its estimated construction date prior to 1881 (Ennals, 1972). The gambrel roof was a design element adopted from Dutch style barns for functional reasons as it significantly increased the storage capacity of the loft. This was an important development as farmers began to practice mixed farming after 1880 and needed to store more feed to maintain their growing herds of livestock. The Central Ontario barn style is two storeys with a lower stable area and an upper level for crop and implement storage and working space. Access to the ground floor is provided by doorways leading to the farmyard and entry to the upper level is by means of an earth ramp leading to a large door in the eave-side (long side) (Ennals, 1972). The large double door and height of the second floor allowed wagons and machinery to be brought in for unloading and repair. This type of barn is known as a bank barn in southern Ontario. As is the case with the subject property, the barn is often set into a slope so that the upper level can be entered directly from the top of the slope. Typical of the Central Ontario barn, the second level is often constructed of heavy timber frames or “bents” and includes a drive -floor, which would serve as a work space and tool and machine storage; a granary (a room or series of rooms facing onto a passageway set at right angles to the drive floor); and an area for hay, straw, grain and crop storage (Ennals, 1972). The lower level would serve as a stable arranged to accommodate stalls for horses and livestock and may include space for root crop storage. The animals and water supply on the ground floor were protected in the winter by the hay insulation on the second floor, which preserved the animal’s body heat. Silos began to appear on Ontario farms in the 1870s to provide better storage for the grains and corn needed to feed the livestock (Kyles, 2016). First these silos were constructed of concrete block, then poured concrete, and later metal, which provided a more efficient curing environment (Kyles, 2016). COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS – BANK BARNS AT 815 HIGHWAY 7 A comparative analysis was undertaken to establish a baseline understanding of similar recognized mid-to -late nineteenth century Central Ontario style barns in the City of Pickering to determine if the barns at 815 Highway 7 “is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method” as described in O. Reg. 9/06. - 458 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 81 Upon a review of the City’s Heritage Properties Register, only one comparative example of a Part IV designated property containing a Central Ontario barn was identified in the municipality, making it challenging to compare contextually appropriate properties with recognized CHVI. Given the lack of Part IV designated barns within the City of Pickering, this O. Reg. 9/06 evaluation has also considered barn trends across Southern Ontario, rather than only locally within the City of Pickering (see Table 5-2). This approach was taken because the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register does not include any Part IV designated Central Ontario bank barns. Moreover, while some barns would inevitably be included on non -designated properties included on the Register, these were not readily identified, nor would a review of ba rns (which are often well set back) from the public right-of-way provide a reliable comparative analysis, making it challenging to compare contextually appropriate properties with recognized CHVI. This analysis does not represent all available properties, rather the examples are intended to provide a representative sample of similar building typologies - 459 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 82 Table 5-2: Comparative analysis of barns of a similar age, style and/or typology Address Recognition Photograph Age Material Style 1860 Seventh Concession Road (Thistle Ha’ Farm) Designated Part IV of the OHA (By-Law 2140/86), National Historic Site, protected by a heritage conservation easement agreement with the OHT No photo available Stone foundation, timber frame, clad in board and batten Mid-nineteenth century bank barn; rectangular plan; two storeys; gambrel roof; wood-frame construction with board; sheathing metal roof; fieldstone foundation; surviving evidence of a silo, component of an agricultural landscape. 13831, Leslie Street, Aurora, Ontario Part IV Designated (By- law 4729-05) c. 1840 Stone foundation, timber frame, clad in board and batten Mid-nineteenth century bank barn; rectangular plan; two storeys; gable roof; clad in board and batten; stone foundation. 748 Zeller Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Part IV Designated (By- law 98-177) c. 1870 Stone foundation, timber frame, clad in board and batten Late-nineteenth century bank barn; rectangular plan; two storeys; gable roof; clad in board and batten; stone foundation. 536 County Road 18, Fergus, Ontario National Historic Site of Canada No photo available 1877 Stone foundation, timber frame, clad in board and batten. Late-nineteenth century bank barn; rectangular plan; two storeys; gable roof; clad in board and batten; stone foundation; earthen ramp leading to sliding doors. - 460 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 83 Of these three examples, all are expressions of Central Ontario barns built in the mid -to-late nineteenth century. The following architectural elements characteristic of Central Ontario barns in the City of Pickering were observed: • Style: All three examples are bank barns with two levels, each accessed from ground -level. Two of the barns appear characteristically large. • Plan: The original portion of each example appears to have been built to a rectangular plan. • Roof: Three examples has a gable roof, one has a gambrel roof. All feature roofs clad in sheet metal. • Cladding: All three examples are clad in wood barn board, and one appear to have been painted. • Fieldstone Foundations: Each example has a fieldstone foundation. • Silos: One example includes a silo on the property. • Landscape: All examples appear to be a component of an agricultural landscape. • Alterations: Although it is difficult to confirm when viewed from the public ROW, it appears that all examples have undergone alterations through large and small additions, likely reflective of the evolving use of the structures for agricultural purposes through the decades. This comparative analysis suggests that the barn s at 815 Highway 7 are a representative expression of the Central Ontario barn style. In assessing the architectural elements of the subject property reflective of the style, those observed include: the banked access and two storey height; original rectangular plan; wood barn board cladding; the gambrel roof clad in sheet metal; granite and fieldstone foundations; and the silos. Silo 1 is an increasingly rare example of its type, constructed of vertical boards, bound with lapped planks. Grain silos became part of Ontario agriculture about 1880, as silage reduced the incidences of sour hay and therefore bad tasting milk from cattle (McIlwraith, 1997: 187). The earliest silage containers were rectangular, lined bins inside barns. The first tower silos were built with vertical tongue -and-groove staves wrapped in iron hoops or wooden cribs (McIlwraith, 1997: 187). Some silos in the early twen tieth century were constructed with clay tiles, but silos of poured concrete with steel reinforcing rods was much more common (McIlwraith, 1997: 187). As such, the wood silo on the property was likely constructed between 1880 and 1900. It is acknowledged that the small number of examples reviewed means that this comparative analysis could be misleading. It was also challenging to fully assess the architectural details of each comparative structure from the public ROW. As such, the cultural heritage evaluations included in Section 7 have not only considered the results of this comparative analysis, but typical architectural trends across Ontario. - 461 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 84 6 CONSULTATION 6.1 CITY OF PICKERING The City of Pickering’s Senior Planner – Heritage was contacted via email on April 7, 2022, to inquire about heritage interests related to the subject property at 815 Highway 7 and to confirm the scope of this HIA. A response was received the same day confirming that the scope of the HIA should reflect the City’s Terms of Reference: Heritage Impact Assessments (2022). The City’s Senior Planner – Heritage also confirmed the following: • 815 Highway 7 is a listed, non-designated property on the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register; and • At present, the City has no intention to designate the property and a municipal heritage easement agreement does not exist for the property. For information, on April 7, 2022, the Senior Planner – Heritage shared a Planning and Development Committee staff report dated March 17, 2008, that went to Council recommending 815 Highway 7 be added to the City’s Heritage Register. The Seaton Built Heritage Assessment: Prepared for the North Pickering Land Exchange Team, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Planning and Development Division (Scheinman, 2004) was also provided. The City of Pickering Official Plan was reviewed and it was confirmed that 815 Highway 7 is not located within an identified Cultural Heritage Landscape. 6.2 FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL REVIEW The MHSTCI’s list of Heritage Conservation Districts was reviewed, and the study area was not found to be located within a designated district (MHSTCI, 2019). The Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) plaque database was searched, as was the Federal Canadian Heritage Database. The subject property is not commemorated with an OHT plaque nor recognized with a federal heritage designation. It also does not appear that 815 Highway 7 is subject to an OHT conservation easement. - 462 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 85 7 DISCUSSION OF INTEGRITY In a heritage conservation context, the concept of integrity is linked not with structural condition, but rather to the literal definition of “wholeness” or “honesty” of a place. The MHSTCI Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process (2014:13) and Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Property Evaluation (2006:26) both stress the importance of assessing the heritage integrity in conjunction with evaluation under O. Reg. 9/06 yet provide no guidelines for how this should be carried out beyond referencing the US National Park Service Bulletin 8: How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property (US NPS n.d.). In this latter document, integrity is defined as ‘the ability of a property to convey its significance’, so can only be judged once the significance of a place is known. Other guidance suggests that integrity instead be measured by understanding how much of the asset is “complete” or changed from its original or “valued subsequent configuration” (English Heritage 2008:45; Kalman 2014:203). Kalman’s Evaluation of Historic Buildings, for example, includes a category for “Integrity” with sub -elements of “Site”, “Alterations”, and “Condition” to be determined and weighted independently from other criteria such as historical value, rather than linking them to the known significance of a place. Kalman’s approach is selected here and combined with research commissioned by Historic England (The Conservation Studio 2004), which proposed a method for determining levels of change in conservation areas that also has utility for evaluating the integrity of individual structures. The results for the property are presented in Table 7-1, and are considered when determining the CHVI of the property (see Section 8.0). - 463 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 86 Table 7-1: Heritage Integrity Analysis for the Property Element Original Material / Type Alteration Survival (%) Rating Comment Setting Rural with two lane (one in each direction) roads and farmhouses, outbuilding complexes, and agricultural lands on larger lots Highway 407, constructed south of the residence, has bisected lot 28, Concession V in an east to west direction. The extension of Whites Road is located east of the property. Several warehouse buildings are under construction east of the subject property. 75% Good Despite the current development of warehouse facilities east of the subject property, the presence Highway 407, and Whites Road, of the subject property maintains the rural character of the surrounding area, including active agricultural fields and stands of mature trees. Site location Set back and facing the nearest road Farmhouse: no alterations Barn 1: no alterations Barn 1: no alterations 100% Very good No additional comments Footprint Farmhouse: rectangular Barn 1: rectangular Barn 2: rectangular Farmhouse: south addition Barn 1: no change Barn 2: no change 100% Very good The rear wing on the farmhouse appears to be original to the farmhouse. The south additions to the farmhouse do obscure part of the south façade but have not impacted the front façade. Wall Farmhouse: brick load bearing Barn 1: timber frame construction Barn 2: timber frame construction Farmhouse: no change Barn 1: no change Barn 2: no change 100% Very good No additional comments Foundation Farmhouse: granite Barn 1: granite Barn 2: granite Farmhouse: some minor repairs around window using red brick Barn 1: repairs to the foundation using concrete and fieldstone 90% Very good Note that this rating refers to heritage integrity, not structural integrity - 464 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 87 Element Original Material / Type Alteration Survival (%) Rating Comment Barn 2: repairs to the foundation using concrete Exterior doors Farmhouse: panelled wood Barn 1: vertical board Barn 2: vertical board Farmhouse: two out of the three doors are replacements Barn 1: some vertical boards may have been replaced Barn 2: some vertical boards may have been replaced 40% Poor No additional comments Windows Farmhouse: wood Barn 1: wood Barn 2: wood Farmhouse: appears to retain all of the original wood windows and most of the wood storm windows Barn 1: retains all of the original wood windows, the glass however, is broken in some Barn 1: retains all of the original wood windows, the glass however, is broken in some 95% Very good No additional comments Roof Farmhouse: possibly wood shingle Barn 1: possibly wood shingle Barn 2: possibly wood shingle Farmhouse: original replaced in asphalt shingle Barn 1: reclad in metal Barn 2: reclad in metal 0% Poor No additional comments Chimneys Farmhouse: two interior chimneys Barn 1: n/a Barn 2: n/a Farmhouse: chimneys may require some repointing 90% Very good No additional comments Water systems Farmhouse: unknown, possibly copper Barn 1: unknown Barn 2: unknown Farmhouse: all water systems replaced Barn 1: unknown Barn 2: unknown 20% Poor No additional comments - 465 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 88 Element Original Material / Type Alteration Survival (%) Rating Comment Exterior decoration Farmhouse: dichromatic brickwork (quoins, decorative brickwork , window trim; red- brick Flemish bond on all sides Barn 1: vertical board Barn 2: vertical board Farmhouse: no changes Barn 1: no changes Barn 2: no changes 100% Very good No additional comments Exterior additions Farmhouse: no known additions Barn 1: no known additions Barn 2: no known additions Farmhouse: south addition Large barn: addition in severe state of disrepair, but likely no original to the barn 70% Very good The rear wing on the farmhouse appears to be original to the farmhouse. Interior plan Farmhouse: centre hall plan Barn 1: open and granary Barn 2: open and granary Farmhouse: no change Barn 1: no changes Barn 2: no changes 100% Very good No additional comment s Interior walls and floors Farmhouse: Lathe-and-plaster walls and pine flooring Barn 1: n/a Barn 2: n/a Farmhouse: no changes Barn 1: n/a Barn 2: n/a 100% Very good No additional comments Interior trim Farmhouse: tall baseboard with decorative moulding around openings Barn 1: n/a Barn 2: n/a Farmhouse: no changes Barn 1: n/a Barn 2: n/a 100% Very good No additional comment - 466 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 89 Element Original Material / Type Alteration Survival (%) Rating Comment Interior features (e.g., stairs, doors) Farmhouse: wood stairs, doors, fireplace, wainscotting, corner cupboard Farmhouse: no changes to wood stairs and doors, wood floors have been painted in some areas, corner cupboard and fireplace intact 90% Very good No additional comments Landscape features Domestic yard and farmyard features such as gardens and fencing and surrounding fields No significant alterations to domestic yard, or farmyard features and fields. 100% Very Good The property’s landscape features have not been significantly altered through the 21st century AVERAGE OF RATE OF CHANGE/HERITAGE INTEGRITY 80.58% Very Good Rating of Very Good is based on original element survival rate of between 76 to 100% - 467 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 90 8 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION 8.1 EVALUATION USING ONTARIO REGULATION 9/06 The principal built heritage resources on the subject property at 815 Highway 7 are a one-and-a- half storey Ontario Cottage and two bank barns. The property is a listed, non-designated property on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register. O. Reg. 9/06 of the OHA provides criteria for determining whether a property has CHVI. If a property meets one or more of the criteria in O. Reg. 9/06, it is eligible for designation under the OHA. Table 8-1 presents the evaluation of the subject property using O. Reg. 9/06. Table 8-1: Evaluation of 815 Highway 7 as per O. Reg. 9/06 O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria Criteria Met (Y/N) Justification 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 As demonstrated in Section 5.3.2, the residence at 815 Highway 7 reflects representative elements of the Ontario Cottage architectural style. This is a common architectural expression in the City of Pickering, however the Percy House has an early and increasingly rare example of dichromatic brickwork. The patterned stringcourse below the roof line is an early example of a style that would come to characterize the region. As discussed in Section 5.3.4, the Central Ontario bank barns on the subject property are a representative expression of a Central Ontario barn and are now considered rare with only one Part IV designated barn in the City of Pickering. Barns 1 and 2 appear to maintain their integrity through the retention of much of the original construction materials and application of historic building methods. Similarly the wood silo at 815 Highway 7 is also a rare expression of nineteenth century silo construction using wooden tongue-and-groove staves wrapped in wooden cribs. - 468 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 91 O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria Criteria Met (Y/N) Justification ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or Y The construction of the brick residence on the subject property displays a high degree of craftsmanship. The brickwork on the north façade is an early and increasingly rare example of dichromatic brickwork and displays a high degree of craftsmanship. This craftmanship is evident in the patterned stringcourse below the moulded cornice, buff brick quoins and voussoirs and the fine use of the Flemish bond on the north façade. The central Ontario barns displays mortise and tenon construction that is typical of the nineteenth century, but this is not considered to display a high degree of craftmanship or artistic merit. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. N The property does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. The structures display construction techniques reflective of the era and style. 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 As 815 Highway 7 has functioned as a farm for at least 169 years, it is directly associated with the agricultural development of the former Ontario Township and City of Pickering. This theme is significant as it contributed to the community’s early economy and continues to be practiced today. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or N The results of research did not indicate that 815 Highway 7 yields information that could contribute to the understanding of a community or culture. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. N The architect and builder of the building at 815 Highway 7 is unknown. 3. The property has contextual value because it, - 469 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 92 O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria Criteria Met (Y/N) Justification i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, Y As the property retains 46 acres of the original 50- acre lot and continues to be actively used for agriculture, 815 Highway 7 is important in maintaining the historical agricultural character of the area. ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or Y 815 Highway 7 is associated with the early settlement of the area and is important in maintaining and supporting the rural 19th century landscape along the Highway 7 Road corridor. iii. is a landmark. N No significant views to the property distinguish the building as a notable or distinct property. It does not serve as a local landmark in the community. 8.2 ONTARIO REGULATION 10/06 Ontario Regulation 10/06 establishes the Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of Provincial Significance. This regulation was created in 2006 to be utilised to identify properties of provincial heritage significance under the OHA. All provincially owned properties with potential cultural heritage value or interest must be evaluated using O. Reg. 10/06 to determine provincial significance, if any. Table 8-2 presents the evaluation of the subject property using O. Reg. 9/06. Table 8-2: Evaluation of 815 Highway 7 as per O. Reg. 10/06 O. Reg. 10/06 Criteria Criteria Met (Y/N) Justification 1. The property represents or demonstrates a theme or pattern in Ontario’s history. N While the subject property is associated with the early settlement of the former Ontario County and specifically the area of Green River, it demonstrates this theme at the local / regional level rather than provincial. For this reason, the property does not meet this criterion. - 470 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 93 2. The property yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of Ontario’s history. N While the property reflects the early settlement and agricultural development, other properties – most notably Thistle Ha’ Farm (1860 Seventh Concession Road, Pickering), which is a National Historic Site of Canada – better illustrates the role of agriculture in Ontario’s history. The property does not have the potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of Ontario’s history. 3. The property demonstrates an uncommon, rare or unique aspect of Ontario’s cultural heritage. N While the property is an early example of an Ontario Cottage with dichromatic brickwork within Ontario County, there are many of this type of house found throughout the province; it does not demonstrate an uncommon, rare, or unique aspect of Ontario’s cultural heritage. 4. The property is of aesthetic, visual or contextual importance to the province. N The property’s visual and contextual importance is of a local nature; the property’s associations and contextual significance relate to its connections and role within the settlement of the former Ontario Township, as opposed to within the province. For this reason, the property does not meet this criterion. 5. The property demonstrates a high degree of excellence or creative, technical or scientific achievement at a provincial level in a given period. N While the property holds physical value at a local level, it was not found to exhibit a high degree of excellence or creative, technical, or scientific achievement. 6. The property has a strong or special association with the entire province or with a community that is found in more than one part of the province. The association exists for historic, social, or cultural reasons or because of traditional use. N The residence and barns were built by John Percy c. 1853, a farmer from England. The subject property does not demonstrate a strong or special association with the province as a whole, nor with a community that is significant within the Province of On tario. Therefore, the property does not meet this criterion. - 471 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 94 7. The property has a strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organization of importance to the province or with an event of importance to the province. N The residence and barns were built in c. 1853 by John Percy during the early settlement of Ontario County. The subject property does not have a strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organization of importance to the province or with an event of importance to the province. Therefore, the building does not meet this criterion. 8. The property is located in unorganized territory and the Minister determines that there is a provincial interest in the protection of the property. O. Reg. 10/06, s. 1 (2). N The property is not located within an unorganized territory. Therefore, the subject property does not meet this criterion. 8.3 RESULTS OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION Based on the evaluation of the property at 815 Highway 7, the following results related to the property’s CHVI were identified: • The evaluation using the criteria of O. Reg. 9/06 determined that the subject property does possess CHVI for its design/physical value, associative value and contextual value at a local level; • The evaluation using the criteria of O. Reg. 10/06 determined that the subject property did not meet any of the criteria and . • Therefore, the subject property has been identified as a Provincial Heritage Property. 8.4 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST As the subject property at 815 Highway 7 was found to possess CHVI, the following Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes was prepared . DESCRIPTION OF HISTORIC PLACE 815 Highway 7 is an 18.7-hectare irregular shaped agricultural property situated on the south side of Highway 7, west of Whites Road in the north portion of the City of Pickering. The key - 472 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 95 resources are a one-and-a-half storey Ontario Cottage constructed of brick c. 1853 as well as two, two-storey Central Ontario bank barns and two silos. The property is listed on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register. HERITAGE VALUE The mid-nineteenth century farmstead at 815 Highway 7 possesses design or physical value for the unique, representative and rare built heritage resources displaying a high degree of craftsmanship located on the property. The one -and-a-half storey brick residence constructed c. 1853 demonstrates representative elements of an Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical and Georgian influences including the rectangular plan and symmetrical three-bay façade, side gable roof, entrance details including a wood surround with transom and sidelights, and multipaned windows. The residence reflects a unique vernacular interpretation of the style, characterized by its elaborate dichromatic brickwork, including the decorative stringcourse, quoins and jack arches. The large bank barns are representative expressions of a Central Ontario barn, a common design in Southern Ontario dating to the last quarter of the nineteenth century. The gambrel roof style is indicative of its period of construction, becoming commonly used by 1880 following a transition from gable roofs. The barns maintains their integrity through the retention of much of the original construction materials and application of historic building methods. The barns include many of the features typical of the style, including the banked access and two storey height, original rectangul ar plan, wood barn board cladding, and the gambrel roof clad in sheet metal. The intact concrete block silo and remains of the wood silo also contribute to the design and physical value of the property. Through its function as a farm for at least 169 years, 815 Highway 7 it is directly associated with the agricultural development of the former Ontario Township and City of Pickering. This theme is significant as it historically contributed to the community’s early economic growth and continues to be practiced today. As the property retains 46 acres of the original 50 -acre lot and continues to be actively used for agriculture, 815 Highway 7 is important in maintaining the historical agricultural character of the surrounding area. The property is functionally and historically linked to its surroundings as indicated by the presence and placement of the Percy House, Central Ontario bank barns, the associated circulation patterns including the surrounding agricultural fields that continue to reflect the function of the historic nineteenth century farmstead. LIST OF HERITAGE ATTRIBUTES The heritage attributes that contribute to the cultural heritage value or interest of 815 Highway 7 include: Residence Exterior • One-and-a-half storey massing built to a rectangular plan; - 473 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 96 • Red brick construction using the Flemish bond, dichromatic brickwork including quoins and decorative brickwork under the moulded cornice; • Granite and fieldstone foundation; • Symmetrical three-bay façade and symmetrical two-bay side elevations; • Side gable roof with return eaves (on west façade only) and extant moulded cornice; • Paired interior end chimneys; • Centrally placed entrance with side lights, transom and wood surround with classical detailing; • Rectangular window openings with six-over-six double-hung sash windows, radiating brick voussoirs and wood sills; • Brick, one-storey, gable roof addition built to a rectangular plan projecting from the south elevation; built using the Common bond; • Verandah with a flared roof and exposed curved rafters; and • Its orientation toward Highway 7. Residence Interior • Extant original layout; • Fire place mantle; • Floor boards; • Tall baseboards; • Window and door surrounds; • Wainscotting and beaded ceiling ; • Balustrade and knob capped newel post ; • Stone fireplace collar embedded in second floor bedroom (southwest room); and • Built in corner cupboard in the parlour. Bank Barn 1 • Two-storey massing built to a rectangular plan; • Heavy square timber post and beam framing ; • North eave-side upper level entrance built into banked slope; • Vertical wood board cladding; • Gambrel roof clad in sheet metal with vents and lightening rods; • Extant paver flooring of buff and red brick; • Remains of wood silo adjacent to bank barn. - 474 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 97 Bank Barn 2 • Two-storey massing built to a rectangular plan; • Heavy square timber post and beam framing ; • East eave-side upper level entrance built into banked slope; • Vertical wood board cladding; • Gambrel roof clad in sheet metal; • Extant paver flooring of buff and red brick; • Concrete block silo with a metal domed top located adjacent to bank barn. Landscape • Drive leading from Highway 7 to the collection of nineteenth century structures on the property; • The relationship of the traditional farmstead to its surrounding agricultural tradition; and • Intact circulation routes and building arrangement setback from Highway 7. - 475 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 98 9 PROPOSED UNDERTAKING AND IMPACTS 9.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED UNDERTAKING DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT The proposed development concept for the project location consists of five food manufacturing buildings on the lot, to be built in two phases with Buildings 1, 2, and 3 constructed first, followed by Buildings 4 and 5. The lot is currently zoned Rural Agricultural, however, it is designated Prestige Employment and Seaton Natural Heritage System in the Pickering Official Plan. The total site area for the proposed developme nt is 23.8 hectares with frontage on Highway 7 and Whites Road. The building footprints are approximately 21,471 (Building 1), 23,378 m 2 (Building 2), 21,471 m2 (Building 3), 21,471 m 2 (Building 4), and 9,858 m2 (Building 5). The site will contain approximately 87 truck loading bays, 690 parking stalls and 120 spaces for trailer parking. Vehicular access is proposed via signalized access point from Highway 7 with proposed municipal roads providing access to the proposed development. 9.2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS When determining the effects a development or site alteration may have on known or identified built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes, the MHSTCI Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process advises that the following “negative impacts” be considered: • Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes, or features3 • Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance4 • Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden5 • Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship6 3 This is used as an example of a direct impact in the MHSCTI Info Bulletin 3. 4 A direct impact in the MHSCTI Info Bulletin 3. 5 An indirect impact in the MHSCTI Info Bulletin 3. 6 An indirect impact in the MHSCTI Info Bulletin 3. - 476 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 99 • Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features7 • A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces 8 • Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect a cultural heritage resource9 Other potential impacts may also be considered such as encroachment or construction vibration (Plate 4). Historic structures, particularly tho se built in masonry, are susceptible to damage from vibration caused by pavement breakers, plate compactors, utility excavations, and increased heavy vehicle travel in the immediate vicinity. Like any structure, they are also threatened by collisions with heavy machinery, subsidence from utility line failures, or excessive dust (Randl 2001:3 -6). Plate 4: Examples of negative impacts Although the MHSTCI Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process identifies types of impact, it does not advise on how to describe its nature or extent. For this the MHSTCI Guideline 7 An example of a direct and indirect impact in the MHSCTI Info Bulletin 3. It is a direct impact when significant views or vistas within, from or of built and natural features are obstructed, and an indirect impact when “a significant view of or from the property from a key vantage point is obstructed”. 8 A direct impact in the MHSCTI Info Bulletin 3. 9 In the MHSTCI Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process this refers only to archaeological resources but in the MHSCTI Info Bulletin 3 this is an example of a direct impact to “provincial heritage property, including archaeological resources”. - 477 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 100 for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments (1990:8) provides criteria of: • Magnitude - amount of physical alteration or destruction that can be expected • Severity - the irreversibility or reversibility of an impact • Duration - the length of time an adverse impact persists • Frequency - the number of times an impact can be expected • Range - the spatial distribution, widespread or site specific, of an adverse impact • Diversity - the number of different kinds of activities to affect a heritage resource Since advice to describe magnitude is not included in the MHSTCI Guideline or any other Canadian guidance, the ranking provided in the ICOMOS Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties (ICOMOS 2011: Appendix 3B) is adapted here. While developed specifically for World Heritage Sites, it is based on a general methodol ogy for measuring the nature and extent of impact to cultural resources in urban and rural contexts developed for the UK Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges [DMRB]: Volume 11, HA 208/07 (2007: A6/11) (Bond & Worthing 2016:166 -167) and aligns with approaches developed by other national agencies such as the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (reproduced in Kalman & Létourneau 2020:390) and New Zealand Transport Agency (2015). The grading of impact is based on the “Guide to Assessing Magnitude of Impact” summarized in Table 9-1 below. Table 9-1: Impact Grading Impact Grading Description Major Change to heritage attributes that contribute to the CHVI such that the resource is totally altered. Comprehensive changes to the setting. Moderate Change to many heritage attributes, such that the resource is significantly modified. Changes to the setting of a heritage property, such that it is significantly modified. Minor Change to heritage attributes, such that the asset is slightly different. Change to the setting of a heritage property, such that it is noticeably changed. Negligible/Potential Slight changes to heritage attributes or the setting that hardly affects it. None No change to heritage attributes or setting. An assessment of potential impacts resulting from the proposed development on the property’s CHVI and heritage attributes is presented in Table 9-2. - 478 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 101 9.3 EVALUATION OF IMPACTS Table 9-2: Evaluation of Impacts to Subject Property at 815 Highway 7 POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACT SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACT WITHOUT MITIGATION SUMMARY OF IMPACT WITH MITIGATION Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes, or features As currently proposed, the development includes removal of the two barns and associated silos as well as all landscape features associated with the former farm use. Without mitigation this will result in destruction of heritage attributes, a direct and major impact that is irreversible, site-specific, and will occur once over a short period of time. With mitigation, the impact on the CHVI and heritage attributes of the evolved nineteenth century farm cultural heritage landscape, the farmhouse and the bank barn could be minimized. Major impact from demolition of most of the structures on the subject property and destruction of all the landscape heritage attributes and will occur once over a short period of time. By implementing the mitigation measures recommended in Section 10.1 the potential direct impact from destruction of the two barns and associated silos will be reduced to a moderate to major, irreversible, and site- specific impact that will occur once over a short period of time. Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance As currently proposed the development will include demolition of the two barns and associated silos (discussed above) and will include significant alteration to the agricultural landscape. The introduction of a modern manufacturing facility will result significantly alter the context of the remaining farmhouse. Without mitigation this will result in major impact that is irreversible, site specific, and will occur once over a short period of time. With minimized, Major impact from alteration of the farm landscape that will be irreversible and will occur once over a short period of time. By implementing the mitigation measures recommended in Section 10.1, the potential direct impact from alteration of the agricultural landscape will be reduced to a moderate to major, irreversible, and site- specific impact that will occur once over a short period of time. - 479 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 102 POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACT SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACT WITHOUT MITIGATION SUMMARY OF IMPACT WITH MITIGATION the impact of the alteration could be minimized. Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden As currently proposed, the farmhouse will remain on a reduced sized lot in the proposed development. No shadow impacts are anticipated given the farmhouse will be surrounded by single detached and townhouse dwellings. No shadow impact. No mitigation required. Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship The proposed development will isolate the farmhouse from its current context and sever its relationship with the barns and silos. Without mitigation this will result in a direct, major impact that is irreversible, site-specific, and will occur once over a short period of time. With mitigation, the isolation impacts can be mitigated. Major, direct, irreversible, site specific impact that will occur once over a short period of time. By implementing the mitigation measures recommended in Section 10.1 the potential direct impact from alteration of the agricultural landscape will be reduced to a minor impact. Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features As views to the subject property have not been identified as heritage attributes of 815 Highway 7. No impact No mitigation required. A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, The subject property is Rural Agricultural and designated Prestige Employment and Seaton Natural Heritage System in the Pickering Official Plan. The current permitted uses are Major, irreversible impact as the change in land use and zoning will result in removal of most of the structures By implementing the mitigation measures recommended in Section 10.1, the potential direct impact from change - 480 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 103 POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACT SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACT WITHOUT MITIGATION SUMMARY OF IMPACT WITH MITIGATION allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces agricultural uses and a single detached dwelling. The proposed use will result in a change in land use which will impact the property’s heritage attributes including the open space in fron t of the farmhouse, the driveway, and agricultural fields. Without mitigation measures, the change in land use will result in direct, major, irreversible, site specific impact that will persist over a long period of time. and landscape features on the property. in land use will be reduced to a minor, irreversible, and site- specific impact that will persist over a long period of time. Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that may affect a cultural heritage resource. The proposed development will relocate the farmhouse on site and grading will be designed appropriately so that drainage patterns will not negatively impact the farmhouse. No impact. No mitigation required. 9.4 RESULTS OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT The preceding impact assessment has determined that without conservation or mitigation measures, the proposed development will result in major impacts to the identified heritage attributes of the subject property. An options analysis of potential alternatives, mitigation and conservation options is provided in Section 10. - 481 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 104 10 ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION OPTIONS As the property was evaluated to have CHVI and will be impacted by the proposed development, WSP has identified four possible options to reduce or avoid the negative effects. These are informed by the objectives included in the City of Pickering Official Plan and are: 1) “Do Nothing”: Preserve and maintain the Percy House, Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2 and all landscape heritage attributes in situ with no further development of the property. 2) Preserve and maintain the Percy House, barns and silos in situ with adaptive reuse of these structures and development of manufacturing campus around these structures on the property. 3) Relocate the Percy House within the site to a more convenient location with an adaptive reuse, dismantle and salvage heritage attributes from Barns 1 and 2 and Silo s 1 and 2 and develop the manufacturing campus on the property . 4) Remove the Percy House, Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2, salvaging heritage attributes from the structures and develop the manufacturing campus on the pro perty. The advantages and disadvantages of each option are presented in the following subsections, then analysed for feasibility. It is only after an option is determined to be not feasible that the next preferred approach is considered. 10.1 ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION OPTIONS ANALYSIS Table 10-1 weighs the available options and provides mitigation and conservation measures to ensure heritage resources are conserved. - 482 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 105 Table 10-1: Alternatives, Mitigation and Conservation Options OPTIONS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES MITIGATION/ CONSERVATION NOTES 1) “Do nothing”: preserve and maintain the Percy House, Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2 and all landscape heritage attributes in situ with no further development of the property. This option would maintain the general heritage principle that prefers minimal intervention to a heritage resource. It would ensure that the subject property retains all identified heritage attributes. This option is consistent with the Official Plan policy Section 8.2 (c) that states: prevent the demolition, destruction or inappropriate alteration of important cultural heritage resources to the extent possible , and Section 8.2 (d) that states: where possible, restore, rehabilitate, maintain and enhance important cultural heritage resources owned by the City, and encourage the same for those owned by others. Additionally Section 8.9 (a) that encourages retention of cultural heritage resources in their original location. This option is also keeping with the MHSTCI’s Eight Guiding Principles for the Conservation of Historic Places that identify a building should not be removed unless there is no other means to save it and that alterations to a cultural heritage resource should be reversible. Preservation is not a “do nothing” approach: to ensure the buildings do not suffer from rapid deterioratio n, repairs must be carried out and a systematic monitoring and repair program will be required for all exteriors and interiors. As identified in the MHSTCI Eight Guiding Principles (2007), maintenance is required to avoid costly conservation projects in the future. A Heritage Conservation Plan is a document that identifies how cultural heritage resources should be conserved. It should detail the conservation methods, required action s and trades for the conservation methods and an implementation schedule to conserve the landscape’s heritage attributes in the short -, medium-, and long-term. Heritage Conservation Plans are typically completed by structural engineers or architects with experience rehabilitating historic structures. 2) Preserve and maintain the Percy House, barns and silos in situ with adaptive reuse of these structures and development of manufacturing campus around these structures on the property. Although this option would involve a major intervention to the agricultural character of the subject property, it would result in maintenance of the heritage attributes belonging to the residence and barns. Section 8.9 (b) of the Pickering Official Plan requires consideration of adaptive reuse opportunities prior to considering relocation of a resource. While this option would retain the Percy House and barns, it would include removal of all the landscape heritage attributes and alter the agricultural character of the historic landscape and surrounding area. Preservation would require ongoing repair and maintenance to ensure the conservation of the Percy House and barns heritage attributes. The lack of active use will result in continued detrimental physical impacts to the dwelling and barn. Occupation for the dwelling is imperative. To stabilize and conserve the Percy House, barns and silos in their current location before construction of the surrounding development begins and during construction a Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) should be completed. There is often a lengthy period between the formal submission of a planning application and reoccupation of a heritage buildings. During this time, heritage buildings can be vulnerable to neglect, loss and accidental damage. An TPP should be completed by an engineer or architect with demonstrated experience working with historical structures and should include the following: • Marking heritage attributes on the construction plans; • Temporary construction fencing between the Percy House and/or Barns 1 2 and Silos 1 and 2 and the proposed development; • Establish a regular inspection and monitoring schedule; • Communication protocols that identify who should be informed about the heritage attributes and who should be contacted if there is accidental damage; • A plan for potential physical impacts such as accidental damage from machinery; - 483 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 106 OPTIONS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES MITIGATION/ CONSERVATION NOTES It would be difficult to find appropriate adaptive re-use options for the barns in the context of the desired use for large warehouses. Retention of these structures in their current location would also significantly reduce the size of the possible warehouses. Lastly, typical warehouse design is not inherently compatible with nineteenth century residence and barns and thus would present a challenge to successfully integrate. • A plan for appropriate repairs should damage occur to the building(s). • Regular inspection and monitoring protocol. A Mothballing Plan should be completed to examine the current condition of the Percy House and barns and to suggest stabilization and maintenance measures necessary to temporarily mothball and secure the structures and their heritage attributes until a future use is determined. A Heritage Conservation Plan is a document that identifies how cultural heritage resources should be conserved. It should detail the conservation methods, required actions and trades for the conservation methods and an implementation schedule to conserve the landscape’s heritage attributes in the short-, medium-, and long-term. Heritage Conservation Plans are typically completed by structural engineers or architects with experience rehabilitating historic structures. In accordance with the MHSTCI’s Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting and materials is a mitigation measure to reduce impacts to cultural heritage resources. The design of the building immediately surrounding the historic structures should be sensitively designed to reflect a similar massing, height, and materials. A vegetative buffer between the proposed buildings and adjacent Percy House, barns and silos would assist is reducing the visual impact of the modern design against the nineteenth century farm. A landscape plan should incorporate a vegetative screen between the new buildings and remnants of the farm. Construction activities often result in fugitive dust emission which can be detrimental to the long term protection of heritage resources. A fugitive dust emissions plan should follow practices outlined in the Ontario Standards Development Branch Technical Bulletin: Management Approaches for Industrial Fugitive Dust Sources (2017). Given the proximity of the adjacent heritage properties to the proposed development, a comprehensive pre- construction survey should be completed and a Zone of Influence Construction Vibration Study to monitor and mitigate vibration impacts during construction. Where possible prevent heavy equipment traffic from being routed in the vicinity of the Percy House and barns to minimize potential effects from vibration. 3) Relocate the Percy House within the site to a more convenient location with an adaptive reuse, dismantle and salvage heritage attributes from Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2 and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. Although this option would involve a major intervention to the agricultural character of the subject property, it would result in maintenance of some of the heritage attributes belonging to the Percy House. Given the difficulty in moving barns, they would likely have to be dismantled and elements could be salvaged and reused in the proposed development. Moving the Percy House would allow for more convenient placement, allowing the land to be maximized for the proposed warehouse use. While this option would retain the Percy House, it would include removal of all the barns and landscape heritage attributes and alter the agricultural character of the historic landscape and surrounding area. This option is inconsistent the MHSTCI’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historical Properties which encourages respect for original location. Additionally, the Pickering Official Plan states that development To stabilize and conserve the Percy House in its current location before construction of the surrounding development begins and during construction a Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) should be completed . There is often a lengthy period between the formal submission of a planning application and reoccupation of a heritage buildings. During this time, heritage buildings can be vulnerable to neglect, loss and accidental damage. An TPP should be completed by an engineer or architect with demonstrated experience working with historical structures and should include the following: • Marking heritage attributes on the construction plans; • Temporary construction fencing between the Percy House, Barns 1 and 2, Silos 1 and 2 and the proposed development; • Establish a regular inspection and monitoring schedule; - 484 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 107 OPTIONS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES MITIGATION/ CONSERVATION NOTES Section 8.9 (c) of the Official Plan requires consideration of relocation on -site prior to considering relocation of a resource off -site. should not result in any demolition, construction, alteration, remodeling, or any other action that would adversely affect the heritage features of the property. Relocating the Percy House would place the building at risk of accidental damage during the relocation operation, or total loss due to accident or unforeseen structural issues discovered during the relocation process. It is also in direct opposition to the MHSTCI Guiding Principle for “original location” which states that buildings should not be moved “unless there is no other means to save them since any change in site diminishes heritage value considerably”. This would still result in removal of the heritage attributes that reflect the value of the property as an evolved farm cultural heritage landscape. • Communication protocols that identify who should be informed about the heritage attributes and who should be contacted if there is accidental damage; • A plan for potential physical impacts such as accidental damage from machinery; • A plan for appropriate repairs should damage occur to the building(s). • Regular inspection and monitoring protocol. A Mothballing Plan should be completed to examine the current condition of the Percy House to suggest stabilization and maintenance measures necessary to temporarily mothball and secure the structure and its heritage attributes until a future use is determined. A Heritage Conservation Plan is a document that identifies how cultural heritage resources should be conserved. It should detail the conservation methods, required actions and trades for the conservation methods and an implementation schedule to conserve the landscape’s heritage attributes in the short -, medium-, and long-term. Heritage Conservation Plans are typically completed by structural engineers or architects with experience rehabilitating historic structures. In accordance with the MHSTCI’s Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting and materials is a mitigation measure to reduce impacts to cultural heritage resources. The design of the building immediately surrounding the historic structure should be sensitively designed to reflect a similar massing, height, and materials . A vegetative buffer between the proposed buildings and adjacent Percy House would assist is reducing the visual impact of the modern design against the nineteenth century house. A landscape plan should incorporate a vegetative screen between the new buildings and the Percy House. Prior to demolition of the two Central Ontario barns and associated silos, determine what materials can be salvaged and document those elements into a standardized salvage inventory. The results of this inventory should be included a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report (CHRDR). Should the one-storey south addition be deemed not structurally sound for relocation, it should also be subjec t to a CHRDR. A reputable contractor with expertise in salvage should be contracted to salvage the identified building materials. The contractor should prepare an approach for the labelling, storage and reassembly of material salvaged from the property, as appropriate, in accordance with guidance taken from the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, Section 4: Guidelines for Materials; • The ultimate destination of salvaged materials should be determined prior to the in itiation of any salvage process; • Materials should only be salvaged if they are suitable for re -use in other buildings or projects, i.e., the material must not be irreparably damaged or infested; • The material must be extracted in a manner that ensures that it is not irreparably damaged; - 485 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 108 OPTIONS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES MITIGATION/ CONSERVATION NOTES • Should any of the material be damaged during removal, donation to a teaching institution or museum (i.e. Pickering Museum Village) should be considered to allow the material to provide an educational opportunity. Design the project to integrate new physical elements to the Percy House to be sympathetic and compatible with the Ontario Cottage. The Parks Canada’s Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2010) should be considered. Construction activities often result in fugitive dust emission which can be detrimental to the long term protection of heritage resources. A fugitive dust emissions plan should follow practices outlined in the Ontario Standards Development Branch Technical Bulletin: Management Approaches for Industrial Fugitive Dust Sources (2017). Given the proximity of the adjacent heritage properties to the proposed development, a comprehensive pre- construction survey should be completed and a Zone of Influence Constru ction Vibration Study to monitor and mitigate vibration impacts during construction. Where possible prevent heavy equipment traffic from being routed in the vicinity of the Percy House to minimize potential effects from vibration. 4) Remove the Percy House, Barns 1 and 2 and Silo s 1 and 2, salvaging heritage attributes from the structures and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. Some of the Percy House and barn’s heritage attributes could be salvaged and reused in the proposed development. This would result in the complete and irreversible loss of all the identified heritage attributes. This option is inconsistent with the Town of Pickering’s heritage policies in the Official Plan, the MHSTCI’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historical Properties and general heritage conservation best practices. Prior to demolition of the Percy House, two Central Ontario barns and associated silos, determine what materials can be salvaged and document those elements into a standardized salvage inventory. The results of this inventory should be included a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report (CHRDR). A reputable contractor with expertise in salvage should be contracted to salvage the identified building materials. The contractor should prepare an approach for the labelling, storage and reassembly of material salvaged from the property, as appropriate, in accordance with guidance taken from the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, Section 4: Guidelines for Materials; • The ultimate destination of salvaged materials should be determined prior to the initiation of any salvage process; • Materials should only be salvaged if they are suitable for re -use in other buildings or projects, i.e., the material must not be irreparably damaged or infested; • The material must be extracted in a manner that ensures that it is not irreparably damaged; • Should any of the material be damaged during removal, donation to a teaching insti tution or museum (i.e. Pickering Museum Village) should be considered to allow the material to provide an educational opportunity. - 486 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 109 10.2 OPTIONS ANALYSIS Based on the review of the alternatives, mitigation and conservation options analysis presented in Table 10-1, Option 1, preserve and maintain the Pery House, Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2 and all landscape heritage attributes in situ with no further development of the property, is the preferred option from a cultural heritage perspective . While Option 2 is the second choice, adaptive reuse of the farm buildings is challenging given that they were purpose built for farming and may prove difficult to compatibly integrate into the proposed development. Discussions with the Client have determined that Option 3 which involves the relocation of the Percy House to a more convenient site within the proposed development is supported by the Client. As illustrated on the Draft Plan, the Percy House will be relocated northwest of its current location, closer to Highway 7 . Option 3 would see the removal of Barns 1 and 2, Silos 1 and 2, as well as all landscape features. To successfully facilitate Option 3, the MHSTCI’s Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process design guidelines should be consulted. These guidelines aim to harmonize mass, setback, setting and materials is a mitigation measure to reduce impacts to cultural heritage resources. A vegetative buffer between the proposed development and adjacent Percy House would assist in reducing the visual impact of the modern design against the ninete enth century farm. A landscape plan that incorporates a vegetative screen between the new buildings and remnants of the farm would be ideal. To stabilize and conserve the Percy House in its current location before construction of the surrounding development begins and during construction a Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) should be completed. There is often a lengthy period between the formal submission of a planning application and reoccupation of a heritage buildings. During this time, heritage buildings can be vulnerable to neglect, loss and accidental damage. An TPP should be completed by an engineer or architect with demonstrated experience working with historical structures and should include the following: • Marking heritage attributes on the construct ion plans; • Temporary construction fencing between the Percy House and the proposed development; • Establish a regular inspection and monitoring schedule; • Communication protocols that identify who should be informed about the heritage attributes and who should be contacted if there is accidental damage; • A plan for potential physical impacts such as accidental damage from machinery; • A plan for appropriate repairs should damage occur to the building(s); and • Regular inspection and monitoring protocol. Mothballing is a process for protecting a building from the environmental elements, neglect and vandalism. It includes stabilization and maintenance measures to ensure a building does not - 487 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 110 deteriorate. Mothballing is intended to be an interim solution undertake n while a property owner explores options for a building’s adaptive reuse on site, or while a building is vacant or is to be relocated off-stie and/or sold. A Mothballing Plan should be prepared by a qualified individual in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, 2nd Edition (Parks Canada 2010); the Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practices by the Canadian Association of Conservation of Cultural Property and the Canadian Association of Professional Conservators (2009); the MHSTCI’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties (2007); Preservation Briefs 31: Mothballing Historic Buildings (Park, 1993), and Well-Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundation’s Manual of Principl es and Practice for Architectural Conservation (Fram, 1998). A Heritage Conservation Plan is a document that identifies how cultural heritage resources should be conserved. It should detail the conservation methods, required actions and trades for the conservation methods and an implementation schedule to conserve t he landscape’s heritage attributes in the short-, medium-, and long-term. Heritage Conservation Plans are typically completed by structural engineers or architects with experience rehabilitating historic structures. Detailed documentation and salvage is often the preferred mitigation strategy when retention or relocation of a structure is neither feasible nor warranted. While documentation and salvage can never truly mitigate the loss of a heritage resource, documentation creates a public record the structure and provides researchers and the public with a land use history, construction details and photographic record of the resource. The documentation and photographs contained within this report may serve as a sufficient record of the house and the outbuildings and this determination should be made by City staff. The purpose of salvaging heritage building material is to preserve portions of features of building s or structures that have historical, architectural or cultural value and divert them from becomi ng land fill material. Sourcing materials for repair and replacement can be challenging, especially if the materials are from a historical source that no longer exists, such as a quarry, or a manufacturing facility that has closed (Parks Canada, 2010). As such, the careful salvage of these materials from one historic structure can represent an opportunity for the in -kind replacement of quality historical material on another. Some of these materials can also be incorporated into the new design if appropriate. If any materials are incorporated into the manufacturing campus, there should be an interpretive display to convey that these materials were reused from the previous structures on the site. In order to ensure heritage fabric is salvaged responsibly the following recommendations for salvage and reuse of materials includes: o A reputable contractor(s) with proven expertise in cultural heritage resource removal should be obtained to salvage the identified building components listed above; - 488 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 111 The contractor should prepare an approach for the labelling, storage and reassembly of material salvaged from the property, as appropriate, in accordance with guidance taken from the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada , Section 4: Guidelines for Materials; The ultimate destination of salvaged materials should be determined prior to the initiation of any salvage process • Materials should only be salvaged if they are suitable for re -use in other buildings or projects, i.e., the material must not be irreparably damaged or infested; • The material must be extracted in a manner that ensures that it is not irreparably damaged; • Should any of the material be damaged during removal, donation to a teaching institution should be considered to allow the material to provide an educational opportunity. A list of Conservation Programs in Ontario is available on the National Trust for Canada’s website here: www.nationaltrustcanada.ca/resources/education/ conservation -programs. Construction activities often result in fugitive dust emission which can be detrimental to the long term protection of heritage resources. A fugitive dust emissions plan should follow practices outlined in the Ontario Standards Development Branch Technical Bulletin: Management Approaches for Industrial Fugitive Dust Sources (2017). Given the proximity of construction activities in proximity to the Percy House, the current proposed development has the potential to create vibrations that could negatively im pact the structure. Ground vibration monitoring works should be conducted at the Percy House and Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2. The monitoring should use a digital seismograph capable of measuring and recording ground vibration intensities in digital format in each of three (3) orthogonal directions. This instrument should also be equipped with a wireless cellular modem for remote access and transmission of data. The installed instrument should be programmed to record continuously, providing peak groun d vibration levels at a specified time interval (e.g., 5 minutes) as well as waveform signatures of any ground vibrations exceeding a threshold level that would be determined during monitoring (e.g., between 6-12 mm/s). The instrument should also be programmed to provide a warning should the peak ground vibration level exceed the guideline limits specified. In the event of either a threshold trigger or exceedance warning, data would be retrieved remotely and forwarded to designated recipients. If vibration has exceeded the guideline limits specified, a stop work order should be issued immediately and the adjacent Federal Heritage Buildings promptly inspected for any indication of disruption or damage. If identified, the evidence of disturbance or damage sho uld be documented, then closely monitored during construction for further change in existing conditions. Once work is complete, a post-construction vibration monitoring report or technical memorandum should be - 489 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 112 prepared to document the condition of the heri tage attributes of the properties listed above and recommend appropriate repairs, if necessary. Designation under Part IV of the OHA for the property including the Percy House, Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2 would provide long term protection against demolition and unsympathetic alterations. If designated under the OHA, the property owner would be required to request permission from the Town to make any alterations or to demolish any of the designated structures. Commemoration, also know as symbolic conservation is often a mitigation strategy when retention or relocation of heritage attributes is not feasible. It can often include the adaptive reuse of salvaged items from buildings (i.e. Creating benches from beams from the barn, creating landscape features from foundation stones) as well as an interpretive plaque that outlines the history of a site and its importance to the local community. If any salvaged items are used for a commemorative display, they should be appropriately catalogued and stored until they can be reused on-site. This should also be clearly communicator to the contractor. 10.3 IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING While Option 1 is the preferred alternative, an Implementation and Monitoring Plans have been identified for Option 3 in Table 10-2 below. The purpose of this plan is to conserve cultural heritage resources as the development is undertaken. The requirement for these heritage mitigation measures may be incorporated by the City of Pickering into the development application decision as a condition prior to the issuance of a Building Permit or during the development application process. - 490 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 113 Table 10-2: Short-term, medium-term and long-term actions for Option 3 CONSTRUCTION PHASE MITIGATION MEASURES DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CONDITIONS Pre- Construction In accordance with the MHSTCI’s Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting and materials is a mitigation measure to reduce impacts to cultural heritage resources, including the preparation of a Landscape Plan around the Percy House. ✓ Complete a Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) for the Percy House ✓ Complete a Mothballing Plan for the Percy House ✓ Complete a Heritage Conservation Plan for the Percy House Prepare a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report for Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2, and if necessary, the one-storey south addition ✓ Prepare a comprehensive pre-construction survey should be completed followed by a Zone of Influence Construction Vibration Study to identity the vibration zone of influence ✓ City of Pickering to consider designation of the subject property under Part IV of the OHA ✓* Manage fugitive dust emissions by creating a fugitive dust emissions plan following practices outlined in the Ontario Standards Development Branch Technical Bulletin: Management Approaches for Industrial Fugitive Dust Sources (2017). ✓ Construction Establish a plan to avoid impact to the resources during construction including a buffer around the structures with a silt fence and appropriate location of staging and construction materials and equipment. ✓ Manage fugitive dust emissions by following recommendations in the fugitive dust emissions plan n/a Post- Construction Implement any recommendations from the conservation plan ✓ *within 90 days of the receipt of a complete application - 491 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 114 11 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of the historical research, field review, site analysis and evaluation of the subject property against the criteria for heritage designation under O. Reg. 9/06 of the OHA, 815 Highway 7 was confirmed to possess CHVI. The proposed development, consisting of the construction of five food manufacturing buildings on the lot was evaluated and determined to pose major impacts to the identified heritage attributes of 815 Highway 7. Based on the review of the alternatives, mitigation and conservation options analysis, Option 1, Do Nothing, is the preferred option from a cultural heritage perspective. However, a Do Nothing approach is not feasible as the subject property is designated Prestige Employment and Seaton Natural Heritage System in the Pickering Official Plan, this approach would be a constraint on the proposed concept plan and future development . As such, Options 2 and Option 3 are the next preferred options, followed lastly by Option 4. The following conservation/mitigation strategies are recommended: 2. The following should be implemented through the development application process: h. In accordance with the MHSTCI’s Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting and materials is a mitigation measure to reduce impacts to cultural heritage resources, including the preparation of a Landscape Plan around the Percy House. i. Complete a Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) to stabilize and conserve the Percy House in its current location before construction of the surrounding development begins and during construction. This includes the installation of temporary construction fencing between the Percy House and the proposed development. j. A Mothballing Plan be completed to examine the current condition of the Percy House and to suggest stabilization and maintenance measures necessary to temporarily mothball and secure the structures. k. Prepare a Conservation Plan detailing the conservation methods, required actions and trades for the conservation methods and an implementation schedule to conserve the heritage attributes of the landscape in the long-term. l. Prepare a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report for Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2, and if necessary, the one -storey south addition. m. Given the proximity of the adjacent heritage properties to the proposed limits of grading, a comprehensive pre-construction survey should be completed and a Zone of Influence Construction Vibration Study to monitor and mitigate vibration impacts during construction. Where possible prevent heavy equipment traffic from being routed in the vicinity of the Percy House to minimize potential effects from vibration. n. Fugitive dust emissions should be managed by creating a fugitive dust emissions plan following practices outlined in the Ontario Standards Development Branch Technical Bulletin: Management Approaches for Industrial Fugitive Dust Sources (2017). 5) Contract documentation should include information regarding the CHVI of the aforementioned properties, specifically the List of Heritage Attributes. 6) WSP recommends that 815 Highway 7 meets the criteria for heritage designation under O. Reg. 9/06 as a representative example of an early Ontario Cottage with Neo -Classical and - 492 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 115 Georgian influences, for its connection to the nineteenth century agricultural development of the City of Pickering as well as for its contribution to the surrounding Highway 7 streetscape. 7) Should development plans change significantly in scope or design after approval of this HIA, additional cultural heritage investigations may be required. 8) Once finalized, a copy of this HIA should be distributed to the City of Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive - 493 - 815 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 116 BIBLIOGRAPHY Armstrong, Frederick H. (1985). Handbook of Upper Canadian Chronology. Hamilton: Dundurn Press, Ltd. Curve Lake First Nation. (n.d.) History. Retrieved from: https://curvelakefirstnation.ca/ Connor & Coltson. (1869). The County of Ontario directory for 1869 -70. Toronto: Hunter, Rose & Co. Canada’s Historic Places (2010) Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Second Edition. Canada’s Historic Places, Ottawa. Ellis, C.J. and D.B. Deller. (1990). Paleo-Indians. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 37-74. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. Ellis, C.J., I.T. Kenyon, and M.W. Spence. (1990). The Archaic. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 65-124. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. Ennals, P.M. (1972). “Nineteenth-Century Barns in Southern Ontario.” In The Canadian Geographer, pp. 256-269. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Farewell, J. E. (1907). County of Ontario: short notes as to the early settlement and progress of the county and brief references to the pioneers and some Ontario County men who have taken a prominent part in provincial and dominion affair. Whitby, ON: Gazette-Chronicle Press. Find a Grave. John Percy. Retrieved from: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/119333949/john - percy Fram, Mark (1993) Well-Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundation’s Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation. Third edition. Boston Mills Press, Erin, Ontario. Heritage Resources Centre (HRC). (2009). Ontario Architectural Style Guide . Retrieved from: www.therealtydeal.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/06 /Heritage-Resource-Centre-Achitectural-Styles-Guide.pdf Historic England (2016) Understanding Historic Buildings: A Guide to Good Recording Practice . English Heritage, Swindon, UK. Historic England - 494 - 815 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 117 International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). (2011). Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties . Retrieved from: www.icomos.org/world_heritage/HIA_20110201.pdf Laurie Smith Consulting. (2015). Cultural Heritage Property Evaluation Report : 1390 Whitevale Road, Pickering, Ontario. Retrieved from: https://corporate.pickering.ca/weblink/1/doc/152704/Electronic.aspx Laurie Smith Consulting. (2015 a). Cultural Heritage Property Evaluation Report: 750 Whitevale Road, Pickering, Ontario . Retrieved from: https://corporate.pickering.ca/weblink/1/doc/152699/Electronic.aspx Kalman, Harold (1979) The Evaluation of Historic Buildings. Parks Canada. Kalman, Harold (2014) Heritage Planning: Principles and Process. Routledge, New York. Kalman, Harold and Marcus Létourneau (2020) Heritage Planning: Principles and Process. Routledge, New York. Kyles, S. (2016). Barns. Retrieved from: www.ontarioarchitecture.com/barn.htm Library and Archives Canada (2021) Canadian Censuses. [accessed April 2022]. https://www.bac lac.gc.ca/eng/census/Pages/census.aspx McIlwraith, Thomas F. (1997) Looking for Old Ontario: Two Centuries of Landscape Change. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism & Culture Industries (MHSTCI). (2019). List of Heritage Conservation Districts. Retrieved from: www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/ heritage_conserving_list.shtml Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism & Culture Industries (MHSTCI). (2007). Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties. Retrieved from: www.heritagetrust.on.ca/en/pages/tools/tools -for-conservation/eight-guiding-principles Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism & Culture Industries (MHSTCI). (2006). - 495 - 815 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 118 Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process . Retrieved from: www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage_Tool_Kit_Heritage_PPS_infoSheet.pdf Ministry of Indigenous Affairs (2020) Map of Ontario Treaties and Reserves. Retrieved from: www.ontario.ca/page/map-ontario- treaties-and-reserves Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). (2020). Provincial Policy Statement. Retrieved from: www.ontario.ca/page/provincial-policy-statement- 2020 New Zealand Transport Agency (2015) Historic Heritage Impact Assessment Guide for State Highway Projects. New Zealand Government, Wellington. Ontario Council of University Libraries (n.d.) Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project: Bolton Sheets. [accessed April 2022]. https://ocul.on.ca/topomaps/collection/) Ontario Land Registry Access 2021 Abstract Index Books, Land Registry Office 40 (Pickering). [accessed April 2022]. https://www.onland.ca/ui/40/books/6070 6/viewer/838941323?page=1 Parks Canada. (2010). The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada 2 nd Edition. Retrieved from: www.historicplaces.ca/media/18072/81468-parks-s+g-eng-web2.pdf Parslow Heritage Consulting Inc. Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report- 450 Finch Avenue, Part Lot 31, Concession 2, Geographical Township of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario. Retrieved from: file:///C:/Users/CAEG074036/Desktop/PHC%20Cultural-Heritage- Evaluation-Report.pdf Spence, M.W., R.H. Pihl, and C. Murphy. (1990). Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 125 -170. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. Tremaine, George (1859) Tremaine’s Map of the Wellington County, Canada West. George R. and George M. Tremaine, Toronto Walton, George. (1837). The City of Toronto and the Home District Commercial Directory and Register with Almanack and Calendar for 1837. Toronto, Upper Canda, Dalton and W.J. Coates. - 496 - 815 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 119 Warrick, G. (2000). The Precontact Iroquoian Occupation of Southern Ontario. Journal of World Prehistory 14(4):415-456. Walker & Miles. (1877). Map of Toronto Township. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Peel, Ontario . Toronto, ON. - 497 - APPENDIX A HISTORICAL MAPPING - 498 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: TREMAINE, 1860 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:10,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 4: 1860 TREMAINE'S MAP OF THE COUNTY OF ONTARIO CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 4 1860 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 400200 m - 499 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: J.H. BEERS & CO., 1877 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:10,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 5: 1877 ILLUSTRATED HISTORICAL ATLAS OF THE COUNTY OF WATERLOO CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 5 1877 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 400200 m - 500 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: DEPARTMENT OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE, 1914 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:20,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 6: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ON 1914 NTS MAP CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 6 1914 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 800400 m - 501 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE, 1933 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:20,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 7: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ON 1933 NTS MAP CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 7 1933 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 800400 m - 502 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE, 1943 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:20,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 8: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ON 1943 NTS MAP CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 8 1943 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 800400 m - 503 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO MAP AND DATA LIBRARY HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:12,500 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 9: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ON 1954 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 9 1954 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 500250 m - 504 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: GOOGLE HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:10,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 10: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ON 2002 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 10 2002 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 400200 m - 505 - APPENDIX B SITE CONCEPT PLAN (MARCH 2022) - 506 - 93.3[306'-3"] 21 4 . 6 [7 0 4 ' - 0 " ] 7.6[25'-0"] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 21.34 [70'-0"] 21.34 [70'-0"] 21.34 [70'-0"] 21.34 [70'-0"] 12 D O C K S 2 StoreyOffice & TMWelfare Areas (22,700 sf)2109 sm 15.27 [50'-1"] 24 . 7 4 [8 1 ' - 2 " ] AM M O N I A R O O M 4 , 0 0 0 s f 24 ' c l e a r h e i g h t St r u c t u r a l P l a t f o r m a b o v e fo r 4 c o o l i n g t o w e r s 24 . 3 9 [8 0 ' - 0 " ] 17 D O C K S 10x500KW Generators 2x3000kva SUBSTATION Fl o u r Si l o s DRIVE IN RAMP 14 ' W x 1 6 ' H O H D o o r El e c t r i c a l R o o m 1 2 0 0 s f Sp r i n k l e r R o o m 1 1 0 0 s f Me c h a n i c a l R o o m 1 3 0 0 s f Pro c e p t e r G r e a s e In t e r c e p t e r 3 0 0 0 g a l ro u g h i n f o r D A F S y s t e m 10.67 [35'-0"] 10.67 [35'-0"] 16.46 [54'-0"] 16.46[54'-0"] 16.46 [54'-0"] 16.46 [54'-0"] 16.46 [54'-0"] 16.46 [54'-0"] 16.46 [54'-0"] 16.46 [54'-0"] 16.46 [54'-0"] 148.66 [487'-9"] 64 . 5 5 [2 1 1 ' - 9 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 2nd Floor Office3,800 SF Date: March 26, 2022 PROPOSED FGF FOOD MANUFACTURING CAMPUS 60 ACRES SITE PLAN CONCEPT # 6A FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE 19.92 [65'-4"] TRAILER STAGING 7. 5 0 [2 4 ' - 7 " ] 31.45 [103'-2"] 6.50 [21'-4"] 5.0 0 [1 6 ' - 5 " ] 10.00[32'-10"] FI R E R O U T E FI R E R O U T E TOTAL CAR PARKING 220 10.00 [32'-10"] FI R E R O U T E FI R E R O U T E 32 TOTAL CAR PARKING 200 30.47 [100'-0"] 39.63 [130'-0"] 62.01 [203'-5"] 39.63 [130'-0"] 10.00 [32'-10"] 20 . 0 Access Point Access Point FIRE ROU TE FI RE ROUT E TRUCK TURN COURTYARD FI R E R O U T E FI R E R O U T E FI R E R O U T E FI R E R O U T E Gross Developable - 50.6 acres minus internal road - 3.5 acres Net Developable = 47.1 acres EXISTING SUB DIVISION BLOCKS: *BLOCK 1 - 7.43 Acres *BLOCK 2 - 18.55 Acres *BLOCK 3 - 5.01 Acres *BLOCK 5 - 5.58 Acres *BLOCK 6 - 14.03 Acres *BLOCK 22 - 5.43 Acres (Storm water Pond) *BLOCK 30 - 2.11 Acres (Natural Heritage) *BLOCK 49 - 0.73 Acres (Heritage Lot & House) TOTAL - 58.87 Acres 15.49[50'-10"] TRAILER PARKING TRAILER PARKING 40 . 7 1 [1 3 3 ' - 7 " ] 18 . 3 0 [6 0 ' - 1 " ] 18 . 4 0 [6 0 ' - 4 " ] TRAILER PARKING TRAILER PARKING 50 20 89 ACRES PARCEL 25 . 2 8 [8 2 ' - 1 1 " ] FG F W a y Wonder Drive Screen Wall Screen Wall FI R E R O U T E FI R E R O U T E 6.00 [19'-8"] FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE Access Point Access Point Access Point FI R E R O U T E FI R E R O U T E 19 FI R E R O U T E FI R E R O U T E 32 . 4 7 [1 0 6 ' - 6 " ] TRUCK TURN COURTYARD Relocate Heritage House 45.0 22 .0 Heritage Lot: 815 HWY 7 SI D E L I N E 2 6 N68°52'05"E 291.575 N 63°0 1 '4 0 "E 47 .515 N 6 3°01'40"E 23 .3 65 N4 1 °2 7 '5 5 "E 9 9 .0 4 5 N12°43'35"E 96.305 N10°4 5'40"W 75.400 N10°4 5'40"W 125.080 N2 6 °1 3 '0 5"E 20 . 6 75 N19 °1 9'2 0" W 92. 180 N64°29'10" W 21.155 N70°21'05"E 174.065N71°18'20"E 123.335N71°18'20"E 279.420N71°18'20"E59.820N71°18'20"E62.515 N71°18'20"E20.130 N68°52'05"E 20.120 N68°52'05"E 100.910 N68°51'30"E60.035 N06°11'40"E 50.300 N3 8°57'3 0 "E 23 .8 0 5 N70°14'40"E44.030N71°41'40"E20.160N70°21'05"E28.300 N 25°30'50"E 21.275 N19 °1 9'2 0 "W 92. 905 N63 °46'55"W 21.6 10 N0 3°07'2 0"E 33.760 N 28°0 9'2 0"E 2 2.89 0 2 6.84 0 1.260 BLOCK 49 Heritage Lot 0.73Acres 0.30Ha 45.6 BLOCK 30 Natural Heritage 2.11Acres 0.85Ha BLOCK 32 Natural Heritage 3.95Acres 1.60Ha BLOCK 31 Natural Heritage 3.07Acres 1.24Ha 18 .5 8.6 1 6 . 1 14 .0 27 . 0 2 8 . 9 4 3 . 7 62.6 4 1 . 4 30 .0 12 .8 1 4 . 1 3 5 . 6 1 3 2 . 1 59.6 64 .8 45.7 65 .1 64 .8 45.7 65 .1 1 4 1 . 7 39.4 93.8 54.2 37.1 45. 7 21.9 9 8 . 4 NEW BLOCK 22 Stormwater Pond 1.7 Acr es +/- 6 . 9 82.0 184.0 1 2 3 . 6 57 .698.6114.4 82.9 6 .0 1 1 7 . 1 74.9 7 2 . 7 10 2. 8 47.520.9 BLOCK 8 Prestige Empl o yme nt General 42.30Acres 17.12Ha HIGHWAY 407 HIGHWAY 407 WHITES ROAD INTERCHANGE HIGHWAY 7 (MTO)HIGHWAY 7 (MTO) Northern Boundry of Seaton Neighboor 21 ACCESS POINT Current Road & Bridge Alignment Future New Road & Bridge Alignment to Phase 2 (89 Acres land NEW BLOCK 22 Stormwater Pond 1.6 Acr es +/- 14 . 0 0 [4 5 ' - 1 1 " ] 14m MTO Setback 14m MTO Setback 14m MTO Setback14m MTO Setback 22m 22 m 14 . 0 0 [4 5 ' - 1 1 " ] 14 . 0 0 [4 5 ' - 1 1 " ] 14 . 0 0 [4 5 ' - 1 1 " ] Federal Airport Land 22.00 [72'-2"] 11.00 [36'-1"] 22 . 0 0 [7 2 ' - 2 " ] 11 . 0 0 [3 6 ' - 1 " ] 10 . 0 0 [3 2 ' - 1 0 " ] WH I T E S R O A D 29 . 9 9 [9 8 ' - 5 " ] 12.19 [40'-0"] Cul-de-sac TRANSIT WAY 14.00 [45'-11"] 14m MTO Setback14.00 [45'- 11"] 14m MTO Setback 14.00 [45'-11"] 1 4.00 [ 4 5 '- 1 1"] 1 4.00 [ 4 5 '- 1 1"] 14.00[45'-11"] 14.00[45'-11"] 14.00[45'-11"] 1 4 m MTO S e t b a ck 14m M T O Setbac k 7.0 0 [2 3 ' - 0 " ] 86 TRAILER PARKING 51 36 . 0 0 [1 1 8 ' - 1 " ] TRAILER PARKING FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE Screen Wall 35 . 0 7 [1 1 5 ' - 1 " ] FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE BUILDING 3 TOTAL GFA 231,000 sf (21471 sm) 1st Floor 220,000 sf (20449 sm) 2nd Floor 11,400 sf (1060 sm) BUILDING 4 TOTAL GFA 231,000 sf (21471 sm) 1st Floor 220,000 sf (20449 sm) 2nd Floor 11,400 sf (1060 sm) FIR E R O U TE FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE 93.3[306'-3"] 21 4 . 6 [7 0 4 ' - 0 " ] 7.6[25'-0"] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 16 . 5 [5 4 ' - 0 " ] 21.34 [70'-0"] 21.34 [70'-0"] 21.34 [70'-0"] 21.34 [70'-0"] 12 D O C K S 10x500KW Generators 2 S t o r e y Of f i c e & T M We l f a r e A r e a s ( 2 2 , 7 0 0 s f ) 21 0 9 s m 15.27 [50'-1"] 24 . 7 4 [8 1 ' - 2 " ] AM M O N I A R O O M 4 , 0 0 0 s f 24 ' c l e a r h e i g h t St r u c t u r a l P l a t f o r m a b o v e fo r 4 c o o l i n g t o w e r s 24 . 3 9 [8 0 ' - 0 " ] 17 D O C K S 2x3000kva SUBSTATION Fl o u r Si l o s DRIVE IN RAMP 14 ' W x 1 6 ' H O H D o o r Ele c t r i c a l R o o m 1 2 0 0 s f Sp r i n k l e r R o o m 1 1 0 0 s f Me c h a n i c a l R o o m 1 3 0 0 s f Pro c e p t e r G r e a s e In t e r c e p t e r 3 0 0 0 g a l ro u g h i n f o r D A F S y s t e m 10.67 [35'-0"] 10.67 [35'-0"] BUILDING 2 TOTAL GFA 230,000 sf (21378 sm) 1st Floor 219,000 sf (20356 sm) 2nd Floor 11,400 sf (1060 sm) BUILDING 1 TOTAL GFA 231,000 sf (21471 sm) 1st Floor 220,000 sf (20449 sm) 2nd Floor 11,400 sf (1060 sm) 93 . 3 [3 0 6 ' - 3 " ] 214.6[704'-0"] 7. 6 [2 5 ' - 0 " ] 16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 12 DOCKS 2x3000kva SUBSTATION 10x500KW Generators 2 StoreyOffice & TMWelfare Areas (22,700 sf)2109 sm Flour Silos 15 . 2 7 [5 0 ' - 1 " ] 24.74[81'-2"]AMMONIA ROOM 4,000 sf 24' clear height Structural Platform abovefor 4 cooling towers24.39 [80'-0"] 17 DOCKS DRIVE IN RAMP 14'W x16'H OH Door Electrical Room 1200 sf Sprinkler Room 1100 sf Mechanical Room 1300 sf Procepter Grease Intercepter 3000 galrough in for DAF System 10 . 6 7 [3 5 ' - 0 " ] 10 . 6 7 [3 5 ' - 0 " ] BUILDING 5 DISTRIBUTION CTR. Cross Dock TOTAL GFA 106,800 sf (9853 sm) 1st Floor 103,000 sf (9574 sm) 2nd Floor 3,800 sf (278 sm) 10 . 0 0 [3 2 ' - 1 0 " ] 10 . 0 0 [3 2 ' - 1 0 " ] Access Point 60 . 3 2 [1 9 7 ' - 1 1 " ] 5.00 [16'-5"] 5.00 [16'-5"] 10.00 [32'-10"] 5. 0 0 [1 6 ' - 5 " ] 5.00 [16'-5"] 5.0 0 [1 6 ' - 5 " ] Total Phase 1 (60 Acres) *4 Plants & 1 DC (1.1 million sf) *1st 2 Plants- (Building 1 &2) 2022/2023 (460,000 sf) FI R E R O U T E 3.00 [9'-10"] 38 . 1 0 [1 2 5 ' - 0 " ] 5. 0 0 [1 6 ' - 5 " ] 33 923 6 14 22 21 Sc r e e n W a l l 621.07 [69'-1"] 17 . 6 0 [5 7 ' - 9 " ] 5.0 0 [1 6 ' - 5 " ] 7.50 [24'-7"] 7.50 [24'-7"] 6. 2 0 [2 0 ' - 4 " ] 7. 0 0 [2 3 ' - 0 " ] 7. 0 0 [2 3 ' - 0 " ] 32 . 1 2 [1 0 5 ' - 5 " ] 14 . 9 5 [4 9 ' - 1 " ] 10 . 0 0 [3 2 ' - 1 0 " ] 4. 0 0 [1 3 ' - 1 " ] 10 . 0 0 [3 2 ' - 1 0 " ] 4.0 0 [1 3 ' - 1 " ] 21 . 3 8 [7 0 ' - 2 " ] 25 . 1 1 [8 2 ' - 4 " ] 90 9 26 31 22.37 [73'-5"] 6 6 6 PATIO PATIO PATIO PATIO TOTAL CAR PARKING 238 31 37 9 32 37 7.00 [23'-0"] 7.00 [23'-0"] 19 38 7.00 [23'-0"] Sc r e e n W a l l Sc r e e n W a l l 38 3.00 [9'-10"] 10.00 [32'-10"] 10.00 [32'-10"] 93 . 3 [3 0 6 ' - 3 " ] 214.6[704'-0"] 7. 6 [2 5 ' - 0 " ] 16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 21 . 3 4 [7 0 ' - 0 " ] 12 DOCKS 2 StoreyOffice & TMWelfare Areas (22,700 sf)2109 sm 15 . 2 7 [5 0 ' - 1 " ] 24.74 [81'-2"]AMMONIA ROOM 4,000 sf 24' clear heightStructural Platform abovefor 4 cooling towers 24.39 [80'-0"] 17 DOCKS 10x500KW Generators 2x3000 KVA Substation Flour Silos DR I V E I N R A M P 14'W x16'H OH Door Electrical Room 1200 sf Sprinkler Room 1100 sf Mechanical Room 1300 sf Procepter GreaseIntercepter 3000 galrough in for DAF System 10 . 6 7 [3 5 ' - 0 " ] 10 . 6 7 [3 5 ' - 0 " ] 19 FI R E R O U T E 6.50 [21'-4"] 6.50 [21'-4"] Screen Wall Relocated Heritage House (FGF Learning Studi0) TRAILER STAGING 41.98 [137'-9"] TRUCK TURN COURTYARD 16.71[54'-10"] 6.20[20'-4"] 16.71[54'-10"] 6. 5 0 [2 1 ' - 4 " ] Sc r e e n W a l l 6 8 23 7 7 23 23 22 47 41 9 39 16 TOTAL CAR PARKING 271 - 507 - APPENDIX C DRONE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS - 508 - - 509 - - 510 - Page 1Caplink Demolition Permit Submission, Preliminary Peer Review August 28, 2022 Cristina Celebre Principal Planner, Strategic Objectives City Development City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 T: 905.420.4660 ext.2194 E: ccelebre@pickering.ca RE: PRELIMINARY PEER REVIEW CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT, 745 HIGHWAY 7 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 815 HIGHWAY 7 DEMOLITION PERMIT SUBMISSION CITY FILE NUMBERS: SP-2022-02 & A04/22 Dear Ms. Celebre, The purpose of this letter is to provide the City of Pickering (‘City’) with an objective and profes- sional preliminary peer review of the cultural heritage material submitted as part of the Demolition Permit Submission, and Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for the Caplink Limited food manufacturing facility in Pickering. In addition to the material listed in the original Preliminary Peer Review letter, the following new or revised documents were reviewed in the preparation of this letter: Applicant Materials •Demolition Permit Submission Cover Letter, Related City File No. SP-2022-02 and A04/22 by Biglieri Group Ltd., August 22, 2022. •Peer Review Response Matrix by WSP, August 19, 2022. •Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, 745 Highway 7, City of Pickering by WSP, August 19, 2022. •Heritage Impact Assessment, 815 Highway 7, Pickering by WSP, August 19, 2022. •815 Highway 7, Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) Addendum Memorandum by WSP, August 19, 2022. •Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report, 815 Highway 7, Pickering Ontario by WSP, August 22,2022. •Temporary Protection and Mothball Plan, 815 Highway 7, Pickering Ontario by WSP, August 22, 2022. Attachment #6 - 511 - Page 2Caplink Demolition Permit Submission, Preliminary Peer Review PROJECT BACKGROUND This preliminary peer review of the Demolition Permit submission material by WSP provides a professional opinion on whether the reports and their recommendations are consistent with appli- cable heritage policies as well as the provincial and national cultural heritage framework and best practice. As Branch Architecture reviewed earlier versions of the HIA and CHER, this review pays particular attention to revisions made in response to the Peer Review letter by Branch Architecture (July 17, 2022). The Demolition Permit submission dated August 19, 2022 includes the removal of the rear addi- tion to the Percy House, the two barns, and two silos at 815 Highway 7. The demolition work includes salvaging identified material for storage and reuse on site. COMMENTS It is my professional opinion that the submitted heritage reports have been completed in keeping with best practice and that they provide a responsible plan for the conservation of the most signif- icant built attributes of the property. The HIA indicates that the original Percy House is to be restored and rehabilitated as a learning centre, and recommends that salvaged elements from the rear addition, two barns and wood crib silo (Silo 1) are reused, interpreted and meaningfully integrated into the larger development. As a condition of the Demolition Permit Application, the applicant has provided several docu- ments related to the management of on site heritage resources: • In addition to the material provided in the HIA, the Cultural Heritage Resources Documentation Report, 815 Highway 7 provides documentation of the buildings (written, photographic and plan drawings), an itemized list of suggested materials for salvage for each buildings, and recommendations for how the salvage work should be undertaken. The report recommends the building elements are stored in a covered and secure location, and that salvaged elements are incorporated into the proposed development with interpretation. • The Temporary Protection and Mothball Plan, 815 Highway 7 provides for the ongoing pres- ervation of the original Percy House. It includes a current snapshot of the existing condition of the building, recommends immediate repairs to be undertaken to ensure that the building is secure and weathertight, and a detailed monitoring action plan with a maintenance check- list and schedule. With respect to the updated HIA and CHER, they have generally been updated to reflect the peer review comments. The HIA has deferred providing additional information in response to comments 2, 3 and 4 to the Conservation Plan, Commemoration Plan and/or Landscape Plan. These comments are repeated here for information and are important design considerations to be resolved as the project progresses: - 512 - Page 3Caplink Demolition Permit Submission, Preliminary Peer Review 2. Provide an explanation for why the Percy House is a good candidate for relocation. Building relocation is considered a last resort to conserve a built heritage resource. This is articu- lated in the City of Pickering Official Plan (Section 8.9), the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines (Standard 1); and the Eight guiding principles in the conservation of historical properties (No. 2). This discussion should speak to the following: • The proposed placement, orientation and setting of Percy House. • That an experienced heritage building mover has determined that Percy House can be moved safely. 3. Provide more information regarding the conservation of Percy House: • The general scope of building restoration/repairs. • Drawings showing how the building will be rehabilitated for use as a learning centre including interior upgrades and uses, and the complete design of the rear addition. • Drawings showing the landscape around Percy House and considering: preserving views to Percy House from Highway 7; providing an appropriately sized landscape buffer between Percy House and the adjacent roads, parking and building; the use of landscaping to frame the house and provide a visual buffer between it and the adja- cent manufacturing facility; the building’s traditional setting within a farmstead; the incorporation of salvaged elements from the barns and silos; and other related design approaches. • Commemoration and/or interpretation scope and themes. 4. Provide discussion on how the design of the manufacturing facility - buildings, land- scape and urban design - is compatible with Percy House. This should address how the proposed site intensification - siting, massing, scale, and materials of the new construc- tion - are sympathetic to and conserve the heritage attributes of the property and serve to conserve the heritage value of the property on the whole. As stated in the preliminary peer review, it is my professional opinion that the Percy House property merits designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and, as such, should be conserved in keeping with heritage best practice. I also feel compelled to again encourage the salvage and reconstruction of a section or fragment of the wood crib silo (Silo 1) as an interpre- tive element on site. It is noted that this structure included in the list of suggested materials for salvage. RECOMMENDATIONS In terms of next steps, I recommend that the applicant provide a Conservation Plan as part of the ongoing approvals process. The Conservation Plan should included: • a conservation strategy/design rationale addressing the overall site plan and discussing the compatibility of the new construction with the retained heritage buildings and attributes; - 513 - Page 4Caplink Demolition Permit Submission, Preliminary Peer Review • a detailed description of the conservation (restoration and rehabilitation) scope of work for Percy House supported by architectural and landscape drawings; • a commemoration plan; and, • a long-term building conservation and maintenance plan. Please contact me should you require any further details or clarifications. Sincerely, Lindsay Reid OAA CAHP LEED Principal, Branch Architecture - 514 -