Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 8, 2023Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Special Meeting Agenda November 8, 2023 - 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Members of the public may observe the meeting proceedings by viewing the livestream. Page 1.Review and Approval of Agenda 2.Disclosure of Interest 3.Approval of Minutes 3.1 September 27, 2023 1 4.Delegations 5.New Business 5.1 301 Kingston Road-Proposed Demolition 6 Presentation Ed Saki, Property Owner Mark Van Doodewaard, Planning Consultant Chris Uchiyama, Principal, Manager Heritage Consulting Services, LHC Heritage Planning and Archaeology 5.2 Heritage Property Tax Relief By-law 129 5.3 815 Highway 7 (The Percy House) -Emergency Roof Repairs 141 5.4 1740 Fifth Concession Road -Review of CHER and CHERR-Proposed Demolition 157 6.Other Business 7.Next Meeting – November 22, 2023 8.Adjournment Page 1 of 5 Minutes/Meeting Summary Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee September 27, 2023 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm Attendees: R. Anderson N. Brewster L. JeffreyS. MonaghanR. SmilesC. Doody-Hamilton J. White Karen Wianecki, Director, Practice Planning Solutions Inc.N. Surti, Division Head, Development Review & Urban DesignS. Muir, Supervisor, Public Affairs & Corporate CommunicationsE. Game, Senior Planner, Heritage B. Weiler, Principal Planner, Policy (Staff Liaison) A. MacGillivray, Committee Coordinator (Recording Secretary) Absent: A. Bhadra Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 1. Review and Approval of Agenda Moved by C. Doody-Hamilton Seconded by S. Monaghan That the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda of September 27, 2023 be approved. Carried 2. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 3. Approval of Minutes Moved by R. Smiles Seconded by N. Brewster That the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of June 28, 2023 be approved. Carried - 1 - Page 2 of 5 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 4. Delegations There were no delegations. 5. New Business 5.1 Presentation by Shauna Muir, Supervisor, Public Affairs & Corporate Communications Re: Corporate Strategic Plan Engagement K. Wianecki, Director, Practice Planning Solutions Inc., through the aid of a PDF presentation, provided an overview of the City’s progress to date in developing its first Corporate Strategic Plan, and solicited the Committee for feedback. Discussion ensued amongst Committee Members regarding: • whether the anticipated population growth of Pickering and the notion of “Smart Growth” is being considered in the Strategic Plan; • whether the Committee can play a role in assisting enhancing Pickering’s natural heritage features; • whether cultural heritage should be prominently identified in the strategic plan; • ensuring the cultural and ecological value of greenspace is done carefully and includes engagement with the indigenous community; • unique and positive attributes of Pickering; • the consideration of transportation needs including road widening, bike lanes, bus service etc.; • consideration of walkability, accessibility, and reducing car dependency in the Strategic Plan; • concerns around Pickering’s infrastructure given the expected population growth; • concerns regarding traffic and road safety; • concerns regarding lack of reliable public transit in Pickering, especially in rural Pickering; • clarification around the expectations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee in contributing to the Strategic Plan; - 2 - Page 3 of 5 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) •the City’s past Community CharacterStudy, concerns regarding the outcome of the study, and whether this was considered as part of the Strategic Plan; •concerns regarding the age of the existingwater, sewer, and power infrastructure and whether it can effectively support the anticipated population growth; •clarification that Pickering anticipates towelcome approximately 150,000 new residents by 2051; •clarification regarding the status of theCommunity Character Study and theassociated By-laws; •whether the City has considered requiringdevelopments to incorporate greeninfrastructure requirements (e.g. greenroofs, electric car solar panels); •the City’s existing Integrated SustainableDesign Standards (ISDS) that are in place; •the consideration of ensuring the City’s infrastructure is resilient to climate change; •the provision of greenspace in Seaton’sDevelopment Plan; •the opportunity for the City to consider innovative and cutting edge approaches inaccomplishing safety and sustainabilitygoals; •the City’s efforts to attract businesses tothe Innovation Corridor; •whether the City can consider looking atattracting academic institutions; and, •clarification regarding the City’s effort toincrease access to healthcare services andfacilities. K. Wianecki provided an oral summary of the feedback that she heard from the Committeeduring the presentation and thanked theCommittee for their input on the City’s StrategicPlan. - 3 - Page 4 of 5 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 5.2 Municipal Heritage Register Review and Update E. Game, Senior Planner, Heritage, provided anoverview of the City’s 2023 Municipal HeritageRegister Review including: •the impacts of Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 has on the MunicipalHeritage Register; •a summary of listed properties; •strategy and rationale for designatingproperties; and, •summaries of each heritage property including their notable attributes and theircategorized priority level. Discussion ensued with the Committee regarding: •whether the City has any recourseregarding the partial demolition of 301Kingston Rd.; •clarification regarding the development applications on the lands of theLiverpool House and Post Manor; •the importance of preserving heritage buildings in their original setting to retaincontextual value; •whether designation of properties wouldimpact current developments underway; •the next steps to bring this matter to thePlanning & Development Committeeand Council for approval; •clarification that the compromisedbuilding would be removed from theregister after January 1, 2025; •whether the City should be considering more properties for designation; •the historical context as to why theHeritage Register does not contain allinventoried Heritage properties; and, •clarification around the process aroundthe demolition process should theproperties remain undesignated. - 4 - Page 5 of 5 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) Moved by N. Brewster Seconded By L. Jeffrey 1.That Heritage Pickering support the Part IVdesignation of the following properties: 1294 Kingston Road 450 Finch Avenue1 Evelyn Avenue401 Kingston Road4993 Brock Road; and, 2.That Heritage Pickering support of thecompletion of Cultural Heritage EvaluationReports for 1027-1031 Dunbarton Roadand 4953 Brock Road to determine theirCultural Heritage Value or Interest, and to determine if the properties are candidatesfor designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Carried 6. Other Business There was no other business. 7. Next Meeting The next meeting of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee is scheduled for October 25, 2023. 8. Adjournment Moved by S. Monaghan Seconded by N. Brewster That the meeting be adjourned. Carried Meeting Adjourned: 9:13 pm - 5 - Memo To: Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee November 8, 2023 From: Emily Game Senior Planner, Heritage Copy: Chief Planner Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design Subject: Proposed Demolition – 301 Kingston Road Background This memo is intended to provide background information on activity surrounding the above-noted heritage listed property, including its current status, and next steps. On March 1, 2021, Council endorsed the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee to list 301 Kingston Road on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act (Council Resolution #536/21). Staff’s efforts to expedite the addition of 301 Kingston Road to the Municipal Heritage Register were in response to staff being made aware of the property owner’s intentions to demolish the existing two-storey building (see Attachment #1, Location Map). On April 23, 2021, City Development staff observed evidence of construction activity at 301 Kingston Road. A thorough site visit was conducted by Building Inspection staff on April 27, 2021, which revealed that the owner had significantly altered the interior and exterior of the building without obtaining a building permit or demolition permit. Both the exterior cladding and the interior have been removed and left exposed. An Order to Comply was issued on April 28, 2021, which directed the owner to cease all work and to apply for, and obtain, a building permit or demolition permit. After the City issued an Order to Comply, the owner submitted a demolition permit application to the City on May 3, 2021. Upon further discussion with the City Development staff, the owner advised of their future intentions for the property, which included potential commercial, a recreational school, and other community or educational uses. To facilitate his pursuit to re-develop the site, the owner requested the suspension of the demolition permit on May 19, 2021, thereby ‘stopping the clock’ on the 60-day timeline in which Council is required to make a decision whether or not to designate the property. In June 2021, a planning consultant on behalf of the owner spoke with heritage staff to understand the property. It was the City of Pickering’s understanding the planning consultant was assisting the owner in developing a comprehensive plan. City staff advised the planning consultant to book a pre-consultation meeting to review the next steps for development and implement the recommendations of the Documentation Report. At this time, staff advised the importance of the two-storey building as one of the last remaining connections to the development surrounding the Rouge River and encouraged the owner to incorporate the building in any future redevelopment plans. - 6 - November 8, 2023 Page 2 of 4 Proposed Demolition – 301 Kingston Road Despite City staff following up, no meaningful communication was received from the property owner until September 19, 2023, when a request to reinstate the demolition permit application was made to the City. The property owner also made inquiries regarding the requirements and timelines associated with the demolition of the building. The request to reinstate the demolition permit application was not granted as there have been several building code changes since the initial submission in 2021. Further to this, a site plan had not been provided as required in the Building By-law and the 2021 application was deemed incomplete. A demolition permit application was formally resubmitted by the property owner on October 18, 2023. The City previously determined that 301 Kingston Road Has Cultural Heritage Value In 2020, City Development hired Branch Architecture to undertake a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for four properties located within the Kingston Road Intensification Corridor (See Attachment #2, CHER). The CHER evaluated the subject property against the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06 and determined that it possesses cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI). The report determined the building at 301 Kingston Road was an altered, but rare example of a Georgian house in Pickering, likely dating to the mid-1800s. The property was found to have associations with William Holmes, an early landowner in Pickering and a military doctor. The property was found to be historically linked to its surroundings for its associations with the Community of Rouge Hill and is likely one of the few remaining buildings from the early settlement of the community. Lastly, given the building’s prominent location at the intersection of Kingston Road and Altona Road, it is considered a landmark structure. A Structural Report was provided by the Owner to the City Tacoma Engineers was retained by the property owner to provide a preliminary structural assessment of the building at 301 Kingston Road (See Attachment #3, Structural Assessment). Tacoma Engineers found the building to be in a partial state of demolition. The building was in generally poor condition, the report also indicated that additional structural work may be required to ensure the long-term viability of the building. To the best of our knowledge, the owner has not completed all the recommendations as outlined by Tacoma Engineers; additional photos or a site visit may be required to determine the extent of repairs. A Documentation and Commemoration Report has been submitted by the Owner LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. (LHC), was retained by the property owner to complete a Documentation and Commemoration Report for the property (See Attachment #4: Documentation and Commemoration Report). The report recommended the following, should the request for demolition be approved: •salvaged materials should be either incorporated into any new design or for reuseelsewhere; - 7 - November 8, 2023 Page 3 of 4 Proposed Demolition – 301 Kingston Road •a reputable contractor(s) with experience working with cultural heritage resource removalshould be retained to salvage the identified features; •before salvaging materials for reuse in other buildings or projects, their end location shouldbe determined; •any materials not deemed salvageable, should be recycled, and diverted from landfill; and, •a plaque commemorating the Property and Rouge Hill is recommended to be installed in alocation visible from the public realm. The report included an evaluation of the property using Ontario Regulation 9/06, to determine if it retained Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Despite the extensive alterations to the building, the evaluation found the subject property met two of the nine criteria, and therefore retained heritage value. The property was found to have connections to the mid-nineteenth century development of Rouge Hill and was found to be a landmark building. The report also noted the following remaining heritage attributes: •the form, scale, and massing of the residence and its medium-pitched side-gable roof with returns; and •its location, orientation, and setback. Based on the recommendations outlined in the Documentation and Commemoration Report prepared by LHC, the property owner contacted two sign companies to inquire about plaques and an associated website for commemoration. The final design or location of the plaque is to be determined. Enforcement Options The existing Order to Comply is still open and remains outstanding. Fines under the Ontario Building Code Act were not pursued in 2021 as the owner was demonstrating good faith towards coming up with development alternatives. Further enforcement measures respecting Building Code violations are not recommended at this time until the heritage matters surrounding the building structure are fully resolved. Alterations to a listed heritage property do not require City approval or a Heritage Permit, however, the property owner may be charged under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act, should it be determined that the alterations to the building constitute demolition. Staff Recommendations to Heritage Pickering This memo provides recommendations to the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee regarding the potential demolition of the building at 301 Kington Road. As outlined in the Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report and the Documentation and Commemoration Plan, 301 Kingston Road, meets two of the nine criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06. It is therefor a candidate for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. - 8 - November 8, 2023 Page 4 of 4 Proposed Demolition – 301 Kingston Road Staff offer the following recommendations to the Committee: • That Heritage Pickering refuse the “Request for Demolition” of the house at 301 Kingston Road the basis of its cultural heritage value or interest; • That the property at 301 Kingston Road be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; • That the applicant provides a Conservation Plan which shall include a detailed description of the conservation (restoration and rehabilitation) scope of work for 301 Kingston Road supported by architectural drawings; and • 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 Heritage Pickering recommendations will be included in the City Development Staff Recommendation Report to Planning & Development Committee, and the potential Part IV designation under the Ontario Heritage Act of 301 Kingston Road will be presented to Council. If you have any questions, please contact me at 905.420.4660, extension 1147. EG:nr J:\Documents\Administration\A-3300\A-3300-084\October 25 HPAC Meeting\Heritage Committee Memo_25OCTT23.docx Attachments #1: Location Map, 301 Kingston Road #2: Kingston Road Study: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report #3: Preliminary Structural Assessment: 301 Kingston Road #4: Documentation and Commemoration Report: 301 Kingston Road - 9 - Ro ugemountDrive Fawndale Road Valley Gate Alt o n a R o a d Le k a n i C o u r t Toynevale Road Wi n e t t e R o a d Pin e Rid g e R o a d Rouge Hill Court D a l e w o o d D r i v e K i n g s t o n R o a d Brookridge Gate Highway 4 0 1 Ly t t o n C o u r t Ri v e r v i e w C r e s c e n t 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Property Description:A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯ E Pt Lot 32, B.F.C. Range 3 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\301KingstonRd_LocationMap.mxd (301 Kingston Road) City of Toronto $WWDFKPHQW - 10 - CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT KINGSTON ROAD STUDY Pickering, Ontario November 1, 2020 $WWDFKPHQW - 11 - Cover Image: 301 Kingston Road, 2019. (Branch Architecture, BA) PREPARED FOR: Elizabeth Martelluzzi, Planner II, Heritage City Development Department City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 E: emartelluzzi@pickering.ca PREPARED BY: Branch Architecture 2335 County Road 10 Picton, ON K0K 2T0 T: (613) 827-5806 Issued: 2020.06.16 DRAFT 2020.11.01 R1 - 12 - i Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 CONTENTS 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Project Framework & Background 1.2 Property Addresses and Lot Descriptions 2 Land Grants 2 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Historical Maps 3 1 Evelyn Avenue 7 3.1 Property Description 3.2 Background Research 3.3 Building Description & Site Photos 3.4 Evaluation 4 301 Kingston Road 16 4.1 Property Description 4.2 Background Research 4.3 Building Description & Site Photos 4.4 Evaluation 5 401 Kingston Road 26 5.1 Property Description 5.2 Background Research 5.3 Building Description 5.4 Evaluation 6 882 & 886 Kingston Road 37 6.1 Property Description 6.2 Background Research 6.3 Building Description & Site Photos 6.4 Evaluation 7 Discussion 59 Appendix 1: Sources Appendix 2: Summary of Land Records - 13 - ii KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 1. Approximate location of subject properties. (Bing maps annotated by BA) 1 Evelyn Avenue 882 Kingston Road 401 Kingston Road 301 Kingston Road PROJECTNORTH - 14 - 1 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 1 Introduction 1.1 Project Framework & Background Branch Architecture was retained by the City of Pickering as a heritage consultant to assess the potential cultural heritage value of four properties of heritage significance identified in the Kingston Road Corridor and Speciality Retailing Node Draft Intensification Plan. These properties are: 1 Evelyn Avenue; 301 Kingston Road; 401 Kingston Road; and, 882 Kingston Road. The scope of this cultural heritage evaluation includes the following: 1. Undertake a site visit to each property, including a walk around the subject building. 2. Conduct preliminary background research on the history of the properties and their immediate setting. 3. Undertake general photographic documentation of the property and surroundings. 4. Prepare a Preliminary Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report including the following for each property: • A written description of the property and building(s); • General photographs of each property and buildings; and, • Preliminary heritage evaluation based on Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Branch Architecture undertook on site visits to 401 and 882 Kingston Road on March 2, 2020, and to 301 Kingston Road on October 19, 2020. The visits consisted of walking around each property and the immediate context, and completing a visual review of the building exterior and interior (where access was permitted). All the properties were reviewed from the street in December of 2019. Branch Architecture prepared this Cultural Heritage Evaluation in accordance with Ontario Regulation 9/06 - Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, the Ontario Heritage Act, the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada as well as other charters and guidelines that exemplify heritage best practice. 1.2 Property Addresses and Lot Descriptions • 1 Evelyn Avenue - PLAN 230 PT LOT 10 NOW RP 40R12418 PART 1 • 301 Kingston Road - CON BF RANGE 3 PT LOT 32 • 401 Kingston Road - PLAN 230 PT LOT 19 NOW RP 40R16160 PART 1 • 882 & 886 Kingston Road - CON BF RANGE 3 PT LOT 27 AND RP 40R2628 PART 1 TO 4 AND RP 40R15853 PART 1,2,3 - 15 - 2 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 2 Land Grants 2.1 Introduction The Constitutional Act of 1791, known as the Canada Act, divided the Province of Quebec into Upper Canada to the west and Lower Canada to the east. As part of this Act, land grants in the newly surveyed townships were issued under the newly estab- lished provincial governments. In 1792, the responsibility of granting lands was del- egated to Lt. Governor Col. John Graves Simcoe. Simcoe followed British land granting tradition and, in effect, made members of his legislative council landed gentry. By the end of his term of office in 1796, he had placed one seventh of the surveyed townships in the hands of the Church of England (known as the Clergy Reserves) and provided well for his council and his civil servants. In the Pickering Township alone, of the 74,660 acres which the township contains, 18,800 were in the hands of five people; one of them the newly appointed Surveyor-General, two others, members of his family.1 Much of the Pickering Township was either granted to members of the military or allo- cated as additional land grants to absentee landholders. As such, there was little land left for new settlers purchasing land to establish a homestead here.2 Large areas of land, in particular the most desirable lands along the shoreline, remained wild well into the 1800s when the original landowners and the Church began selling off parcels to new settlers. The subject properties are located within Broken Front Concession 3 as shown on the 1877 County Atlas (opposite): • Con. 3 B.F., Lot 27 - 862 Kingston Road; • Con. 3 B.F., Lot 31 - 1 Evelyn Avenue and 401 Kingston Road; and, • Con. 3 B.F., Lot 32 - 301 Kingston Road. All these lots are bisected by Kingston Road. Kingston Road was a military road, dating from 1800, that served as the primary route for pioneers travelling between York (Toronto) and the Bay of Quinte (Kingston). In 1796, an American engineer named Asa Danforth was awarded with the contract for the road - a road two rods wide and far enough from the shore to avoid enemy forces from observing troop movements. 1 The Pickering Story, p. 21.2 The Crown provided Loyalists with 200 acres and military grants of up to 5,000 acres for free. Settlers paid the Crown for 200 acre parcels. - 16 - 3 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 2. The Ontario County Atlas, 1877. (The County Atlas Project, McGill University) Lo t 3 2 Lo t 3 1 Broken Front Con. 3 Broken Front Con. 2 Con. 1 Lo t 3 3 Lo t 2 9 Lo t 2 8 Lo t 3 0 Lo t 2 6 Lo t 2 5 Lo t 2 7 Lo t 2 3 Lo t 2 4 1 Evelyn Avenue 882 Kingston Road 401 Kingston Road 301 Kingston Road PROJECTNORTH Kingston Rd Kingston Rd 2.2 Historical Maps - 17 - 4 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 3. Township of Pickering, County of Ontario Crown Lands Map No. 28, by Thomas Ridout, 1823 with later revisions. The clergy reserve lands are identified in blue. (Ontario Archives, OA) Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F. 4. Tremaine’s Map of the County of Ontario, Upper Canada by John Shier Esq. P.L.A. & County Engineer and published by Geo. C. Tremaine, 1860. (University of Toronto Map & Data Library) Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F.Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. - 18 - 5 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 5. The Ontario County Atlas, 1877. (The County Atlas Project, McGill University) 6. Map of the Township of Pickering by Chas E. Goad, 1895. (Pickering Archives, PA) Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F.Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F.Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. - 19 - 6 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 7. Gidual Landowners’ Map of Pickering, c. 1917. (PA) 8. Map of Pickering Township, Centennial Souvenir, 1967. (PA) Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F.Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F.Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. - 20 - 7 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 3 1 Evelyn Avenue 9. 1 Evelyn Avenue, west elevation. (Google streetview) Rougemoun t D r i v e High way 4 0 1 Ev e l y n A v e n u e Toynevale Road Dalewood Drive Kin gston Road Ch a n t i l l y R o a d Ro s e b a n k R o a d Frontier Court Granite Court Rouge Hill Court Old Forest Road EastWoodlandsPark SouthPetticoatRavine 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Property Description:A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯ E Pt Lot 10, Plan 230, Now Pt, 1 40R-12418 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\1EvelynAve_LocationMap.mxd (1 Evelyn Avenue)10. 1 Evelyn Avenue, location map. (City of Pickering) - 21 - 8 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 3.1 Property Description One Evelyn Avenue falls within the south half of Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 31. The parcel was created as part of the Morgan & Dixon’s Plan (Plan No. 230) dated July 6, 1922. 3.2 Background Research Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 31 Concession 3 Broken Front Lot 31 originally formed part of the Clergy Reserves land allocation in Pickering.1 Seneca Palmer (1787-1873) received the patent for Lot 31 of the third broken front concession in Pickering in 1846.2 The Palmer family immigrated to Upper Canada from the United States around 1976 and settled in Scarborough in and around 1800. Seneca and his younger brothers John and Sherwood moved to the Township of Pickering to purchase land and establish their own farms. Seneca’s land petition of March 1819 describes him as follows: That your Petitioner was born in the United States of America, has resided in this province 23 years, is 27 years of age, is a son of James Palmer Senior an old settler in Scarborough, is married, and has never received any land from the Crown.3 Local historian John Sabean’s research of the Palmer Family suggests that Seneca Palmer farmed the land prior to gaining a land patent for Lot 31 in 1846. In a petition to purchase the property from the Crown, dated 21 February 1837, Palmer is described as ‘of the Township of Pickering’ and states that he has already cleared about 30 acres of the lot.4 1 The Crown Lands map (figure 3) notes Zephaniah Jones on this lot. According to Sabean’s article on the Palmer family, Jones leased this land from the Clergy Reserve from as early as 1823. Jones appears on Pickering Town Records as early as 1820. 2 Brown’s Toronto City and Home District Directory, 1846-1847, also lists Seneca Palmer on Lot 31, p. 62. 3 Upper Canada Land Petitions quoted in Sabean article. 4 The Palmer Family, p. 2. The Palmer Family “The early history of the Palmer fam- ily is sketchy and so far has been pieced together from what little documentation is available. The earliest references to the family date to 1802. Asa Danforth, reporting in that year on the condition of the Danforth Road, states that a settler named Palmer was located on the 10th mile post beyond York, which was probably Lot 23, Concession D in Scarborough. There is also a reference to a ‘Palmer’ family on a list of residents in the Township of Scarborough in 1802. The head of the family was James Palmer, Sr., who appears in the records of Scarborough on several occasions to about 1815. In 1803, he was appointed pound keeper and in 1804 overseer of highways. In 1815, a James Palmer, Sr. was noted in a York Militia List as being exempt from military draft. His family, as well as can be determined, consisted of his wife (name unknown), two daughters (one perhaps named Clara), and five sons (Seneca, John, and Sherwood who later moved to Pickering Town- ship, and James and Charles who remained in Scarborough).” - The Palmer Family: Settling in South Pickering by John W. Sabean - 22 - 9 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 By 1851, Seneca had established a 198 acre farm. There were 50 acres under cultivation including, 23 acres under crop (wheat, peas, oats, corn, potatoes, turnips and hay) and 15 acres under pasture. There was also an orchard or garden and livestock including cattle, horses, sheep, pigs. The remainder of the lot was wooded or ‘wild’.5 The 1851 census records show the Palmer family included Seneca, his wife Jane Jacques (1796-1875) and two chil- dren - George (age 19) and William (age 7). At that time the family was living in a one-storey brick house.6 7 Sabean’s article on the Palmer family describes the family residence as follows: ... one-and-a-half storey brick structure, is a fine example of the vernacular Regency-style cottage... As befitting the Regency style, the house is set in a picturesque landscape on a height of land over- looking the Petticoat.”8 9 George Palmer (1833-1891) remained on the family farm with his parents, while the other children left to start their own homesteads. Of note, two siblings had houses on adja- cent properties.10 11 After Seneca died of pneumonia on October 15, 1873, the properties in Pickering and Scarborough were willed to his wife Jane.12 Following her death in 1875, Lot 31 was divided between two of the sons: George received the north part of 120 acres, and James the south part of 80 acres. John and William acquired the Scarborough lands. 5 Year: 1851; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario County, Canada West (Ontario); Schedule: B; Roll: C_11742; Page: 275; Line: 9. 6 Year: 1851; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario County, Canada West (Ontario); Schedule: A; Roll: C_11742; Page: 171; Line: 42. 7 The 1851 census also notes Seneca’s older sons and their families under his listing: John, his wife Sarah, and daughter Mary; and, James, his wife Ellen as well as their children Jane and Seneen. Both families were living in 1 1/2 storey frame houses. 8 The Palmer Family, p. 2. 9 According to local papers, in 1998 the house was slated to be removed to allow for the construction of a new library. 10 Library and Archives Canada; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Census Returns For 1861; Roll: C-1057. 11 Year: 1871; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario South, Ontario; Roll: C-9973; Page: 69; Family No: 243. 12 Death certificate, Archives of Ontario; Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Collection: MS935; Reel: 5. 11. Seneca Palmer house, sketch (above) and in 1998 (be- low). (Pathways, Vol 2., No. 4) - 23 - 10 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER In 1882, George Kinlock purchased a 27 acre parcel along Kingston Road from George and Mary Palmer. Kinlock, a farmer, lived here with his mother (also named Mary).13 He died on July 19, 1915.14 The Pickering News remembered him under the Rosebank neighbourhood news column: Geo. Kinlock, an old resident, died at his resi- dence just north of here on Monday morning. The deceased, who was 68 years of age, was a bachelor and lived alone since the death of his mother some years ago. His funeral took place on Tuesday to St. Margaret’s cemetery, Scarboro.15 The executors of Kinlock’s will put the land up for sale the following August. Griffith B. Clarke purchased the 27 acre lot on June 26, 1919. The farm changed hands several times before Plan 230 - Morgan & Dixon’s Plan - was registered on March 13, 1922. It was named for the land owners Edwin Morgan and Mildred Dixon. The properties at 1 Evelyn Avenue and 401 Kingston Road fall within this subdivision. Lot 10 - 1 Evelyn Avenue The property at 1 Evelyn Avenue was granted to Silas R. Dixon, Mildred’s spouse, in 1930. The property remained in the Dixon family ownership until 1943. In 1921 Mildred and Silas Dixon lived in Pickering with their children Evelyn, Alexander, Leonard, Ruby and Russel, though it is not confirmed if they resided here.16 The next property owners were John Horace and Dorothea Daniell-Jenkins. Heinz and Ilse Wolf bought the lot in 1980. In 1998 it was sold to Mike Lindo, and the following year it was transferred to a company named 1000683 Ontario Ltd. The building currently houses a law office. 13 Year: 1891; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario West, Ontario, Canada; Roll: T-6358; Family No: 134. 14 Archives of Ontario; Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Collection: MS935; Reel: 211. 15 The Pickering News, Friday, July 23, 1915, Vol. XXXIV, p. 1. (PA). 16 Reference Number: RG 31; Folder Number: 75; Census Place: Pickering (Township), Ontario South, Ontario; Page Number: 1. 12. Property sale advert. (The Pickering News, August 27, 1915) - 24 - 11 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 3.3 Building Description & Site Photos Branch Architecture completed a visual review of this prop- erty from the street in December of 2019. It was a prelim- inary review focused on gaining a visual understanding of the site and building for the purposes of evaluating its potential cultural heritage value. The residential form buildings (house and outbuilding) at 1 Evelyn Avenue are examples of early 20th century bungalow style architecture in Pickering. The bungalow style house gained popularity in American in the early 20th century. It was popularized in California where American designers drew inspiration from the British version of India’s banglas style of home (Bengali style). In Ontario, the bungalow style is almost exclusively residential as it was commonly found in house pattern catalogues. The typical bungalow is a one or one-and-a-half storey dwelling with a front porch or verandah and displaying rustic materials such as textured brick, fieldstone and/or stucco. The roof is either a broad, low-pitched roof with a wide front dormer or a medium pitch front gable style. The following description of the property is limited as views from the street are obscured by mature trees: • The house is a two-storey building with a masonry - a mix of brick and stone - cladding. The building has a rectilinear plan with a projecting bay at the north-east corner of the building. The second floor of the main house and the connection to the one-storey outbuilding to the south appear to be additions. • The front (west-facing) elevation displays an asymmet- rical organization. The front entrance door is located between window openings and beneath flat roof canopy resting on square masonry piers. 13. American bungalow style home, 1921. (Sears Roebuck) 14. Canadian bungalow style home, 1922. (The Halliday Co.) - 25 - 12 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER • The exterior walls are clad in a mix of brick and multi-colour fieldstone. The main body of the wall is fieldstone with brick quoins and a brick quoin treatment at the window and door jambs. The extruded red brick is laid in a running bond (suggesting a wood frame construction). • The window openings are rectangular with a concrete sill and an arched brick lintel. The windows are wood with a mix of fixed and single hung sash types. On the ground floor there several types: paired single-hung windows with shorter upper sash (with most divided vertically into three panes); and, single-hung windows (with a shorter upper sash divided vertically into three panes). At the second floor addition, the windows are aluminium or vinyl fixed windows. • The roof has a hipped profile set at a low pitch. The roof is covered in asphalt shingle and the rain gear is painted metal. There is a tall brick chimney at the north wall and a second at the addition. • The one-story outbuilding south of the house displays a similar construction. It is one- storey structure set into the hillside so as to display a two-storey elevation to the east. It is mixed masonry (to match the house) with a hipped roof. The symmetrical front facade facing Evelyn Avenue displays two doors flanking a pair of small sash windows. 15. 1 Evelyn Avenue property, aerial view looking west, Aug. 2020. (Google streetview) - 26 - 13 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 16. 1 Evelyn Avenue property as seen from the corner of Kingston Road and Evelyn Avenue, Aug. 2019. (Google streetview) 17. 1 Evelyn Avenue house (left) and outbuilding (right), west (front) elevation, Aug. 2019. (Google streetview) - 27 - 14 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 18. 1 Evelyn Avenue house, west (front) elevation, 2020. (City staff) - 28 - 15 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 3.4 Evaluation The following evaluates 1 Evelyn Avenue in relation to Ontario Regulation 9/06. Criteria Description Assessment Design or Physical Value i. is a rare, unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method; The building is a represent- ative example of an early 20th century bungalow in Pickering. The unique fieldstone treatment on the exterior walls is also found at 401 Kingston Road which was also contained within the Morgan and Dixon Plan. ii. displays a high degree of crafts- manship or artistic merit, or; None found. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. None found. Historical or Associative Value i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organi- zation, or institution that is significant to a community; None found. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or; None found. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community. None found. Contextual Value i. is important in defining, maintain- ing, or supporting the character of an area; No. ii. is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings, or; Reflects the pattern of early 20th century residential de- velopment along Kingston Road in Pickering. iii. is a landmark.No. - 29 - 16 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 4 301 Kingston Road 19. 301 Kingston Road, north elevation, Dec. 2019. (BA) Ro ugemountDrive FawndaleRoadValley Gate Alt o n a R o a d Le k a n i C o u r t Toynevale Road Win e t t e R o a d Pine Ridg e R oa d RougeHillCourt D a l e w o o d D r i v e Kin g sto n R oad Brookridge Gate Highway 401 Lyt t o n C o u r t Riv e r v i e w C r e s c e n t 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Property Description:A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯ E Pt Lot 32, B.F.C. Range 3 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\301KingstonRd_LocationMap.mxd (301 Kingston Road) City of Toronto 20. 301 Kingston Road, loca- tion map. (City of Pickering) - 30 - 17 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 4.1 Property Description The subject property falls within the south half of Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 32. The parcel was likely created when the concession lot was subdivided in 1944. 4.2 Background Research Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 32 The patent for Lot 32 of the third broken front concession was granted to William Holmes in 1798. Holmes owned multiple parcels in the Township of Pickering; the lots were located between French Man’s Bay and the Rouge River, and found within Concession 1 and along the lake, lots 26 through 33. William Holmes received a patent for Lot 32 on May 22, 1798. William Holmes (1766- 1834) was a doctor and military surgeon in Upper Canada. From 1790 to 1791 he was stationed in Newark near Niagara-on-the-Lake. In 1792, with plans to settle in Upper Canada, he accepted a grant for 1,200 acres in Pickering Township and purchased addi- tional land. However, in 1796 his regiment was relocated to Lower Canada, and Holmes’ family re-settled in Quebec where he worked as a senior medial officer. He also established himself as in private medical practice working at both Hotel-Dieu and Hospital General. By the early 1800s, he and his family were living in Upper Town Quebec City. After the death of his first wife Mary Ann in 1803, he remarried Margaret Macnaider in 1807. He main- tained an active medical career including the following positions: President of the Quebec examiners (1813); member of the Vaccine Board (1817); Justice of the Peace (1821); and, Commissioner for the relief of the insane and foundlings (1816). In the 1820s, Holmes retired from practice, delegating his responsibilities to younger doctors and staff. 1 John Wesley purchased the 195 acre parcel at Con. 3 BF, Lot 32 from William Holmes on June 26, 1843.2 The 1861 census indicates that John Charles Wesley (1838-1920) was a farmer that was born in Toronto. According to the 1861 census, John was married to Elmira Wesley (1841-1884) and they were living in a two storey frame house. The other extended family members living in the house included Jane (18) and Fanny (17) Wesley.3 Wesley owned the property for several decades and registered multiple mortgages on the south part of the lot in the 1860s. Between 1868 and 1871 there was several instruments listed on the south part of the lot, though these records are largely illegible. 1 Dictionary of Canadian Biography, William Holmes. 2 “Sarah Wesley” is listed as the resident of this lot in Brown’s Toronto City and Home District Direc- tory, 1846-1847, p. 65. Her relationship to John is not known. 3 Library and Archives Canada; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Census Returns For 1861; Roll: C-1057. - 31 - 18 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER In 1874, the part of the lot south of Kingston Road was purchased by Richard Rodd (1837- 1900); Rodd is also recorded on the 1877 Atlas Map. Richard, his wife Susan (1834-1899) and their eight children lived in Pickering in 1881.4 Richard was a farmer and the family immigrated from England. They lived in Whitby before buying the farm in Pickering.5 Robert and Naomi Moody purchased the lot in either 1881 or 1891.6 They sold the prop- erty south of Kingston Road to George Edward Toyne (1886-1943) on March 18, 1902 for $8,000. After George’s death in 1943, George’s wife Helen sold the one acre lot on the south side of Kingston Road to John and Alcone Alderice. The lot was sold to Manfred Pfeiffer and Delmar Page in 1968, and then granted to Ruth Smith (trustee) on Jan. 4, 1971. Ernest A.J. Salmon purchased the lot on January 16, 1971. Rouge Hill This intersection is identified in historical maps as ‘Rouge Hill’. While little is written about this community along the Grand Trunk Railway line, the 1892-93 Ontario Directory includes the following snapshot in time: A P O on the rive Rouge (which furnishes power), in Pickering tp, Ontario Co, 11 miles s-w of Whitby, the co seat, and 3 n of Pt Union, on the GTR, its nearest bank at Pickering. It contains a flour mill, Bible Christian church and public school. Residents listed - Wm. Maxwell, flour mill; John Pearce mason and contractor; Roger Pearce, mason and contractor; William Pearce, Mason and contractor; and Luke Wallace, carpenter.7 According to the Pickering Tweedsmere scrapbook, this area was also known as East Rouge Hill. 4.3 Building Description & Site Photos Branch Architecture completed a visual review of this property from the street in December of 2019, followed by a visit with the owner on October 19, 2020. There were preliminary reviews focused on gaining a visual understanding of the site and building for the purposes of evaluating its potential cultural heritage value, and did not include access to the interior. The building at 301 Kingston Road is an example of a mid 19th century Georgian house in Pickering, likely dating to the mid-1800s. This style dates to 1750-1850. Based on the English Palladian and Georgian styles, this style arrived in Upper Canada first with the 4 Year: 1881; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario South, Ontario; Roll: C_13244; Page: 84; Family No: 412 5 Year: 1871; Census Place: Whitby, Ontario South, Ontario; Roll: C-9974; Page: 67; Family No: 256 6 This date is difficult to read. 7 Ontario Gazetteer and Directory for 1892-93, p. 1029. - 32 - 19 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 United Empire Loyalists and later with British immigrants. Georgian buildings were known for balanced façades, restrained ornamentation, and minimal detailing. It was employed by Upper Canadian settlers desiring, “a sturdy house that reflected his simple dignity”.8 Common features of this building style include: a box-like massing up to 3 storeys in height; symmetrical elevations and classical proportions often displaying a balanced arrangement of windows and doors with flat or splayed window arches; simple designs with limited clas- sical detailing; medium to high pitch gable roofs with half floors in attics and windows on gable ends; chimneys flanking gable end walls; either timber construction with clapboard siding or solid plain brick buildings; vertical sash windows with wood or stone sills; and, a central entrance door with a transom light and side lights. The following is a description of the building with observations: • The house is a two-storey building with a gable roof. It is located on the south side of Kingston Road and overlooks Kingston Road from a small rise. At the rear of the resi- dence are several one-storey additions. • The front (north-facing) facade displays a balanced (though not symmetrical) arrange- ment of openings. On the ground floor there is a centrally placed front door flanked by window openings. On the second floor are three evenly placed window openings; they do not align with the openings below. • The side (east and west) elevations display a symmetrical arrangement of window openings. On the east elevation there is a vertical strip between the windows; this is likely an alteration related to the chimney. • The building has a stone foundation laid in a random pattern. In 2020, a pre-painted aluminum skirt flashing was installed over the foundation visible above grade. • The exterior walls are clad in horozontal pre-painted aluminum siding with a edge board detail at the base of the wall, corners and eaves. Given the depth of wall extending out from the stone foundation, it appeared that the original siding may be concealed under the existing, however, the owner advised that under the existing siding are plain wood planks laid horizontally (not a finished painted clapboard or masonry). This suggests that the original cladding has been removed. • The front entrance opening is framed by a pedimented lintel and side panels. These elements have been covered in painted metal. In front of the entrance is a poured concrete step with a modern wood railing at the east side. 8 Ontario Architecture, www.ontarioarchitecture.com. - 33 - 20 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER • In 2019, the front entrance doorway was composed of a six-panel wood door flanked by wood columns, inset sidelights (2 lights over a base panel) and an inset four-light transom. The framing elements (door frame and stiles) and the base panels at the side- lights were overclad in painted metal. By October of 2020, the doors and windows had been replaced and the pediment concealed under new metal. • The window openings are rectangular with a thin sill and wide frames at the top, sides and mullions. In 2019, the windows appear to be constructed of wood and were made up of a sash windows with exterior storm windows. There was a mix of window arrangements and patterns. On the ground floor there is: a grouping of three windows consisting of a 6-over-12 sash flanked by 4-over-6 sash windows; pairs of 4-over-6 sash windows; and, pairs of 4-over-1 sash windows. At the second floor there are 4-over-1 sash windows in pairs and threes and, at the rear elevation, 6-over-1 sash windows. By October of 2020, the windows had been replaced with single pane windows. The wood sill have also been overclad in pre-painted metal. • The roof has a medium pitch gable roof profile. The roof is covered in asphalt shingle and the rain gear is painted metal. The eaves appear to have been altered with a perfo- rated metal soffit and painted metal overcladding at the fascia, bedmold, frieze and gable-end returns. There is a single red brick chimney at the east wall. 21. Aerial view looking north-east, 2020. (Google streetview) - 34 - 21 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 22. North (front) elevation, 2019. (BA) 23. North (front) elevation, 2020. (BA) - 35 - 22 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 24. Front entrance, 2019. (BA)25. Front entrance, 2020. (BA) 26. Stone foundation, 2019. (BA)27. Metal skirt at foundation, 2020. (BA) - 36 - 23 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 28. East (left) and north (right) elevations, 2019. (BA) 29. East (left) and north (right) elevations, 2020. (BA) - 37 - 24 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 30. West (left) and south (right) elevations, 2019. (BA) 31. West (left) and south (right) elevations, 2020. (BA) - 38 - 25 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 4.4 Evaluation The following evaluates 301 Kingston Road in relation to Ontario Regulation 9/06. Criteria Description Assessment Design or Physical Value i. is a rare, unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method; The building is a rare (and altered) example of an early to mid-19th century Georgian residence in Pickering. ii. displays a high degree of crafts- manship or artistic merit, or; Further investigation required. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. None known. Historical or Associative Value i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organi- zation, or institution that is significant to a community; The property has associations with early Pickering landowner and military doctor William Holmes. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or; No. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community. None known. Contextual Value i. is important in defining, maintain- ing, or supporting the character of an area; No. ii. is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings, or; The property is associ- ated with the Rouge Hill community, and is perhaps one of a few remaining buildings from this time. iii. is a landmark.The building is promi- nently located at the intersection of Alton and Kingston roads, and marks the west edge of Kingston Road. - 39 - 26 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 5 401 Kingston Road 32. 401 Kingston Road, north elevation. (BA) RougemountDrive Toynevale Road Ev e l y n A v e n u e Ch a n t i l l y R o a d Dah l i a C r e s c e n t Oa k w o o d D r i v e Frontier Court LyttonCourt D a l e w o o d D r i v e Ol d F o r e s t R o a d Highway 4 0 1 Rouge Hill Court Kingston Road EastWoodlandsParkSouthPetticoatRavine 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Property Description:A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯ E Pt Lt 19, Plan 230, Now Pt 1, 40R-16160 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\401KingstonRd_LocationMap.mxd (401 Kingston Road)33. 401 Kingston Road, loca- tion map. (City of Pickering) - 40 - 27 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 5.1 Property Description The subject property falls within the south half of Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 31. The parcel was created as part of the Morgan & Dixon’s Plan (Plan No. 230) dated July 6, 1922. 5.2 Background Research Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 31 See 1 Evelyn Avenue for early settlement history. Lot 19 - 401 Kingston Road The property at 1 Evelyn Avenue was granted to Annie and Horace Branson in 1923. Based on the land records, it appears this transaction was not fulfilled as in 1936 the estate of Peter S. Gates registered a quit claim on the property, likely in relation to a 1922 mort- gage. In 1939, the property was granted to Silas Dixon. In 1944, the property was granted to Silas’ son Alexander. Two years later, the property was sold to Louis E. Staley. Kathleen and John Quigg owned the property between 1951 and 1967. From 1967 the property changed hands several times - John and Margaret Belcourt (1967); Jack Knowles (1970); Victor and Felicia Mastrogicomos (1973); Brian and Christine Binns, (1975); Walter Francis (1987) - before being purchased by a pair of management / hold- ings companies. It was transferred to 1138224 Ontario Ltd. in 1995. A Montessori daycare is currently operating out of the building. 5.3 Building Description For the purposes of this CHER, Branch Architecture visited the property on March 2, 2020. The inspection included walking around the building and through each floor, and completing a visual review and photographic documentation. The review focused on gaining a visual understanding of the site and building for the purposes of evaluating its potential cultural heritage value. The building at 401 Kingston Road is an example of an early 20th century bungalow in Pickering. The Bungalow style house was an American import to Canada in the early 20th century. It was popularized in California; the Americans were inspired by the British version of India’s banglas style of home (Bengali style). In Ontario, the Bungalow style is almost exclusively residential as it was commonly found in house pattern catalogues. The Bungalow is generally a one or one-and-a-half storey dwelling with a front porch or verandah and displaying rustic materials such as textured brick, fieldstone and/ or stucco. The roof is either a broad, low-pitched roof with a wide front dormer or a medium pitch front gable style. - 41 - 28 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER The following is a description of the building with observations: • The house is a one-and-a-half storey wood frame building with a brick veneer and topped with a gable roof. • The front (north-facing) facade displays a symmetrical organization. There is a centrally placed front porch (with an entrance door within) framed by windows on either side. Above is a roof dormer of a similar configuration to the porch. • The building has a poured concrete foundation with large field stones mixed in. On the exterior, the foundation wall displays fieldstone laid in a random pattern and artic- ulated with a pronounced beaded mortar joint. • The exterior walls display a mix of masonry. The fieldstone extends up from the foun- dation to the top of the window sill. The remainder of the exterior walls are clad in an extruded red brick laid in a running bond. The quoins and porch piers are also red brick. • The enclosed front porch has a front gable appearance. The porch is entered from the east side via a wood step. The porch is framed with brick piers at the corners; the piers have a concrete cap and support squared wood columns. The base of the wall is fieldstone with a concrete cap. The upper wall areas are infilled with fixed wood windows following a symmetrical layout. The triangular pediment of the roof gable is infilled with painted wood shingle. • The front door is wood. The upper panel is glazed and is composed of 6 divided lights (3 panes wide). The lower panels is made up of three vertical wood panels. The door opening is framed in brick with an arched brick linel. • The window openings are rectangular with a concrete sill and an arched brick lintel. The windows are wood with a mix of fixed and single hung sash types. On the ground floor there four types: three single-hung windows with shorter upper sash (most divided vertically into three panes); single-hung windows (with shorter upper sash divided verti- cally into three panes); small fixed windows; and, at the front proch, fixed windows with three panes across the top. At the second floor there are single-hung windows (with shorter upper sash divided vertically into three panes). • The roof has a gable roof profile set at a medium pitch and with a gable roof dormer on the front (north) elevation. The roof is covered in asphalt shingle, the eaves are painted wood and display simple detailing including hipped eaves returns on the side gables. The rain gear is painted metal. There is a single chimney at the west wall. It is red brick with a metal cap. • The interior layout is largely intact; its displays a traditional three bedroom house. Further, many of the original elements remain, including wood trim, baseboards, window and door casings, doors, windows, wood flooring on the ground floor, stairs, and a fireplace mantle. - 42 - 29 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 34. North (front) elevation. (BA) 35. North (front) elevation, as viewed from the east. (BA) - 43 - 30 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 36. Porch, west elevation with entry door. (BA)37. Porch, west wall. (BA) 38. North elevation, quoin treatment. (BA)39. Porch, upper post and eaves. (BA) - 44 - 31 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 40. Porch, interior. (BA)41. Front door with quoins at door. (BA) 42. West elevation. (BA) - 45 - 32 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 43. West elevation, eaves return. (BA)44. West elevation, chimney and eaves. (BA) 45. West elevation, base of chimney. (BA)46. West elevation, three part window. (BA) - 46 - 33 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 47. South and west elevations. (BA) 48. South elevation, rear door. (BA)49. South elevation, single window. (BA) - 47 - 34 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 50. South and east elevation. (BA) 51. Foundation, interior. (BA)52. Wall treatments, brick and fieldstone (BA) - 48 - 35 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 53. Interior, second floor window. (BA)54. Interior, kitchen. (BA) 55. Interior, three part window on ground floor. (BA) - 49 - 36 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 5.4 Evaluation The following evaluates 401 Kingston Road in relation to Ontario Regulation 9/06. Criteria Description Assessment Design or Physical Value i. is a rare, unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method; The building is a represent- ative example of an early 20th century bungalow in Pickering. Of note, is the unique fieldstone treatment on the exterior walls. This is also found at 1 Evelyn Avenue which was also con- tained within the Morgan and Dixon Plan. ii. displays a high degree of crafts- manship or artistic merit, or; None found. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. None found. Historical or Associative Value i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organi- zation, or institution that is significant to a community; None found. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or; None found. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community. None found. Contextual Value i. is important in defining, maintain- ing, or supporting the character of an area; No. ii. is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings, or; Reflects the pattern of early 20th century residential de- velopment along Kingston Road in Pickering. iii. is a landmark.No. - 50 - 37 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 6 882 & 886 Kingston Road 56. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill as viewed from east parking lot. (BA) West S horeBoulevard Kingston Road ShadybrookDriveEd g e w o o d R o a d Gold e n ridge Road Fa i r p o r t R o a d DunbartonRoad Kates Lane SpruceHillRoad Sheppard Avenue Rushton Road Merritton Road Ad a C o urt Bayly Street Hig h w a y 4 01 VistulaRavine 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Property Description:A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯ E Pt Lot 27, B.F.C. Range 3 and Pt 1-4, 40R-2628 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\882-886KingstonRd_LocationMap.mxd and Pt 1-3, 40R-15853 (882-886 Kingston Road)57. 882 Kingston Road, loca- tion map. (City of Pickering) - 51 - 38 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 6.1 Property Description The legal description for 882 and 886 Kingston Road falls within the north half Concession 3 B.F., Lot 27 and is located directly west of the Village of Dunbarton. The existing lot was created on October 30, 1975. On June 1, 1976 the owners - Harry A. Newman and his wife - granted the subject property to “The Incumbent and Churchwardens of St. Paul’s on the Hill Dunbarton”. 6.2 Background Research Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 27 The following describes the early ownership of Concession 3 B.F., Lot 27 and the crea- tion of the subject property at 882 and 886 Kingston Road. William Holmes received the patent for this lot on May 28, 1796. See section 4.2 for background on Mr. Holmes. In 1832, Holmes sold the 200 acre lot to John Galbraith. In 1838, Henry Cowan purchased 111 acres on the north part of the lot. The Cowan family had immigrated to Canada in 1832 and settled at the mouth of the Rouge River on Lot 32 B.F. In 1840, Cowan sold the northern 100 acres to Thomas Courtice (1801-1860). Courtice acquired the remaining 11 acres in 1849. Thomas Courtice and his first wife Mary immi- grated from outside Devonshire, England in 1831. They settled in Darlington, Ontario before Mary died a few years after their arrival in Upper Canada. Thomas then married Mary Annis (1811-1899) of Pickering and, in 1841, the family relocated to Lot 27.1 2 The family farmed the lands and by 1851 the land was largely cleared with 57 acres of wheat, peas, oats, potatoes, turnips and hay as well as 15 acres of pasture.3 According to Past Years in Pickering, “He was a member of the Bible Christian Church and filled the office of the class leader and local preacher very acceptably from early manhood til the close of his life.”4 On Aug. 29, 1856, Courtice severed off several parcels; two were sold to The Grand Trunk Railway Company, and one small parcel was sold to the Trustees of School Sec. No. 3. The Dunbarton public school was built here and it operated until 1924.5 The remainder of the land was willed to Andrew James Courtice and later, in turn, to Levi Anni. 1 The Annis family arrived from Massachusetts in 1793. They settled Lot 6 B.F. of Pickering, 2 Brown’s Toronto City and Home District Directory, 1846-1847, p. 62. 3 Year: 1851; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario County, Canada West (Ontario); Schedule: B; Roll: C_11742; Page: 275; Line: 3. 4 Past Years in Pickering, p. 230. 5 In the land abstract it appears that the lot was enlarged c. 1880 with the purchase of more acreage north of Kingston Road by school trustees. This area of the ledger is larger illegible. - 52 - 39 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 According to the property records, on January 1, 1924 Harry A. Newman and his wife exchanged a parcel of their land and $1,200 with the school trustees for the property with the old school house. The intent of this trade was to convert the school into a church for the local Anglican congregation. The Village of Dunbarton The Village of Dunbarton is named for William Dunbar (1786-1869). Dunbar arrived in Lower Canada (Quebec) from Scotland in 1831. He continued on to the Town of York and, in 1840, purchased lands in Pickering Township.6 It was here that he laid out a predom- inantly Scottish settlement on Kingston Road. Dunbar worked as a blacksmith and was actively involved in the community; he was an elder in the Presbyterian church, a Justice of the Peace, and a school commissioner. He also contributed to the founding of the Pickering Harbour Company where he was employed as a the superintendent. His son William Dunbar Jr. inherited the property and spent his life working as a blacksmith in Dunbarton.7 His son, William T. Dunbar, owned and operated a general store in Duffins Creek (now Pickering Village) from 1880 to 1905, and constructed the Dunbar House on the north side of Dunbarton Road. The Village of Dunbarton was located along Kingston Road and had access to Frenchman’s Bay via an adjoining harbour. The April 3, 1896 edition of The Pickering News presents the following summary of the history of the village: The Village of Dunbarton derived its name as well as its origin from its first proprietor and projector, the late William Dunbar, Esq. Half a century ago he, with his household, settled on the lot of land he had bought, and on which he lived till the day of his death, in 1869. Then, the now well cleared and cultured farms were but large woods and little clearings. . . Somewhere about thirty years ago, the villages and the adjoining harbour both had their inception, and in both Mr. Dunbar ever took an active interest, being in the latter not only a large shareholder but superintendent of the work. . . The village plots when laid out, was rapidly bought up and built upon. . . Three stores now, and for a long time past, have readily and reasonably supplied the wants of the community. In one of them is the Post Office, with its mails twice each day. On the establishment of the Post Office the inhabitants agreed to call it Dunbarton, in honour of its originator, the name first got and ever retained. 6 William Dunbar’s deed to the west 1/2 of Lot 25, Concession 1, Pickering, Upper Canada is dated October 19, 1840. The Pickering Story conjectures that the time spent securing the property purchase can be linked to the families membership in the Reform Party as they were apprehended and kept under guard during the Rebellion of 1837. 7 Past Years in Pickering, pg.235. - 53 - 40 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER Prominent as it ever ought to be, stands the church, a commodious and substan- tial brick building, belonging to the Presbyterians, while the outskirts is the goodly brick school house. Thus the spiritual and the intellectual are wisely cared for. For a considerable time a tannery did good service in the village, but the removal of the railway station did much to injure the village and incommode the surrounding community. . . The situation is pleasant, having the beautiful bay with its harbour, in front, and the wide stretching lake beyond. The locality is while its inhabitants alike in enterprise and intelligence will favourably compare with those of any other community. The Dunbarton School, Section No. 3 The Dunbarton school house was built in 1857. According to Past Years in Pickering, “the brick for it and for the brick house on the farm opposite being made in the hollow south of the Kingston Road on the farm.”8 The Anglican Church in Pickering In the early 1800s, settlers were focused on clearing lands with an aim to establish a home- stead. Communities like Pickering were often served by a travelling missionary. According to Shumovich, by 1828 John Strachan (rector of St. James and Archdeacon of York): ... was most concerned about the ‘spiritual destitution’ of the families pioneering around York and the wilderness of Upper Canada, and the large numbers of Anglicans who has immigrated to the area from the British Isles. Rev. Adam Elliott was appointed as the visiting missionary, and in November of 1832 the Township of Pickering was added to his circuit. Initially, he held services in, “log school houses, taverns, barns and crowded houses all the way from Lake Ontario to Georgian Bay.”9 The first service in the Village of Pickering was held in the home of Mr. Francis Sey. The St. George’s Anglican Church was built circa 1856. It served residents of the Pickering Village as well as its membership in Dunbarton. St. Paul’s On-the-Hill The subject property has served Dunbarton’s Anglican community since 1925. In the early 1920s, the Dunbarton Anglican community began to distance itself from the Village of Pickering congregation. With an aim to establish a new church, church member and Toronto lawyer Harry A. Newman acquired this property in 1924. The property held the former Dunbarton School S.S. No. 3 (c. 1857). This exchange provided the school board with vacant land to construct a new two room school upon, and the former school was 8 Past Years in Pickering, p. 170. 9 St. Paul’s On-The-Hill, p. 2. - 54 - 41 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 renovated to serve as a place of worship for the ‘Mission of St. George’s’ or ‘The Dunbarton Mission’. The first service was held by Rev. Douglas Langford on November 8, 1925. Over the coming years, the parish continued to distinguish itself from the St. George’s Church. In 1933 it was renamed “St. Paul’s in-the-Hill, Dunbarton”. All the while, the two congregations continued to share the Rev. E.G. Robinson. He served as Rector from 1929-1953. In 1934, under the leadership of Harry Newman, the parish set about building a church. Newman built the church on this land (still owned my him) and leased it to the congre- gation for $1 /year until 1976. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill was designed by Architect Leo Hunt Stanford (1898-1970), son of Toronto architect Joseph Hunt Stanford. The family had immigrated from England to Canada in 1902. Leo was educated in Toronto and trained under his father. In 1922, Leo he became a partner in the firm. After his father died in 1935, Leo took over the practice that operated into the 1960s. Their portfolio was largely made up of residences, apartments and commer- cial buildings; of note is the Canadian National Institute for the Blind in Toronto. 10 The St. Paul’s On-The-Hill church is sited atop of a gently sloped hill with a south overlook across Kingston Road and on to Lake Ontario.11 The original church had a recta- linear plan (running east-west) with a tower at its south-east corner. The main entrance was located at the south-facing side of the tower and the chancel was found at its west end. The building was masonry construction displaying brick with stone accent details, and defined by tall stepped buttresses, arched wood windows, and saddleback roof of slate shingle. 10 Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950, www. dictionaryofarchitectsincanada.org. 11 It was located west of the existing church and former school house. Before its demolition in 1991, this building served as the parish hall. 59. Church of the Ascension, Toronto. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill) 60. Pews from Buttonville church. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill) 58. Mr. and Mrs. Harry A. Newman. (St. Paul’s On-The- Hill) 61. Front elevation drawing by Leo Hunt Stanford Architect. (on display at St. Paul’s On-The-Hill) - 55 - 42 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 62. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill, Nov. 1934. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill) 63. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill, Nov. 1984. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill) 64. Floor plans, St. Paul’s On- the-Hill. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill) - 56 - 43 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 The St. Paul’s On-The-Hill publication described the entry procession of the new church as follows: The interior of St. Paul’s is in keeping with the traditional design of small churches in rural Ontario. The floor plan shows the structure is made up of three rectan- gular box shapes. A small porch with six straight stairs lead to a set of Gothic lancet arched double wooden doors. These doors, centred on the south facade of the square tower, lead into a small entrance and stairs. The entrance leads to a nave without side aisles and the stairs lead down to the basement and up to the balcony which was added in 1983. The nave moves forward to the chancel... 12 According to St. Paul’s on-the-Hill, a unique aspect of the church is that it was constructed with materials reclaimed from other Ontario churches demolished: • Brick and windows were salvaged from the former Anglican Church of Ascension in Toronto; and, • Curved pews came from the former Buttonville Methodist Church (c. 1774).13 The church was formally opened on November 16, 1934 by Rev. D.T. Owen, Archbishop of Toronto. Rev. E.G. Robinson continued to lead the St. Paul’s On-The-Hill congregation as well as that of St. George’s. In 1939 his responsibilities expanded to include the growing Town of Ajax. With the outbreak of World War II and the subsequent establishment of the muni- tions plant (Defense Industries Ltd. or D.I.L.) in the Township of Pickering, Ajax quickly expanded into a community of 4,000. By 1943, the community had erected a church shared by four co-operating communions - Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian and United Church. Rev. Robinson lead the Anglican congregation. On May 1, 1959, St. Paul’s began worship as an independent parish under Rev. C.E. Olive as rector. He lived at the new two-storey rectory located directly south-west of the church. The site now contained three structures - the church, the parish hall in the old Durbanton school house, and the rectory.14 12 St. Paul’s On-The-Hill, p. 8. 13 The pews have since been replaced. 14 St. Paul’s On-The-Hill, p. 7. Rectors 1924-1930: Rev. Douglas B. Langford 1930-1953: Rev. E.G. Robinson 1953-1956: Rev. Jack Crouch 1956-1959: Rev. Dr. H.S. Shepherd 1959-1962: Rev. C.E. Olive 1962-1967: Rev. Ben P. Symth 1967-1969: Rev. Charles Dymond65. Rectory. (St. Paul’s On-The- Hill) 1970-1972: Rev. Wm. J. Rhodes 1973-1978: Rev. S.G. West 1978-1981: Rev. Gregory W. Physick 1982-2002/3: Rev. Brian H. McVitty 2004-2019: Rev. Canon Kimberly Beard Incumbent - 57 - 44 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER The arrival of 1976 brought the end of the lease agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Newman. At this time the Newman’s transferred the property deed to the rector and churchwardens. On March 21, 1976, St. Paul’s On-The-Hill was consecrated by Archbishop Lewis Garnsworthy. In 1983, the church interior was renovated. The work included a new balcony that added 55 seats while preserving the aesthetic of the church. 66. View to chancel after the renovation, Octo- ber 1985. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill) 67. Balcony, October 1985. (St. Paul’s On-The- Hill) 68. Site Plan drawing of church addition and renovation, 1991. Footprint of the original church shown in blue. (DLIA) Rectory Church addition Original church Parish Hall - 58 - 45 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 In 1989, Davidson-Langley Incorporated Architect (DLIA) was engaged to complete the renovation of and an addition to the church. The architectural firm was founded in 1985 by Elizabeth Jane Davidson and operated until 2013. Davidson came from a family of estab- lished Ontario architects.15 DLIA designed worked on many ecclesiastical buildings as well as commercial, residential, recreational and institutional buildings. Religous projects by the firm included the Church of St. Clements (Toronto), Metropolitan United Church (Toronto) and St. George’s Anglican Church (Pickering). Their work at St. Paul’s On-The- Hill won the Town of Pickering’s Economic Development Award in 1991. This expansion project included for the renovation of the existing 3,000 square foot church as well as a 9,000 square foot addition to the west. Within the addition is a new entry with offices, an additional congregation space, an underground gymnasium, a day care centre, and meeting rooms. As with the original building, the new building incorporated salvaged materials including reclaimed brick.16 6.3 Building Description & Site Photos For the purposes of this CHER, Branch Architecture visited the property on March 2, 2020. The inspection included walking around the building and through the main floor, and completing a visual review and photographic documentation. The review focused on gaining a visual understanding of the site and building for the purposes of evaluating its potential cultural heritage value. This review did not include the rectory building. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill is a 20th century church likely influenced by the traditional rural Ontario church with elements of Gothic and Gothic Revival architecture. According to the Ontario Heritage Trust website: Gothic Revival is an architectural movement that sought to revive the Gothic style, which flourished in Europe in the medieval period. The Gothic Revival movement began in the 1740s in England; interest in reviving the style soon spread to North America. With regard to religious architecture, the Gothic Revival was intertwined with the “High Church” movement and the Anglo-Catholic concern with the growth of religious non-conformism.17 In the second half of the 19th century, Gothic Revival architecture emerged as a popular residential building style in Ontario (with the Gothic Revival Cottage popularized by the Canada Farmer) and a common style for religious buildings in the mid- to late 19th century. As such, a number of Gothic Revival subcategories developed with buildings 15 Davidson’s great grandfather was an esteemed Toronto architect Henry Langley. Langley was the founding partner of the architectural firm Langley & Langley which later became Langley, Langley & Burke. The other partners were Henry’s son Charles Langley and Charle’s cousin Edmund Burke. The firm was responsible for many ecclesiastical buildings across Ontario. Their portfolio included several notable structures in Toronto such as the Necropolis, the spire of St. James Cathedral, and the Horticultural Pavillion at Allan Gardens 16 At the site tour, staff recalled the brick had been salvaged from a building in Oakville. 17 Ontario Heritage Trust, Architectural styles. www.heritagetrust.on.ca - 59 - 46 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER often displaying a mix. The following features are found in Gothic Revival architecture: pointed arch windows; rib vaulted ceilings; buttresses; steeply pitched roofs; and, an overall emphasis on height. The following is a description of St. Paul’s on-the-Hill with observations: • The church is located on the top of a gently sloped hill and with a view south over Kingston Road and the 401 to Lake Ontario. The site also includes the rectory building west of the church, three parking areas, a large cross and a cell tower. See figure 63 for site plan and figure 64 for an aerial view. • The church is a one-storey building with a lower level set into the hillside, and a square tower at its south-east corner. • The original St. Paul’s on-the-Hill was a one-story building with a basement. • The building is constructed with buff coloured brick laid in a common bond pattern and with stone detailing at the windows, doors, buttresses and tower roof parapet. • The 1934 floor plan was composed of three rectangular elements - the tower / entry, the nave, and the alter. • The two-storey brick tower is located at the south-west corner of the building. The corners are defined by tall brick buttresses with stone caps where the buttress steps out. The tower has a flat roof and the parapet displays a crenellated treat- ment finished with capstones.18 The primary entry to the church was located at the doorway on the south-facing elevation; this remains as the ceremonial entrance. It is a double door opening with a pointed arch. Typical to all openings, the arch has a stone keystone and rectangular stones at its base. The original door has been replaced with a set of wood panelled doors and panelled infill above. • The nave was divided into four equal bays. Each is defined by the brick buttresses and has a tall pointed arch window at its centre and, at the north elevation, a small basement window with a brick arch below. The stone window sills have angled stooling. The east elevation displays a grouping of three windows with a larger circle window above. The existing windows are repalacements. • The alter was removed as part of the 1990 addition. • The 1990 addition extended the congregation space west and introduced a new wing running south from the west end of the building. • The original building was maintained as the congregation space with the addition of a three-sided or hexagonal apse at the west end. The 1990 wing houses the main entrance, offices, meeting spaces on the second floor, and a daycare with a dedicated entrance on the lower level. 18 Staff noted that the brick parapet had been rebuilt to match existing. - 60 - 47 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 • Similar to the original building, the masonry exterior is buff coloured brick with stone details and follows with rhythm of the bays. The wing generally follows the architectural detailing of the original building, with variation limited to the new entrances. • The new doorways have a half circle or Palladian style transom and flanking side- lights (with the exception of the west entrance does not have sidelights). The main entrance also has a peaked canopy with exposed cross-bracing similar to the congregation space. • The roof has a gable roof profile set at a medium pitch. The roof is covered in asphalt shingle, the eaves and rain gear are painted metal. - 61 - 48 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 69. Aerial view looking north, 2020. (Google streetview) 70. Cross. (BA)71. Cell tower. (BA) - 62 - 49 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 72. North elevation as viewed from Sheppard Avenue. (Google streetview) 73. North elevation, original bays at left and addition at right. (BA) - 63 - 50 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 74. Addition, west elevation. (BA) 75. Addition, exterior at apse. (BA)76. Addition, west entrance. (BA) - 64 - 51 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 77. Addition, south elevation. (BA)78. Addition, south entrance. (BA) 79. Addition, circular window and brick cross at top of south wall. (BA) 80. Addition, south windows. (BA) - 65 - 52 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 81. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill as viewed from the base of the stairs at the south parking lot. (BA) 82. Addition, east elevation with main entrance. (BA) - 66 - 53 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 83. Original building, south elevation. (BA) 84. Addition, main entrance with 1990 date stone at left. (BA) 85. Original building, west entrance with 1934 date stone at left. (BA) 86. Original building, south elevation. (BA) - 67 - 54 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 87. Addition, typical bay. (BA)88. Original building, typical bay. (BA) 89. Original building, typical window at tower. (BA) 90. Original building, base of buttress with salvaged capstone. (BA) - 68 - 55 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 91. Original tower, west and south elevations. (BA) 92. Original tower, east and north elevations. (BA) 93. Original tower, plaque at interior. (BA) - 69 - 56 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 94. Nave looking to balcony. (BA)95. Nave looking to altar. (BA) 96. View from balcony. (BA) - 70 - 57 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 97. Samples of stained glass works throughout the church. (BA) - 71 - 58 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 6.4 Evaluation The following evaluates 882 and 886 Kingston Road in relation to Ontario Regulation 9/06. Criteria Description Assessment Design or Physical Value i. is a rare, unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method; The church is a representa- tive example of a masonry Gothic-style church in Ontario. The use of masonry salvaged from the former Church of Ascension in Toronto is a unique aspect of its construction. ii. displays a high degree of crafts- manship or artistic merit, or; No. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. No. Historical or Associative Value i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organi- zation, or institution that is significant to a community; The property is historically linked to Pickering’s Anglican community. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or; No. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community. The original church is associ- ated with Toronto architect Leo Hunt Stanford. Contextual Value i. is important in defining, maintain- ing, or supporting the character of an area; No. ii. is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings, or; The church is historically linked to the development of Dunbarton. iii. is a landmark.St. Paul’s on-the-Hill’s setting atop the hill at Kingston and Fairport roads make is a visual landmark along Kingston Road. - 72 - 59 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 7 Discussion This assessment finds that all the properties included in this assessment have cultural heri- tage value to the City of Pickering. They were all found to satisfy one or more criteria set out in O. Reg 9/06. Based on the findings of this evaluation, I recommend that the City include these prop- erties on its Municipal Heritage Register s: • List 1 Evelyn Avenue, 301 Kingston Road and 401 Kingston Road; and, • Designate 882 & 886 Kingston Road, St. Paul’s On-the-Hill under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. - 73 - 60 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER Appendix 1: Sources 1. Commonwealth Resource Management Ltd. Manual of Guidelines. Prepared for the Management Board Secretariat Government of Ontario, June 1994. 2. Fram, Mark. Well-Preserved. Toronto: The Boston Mills Press, 1998. 3. J.H. Beers & Co. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario. Toronto: J.H.Beers & Co., 1877. 4. McKay, William A. The Pickering Story. Pickering: The Township of Pickering Historical Society, 1961. 5. Wood, William. Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Commmunity. Toronto: William Briggs, 1911. 6. MacRae, Marion and Anthony Adamson. Hallowed Walls: Church Architecture in Upper Canada. Toronto: Clarke, Irwin & Co., 1975. 7. McIlwraith, Thomas F. Looking For Old Ontario: Two Centuries of Landscape Change. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997. 8. Mikel, Robert. Ontario House Styles. Toronto: James Lorimer & Co. Ltd., 2004. 9. Sabean, John W. The Palmer Family: Settling in South Pickering. Pickering Township Historical Society Pathmaster, Summer Edition Vol. 2 no. 4, 1999. 10. Sabean, John W. Time Present and Time Past: A Pictorial History of Pickering. Pickering: Altona Editions, 2000. 11. Sears, Roebuck and Co. Honor Bilt Modern Homes. Chicago - Philadelphia. 1921. 12. Shumovich, Elizabeth. St. Paul’s On-The-Hill: 1925-1985. Anglican Church of Canada. 13. ---. The Village of Pickering 1880-1970. Pickering: The Corporation of the Village of Pickering, 1970. Websites • Ancentry. www.ancestry.ca • Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950, www.dictionaryofarchitectsin- canada.org. • Davidson-Langley Incorporated Architects. www.dlia.ca. • Library and Archives of Canada. www.bac-lac.gc.ca • Ontario Architecture, www.ontarioarchitecture.com. • Ontario Archives. www.archives.gov.on.ca • Ontario Land Registry Access. www.onland.ca • Pickering Archives. www.coporate.pickering.ca • St. Paul’s on-the-Hill Anglican Church. www.stpaulonthehill.com - 74 - 61 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 Appendix 2: Summary of Land Records Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 27 / 882-886 Kingston Road Instrument Date1 Grantor Grantee Notes Patent May 28, 1796 Holmes, William B&S Jan. 27, 1832 Holmes, William Galbraith, John All B&S Mar. 17, 1838 Galbraith, John Cowan, Henry 111a N pt. B&S “Cowan, Henry Galbraith, Nancy 11 acres B&S Sept. 19, 1840 Cowan, Henry Courtis, Thomas 100 acres B&S Jan. 2, 1849 Richards, Thos. M W Courtis, Thomas 11 acres B&S Oct. 22, 1874 Courtice, Thomas Courtice Andrew, James N111 acres B&S -----Annis, Levi Pt of N lot, N. 111 ac. ex. 3 3.4 ac. +7.00 B&S Aug. 29, 1856 Courtice, Thomas Trustee of School No. 3 1/4 acre B&S ---2 ---Trustee of School No. 3 N. of Kingston Rd Grant Jan. 1, 1924 Newman, Harry A & Wife Public School Board of School No. 3 2 acres, $1200 plus exchange Grant Jan 1, 1924 Trustees of Public School Board of School No. 3 Newman, Mary A part N. of Kingston Rd. Grant Dec. 10, 1975 Newman, Harry A + wife The Incumbent and Church wardens of St. Paul’s on the Hill, Dunbarton Part of sketch attached. 1 This is the date of the instrument, not the “date of registry”. 2 Likely in the 1880s, definitely between 1877 and 1893. - 75 - 62 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 31 Transaction Date Grantor Grantee Notes Patent Oct. 20, 1846 Crown Palmer, Seneca 200 acres Will May 16, 1866 Palmer, Seneca Mort Jan 27, 1877 Palmer, George S + wife The Freehold L&S Co. 120 acres, $1500 B&S Mar. 15, 1882 Palmer, Mary J and G.S. Kinlock, George 27 acres - land covered by Plan 230 Will --- ------27 acres Grant June 26, 1919 --- 1 Clarke, Griffith B 27 acres Grant Oct. 5, 1920 Clarke, Griffith B +wife Rowe, Elmore J part, $5600 Grant Dec. 1, 1921 Rowe, Elmore Morgan, Edwin 27 acres Grant Feb. 24, 1922 Morgan, Edwin+wife Dixon, Mildred $2,200,note about plan Plan 230 Mar. 13, 1922 Morgan & Dixon’s Plan part 1 Notes where writing on land abstract is illegible. This likely relates to the executors of the will. - 76 - 63 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 1 Evelyn Avenue - Plan 230, Lot 10 Instrument Date of Sale / Grant1 Grantor Grantee Notes Grant Mar. 7, 1930 Dixon, Mildred M.Dixon, Silas R.All, $1 Hwy. Plan 18 Sept. 1927 Province Hwy. Plan 45 Dec. 1938 Province Grant Nov. 19, 1943 Dixon, Silas Russell Daniell-Jenkins John H + Dorothea All except hwy. $1 Grant Mar. 21, 1946 Daniell-Jenkins John H + Dorothea The Director, The Veterans Land Act All except hwy. $5050 By-law May 9, 1955 By-law No. 2091 - City of Pickering Designating Areas of Subdivision Control ALL Grant May 7, 1959 The Director, The Veterans Land Act Daniell-Jenkins John H + Dorothea All except hwy. $1 Plan 40-R-535 June 3, 1971 Grant July 29, 1980 Daniell-Jenkins, Dorothea Wolf, Heinz W + Ilse M All except hwy. $2 Notice 31 05 89 Wolf, Heinz W + Ilse M Lindo, Mike - in trust $790,000 Plan 40R-12418 Part 1 26 07 89 Transfer 15 08 89 Wolf, Heinz W + Ilse M Lindo, Mike $790,000 Transfer 92 12 99 Federal Business Development Bank 1000683 Ontario Ltd. $360,000 1 This is the date of the instrument, not the “date of registry”. - 77 - 64 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 401 Kingston Road - Plan 230, Lot 19 Instrument Date1 Grantor Grantee Notes Mort.July 6, 1922 Dixon, Millicent M.Gates, Peter S.All, $2500 Grant May 1, 1923 Dixon, Mildred M.Branson, Annie & Horace All, $4,500 Mort.May 1, 1923 Branson, Annie & Horace Dixon, Mildred M.$1,000 not recorded in full QC Sept. 3, 1936 Dixon, Mildred M.Colletta, Hazel Mae (Estate of Peter S Gates, deceased) All, $1 Grant Sept. 14, 1939 Estate of Peter S. Gates Dixon, Silas All, $1,600 Grant Mar 14, 1944 Dixon, Silas (and others) Dixon, Alexander part, $1 Grant Aug 15, 1946 Dixon, Alexander + wife Staley, Louis E. Grant Nov. 1951 Staley, Louis E.Quigg, Kathleen C + John P $3,200 By-law May 19, 1955 By-law No. 2091 - City of Pickering Designating Areas of Subdivision Control All Grant June 15, 1967 Quigg, Kathleen C + John P Belcourt, John A + Margaret L All - except Hwy. Grant June 22, 1970 Belcourt, John A + Margaret L Knowles, Jack (trustee) All - except Hwy. Grant June 26, 1973 Knowles, Jack (trustee) Mastrogicomos, Victor + Felicia All - except Hwy. Grant Aug 22, 1975 Mastrogicomos, Victor + Felicia Binns, Brian D & Christine A. All - except Hwy. Grant 16 02 87 Binns, Brian D & Christine A. Francis, Walter All? 1 This is the date of the instrument, not the “date of registry”. - 78 - 65 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 Instrument Date1 Grantor Grantee Notes Grant 20 05 87 Francis, Walter N. Bigioni Management Services Ltd. Hollow Holdings Ltd. All - except Hwy. Transfer 22 08 89 N. Bigioni Management Services Ltd. (25% int) Hollow Holdings Ltd. (50% int) Cesaroni Holdings Ltd. (75% int) $525,000 Plan 40R-16060 95 03 28 Parts 1,2&3 Transfer 95 10 05 Cesaroni Holdings Ltd. (75% int), N. Bigioni Management Services Ltd. (25% int) 1138224 Ontario Ltd. $975,000 Part 1 on 40R-16060 - 79 - 66 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 32 / 301 Kingston Road No.Transaction Date Grantor Grantee Notes Patent May 22, 1798 Crown Holmes, William BS June 26, 1843 Holmes, William Wesley, John 195 acres, 150 pounds Will May 11, 1868? --June --, 1874 Cochrane, Samuel?? Rodd, Richard 5572 B&S Dec. 1, 1881 or 1891 Rodd, Richard Moody, ------ 10046 B&S Mar. 18, 1902 Moody, Naomi + Robert Toyne, George S. of Kingston Rd. $8,000 as in No. 5572 21217 Grant Mar. 31,1934 Toyne, George + wife Toyne, George Edward 21050 Grant Nov. 21, 1936 Toyne, George Edward Toyne, Helen Davidson part, as in No. 20217 all restriction 24411 Grant Sept. 1, 1944 Toyne, Helen Davidson Alderice, John Alfred; Alderice, Alcona 1 ac. on S. side Kingston Rd. $1,000 + mort. No. 21050 31434 Mortgage May 25, 1951 Alderice, John Alfred; Alderice, Alcona Toyne, Helen Davidson S. side of Kingston Rd. $5,500 as No 24411 175120 Grant July 23, 1968 Alderdice, Alcona Pfeiffer, Manfred; Page, Delmar F (partner- ship property) part S. of Kingston Rd. As des. in No 31434 - 80 - 67 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 No.Transaction Date Grantor Grantee Notes 205389 Grant Jan. 4, 1971 Pfeiffer, Manfred; Page, Delmar F (partner- ship property) Smith, Ruth C (trustee) part S. of Kingston Rd.; part of land in No. 175120 ex. hwy - lying N of lot 7 in Plan 350 (see hwy plan 785) (0.80ac)+- 205500 Grant Jan. 16, 1971 Smith, Ruth C (trustee) Salmon, Ernest A.J. pt. S of Kingston Rd (0.80 ac+-) as des. in No. 205389 - 81 - STRUCTURAL REPORT – REV. 1 Preliminary Structural Assessment Date: December 20, 2021 No. of Pages: 5 + Encl. Project: 301 Kingston Road Assessment Project No.: TE-38433-21 Address: 301 Kingston Road, Pickering Permit No.: n/a Client: Ed Saki Distribution: Ed Saki ed@gsaki.com 176 Speedvale Ave. West Guelph, Ontario Canada N1H 1C3 T: 519-763-2000 x242 F: 519-824-2000 gerryz@tacomaengineers.com Background Tacoma Engineers has been retained by Ed Saki (the Owner) to provide a preliminary structural assessment of an existing building located at 301 Kingston Road, Pickering. A site visit of the existing conditions was completed on June 3rd, 2021 by the undersigned, accompanied by Ed Saki. The intent of the site visit was to determine the current conditions and to carry out a preliminary structural assessment. Note that this report is being prepared as a brief summary of the existing structural conditions only and is not intended as an evaluation of the heritage value of the property or the feasibility of salvage or redevelopment of the structure. Further detail and comment can be provided as needed should more information be required to inform decisions made by the Owner. Construction The building is a two-storey wood framed structure with a gabled roof. At the time of the review, the exterior cladding and finishes had been removed, along with the majority of the interior finishes on the second and ground floors. The ground and second floor interiors were accessible for review at the time of the site visit. Access to the basement was not available. The construction is a mixture of heavy timber frames and light wood stud infill walls, regularly spaced ceiling and floor joists, and regularly spaced roof rafters. It is reported that the foundations are constructed with a combination of rubblestone masonry and ungrouted concrete block. Conditions The building is in a state of partial demolition. The majority of the finishes have been removed on the second and ground floors, and much of the demolition waste was on the ground floor at the time of the review. The exterior was covered with loosely fastened Typar housewrap on the upper storey and at the ground floor with overlapping sheets of plywood. $WWDFKPHQW - 82 - 301 Kingston Road Assessment TE-38433-21 December 20, 2021 Page 2 of 5 Structural Report – Rev. 1 Preliminary Structural Assessment The removal of finishes allowed a partial review of the underlying structure. Several of the primary columns have been previously cut to facilitate the installation of window openings. Most of the beams on the upper and ground floor are notched at locations not associated with current openings or braces, typically an indication that the heavy timber was originally part of another structure, likely a barn or other large building. The majority of the short diagonal braces at the heavy columns are loosely fit into the notches and are not provided with a positive connection. The roof and floor framing appear to be largely intact, with limited damage to the joists and rafters, with the exception of some mechanical ductwork penetrations and plumbing drain alterations. Extensive rot of primary building columns was noted where access was provided behind the plywood barriers. The deterioration was found to extend up as far as 6’-0” above grade and is likely the result of ongoing water ingress. Furthermore, it appears that concrete fill was used along several lengths of exterior wall to stabilize the connection of the upper framing to the foundation, resulting in accelerated deterioration of the nearby wood framing. The extent of this condition could not be confirmed at the time of the review. While it was not possible to review the conditions of the foundations at the time of the site visit, it has been reported that an attempt was made to reconstruct parts of the rubblestone foundation with a new concrete block wall. The details of this construction have not been provided to the undersigned, but settlement of the building and significant water ingress are reported to have resulted. - 83 - 301 Kingston Road Assessment TE-38433-21 December 20, 2021 Page 3 of 5 Structural Report – Rev. 1 Preliminary Structural Assessment Recommendations The building is generally in poor condition and will require significant remedial work in order to restore the structure. Note the following general repair recommendations to aid in future planning and budgeting: 1. Remove products of demolition from the house. The stored material will both trap moisture and load the ground floor above the anticipated capacity of the framing. 2. Reinstate exterior sheathing. Panel sheathing and/or diagonal board decking serves both as a substrate for exterior finishes and, more importantly, as the primary lateral bracing system for the building. Diagonal bracing has been provided as a temporary measure, but this should not be expected to perform satisfactorily past the onset of the winter season. 3. Provide a temporary weather barrier to the exterior of the building. The protection of the structure from water ingress is critical to the short-term survival of the structure. 4. Investigate the existing foundation conditions and carry out repairs or replacements as may be required. Extensive shoring will likely be required to facilitate this work. 5. During the foundation repair work it is recommended that drainage of the site be addressed to mitigate the risk of ongoing water ingress. 6. Repair any damaged heavy timber columns and beams. Many of the columns will require partial replacement near grade, and it is expected that lengths of sill plate around the perimeter of the floor framing will require replacement. Discontinuous beams will require reinforcing across joints by way of sistering or complete replacement. 7. Remove and replace all discontinuous framing of walls, ceilings, and floors, as applicable. New framing should be installed in conformance with current design standards and building codes. It should be noted that additional structural repair work may be required in order to ensure the long-term viability of the building. Once the interior has been cleared of debris and access to all of the building areas is made available a more comprehensive plan for repair can be prepared as needed. - 84 - 301 Kingston Road Assessment TE-38433-21 December 20, 2021 Page 4 of 5 Structural Report – Rev. 1 Preliminary Structural Assessment Report Revisions and Updates (December 20th, 2021) The following sections of this report have been prepared to address specific items raised by the City of Pickering in an email dated October 7th, 2021. They include the following: 1. additional reporting from Tacoma to more completely describe the repair recommendations; 2. additional reporting from Tacoma to include order-of-magnitude cost estimates for recommended repair work; 3. additional reporting from Tacoma to confirm whether previously recommended stabilization and temporary works have been completed; and 4. retention of a heritage planner or architect who can provide additional building documentation and a commemoration plan. The following numbered list corresponds to the items listed above. 1. The repair recommendations are described in the previously issued report (included above), numbered 1-7. Further detailing of these repair recommendations is not possible without the completion of a more detailed site assessment can be completed. 2. The following cost estimates are intended to be received as a general guideline and order-of-magnitude only; a more detailed cost assessment is recommended once a complete set of repair recommendations and details can be provided. 1. Additional demolition: $15 000.00 2. Reinstate exterior sheathing (including additional framing to support sheathing where required: $45 000.00 3. Provide and maintain temporary weather barriers: $10 000.00 4. Foundation investigations and repairs: $75 000.00 5. Site drainage: $15 000.00 6. Repair damaged timber framing and sill plates: $75 000.00 7. Repair discontinuous framing to match current code: $100 000.00 ESTIMATED TOTAL, EXCLUDING FINISHES: $335 000.00 It is important to note that the above cost estimate includes only those items listed in the Recommendations of the previously issued report, and it does not include the installation of mechanical, electrical, insulation, and interior and exterior finishes. It is likely that the total cost to carry out a complete scope of work following which the building is suitable for occupancy will exceed $1.25m. This extrapolation is based on a typical construction budget whereby the structural items represent approximately 25% of the total construction cost. 3. A follow up site visit to the building has not been completed. Photographs have been provided by the owner including an improved exterior weather barrier, the removal of demolition products, and the installation of diagonal bracing as a temporary measure. The Owner is advised to continue monitoring the conditions and to carry out temporary - 85 - 301 Kingston Road Assessment TE-38433-21 December 20, 2021 Page 5 of 5 Structural Report – Rev. 1 Preliminary Structural Assessment repairs and additional bracing as needed until such time as a complete plan for the property is underway. The site should be secured against entry by all personnel not directly related to the building maintenance and repair. 4. The Owner has retained a heritage planner to aid in the preparation of building documentation and commemoration planning as a separate scope of work. Please contact the undersigned for additional information as required to carry out the review of the work. Per ____________________________ Gerry Zegerius, P.Eng., CAHP Structural Engineer, Senior Associate Tacoma Engineers Encl. none December 20, 2021 TE-38433-21 - 86 - FINAL REPORT: Documentation and Commemoration Report 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario April 2022 Project # LHC0292 LHC | Heritage Planning and Archaeology 837 Princess Street, Suite 400 Kingston, ON K7L 1G8 Phone: 613-507-7817 Toll Free: 1-833-210-7817 E-mail: info@lhcheritage.com $WWDFKPHQW - 87 - Project #LHC0292 ii This page has been left blank deliberately - 88 - Project #LHC0292 iii Report prepared for: Ed Saki Energy Centre Inc. 420-3583 Sheppard Avenue East Scarborough, ON M1T 3K8 Report prepared by: Colin Yu, M.A Reviewed by: Christienne Uchiyama, M.A, CAHP - 89 - Project #LHC0292 iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LHC was retained by Ed Saki of Energy Centre Inc. to prepare a Documentation and Commemoration Report for the Property at 301 Kingston Road (the Property) in Pickering, Ontario. The Property is listed as a non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the municipality’s Heritage Register under Section 27, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). The purpose of this Documentation and Commemoration Plan is to provide a visual and textual documentary record of the Property, its architectural elements, and its surrounding context. A site visit was conducted by Colin Yu on 10 February 2022 and access to the Property was provided by the owner. Based on this Documentation and Commemoration Report, the following is recommended: • Salvaged materials should be either incorporate into any new design, or for reuse elsewhere. • A reputable contractor(s) with experience working with cultural heritage resource removal should be retained to salvage the identified features. • Prior to salvaging materials for reuse in other buildings or projects, their end location should be determined. • Any materials not deemed salvageable, should be recycled and diverted from landfill. • A plaque commemorating the Property and Rouge Hill is recommended to be installed in a location visible from the public realm. The following text is recommended for the plaque; however, the text could be strengthened through consultation with the municipal heritage committee: The Crown Patents for Lot 32, Concession 3 Broken Front was granted to prominent military surgeon William Holmes in 1798. Although Holmes never settled here, he was granted –and purchased –more than 1200 acres of land in Pickering Township. It was here that the community of Rouge Hill developed along Kingston Road, overlooking the Rouge River Valley. In this location once stood the two-storey, wood frame Georgian residence of farmer John Charles Wesley; who farmed a 195-acre parcel of land stretching as far north as Sheppard Avenue. The house was constructed in the mid-19th century and sat in this prominent location at the corner of Kingston Road and Altona Road. - 90 - Project #LHC0292 v Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 The Property ........................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Site Visit ............................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Previous Reports .................................................................................................. 1 1.4 Heritage Recognition ............................................................................................ 2 2 PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION ............................................................................... 5 3 HISTORIC CONTEXT.......................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Rouge Hill ............................................................................................................ 7 3.2 Property History and Analysis .............................................................................. 8 4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY ................................................................................ 13 4.1 Surrounding Context .......................................................................................... 13 Exterior ............................................................................................................... 19 Interior ................................................................................................................ 22 5 EVALUATION ................................................................................................................... 27 5.1 Summary of Evaluation ...................................................................................... 28 6 ARTIFACT CURATION AND REUSE ............................................................................... 29 6.1 Designated Substances ..................................................................................... 29 6.2 Salvage Companies ........................................................................................... 29 7 COMMEMMORATION PLAN ............................................................................................ 31 8 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 32 9 SIGNATURE ..................................................................................................................... 33 10 QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................................................ 34 11 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 36 Tables Table 1: Photo log .......................................................................................................................5 Table 2: O.Reg.9/06 Evaluation for 301 Kingston Road ............................................................ 27 Table 3: List of Potential Salvage Companies ........................................................................... 30 - 91 - Project #LHC0292 vi Figures Figure 1: Location of the Property. ..............................................................................................3 Figure 2: Current Conditions of the Property. ..............................................................................4 Figure 3: Historic Maps Showing the Property........................................................................... 10 Figure 4: Topographic Maps Showing the Property ................................................................... 11 Figure 5: Historic Aerial Photographs of the Property ................................................................ 12 Figure 6: View south of north elevation (Branch Architecture 2020) .......................................... 18 Figure 7: View southwest of northeast elevation of structure (Branch Architecture 2020) .......... 18 Figure 8: View northeast of southwest elevation of structure (Branch Architecture 2020) .......... 19 Images Image 1: View east on Kingston Road ...................................................................................... 14 Image 2: View west at Altona Road and Kingston Road intersection towards Rouge River ....... 14 Image 3: View north of Altona Road and Kingston Road intersection ........................................ 15 Image 4: View north of residential properties ............................................................................ 15 Image 5: View southwest of residential properties south of Kingston Road ............................... 16 Image 6: View south of north elevation ..................................................................................... 20 Image 7: View west of east elevation ........................................................................................ 20 Image 8: View southwest of northeast elevation ........................................................................ 21 Image 9: View northeast of southwest elevation ........................................................................ 21 Image 10: View north of main entrance ..................................................................................... 22 Image 11: View northeast of ground floor .................................................................................. 23 Image 12: View of milled wood ceiling ....................................................................................... 24 Image 13: View of plaster and lath interior ................................................................................ 24 Image 14: View of typical vinyl window ..................................................................................... 25 Image 15: View of wooden beam above windows ..................................................................... 25 Image 16: View of upper floor ................................................................................................... 26 Image 17: View of rafters and roof of structure .......................................................................... 26 - 92 - Project #LHC0292 1 1 INTRODUCTION LHC was retained by Ed Saki of Energy Centre Inc. to prepare a Documentation and Commemoration Report for the Property at 301 Kingston Road (the Property) in Pickering, Ontario. The Property is listed as a non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the municipality’s Heritage Register under Section 27, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). The purpose of this Documentation and Commemoration Report is to provide a visual and textual documentary record of the Property, its architectural elements, and its surrounding context This Documentation and Commemoration Report includes the following elements: • An overview of the Property and its current conditions; • Photographs of the Property, the two-storey structure, and its architectural elements; • A log of all relevant images, including perspective photographs, elevation photographs, and architectural elements; • A recommendation of materials and fixtures that may be salvaged or reused; and, • A recommended summary of the history of the Property to be applied to any future commemorative feature. 1.1 The Property The Property is located at 301 Kingston Road in the City of Pickering, Ontario (Figure 1 and Figure 2). It is located at the southeast corner of Altona and Kingston Roads. It is accessed off of Kingston Road along an asphalt driveway. The Property is surrounded on all sides, except the north, by mature deciduous and coniferous trees; the majority of which are coniferous. A two-storey structure is located on an elevated area that slopes downward towards the west. The structure is currently vacant and wrapped in tarp, held in place by wooden stakes. A wooden fence is located towards the rear of the Property. The rear portion of the Property is currently used as storage and consists of treed undeveloped lands. 1.2 Site Visit A site visit was conducted on 10 February 2022 by Colin Yu. The purpose of this site visit was to document the current conditions of the Property, its structure, and its surrounding context. 1.3 Previous Reports The Property was previously included in a 2020 study undertaken by Branch Architecture, Kingston Road Study: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report. The study reviewed four properties of potential cultural heritage value or interest which had been identified in the 2019 Kingston Road Corridor and Speciality Retailing Node Draft Intensification Plan. The 2020 study determined that the Property met criteria: • 1(i) as a rare –but altered –example of an early to mid-19th century Georgian; - 93 - Project #LHC0292 2 • 2(i) for its associations with William Holmes; • 3(ii) as perhaps one of a few remaining buildings associated with the Rouge Hill community; and, • 3(iii) as a prominently located structure (landmark). 1.4 Heritage Recognition The Property is listed as a non-designated property under Section 27, Part IV of the OHA. The Register provides the following description: Built in mid-19th century, a 2 storey Georgian style house. Associated with military doctor William Holmes. Associated with the Rouge Hill community and prominently located at the south west corner of Altona Road and Kingston Road.1 1 City of Pickering, Municipal Heritage Register, Official list of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of the City of Pickering, (Pickering: City of Pickering, 2021), 5 - 94 - ¯ REFERENCE(S)1. Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User CommunityPortions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. CLIENT PROJECT Documentation and Commemoration Plan 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario CONSULTANT DESIGNED LHCPREPARED JG YYYY-MM-DD 2022-03-30 FIGURE # TITLELocation of the Property PROJECT NO. LHC0292 1 1. All locations are approximate. NOTE(S) Legend Property 0 400 800200 Meters ¯ Energy Centre Inc. 1:2,000,000SCALE KEY MAP Lake Ontario - 95 - REFERENCE(S)1. Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityPortions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. CLIENT PROJECT Documentation and Commemoration Plan 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario CONSULTANT DESIGNED LHCPREPARED JG YYYY-MM-DD 2022-03-30 FIGURE # TITLECurrent Conditions of the Property PROJECT NO. LHC0292 2 1. All locations are approximate. NOTE(S) Legend Property 0 10 205 Meters ¯ Energy Centre Inc. - 96 - Project #LHC0292 5 2 PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION Table 1: Photo log Image Number Notes Original Photo Number Surrounding Context Image 1 View east on Kingston Road PXL_20220210_170248033 Image 2 View west at Altona Road and Kingston Road intersection towards Rouge River PXL_20220210_170205651 Image 3 View north of Altona Road and Kingston Road intersection PXL_20220210_170149508 Image 4 View north of residential properties PXL_20220210_170252920 Image 5 View southwest of residential properties south of Kingston Road PXL_20220210_170141412 Exterior Image 6 View south of north elevation PXL_20220210_170111772 Image 7 View west of east elevation PXL_20220210_165918713 Image 8 View southwest of northeast elevation PXL_20220210_170054843 Image 9 View northeast of southwest elevation PXL_20220210_170420579 Interior Image 10 View north of main entrance PXL_20220210_163057650 Image 11 View northeast of ground floor PXL_20220210_163008367 Image 12 View of milled wood ceiling PXL_20220210_162934438 Image 13 View of plaster and lath interior PXL_20220210_163034828 Image 14 View of typical vinyl window PXL_20220210_162950539 Image 15 View of wooden beam above windows PXL_20220210_164505053 Image 16 View of upper floor PXL_20220210_163356581 Image 17 View of rafters and roof of structure PXL_20220210_164830297 - 97 - Project #LHC0292 6 3 HISTORIC CONTEXT The City of Pickering retained Branch Architecture in 2020 to assess the potential cultural heritage value or interest of four properties –including 301 Kingston Road –previously identified in the 2019 Kingston Road Corridor and Speciality Retailing Node Draft Intensification Plan. The report has provided the following with respect to its land use history. The patent for Lot 32 of the third broken front concession was granted to William Holmes in 1798. Holmes owned multiple parcels in the Township of Pickering; the lots were located between French Man’s Bay and the Rouge River, and found within Concession 1 and along the lake, lots 26 through 33. William Holmes received a patent for Lot 32 on May 22, 1798. William Holmes (1766- 1834) was a doctor and military surgeon in Upper Canada. From 1790 to 1791 he was stationed in Newark near Niagara-on-the-Lake. In 1792, with plans to settle in Upper Canada, he accepted a grant for 1,200 acres in Pickering Township and purchased additional land. However, in 1796 his regiment was relocated to Lower Canada, and Holmes’ family re-settled in Quebec where he worked as a senior medial officer. He also established himself as in private medical practice working at both Hotel-Dieu and Hospital General. By the early 1800s, he and his family were living in Upper Town Quebec City. After the death of his first wife Mary Ann in 1803, he remarried Margaret Macnaider in 1807. He maintained an active medical career including the following positions: President of the Quebec examiners (1813); member of the Vaccine Board (1817); Justice of the Peace (1821); and, Commissioner for the relief of the insane and foundlings (1816). In the 1820s, Holmes retired from practice, delegating his responsibilities to younger doctors and staff. John Wesley purchased the 195 acre parcel at Con. 3 BF, Lot 32 from William Holmes on June 26, 1843 [sic]. The 1861 census indicates that John Charles Wesley (1838- 1920) was a farmer that was born in Toronto. According to the 1861 census, John was married to Elmira Wesley (1841-1884), and they were living in a two storey frame house. The other extended family members living in the house included Jane (18) and Fanny (17) Wesley. Wesley owned the property for several decades and registered multiple mortgages on the south part of the lot in the 1860s. Between 1868 and 1871 there was several instruments listed on the south part of the lot, though these records are largely illegible. In 1874, the part of the lot south of Kingston Road was purchased by Richard Rodd (1837- 1900); Rodd is also recorded on the 1877 Atlas Map. Richard, his wife Susan (1834-1899) and their eight children lived in Pickering in 1881. Richard was a farmer and the family immigrated from England. They lived in Whitby before buying the farm in Pickering. Robert and Naomi Moody purchased the lot in either 1881 or 1891. They sold the property south of Kingston Road to George Edward Toyne (1886-1943) on March 18, 1902 for $8,000. After George’s death in 1943, George’s wife Helen sold the one acre lot on the south side of Kingston Road to John and Alcone Alderice. The lot was sold to - 98 - Project #LHC0292 7 Manfred Pfeiffer and Delmar Page in 1968, and then granted to Ruth Smith (trustee) on Jan. 4, 1971. Ernest A.J. Salmon purchased the lot on January 16, 1971.2 Salmon eventually paid off the mortgage on the Property on 13 April 1984 and would go on to take out another mortgage on 15 July 1994. 3 Another mortgage (charge) was taken out on 15 July 1994 for $258,277.13.4 According to the current owner, Ed Saki, the Property was purchased in 2015 from the previous owners. 3.1 Rouge Hill The Property is located in the historic Rouge Hill area in the City of Pickering. The earliest mention of Rouge Hill is provided in an 1860 atlas by George Tremaine (Figure 3). The atlas also shows four structures along the intersection of Kingston Road between Lots 32 and 33, Concession 3. Conner & Coltson’s Directory of the County of Ontario for 1869-70 describes Rouge Hill as “a village in the township of Pickering, 11 miles west of Whitby. Population about 150.”5 Hugh Graham is listed as the Postmaster. The post office is identified on the J.H. Beers atlas of Ontario County (Figure 3). Rouge Hill remained relatively undeveloped into the 20th century and topographic maps from 1914 shows four structures in the area (Figure 4). Three structures were made of wood, and one was made of stone/brick. The area would remain largely unchanged until 1936 when major development in the area occurred (Figure 4). Altona Road was extended further south, south of Kingston Road and new structures were built, fronting Altona Road. To the north of Kingston Road, two branching roads were constructed, and new structures were built. Between 1943 and 1974, Rouge Hill’s development waned slightly, however, development in the area continued and new structures were built in the surrounding area. Historic aerial photographs were also consulted and show a similar development of the area (Figure 5). The Branch Architecture report provides the following description of Rouge Hill: This intersection is identified in historical maps as ‘Rouge Hill’. While little is written about this community along the Grand Trunk Railway line, the 1892-93 Ontario Directory includes the following snapshot in time: A P O [post office] on the rive[r] Rouge (which furnishes power), in Pickering tp [township], Ontario Co, 11 miles s-w of Whitby, the co seat, and 3 n of Pt Union, on the GTR, its nearest bank at Pickering. It contains a flour mill, Bible Christian church and public school. Residents listed - Wm. Maxwell, flour mill; John Pearce mason and contractor; Roger Pearce, mason and 2 Branch Architecture, “Kingston Road Study Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report,” (Pickering: Brach Architecture, 2020), 17-18 3 LRO 40, Instrument No. D175437 4 Land Registry Office [LRO40], “Abstract/Parcel Register Book, Durham (40), Pickering, Book 201, Concession 3; Broken Front, Lot 27 to 35,” Instrument No. D436527 5 Conner & Coltson’s Directory of the County of Ontario for 1869-70. Accessed online at http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wjmartin/genealogy/ontario.htm#ROUGE%20HILL - 99 - Project #LHC0292 8 contractor; William Pearce, Mason and contractor; and Luke Wallace, carpenter.6 According to the Pickering Tweedsmere scrapbook, this area was also known as East Rouge Hill.7 3.2 Property History and Analysis In 1792, William Holmes, with plans to settle in Upper Canada was granted 1,200 acres in Pickering Township in 1798, which included Lot 32, Concession 3 Broken Front.89 He purchased additional land in Lots 26 to 33, Concession 2 Broken Front, Concession 3 Broken Front, and Concession 1 and 2 (Figure 3).10 Holmes’ plans were changed when he was transferred to Quebec (Lower Canada) in 1796, where his regiment was stationed.11 It is unlikely that Holmes, who owned the Property along with his numerous acres of land, built or commissioned any structures in Pickering Township. In 1838, John Wesley purchased Lot 32, Concession 3 Broken Front from Debrah Thomas for £200.12 A subsequent transaction in 1842 appears to record the transfer of the 195 acres from William Holmes’ estate to John W(?) Wesley. A mortgage that same year suggest the structure may have been constructed around that time. In 1860 the 195-acre property appears to have transferred to Sarah Wesley. That same year and throughout the 1860s, a series of transactions take place, including multiple mortgage agreements between John Charles Wesley and James Black. A transaction related to the west half of the property between James Black and John Cawthra suggest that the extant structure may be associated with James Black, an inn keeper13 listed in the 1851 census living in a three- storey house with a tavern. As such, it is difficult to determine for which family the extant house was constructed and when. Little information on John Charles Wesley was encountered during background research. An 1861 census indicates a John C. Wesley –a farmer –was living with his wife Elmira and two other members of the Wesley family, Jane and Fanny (likely John’s sisters) in a two-storey frame house.14 The agricultural census from that year indicates that approximately 125 of the Wesleys’ 195 acres were under cultivation. Interestingly, Jane and Fanny are both listed in the 1851 census, living in a two-storey frame house with Mary Black (44) and presumably her four 6 Ontario Gazetteer and Directory for 1892-93, p. 1029 as cited in Branch Architecture, “Kingston Road Study Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report,” 18. 7 Branch Architecture, “Kingston Road Study Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report,” 18 Words in square brackets have been added by LHC. 8 LRO 40, Instrument No. Patent 9 Barbara, Tunis, “Holmes, William (d.1834),” in Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 6., University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003, accessed 31 March 2022 http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/holmes_william_1834_6E.html 10 Branch Architecture, “Kingston Road Study Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report,” 27 11 Barbara, Tunis, “Holmes, William (d.1834),” 12 LRO 40, Instrument No. (illegible). It is unclear when Debrah Thomas came into possession of the property. 13 Library and Archives Canada; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Census Returns For 1851; Roll: C-1057; Schedule: A; Roll: C-11742; Page: 183; Line: 1 14 Library and Archives Canada; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Census Returns For 1861; Roll: C-1057 - 100 - Project #LHC0292 9 children.15 It is possible that the extant residence is the frame structure listed in the 1851 Census, indicating a pre-1851 date of construction. The earliest representation of a structure located on the Property is from an 1860 historic atlas, which also identifies the area as Rouge Hill (Figure 3). The 1860 atlas indicates that John C. Wesley owned the entire lot 32 and shows this structure along with two others along Kingston Road in this lot, one immediately east and one on the opposite side of the road. Historic topographic maps between 1914 and 1974 also show a structure on the Property (Figure 4). Additionally, the maps from 1914 and 1922 identify the building material as wood. Subsequent maps do not distinguish building material. Aerial photographs were consulted and show a structure surrounded by trees around the Property (Figure 5). The two-storey frame house is influenced by Georgian architecture. Georgian architecture is defined by its large rectangular shaped floor plan, two-storeys in height or greater, centralized entrance flanked by side lites and transom, large windows placed symmetrically and consists of at least six-over-six sashes, and interior side chimneys.16 Georgian architecture’s height of production was between 1750-1850, during an influx of Loyalists who fled the United States after the war and supported the Crown. The extant structure once exhibited many of these features include the rectangular shaped floor plan, large windows, centralized entrance, and chimney. Unique to this structure was the offset placement of the windows and the general contemporary window architecture. It is unclear exactly when the extant two-storey structure was built; however, it does seem likely that the structure existed at the time of the 1851 census and that was likely constructed by John Wesley Senior. 15 Library and Archives Canada; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Census Returns For 1851; Roll: C-1057; Schedule: A; Roll: C-11742; Page: 183; Line: 27 16 Ontarioarchitecutre.com, “Georgian (1750-1850),” accessed 31 March 2022 http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/georgian.htm - 101 - REFERENCE(S)1. Archives of Ontario, "Pickering Township", (http://ao.minisisinc.com/SCRIPTS/MWIMAIN.DLL/218039428/1/3/43697?RECORD&DATABASE=IMAGES_WEB: accessed April 01, 2022), digitized map, scale unkown, 1837.2. Shier, J., "Tremaine's Map of the Couty of Ontario, Upper Canada, (https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8cc6be34f6b54992b27da17467492d2f:accessed March 31, 2022), digitized map, scale 1:39,600, Toronto: Geo. C. Tremaine, 18603. J.H. Beers & Co., "Map of Pickeroing Township", In: J.H. Beers & Co., "Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario Ont.", (https://digital.library.mcgill.ca/countyatlas/searchmapframes.php: accessed March 31, 2022), digitized map, Toronto: J.H. Beers & Co., 1877.Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. CLIENT PROJECT Documentation and Commemoration Plan 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario CONSULTANT DESIGNED LHCPREPARED JG YYYY-MM-DD 2022-03-30 FIGURE # TITLEHistoric Maps Showing the Property PROJECT NO. LHC0292 3 1. All locations are approximate. NOTE(S) Legend Property Energy Centre Inc. 1837 1860 1877 ¯¯ ¯ 0 10.5 Kilometers 0 10.5 Kilometers 0 10.5 Kilometers - 102 - REFERENCE(S)1. Department of Militia and Defence, Survey Division, "Ontaio, Markham Sheet", (http://geo1.scholarsportal.info/#r/details/_uri@=564032357&_add:true: accessed March 30, 2022), digitized map, sheet 30M/14, scale 1:63,360, 1914.2. Department of Militia and Defence, "Quebec, Markham Sheet", (http://geo1.scholarsportal.info/#r/details/_uri@=564032357&_add:true: accessed March 30, 2022), digitized map, sheet 30M/14, scale 1:63,360, 1922.3. Department of National Defence, Geographical Section, General Staff, "Markham, Ontario", (http://geo1.scholarsportal.info/#r/details/_uri@=564032357&_add:true: accessed March 30, 2022), digitized map, sheet 30M/14, scale 1:63,360, Ottawa: Department of the Interior, 1936.4. Department of National Defence, Geographical Section, General Staff, "Markham, Ontario", (http://geo1.scholarsportal.info/#r/details/_uri@=564032357&_add:true: accessed March 30, 2022), digitized map, sheet 30M/14, scale 1:63,360, Ottawa: Department of Mines and Resources, 1936.5. Army Survey Establishment, R.C.E., "Highland Creek, Ontario", (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/#r/details/_uri@=847590539&_add:true: accessed March 30, 2022), digitized map, sheet 30M/14b, edition 2, scale 1:25,000, Ottawa: Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, 1962.6. Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, Surveys and Mapping Branch, "Highland Creek, Ontario", (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/#r/details/_uri@=847590539&_add:true: accessed March 30, 2022), digitized map, sheet 30M/14b, edition 3, scale 1:25,000, Ottawa: Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, 1974Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. CLIENT PROJECT Documentation and Commemoration Plan 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario CONSULTANT DESIGNED LHCPREPARED JG YYYY-MM-DD 2022-03-30 FIGURE # TITLETopographic Maps Showing the Property PROJECT NO. LHC0292 4 1. All locations are approximate. NOTE(S) Legend Property Energy Centre Inc. 1914 1922 1936 1943 1962 1974 ¯¯¯ ¯¯¯ 0 300 600150 Meters 0 300 600150 Meters 0 300 600150 Meters 0 300 600150 Meters 0 300 600150 Meters 0 300 600150 Meters- 103 - REFERENCE(S)1. University of Toronto, "1954 Air Photos of Southern Ontario", (https://mdl.library.utoronto.ca/collections/air-photos/1954-air-photos-southern-ontario/index: accessed April 1, 2022), 1954.2. National Air Photo Library, "A20263-098", (https://madgic.trentu.ca/airphoto/: accessed March 31, 2022), Scanned and georeferenced by the Maps, Data and Government Information Centre at Trent University. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada 1969. scale 1:25,000, A20263 27E photo 9,. Ottawa, Ontario:Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, 1969. Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. CLIENT PROJECT Documentation and Commemoration Plan 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario CONSULTANT DESIGNED LHCPREPARED JG YYYY-MM-DD 2022-04-01 FIGURE # TITLEHistoric Aerial Photographs of the Property PROJECT NO. LHC0292 5 1. All locations are approximate. NOTE(S) Legend Property 0 100 20050 Meters ¯ Energy Centre Inc. 1954 1969 0 100 20050 Meters ¯ - 104 - Project #LHC0292 13 4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY 4.1 Surrounding Context The surrounding area can generally be characterised as urban with a mixture of commercial and residential properties (Image 1 and Image 2). Commercial properties are clustered around the Altona and Kingston Road intersection and to the east; all of which front Kingston Road. Commercial properties are generally one-to-two-storeys in height with a flat roof (Image 3). Commercial structures generally have large floor to ceiling windows, metal doors with large glass lites, and clad in brick. Other types of cladding include plaster, vinyl, and some older structures exhibit board and batten siding. Residential structures tend to be located to the north or south in subdivisions. Residences within the subdivisions are generally homogenous in design and share similar architectural elements. These elements include vinyl windows, attached front facing garage, hipped roof, and brick siding (Image 4). Some exceptions exist such as gable roof, and wooden, vinyl, or stone siding (Image 5). The topography of the area is gently rolling and slopes westerly towards the Rouge River valley from the Property (Image 2). The most prominent natural feature is the Rouge River and is located to the west of the Property. The Rouge River travels in an east-west direction and is a tributary to Lake Ontario. The Rouge National Urban Park is also located to west and encompasses a large area that makes up Toronto’s only campground, the Toronto Zoo, the Greater Toronto Area’s last remaining working farms, and Carolinian ecosystems.17 17 Parks Canada, “Rouge National Urban Park,” 2021, accessed 28 March 2022 https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/on/rouge - 105 - Project #LHC0292 14 Image 1: View east on Kingston Road Image 2: View west at Altona Road and Kingston Road intersection towards Rouge River - 106 - Project #LHC0292 15 Image 3: View north of Altona Road and Kingston Road intersection Image 4: View north of residential properties - 107 - Project #LHC0292 16 Image 5: View southwest of residential properties south of Kingston Road The Property was previously evaluated in 2020 by Branch Architecture. The two-storey structure was described as follows: • The house is a two-storey building with a gable roof. It is located on the south side of Kingston Road and overlooks Kingston Road from a small rise. At the rear of the residence are several one-storey additions. • The front (north-facing) facade displays a balanced (though not symmetrical) arrangement of openings. On the ground floor there is a centrally placed front door flanked by window openings. On the second floor are three evenly placed window openings; they do not align with the openings below. • The side (east and west) elevations display a symmetrical arrangement of window openings. On the east elevation there is a vertical strip between the windows; this is likely an alteration related to the chimney. • The building has a stone foundation laid in a random pattern. In 2020, a pre-painted aluminum skirt flashing was installed over the foundation visible above grade. • The exterior walls are clad in horizontal pre-painted aluminum siding with an edge board detail at the base of the wall, corners, and eaves. Given the depth of wall extending out from the stone foundation, it appeared that the original siding may be concealed under the existing, however, the owner advised that under the existing siding are plain wood - 108 - Project #LHC0292 17 planks laid horizontally (not a finished painted clapboard or masonry). This suggests that the original cladding has been removed.18 • The front entrance opening is framed by a pedimented lintel and side panels. These elements have been covered in painted metal. In front of the entrance is a poured concrete step with a modern wood railing at the east side. • In 2019, the front entrance doorway was composed of a six-panel wood door flanked by wood columns, inset sidelights (2 lights over a base panel) and an inset four-light transom. The framing elements (door frame and stiles) and the base panels at the sidelights were overclad in painted metal. By October of 2020, the doors and windows had been replaced and the pediment concealed under new metal. • The window openings are rectangular with a thin sill and wide frames at the top, sides and mullions. In 2019, the windows appear to be constructed of wood and were made up of sash windows with exterior storm windows. There was a mix of window arrangements and patterns. On the ground floor there is: a grouping of three windows consisting of a 6- over-12 sash flanked by 4-over-6 sash windows; pairs of 4-over-6 sash windows; and pairs of 4-over-1 sash windows. At the second floor there are 4-over-1 sash windows in pairs and threes and, at the rear elevation, 6-over-1 sash windows. By October of 2020, the windows had been replaced with single pane windows. The wood sill have also been overclad in pre-painted metal. • The roof has a medium pitch gable roof profile. The roof is covered in asphalt shingle and the rain gear is painted metal. The eaves appear to have been altered with a perforated metal soffit and painted metal overcladding at the fascia, bedmold, frieze and gable-end returns. There is a single red brick chimney at the east wall.19 (Figure 6 through Figure 8) 18 When the aluminum siding was removed, it was confirmed that there was no original siding remaining. 19 Branch Architecture, “Kingston Road Study Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report,” 19-20 - 109 - Project #LHC0292 18 Figure 6: View south of north elevation (Branch Architecture 2020) Figure 7: View southwest of northeast elevation of structure (Branch Architecture 2020) - 110 - Project #LHC0292 19 Figure 8: View northeast of southwest elevation of structure (Branch Architecture 2020) Exterior The following is a description of the two-storey structure from a site visit conducted by LHC on 10 February 2022. The Property has a two-storey rectangular shaped structure (Image 6 through Image 8). The structure is located on an elevated platform and is covered in tarp. The structure has a front facing gable roof with return eaves, vinyl soffits, vinyl facia, and asphalt shingles. From the exterior, window configurations and architectural elements could not be observed. The entrance is located on the north elevation. The entrance consists of a contemporary wooden door with four embosses panels with two side lites, central lite, and a rectangular transom. The rear addition that was present in 2020 is no longer extant (Image 9). - 111 - Project #LHC0292 20 Image 6: View south of north elevation Image 7: View west of east elevation - 112 - Project #LHC0292 21 Image 8: View southwest of northeast elevation Image 9: View northeast of southwest elevation - 113 - Project #LHC0292 22 Interior The interior of the structure is accessed via the north elevation. The entrance’s architectural elements such as the side lites, transom, and door casing are more visible from the interior (Image 10). The interior is divided into several larger rooms with a central foyer. The interior has been significantly altered and the majority of interior elements have been removed (Image 11). The floor has been recently refurbished and shows signs of relatively new laminate flooring. The ceiling consists of the similar flooring material (Image 12). The windows have vinyl casings and newer glazing, with a horizontal placement. The wooden frame of the structure reveals a plaster and lath construction that divided the structure’s rooms (Image 13). Large structural wooden beams have been repurposed into the structure and are located above the windows (Image 14). The wooden beams have hand hewn markings and mortise and tenon joinery (Image 15). Access to the upper floor is from the foyer, however, the stairwell is no longer present, and a makeshift aluminum ladder substitutes the original. The upper floor is composed of similar materials and architectural elements of the ground floor (Image 16). The rafters and roof are built using milled wooden planks (Image 17). Image 10: View north of main entrance - 114 - Project #LHC0292 23 Image 11: View northeast of ground floor - 115 - Project #LHC0292 24 Image 12: View of milled wood ceiling Image 13: View of plaster and lath interior - 116 - Project #LHC0292 25 Image 14: View of typical vinyl window Image 15: View of wooden beam above windows - 117 - Project #LHC0292 26 Image 16: View of upper floor Image 17: View of rafters and roof of structure - 118 - Project #LHC0292 27 5 EVALUATION Based on the supplemental property-specific research and updated existing conditions, the Property was evaluation using the criteria outlined in Ontario Regulation 9/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest in order to clearly articulate a description of the Property’s cultural heritage value or interest as well as any specific heritage attributes. The results of the evaluation are presented below in Table 2. Table 2: O.Reg.9/06 Evaluation for 301 Kingston Road O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria Meets (Yes/No) 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, N The building has been altered and no longer retains sufficient characteristic features of the Georgian style for it to be a representative example. In particular, the placement of openings lacks the symmetry that best characterises the style. The scale, massing and roof pitch remain evocative of the style. Visible elements on the interior indicates that this is not an early example of the style. ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or N The structure on the Property does not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. The structure was built using commonly available materials and design methods. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. N The structure on the Property does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. The structure was built using commonly available materials and design methods. 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it: i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to a community, Y The Property does not have any direct associations with a theme, event, belief, or person that is significant to the community. The house may have been constructed for John Wesley Sr., or possibly John C. Wesley sometime prior to 1850. However, the extensive mortgages in the 1860s and the visible construction elements indicate that the extant home may have been constructed during this time to replace an earlier structure. Although the Property was owned by William - 119 - Project #LHC0292 28 O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria Meets (Yes/No) Justification Holmes, no direct associations were identified with respect to 301 Kingston Road. There is no evidence to suggest he constructed the extant residence. The Property is directly associated with the development of Rouge Hill in the mid-19th century. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or N The Property does not appear to yield or have potential to yield information that contributes to an 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 structure does not demonstrate or reflect the work or idea of a builder who is significant to the community. No specific individual was identified with respect to the design or construction of the house, which follows a fairly standard vernacular plan with Georgian influences. 3. The property has contextual value because it: i. is important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of an area, N The Property is not important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of the area. ii. is physical, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings, or N The Property is not physically, functionally, or historically linked to its surroundings. iii. is a landmark. Y Given its prominent location at the intersection of Alton and Kingston Roads, the Property could be considered a landmark. 5.1 Summary of Evaluation Based on a review of the 2020 CHER, supplemental research and analysis, and the existing conditions of the Property, LHC is of the opinion that the property meets criterion 1i for its historical association with the Rouge Hill community and criterion 3iii as a prominent landmark. A formal Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest has not been prepared; however, a summary statement to inform commemoration is presented in Section 7. The heritage attributes that exhibit the cultural heritage value or interest of the Property are limited to: • The form, scale, and massing of the residence and its medium-pitched side-gable roof with returns; and, • Its locations, orientation and setback. - 120 - Project #LHC0292 29 6 ARTIFACT CURATION AND REUSE The salvage and reuse of materials from any existing structure is preferable to demolition and landfill. This report has identified architectural and structural elements of potential cultural heritage value of the structure located at 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario. One such characteristic are the large wooden beams located above the interior windows. The large beams were likely integrated into the structure after the initial construction; however, they are relatively unaltered and display historic woodworking techniques such as the hand hewn and mortise and tenon characteristics. The beams would benefit from reuse as decorative elements incorporated into a new design or interpretive element. A second feature is the main entrance wooden casing. The large entryway was typical of Georgian style architecture and may be adapted into the new design or salvaged for reuse. In addition to these features, the Property contains building materials throughout that might be salvaged for reuse. Where reuse is not possible, recycling is preferred to landfill. Based on the results of this Documentation and Commemoration Report, construction materials and fixtures throughout the building that can be salvaged for reuse, sale, or recycling. This may include but not limited to: • Doors • Windows • Wooden elements such as laminate floors, roof (rafters), and wall frames. 6.1 Designated Substances A designated substances and hazardous materials report has been prepared, but has not been provided to LHC at the time of writing. Salvage and reuse of any materials must be informed by the Designated Substances Survey. 6.2 Salvage Companies Table 2 provides a short list of potential salvage companies in the larger surrounding area. The North Waterloo Region Chapter of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario also maintains a directory of House Moving, Dismantling and Salvage companies or individuals who claim to have experience with heritage properties at: https://aconwr.ca/listing.php?cat_id=11. - 121 - Project #LHC0292 30 Table 3: List of Potential Salvage Companies Name Location Contact and Additional Notes Habitat for Humanity Greater Toronto Area York Region Office 2180 Steeles Avenue West, Unit 10 Concord, ON L4K 2Y7 Email: info@habitatgta.ca Telephone: 416-755-7353 Website: https://habitatgta.ca/restore/donate-stuff-to-restore/ Donations to the ReStore may be eligible for a tax receipt. Historic Lumber 12478 Sixth Line, Nassagaweya Acton, ON L7J 2L7 Email: allan@historiclumber.ca Telephone: 519-853-0008 Website: http://www.historiclumber.ca/ Graham & Brooks Salvage Co. 371 Sherman Ave. N. Hamilton, ON L8L 6N2 Telephone: 905-928-1001 Website: https://gbsalvageco.com/ Smash Salvage 956 King Street E. Hamilton, ON L8M 1C3 Email: info@smashsalvage.com Telephone: 416-809-8730 Website: http://smashsalvage.com/ Artefact Salvage and Design Box 513 46 Isabella Street St. Jacobs, ON N0B 2N0 Email: chris@artefacts.ca Telephone: 519-664-3760 Website: www.artefacts.ca The Timeless Material Co. 305 Northfield Dr. E. Waterloo, ON N2V 2N4 Waterloo Head Office / Showroom Email: info@timelessmaterials.com Telephone: 519-883-8683 or 1-800-609-9633 Website: www.timelessmaterials.com West Lincoln Barn Board and Beams 8328 Regional Rd 20 RR #1 Smithville, ON L0R 2A0 Email: info@antiquewoods.com Telephone: 1-800-719-9051 Website: www.artefacts.ca - 122 - Project #LHC0292 31 7 COMMEMMORATION PLAN Given the prominent location of the Property, a commemorative plaque is recommended. Given the lack of direct associations with specific individuals, it is recommended that the plaque commemorate the community of Rouge Hill rather than the Property itself. A draft statement is provided below; however, the municipal heritage committee may have additional information or suggestions that would further strengthen the text. The Crown Patents for Lot 32, Concession 3 Broken Front was granted to prominent military surgeon William Holmes in 1798. Although Holmes never settled here, he was granted –and purchased –more than 1200 acres of land in Pickering Township. It was here that the community of Rouge Hill developed along Kingston Road, overlooking the Rouge River Valley. In this location once stood the two-storey, wood frame Georgian residence of farmer John Charles Wesley; who farmed a 195-acre parcel of land stretching as far north as Sheppard Avenue. The house was constructed in the mid-19th century and sat in this prominent location at the corner of Kingston Road and Altona Road. - 123 - Project #LHC0292 32 8 RECOMMENDATIONS This Documentation and Commemoration Report was prepared by LHC in order to provide a record of the Property, prior to demolition. The structure located at 301 Kingston Road comprises of a two-storey frame structure. The exterior and interior of the extant structure has been severely impacted by renovations and removal. A site visit conducted on 10 February 2022 documents these changes and its current condition at the time. Based on this Documentation and Commemoration Report, the following is recommended: • Salvaged materials should be either incorporate into any new design, or for reuse elsewhere. • A reputable contractor(s) with experience working with cultural heritage resource removal should be retained to salvage the identified features. • Prior to salvaging materials for reuse in other buildings or projects, their end location should be determined. • Any materials not deemed salvageable, should be recycled and diverted from landfill. • A plaque commemorating the Property and Rouge Hill is recommended to be installed in a location visible from the public realm. - 124 - Project #LHC0292 33 9 SIGNATURE Please contact the undersigned should you require any clarification or if additional information is identified that might have an influence on the findings of this report. Christienne Uchiyama, MA CAHP Principal | Manager, Heritage Consulting Services - 125 - Project #LHC0292 34 10 QUALIFICATIONS Christienne Uchiyama, MA, CAHP – Principal, LHC Christienne Uchiyama MA CAHP is Principal and Manager - Heritage Consulting Services with LHC. She is a Heritage Consultant and Professional Archaeologist (P376) with more than a decade of experience working on heritage aspects of planning and development projects. She is President of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals and received her MA in Heritage Conservation from Carleton University School of Canadian Studies. Her thesis examined the identification and assessment of impacts on cultural heritage resources in the context of Environmental Assessment. Since 2003 Chris has provided archaeological and heritage conservation advice, support and expertise as a member of numerous multi-disciplinary project teams for projects across Ontario and New Brunswick, including such major projects as: all phases of archaeological assessment at the Canadian War Museum site at LeBreton Flats, Ottawa; renewable energy projects; natural gas pipeline routes; railway lines; hydro powerline corridors; and highway/road realignments. She has completed more than 100 cultural heritage technical reports for development proposals at all levels of government, including cultural heritage evaluation reports, heritage impact assessments, and archaeological licence reports. Her specialties include the development of Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, under both O. Reg. 9/06 and 10/06, and Heritage Impact Assessments. Colin Yu, MA – Cultural Heritage Specialist and Archaeologist Colin Yu is a Cultural Heritage Specialist and Archaeologist with LHC. He holds a BSc with a specialist in Anthropology from the University of Toronto and a M.A. in Heritage and Archaeology from the University of Leicester. He has a special interest in identifying socioeconomic factors of 19th century Euro-Canadian settlers through quantitative and qualitative ceramic analysis. Colin has worked in the heritage industry for over eight years, starting out as an archaeological field technician in 2013. He currently holds an active research license (R1104) with the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries (MHSTCI). In 2020, he was accepted as an intern member at the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). He is currently working with Marcus Létourneau and Christienne Uchiyama in developing a stronger understanding of the heritage industry. At LHC, Colin has worked on numerous projects dealing with all aspects of Ontario’s cultural heritage. He has completed over thirty cultural heritage technical reports for development proposals and include Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, Heritage Impact Statements, Environmental Assessments, and Archaeological Assessments. Colin has worked on a wide range of cultural heritage resources including; cultural landscapes, institutions, commercial and residential sites as well as infrastructure such as bridges, dams, and highways. Jordan Greene, BA – Mapping Technician Jordan Greene is a mapping technician with LHC. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Geography with a Certificate in Geographic Information Science and a Certificate in Urban Planning Studies - 126 - Project #LHC0292 35 from Queen’s University. The experience gained through the completion of the Certificate in Geographic Information Science allowed Jordan to volunteer as a research assistant contributing to the study of the extent of the suburban population in America with Dr. David Gordon. Prior to her work at LHC, Jordan spent the final two years of her undergraduate degree working in managerial positions at the student-run Printing and Copy Centre as an Assistant and Head Manager. Jordan has had an interest in heritage throughout her life and is excited to build on her existing professional and GIS experience as a part of the LHC team. - 127 - Project #LHC0292 36 11 REFERENCES Branch Architecture, “Kingston Road Study Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report,” (Pickering: Brach Architecture, 2020) City of Pickering, Municipal Heritage Register, Official list of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of the City of Pickering Conner & Coltson, Directory of the County of Ontario for 1869-70. Accessed online at http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wjmartin/genealogy/ontario.htm#ROUGE%20HILL Land Registry Office [LRO40], “Abstract/Parcel Register Book, Durham (40), Pickering, Book 201, Concession 3; Broken Front, Lot 27 to 35” Library and Archives Canada; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Census Returns For 1861; Roll: C-1057; Schedule A Census Returns For 1861; Roll: C-1057; Schedule B Census Returns For 1851; Roll: C-1057; Schedule: A; Roll: C-11742; Page: 183 Ontarioarchitecutre.com, “Georgian (1750-1850),” accessed 31 March 2022 http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/georgian.htm Tunis, Barbara, “Holmes, William (d.1834),” in Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 6., University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003, accessed 31 March 2022 http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/holmes_william_1834_6E.html Parks Canada, “Rouge National Urban Park,” 2021, accessed 28 March 2022 https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/on/rouge - 128 - Memo To: Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee October 25, 2023 From: Emily Game Senior Planner, Heritage Copy: Chief Planner Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design Division Head, Finance Supervisor, Taxation Subject: Heritage Property Tax Relief By-law Background At the September 28, 2020, Council meeting, staff were directed to report back to Council, by the end of 2020, with a Heritage Property Tax Rebate Program, based on the Notice of Motion presented at the July 27, 2020, Council meeting (see Notice of Motion, Attachment #1). The program was put on hold due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Heritage property tax relief is a financial tool for municipalities to help owners of eligible heritage properties continue to maintain and restore their properties. Section 365.2 of the Municipal Act, 2001 gives municipalities the option of establishing a program to provide property tax relief (between 10 to 40 percent) to owners of heritage properties. Municipalities must first pass a by-law to adopt the program. Staff consulted with the City’s Finance and Legal departments to draft a by-law (see Draft Heritage Property Tax Relief By-law, Attachment #2). Benefits of Heritage Property Tax Relief Well-maintained heritage properties enrich quality of life and give communities a sense of place and unique character. Although there are community benefits to conserving heritage properties, many are privately owned. The program provides an incentive to owners to make regular investments in the ongoing maintenance and conservation of their properties. Further, with regular repair and maintenance, costly major renovation projects can be avoided. Financial Implications Approximately 50 properties could be eligible for this program in the City of Pickering. If the by-law is approved to provide a 20 percent rebate to properties enrolled in the program, this represents a refund of $19,755.00 in taxes yearly. - 129 - October 25, 2023 Page 2 of 4 Heritage Property Tax Relief By-law Any costs associated with enrolling an eligible property in the program will be paid for by the property owner. For example, the first time an owner enrolls, they will have to pay for the preparation of a Heritage Easement agreement and register the Agreement on title in the Land Registry Office. Eligible Properties Approximately 50 properties are eligible for the Heritage Property Tax Relief Program, both within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District and outside of the district. This number excludes properties that are currently owned by the provincial or federal governments. Should those properties be purchased by a private owner in the future for residential use, they may be considered eligible for the program. Properties within the District that are identified as having no historical or architectural significance, as noted in the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guide are not eligible for the Heritage Property Tax Relief Program. The intent of the heritage tax relief program is to incentivize the maintenance and repair of buildings with cultural heritage value or significance. The Municipal Act sets out minimum criteria for an eligible property and allows the municipality to have flexibility with additional criteria. The draft by-law includes the following eligibility requirements (see attached Draft By-law, Appendix #1): •designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (an individually designated property); •a property that is part of a Heritage Conservation District under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, except for properties listed without having Historical or ArchitecturalSignificance within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guide; •subject to a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City of Pickering under Section 37 ofthe Ontario Heritage Act; •complies with the additional eligibility criteria set out in this by-law; •has a realty tax class of R - Residential, and a realty tax qualifier of T – Taxable; and •is in a good and habitable condition, as determined by the City. Property Tax Relief Amount The Municipal Act allows municipalities to provide between 10 and 40 percent of tax relief, and the rebate amount is currently proposed at 20 percent. The rebate is applied to the City of Pickering portion of municipal taxes, as well as on the education portion. The Region of Durham is currently not participating in the program. - 130 - October 25, 2023 Page 3 of 4 Heritage Property Tax Relief By-law For example, a property owner would receive a 20 percent refund on the City of Pickering portion of their tax bill and a 20 percent refund on the education portion of their tax bill. Should Council approve the by-law, a notice will be sent to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, enabling the province to fund the education portion. Staff recommend that the City provide a credit to the property tax account similar to the Low-Income Seniors/persons with Disabilities Property Tax Grant program. In addition, the property owner’s tax account must be in “good standing” to be eligible for the program. The amount of taxes a property owner pays depends on the assessment of the property from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC). Municipalities can work with MPAC to determine the area of a property eligible for the heritage tax rebate. It is assumed that most properties will be straightforward, for example, the tax rebate would apply to the property in its entirety. In some instances, however, a heritage house may be located on a 40-acre farm, with other outbuildings and landscape features not described in the designation by-law. The municipality may then apply the tax relief to only the assessed portion surrounding the house or a portion of the house. Application process and enrollment City Development staff will develop an application form. The owner of an eligible property may apply at any time before the last day in February, in the year following the year of which the owner is seeking to obtain a heritage property tax refund (a deadline mandated by the Municipal Act). The property owner will be required to submit the form along with any additional information such as photos of the property or proof of ownership. Staff will then determine the heritage attributes of the property and whether it meets the eligibility requirements and may conduct research and a site visit to do so. A Heritage Easement Agreement must be registered on title with the Land Registry Office. This process could take several weeks or months as the one-time process of creating the Agreement is finalized. Finance staff will then enroll the eligible property into the program. The owner will be responsible for paying the City all costs incurred by the City relating to the registration of the Heritage Easement Agreement on title with the local Land Registry Office. No additional fee will be charged by the City for enrollment. Applications must be made each year that an owner wishes an eligible property to be considered. Staff anticipate that the homeowner, if enrolled, will receive a credit directly on their tax bill. Program promotion A section will be added to the Heritage Pickering site describing the program and application process. Staff will also endeavour to keep a publicly available list of the participating property owners on the website. Eligible property owners will receive notification and information regarding the program through a mailed letter or postcard. - 131 - October 25, 2023 Page 4 of 4 Heritage Property Tax Relief By-law Staff Comments It is recommended that Heritage Pickering endorse the Heritage property tax rebate program and by-law. Recognizing that preserving built heritage is a community benefit, the by-law provides an incentive for property owners to provide ongoing maintenance before repairs become too costly. Staff Recommendations to Heritage Pickering Staff offer the following recommendation to the Committee: That Heritage Pickering recommends that Council approve the draft Heritage property tax relief by-law. Next Steps Heritage Pickering’s recommendations will be included in a Recommendation Report to the December 4, 2023, Executive Committee meeting and subsequent Council meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 905.420.4660, extension 1147. EG:nr J:\Documents\Administration\A-3300\A-3300-080\Heritage Pickering Memo\Memo Draft Heritage Property Tax By-law_25OCT23.docx Attachments #1. Notice of Motion #2. Draft Heritage Property Tax Relief By-law - 132 - Legislative Services Division Clerk’s Office Directive Memorandum July 31, 2020 To: From: Subject: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Susan Cassel City Clerk Direction as per Minutes of the Meeting of City Council held on July 27, 2020 Property Tax Rebates - Heritage Properties Council Decision Resolution #390/20 1. That the Notice of Motion, Property Tax Rebates - Heritage Properties, be referred back to Staff to clarify the number of designated heritage homes that would be eligible to take part in the program, the potential costs of the program to taxpayers, and identification of the number of homes designated under the Heritage Act that are owned by either the Provincial or Federal Government with consideration of excluding those properties from the program; and, 2. That Staff report back at the September 14th Executive Committee meeting A copy of the Notice of Motion is attached for your reference. Please take any action deemed necessary. Susan Cassel Enclosure Copy: Interim Chief Administrative Officer $WWDFKPHQW - 133 - Notice of Motion Property Tax Rebates - Heritage Properties Date: July 27, 2020 Moved By: Councillor Brenner Signature: Seconded By: Councillor Butt Signature: WHEREAS, a heritage property tax rebate may be applied to designated properties and properties located in a designated heritage district; And Whereas, there are 17 properties within the City that are individually designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA); And Whereas, there are 77 properties in Whitevale that are designated within its Heritage Conservation District under Part V of the OHA and, 24 of these are without historical or architectural importance, but are legally designated; Now Therefore be it resolved that the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering: 1.Directs staff to develop a Heritage Property Tax Rebate Program in discussion withthe Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, and a report and corresponding By-law be brought back to Council before the December 14, 2020 last Council meeting of this year; and, 2.That the Pickering Heritage Property Tax Rebate Program be developed with thefollowing guiding principles: a.The program has a start date of January 1, 2021, with a Heritage Property TaxRebate amount established at 20 percent; - 134 - b. Only residential properties (or the portion of the property classified asresidential), designated under Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, are eligible for the rebate; c. Any property receiving a Heritage Property Tax Rebate requires the propertyowner to enter into a Heritage Conservation Agreement (HCA) with the City ofPickering respecting preservation and maintenance of the property; d. The HCA will be permanently registered on title and the agreement will permit City staff on an annual basis to conduct either an exterior or interior inspection of the property at a mutually agreeable date and time; e. To receive a Heritage Property Tax Rebate, there must be no un-paid propertytaxes, or other monies owed to the City of Pickering; and, f. The Heritage Property Tax Rebate shall be repaid in full by the owner for every year there is non-compliance with the HCA. - 135 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. /23 Being a by-law to provide property tax relief to eligible heritage property in the City of Pickering. Whereas Subsection 356.2 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended, provides that a local municipality may establish a program to provide tax reductions or refunds in respect of eligible heritage property; AND Whereas The Corporation of the City of Pickering finds it in the public interest to provide financial assistance in the terms set out in this by-law as an incentive for property owners to renovate, restore and maintain heritage property in the City of Pickering; Now therefore The Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: Part 1 – Definitions “Act” means the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as amended. “Assessment Corporation” means the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation. “City” means The Corporation of the City of Pickering or the geographic area of the City of Pickering as the context requires. “Council” means the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering. “Eligible Property” means a property or portion of a property located within the limits of the City, a)that is designated under Part IV of the Act;; b)that is part of a heritage conservation district under Part V of the Act, except for properties listed without having Historical or Architectural Significance within theWhitevale Heritage Conservation District Guide; c)that is subject to a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City under Section 37 ofthe Act; d)that complies with the additional eligibility criteria set out in this by-law; e)that has a realty tax class of R - Residential, and a realty tax qualifier of T – Taxable;and $WWDFKPHQW2 - 136 - f)that is in a good and habitable condition, as determined by the City. “Heritage Easement Agreement” means an agreement made under Section 37 of the Act, which sets out easement or covenant obligations with respect to but not limited to the preservation of heritage features and value of heritage property and is registered on title to an Eligible Property in the Land Registry Office, and which is enforceable by the City against the Owner and subsequent Owner of an Eligible Property. “Owner” means the registered owner(s), from time to time, of an Eligible Property, and includes a corporation and partnership and the heirs, executors, administrators and other legal representatives. “Program” means the Heritage Property Tax Relief Program. Part 2 – Application and Eligibility 2.1 An Owner of an Eligible Property must make an application to the Program by submitting the prescribed application form to the City no later than the last day of February in the year following the year for which the Owner is seeking to obtain a heritage property tax reduction or refund. Applications received after this deadline will not be accepted. 2.2 Upon acceptance of a satisfactorily completed application, the Planning Department of the City, and if necessary in consultation with the Heritage Committee, Council may approve a Heritage Easement Agreement with the Owner. Upon confirmation that the Heritage Easement Agreement has been approved, executed and registered on title to the Eligible Property, the City’s Finance Department shall enroll the Eligible Property in Program. 2.3 Applications to the Program must be made each year that an Owner wishes an Eligible Property to be considered for a heritage property tax reduction or refund. 2.4 In order to determine eligibility for the Program, the Owner consents to the inspection of the Eligible Property as and when deemed necessary by the Planning Department of the City or its designate. 2.5 Where multiple Heritage Easement Agreements are registered on title to one parcel of land comprising an Eligible Property, multiple heritage property tax reductions or refunds will not be provided in respect of the same heritage features of the Eligible Property. 2.6 The Program is subject at all times to funding made available by Council in its annual budget. This by-law does not obligate Council to provide funding for the Program, and the heritage property tax reduction or refund contemplated by this by-law may be eliminated by Council through repeal of this by-law at any time with no notice whatsoever to any affected persons. 2.7 The Program is subject to any regulations that the Minister of Finance may make governing by-laws on tax reductions or refunds for heritage property. - 137 - Part 3 – Fees [to be confirmed] Part 4 – Non-Compliance 4.1 In the event that: (a)the City’s Planning Department or its designate determines that the HeritageEasement Agreement has not been complied with to the satisfaction of the City; (b)the Eligible Property is in contravention of work orders, municipal requirements orliens; or (c)applicable taxes, penalties, interest and other charges for the Eligible Property havenot been paid to the City, then no heritage property tax reduction or refund will be issued to the Owner and the Citymay require the Owner to repay part or all of any heritage property tax reduction orrefund previously provided to the Owner during any period of non-compliance. Upon the Planning Department being satisfied that the Owner has brought theEligible Property back into compliance, the Eligible Property will be re-enrolled inthe Program. 4.2. The City’s Planning Department shall send written notice to the Owner of the Eligible Property informing the Owner that the Eligible Property was found to be out of compliance. The written notice shall describe the nature of the non-compliance. 4.3. An Owner who has received written notice pursuant to Section 4.1, shall have thirty (30) days to: (a)bring the Eligible Property into compliance to the satisfaction of the City’s PlanningDepartment; or (b)satisfy the City’s Planning Department that a workable plan has been developed tobring the Eligible Property into compliance. 4.4 Upon being satisfied that the Eligible Property is back in compliance, the City’s Planning Department shall provide written notification to the Owner and the City’s Finance Department indicating that the Eligible Property is in compliance and that the heritage property tax reduction or refund will continue. 4.5 In the event the Owner does not bring the Eligible Property back into compliance within the timeline pursuant to Section 4.3, the City shall remove the Eligible Property from the Program. 4.6 Should an Eligible Property be removed from the Program for non-compliance, the City may add the value of any heritage property tax reduction or refund previously provided, plus applicable penalties and interest, to the Owner’s property tax bill. - 138 - Part 5 – Annual Tax Reduction or Refund 5.1 Subject to the conditions set out in this by-law, an Owner shall receive a heritage property tax reduction or refund for each year in which the Owner and the Eligible Property meet all of the requirements of this by-law. Part 6 - Amount of Tax Reduction or Refund 6.1 The amount of heritage property tax reduction or refund provided in respect of an Eligible Property shall be twenty percent (20%) of the taxes for municipal and school purposes levied on the whole or a portion of the Eligible Property. 6.2 Any costs incurred by the City to register the Heritage Easement Agreement on title to the Eligible Property or to validate or calculate the heritage property tax reduction or rebate will be deducted from the heritage property tax reduction or rebate amount issued. Part 7 – Property Assessment 7.1 The City will work with the Assessment Corporation to determine the whole or portion of a property’s total assessment that is attributable to the building or structure that is an Eligible Property, and the land used in connection with it. It will be solely the City’s decision to determine the amount of heritage property tax reduction or refund applicable to the Eligible Property. 7.2 In the event that an Eligible Property’s assessed value, as determined by the Assessment Corporation, changes for any reason whatsoever, then the amount of the heritage property tax reduction or refund shall be recalculated accordingly. Part 8 - Interest 8.1 The City may require the Owner to pay interest on the amount of any repayment under this by-law, at a rate not exceeding the lowest prime rate reported to the Bank of Canada by any of the Banks listed in Schedule I of the Bank Act (Canada), calculated from the date or dates the heritage property tax reduction or refund was provided. Part 9 – Penalty 9.1 If the Owner of an Eligible Property demolishes the property or breaches the terms of a Heritage Easement Agreement, the City may require the Owner to repay part or all of any heritage property tax reductions or refunds provided to the Owner for one or more years under this by-law. Part 10 – Sharing of Repayment 10.1 Any amount repaid to the City by the Owner pursuant to this by-law shall be shared by the City, the School Boards and the Region of Durham, if applicable, that share in the revenue from taxes on the Eligible Property, in the same proportion that they - 139 - shared in the cost of the heritage property tax reduction or refund on the Eligible Property. Part 11 – Notification 11.1 The City Clerk is hereby directed to give notice of this by-law to the Minister of Finance and the Region of Durham within thirty (30) days of the passing of this by-law. Part 12 – Force and Effect 12.1 This by-law shall come into force and effect on the date it is passed. By-law passed this day of , 2023. ________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 140 - Memo To: Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee October 25, 2023 From: Emily Game Senior Planner, Heritage Copy: Chief Planner Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design Subject: Emergency Roof Repairs - 815 Highway 7 (the Percy House) File: A-3300-093 Background The property located at 815 Highway 7 is currently included on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register as a listed, non-designated property. It is expected that the house, known as the Percy House, will be relocated and designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act in 2024. The house is situated on the south side of Highway 7, west of Whites Road (see Location Map, Attachment #1). Emergency roof repairs required for 815 Highway 7 (the Percy House) Per the Temporary Protection and Mothball Plan, prepared by WSP, dated 2022, quarterly site inspections and checklists are required to ensure the building retains its current level of repair. The Temporary Protection and Mothball Plan provides recommendations for security, ventilation, and maintenance. The Quarterly Site Inspection memo, dated August 16, 2023, determined the following major concerns with the existing conditions of the Percy House (see Attachment #2): •the roof is in immediate need of repair and major water damage and mould are present inthe south portion of the house; •the chimneys require capping to prevent animal or pest infestation; •the entrance on the west side of the extension is also slightly ajar, which may also allow forinfestation; and •the brick on the south wall of the extension is warped and may pose a risk to the main block should a collapse occur. The following proposed works have been reviewed (see Letter of Intent, Attachment #3): •shingles to be incorporated on the roof where there is an existing hole; and •two steel chimney covers (chase covers) to keep out rain, snow, and animals from entering Percy House. - 141 - October 25, 2023 Page 2 of 2 Emergency Roof Repairs – 815 Highway 7 (the Percy House) The repairs to the roof of the Percy House will be made with the following materials (see Material Board, Attachment #4): • CertainTeed Landmark shingles with all related starters, hips, and ridges over top of the existing roof; • metal exhaust roof vents to replace existing; • Oatey flashings at all washroom stacks; and • pre-painted metal chimney caps for two chimneys. Staff Comments City Development staff have reviewed the heritage permit application. The proposal is considered minor, and according to By-law 7651/18 (a By-law to delegate the authority to consent/grant heritage permits for the alteration of designated heritage properties to the Director, City Development, or designate) does not require endorsement or approval from the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee. It is understood that once the Percy House is relocated, the roof will be replaced with materials outlined in the Heritage Conservation Plan, prepared by WSP, dated 2022. In accordance with Section 33, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, the City of Pickering has granted Heritage Permit Approval in accordance with the information attached. The heritage permit was issued to CapLink on the condition that the works shall be completed in accordance with the Letter of Intent and Material Board review by the City Development Department, including notes as marked. Any change to an approved heritage permit will require the re-approval/review of those revisions as authorized by the City Development Department. If you have any questions, please contact me at 905.420.4660, extension 1147. EG:nr J:\Documents\Administration\A-3300\A-3300-093\Heritage Permit Application\HPAC Memo\HPAC Emergency Roof Repairs - 815 Highway 7_25OCT23.docx Attachments #1. Location Map #2. Quarterly Site Inspection Memo #3. Letter of Intent #4. Material Board - 142 - W hit e s Roa d Highway 407 Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: HP05/23 Date: Oct. 05, 2023 Attachment #1 Martin Ng 815 Highway 7 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\Heritage\HP05-23_815Highway7_LocationMap.mxd 1:10,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department ofNatural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment - 143 - $WWDFKPHQW - 144 - - 145 - - 146 - - 147 - - 148 - - 149 - - 150 - - 151 - - 152 - - 153 - fa@2 ROOFING EsT. 1921 September 22, 2023 City City nd $03/23 TBG Project N.8 submit this formal Letter of Intent of the roof repair for the lands mu o r b b e a ontri ut o u ra hri vu of 815 Highway .th ttri b o e e p liss cosrvao ommd ict t catin Hv ,u coditi o e roa d e fis qual it it t o eh e h e d o o th m h r s e e a s u nt s to n h a y fe e u e I u 81 Hhwy 7 iri ro a f is pemit. Highway in an u p uu e ofes oa f u r of b s $WWDFKPHQW - 154 - 2 of 2 Pickering, ON L1V6K7 RE: Percy House - Emergency Roof Repair Permit Related City FIie No. SP-2022-02, A04/22 and S03/23 WORK PLAN e cvrs)o keep u ra snow critt a il frm g Pcy Hs. During t mergey ro r,Cotrcr sure exii i age ttr a . Repair Materials s. v Pre-painted metalchimneycaps for 2 chimneys. A Mteri ad i pro prt e Heritage Permit to ut th mi s s d Onc the r sor on prograart, ro will be th m utl Crva a pa y SP Boy y - 155 - $WWDFKPHQW - 156 - Memo To: Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee November 8, 2023 From: Emily Game Senior Planner, Heritage Copy: Chief Planner Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design Subject: Review of CHER and CHERR / Proposed Demolition of 1740 Fifth Concession Road The purpose of this memorandum is to provide background information on the above-noted property, including previous heritage reporting, its heritage status, and City staff comments regarding the proposed demolition of the building at 1740 Fifth Concession Road. Background The property at 1740 Fifth Concession Road has a total area of approximately 2.89 hectares and contains a one-and-a-half storey vernacular farmhouse constructed before 1887. The property is associated with a former farmstead and is located on the north side of Fifth Concession Road, east of Brock Road (See Location Map, Attachment #1) within the Seaton Community. The subject property is not designated under Part IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, listed on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register, or located within a Seaton Heritage Lot. In 2023, TMHC Inc. (TMHC) was retained by GHD Limited (GHD), on behalf of CBRE and Infrastructure Ontario (IO) to complete a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) and Cultural Heritage Recommendations Report (CHERR) for the property at 1740 Fifth Concession Road. The CHER and CHERR completed by TMHC is the third known cultural heritage study to be undertaken on the property. All three reports have determined the property had moderate contextual value and no design/physical or associative value. 1740 Fifth Concession Road was identified in the 1994 Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment In 1994, Hough Stansbury Woodland Naylor Dance Limited (HSWNDL), D.R. Poulton & Associates, and Andrew Scheinman undertook the Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment which was prepared for The Seaton Interim Planning Team. The subject property was identified in the study and given a Class C grade (75 out of 100). This grade represented the property’s relatively high contextual value. It should be noted that this study was carried out before the development of provincial criteria used to standardize the evaluation and designation process (Ontario Regulation 9/06) and does not meet the current industry standards for cultural heritage evaluations. - 157 - November 8, 2023 Page 2 of 4 CHER and CHERR / Proposed Demolition 1740 Fifth Concession Road was identified in a Class B Environmental EA by Infrastructure Ontario In 2014, IO undertook two different Class B Environmental Assessments for the demolition of buildings located on 20 properties in the Seaton Urban Area and the Hamlet of Whitevale. IO retained environmental consultants Environmental Consulting and Occupation Health (ECOH) and DST Consulting Engineers Inc. (DST) to gather background information on the properties including their heritage status. 1740 Fifth Concession Road was included in the Class B Environmental Assessment for the Demolition of Structures on 15 Properties in the City of Pickering: Seaton Urban Area, prepared by ECOH. The report recommended the demolition of 1740 Fifth Concession Road without the completion of a CHER to determine the Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of the property. City staff requested a 120-day extension on the commenting deadline. The extension was required to allow City staff to gather sufficient information to provide a recommendation to Council and an official response to the Class B Environmental Assessment. City staff requested a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report for 1740 Fifth Concession Road Based on the City of Pickering’s review of the Class B Environmental Assessment, and at the request of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd. Architects (GBCA) completed a CHER for the property at 1740 Fifth Concession Road. The 2015 CHER evaluated the subject property against the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06 and determined the property only met one of the nine criteria. The report concluded the property retained modest contextual value to its surroundings on Fifth Concession Road. As a modest building with few stylistic features, the building was not found to retain design or physical value (See Draft Report: 1740 Fifth Concession, Pickering, Attachment #2). Based on the results of the Ontario Regulation 9/06 evaluation, the subject property was not recommended for listing on the Municipal Heritage Register or individual designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee and Council object to the demolition of the building in 2015 On July 22, 2015, the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee (HPAC) objected to the demolition of the structure at 1740 Fifth Concession Road. HPAC requested the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties.1 City Council also objected to the demolition of the house at 1740 Fifth Concession Road and expressed its concern with the Province for its disregard of significant heritage resources in Pickering through the lack of maintenance and occupancy of such resources, in contravention of the Provincial Policy Statement. Council also requested the Province restore and reuse the structures identified in the Class B Environmental Assessment and manage them in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. 1 The property at 1740 Fifth Concession Road was evaluated using Ontario Regulation 9/06. The evaluation determined the subject property did not have Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and is not considered a Provincial Heritage Property. IO is therefore not required to maintain the building using the standards outlined in the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. - 158 - November 8, 2023 Page 3 of 4 CHER and CHERR / Proposed Demolition A 2023 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report determined the property does not have Cultural Heritage Value or Interest In 2023 GHD Limited (GHD) on behalf of IO retained TMHC Inc. (TMHC) to prepare a CHER and a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Recommendations Report (CHERR) for the provincially owned residential property at 1740 Fifth Concession Road (See CHER and CHERR, Attachment #3 and Attachment #4). The CHER and CHERR were completed in accordance with IO standards, as part of their internal due diligence process as per the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties including the Ministry of Infrastructure’s 2016 Heritage Identification and Evaluation Process, the Provincial Policy Statement and in accordance with Ontario Regulations 9/06 and 10/06, as well as the Ontario Heritage Act (RSO 1990). Based on the results of research, site investigation, and application of the criteria in Ontario Regulation 9/06, 1740 Fifth Concession Road was not found to possess cultural heritage value or interest. Similarly, the evaluation of the subject property using Ontario Regulation 10/06 determined the property does not meet the criteria for consideration as a Provincial Heritage Property of Provincial Significance. 1740 Fifth Concession Road was not recommended for listing on the Municipal Heritage Register or individual designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Although the building was found to be in poor condition, the CHERR identified materials for potential salvage including stone comprising the foundation, clapboard siding, interior window and door trim, doors, built-in cupboards, pressed metal ceiling panels and mouldings, and wainscoting. The City of Pickering does not have the authority to enforce designation by-laws / maintained standards on provincially owned lands. Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act allows municipalities to designate properties. However, the municipality does not have the authority to enforce designation by-laws on provincially owned lands. Accordingly, should Council pass a designation by-law for lands under provincial ownership, the Province is not obligated to comply with the by-law. If the property is sold to a private owner, however, the owner would be obligated to comply with the designation by-law. Staff Comments The CHER and CHERR prepared by TMHC for 1740 Fifth Concession Road have been completed in keeping with the direction provided in the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit and common best 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 and 10/06; and conclusions. The evaluation of the property with respect to Ontario Regulation 9/06 found the property satisfies one of the nine criteria and does not merit designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. - 159 - November 8, 2023 Page 4 of 4 CHER and CHERR / Proposed Demolition While the property forms part of the rural landscape along the south side of Highway 7, it does not include a significant built heritage resource nor cultural heritage landscape. The integrity of the farm setting has been eroded by the loss of agricultural and landscape features because of the construction of the Brock Road By-pass, built between 2013 and 2015. Additionally, the rural landscape around the subject property has been further lost through the widening of Fifth Concession Road, in preparation for the Seaton Developments. Staff made the following recommendations to TMCH: • To determine if the subject property “is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method” as described in Ontario Regulation 9/06, the consultant should consider completing a comparative analysis. This analysis serves to establish a baseline understanding of similar recognized rural heritage properties in the City of Pickering. • A Recommendations section should be added to the report indicating that based on the results of research, site investigation, and application of the criteria in Ontario Regulation 9/06, it was determined that 1740 Fifth Concession Road does not possess CHVI. Accordingly, no further cultural heritage reporting is required. • The report recommendations should be updated to include that a copy of the CHER and CHERR be distributed to the City of Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. The recommendations should also indicate that materials from the house should be salvaged if they are suitable for re-use in other buildings or projects, that is, the material must not be irreparably damaged or infested. Based on the information outlined in the CHER and CHERR prepared by TMHC, City staff agree with the conclusions of the report and do not object to the demolition of the building at 1740 Fifth Concession Road. If you have any questions, please contact me at 905.420.4660, extension 1147. EG:nr J:\Documents\Administration\A-3300\A-3300-084\October 25 HPAC Meeting\Heritage Committee Memo_25OCTT23.docx Attachments #1: Location Map #2: Draft Report: 1740 Fifth Concession #3: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report #4: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report Recommendations - 160 - Fifth Concession Road BrockRoad Alexander Knox Road Elsa Storry Avenue Si d e l i n e 1 6 1:7,000 SCALE:© The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Municipal Address:Review of CHER and CHERR / Proposed demolition THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Oct. 31, 2023 ¯ 1740 Fifth Concession Road L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\01-City Development\A-3300 Historical Heritage Conservation\Review of CHER and CHERR - Proposed demolition\1740FifthConcessionRd_LocationMap.mxd E SubjectLands Attachment #1 - 161 - 6 April 2015 Cristina Celebre MCIP RPP Senior Planner – Development Review & Heritage City Development Department City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Draft Report Re: 1740 Fifth Concession, Pickering Dear Ms. Celebre: Per your recent request, the above captioned site was visited and reviewed in terms of its value as a heritage resource. The following comments are made: REVIEW PROCESS The site visit to the property took place on 18 March 2015. The building was observed from the exterior with a view to assessing the structure’s intact heritage features and historic value. •The exterior was photographed from all sides as practical with site photographs also taken for context •The site was located on an aerial image which is included in this report •An evaluation was prepared in letter format and provided as a pdf file. EVALUATION Date of construction: We could not determine the exact date of the original construction as we could not enter the premises. The building does not appear to be listed in the municipal heritage register. The house has the pattern of an 1870’s side wing design, but the design is not refined and is an early varient of the style. The rear tail is remarkably small while the overall height of the house, a full two storeys, is unusual. The foundation is of a combination of cut fieldstone and rubble but suggests similarities to other buildings in the area dating to the early 1860’s. Clapboarding with beaded corner boards also suggest the 1860’s. The design of the house appears to be customized and does not follow the recommendations made in pattern books of that period but some minor details, such as the entasis on the original porch columns, reflects influence from the earlier classical styles of the 1850’s. The house is indicated in its proper position in the 1877 County Atlas and certainly pre-dates that period by at least a decade. We could not establish the type of framing due to lack of access - but suspect it is balloon framed stud. Therefore, a suggested dating is approximately the late 1860’s. Condition: The exterior of the building is in fair to good condition with damage under some of the sills which has exposed the sheathing boards. No sagging or settlement was noted. Without access to the interior, we could not establish the conditions of the interior. Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd. Architects 362 Davenport Rd. Suite 100 Toronto . Ontario M5R 1K6 . Canada T 416 929 6556 F 416 929 4745 www.gbca.ca $WWDFKPHQW - 162 - Intact heritage features: The building’s original shape and mass are apparent as most of the openings are boarded up. The window and door trim are very simple flat arches presumably set into the clap boarding. The foundation is of squared and worked fieldstone set in lime mortar and in fairly good condition. While the features of the front porch appear to be intact, the porch has been boarded in and we could not establish their full extent. The window visible on the west wall is of 2/2 (two panes over two) proportion, appears to be original, and is consistent in style with a late 1860’s dating. The roof is sheathed in asphalt shingles which do not date to the period of construction of the building - they are replacements which would be expected for a building of this vintage. They are in a poor state of repair. Assessment of the value of the heritage resource: The subject site is of modest interest from a heritage standpoint. The current building has been on its site for at least 100 years and, while well built, has little to recommend it in terms of stylistic features. Further research as to its social or community connections may establish whether the building has any social significance. Conclusion: It is our opinion that this site represents only a modest heritage resource. Deterioration is not extensive and so it is likely capable of re-use or restoration. We do not recommend its listing as a heritage site unless additional social history is uncovered that may associate the structure with important local events or persons. We recommend further research as to its social or community connections which may establish whether the building has social significance. This work should be done in conjunction with recording of the site through photography and drawings as a record for the community. We trust that this is the information you require at this time. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned for further information or clarification in respect to the report on this property. CLOSURE The information and data contained herein represents GBCA’s best professional judgment in light of the knowledge and information available to GBCA at the time of preparation. GBCA denies any liability whatsoever to other parties who may obtain access to this report for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, or reliance upon, this report or any of its contents without the express written consent of the GBCA and the client. Yours sincerely
 Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd. Architects Christopher Borgal OAA FRAIC CAHP President ! 2- 163 - IMAGES ! 3 Image 1: Overall view of area. The hamlet of Brougham is circled while the arrow points to the subject building. Image 2: The site. Arrow points to the subject house. - 164 - ! 4 Image 3: The property in 1867 is indicated under the ownership of “H. Flaxton” with an area of 79 acres. Image 4: The property in 1877 under the ownership of “J. Allicot” with the house properly located on the property. Given the change of ownership between 1867 and 1877, is reasonable to suggest that the house was construction by Allicot sometime within that decade subject to additional research. - 165 - ! 5 Image 5: Lot 18 is located by the arrow. The hamlet of Brougham is clearly indicated to the north of the site. By this time, the Lot is owned by W. Cowan. - 166 - ! 6 Image 6: South or front elevation of the house. The upper window is of modern vintage. Image 7: Porch is in foreground. Note the details of the column caps which relieves the plain appearance of the remainder of the house. - 167 - ! 7 Image 8: East wall of house. Image 8 : General view of south wall showing tail and informal placement of windows suggestive of the 1870’s period. However, the details are not as evolved as the mid-1870’s which tallies with the suggested date of the late 1860’s. - 168 - ! 8 Image 9: Damaged sill at north wall next to tail. Image 10: Detail of above - arrow points to square nail in timber which suggest that the house was framed with a combination of timber frames and studs - consistent with the 1860’s. - 169 - ! 9 Image 11: Junction of the tail with the rear wall,. A second layer of clapboarding (arrow) is exposed under the current cladding with remnants of green and while paint. Image 12: The northeast corner of the tail illustrating that the rather small tail is an original feature of the main house due to the style of the foundation work. - 170 - ! 10 Image 13: View from the west. Height of the ground floor and upper floors is apparent in this image. The small tail, original to the house based on the foundation, and the centrally located window on the west wall suggests that this house may have been heated with stoves from the outset. Image 14: Detail of the northwest corner of the foundation showing the high standard of masonry work. - 171 - ! 11 Image 15: Exposed 2/2 window at upper floor may be original. Note the simple design of the window trim and sill. Image 16: Detail of gable soffit which has been planked with tongue and grooved “V” boards - a surprisingly interesting detail given the relative plain appearance of the overall house. - 172 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report Infrastructure Ontario Project No. 65398 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847) Part of Lot 18, Concession 5 Former Geographic Township of Pickering, Ontario County Now City of Pickering Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario Prepared for: GHD Ltd. 70 York Street, Suite 801 Toronto, ON M5J 1S9 Prepared by: TMHC Inc. 1108 Dundas Street Unit 105 London, ON N5W 3A7 519-641-7222 tmhc.ca Project No: 2023-060 Revised Draft : September 25, 2023 Attachment #3 - 173 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GHD Limited (GHD), on behalf of CBRE and Infrastructure Ontario (IO), has engaged TMHC Inc. (TMHC) to produce a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for the provincially-owned property at 1740 5th Concession Road in the Township of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (the “Subject Property”) (Property No. N70847; Project No. 65398). The purpose of this CHER is to provide research and analysis for the property as a basis for determining its potential cultural heritage value and interest (CHVI). An evaluation of the property’s heritage significance and subsequent recommendations are included in the accompanying Cultural Heritage Recommendations Report (CHERR). The CHER and accompanying CHERR have been triggered by the planned demolition of a residential structure (B80112) with the subject property. The Subject Property at 1740 5th Concession Road consists of a 2.89 ha (7.13 ac) parcel containing a one-and- a-half storey vernacular farmhouse (B80112) constructed prior to 1887. The Subject Property is associated with a former farmstead and is located on the north side of 5th Concession Road, east of Brock Road, in Lot 18, Concession 5 of the Geographic Township of Pickering. The property is part of the Seaton Lands, a 1,254.5 ha (3,100 ac) redevelopment parcel in Pickering under provincial management and ownership. This CHER, and the associated CHERR, is the third known cultural heritage study to be undertaken on the Subject Property. Although previous cultural heritage assessments exist for the Subject Property, all prior work was carried out before the development of the 2010 Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (SGCPHP) or did not involve a full cultural heritage evaluation of the Subject Property and, as a result, does not meet the current industry standards for Cultural Heritage Evaluation. The goal of the current study is to conduct a Cultural Heritage Evaluation that conforms with the 2010 SGCPHP. The property at 1740 5th Concession Road is not listed on the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). A 2015 heritage assessment conducted on behalf of the City of Pickering determined the Subject Property contained modest contextual value but did not warrant individual designation under Section 29 of the OHA. This study evaluated the property against the criteria set out by the OHA’s O.Reg. 9/06 (as amended by O. Reg. 569/22). The property was not evaluated against the criteria set out by the OHA’s O. Reg. 10/06. This CHER was conducted in compliance with the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism’s (MCM’s) Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties1 including the Ministry of Infrastructure’s 2016 Heritage Identification and Evaluation Process and provides the contextual basis for the accompanying CHERR. The CHERR contains the evaluation, recommendations, and conclusions for the Subject Property. 1 Published under the Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC), formerly the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Cultural Industries (MHSTCI) and, most recently, the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS). - 174 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON ii Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ i List of Images ......................................................................................................................................... iii List of Maps ............................................................................................................................................ iv List of Acronyms .................................................................................................................................... v Project Personnel .................................................................................................................................. vi Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... vi Territorial Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................ vii About TMHC ....................................................................................................................................... viii Key Staff Bios ....................................................................................................................................... viii Statement of Qualifications and Limitations ..................................................................................... xi Quality Information ............................................................................................................................. xii 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Report Scope and Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Client Contact Information ..................................................................................................................................... 2 2 Site Description ......................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Location and Physical Description ......................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Heritage Status ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 3 Previous Studies ........................................................................................................................ 6 3.1 Built Heritage and Planning Studies ....................................................................................................................... 6 3.1.1 Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment – HSWNDL et. al. .................................................. 6 3.1.2 Building Heritage Assessment – GBCA ....................................................................................................... 7 4 Historical Research & Analysis ................................................................................................ 8 4.1 Indigenous Settlement in the Durham Region and Treaties ............................................................................ 8 4.1.1 Paleo Period ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 4.1.2 Archaic Period ................................................................................................................................................... 9 4.1.3 Early, Middle and Transitional Woodland Periods .................................................................................... 9 4.1.4 Late Woodland Period .................................................................................................................................. 10 4.1.5 Indigenous Landscapes ................................................................................................................................... 10 4.1.6 Indigenous Community-shared Histories .................................................................................................. 11 4.1.7 Treaty History ................................................................................................................................................. 15 4.2 Early Municipal Settlement .................................................................................................................................... 16 4.2.1 Ontario County .............................................................................................................................................. 16 4.2.2 Pickering Township ........................................................................................................................................ 17 4.2.3 Thompson’s Corners ..................................................................................................................................... 18 4.3 Local Property History ........................................................................................................................................... 18 4.4 History of the Subject Property ........................................................................................................................... 19 4.4.1 Sources of Information .................................................................................................................................. 19 4.4.2 1740 5th Concession Road ............................................................................................................................ 19 4.5 Architectural Typology........................................................................................................................................... 30 4.5.1 Vernacular Farmhouses ................................................................................................................................. 30 5 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................. 35 5.1 1740 5th Concession Road ..................................................................................................................................... 35 - 175 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON iii 5.2 Contextual Environment ....................................................................................................................................... 45 6 Policy Context ......................................................................................................................... 48 6.1 Regional Municipality of Durham (2020) ............................................................................................................ 48 6.2 The City of Pickering (2022) ................................................................................................................................. 48 6.3 Planning Act (1990) ................................................................................................................................................. 49 6.4 Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (PPS 2020) .................................................................................................... 49 6.5 Ontario Heritage Act (OHA 2005) ..................................................................................................................... 50 6.6 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (2010) .................... 51 6.7 Indigenous Protocols and Policies ....................................................................................................................... 52 7 Community Interest and Engagement ................................................................................. 54 7.1 Project Specific Engagement Strategy ................................................................................................................. 54 7.2 Indigenous Communities and Organizations ..................................................................................................... 54 7.3 Municipal Entities ..................................................................................................................................................... 55 7.4 Local Heritage Advocates ...................................................................................................................................... 55 7.5 Ontario Heritage Trust .......................................................................................................................................... 55 8 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 56 9 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................. 57 LIST OF IMAGES Image 1: Ellicott House at 566 Kingston Road West.................................................................................................... 21 Image 2: Riftsawn Clapboard .............................................................................................................................................. 32 Image 3: Carriage and Circular Saw, Donnell’s Clapboard Mill, Sedgwick, Maine ................................................. 33 Image 4: Two Course Clapboard Nailing ........................................................................................................................ 34 Image 5: West Elevation ...................................................................................................................................................... 37 Image 6: Ground Floor Layout of Farmhouse ................................................................................................................ 38 Image 7: Partial View of the Farmhouse from 5th Concession .................................................................................... 39 Image 8: Gravel Driveway North to Farmhouse ........................................................................................................... 39 Image 9: Main (South) Elevation of the Farmhouse ....................................................................................................... 39 Image 10: Exposed Unpainted Clapboard Beneath Shed Roof ...................................................................................... 39 Image 11: Porch Roof Type and Soffits and Eaves............................................................................................................ 39 Image 12: Boarded Up Main Entry ....................................................................................................................................... 39 Image 13: South Elevation Parlour Window...................................................................................................................... 40 Image 14: Painted Wood Beadboard Soffits ...................................................................................................................... 40 Image 15: Southeast Corner of Farmhouse ....................................................................................................................... 40 Image 16: Northeast Corner of Farmhouse ...................................................................................................................... 40 Image 17: North Elevation of Farmhouse .......................................................................................................................... 40 Image 18: East Elevation of One-storey Rear Addition .................................................................................................. 40 Image 19: Fieldstone Foundation .......................................................................................................................................... 41 Image 20: West Elevation of Farmhouse ............................................................................................................................ 41 Image 21: Southeast Room on Ground Floor ................................................................................................................... 41 Image 22: Two-over-one South Window and Baseboards ............................................................................................ 41 Image 23: Ground Floor Washroom .................................................................................................................................. 41 Image 24: Main Door Opening to Kitchen ........................................................................................................................ 41 - 176 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON iv Image 25: South and West Kitchen Cupboards ............................................................................................................... 42 Image 26: West Wall of Kitchen and Rear Staircase to Upstairs ................................................................................. 42 Image 27: Kitchen Cupboard Details .................................................................................................................................. 42 Image 28: Painted Egg-and-dart Pressed Crown............................................................................................................... 42 Image 29: Rusted Pressed Ceiling Panels and Wood Furring ........................................................................................ 42 Image 30: Kitchen Ceiling Exhaust ....................................................................................................................................... 42 Image 31: Possible Stove Vent to Upstairs ........................................................................................................................ 43 Image 32: Barricaded Basement Staircase .......................................................................................................................... 43 Image 33: Painted Staircase Door and Trim ...................................................................................................................... 43 Image 34: Painted Staircase Wainscot ................................................................................................................................ 43 Image 35: Staircase to Upstairs ............................................................................................................................................ 43 Image 36: Doorway to Rear One-storey Room ............................................................................................................... 43 Image 37: Wood Paneled Rear One-storey Room .......................................................................................................... 44 Image 38: Rear Room Wood Built-in.................................................................................................................................. 44 Image 39: Former Rows of Tree Farm ............................................................................................................................... 44 Image 40: Grading Along the North Side of 5th Concession Road ............................................................................... 46 Image 41: Grading Along the North Side of 5th Concession Road ............................................................................... 46 Image 42: Recently Paved 5th Concession Road ............................................................................................................... 46 Image 43: Dust Plume from Grading North of Property ............................................................................................... 46 Image 44: Subdivision Grading West and South of Cemetery ...................................................................................... 46 Image 45: Sewage Infrastructure South of Cemetery...................................................................................................... 46 Image 46: Bethel Church Burial Ground South of 5th Concession ............................................................................... 47 Image 47: East Side of Ellicott Headstone .......................................................................................................................... 47 Image 48: West Side of Ellicott Headstone ....................................................................................................................... 47 LIST OF MAPS Map 1: Location of the Subject Property at 1740 5th Concession Road ....................................................................... 4 Map 2: Aerial Photograph showing Subject Property and Farmhouse (B80112) ........................................................ 5 Map 3: 1860 Historic Map Showing the Subject Property ............................................................................................. 25 Map 4: 1877 Historic Map Showing the Subject Property ............................................................................................. 26 Map 5: 1954 Aerial Photograph showing Subject Property and Extant Building ....................................................... 27 Map 6: 1968 Topographic Map showing Subject Property and Extant Buildings ...................................................... 28 Map 7: 1972 Topographic Map showing Subject Property and Extant Buildings ...................................................... 29 - 177 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON v LIST OF ACRONYMS CHER Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report CHERR Cultural Heritage Recommendations Report CHVI Cultural Heritage Value or Interest HIA Heritage Impact Assessment IO Infrastructure Ontario MCM Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism OHA Ontario Heritage Act SGCPHP Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties - 178 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON vi PROJECT PERSONNEL Principal Holly Martelle, PhD Senior Reviewer Josh Dent, PhD, CAHP Project Manager Joan Crosbie, MA, CAHP Cultural Heritage Specialist Hayden Bulbrook, MA Community Engagement Lead Sheila Creighton Project Administrator Kellie Theaker, CHRP Health and Safety Coordinator Wendi Jakob, C. Tech, CAPM GIS Technicians Andrew Turner, BA John Moody, PhD ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Alderville First Nation Dr. Julia Kapyrka City of Pickering Brandon Weiler, Principal Planner Ministry of Citizenship Karla Barboza and Multiculturalism Joseph Harvey Ontario Heritage Trust Samuel Bayefsky, Real Property Coordinator Pickering Public Library Jessica Lanziner - 179 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON vii TERRITORIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Subject Property is located on the treaty and traditional lands of the Michi Saagiig and Chippewa Anishinaabe (conventionally referred to as the Williams Treaties First Nations of Alderville First Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation, Scugog Island First Nation, Rama First Nation, Beausoleil First Nation, and Georgina Island First Nation) and the traditional lands of the Huron-Wendat Nation. This Subject Property is part of the Williams Treaties of 1923 and the 2018 Williams Treaties Settlement Agreement which reaffirmed the harvesting rights of Williams Treaties First Nations across all pre- confederation treaties: 5, 16, 18, 20, 27, 27 ¼, Gunshot Treaty, and the Crawford Purchase. The Indigenous signatories of these treaties continue to be contemporary stewards of these lands. - 180 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON viii ABOUT TMHC Established in 2003 with a head office in London, Ontario, TMHC Inc. (TMHC) provides a broad range of archaeological assessment, heritage planning and interpretation, cemetery, and community consultation services throughout the Province of Ontario. We specialize in providing heritage solutions that suit the past and present for a range of clients and intended audiences, while meeting the demands of the regulatory environment. Over the past two decades, TMHC has grown to become one of the largest privately-owned heritage consulting firms in Ontario and is today the largest predominately woman-owned Cultural Resource Management (CRM) business in Canada. Since 2004, TMHC has held retainers with Infrastructure Ontario, Hydro One, the Ministry of Transportation, Metrolinx, the City of Hamilton, the City of Barrie, and Niagara Parks Commission. In 2013, TMHC earned the Ontario Archaeological Society’s award for Excellence in CRM. Our seasoned expertise and practical approach have allowed us to manage a wide variety of large, complex, and highly sensitive projects to successful completion. Through this work, we have gained corporate experience in helping our clients work through difficult issues to achieve resolution. TMHC is skilled at meeting established deadlines and budgets, maintaining a healthy and safe work environment, and carrying out quality heritage activities to ensure that all projects are completed diligently and safely. Additionally, we have developed long-standing relationships of trust with Indigenous and descendent communities across Ontario and a good understanding of community interests and concerns in heritage matters, which assists in successful project completion. TMHC is a Living Wage certified employer with the Ontario Living Wage Network and a member of the Canadian Federation for Independent Business. KEY STAFF BIOS Holly Martelle, PhD – Principal Holly Martelle earned a PhD from the University of Toronto based on her research on Iroquoian populations in southern Ontario. In addition to 16 years of experience in the road building and aggregate industries, Dr. Martelle has worked as a Heritage Planner at the now MCM and has taught at several universities throughout the province. In 2003, she founded TMHC with Dr. Peter Timmins and in 2013 the firm was honored with the Ontario Archaeological Society’s award for Excellence in Cultural Resource Management. Holly is an experienced Project Manager and has demonstrated throughout her career the ability to manage complex projects, meeting project deliverables cost effectively and to the highest standard of quality. Under her leadership, TMHC has made a commitment to innovation, creating solutions that meet the project specific goals and also address the long-term needs of our clients. Holly is a skilled relationship builder with longstanding relationships with the Indigenous communities throughout Ontario, and other Descendant communities and organizations including the Ontario Black History Society. Ongoing and sustained communication with communities has proven an effective means of ensuring participation from Descendant communities in meeting and exceeding consultation requirements. Through her work on several high level and sensitive provincial projects she has developed an understanding - 181 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON ix of what works in the consultation process to ensure that it is effective in providing the client and the project with the information needed to be successful. Holly is a Past-President of the Ontario Archaeological Society, and is also an active member of the Canadian Archaeological Association, the Society for Historic Archaeology, the Ontario Association for Impact Assessment, and the Council for Northeastern Historical Society. Joshua Dent, PhD, CAHP – Manager – Community Engagement & Heritage Division Joshua (Josh) has worked extensively on cultural heritage and archaeological assessments in Ontario and Western Canada. Josh’s role at TMHC has involved background research, community consultation, report production, and project management. Josh specializes in multi-faceted heritage studies including large-scale inventories, environmental assessments, and complex institutional assessments. In his role at TMHC, he regularly communicates with Indigenous communities and a variety of heritage stakeholders. These efforts were recently recognized as part of the Oakville Harbour Cultural Heritage Landscape Strategy Implementation which received the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals’ 2021 Award of Merit for Documentation & Planning. He has volunteered extensively with the heritage community in London, Ontario, in both municipal and not-for-profit roles. Josh is professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). Joan Crosbie, MA, CAHP – Manager – Cultural Heritage Joan has extensive cultural heritage management experience in both the private and public sectors with a strong background in preservation services, built and landscape heritage assessment, archival/historical research, and Museums services. She earned her MA in Architectural History from York University. In her role in Preservation Services with the Toronto Historical Board (City of Toronto), Joan was part of a small team of professionals who advised City Council on a broad range of heritage preservation and planning matters. Later, as Curator of Casa Loma, she gained extensive experience as part of the Senior Management team and honed her skills in cultural and community engagement and was a key staff liaison with the restoration architects and skilled trades as the Casa Loma Estate underwent a major exterior restoration program. More recently, as Manager of Culture and Community Services, Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, Joan managed the Heritage and Museums services portfolios and has widened her experience in cultural planning to include the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings and historic main street revitalization. She has published articles on architecture and architectural preservation for a wide range of organizations, including the Canadian Society for Industrial Heritage, the City of Toronto and the Society for the Study of Architecture in Canada. Joan is professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). Hayden Bulbrook, MA – Cultural Heritage Specialist Hayden holds a BA in History and Political Science from the University of Ottawa and an MA in History from the University of Waterloo. Hayden has extensive experience analyzing archival documents, fire insurance plans, city directories, historic maps and photography, and other primary source material, and specializes in historic, building material, and architectural research. As part of the Cultural Heritage team at TMHC, Hayden is involved in drafting cultural heritage evaluation reports, heritage impact assessments, and other projects. - 182 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON x Prior to coming to TMHC in 2021, Hayden worked on a contract with the City of Ottawa to assess the architectural integrity of the built environment in the Byward Market and Lowertown West heritage conservation districts. With an interest in public engagement, education, and advocacy for heritage conservation, Hayden actively participates as an executive member for the Stratford-Perth branch of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario. He works on digital history projects that showcase Ontario’s architectural history as well as the history of the City of Stratford, with a focus on analyzing the architectural, economic, and environmental history of the city. Hayden actively publishes historical columns in the Stratford Times and the Stratford-Perth ACO publication More Than Bricks & Mortar. Hayden is a member of the International Committee for the Conservation of Industrial Heritage (TICCIH) and the Canadian Business History Association. Sheila Creighton – Community Engagement Lead Sheila is strategic, collaborative, communications professional with 30 years of experience in the areas of heritage, culture and environment in Ontario. Her areas of expertise include community engagement, stakeholder relations, writing, digital and print production, photography and publishing. Sheila received a Media Arts diploma from Sheridan College, where she also had the role of Station Manager at Radio Sheridan. She is a published author of several history books, many articles and a daily photoblog. Prior to joining TMHC, Sheila promoted heritage provincially, regionally and municipally including roles as Communications Director with the Ontario Historical Society, Communications Coordinator with Oakville Museum and Senior Corporate Communications Officer with the Town of Oakville. Most recently she worked in the environmental sector helping build ReForest London through marketing and partnership development. In her role with TMHC, Sheila works with the Cultural Heritage, Indigenous Engagement and Business Development teams. - 183 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON xi STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by Timmins Martelle Heritage Consultants Inc. (TMHC) for the benefit of the Client (the “Client”) in accordance with the agreement between TMHC and the Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”). The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”): •is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”); •represents TMHC’s professional judgment in light of the Limitation and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports; •may be based on information provided to TMHC which has not been independently verified; •has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued; •must be read as a whole and section thereof should not be read out of such context; and •was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement. TMHC shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no obligation to update such information. TMHC accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time. TMHC agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but TMHC makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof. Except (1) as agreed to in writing by TMHC and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied upon only by Client. TMHC accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of TMHC to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use. This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof. - 184 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON xii QUALITY INFORMATION Report prepared by: _______________________ Hayden Bulbrook, MA Cultural Heritage Specialist Report reviewed by: _______________________ Joan Crosbie, MA, CAHP Manager, Cultural Heritage Report reviewed by: _______________________ Joshua Dent, PhD, CAHP Senior Reviewer Report reviewed by: _______________________ Holly Martelle, PhD Principal - 185 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Report Scope and Purpose GHD Limited (GHD) on behalf of Infrastructure Ontario (IO) has engaged TMHC Inc. (TMHC) to produce a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for the provincially-owned residential property at 1740 5th Concession Road in the Township of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (the “Subject Property”) (Property No. N70847; Project 65398). The purpose of this CHER is to provide research and analysis for the Subject Property as a basis for determining its potential cultural heritage value and interest (CHVI). An evaluation of the Subject Property’s heritage significance and subsequent recommendations are included in the accompanying Cultural Heritage Recommendations Report (CHERR). The CHER and accompanying CHERR have been triggered by the planned demolition of a residential structure (B80112) with the subject property. The Subject Property at 1740 5th Concession Road consists of a 2.89 ha (7.13 ac) parcel containing a one-and- a-half storey vernacular farmhouse (B80112) constructed prior to 1887. The Subject Property is associated with a former farmstead and is located on the north side of 5th Concession Road, east of Brock Road, in Lot 18, Concession 5 of the Geographic Township of Pickering. The property is part of the Seaton Lands, a 1,254.5 ha (3,100 ac) redevelopment parcel in Pickering under provincial management and ownership. This CHER, and the accompanying CHERR, is the third known cultural heritage study to be undertaken on the Subject Property. Although previous cultural heritage assessments exist for the Subject Property, all prior work was carried out before the development of the 2010 Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (SGCPHP) or did not involve a full cultural heritage evaluation of the property. The goal of the current study is to conduct a Cultural Heritage Evaluation that conforms with the 2010 SGCPHP. The City of Pickering’s Official Plan states its objective with regard to cultural heritage as follows: •City Council shall respect its cultural heritage, and conserve and integrate important cultural heritage resources from all time periods into the community. To achieve this goal, the following policies are provided: 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; - 186 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 2 (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. 1.2 Methodology This CHER was prepared in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Toolkit’s Guide to Heritage Property Evaluation and the MCM’s Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties2 including the Ministry of Infrastructure’s 2016 Heritage Identification and Evaluation Process. The OHA’s O.Reg. 9/06 (as amended by O.Reg. 569/22) and O.Reg. 10/06 were applied to the Subject Property in the accompanying CHERR. For the purposes of preparing this report, Hayden Bulbrook and Joan Crosbie of TMHC visited the Subject Property on May 30, 2023. A full list of sources is included in Section 8.0 of this CHER. 1.3 Client Contact Information Janet Oswald Environmental Planner GHD Ltd. 70 York Street, Suite 801 Toronto, ON M5J 1S9 Janet.Oswald@ghd.com 2 Published under the Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC), formerly the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Cultural Industries (MHSTCI) and, most recently, the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS). - 187 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 3 2 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 Location and Physical Description The Subject Property (N70847), which is approximately 2.89 ha (7.13 ac) in size, is located at 1740 5th Concession Road, between Brock Road and Sideline 16 in the City of Pickering, Durham Region, Ontario (Maps 1-2). It is located on the north side of 5th Concession Road and comprises a rural property containing natural areas, former agricultural fields, and a vacant farmhouse (B80112). A laneway from 5th Concession Road leads northwest, and terminates adjacent to the west side of the house. This building, a one-and-a-half- storey vernacular farmhouse, has been identified for demolition prior to the sale of the land parcel. Featuring elements of the Gothic Revival style, as evidenced in its cross-gable layout, the house is clad in painted wooden clapboard and is in an advanced state of deterioration. It has been vacant since at least 2015. The construction of the Brock Road By-pass (2013-2015) as part of the Highway 407 East- Phase I Expansion Project, encroached upon the western edge of the Subject Property. Culvert improvements to direct a tributary of Urfe Creek have created a dip in the landscape between the Brock Road Bypass and the farmhouse laneway. The rural landscape around the Subject Property is being prepared for the Seaton Lands redevelopment. As such, 5th Concession Road has been widened and commercial development is under construction at Sideline 16. Despite these changes, the Bethel Church Burial Ground (also referred to as the Ellicott Cemetery) remains approximately 700 m east of the Subject Property, on the southwest corner of 5th Concession Road and Sideline 16 Road. This modest cemetery contains a few remaining headstones including the headstone of Joseph Ellicott, and his wife, Susan Tolsher. Joseph Ellicott was the original owner of the house at 1740 5th Concession Road. 2.2 Heritage Status The property at 1740 5th Concession Road is not listed on the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). A 2015 heritage assessment conducted on behalf of the City of Pickering determined the Subject Property contained modest contextual value but did not warrant individual designation under Section 29 of the OHA. There are no National Historic Sites, Ontario Heritage Trust-owned properties, conservation easements, or Provincial Heritage Properties present on or adjacent to the Subject Property as verified by the Ontario Heritage Trust and the MCM. - 188 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 4 Map 1: Location of the Subject Property at 1740 5th Concession Road - 189 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 5 Map 2: Aerial Photograph showing Subject Property and Farmhouse (B80112) - 190 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 6 3 PREVIOUS STUDIES 3.1 Built Heritage and Planning Studies Two previous reports have identified and assessed the heritage status and attributes of the Subject Property at 1740 5th Concession Road. These reports date back to the mid-1990’s and reflect progressive steps within an evolving provincial heritage management process. Summaries for each study provide a context for understanding the nearly 30 years of ongoing heritage planning for the site. It should be noted that not all prior reporting covered the entirety of the Subject Property. 3.1.1 Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment – HSWNDL et. al. In 1994, Hough Stansbury Woodland Naylor Dance Limited (HSWNDL), D.R. Poulton & Associates, and Andrew Scheinman undertook the Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment which was prepared for The Seaton Interim Planning Team (Ontario Ministry of Housing). This study was composed of Volume I: Summary Report, Volume II: Technical Appendix, and Volume III: Confidential Appendix. The Study Area comprised a portion of the North Pickering land assembly which the provincial government had expropriated in 1972-73. These lands were later included as part of the provincial lands west of West Duffins Creek following the designation of an agricultural preserve between Rouge Valley Park and West Duffins Creek. Volume I consisted of an introduction which referenced the study goals and objectives, methods and approaches, and the public consultation process. Also present was an inventory section for archaeological, built heritage, and natural and cultural heritage resources with a subsequent section evaluating these resources before concluding the report with recommendations and references. Volume II provided datasheets on architectural resources and architectural resource evaluations, and natural and cultural heritage landscape evaluations. Volume III contained data sheets on archaeological resources. The Subject Property was briefly outlined in a datasheet in Volume II under identification #56. The report noted that the existing house on the property, a “L Plan frame and clapboard sided dwelling dates from the mid-19th century” and “appears to have been the dwelling of J. Ellicott and is similar, except for the ‘centre gable’, to the W. Ellicott house” on Lot 17, Concession 5. 1740 5th Concession Road received an evaluation score of 76 out of 100, which earned it a Class C grade. A Class C grade represented a relatively high contextual value. For context, this was one point higher than the rating of 75 for the Ellicott house on Lot 17, Concession 5 (ID #55) while the property on Lot 19, Concession 5 (ID #2), which was demolished in 2021, received a score of 100 out of 100 earning it a Class A grade. A Class A grade meant that it was considered very significant. The cultural heritage section of the report concluded that virtually all of the evaluated properties were somewhat threatened, especially as expropriation had resulted in “the loss of significance architectural features, details, and outbuildings.”3 It should be noted that this study was carried out before the development of the 2010 Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (SGCPHP) and, as a result, does not meet the current industry standards for Cultural Heritage Evaluation. 3 HSWNDL et al. 1994:134. Full conclusions in the Recommendations section of the report could not be summarized as even numbered page numbers were not included in the referenced copy. - 191 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 7 3.1.2 Building Heritage Assessment – GBCA In May 2015, Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd. Architects (GBCA) were engaged by the City of Pickering to undertake a heritage assessment of the property at 1740 5th Concession Road. This assessment was made at the request of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee (HPAC). This study evaluated the property against the criteria set out by the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA)’s O.Reg. 9/06. It was not evaluated against the criteria set out by the OHA’s O.Reg. 10/06. In early 2015, historical details on property ownership were analyzed at a high level using only historical maps and satellite imagery. GBCA also visited the Subject Property to undertake a comprehensive analysis of the building’s condition. The report concluded that the building had modest contextual value to its surroundings on 5th Concession and met only one of three criterion under the contextual value section of O. Reg. 9/06. While GBCA did not conclude that the property had design or physical value or historical or associative value, they did note the following:4 The building and its structure is in sufficiently good condition to permit, at some time in the future, a restoration of the building to its original appearance. Restored, a good and appropriate use could be found for the structure. In addition, it was noted that further historical research may identify historical and/or associative value. Furthermore, GBCA stated that incorporation of the building within the community is one of the best means by which this type of building can be preserved, and went on to recommend that the planning of the community should be done in such a manner that the subject building will be carefully considered and incorporated within proposed future development.5 4 GBCA 2015:21, 25 5 GBCA 2015:25 - 192 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 8 4 HISTORICAL RESEARCH & ANALYSIS This section includes a historical overview for the Subject Property at 1740 5th Concession Road. It is part of Lot 18, Concession 5, in the Geographic Township of Pickering, Ontario County. The early historical context discussion refers to this previous jurisdiction. 4.1 Indigenous Settlement in the Durham Region and Treaties Durham Region was a locale of considerable historical Indigenous settlement. Numerous archaeological sites ranging in date from the end of the last glacial maximum through to the modern era are situated throughout the region. Despite an improved understanding of past Indigenous land use and settlement patterns through various cultural resource management surveys and archaeological research projects, our knowledge remains incomplete. Using existing data and regional syntheses, it is possible to propose a generalized model of Indigenous settlement in the region. The general themes, time periods and cultural traditions of Indigenous settlement, based on archaeological evidence, are provided below and in Table 1. Table 1: Chronology of Indigenous Settlement in the Durham Region Period Time Range Diagnostic Features Archaeological Complexes Early Paleo 9000-8400 BCE fluted projectile points Gainey, Barnes, Crowfield Late Paleo 8400-8000 BCE non-fluted and lanceolate points Holcombe, Hi-Lo, Lanceolate Early Archaic 8000-6000 BCE serrated, notched, bifurcate base points Nettling, Bifurcate Base Horizon Middle Archaic 6000-2500 BCE stemmed, side & corner notched points Brewerton, Otter Creek, Stanley/Neville Late Archaic 2000-1800 BCE narrow points Lamoka Late Archaic 1800-1500 BCE broad points Genesee, Adder Orchard, Perkiomen Late Archaic 1500-1100 BCE small points Crawford Knoll Terminal Archaic 1100-950 BCE first true cemeteries Hind Early Woodland 950-400 BCE expanding stemmed points, Vinette pottery Meadowood Middle Woodland 400 BCE-500 CE dentate, pseudo-scallop pottery Point Peninsula Transitional Woodland 500-900 CE first corn, cord-wrapped stick pottery Princess Point Late Woodland 900-1300 CE first villages, corn horticulture, longhouses Pickering Late Woodland 1300-1400 CE large villages and houses Uren, Middleport Late Woodland 1400-1650 CE tribal emergence, territoriality Wendat, Algonquin groups Contact Period - Indigenous 1700 CE-present treaties, mixture of Indigenous & European items Mississauga Contact Period – Settler 1796 CE-present industrial goods, homesteads Pioneer life, municipal settlement - 193 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 9 4.1.1 Paleo Period The first human populations to inhabit the area came to the region between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago, coincident with the end of the last period of glaciation. Climate and environmental conditions were significantly different than they are today; local environs were inhospitable to anything but short-term settlement. During the Paleo Period Ontario’s Indigenous peoples would have crossed the landscape in small groups (i.e., bands or family units) searching for food, particularly migratory game species. In this area, caribou may have provided a dietary staple, supplemented by wild plants, small game and fish. Given the low density of populations on the landscape at this time and their mobile nature, sites from this period are small and ephemeral. They are usually identified by the presence of distinctive fluted projectile points, usually manufactured on high quality raw materials, including Onondaga chert from the Niagara Escarpment and Fossil Hill chert from Blue Mountains. Paleo Period sites have commonly been found in association with relic glacial lakeshores throughout Ontario. 4.1.2 Archaic Period Settlement and subsistence patterns changed significantly during the Archaic Period (ca. 8,000 to 950 BCE) as both the landscape and ecosystem adjusted to the retreat of the glaciers. Building on earlier patterns, early Archaic populations continued the mobile lifestyle of their predecessors. Through time and with the development of more resource rich local environments, these groups gradually reduced the size of the territories they exploited on a regular basis. A seasonal pattern of warm season riverine or lakeshore settlements and interior cold weather occupations has been documented in the archaeological record. The large cold-weather mammals that formed the basis of the subsistence pattern during the Paleo Period became extinct or moved northward with the onset of warmer climate conditions. Thus, Archaic populations had a more varied diet, exploiting a range of plant, bird, mammal and fish species. Over time, reliance on specific food resources like fish, deer and nuts became more pronounced and the presence of more hospitable environments and resource abundance led to the expansion of band and family sizes. This is evident in the archaeological record in the form of larger sites and aggregation camps, where several families or bands would come together in times of plenty. The change to more preferable environmental circumstances led to a rise in population density. As a result, Archaic sites are more plentiful than those from the earlier period. Artifacts typical of these occupations include a variety of stemmed and notched projectile points, chipped stone scrapers, ground stone tools (e.g., celts, adzes) and ornaments (e.g., bannerstones, gorgets), bifaces or tool blanks, animal bone (where and when preserved) and waste flakes, a by-product of the tool making process. 4.1.3 Early, Middle and Transitional Woodland Periods Significant changes in cultural and environmental patterns are witnessed in the Early, Middle and Transitional Woodland periods (ca. 950 BCE to 1000 CE). Occupations became increasingly more permanent in this period, culminating in major semi-permanent villages by 1,000 years ago. Archaeologically, one of the most significant changes evident by the start of the Woodland Period is the appearance of artifacts manufactured from modeled clay and the emergence of more sedentary villages. The Woodland Period is often defined by the occurrence of pottery, storage facilities and residential areas. The earliest pottery was made by the coiling method and early house structures were simple oval enclosures. Both the Early and Middle Woodland sub- periods are characterized by an elaborate burial complex that in some areas in Ontario involved the construction of large burial mounds. Trade in exotic items, including rare stone and shell objects, became - 194 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 10 common at this time, reflecting interconnections between Ontario populations and those in the Ohio and Mississippi river valleys to the south. 4.1.4 Late Woodland Period Beginning around ca. 1000 CE the archaeological record documents the emergence of more substantial, semi- permanent settlements and the adoption of corn horticulture. These developments are most often associated with Iroquoian-speaking populations, the ancestors of the Wendat (Huron), Tionontati (Petun) and Attawandaron (Neutral) nations who were known to have resided in the province at the time of the arrival of the first European explorers and missionaries. Villages incorporated a number of longhouses, multi-family dwellings that contained several families related through the female line. Late Woodland Period sites may be identified by a predominance of finely-made pottery decorated with various simple and geometric motifs, triangular projectile points, clay pipes and ground stone artifacts. Sites post-dating European contact are recognized through the appearance of various items of European manufacture. The latter include materials acquired by trade (e.g., glass beads, copper/brass kettles, iron axes, knives and other metal implements) in addition to the personal items of European visitors and Jesuit missionaries (e.g., finger rings, stoneware, rosaries, and glassware). It is acknowledged that many Late Woodland Period villages were cosmopolitan centres, hubs for trading and social interaction. They were occupied for both long and short periods by groups and individuals, Iroquoian and Anishinaabe. 4.1.5 Indigenous Landscapes Since time immemorial, Indigenous peoples use and management of land differed greatly from the much more recent era of colonial development. Instead of roads and highways cut through the landscape, Indigenous travel, especially in this region, focused on waterways and the portages between them. In addition to fish and other animals, Indigenous communities harvested wild rice, and actively managed and maintained nut and berry resources for food.6 They maintained fields of corn, beans, and squash. The Seaton lands included multiple Iroquoian villages and hamlets including the well-known Draper Site, a large late 15th century longhouse village. Far from the pristine wilderness often characterized in popular culture, Indigenous landscapes included actively managed meadows (Mishkodeh) and forests (such as Black Oak Savannas) shaped and maintained by controlled burns and other interventions.7 This system of land management is often framed in terms of kinship between people and landscape, a mutual responsibility for each to promote and maintain the health of the other. Indigenous responsibility to, and kinship with, the land contrasted strongly with subsequent colonial treatment of these landscapes. Early colonial development typically looked to impose, rather than embed, itself on the landscape. As a result, colonial activities often displaced, interrupted, or destroyed Indigenous land management and subsistence activities. Waterways were dammed for mills or canalized with locks, blocking Indigenous highways and interrupting trade routes and fisheries. Meadows and fields maintained by Indigenous communities for generations were occupied by colonial settlements and farms. When these spaces were no longer sufficient or convenient, forests were cleared. The systems and relationships between Indigenous people and landscapes that had been refined over thousands of years were increasingly being broken during the height colonization, often within a single generation. Treaties isolated Indigenous communities to relatively small reserves and colonial land development including the privatization of property increasingly limited the 6 Gidigaa Migizi 2017 7 Miskokdeh Centre for Indigenous Knowledge n.d. - 195 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 11 accessibility of lands outside of these reserves for subsistence activities. Residential schools further damaged these traditional lifeways by systematically preventing the transfer of Indigenous knowledge from one generation to the next. Despite all these challenges, contemporary Indigenous communities are increasing undertaking to revitalize their traditional histories and systems of land management including their relationships and responsibility to the landscape.8 4.1.6 Indigenous Community-shared Histories Until recently, cultural heritage studies have focused predominantly on tangible and largely built features related to settler and colonial histories. Definitions and characterizations of what is and is not heritage have embodied a colonial prejudice and have excluded Indigenous perspectives. Traditional approaches to identifying cultural heritage attributes have not acknowledged Indigenous land use, traditional knowledge, built features, cultural landscapes or archaeological sites. The current study seeks to rectify this bias by including a more fulsome discussion of Indigenous history and land use for the subject property. There is no single, monolithic version of Indigenous or Ontario history. In the past, the histories of Indigenous communities of Ontario, and of Canada, have been presented through a single colonial perspective with inherent biases. Both archaeological and cultural heritage studies have inherited many of the prejudices and perspectives of the colonial histories that have shaped current understanding of the origins, movements, and activities of contemporary Indigenous communities. The chronology and summary presented earlier in this report, derived from archaeology and traditional histories, presents only one version of the past. Indigenous communities have long contested elements of both colonial and archaeological histories. As a means to combat these colonial versions of their past, Indigenous communities have been sharing their own histories shaped by oral history, community memory, culturally-informed readings of historical events and documents, language, and tradition. These histories survive in traditional knowledge, stories, and the remembrances of elders; they persist despite the long-term effects of residential schools and government programs aimed to erase Indigenous culture. In the spirit of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action, community-based histories are included here as a way for Indigenous groups to share their own versions of the past. Each Indigenous community maintains its own histories. These may represent not only the historical narratives of particular interest to a community (such as reserve histories and treaty negotiations), but also their unique perspectives on shared stories, events, places, and people (such as conflicts and migration stories). As such, different Indigenous community histories may approach the same subject in different, and sometimes contradicting, ways. Individual communities may not agree on the same series of events, the use of territories, or on various impetus for change, for example. Some draw on archaeological knowledge and some do not. These differences do not diminish the value of these histories. Instead, they emphasize the distinct languages, experiences, and priorities of different Indigenous communities and nations. Together, they offer a multitude of perspectives on Ontario’s first peoples and offer important counterpoints to colonial stories. The following section includes project-relevant community histories from Curve Lake First Nation, Huron- Wendat Nation, and the Chippewas of Rama. It should be acknowledged that these communities have differing perspectives on their shared past. 8 Miskokdeh Centre for Indigenous Knowledge n.d. - 196 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 12 4.1.6.1 History of the Michi Saagiig (Mississauga Anishinaabeg) This historical context was prepared by Gitiga Migizi, a respected Elder and Knowledge Keeper of the Michi Saagiig Nation. The traditional homelands of the Michi Saagiig (Mississauga Anishinaabeg) encompass a vast area of what is now known as southern Ontario. The Michi Saagiig are known as “the people of the big river mouths” and were also known as the “Salmon People” who 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-Indian 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 understanding that they were visitors in these lands. Wampum was made to record these contracts and ceremonies would have bound each nation to their respective responsibilities within the political relationship. These contracts would have been renewed annually.9 These visitors 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. 9 Gitiga Migizi and Kapyrka 2015 - 197 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 13 The Odawa Nation worked with the Michi Saagiig to meet with the Huron-Wendat, the Petun, and the Neutral Nations to continue the amicable political and economic relationship that existed – a symbolic 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. Michi Saagiig Elder Gitiga Migizi10 recounts: We weren’t affected as much as the larger villages because we learned to paddle away for several years until everything settled down. And we came back and tried to bury the bones of the Huron but it was overwhelming, it was all over, there were bones all over – that is our story. There is a misnomer here, that this area of Ontario is not our traditional territory and that we came in here after the Huron-Wendat left or were defeated, but that is not true. That is a big misconception of our history that needs to be corrected. We are the traditional people, we are the ones that signed treaties with the Crown. We are recognized as the ones who signed these treaties and we are the ones to be dealt with officially in any matters concerning territory in southern Ontario. We had peacemakers go to the Haudenosaunee and live amongst them in order to change their ways. We had also diplomatically dealt with some of the strong chiefs to the north and tried to make peace as much as possible. So, we are very important in terms of keeping the balance of relationships in harmony. Some of the old leaders recognized that it became increasingly difficult to keep the peace after the Europeans introduced guns. But we still continued to meet, and we still continued to have some wampum, which doesn’t mean we negated our territory or gave up our territory – we did not do that. We still consider ourselves a sovereign nation despite legal challenges against that. We still view ourselves as a nation and the government must negotiate from that basis. Often at 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 10 Gidigaa Migizi 2018 - 198 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 14 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. 4.1.6.2 History of the Nation Huronne-Wendat As an ancient people, traditionally, the Huron-Wendat, a great Iroquoian civilization of farmers and fishermen- hunter-gatherers and also the masters of trade and diplomacy, represented several thousand individuals. They lived in a territory stretching from the Gaspé Peninsula in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and up along the Saint Lawrence Valley on both sides of the Saint Lawrence River all the way to the Great Lakes. Huronia, included in Wendake South, represents a part of the ancestral territory of the Huron-Wendat Nation in Ontario. It extends from Lake Nipissing in the North to Lake Ontario in the South and Île Perrot in the East to around Owen Sound in the West. This territory is today marked by several hundred archaeological sites, testifying to this strong occupation of the territory by the Nation. It is an invaluable heritage for the Huron-Wendat Nation and the largest archaeological heritage related to a First Nation in Canada. According to our own traditions and customs, the Huron-Wendat are intimately linked to the Saint Lawrence River and its estuary, which is the main route of its activities and way of life. The Huron-Wendat formed alliances and traded goods with other First Nations among the networks that stretched across the continent. Today, the population of the Huron-Wendat Nation is composed of more than 4000 members distributed on- reserve and off-reserve. The Huron-Wendat Nation band council (CNHW) is headquartered in Wendake, the oldest First Nations community in Canada, located on the outskirts of Quebec City (20 km north of the city) on the banks of the Saint Charles River. There is only one Huron-Wendat community, whose ancestral territory is called the Nionwentsïo, which translates to “our beautiful land” in the Wendat language. The Huron-Wendat Nation is also the only authority that have the authority and rights to protect and take care of their ancestral sites in Wendake South. 4.1.6.3 Community History of the Chippewas of Rama First Nation The Chippewas of Rama First Nation are an Anishinaabe (Ojibway) community located at Rama First Nation, Ontario. Our history began with a great migration from the East Coast of Canada into the Great Lakes region. Throughout a period of several hundred years, our direct ancestors again migrated to the north and eastern shores of Lake Huron and Georgian Bay. Our Elders say that we made room in our territory for our allies, the Huron-Wendat Nation, during their times of war with the Haudenosaunee. Following the dispersal of the Huron-Wendat Nation from the region in the mid-1600s, our stories say that we again migrated to our territories in what today is known as Muskoka and Simcoe County. Several major battles with the Haundenosaunee culminated in peace being agreed between the Anishinaabe and the Haudenosaunee, after which the Haudenosaunee agreed to leave the region and remain in southern Ontario. Thus, since the early 18th century, much of central Ontario into the lower parts of northern Ontario has been Anishinaabe territory. The more recent history of Rama First Nation begins with the creation of the “Coldwater Narrows” reserve, one of the first reserves in Canada. The Crown intended to relocate our ancestors to the Coldwater reserve and ultimately assimilate our ancestors into Euro-Canadian culture. Underlying the attempts to assimilate our ancestors were the plans to take possession of our vast hunting and harvesting territories. Feeling the impacts - 199 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 15 of increasingly widespread settlement, many of our ancestors moved to the Coldwater reserve in the early 1830s. Our ancestors built homes, mills, and farmsteads along the old portage route which ran through the reserve, connecting Lake Simcoe to Georgian Bay (this route is now called “Highway 12”). After a short period of approximately six years, the Crown had a change of plans. Frustrated at our ancestors continued exploiting of hunting territories (spanning roughly from Newmarket to the south, Kawartha Lakes to the east, Meaford to the west, and Lake Nipissing to the north), as well as unsuccessful assimilation attempts, the Crown reneged on the promise of reserve land. Three of our Chiefs, including Chief Yellowhead, went to York under the impression they were signing documents affirming their ownership of land and buildings. The Chiefs were misled, and inadvertently allegedly surrendered the Coldwater reserve back to the Crown. Our ancestors, then known as the Chippewas of Lakes Simcoe and Huron, were left landless. Earlier treaties, such as Treaty 16 and Treaty 18, had already resulted in nearly 2,000,000 acres being allegedly surrendered to the Crown. The Chippewas made the decision to split into three groups. The first followed Chief Snake to Snake Island and Georgina Island (today known as the Chippewas of Georgina Island). The second group followed Chief Aissance to Beausoleil Island, and later to Christian Island (Beausoleil First Nation). The third group, led by Chief Yellowhead, moved to the Narrows between Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching and eventually, Rama (Chippewas of Rama First Nation). A series of purchases, using Rama’s own funds, resulted in Yellowhead purchasing approximately 1,600 acres of abandoned farmland in Rama Township. This land makes up the core of the Rama Reserve today, and we have called it home since the early 1840’s. Our ancestors began developing our community, clearing fields for farming and building homes. They continued to hunt and harvest in their traditional territories, especially within the Muskoka region, up until the early 1920’s. In 1923, the Williams Treaties were signed, surrendering 12,000,000 acres of previously unceded land to the Crown. Once again, our ancestors were misled, and they were informed that in surrendering the land, they gave up their right to access their seasonal traditional hunting and harvesting territories. With accessing territories difficult, our ancestors turned to other ways to survive. Many men guided tourists around their former family hunting territories in Muskoka, showing them places to fish and hunt. Others worked in lumber camps and mills. Our grandmothers made crafts such as porcupine quill baskets and black ash baskets, and sold them to tourists visiting Simcoe and Muskoka. The children were forced into Indian Day School, and some were taken away to Residential Schools. Church on the reserve began to indoctrinate our ancestors. Our community, along with every other First Nation in Canada, entered a dark period of attempted genocide at the hands of Canada and the Crown. Somehow, our ancestors persevered, and they kept our culture, language, and community alive. Today, our community has grown into a bustling place, and is home to approximately 1,100 people. We are a proud and progressive First Nations community. 4.1.7 Treaty History The Subject Property lies at the intersection of a complex history of treaties. In 1787-88, the Johnson-Butler Purchases sought to acquire the territory occupied by the Mississauga nations along the north shore of Lake Ontario and further inland. Also known as the Gunshot Treaty, these purchases proved difficult to uphold due to unclear records and poorly defined boundaries.11 It was not until the Williams Treaties of 1923 that these 11 Surtees 1984 - 200 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 16 claims were revisited with the Anishinaabe nations now affiliated with that treaty, the Williams Treaties Nations of the Mississaugas of Alderville First Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation, Scugog Island First Nation and the Chippewas of Beausoleil First Nation, Georgina Island First Nation and Rama First Nation.12 However, the Williams Treaties were also contentious, having been interpreted by Canada to have extinguished the First Nations’ rights to hunt, fish, and harvest on the territory. As soon as these communities were made aware of this policy, they began formally challenging the interpretation as they depended on these activities for survival. In 2018, Canada, Ontario, and Williams Treaties First Nations ratified the Williams Treaties First Nations Settlement Agreement, which confirms that the Crown did not act honourably when making and implementing the Williams Treaties.13 Specifically, the Crown never provided proper compensation or additional lands as promised, and that First Nations’ harvesting rights had been unjustly denied. The negotiated settlement agreement recognizes pre-existing treaty harvesting rights for First Nations members in Treaties 5, 16, 18, 20, 27, 27 ¼, Crawford Purchase and Gunshot Treaty, provides for the acquisition of additional reserve lands, includes financial compensation, and resulted in both federal and provincial apologies for the negative impacts of the Williams Treaties on First Nations. 4.2 Early Municipal Settlement Historically, the Subject Property at 1740 5th Concession Road is located within part of Lot 18, Concession 5, in the Geographic Township of Pickering, Ontario County. A brief discussion of 19thcentury settlement and land use in the township is provided below. 4.2.1 Ontario County Colonial histories project a vision of the pre-European landscape as “untamed wilderness,” a view that helped legitimize colonial settlement and the displacement of Indigenous populations. By the 17th century, the Indigenous landscape in the vicinity of the Subject Property included extensive water and land-based transportation networks connecting communities, settlements, and resource zones. Indigenous agricultural populations had cut extensive tree stands and established wide-sweeping agricultural fields in proximity to major settlements, within which staple crops of corn, beans, and squash were cultivated on an intensive basis. Colonial settlement would alter the physical landscape of this area as settlers cleared additional land, built homes, barns, businesses, dammed and redirected water at mill sites, and built roads above former Indigenous trails. Crown surveys artificially divided the landscape into private ownership parcels of standard sizes and shapes, providing formal access only by roads arranged in a grid pattern and serving Lieut. Governor Simcoe’s Plan for ‘law and order.’14 New systems of land organization and use broke up Indigenous landscapes, creating barriers to traditional uses of the land and seasonal networks of resource procurement, travel, and trade. Prior to the beginning of colonial settlement in what is now the City of Pickering, the area was inhabited by a series of Indigenous communities affiliated with the various nations that occupied the north shore of Lake Ontario. The Wendat, Haudenosaunee, and Mississauga Anishinaabe understood the importance of the area 12 Surtees 1986 13 Government of Canada 2018 14 Champion 1979:7 - 201 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 17 to trading networks connecting Lake Ontario with Georgian Bay. Even when one or another nation occupied the area, their communities were cosmopolitan trading centres for many groups, including Europeans. In 1778, the lands that eventually formed Ontario County were included in the District of Nassau, but became part of the Home District in 1798 which also included part of the County of York.15 A proclamation by the Governor General in 1852 created the provisional County of Ontario with Whitby named as the County Town.16 Prior to this, the townships that formed Ontario County were united with York and Peel for judicial and municipal purposes. Upon its official formation in 1854, Ontario County was comprised of nine minor municipalities which generally followed the established townships and included: Brock, Mara and Rama, Pickering, Reach and Scugog, Scott, Thorah, Uxbridge, Whitby, and Oshawa.17 In 1974, Ontario County along with Durham County were dissolved with portions of Ontario County being allocated to the newly created Regional Municipality of Durham, Simcoe County, and the Borough of Scarborough within the then Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Many areas of Ontario County were settled relatively late when compared to the surrounding areas. This was due to several factors including differing land grant systems and the granting of tracts to settlement “middlemen.” As a consequence, land grantees were sometimes deemed “unofficial” until they had performed adequate settlement duties, ultimately leading to delays and confusion among recipients and large tracts of land remaining unclaimed.18 Further, the success of settlement “middlemen” was dependent on the quality of the individual “middlemen” chosen by the Lieutenant Governor to bring in settlers.19 Often these middlemen did not complete their duties after receiving their, often generous, payments. Thereby, leaving some areas largely unclaimed and unsettled for many years. 4.2.2 Pickering Township Pickering Township, when first laid out in the 1790s, was designated Township 8 although the name was changed shortly thereafter to Edinburgh. The first survey of this township was made in 1791. The westerly portion of the township was settled in part by German settlers attracted to the area through the settlement proposal of William Berczy.20 The remainder 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 United States.21 Maps produced later in the 19thcentury, such as the 1860 Tremaine’s map22 and the 1877 historic atlas map,23 show the township to be heavily settled, and period census returns show that the township contained a wide variety of industries and small businesses as well as farmers engaged in mixed agriculture. The main settlements established in Pickering were located along Duffins Creek, where early mills and various industries utilized the available hydraulic power of this watershed. One of the earliest roads constructed across Pickering 15 Armstrong 1985:111; Farewell 1907:3 16 Farewell 1907:4 17 Farewell 1907; J.H. Beers and Co. 1877 18 Johnson 1973:38-39 19 Johnson 1973:39 20 Farewell 1907:11 21 Farewell 1907:13-14 22 Tremaine and Tremaine 1860 23 J.H. Beers and Co. 1877 - 202 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 18 was the Kingston Road, built by Asa Danforth in 1796 along the south end of the township near the lake. This road was illustrated on several early township maps. 4.2.3 Thompson’s Corners One of the first settlers in the area was area assessor John Major, who settled on Lot 18, Concession 5 in 1803. By the early 1820s Major had moved west and had built a sawmill on West Duffins Creek where he is regarded as the founder of a small settlement, known at the time as Major Mills or Majorville, but now known as Whitevale.24 Another early settler in the area was Thomas Hubbard who had settled on Lot 19, Concession 5 by 1807, but did not assume ownership from Henry Smith until 1821.25 In 1811, Hubbard became the first Township Clerk and donated land for the first area school. Hubbard and his sons were members of the Brougham Reformers, a group of William Lyon Mackenzie sympathizers. Thompson’s Inn was a three-storey building constructed on the southwest corner of Lot 18, Concession 5 at the intersection of Brock Road and 5th Concession Road/Whitevale Road by Andrew Thompson c. 1831.26 Thompson’s Inn was a key meeting place for Township officials between 1835-1849 and after 1850 all of the Township Council meetings were held at the Inn until a Township Hall was completed in Brougham in 1854. By 1841, Andrew Thompson was referred to as the “township Librarian” and was responsible for the Township books.27 Thompson’s Inn was an important meeting place for local Mackenzie supporters in the years leading up to the 1837 Mackenzie Rebellion.28 After Andrew Thompson’s death in 1853, the inn passed to his son William.29 A few years earlier, in 1850, William’s brother Archibald C. Thompson acquired the southern quarter of lot 19, Concession 5 from James Hubbard (Thomas Hubbard’s grandson). As the Thompson brothers now owned the lands on the east and west sides of Brock Road, the crossroads became known locally as Thompson’s Corners. Thompson’s Inn remained a key landmark in the area throughout the 19th century. However, sometime after 1886, the property passed to William and Archibald’s sister, Susan Ann Sleigh, who quickly sold the property and the inn appears to have ceased operation by the early 20th century. 4.3 Local Property History The 5th Concession in Pickering was primarily settled by the descendants of John Major. Major (1768-1831) was born in Cootehill, Ireland and immigrated to the New England colony of Vermont in 1775.30 During the Revolutionary War, John joined the 84th Regiment of the Loyalist Corps.31 Following the war, he fled to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick where he met Margaret Reynolds (1765-1831). They were married in 1793.32 In 1799, they left New Brunswick for Upper Canada. Where they settled is unclear, although there is some indication that they may have moved to the Pickering area based on birth and marriage records.33 During the 24 Whitevale 2022 25 Scheinman 2004:69 26 Wood 1911:239 27 Scheinman 2004:70 28 HSWNDL et al 1994:173 29 Scheinman 2004:70; Wood 1911:300 30 Ancestry 2022c; Wood 1911:263 31 LSHC et al 2015:7 32 Ancestry 2022c 33 Ancestry 2022c - 203 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 19 War of 1812, Major once again served in the military and was discharged in 1814 by Major General Trevor Hull at Spanish Town, Jamaica for “extreme debility.”34 Following the War of 1812, Major, his wife, and their children Thomas (1794-1831), Hannah (1796-1829), Samuel (1800-1842), Mary (1806-1854), and Henry (1808-1877) lived in the Whitevale area where they established a sawmill on West Duffins Creek in the early 1820s.35 The Major family home hosted the meetings of township officials between 1822-1825.36 Thomas married Hannah Smith (1799-1837) before 1819, Hannah married Captain Peter Matthews around 1816, Samuel married Mary Polly Smith (1802-1849) around 1821, Mary married William Sleigh (1795-1837) in 1824, and Henry married Jane Smith (1808-1844) before 1832.37 After the death of his wife Jane, Henry Major married Lydia A. Hawkins (1823-1891). The 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario map depicts the small tributaries of Urfe Creek north and west of the Subject Property. A church and cemetery were also depicted south of Whitevale Road and west of Sideline 16 and there is evidence that the hamlet of Brougham to the north of the subject property had been widely surveyed. 4.4 History of the Subject Property 4.4.1 Sources of Information The following section on the history and evolution of 1740 5th Concession utilizes a handful of sources including records from the Ontario Land Registry (OLR) and other governmental records including censuses and birth and death documents. Of particular use for the historical background was The Ellicott Family History in which Myrtle (Ellicott) Forde interviewed her aunt, Minnie Law, to collect history on the Ellicott family. Newspaper accounts from The Pickering News were also of use. The Ellicott Family History and The Pickering News documents were sourced from the Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. 4.4.2 1740 5th Concession Road The Subject Property at 1740 5th Concession Road falls within part of Lot 18, Concession 5, in the Geographic Township of Pickering, Ontario County. The OLR records indicate that the Crown patent for the full 80.9 ha (200 ac) lot was granted to John Major on September 12, 1828.38 0.4 ha (1 ac) was sold, likely by John Major’s estate, in 1846 to Andrew Thomson. In 1846, Alfred M. Turner sold 12.95 ha (32 ac) to William Bentley. Transactions on this lot in the 19th century were numerous and, owing to the poor state of the OLR records, it is difficult to discern when the 80.9 ha lot was subdivided and in what fashion. However, it appears that John Major’s estate sold 20.2 ha (50 ac) to Samuel Smith in 1850. This transaction corresponds with Tremaine’s 1860 Map of the County of Ontario which depicts Thomas Smith on the southeast 20.2 ha of Lot 18. Census records from 1851 suggest that Mordecai Widdifield was in possession of the southwest 20.2 ha of the lot at this time. In 1857, Widdifield sold the north 6.07 ha (15 ac) of his property to Mark W. Crawford. As with Smith’s transactions, Tremaine’s map corroborates this transaction with M. Widdifield occupying the southwest part of the lot save for the section at the north that was occupied by H. Crawford. There was one 34 Ancestry 2022c. 35 Ancestry 2022a; 2022b; Whitevale 2022 36 Wood 1911:264 37 Wood 1911:264; Ancestry 2022c 38 OLR 2022 - 204 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 20 structure that is visible very near the intersection of Brock Road and the 5th Concession (Map 3). Small tributaries of Urfe Creek are depicted north and west of the Subject Property. According to the 1861 Census of Canada, Mordecai Widdifield was born in Upper Canada in 1816. With his wife, Polly, they had five children. At this time, the family held 205 ha (83 ac) on Lot 18 Con 5, with 29.5 ha (73 ac) under crops, 3.2 ha (8 ac) under pasture, and 0.8 ha (2 ac) under orchards and garden. The cash value of the farm was $6,000, which was one of the highest enumerated on Concession 5. They maintained 12.1 ha (30 ac) in winter and spring wheat, and also produced crops of peas, oats, potatoes and turnips. They had a one-storey frame dwelling, likely visible on the 1860 map (Map 3) at nearby Thomson Corners but outside of the Subject Property. By 1881, the family had moved to Uxbridge. As shown on the 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario map, Joseph Ellicott (c.1815-1887) occupied the southwest part of Lot 18 formerly occupied by Widdifield. A residence is present in the same general location as that shown on the 1860 map (Map 3), as well as additional buildings including one within the Subject Property in rough proximity to the current farmhouse (Map 4). According to Ellicott’s great granddaughter, Minnie Law, he emigrated from Devonshire, England to Canada in 1843 where he first settled in Toronto. A year later, his wife, Susan Tolsher (c. 1816-1890), and their children, Tolsher and Selena, made ocean voyage to join him. Susan’s journey from England was rife with difficulties as Law described:39 Grandmother was on the ocean voyage four weeks coming and their vessel was blown back to the port from where they had started. They had to take on more ballast and start over again. She was six weeks on water and could never even ride in a buggy afterward without becoming seasick. Grandmother had sent word for grandfather to meet her and her two children Tolsher and Selena at Montreal or she would turn around and go back to England. He was late in coming and she came on to sickening. They had passed each other on the way, he going to Montreal and she to Pickering. She was very much disgusted with everything as the country was so very backward to what she had been used to in England but tried to make the most of things. Susan joined Joseph who had settled in Pickering Village working as a blacksmith and carriage builder. At this time, their son, George, was born. Susan’s parents, John and Elizabeth Tolsher, arrived from England shortly thereafter, and the whole family took up farming. Farming was not foreign to Joseph as his father once was a wealthy landholding farmer, owning an estate of 404.6 ha (1,000 ac). After Joseph Ellicott’s father took on a risky venture, putting up the large estate as collateral to back a start up business in the silk industry, the family lost everything as the business failed.40 One of Joseph’s brothers went to Australia, another to the United States, while a third was lost at sea. Joseph was said to have arrived in Toronto with just 25¢ to his name. Pursuing agriculture, Joseph took up 20.2 ha of land a “½ mile east of the Brock Road” while John Tolsher took up 20.2 ha on the west side of this road.41 Susan Tolsher inherited her parent’s land after the death of her father in 1872.42 Along with their sons, William (Will), Frank, Harry, and Joseph Jr. (Joe), Joseph and Susan Ellicott “first lived in a log house on the knoll west of the cemetery on farm [sic] before building the present home on the homestead.”43 That cemetery was known originally as the Old Bible Christian Cemetery (later the Bethel 39 Law 1997 40 Law 1997 41 Law 1997 42 John Tolsher died on December 7, 1872 at the age of 84.. Elizabeth died on May 12, 1860 at the age of 63. 43 Law 1977 - 205 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 21 Church Burial Ground and also referred to as Ellicott Cemetery). The 1860 Map of the County of Ontario shows Joseph Ellicott possessing the eastern half of Lot 17, Concession 4 and the north half of Lot 16, Concession 4 (Map 3). A structure is only shown on the southwest corner of Ellicott’s lands on Lot 16 but the location of the log house is not recorded in the 1860 map. Also not recorded was a log church, where Ellicott preached, was located on the southwest corner of 5th Concession Road and Sideline 16 Road. This church has since been demolished but the cemetery remains. Joseph Ellicott is also known to have lived at 566 Kingston Road West in Pickering Village, Town of Ajax. This house, featuring elements of the Gothic Revival style, was constructed c.1883 by or for Ellicott. At this time, Ellicott was a member of the Bible Christian Church and the house may have originally served as a church. The house was designated under Part IV of the OHA on November 3, 1997.44 Interestingly, this house features original clapboard and beaded corner boards that bear a striking similarity to that of the farmhouse on the Subject Property. Image 1: Ellicott House at 566 Kingston Road West Source: Google Street View Although GBCA previously surmised that the extant house on the Subject Property was constructed in the 1860s or 1870s – potentially first appearing on the 1877 map (Map 4), other evidence suggests that it may have been constructed as late as 1887. Ellicott family descendant Minnie Law’s recounting of Joseph Ellicott’s death in a transcript of the Ellicott family history at the Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive is incomplete due to a missing page. She noted that: In building the house on the farm the scaffolding in which he was standing gave way causing him to fall on a field of stones, breaking his… 45 44 Town of Ajax 2021:21. The Designation By-law Number is 113-97. 45 Law 1977 - 206 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 22 While the account does not indicate his death nor the year that this occurred, Ellicott’s death record indicates that he died in 1887 at the age of 73 after falling from a building. Furthermore, an article published in The Pickering News on September 9, 1887 stated that:46 Joseph Ellicott went out to his farm near Thompson’s Corners to oversee some repairs that were being made to his buildings there, and fell from a scaffold to the ground.47 The story continued noting that: 48 The back of his head striking a stone he received such injuries that he never rallied, but expired in about ten minutes afterwards. News of this reached the village via the wife of Joseph’s son, Harry Ellicott, causing: 49 A profound sensation… as the deceased was well and favorably known to almost everyone as an upright, Christian gentleman, and we are sure the widow and friends have the sympathy of all on this sad occasion. The house that Ellicott was working on when he fell to his death may have replaced an earlier frame house on the property occupied by Mordecai Widdifield. Susan Ellicott died of old age in 1890 and she was interred beside her husband in the nearby Bethel Church Burial Ground located on the southwest corner of 5th Concession Road and Sideline 16 Road. The Ellicott family sold the Subject Property to H. Plaxton who then sold it to John Cowan a few years later, according to Minnie Law. However, an 1895 map, which was referenced (but not cited) by GBCA, listed W. Cowan on the Subject Property. This individual may have been William Cowan Jr. (1853-1918), son of William Cowan Sr. (c. 1826-1897). Cowan Sr. arrived in Canada from Scotland with his father in 1832 and they settled on Lot 32 Broken Front, Pickering Township where the Rouge River drained into Lake Ontario. By 1911, Cowan Jr. and his wife, Mary Emma Pearce (1857-1937) employed three hired men and two domestic servants. According to a Cowan Jr.’s son – who was also named William Cowan – Cowan Sr. lived on the family farm along Lake Ontario, purchased three farms for his sons, and managed another four farms. It is likely that Cowan Jr. managed the property at 1740 5th Concession Road in the late 19th and early 20th century. John Cowan, whom Minnie Law mentioned, may have also lived on the property. The Union Publishing Company of Ingersoll’s 1908 directory listed William Cowan Jr. at Lot 18, Concession 5.50 At the time of his death in 1918, he lived at the family farm in Rosebank. Topographical maps from the 20th century consistently depicted the farmhouse to the south and east of Urfe Creek, although no agricultural outbuildings were shown. By 1936, a bypass to the west of this property 46 The Pickering News 1887b:8 47 The discrepancy between the “repairs” noted here and Minnie Law’s oral account of building the house suggests some ambiguity around the precise age of the house when combined with the 1877 Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario. 48 The Pickering News 1887b:8 49 The Pickering News 1887a:8 50 Union Publishing Company of Ingersoll 1908. Certainly by 1908, Brougham had become a substantial village as indicated by the number of occupants on Lot 18. The Union Publishing Company’s 1908 directory lists at least 18 different occupants on Lot 18. These included surnames such as Bunk, Gammage, Littlejohn, and Starks. Cross referencing the directory with the 1895 map referenced by GBCA as well as the family history account by Cowan’s grandson, William Cowan, suggests that Cowan in the southwest corner of Lot 18. - 207 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 23 connected Brock Road south and north of 5th Concession Road. Aerial photography from 1954 and 1968 and 1972 topographical maps (Maps 5-7) show agricultural buildings north of the farmhouse. In 1972, the Government of Canada appropriated lands northeast of downtown Toronto (known as the Pickering Lands) to develop a new airport, but this plan was put on hold in 1975 in favour of expanding existing airports.51 The Subject Property was not part of this acquisition as it was located just south of the appropriated lands and, in 1975, the airport proposal was put on hold indefinitely. However, the planned community of Seaton was contemplated as the provincial government took initiative to direct growth eastward. The planned community was originally expected to accommodate a population up to 300,000. These numbers were revised to see a mixed-use community of 85,000 that would also include the preservation of historic hamlets and agricultural lands. The Durham Region government further designated urban land uses in 1982 and the Town of Pickering initiated a more detailed planning study in 1986. The first phase of Seaton’s history closed in 1988 when the Pickering Planning Committee deferred its draft plan. Just one year later, the Seaton Interim Planning Team was organized by the provincial government as concerns about rising housing costs resumed. This second phase took into consideration emerging approaches to environmentally sustainable practices within the planning context. In 1990, Seaton: A Strategy for Environmentally Responsible Planning, a resulting report, was delivered to the provincial housing minister. The preservation of the land’s environmental qualities, the creation of sustainable economic opportunities, and maximization of the quality of life of residents were outlined in the report. The report proposed designating 1,416.4 ha (3,500 ac) for a new town of 90,000 residents. In response, the provincial government allotted long-term agricultural preserves in the western portion of the holdings, leaving 2,832.8 ha (7,000 ac) for future development.52 In 1994, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing developed the Central Pickering Development Plan under the provisions of the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994. The Plan noted that the Seaton Lands “are bounded by the CPR Belleville Line in the south, Sideline 16/Pickering-Ajax boundary in the east, Highway 7 in the north and the York-Durham Town Line in the west within the City of Pickering and the Regional Municipality of Durham. The Plan established “a comprehensive new vision for Central Pickering: that of a sustainable urban community in Seaton integrated with a thriving agricultural community in the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve and an extensive Natural Heritage System.” Cultural Heritage was one of eight goals. In late 2022, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing opened a brief consultation period as part of its decision to revoke the Central Pickering Development Plan.53 In 2015, CBRE, acting on behalf of the provincial Minister of Infrastructure and IO offered five of 10 bundles of land for sale including 160.8 ha (397.4 ac) comprising Package 3 on which the Subject Property is located.54 In 2018, the Ontario Municipal Board’s (now Ontario Land Tribunal) Seaton Bylaw 7364/14 approved 20 proposals that were part of the Major Residential Draft Plan for Seaton. These draft plans were submitted by private applicants between 2008 and 2009. In 2015, IO under Application # SP-2015-03 applied for a development of 2,397 proposed units in the Thompsons Corners neighbourhood that included the Subject Property. This application was approved in 2018.55 The Plan relegates the land comprising the Subject Property as part of the Seaton Natural Heritage System. 51 Canada 2020 52 Wright 1996:36-7 53 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 2022 54 CBRE 2015 55 Ontario Municipal Board 2018 - 208 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 24 Following a request for qualifications in 2010 and a request for proposals in 2011, construction on the Highway 407 East Phase 1 Project began in May 2012 and concluded in June 2016. This $1 billion infrastructure project expanded Highway 407 from Brock Road 20 km east to Harmony Road in Oshawa. Accordingly, a Brock Road bypass was created, this time carrying north past the Subject Property before twisting northeast toward the Highway 407 interchange. - 209 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 25 Map 3: 1860 Historic Map Showing the Subject Property - 210 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 26 Map 4: 1877 Historic Map Showing the Subject Property - 211 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 27 Map 5: 1954 Aerial Photograph showing Subject Property and Extant Building - 212 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 28 Map 6: 1968 Topographic Map showing Subject Property and Extant Buildings - 213 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 29 Map 7: 1972 Topographic Map showing Subject Property and Extant Buildings - 214 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 30 4.5 Architectural Typology The farmhouse on the Subject Property is of a vernacular design. The following sections provides some detail with regard to the stylistic influences of the building. 4.5.1 Vernacular Farmhouses Vernacular architecture is a category of architecture that reflect local needs and available materials, and in some cases, the works of a local builder or architect. In this case, the house on the Subject Property loosely follows the form of Gothic Revival farmhouses that were commonly built between the 1860s and 1900. It is, however, devoid of ornamentation or any design elements that would obviously suggest influences of this style such as elaborate woodworked elements like bargeboard or pointed windows – influences which were common in the late 19th century even for vernacular farmhouses. Despite being one-and-a-half storeys tall, the house is relatively small owing to its narrow, two-bay width. A kitchen, washroom, mudroom, and parlour/living room comprise the ground floor. While there is a basement and an upper storey, these areas were not accessible at the time of the site visit due to a blocked lower staircase and a damaged upper staircase, and further examination of structural and design features was not possible. If, in fact, the house was constructed by Ellicott circa 1887, as one historical account seems to suggest, it is likely that the septuagenarian constructed it for himself and his wife Susan. This timeline and circumstance may explain the modesty of the farmhouse. As has been suggested by GBCA in 2015, the house was likely constructed using balloon framing (as opposed to platform framing) which connected wall studs from the sills all the way to the underside of the roof framing. The pressed metal ceiling tiles in the kitchen were widely used in the mid-to-late 19th century. Although cheaper than ornate plaster ceilings, which adopters of pressed metal ceilings sought to replicate, tin was costlier than simple wood and plaster or wall and ceiling papers. The customer needed to supply the manufacturer with ceiling measurements to determine the number of panels to fit the space. Subsequent installation was challenging and required “a hammer, saw, chalk line, punch, nail set, and trimmer’s shears.”56 Furring strips, also known as strapping, are required to receive pressed metal ceiling tiles below the lath and plaster ceiling. It would be typical for these furring strips to be laid perpendicular to lath on two-foot centres. However, in this farmhouse, the strips are laid in a non-traditional manner, parallel to the lath and appear to be spaced six inches on centre. A fieldstone foundation also speaks to vernacular characteristics – namely the practical sourcing of local building materials. The absence of chimneys and the presence of exhaust ducts on the west edge of the kitchen ceiling suggest that stoves were used to heat the house. The discrete location of the upstairs and cellar staircases that run parallel to the north elevation of house demonstrate practicality through maximizing limited space in a house that lacks a centre hallway. The house is clad in what is likely riftsawn pine clapboard. In the late 19th century, riftsawing made use of machinery to imitate hand riving that had been a common but labour intensive and time-consuming technique (Image 2). Though also somewhat time-consuming, riftsawing, which was the process of suspending logs typically 16 to 20 inches in diameter over a circular saw and rotating the log to make radial cuts, it produced a quality product that maximized the use of logs through minimizing waste (Image 3). For this farmhouse, nails were driven through two courses of clap board, binding the bottom of one board to the top of another and into the wall sheathing (Image 4). This application had the advantage of limiting expansion and contraction of clapboards therefore preventing cracking or splitting. The condition of the clapboards on the farmhouse at 56 Simpson 1999:67 - 215 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 31 1740 5th Concession Road likely speaks to the ongoing neglect of the structure as a whole rather than the quality or craftsmanship of the clapboard. - 216 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 32 Image 2: Riftsawn Clapboard Source: Bock 1989 - 217 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 33 Image 3: Carriage and Circular Saw, Donnell’s Clapboard Mill, Sedgwick, Maine Source: Bock 1989 - 218 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 34 Image 4: Two Course Clapboard Nailing Source: Bock 1989 - 219 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 35 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS A site visit to the Subject Property was undertaken by Hayden Bulbrook and Joan Crosbie of TMHC on May 30, 2023. This section details current conditions. A high-level condition assessment is included in this CHER review using the following definitions: •Good condition: The building or landscape feature appears intact with superficial or no visible damage, wear, or erosion ranging from not present to superficial. Building envelopes appear intact and building facilities such as HVAC and electricity are functioning to maintain the structure. •Fair condition: The building or landscape feature appears structurally intact with moderate visible damage, wear, or erosion. Building envelopes may have limited loss of integrity resulting in some damage to the interior. HVAC and electricity may or may not be functioning. •Poor condition: The integrity of the building or landscape feature appears compromised or in danger of being compromised. Building envelopes are breached in multiple locations resulting in significant damage to the interior. These conditions help inform consideration of the integrity of structures and landscapes on the Subject Property. Integrity refers to the legibility of historical attributes and their relationships to one another. High integrity means these attributes remain discernable and their relationships have not been diminished or irreversibly altered. Low integrity means these attributes and relationships are no longer present or they are no longer recognizable as such. For example, a historic structure may have high integrity if it retains key stylistic architecture features such as a hipped roof with projecting eaves and corbels on an Italianate house. If these or other features are missing, the integrity of the building is diminished. It should be noted that condition is not synonymous with integrity although poor conditions can contribute to a loss of integrity over time. 5.1 1740 5th Concession Road Located within a cluster of trees that runs parallel to Brock Road, the property retains an L-shaped 19th century one-and-a-half-storey frame house clad in painted wood (Images 5-6). The extant farmhouse is setback approximately 115 m from 5th Concession Road and is partially screened by foliage from 5th Concession Road (Images 7-8). This vernacular house is in poor-to-fair condition, and displays elements of the Gothic Revival style, as evidenced in its cross-gable layout that was commonly applied to Gothic Revival style farmhouses in Ontario. Its current condition has affected the integrity of the building. Along the left half of the main (south) elevation, the house contains a partially covered porch with an overhanging shed roof. This roof is in poor condition and is in a state of collapse. Underneath, unpainted clapboard is exposed. The porch is devoid of decorative detail save for an entablature atop squared porch posts with capitals (Image 9). Although the porch soffits have begun to decay and are in poor condition, the painted tongue and groove boards comprising the gable soffits are in fair condition and display sophisticated detail and millwork (Images 10-11). The primary entrance and a window to the west (left) which would have once provided a view of the sloping land to the south, is boarded up with plywood. Similarly, the south-facing living room (parlour) window to the east (right) is also screened with plywood (Image 13). Sills – where visible –are composed of wood. - 220 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 36 The east and north elevations are in fair condition, displaying flaking paint and bare wood and, like the south elevation, contain barricaded window openings. (Images 14-17). Clapboard was secured to wall sheathing through driving nails with large round heads into the tops of one course into the bottom of the course above. A one-storey frame addition with a fieldstone foundation projects off-centre from the north elevation with its gable oriented north-south like that of the east section of the farmhouse. The siding and roofline are intact but display wear from lack of upkeep. Maintained lawns around the house helped to reveal the fieldstone foundation which is consistent across the cross-gabled house (Image 18-19). Unlike the south elevation gable, the north and west gables contain upper-level openings (Image 20). The interior of the house is in fair condition. Vandalism has damaged interior fixtures, including kitchen cupboards. Moisture penetration has led to mould and rot, as well as to peeling paint on the walls and on the kitchen’s tin ceiling. Despite this, window framing, baseboards, wainscoting, built-in storage, and some kitchen cupboards have survived although their conditions were not closely inspected (Images 21-27). Of note is the tin ceiling in the kitchen which displays decorative stamped patterns contained within egg-and-dart tin crown moulding (Images 29-29). These ceiling plates, however, are rusted considerably owing to water penetration. Their poor condition may hinder any efforts of salvage and restoration. An exhaust pipe and vent in the west part of the kitchen suggests that a stove here once provided heat to the house in the absence of a fireplace and chimney (Images 30-31). Access to the basement was prohibited by debris on the staircase (Image 32). A narrow staircase to the upper floor was accessible from a door at the northwest corner of the kitchen (Image 33). The bottom section of the staircase features painted wainscot (Images 34-35). The staircase leads to a landing at the upper storey. One of the top stairs was split suggesting that the structural integrity of the second storey is poor and that the building may be compromised. Owing to this and other decay, the upstairs was not accessed. The rear one- storey addition is accessible from an opening at the north end of the kitchen (Image 36). This room, which likely served as a mudroom and larder, contains a built-in cupboard on the south wall, a rectangular window opening on the west wall, shelving on the north wall, and a rear entry on the east wall (Images 37-38). Satellite imagery and inspection during the site visit reveals that the land north of the farmhouse was used as a tree farm (Image 39). This also occurred on the property adjacent to the east. - 221 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 37 Image 5: West Elevation Looking East - 222 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 38 Image 6: Ground Floor Layout of Farmhouse - 223 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 39 Image 7: Partial View of the Farmhouse from 5th Concession Looking North Image 8: Gravel Driveway North to Farmhouse Looking North Image 9: Main (South) Elevation of the Farmhouse Looking Northwest Image 10: Exposed Unpainted Clapboard Beneath Shed Roof Looking North Image 11: Porch Roof Type and Soffits and Eaves Looking East Image 12: Boarded Up Main Entry Looking North - 224 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 40 Image 13: South Elevation Parlour Window Looking North Image 14: Painted Wood Beadboard Soffits Looking West Image 15: Southeast Corner of Farmhouse Looking West Image 16: Northeast Corner of Farmhouse Looking Southwest Image 17: North Elevation of Farmhouse Looking South Image 18: East Elevation of One-storey Rear Addition Looking West - 225 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 41 Image 19: Fieldstone Foundation Looking Southeast Image 20: West Elevation of Farmhouse Looking Southeast Image 21: Southeast Room on Ground Floor Looking Southeast Image 22: Two-over-one South Window and Baseboards Looking Southeast Image 23: Ground Floor Washroom Looking Northwest Image 24: Main Door Opening to Kitchen Looking South - 226 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 42 Image 25: South and West Kitchen Cupboards Looking Southwest Image 26: West Wall of Kitchen and Rear Staircase to Upstairs Looking West Image 27: Kitchen Cupboard Details Looking Southwest Image 28: Painted Egg-and-dart Pressed Crown Looking North Image 29: Rusted Pressed Ceiling Panels and Wood Furring Looking West Image 30: Kitchen Ceiling Exhaust Looking West - 227 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 43 Image 31: Possible Stove Vent to Upstairs Image 32: Barricaded Basement Staircase Looking West Image 33: Painted Staircase Door and Trim Looking North Image 34: Painted Staircase Wainscot Looking North Image 35: Staircase to Upstairs Looking East Image 36: Doorway to Rear One-storey Room Looking North - 228 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 44 Image 37: Wood Paneled Rear One-storey Room Looking North Image 38: Rear Room Wood Built-in Looking Southwest Image 39: Former Rows of Tree Farm Looking West - 229 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 45 5.2 Contextual Environment The Subject Property (N70847) is located on the north side of 5th Concession Road, east of the Brock Road, bypass and comprises a rural property with natural areas. The construction of the Brock Road By-pass (2013- 2015) as part of the Highway 407 East- Phase I expansion project, encroached upon the western edge of the Subject Property. Culvert improvements to direct a tributary of Urfe Creek have created a dip in the landscape between the Brock Road Bypass and the farmhouse laneway (Image 40).57 The rural landscape around the Subject Property is being prepared for the Seaton Lands redevelopment. As such, 5th Concession Road has been widened and commercial development is under construction at Sideline 16 Road (Images 41- 46). Despite these changes, the Bethel Church Burial Ground (also referred to as the Ellicott Cemetery) remains on the southwest corner of 5th Concession Road and Sideline 16 Road (Image 46). This modest cemetery contains a few remaining headstones including the headstone of Joseph Ellicott, and his wife, Susan Tolsher (Images 47-48). 57 Lingertat 2021 - 230 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 46 Image 40: Grading Along the North Side of 5th Concession Road Looking West Image 41: Grading Along the North Side of 5th Concession Road Looking West Image 42: Recently Paved 5th Concession Road Looking East Image 43: Dust Plume from Grading North of Property Looking West Image 44: Subdivision Grading West and South of Cemetery Looking Southwest Image 45: Sewage Infrastructure South of Cemetery Looking South - 231 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 47 Image 46: Bethel Church Burial Ground South of 5th Concession Looking South Image 47: East Side of Ellicott Headstone Looking Southwest Image 48: West Side of Ellicott Headstone Looking South - 232 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 48 6 POLICY CONTEXT 6.1 Regional Municipality of Durham (2020) The Official Plan for the Regional Municipality of Durham was adopted in 1993 and was recently consolidated as a Draft Official Plan in February 2023. Section 3.3 of the Official Plan outlines several goals for complete communities within Durham Region with a goal for heritage to “Promote the conservation, protection and enhancement of Durham’s built and cultural heritage resources and landscapes, including Indigenous cultural heritage.” Section 3.3.40 encourages municipalities to: a)adopt policies to protect and enhance cultural heritage resources in their official plans; b)utilize the Ontario Heritage Act to conserve, protect and enhance the built and cultural heritage resources of the municipality; c)establish and maintain Municipal Heritage Committees to consult on matters relating to built and cultural heritage resources and landscapes during the planning process and the designation of heritage conservation districts and properties as provided for in the Ontario Heritage Act; d)update municipal heritage registers on a regular basis; and e)create urban design standards in historic districts and areas to reflect the history, character and streetscape. Further policy refers to adaptive reuse or the recycling of building materials: 3.3.42 Encourage built and cultural resource conservation through adaptive reuse. Where original uses cannot be maintained, promote opportunities for adaptive reuse of heritage structures and sites, including the recycling of building materials, wherever feasible. 6.2 The City of Pickering (2022) The City of Pickering adopted their Official Plan in 1997 with approval from the Regional Municipality of Durham, and consolidated this version in 2022. Part 1 of the Official Plan outlines several broad goals and objectives for community development, with a specific objective related to cultural heritage as follows: •improving our understanding of, respect for, and connections with our heritage, landscape, and evolving culture Chapter 8 expands upon this objective with a goal specific to cultural heritage as follows: •City Council shall respect its cultural heritage, and conserve and integrate important cultural heritage resources from all time periods into the community. To achieve this goal, the following policies are provided: 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 - 233 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 49 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. 6.3 Planning Act (1990) The Planning Act is a piece of provincial legislation that provides stipulations for the land use planning process in Ontario, such as the identification of provincial interests and tools for the responsible management of resources including cultural heritage and archaeological resources. 2. The minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Tribunal, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as: (d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest. Section 3 of the Planning Act indicates that all decisions affecting land use planning matters “shall be consistent with” the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), a document that identifies matters of provincial interest to be considered during land use planning. 6.4 Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (PPS 2020) The following sections of the PPS 2020 are relevant to the Subject Property. Section 2.6 identifies the following relevant policies related to cultural heritage and archaeology. • 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved; • 2.6.2 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources have been conserved; • 2.5.3 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; - 234 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 50 •2.6.4 Planning authorities should consider and promote archaeological management plans and cultural plans in conserving cultural heritage and archaeological resources; and •2.6.5 Planning authorities shall engage with Indigenous communities and consider their interests when identifying, protecting and managing cultural heritage and archaeological resources. Section 6.0 provides the following definitions relevant to the Subject Property. •Built heritage resource: means a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Indigenous community. 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. •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). •Conserved: means the identification, protection, management and use of the 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. 6.5 Ontario Heritage Act (OHA 2005) The OHA provides a framework for municipalities in Ontario to ensure the conservation of properties with cultural heritage value or interest, including through the capacity to designate heritage properties: 29 (1) The council of a municipality may, by by-law, designate a property within the municipality to be of cultural heritage value or interest if: (a) where criteria for determining whether property is of cultural heritage value or interest have been prescribed, the property meets the prescribed criteria; and (b) the designation is made in accordance with the process set out in this section. Under the OHA, O.Reg. 9/06 (as amended by O.Reg. 569/22) provides the criteria for determining a property's cultural heritage value or interest: (3) In respect of a property for which a notice of intention to designate it is given under subsection 29 (1.1) of the Act on or after the day subsection 3 (2) of Schedule 6 to the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 comes into force, the property may be designated under section 29 of the Act if it meets two or more of the criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest set out in paragraphs 1 to 9 of subsection 1 (2). Designated properties appear on a municipality’s register of heritage properties: - 235 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 51 27 (1) The clerk of a municipality shall keep a register of property situated in the municipality that is of cultural heritage value or interest. This register also may include so-called listed properties: 27(3) In addition to the property listed in the register under subsection (2) [designated properties], the register may include property that has not been designated under this Part if, (a) the council of the municipality believes the property to be of cultural heritage value or interest; and (b) where criteria for determining whether property is of cultural heritage value or interest have been prescribed for the purposes of this subsection, the property meets the prescribed criteria. According to Part V of the OHA, a municipality may also undertake studies regarding (OHA s.40), designate (OHA s.40), and develop plans for (OHA s.41) heritage conservation districts (HCDs). These are areas of heritage significance composed of multiple properties. Part VI of the OHA addresses the protection of archaeological resources. As of January 2023, at least 25% of properties within the proposed HCD must meet two or more of the O.Reg. 9/06 criteria (as amended by O.Reg. 569/22). Under the OHA, O.Reg. 10/06 provides the criteria for determining if a property has provincial heritage significance: (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. The O.Reg. 9/06 9 (as amended by O.Reg. 569/22) and 10/06 criteria are listed and applied to the Subject Property in an accompanying CHERR. 6.6 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (2010) The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties were issued by the government of Ontario in 2010 under the authority of Section 25.2 of the Ontario Heritage Act. These standards and guidelines apply to properties owned or controlled by the Government of Ontario or a prescribed public body and provide a comparable standard of identification, evaluation, and protection as already exists for private property through designation. The general provisions of the standards and guidelines applicable to the Subject Property are: • Ministries and prescribed public bodies shall: A.1. Recognize, manage, and use provincial heritage properties as assets that can support ministry or public body mandates and contribute to the social and economic well-being of Ontario’s communities; - 236 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 52 A.2. Be accountable for all decisions affecting the cultural heritage value of property in their care and shall integrate provisions for conserving provincial heritage properties into decision-making processes in property planning and asset management; A.3. Base decisions affecting a provincial heritage property on appropriate studies and research (including analysis of physical, documentary, and oral evidence), aimed at understanding the property’s cultural heritage value, including its level of significance (e.g., local, provincial, etc.), the impact of proposed activities on its cultural heritage value and heritage attributes, and measures to mitigate these impacts; A.4. Engage groups and individuals with associations to a provincial heritage property by providing them with opportunities to participate in understanding and articulating the property’s cultural heritage value and in making decisions about its future; A.5. Establish and maintain a cultural heritage conservation policy and procedure(s) for identifying and managing provincial heritage properties, including objectives and targets and a commitment to continual improvement. The policy and procedure(s) should be available for review by the public; and A.6 Follow their cultural heritage policy and procedure(s) in complying with these Standards and Guidelines. This report fulfills the mandatory requirements of the standards and guidelines document to produce a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) and follows the prescribed evaluation methodology for identification and evaluation outlined in section B.2., requiring consultants to: 1)Prepare a description of the property; 2)Gather and record information about the property sufficient to understand and substantiate its heritage value; 3)Determine cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI), including potential provincial significance, based on the advice of qualified persons and with appropriate community input. If the property meets the criteria in Ontario Regulation 9/06 (as amended by O. Reg. 569/22), it is a provincial heritage property. If the property meets the criteria in Ontario Regulation 10/06, it is a provincial heritage property of provincial significance; 4)Document the identification process with a written account of the research and the evaluation; and 5)For each provincial heritage property, prepare a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value (SCHV) and a description of its heritage attributes. 6.7 Indigenous Protocols and Policies In addition to the provincial and municipal policies, the Subject Property falls within specific Indigenous community protocols and policies, including: •Alderville First Nation Consultation Protocol;58 58 Alderville First Nation 2015 - 237 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 53 • Consultation and Accommodation Protocol for Rama First Nation;59 • Curve Lake First Nation Consultation and Accommodation Standards; and60 • Hiawatha First Nation Consultation and Accommodations Standards.61 Not all Indigenous communities engaged for this project have standing engagement or heritage protocols or policies. 59 Chippewas of Rama First Nation 2021 60 Curve Lake First Nation 2016 61 Hiawatha First Nation 2017 - 238 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 54 7 COMMUNITY INTEREST AND ENGAGEMENT 7.1 Project Specific Engagement Strategy This CHER and the subsequent CHERR involve two phases of community engagement. Engagement Phase 1 involved the development of a study-specific engagement strategy and the identification and notification of stakeholders and Indigenous communities. Based on direction from GHD Limited (GHD), TMHC identified the following Indigenous communities and organizations and other stakeholder groups: •Former and current user groups o n/a •Indigenous communities and organizations: o Huron-Wendat Nation; o The Williams Treaties Nations, including: ▪Alderville First Nation; ▪Beausoleil First Nation; ▪Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation; ▪Chippewas of Rama First Nation; ▪Curve Lake First Nation; ▪Hiawatha First Nation; and ▪Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation; •Municipal entities: o City of Pickering; •Local heritage advocates: o Architectural Conservancy of Ontario; o Pickering Township Historical Society; o Pickering Museum Village; o Pickering Public Library; •Other entities: o Ontario Heritage Trust. The following sections detail the outreach to and responses from communities and organizations. 7.2 Indigenous Communities and Organizations In June 2023, TMHC sent a notification email including a description of the project and an invitation to provide comments and share information to Indigenous Communities and Organizations. The specific responses from each completed are outlined below. 7.2.1 Alderville First Nation On June 15, 2023, TMHC received an email from Dr. Julie Kapyrka, who advised that she was compiling a historical document regarding Alderville history. As part of that work, she will be transcribing the knowledge - 239 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 55 of Chief Mowat. She advised not to delay the production of this report, and that she would forward the histories to TMHC, when completed. 7.3 Municipal Entities In June 2023, TMHC sent a notification email including a description of the project and an invitation to provide comments and share information to the City of Pickering. On June 27, 2023, staff member Brandon Weiler responded with the information that the property at 1740 5th Concession was not included on the Municipal Register of Heritage Properties. The Municipality also provided two reports as background information and requested that the preliminary findings of the CHER be shared with the City. 7.4 Local Heritage Advocates In June 2023, TMHC sent a notification email including a description of the project and an invitation to provide comments and share information to local heritage advocates in the Regional Municipality of Durham. In an email dated July 3, 2023, Jessica Lanziner of the Pickering Public Library shared historical information about the property at 1740 5th Concession Road. No further follow up was required. 7.5 Ontario Heritage Trust In June 2023, THMC sent a notification email including a description of the project and an invitation to provide comments and share information to the Ontario Heritage Trust. On June 23, 2023, staff member Samuel Bayefsky responded that the Ontario Heritage Trust does not own or protect via easement any property at or abutting the address in question. Engagement Phase 2 will focus on the distribution of the draft CHER and summary of the CHERR conclusions to the Indigenous communities and stakeholders for their comments. Following the conclusion of active engagement and the incorporation of changes resulting from Engagement Phase 2, TMHC will prepare an updated engagement summary in this section documenting which stakeholders participated, how they were contacted, a general summary or list of substantive feedback received during both Engagement Phases 1 and 2, and a summary of how this feedback was reflected in the final CHER/CHERR. - 240 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 56 8 CONCLUSION GHD Limited (GHD) on behalf of IO has engaged TMHC Inc. (TMHC) to produce a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for the provincially-owned property at 1740 5th Concession Road, City of Pickering, in the Regional Municipality of Durham. This CHER provides the contextual basis for the accompanying CHERR. The CHERR contains the evaluation, recommendations, and conclusions for the Subject Property. - 241 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 57 9 BIBLIOGRAPHY Alderville First Nation 2015 Alderville First Nation Consultation Protocol. Available online: https://alderville.ca/wp- content/uploads/2017/02/AFNProtocol2.pdf. Accessed January 31, 2023. Ancestry 2022a Warin Family Tree; John Sleigh Facts. Ancestry, database and images. Available online: https://www.ancestry.ca/family- tree/person/tree/48621592/person/380144666791/facts?_phsrc=WZK281&_phstart=successSource. Accessed December 20, 2022. 2022b Warnica Family Tree; Samuel Major Facts. Ancestry, database and images. Available online: https://www.ancestry.ca/family-tree/person/tree/76155928/person/182434795514/facts. Accessed December 20, 2022. 2022c Nelson-Major-Miles-Melnick Family Tree; John Major Facts. Ancestry, database and images. Available online: https://www.ancestry.ca/family- tree/person/tree/82703035/person/40478834579/facts?_phsrc=WZK309&_phstart=successSource. Accessed December 20, 2022. Archives of Ontario 1887 Joseph Ellicott. Ontario, Canada, Deaths and Deaths Overseas, 1869-1948. Collection: MS935; Reel: 48. Archives of Ontario 1918 William Cowan. Archives of Ontario; Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Collection: MS935; Reel: 246. Armstrong, F.H. 1985 Handbook of Upper Canadian Chronology. Revised Edition. Toronto: Dundurn Press, Ltd. Bock, Gordon 1989 Clapboards: Technical Answers on Horizontal-wood-siding Types and Details of their Installation.” Old- House Journal. May-June 1989. XVII(3). Pp. 32-41. Available online: https://books.google.ca/books?id=uHtnOlJoVSMC&lpg=PA1&dq=May%2FJune%201989%20Vol.%20XVII %2C%20No.%203%20Historic%20Clapboard%20%E2%80%93%20Gordon%20Bock&pg=PA42#v=onepa ge&q=May/June%201989%20Vol.%20XVII,%20No.%203%20Historic%20Clapboard%20%E2%80%93%20 Gordon%20Bock&f=false. Accessed June 14, 2023 Champion, I. (ed) 1979 Markham 1793-1900. Markham: Markham Historical Society. - 242 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 58 Chippewas of Rama First Nation 2021 Consultation and Accommodation Protocol for Rama First Nation. Available online: https://www.ramafirstnation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Consultation-and-Accomodation- Protocol-for-publication.pdf. Accessed January 31, 2023. CBRE 2015 Seatonland Future Development Lands, Pickering, ON. Available online: https://www.cbre.ca/- /media/cbre/countrycanada/files/pdf/teams/at-jc/seatonlands_sold_bundle.pdf. Accessed April 21, 2023. City of Pickering 2014 Zoning By-law 7364/14 Seaton Zoning By-law. Available online: https://wdra.ca/wp- content/uploads/2018/07/By-law-7364-14-Seaton-Zoning-Final-Approved.pdf. Accessed April 21, 2023. City of Pickering 2021 Report to Planning & Development Committee: Draft Plan of Subidivision Application SP-2015-03 (R). Available online: https://corporate.pickering.ca/WebLink/1/edoc/238190/PLN%2016-21.pdf. Accessed April 21, 2023. City of Pickering 2022 Pickering Official Plan. Available online: https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/resources/Official-Plan--- Main-Page/Edition-9/OP9ACC.pdf. Accessed January 30th, 2023. Cowan, William n.d. The Cowan Family. Available online: https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/0/edoc/171197/531.pdf. Accessed April 18, 2023. Curve Lake First Nation 2016 Consultation and Accommodation Standards. Available online: https://curvelakefirstnation.ca/wp- content/uploads/2021/04/CLFN-Consultation-and-Accommodation-Standards-2016.pdf. Accessed January 31st, 2023. Department of Militia and Defence 1914 Markham, Ontario. 1:63,360. Map Sheet 030M14, [ed. 1]. Digitized by Ontario Council of University Libraries. 1917 Markham, Ontario. 1:63,360. Map Sheet 030M14, [ed. 2]. Digitized by Ontario Council of University Libraries. 1922 Markham, Ontario. 1:63,360. Map Sheet 030M14, [ed. 3] Department of National Defence 1930 Markham, Ontario. 1:63,360. Map Sheet 030M14, [ed. 4]. Digitized by Ontario Council of University Libraries. - 243 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 59 1933 Markham, Ontario. 1:63,360. Map Sheet 030M14, [ed. 5]. Digitized by Ontario Council of University Libraries. 1936 Markham, Ontario. 1:63,360. Map Sheet 030M14, [ed. 6]. Digitized by Ontario Council of University Libraries. 1943 Markham, Ontario. 1:63,360. Map Sheet 030M14, [ed. 7]. Digitized by Ontario Council of University Libraries. Department of Energy, Mines and Resources 1968 Brougham, Ontario. 1:25,000. Map Sheet 030M14H, ed. 1. Digitized by Ontario Council of University Libraries. 1972 Brougham, Ontario. 1:25,000. Map Sheet 030M14H, ed. 2. Digitized by Ontario Council of University Libraries. Durham Region 2023 Envision Durham Draft Official Plan. Available online: https://www.durham.ca/en/doing- business/resources/Documents/PlanningandDevelopment/Envision-Durham/draft-new-Durham-ROP- online.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2023. Farewell, J.E.C. 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 Affairs. Whitby: Gazette-Chronicle Press. Find a Grave 1887 Joseph Ellicott. Available online: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/130650733/joseph-ellicott. Accessed April 18, 2023. Find a Grave 1918 William Cowan. Available online: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/59558323/william-cowan. Accessed April 18, 2023. Gidigaa Migizi 2018 Michi Saagiig Nishnaabg This is Our Territory. Winnipeg: ARP Books. Gidigaa Migizi and J. Kapyrka 2015 Michi Saagiig Historical/Background Context. Unpublished manuscript courtesy of Gitiga Migizi and Dr. Julie Kapyrka of Curve Lake First Nation. Goldsmith Borgel & Company Ltd. Architects (GBCA) 2015 Building Assessment Report: 1740 Fifth Concession Road. Prepared for the City of Pickering. Available online: https://corporate.pickering.ca/WebLink/0/edoc/146424/PLN%2010-15%20- %201740%20Fifth%20Concession%20Rd.pdf. Accessed April 21, 2023. - 244 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 60 Government of Canada 2018 Williams Treaties First Nations Settlement Agreement. Available online: https://www.rcaanc- cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1542370282768/1542370308434. Accessed May 2021. Government of Canada 2020 Pickering Lands. Available online: https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/operating-airports-aerodromes/airport- zoning-regulations/pickering-lands#summaries. Accessed December 21, 2022. Hiawatha First Nation 2017 Consultation and Accommodation Standards. Available online: http://www.hiawathafirstnation.com/wp- content/uploads/2020/02/Consutation-Accommodation-Standards-1-electronic-copy.pdf. Accessed January 31, 2023. Hough Stansbury Woodland Naylor Dance Limited (HSWNDL), D.R. Poulton & Associates, and Andrew Scheinman 1994 Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Volume I: Summary Report. Prepared for The Seaton Interim Planning Team (Ontario Ministry of Housing). Available online: https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/PDF/gc5sgubzvcgqjgvy1wehiz5o/5/1997.pdf . Accessed April 21, 2023. Hough Stansbury Woodland Naylor Dance Limited (HSWNDL), D.R. Poulton & Associates, and Andrew Scheinman 1994 Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Volume II: Technical Appendix. Prepared for The Seaton Interim Planning Team (Ontario Ministry of Housing). Available online: https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=171292&page=1&searchid=f2b46e7f- f70c-4e33-9388-47120f8925b7. Accessed April 21, 2023. J.H. Beers & Co. 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario, Ont. Toronto: Gorrell, Craig & Co. Lith. Johnson, L.A. 1973 History of the County of Ontario 1615-1875. Whitby: The Corporation of the County of Ontario. Laurie Smith Heritage Consulting (LSHC), Amy Barnes Consulting, and Chris Uchiyama Heritage 2015 Cultural Heritage Property Evaluation Report: 940 Whitevale Road, Pickering, Ontario. Report on file with the City of Pickering. Available online: https://corporate.pickering.ca/weblink/1/doc/152701/Electronic.aspx. Accessed November 1, 2022. Law, Minnie 1997 “Interview: Myrtle (Ellicott) Forde Interviewing Her Aunt, Minnie Law, Now Deceased.” The Ellicott Family History. Sourced from the Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. Available online: https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/0/edoc/171212/607.pdf. Accessed June 18, 2023. - 245 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 61 Library and Archives Canada (LAC) 1851 1851 Census of Canada East, Canada West, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. Schedule: A; Roll: C-11742; Page: 15; Line: 19. https://www.ancestrylibrary.com/discoveryui- content/view/150438:1061?tid=&pid=&queryId=474db182ad1dd429442c87c9767f1f18&_phsrc=vhT322 &_phstart=successSource. Library and Archives Canada (LAC) 1851 Census of 1851 (Canada East, Canada West, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia). Schedule: A; Roll: C- 11742; Page: 51; Line: 30. Library and Archives Canada (LAC) 1851 Census of 1851 (Canada East, Canada West, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia). Schedule: A; Roll: C- 11742; Page: 175; Line: 46. Library and Archives Canada (LAC) 1861 Census Returns for 1861. Roll: C-1059. https://www.ancestrylibrary.com/discoveryui- content/view/797761327:1570?tid=&pid=&queryId=474db182ad1dd429442c87c9767f1f18&_phsrc=vhT 322&_phstart=successSource Library and Archives Canada (LAC) 1871 Census of Canada, 1871. Roll: C-9973; Page: 82. Library and Archives Canada (LAC) 1881 1881 Census of Canada. Roll: C_13244; Page: 43; Family No: 201. https://www.ancestrylibrary.com/discoveryui- content/view/3027134:1577?tid=&pid=&queryId=474db182ad1dd429442c87c9767f1f18&_phsrc=vhT32 2&_phstart=successSource Library and Archives Canada (LAC) 1891 1891 Census of Canada. Roll: T-6358; Family No: 157. Available online: https://www.ancestrylibrary.com/discoveryui- content/view/2639152:1274?tid=&pid=&queryId=474db182ad1dd429442c87c9767f1f18&_phsrc=vhT32 2&_phstart=successSource. Library and Archives Canada (LAC) 1901 1901 Census of Canada. Series RG31-C-1. Microfilm reels: T-6428 to T-6556. Page: 9; Family No: 95. Lingertat, Sharon 2021 Seaton TFPM Inc. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Available online: https://pub- trca.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=7529. Accessed June 15, 2023. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 2012 Central Pickering Development Plan. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Available online: https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/resources/CPDP_EN_2012_ACC.pdf. Accessed April 21, 2023. - 246 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 62 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 2022 Proposed Revocation of the Central Pickering Development Plan. Available online: https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019- 6174#:~:text=The%20revocation%20of%20the%20Central,amended%20on%20March%2025%2C%2020 04.Accessed May 1, 2023. Mishkodeh Centre for Indigenous Knowledge n.d. History. Available online: https://mishkodeh.org/history/. Accessed October 27, 2022. Ontario Land Registry (OLR) 2022 Abstract/Parcel Register Book. Durham (40). Township of Pickering. Book 211. Lot 27, Concession 5. Onland Online database. Available online: https://www.onland.ca/ui/40/books/60706/viewer/572078977?page=195. Accessed December 19, 2022 Ontario Municipal Board 2018 Seaton – Major Residential Draft Plan. Available online: https://wdra.ca/wp- content/uploads/2018/05/Seaton-Draft-Plans.pdf. Accessed April 21, 2023. Scheinman, A. 2004 Seaton Built Heritage Assessment. Prepared for the North Pickering Land Exchange Team, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Planning and Development Division. Report on file with the City of Pickering. Available online: https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/0/edoc/171293/2024.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2023 Simpson, Pamela Hemenway 1999 Cheap, Quick, & Easy: Imitative Architectural Materials, 1870-1930. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Surtees, R.J. 1984 Indian Land Surrenders in Ontario 1763-1867. Ottawa: Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Government of Canada. 1986 Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties. [Indigenous] and Northern Affairs, Government of Canada, Ottawa. The Pickering News 1887a “Burial at Bethel.” The Pickering News. September 16, 1887. VI(46). The Pickering News 1887b “Suddenly Killed.” The Pickering News. September 9, 1887. VI(45). - 247 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 63 Town of Ajax 2021 “Individually Designated Heritage Properties: Properties Designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.” Town of Ajax. Available online: https://images.ourontario.ca/ajax/2305369/page/7?n=. Accessed June 14, 2023. Tremaine, G.R. and G.M. Tremaine 1860 Tremaine’s Map of the County of Ontario, Canada West. Scale 1:39,600. Toronto: G.R. & G.M. Tremaine. Union Publishing Company of Ingersoll 1908 “Farmers and Business Directory for the Counties of Haliburton, Ontario, Peterborough, Victoria and York, 1908, Vol. XV.” Union Publishing Company of Ingersoll. Available online: https://digitalarchive.tpl.ca/objects/197932/union-publishing-companys-farmers-and-business-directory- fo?ctx=e067c009e165b8d0bfb467ab1dfbb1141bbfd153&idx=11. Accessed April 13, 2023. Whitevale 2022 History of Whitevale. Available online: http://www.whitevale.ca/history.html. Accessed October 31, 2022. Wood, W.R. 1911 Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Community. Toronto: William Briggs. Wright, Robert 1996 “The Transformation of a Landscape: How the Seaton Process Worked.” Places. 10(3). Available online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0sd7s7hm. Accessed May 1, 2023. - 248 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Recommendations Report Infrastructure Ontario Project 65398 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847) Part of Lot 18, Concession 5 Former Geographic Township of Pickering, Ontario County Now City of Pickering Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario Prepared for: GHD Ltd. 70 York Street, Suite 801 Toronto, ON M5J 1S9 Prepared by: TMHC Inc. 1108 Dundas Street Unit 105 London, ON N5W 3A7 519-641-7222 tmhc.ca Project No: 2023-060 Revised Draft: September 25, 2023 $WWDFKPHQW - 249 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Recommendations Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GHD Limited (GHD) on behalf of Infrastructure Ontario (IO) has engaged TMHC Inc. (TMHC) to produce a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Recommendations Report (CHERR) for the provincially-owned residential property at 1740 5th Concession Road in the Township of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (the “Subject Property”) (Property No. N70847; Project 65398). The purpose of this CHERR is to evaluate the potential cultural heritage value and interest (CHVI) of the property based on the research and analysis summarized in the accompanying Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER). The CHER and accompanying CHERR have been triggered by the planned demolition of a residential structure (B80112) within the subject property. The Subject Property at 1740 5th Concession Road consists of a 2.89 ha (7.13 ac) parcel containing a one-and- a-half storey vernacular farmhouse (B80112) constructed prior to 1887. The Subject Property is associated with a former farmstead and is located on the north side of 5th Concession Road, east of Brock Road, in Lot 18, Concession 5 of the Geographic Township of Pickering. The property is part of the Seaton Lands, a 1,254.5 ha (3,100 ac) redevelopment parcel in Pickering under provincial management and ownership. As the Subject Property is provincially-owned, the assessment will be conducted in accordance with IO standards, as part of their internal due diligence process as per the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (SGCPHP) including the Ministry of Infrastructure’s 2016 Heritage Identification and Evaluation Process, the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and in accordance with Ontario Regulations 9/06 (as amended by O.Reg. 569/22) and 10/06, as well as the Ontario Heritage Act (RSO 1990). The property at 1740 5th Concession Road is not listed on the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). A 2015 heritage assessment conducted on behalf of the City of Pickering determined the Subject Property contained modest contextual value but did not warrant individual designation under Section 29 of the OHA. This study evaluated the property against the criteria set out by the OHA’s O.Reg. 9/06 (as amended by O. Reg. 569/22). The property was not evaluated against the criteria set out by the OHA’s O. Reg. 10/06. This CHERR is intended to: • provide a heritage evaluation of the property at 1740 5th Concession Road against the criteria set out by the OHA’s O.Reg. 9/06 (as amended by O.Reg. 569/22) and O.Reg. 10/06; • identify the heritage attributes of the property; and • provide a draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value (SCHV) should it be found to meet the criteria of either or both regulations. This CHERR was conducted in compliance with the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism’s (MCM) SGCPHP including the Ministry of Infrastructure’s 2016 Heritage Identification and Evaluation Process. Evaluation of the Subject Property against the O.Reg. 9/06 criteria (as amended by O.Reg. 569/22) concluded that the property does not meet the criteria and therefore does not have local cultural heritage significance or interest. Evaluation of the Subject Property against the O.Reg. 10/06 criteria concluded that the property does not meets the criteria for consideration as a Provincial Heritage Property of Provincial Significance. Despite not meeting either O.Reg. 9/06 or O.Reg. 10/06 and although the building is in poor condition, certain materials may be salvageable as part of demolition activities. The City of Pickering has recently - 250 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Recommendations Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON ii indicated a preference for salvage options to be explored in similar circumstances. Materials for salvage consideration may include stone comprising the foundation, clapboard siding, interior window and door trim, doors, and built-in cupboards, pressed metal ceiling panels and mouldings, and wainscoting. - 251 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Recommendations Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON iii Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ i List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... iii List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................................... iv Project Personnel ................................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................ v Territorial Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................. vi About TMHC ........................................................................................................................................ vii Key Staff Bios ........................................................................................................................................ vii Statement of Qualifications and Limitations ...................................................................................... x Quality Information .............................................................................................................................. xi 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Report Scope and Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Client Contact Information ..................................................................................................................................... 2 2 Evaluation Against O.Reg. 9/06 Criteria ................................................................................. 3 3 Evaluation Against O.Reg. 10/06 Criteria ............................................................................... 6 4 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value ................................................................................... 8 5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 9 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847) O.Reg. 9/06 Evaluation (as amended by O.Reg. 569/22) ............ 3 Table 2: 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847) O. Reg. 10/06 Evaluation ..................................................................... 6 - 252 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Recommendations Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON iv LIST OF ACRONYMS CHER Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report CHERR Cultural Heritage Recommendations Report CHVI Cultural Heritage Value or Interest HIA Heritage Impact Assessment IO Infrastructure Ontario MCM Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism OHA Ontario Heritage Act SGCPHP Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties - 253 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Recommendations Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON v PROJECT PERSONNEL Principal Holly Martelle, PhD Senior Reviewer Josh Dent, PhD, CAHP Project Manager Joan Crosbie, MA, CAHP Cultural Heritage Specialist Hayden Bulbrook, MA Community Engagement Lead Sheila Creighton Project Administrator Kellie Theaker, CHRP Health and Safety Coordinator Wendi Jakob, C. Tech, CAPM GIS Technicians Andrew Turner, BA John Moody, PhD ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Alderville First Nation Dr. Julia Kapyrka City of Pickering Brandon Weiler, Principal Planner Ministry of Citizenship Karla Barboza and Multiculturalism Joseph Harvey Ontario Heritage Trust Samuel Bayefsky, Real Property Coordinator Pickering Public Library Jessica Lanziner - 254 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Recommendations Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON vi TERRITORIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Subject Property is located on the treaty and traditional lands of the Michi Saagiig and Chippewa Anishinaabe (conventionally referred to as the Williams Treaties First Nations of Alderville First Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation, Scugog Island First Nation, Rama First Nation, Beausoleil First Nation, and Georgina Island First Nation) and the traditional lands of the Huron-Wendat Nation. This Subject Property is part of the Williams Treaties of 1923 and the 2018 Williams Treaties Settlement Agreement which reaffirmed the harvesting rights of Williams Treaties First Nations across all pre- confederation treaties: 5, 16, 18, 20, 27, 27 ¼, Gunshot Treaty, and the Crawford Purchase. The Indigenous signatories of these treaties continue to be contemporary stewards of these lands. - 255 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Recommendations Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON vii ABOUT TMHC Established in 2003 with a head office in London, Ontario, TMHC Inc. (TMHC) provides a broad range of archaeological assessment, heritage planning and interpretation, cemetery, and community consultation services throughout the Province of Ontario. We specialize in providing heritage solutions that suit the past and present for a range of clients and intended audiences, while meeting the demands of the regulatory environment. Over the past two decades, TMHC has grown to become one of the largest privately-owned heritage consulting firms in Ontario and is today the largest predominately woman-owned Cultural Resource Management (CRM) business in Canada. Since 2004, TMHC has held retainers with Infrastructure Ontario, Hydro One, the Ministry of Transportation, Metrolinx, the City of Hamilton, the City of Barrie, and Niagara Parks Commission. In 2013, TMHC earned the Ontario Archaeological Society’s award for Excellence in CRM. Our seasoned expertise and practical approach have allowed us to manage a wide variety of large, complex, and highly sensitive projects to successful completion. Through this work, we have gained corporate experience in helping our clients work through difficult issues to achieve resolution. TMHC is skilled at meeting established deadlines and budgets, maintaining a healthy and safe work environment, and carrying out quality heritage activities to ensure that all projects are completed diligently and safely. Additionally, we have developed long-standing relationships of trust with Indigenous and descendent communities across Ontario and a good understanding of community interests and concerns in heritage matters, which assists in successful project completion. TMHC is a Living Wage certified employer with the Ontario Living Wage Network and a member of the Canadian Federation for Independent Business. KEY STAFF BIOS Holly Martelle, PhD – Principal Holly Martelle earned a PhD from the University of Toronto based on her research on Iroquoian populations in southern Ontario. In addition to 16 years of experience in the road building and aggregate industries, Dr. Martelle has worked as a Heritage Planner at the now MCM and has taught at several universities throughout the province. In 2003, she founded TMHC with Dr. Peter Timmins and in 2013 the firm was honored with the Ontario Archaeological Society’s award for Excellence in Cultural Resource Management. Holly is an experienced Project Manager and has demonstrated throughout her career the ability to manage complex projects, meeting project deliverables cost effectively and to the highest standard of quality. Under her leadership, TMHC has made a commitment to innovation, creating solutions that meet the project specific goals and also address the long-term needs of our clients. Holly is a skilled relationship builder with longstanding relationships with the Indigenous communities throughout Ontario, and other Descendant communities and organizations including the Ontario Black History Society. Ongoing and sustained communication with communities has proven an effective means of ensuring participation from Descendant communities in meeting and exceeding consultation requirements. Through her work on several high level and sensitive provincial projects she has developed an understanding - 256 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Recommendations Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON viii of what works in the consultation process to ensure that it is effective in providing the client and the project with the information needed to be successful. Holly is a Past-President of the Ontario Archaeological Society, and is also an active member of the Canadian Archaeological Association, the Society for Historic Archaeology, the Ontario Association for Impact Assessment, and the Council for Northeastern Historical Society. Joshua Dent, PhD, CAHP – Manager – Community Engagement & Heritage Division Joshua (Josh) has worked extensively on cultural heritage and archaeological assessments in Ontario and Western Canada. Josh’s role at TMHC has involved background research, community consultation, report production, and project management. Josh specializes in multi-faceted heritage studies including large-scale inventories, environmental assessments, and complex institutional assessments. In his role at TMHC, he regularly communicates with Indigenous communities and a variety of heritage stakeholders. These efforts were recently recognized as part of the Oakville Harbour Cultural Heritage Landscape Strategy Implementation which received the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals’ 2021 Award of Merit for Documentation & Planning. He has volunteered extensively with the heritage community in London, Ontario, in both municipal and not-for-profit roles. Josh is professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). Joan Crosbie, MA, CAHP – Manager – Cultural Heritage Joan has extensive cultural heritage management experience in both the private and public sectors with a strong background in preservation services, built and landscape heritage assessment, archival/historical research, and Museums services. She earned her MA in Architectural History from York University. In her role in Preservation Services with the Toronto Historical Board (City of Toronto), Joan was part of a small team of professionals who advised City Council on a broad range of heritage preservation and planning matters. Later, as Curator of Casa Loma, she gained extensive experience as part of the Senior Management team and honed her skills in cultural and community engagement and was a key staff liaison with the restoration architects and skilled trades as the Casa Loma Estate underwent a major exterior restoration program. More recently, as Manager of Culture and Community Services, Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, Joan managed the Heritage and Museums services portfolios and has widened her experience in cultural planning to include the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings and historic main street revitalization. She has published articles on architecture and architectural preservation for a wide range of organizations, including the Canadian Society for Industrial Heritage, the City of Toronto and the Society for the Study of Architecture in Canada. Joan is professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). Hayden Bulbrook, MA – Cultural Heritage Specialist Hayden holds a BA in History and Political Science from the University of Ottawa and an MA in History from the University of Waterloo. Hayden has extensive experience analyzing archival documents, fire insurance plans, city directories, historic maps and photography, and other primary source material, and specializes in historic, building material, and architectural research. As part of the Cultural Heritage team at TMHC, Hayden is involved in drafting cultural heritage evaluation reports, heritage impact assessments, and other projects. - 257 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Recommendations Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON ix Prior to coming to TMHC in 2021, Hayden worked on a contract with the City of Ottawa to assess the architectural integrity of the built environment in the Byward Market and Lowertown West heritage conservation districts. With an interest in public engagement, education, and advocacy for heritage conservation, Hayden actively participates as an executive member for the Stratford-Perth branch of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario. He works on digital history projects that showcase Ontario’s architectural history as well as the history of the City of Stratford, with a focus on analyzing the architectural, economic, and environmental history of the city. Hayden actively publishes historical columns in the Stratford Times and the Stratford-Perth ACO publication More Than Bricks & Mortar. Hayden is a member of the International Committee for the Conservation of Industrial Heritage (TICCIH) and the Canadian Business History Association. Sheila Creighton – Community Engagement Lead Sheila is strategic, collaborative, communications professional with 30 years of experience in the areas of heritage, culture and environment in Ontario. Her areas of expertise include community engagement, stakeholder relations, writing, digital and print production, photography and publishing. Sheila received a Media Arts diploma from Sheridan College, where she also had the role of Station Manager at Radio Sheridan. She is a published author of several history books, many articles and a daily photoblog. Prior to joining TMHC, Sheila promoted heritage provincially, regionally and municipally including roles as Communications Director with the Ontario Historical Society, Communications Coordinator with Oakville Museum and Senior Corporate Communications Officer with the Town of Oakville. Most recently she worked in the environmental sector helping build ReForest London through marketing and partnership development. In her role with TMHC, Sheila works with the Cultural Heritage, Indigenous Engagement and Business Development teams. - 258 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Recommendations Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON x STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by Timmins Martelle Heritage Consultants Inc. (TMHC) for the benefit of the Client (the “Client”) in accordance with the agreement between TMHC and the Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”). The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”): • is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”); • represents TMHC’s professional judgment in light of the Limitation and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports; • may be based on information provided to TMHC which has not been independently verified; • has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued; • must be read as a whole and section thereof should not be read out of such context; • was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement. TMHC shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no obligation to update such information. TMHC accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time. TMHC agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but TMHC makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof. Except (1) as agreed to in writing by TMHC and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied upon only by Client. TMHC accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of TMHC to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use. This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof. - 259 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Recommendations Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON xi QUALITY INFORMATION Report prepared by: _______________________ Hayden Bulbrook, MA Cultural Heritage Specialist Report prepared by: _______________________ Joan Crosbie, MA, CAHP Manager, Cultural Heritage Report reviewed by: _______________________ Joshua Dent, PhD, CAHP Senior Reviewer Report reviewed by: _______________________ Holly Martelle, PhD Principal - 260 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Recommendations Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Report Scope and Purpose GHD Ltd. (GHD) on behalf of Infrastructure Ontario (IO) has engaged TMHC Inc. (TMHC) to produce a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Recommendations Report (CHERR) for the provincially-owned residential property at 1740 5th Concession Road in the Township of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (the “Subject Property”) (Property No. N70847; Project 65398). The purpose of this CHERR is to evaluate the potential cultural heritage value and interest (CHVI) of the property based on the research and analysis summarized in the accompanying Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER). The CHER and accompanying CHERR have been triggered by the planned demolition of a residential structure (B80112) with the subject property. The Subject Property at 1740 5th Concession Road consists of a 2.89 ha (7.13 ac) parcel containing a one-and- a-half storey vernacular farmhouse (B80112) constructed prior to 1887. The Subject Property is associated with a former farmstead and is located on the north side of 5th Concession Road, east of Brock Road, in Lot 18, Concession 5 of the Geographic Township of Pickering. The property is part of the Seaton Lands, a 1,254.5 ha (3,100 ac) redevelopment parcel in Pickering under provincial management and ownership. As the Subject Property is provincially-owned, the assessment will be conducted in accordance with IO standards, as part of their internal due diligence process as per the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (SGCPHP) including the Ministry of Infrastructure’s 2016 Heritage Identification and Evaluation Process, the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and in accordance with Ontario Regulations 9/06 (as amended by O.Reg. 569/22) and 10/06, as well as the Ontario Heritage Act (RSO 1990). The property at 1740 5th Concession Road is not listed on the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). A 2015 heritage assessment conducted on behalf of the City of Pickering determined the Subject Property contained modest contextual value but did not warrant individual designation under Section 29 of the OHA. This study evaluated the property against the criteria set out by the OHA’s O.Reg. 9/06. The property was not evaluated against the criteria set out by the OHA’s O. Reg. 10/06. This CHERR is intended to: • provide a heritage evaluation of the property at 1740 5th Concession Road against the criteria set out by the OHA’s O.Reg. 9/06 (as amended by O.Reg. 569/22) and O.Reg. 10/06; • identify the heritage attributes of the property; and • provide a draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value (SCHV) should it be found to meet the criteria of either or both regulations. - 261 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Recommendations Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 2 1.2 Methodology This CHERR was prepared in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Toolkit’s Guide to Heritage Property Evaluation, the MCM’s Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties including the Ministry of Infrastructure’s 2016 Heritage Identification and Evaluation Process, and the OHA’s O.Reg. 9/06 (as amended by O.Reg. 569/22) and O.Reg. 10/06. For the purposes of preparing this report, Hayden Bulbrook and Joan Crosbie visited the Subject Property on May 30, 2023. 1.3 Client Contact Information Janet Oswald Environmental Planner GHD Ltd. 70 York Street, Suite 801 Toronto, ON M5J 1S9 Janet.Oswald@ghd.com - 262 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Recommendations Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 3 2 EVALUATION AGAINST O.REG. 9/06 CRITERIA The Subject Property at 1740 5th Concession Road is not designated under Part IV or Part V of the OHA. There are no National Historic Sites, Ontario Heritage Trust-owned properties, conservation easements, or Provincial Heritage Properties present on or adjacent to the Subject Property as verified by the Ontario Heritage Trust and the MCM. Based on the research summarized in Section 3.0 of the CHER, the following table considers the Subject Property with respect to the OHA’s Ontario Regulation 9/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (as amended by O.Reg. 569/22). A property may be designated under Section 29 of the OHA if it meets two or more of the following criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest. Table 1: 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847) O.Reg. 9/06 Evaluation (as amended by O.Reg. 569/22) Criterion Summary of Response 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. No; the building (B80112) on the property is of a vernacular late 19th century design. Therefore, it is not a rare, unique representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. No; while the building on the property retains its clapboard envelope and pressed metal kitchen ceiling, it is of a vernacular design that does not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has a design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. No; despite the use of clapboard which likely involved riftsawn boards, and the use of pressed metal ceiling tiles in the kitchen, these materials were relatively common in the late 19th century. The building is of a vernacular design and, accordingly, the property does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. No; the house on the Subject Property was likely constructed by English immigrant Joseph Ellicott. Ellicott, who arrived in Canada in 1843, had lived nearby in a log cabin on Lot 17, Concession 4. Ellicott preached at the church on Lot 17 (since demolished) that was associated with the adjacent Old Bible Christian Cemetery (later the Bethel Church Burial Ground). In 1887, Ellicott fell to his death from scaffolding erected on this property and was buried in this cemetery. Although noteworthy in a local context, these associations do not rise to a level of significance that meets this criteria. There is not sufficient information available to suggest that Ellicott - 263 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Recommendations Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 4 Criterion Summary of Response had a significant impact in Pickering Township. Even if Ellicott was a significant figure, this association may be better represented elsewhere. For example, the Gothic Revival style house at 566 Kingston Road, Ajax (Designated under Part IV of the OHA) was likely constructed by Ellicott in 1883. As a member of the Bible Christian Church, this house may have also served as a gathering space for church services. In the designating by-law, historical associative significance appears to be derived more from the location’s association with the church than with Ellicott himself. It is unclear why Ellicott’s house at 1740 5th Concession Road was constructed just four years after the completion of his house on Kingston Road. 5. The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. No; while the house on the Subject Property was likely constructed by Joseph Ellicott, its existence as a vernacular structure does not yield, or have the potential to yield, sufficient information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. Unlike Ellicott’s property at 566 Kingston Road (Designated under Part IV of the OHA), there is neither evidence nor has it been suggested that the house at 1740 5th Concession Road was used as a church. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community. No; when compared to the clapboard construction of the house at 566 Kingston Road (Designated under Part IV of the OHA) there are stylistic similarities to indicate that both buildings may be attributed to Joseph Ellicott himself or possibly to a builder hired on his behalf. However, given the vernacular character and the poor-to-fair condition of the extant house at 1740 5th Concession Road, the house at 566 Kingston Road, Ajax, is a more substantial reflection of Ellicott’s work. Accordingly, the Subject Property does not substantially reflect the work of Ellicott. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. No; in its current state, the property does not play an important role in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of the area, especially as the rural context has increasingly diminished as a result of the - 264 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Recommendations Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 5 Criterion Summary of Response ongoing planning and construction activities related to the development of the Seaton Lands. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. Yes; the property contains a house that contributes to the cultural heritage value of this section of 5th Concession Road. Although overgrowth on the property itself and more recent construction as part of the Seaton Lands redevelopment has detracted from the visual linkage to the Bethel Church Burial Ground to the east, the house still maintains a historical linkage to the cemetery. The Bethel Church Burial Ground is the resting place of Joseph Ellicott and Susan Tolsher, the original owners of the house at 1740 5th Concession Road. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. No; the property is not a landmark. Based on the research and analysis summarized in the accompanying CHER, the property at 1740 5th Concession Road was not found to meet the O.Reg. 9/06 criteria (as amended by O.Reg. 569/22). - 265 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Recommendations Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 6 3 EVALUATION AGAINST O.REG. 10/06 CRITERIA Based on the research summarized in Section 3.0 of the CHER, the following table considers the Subject Property with respect to the OHA’s Ontario Regulation 10/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of Provincial Significance. According to the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties, if the property meets one or more of the criteria in O.Reg. 10/06, it may be considered a Provincial Heritage Property of Provincial Significance. Table 2: 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847) O. Reg. 10/06 Evaluation Criterion Summary of Response 1. The property represents or demonstrates a theme or pattern in Ontario’s history. No; the Subject Property is a modest residential parcel in Ontario located within an agricultural area that is in transition to a mixed use residential and commercial area. It does not represent or demonstrate a theme or pattern that rises to this level of significance. 2. The property yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of Ontario’s history. No; as a modest residential parcel, the Subject Property does not 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. No; although the Subject Property’s configuration has evolved from its original layout, it represents a modest and relatively common rural residential parcel featuring a late-19th century structure. As such, 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. No; the Subject Property represents a modest rural residential parcel and is not of aesthetic, visual or contextual importance to the province. 5. The property demonstrates a high degree of excellence or creative, technical or scientific achievement at a provincial level in a given period. No; the Subject Property contains a vernacular 19th century one-and-a-half storey farmhouse that does not demonstrate a 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. No; the Subject Property does not have a strong or special association with the entire province or with a community that is found in more than one part of the province. 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. No; 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. It does not have a strong or special association with an event of importance to the province. - 266 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Recommendations Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 7 Criterion Summary of Response 8. The property is located in unorganized territory and the Minister determines that there is a provincial interest in the protection of the property. No; the Subject Property is not located in an unorganized territory. Based on the research and analysis summarized in the accompanying CHER, the Subject Property at 1740 5th Concession Road was not found to meet the O. Reg. 10/06 criteria prescribed for a Provincial Heritage Property of Provincial Significance. - 267 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Recommendations Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 8 4 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE With respect to the OHA’s O.Reg. 9/06 criteria (as amended by O.Reg. 569/22), the evaluation determined that the Subject Property only meets one of the nine criteria. As such, it does not have local cultural heritage significance. Under O.Reg. 9/06 (as amended by O.Reg. 569/22) a property may only be designated under Section 29 of the Act if it meets two or more of the criteria. With respect to the OHA’s O. Reg 10/06 criteria, the evaluation determined that the Subject Property does not meet the criteria for consideration as a Provincial Heritage Property of Provincial Significance. - 268 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Recommendations Report 1740 5th Concession Road (N70847), Pickering, ON 9 5 CONCLUSION This CHERR consists of an evaluation of the potential cultural heritage value or interest of the property at 1740 5th Concession Road, based on the research and analysis summarized in an accompanying CHER. With respect to the OHA’s O.Reg. 9/06 criteria (as amended by O.Reg. 569/22), the evaluation determined that the Subject Property only meets one of the nine criteria. As such, it does not have local cultural heritage significance. With respect to the OHA’s O. Reg 10/06 criteria, the evaluation determined that the Subject Property does not meet the criteria for consideration as a Provincial Heritage Property of Provincial Significance. Despite not meeting either O.Reg. 9/06 or O.Reg. 10/06 and although the building is in poor condition, certain materials may be salvageable as part of demolition activities. The City of Pickering has recently indicated a preference for salvage options to be explored in similar circumstances. Materials for salvage consideration may include stone comprising the foundation, clapboard siding, interior window and door trim, doors, and built-in cupboards, pressed metal ceiling panels and mouldings, and wainscoting. - 269 -