Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PLN 10-24
Report to Council Report Number: PLN 10-24 Date: March 25, 2024 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: 301 Kingston Road - Part IV Designation of 301 Kingston Road - File: A-3300-084 Recommendation: 1. That appropriate City of Pickering officials be given authority to take the necessary actions to designate 301 Kingston Road (known historically as the Toynevale Farm) under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and include the property on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register. 2. That staff be authorized to take the appropriate actions to require the property owner to apply for, and obtain, the necessary building permits and heritage alteration permits to secure and stabilize the building at 301 Kingston Road, and to reinstate the missing elements of the structure to bring the building into compliance with the minimum requirements of the Ontario Building Code. Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s approval to proceed with the Part IV designation of 301 Kingston Road (see Location Map, Attachment 1), under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. At the meeting held on November 22, 2023, the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee (HPAC) passed a motion recommending that City Council designate 301 Kingston Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and to serve the property owner with a Notice of Intention to Designate. At the January 8, 2024, Executive Committee meeting, City staff recommended the Part IV designation of 301 Kingston Road, as set out in Report PLN 01-24. At the request of the property owner (whose legal representative delegated at this meeting), the Committee deferred its decision to designate 301 Kingston Road until further evaluations were completed. On February 6, 2024, the property owner submitted a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) and a Condition Assessment. The property owner also submitted a demolition permit application on the same day, thereby starting the 60-day timeline for Council to either permit the demolition of the structure or to proceed with designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The 60-day timeline imposed on City staff by the property owner did not allow for sufficient time for meaningful collaboration with the owner and his consultants. Additionally, the owner was unavailable for a period of time, which delayed staff access to the property, resulting in further delays for the City’s consultant (WSP Canada Inc.) to complete the technical peer review of the Condition Assessment letter. PLN 10-24 March 25, 2024 Subject: 301 Kingston Road Page 2 Based on their site visit and a review of available information, WSP Canada Inc. (WSP) is not in agreement with the findings of the Condition Assessment Letter provided by Clark Engineering, which stated the building was structurally unsound and should therefore be demolished. WSP determined that, while the ground-floor structure was recently found to be in poor condition, the remainder of the structure is overall in good to fair condition and may be salvaged and re-used. Upon reviewing the results of the site visit archival research, and the application of Ontario Regulation 9/06, staff considers the property at 301 Kingston Road to be worthy of designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The property was found to meet four of the nine criteria for its retained physical value, associative value, contextual value, and for its value as a landmark in the community. Based on a review of the HIA and WSP’s technical peer review of the Condition Assessment Letter, staff recommend that the property be designated under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and that the owner obtain the required building and heritage permits to secure and stabilize the building at 301 Kingston Road, and continue to work with staff to rebuild the existing building to its pre-2021 condition. Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of Champion Economic Leadership and Innovation; Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community; and Strengthen Existing & Build New Partnerships. Financial Implications: No direct financial implications for the City are associated with the recommended action to designate the subject property. Discussion: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s approval to designate 301 Kingston Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and for staff to take the appropriate steps to require the owner to apply for, and obtain, the appropriate building and heritage permits to secure and stabilize the existing heritage structure with the intent to reinstate the building to its pre-2021 condition. 1. Council Direction On January 8, 2024, the Executive Committee considered staff recommendation Report PLN 01-24 to seek the Part IV designation of the property at 301 Kingston Road. Upon considering the delegation of Iain T. Donnell (legal representative for the property owner), Report PLN 01-24 was referred back to staff to allow further City engagement with the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, the property owner, and Donnell Law Group, regarding the designation of 301 Kingston Road under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. A brief discussion ensued between Members of Council and Mr. Donnell, where assurance was provided by Mr. Donnell that the property would be left in a safe state with no further destruction or damage to the site until the item was brought back to Committee. Staff were directed to report back to Council no later than the second quarter of 2024. PLN 10-24 March 25, 2024 Subject: 301 Kingston Road Page 3 2.The building retains Cultural Heritage Value or Interest The subject property at 301 Kingston Road is valued as a rare example of a Georgian house in the City of Pickering, dating to the mid-1800s. Although altered, the house retains its physical attributes, including its scale, massing, and orientation towards Kingston Road, and is the only surviving two-storey Georgian house in the City of Pickering. The timber-frame construction of the house is unique in the City, with only two known examples surviving. The property is historically linked to its surroundings for its associations with the Rouge Hill Community, and is one of the few remaining buildings from the early settlement of the community. The property is directly linked to George Toyne Jr., who was a prominent Rouge Hill citizen, active in raising funds for the Victory Loan campaign, an original member of the Rouge Hill School Board, a Warden of St. Paul’s Anglican Church, and a Past Master of the Doric Lodge. The subject property at 301 Kingston Road is an integral component of the Kingston Road and Altona Road streetscape and is considered a landmark building (Photographs 1-3). Photograph 1: East and north elevations of 301 Kingston Road in 2019 (Branch Architecture 2019) Photograph 3: East and north elevations of 301 Kingston Road in 2024 (LHC 2024) PLN 10-24 March 25, 2024 Subject: 301 Kingston Road Page 4 Photograph 3: View of interior roof structure showing original timber frame construction (WSP 2024) 3. The owner has submitted a Demolition Permit application Under the Ontario Heritage Act, an owner of a property (that is listed on a Municipal Heritage Register) must give Council 60 days notice in writing prior to the removal or demolition of a building. On February 6, 2024 (two weeks after Council ratified its decision to refer this matter back to staff), the owner submitted a demolition permit application to demolish the structure at 301 Kingston Road. Staff considered this permit application to be complete. The owner’s submission of the demolition permit application triggered a 60-day countdown for Council to either permit the demolition of the building or to initiate designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The City must make this decision by April 6, 2024. 4. An updated Condition Assessment Letter has been submitted At the same time the demolition permit application was submitted to the City, the property owner submitted a Condition Assessment of the building at 301 Kingston Road (see Condition Assessment Letter, Attachment 2), prepared by Clark Engineering and dated January 30, 2024. Clark Engineering made the following observations: • The building is structurally unsafe and poses a safety risk to occupants and persons near the building. Remedial action to either demolish or stabilize the building should be taken as soon as practical. • While it is possible to repair the building structure, this option is commercially unreasonable, especially given that only approximately half of the existing building could be salvaged. There is, therefore, very little value to be gained by the substantially increased cost of repair as compared to the construction of a new building. PLN 10-24 March 25, 2024 Subject: 301 Kingston Road Page 5 Given their rationale, it is the consultant's opinion that the building should be demolished. The report provided a Class 5 (Rough Order of Magnitude) estimate for the approximate costs that might be incurred for the demolition of the structure, the repair of the structure and the replacement of the structure. Table 1 below summarizes these costs. Work Demolition Only Repair Structure New Replacement Structure Demolition $50,000 $80,000 $50,000 Stabilize structure (sheathing, connections, etc.) -- $170,000 -- Foundation construction/repair -- $130,000 $50,000 Framing construction/repair -- $350,000 $100,000 Install systems and finishes -- $420,000 $370,000 Total (per square feet) $50,000 ($25) $1,150,000 ($555) $570,000 ($275) 5. WSP has been retained to undertake a technical peer review of the Condition Assessment letter on behalf of the City On February 20, 2024, the City retained WSP to complete a technical peer review of the Condition Assessment letter and to conduct a Conditions Assessment for the building at 301 Kingston Road. WSP suggested the site visit be completed on February 26, February 28, or February 29. However, the property owner was not available. Permission to enter the property was granted on March 1, and the site visit took place on March 6, 2024. WSP’s Miki Brzakovic, a Structural Engineer with experience assessing heritage structures, determined that the ground-floor structure, joists, decking, and beams are in poor condition and need replacement. However, the remainder of the structure is, overall, in good to fair condition and may be salvaged and re-used, the remaining building is assumed to be in sound condition, with no evidence of structural damage or distress. To stabilize the building, WSP recommended that the missing parts of the structure must be reinstated to bring the remainder of the structure in compliance with the minimum requirements of the Ontario Building Code (see Condition Assessment, Attachment 3). PLN 10-24 March 25, 2024 Subject: 301 Kingston Road Page 6 6. The Owner submitted a Documentation and Commemoration Report and a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) LHC, Heritage Planning and Archaeology (LHC) prepared a Documentation and Commemoration Report for the property in April 2022 and an HIA in 2024 (see HIA, Attachment 4). Both reports 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 Documentation and Commemoration Report, completed in 2022, 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 • its location, orientation, and setback The report also recommended several mitigation measures in the event the structure is demolished. The HIA, completed in 2024 by LHC, determined the property now met only one of the nine criteria, and recommended it was not a candidate for designation. However, Section 10.1 of the submitted HIA report noted the property exhibits Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, and as such, City of Pickering Official Plan policies require and encourage conservation. The HIA broadly identified and outlined constraints, and assessed the potential impacts related to the building at 301 Kingston Road. LHC was inconsistent in its evaluation of the property using Ontario Regulation 9/06 to determine if it retained Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Lastly, the report determined the proposed demolition of the building at 301 Kingston Road will result in the removal of the cultural heritage resource and the loss of all heritage attributes. To mitigate the impacts of the proposed demolition, documentation, salvage (as appropriate) and commemoration were determined to be the preferred alternative for the structure at 301 Kingston Road. The HIA noted that demolition will result in the loss of the cultural heritage resource and its heritage attributes. LHC recommended the Documentation and Salvage Report be prepared to incorporate the additional research and evaluation undertaken as part of HIA and to further develop the commemoration plan for the Property. 7. Staff’s review of the Documentation and Commemoration Plan and Heritage Impact Assessment City staff completed a thorough review of the Documentation and Commemoration Plan submitted by LHC in 2022 and the HIA, submitted by LHC in February 2024. City staff does not concur with the findings of the Ontario Regulation 9/06 evaluation completed PLN 10-24 March 25, 2024 Subject: 301 Kingston Road Page 7 for the Documentation and Commemoration Plan or the HIA. Attachment 5 provides the Ontario Regulation 9/06 evaluation as completed by LHC in 2022 and 2024, along with an Ontario Regulation 9/06 evaluation completed by qualified heritage staff. Based on the evaluation completed by staff, the property was found to meet four of the nine criteria, therefore making the property eligible for designation based on the Provincial Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. The property was found to retain physical value, associative value, and contextual value for the following reasons: • the building is the only remaining two-storey Georgian house, and one of six Georgian or Georgian-inspired houses remaining in the City of Pickering • the building retains physical value through its style, massing, and form, including its end gable roof with return eaves, two-storey height, and rectangular plan • the use of timber framing is considered rare in a residential structure • the subject property is directly associated with the development of the Rouge Hill community in the mid-nineteenth century • the subject property is associated with the Rouge Hill post office and postmasters • a local road south of the subject property, Toynevale Road, was given its name due to the association with George Toyne, further indicating his significance to the community • as the earliest surviving building from the settlement of the area, the property, formerly known as Toynevale is historically linked to the settlement of Rouge Hill • the subject property remains an integral part of the streetscape at Kingston and Altona Road and is considered a landmark 8. Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee (HPAC) On November 22, 2023, the HPAC passed a motion recommending that 301 Kingston Road be designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Accordingly, the HPAC recommended City Council be requested to proceed with the designation. As noted earlier in this report, the owner has submitted a formal demolition permit application. The Ontario Heritage Act requires municipal Council to consult with their Heritage Advisory Committee before considering the demolition or removal of property that is on the City’s Municipal Heritage Register. Given the 60-day timeline for Council to consider the demolition permit application, as of this writing, the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee will convene a Special Meeting on Tuesday, March 19, 2024, to review the findings of the Conditions Assessment Letter, the updated HIA, and WSP’s Technical Peer Review and Condition Assessment. This meeting is also required to determine if HPAC remains in favour of the Part IV designation of the structure under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, based on the new information submitted by the property owner and the City’s consultant. PLN 10-24 March 25, 2024 Subject: 301 Kingston Road Page 8 9. Conclusion The Part IV or Part V designation of a property under the Ontario Heritage Act gives Council the power to prevent the demolition of a building or structure on a heritage property. The owner of a designated property must obtain written consent from Council before the demolition of a building on a heritage property. Additionally, owners of properties designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act require a Heritage Permit for most alterations, the construction of new buildings, and hard landscaping. The subject property is valued as a rare example of a Georgian house in the City of Pickering, dating to the mid-1800s. Although altered, the house retains its physical attributes including its scale, massing, and orientation towards Kingston Road, and is the only surviving two-storey Georgian house in the City of Pickering. The timber-frame construction of the house is unique in the City, with only two known examples surviving. The property is historically linked to its surroundings for its associations with the Rouge Hill Community and is one of the few remaining buildings from the early settlement of the community. The property is directly linked to George Toyne Jr. who was a prominent Rouge Hill citizen, active in raising funds for the Victory Loan campaign, an original member of the Rouge Hill School Board, a Warden of St. Paul’s Anglican Church, and a Past Master of the Doric Lodge. The subject property remains an integral component of the Kingston Road and Altona Road streetscape and is considered a landmark building. WSP has peer reviewed the submitted Conditions Letter and staff have reviewed the updated HIA. Based on their review, WSP is not in agreement with the findings of the Condition Assessment Letter provided by Clark Engineering, which stated the building was structurally unsound and should therefore be demolished. Based on the site visit completed on March 6, 2024, it is WSP’s opinion that the ground-floor structure, joists, decking, and beams are in poor condition and need replacement. However, the remainder of the structure is, overall, in good to fair condition and may be salvaged and re-used; no evidence of structural damage or distress was identified. Based on the results of the site visit and previous reporting submitted by the property owner, staff considers the property at 301 Kingston Road worthy of designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Through the application of Ontario Regulation 9/06, the property was found to meet four of the nine criteria for its retained physical value, associative value, contextual value, and value as a landmark building. To ensure its conservation, and to enable the City to provide resources to the owner through the heritage permitting process, City staff recommend proceeding with serving a Notice of Intention to Designate on the subject property. It is recommended that Council designate 301 Kingston Road under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. PLN 10-24 March 25, 2024 Subject: 301 Kingston Road Page 9 Attachments: 1.Location Map, 301 Kingston Road 2.Condition Assessment Letter, prepared by Clarke Engineering, January 30, 2024 3.Condition Assessment, prepared by WSP Canada Inc., March 18, 2024 4.Heritage Impact Assessment: 301 Kingston Road, prepared by LHC Inc., January 31, 2024 5.Table 2: Ontario Regulation 9/06 completed by LHC in 2022, and 2024 and by the City of Pickering in 2024 Prepared By: Original Signed By Emily Game, BA, CAHP Senior Planner, Heritage Original Signed By Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO EG:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer RougemountDrive 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 Pine Ridge Road Rouge Hill Court Da l e w o o d D r i v e K in g sto n R o a d Brookridge Gate Highway 401 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 Attachment 1 to Report PLN 10-24 Authorized by the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario to offer professional engineering services. 8924457 Canada Limited o/a Clarke Engineering 180 Station Street, Unit 33 Ajax, Ontario L1S 1R9 www.ClarkeEngineering.ca 416-220-7550 January 30, 2024 Ed Saki Energy Centre Inc. 420-3583 Sheppard Avenue EastToronto, ON M1T 3K8 Dear Mr. Saki, Re: 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario At your request, I attended at the above-captioned address on December 7, 2023 for the purpose of assessing the condition of the building present there. This report outlines my observations and conclusions. 1. Background 1.1. I understand that the two-storey structure that is currently present is an older structureand was most recently used as a doctor’s office. Subsequently, the exterior aluminum siding and interior drywall were removed to expose the underlying structure to determine the extent of structural decay that was observed by the property owner. The building is currently unoccupied. 1.2. For the purposes of this report, Kingston Road is considered to be at the north side of the property. 2.Documents Reviewed 2.1. The following document was provided to me and was reviewed for general backgroundinformation. •Structural Report, Rev. 1, prepared by Tacoma Engineers, dated December 20,2021. 2.2. No drawings or plans were provided to me. Attachment 2 to Report PLN 10-24 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario 2 3. General Observations 3.1. The building is a two-storey wood-frame structure with a footprint of approximately 1,035 ft2. 3.2. As seen from the basement, the foundation includes concrete masonry units (“CMU”). It is my understanding that the foundations also include rubble or fieldstone portions. Support for the first-floor framing also included wood, steel, and CMU columns. 3.3. The floor framing includes dimensional lumber joists and plank subfloor at both levels. 3.4. The exterior wall structure consists of heavy timber framing supporting the roof and second-storey floor loads. Dimensional lumber studs have been used for the construction of partition walls within the building and to fill in the timber framing at the exterior walls. 3.5. The roof structure consists of dimensional lumber rafters supporting spaced plank roof sheathing. 3.6. The building currently excludes the windows, exterior doors (with the exception of the front door), electrical system, plumbing, including fixtures, interior doors, interior trim, floor, wall and ceiling finishes, insulation, heating and air conditioning systems, fireplace, chimney and interior stairs. 3.7. Fundamentally, all that remains of the building are the structural elements described above (foundation, floor, wall, ceiling and roof structure), the asphalt shingles on the roof, the front door and miscellaneous remnants of systems that have been removed (e.g. disconnected portions of piping, wiring and ductwork). 3.8. The exterior wall structure has been covered with a combination of housewrap and plywood, presumably to provide a measure of security and weather resistance. 4. Foundations 4.1. As seen from the basement, the six-inch CMU walls have not been installed in a workmanlike manner. Example of deficiencies include: • Block courses are not level, • Mortar joints vary significantly in width, • Mortar joints are incomplete, • Vertical mortar joints are not staggered in some locations, • Blocks are not toothed at all corners. 4.2. As previously noted, it is my understanding that this CMU wall was installed to deal with deficiencies in the previous rubble stone foundation wall. It is suspected, but could not be confirmed visually, that the CMU wall was laid inside the deficient rubble stone wall. 4.3. Where a section of flashing was removed from the exterior, CMU is also present at the exterior of the foundation wall as well. 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario 3 5. Floor Structure 5.1. There is significant rot, insect damage, and mechanical damage to the first-floor framing, including both joists and beams. Large sections of framing are missing due to this damage and probing the structural members with a knife yielded soft wood in nearly every joist and beam tested.1 5.2. Where the joists meet the foundation walls, they penetrate the CMU foundation. The CMU is tight to the joists. At several of these locations, significant rot is present in the joists. At the northwest corner, attempts appear to have been made to reinforce the rotted section of the joists by sistering the joists. The reinforcement pieces are far too short to be effective. 5.3. The stairwell opening providing access to the basement was created without reinforcement to the header and trimmer joists around the opening and without adequate connections between framing members. This has substantially weakened the floor structure in this area and is likely the primary reason that the central section of the first-floor framing has dropped approximately three inches2. A support structure consisting of two steel posts and a laid-flat 2”x4” “beam” has been installed on one side of the opening, but this is inadequate for its purpose given that there is no indication of a footing for the posts and the orientation of the “beam” is incorrect3. There is no support structure installed for the other side of the opening. 5.4. At the east end of the basement, there are two large CMU columns. There is no apparent purpose for these. These may have been installed to deal with previous, but no longer present, localized point loads, or may have been installed to address excess floor deflection. 5.5. At the west end of the basement, there are various wood posts installed under various floor framing elements in an apparent effort to add some structural strength to the floor. Some of these posts rest on a re-poured section of the floor slab, suggesting the possible presence of a footing. Others do not. None of the posts has moisture protection at the base. For the most part, the wood being supported by these columns is rotted, and in some cases, it is clear that the supported framing is simply being crushed against the top of these wood posts due to the rot present in the framing. 5.6. At the southwest corner of the basement, a roughly square section of the floor framing has been removed and replaced with new framing. The manner in which this new framing has been installed is substandard and structurally insufficient. The bulk of the load on this section of floor is born by a single joist that is both notched and improperly supported at one end. Much of the rest of the load here is born by a small laid-flat 1 At the time of the site visit, the basement was filled with an overwhelming smell of rot (fungi), requiring the use of a respirator to enter the basement. This not only speaks to the advanced state of rot present in the structure, but also to the health and safety risk to occupants caused by exposure to the undoubtedly numerous species of mould present in the building. 2 The central section of the floor is three inches lower than it is at the perimeter, likely due to the effects of age, rot, mechanical damage and substandard structural modifications to the floor structure as described earlier. 3 This “beam” is a small timber laid flat on its wide face, rather than with its wide face being vertical. This is the weakest orientation of any structural component with respect to bending. 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario 4 timber supported on wood posts with no apparent footing, which is insufficient to support structural loads. 5.7. The second-floor framing does not exhibit the same degree of rot as the first-floor framing. There is, however, some notching and drilling to accommodate electrical and mechanical system components. 5.8. The second-floor joists lack adequate support around the stairwell opening. Portions of the floor are essentially supported by the wood trim around the opening. 6. Frame 6.1. The heavy timber framing at each floor consists of four timber columns spaced evenly across each of the north and south walls. Four timber beams at each floor level run in a north-south direction and are supported by a timber column at each end. Timber beams also span between the columns in the north and south walls. 6.2. Diagonal bracing is present between the beams and columns. This bracing is ineffectively connected to the beams and columns. In some cases, this connection simply appears to consist of one member resting in a loose notch in another member. In some cases, this bracing is too short to be effective as lateral support for the structure. 6.3. At the north wall, the second column from the east has been substantially removed to allow for the installation of a window. No adequate structural reinforcement has been provided here to compensate for the lack of this column. 6.4. At the base of the exterior walls, concrete has been poured into the base of the walls, covering the bottom/sill plate. This was reportedly done by a previous owner in an attempt to temporarily secure the studs as they had rotted at the bottom. This is not a long-term repair as this condition will accelerate rot in the wood at the base of the wall. 7. Roof Framing 7.1. The roof and ceiling framing above the second floor shows evidence of historical water damage, but no significant rot was observed. 7.2. The ceiling framing members generally simply sit in notches present in the beams, without any positive connection. They can be moved by hand. A portion of the ceiling structure is missing at the southeast. 7.3. The roof structure consists of ~2”x6” rafter approximately 24” on centre supported on the south and north exterior walls. There are no purlins, struts, knee walls, collar ties or ridge beam to provide additional structural support. 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario 5 8. Discussion 8.1. The rot present in the first-floor floor framing and the timber-framing at the first-floor level is significant and has damaged the structure to the point that it is my professional assessment that it lacks structural integrity4. The modifications to the structure and inadequate attempts to repair or resupport the structure by previous owners have weakened the structure even further. 8.2. The general lack of adequate lateral support (diagonal bracing or wall sheathing) leaves the building vulnerable to racking and even collapse under extreme wind loads. 8.3. The foundation cannot be positively assessed visually, however the quality of the CMU installation strongly suggests that whatever foundation repairs have been carried out, they are not likely to be reliable in the long term. 8.4. Overall, the building is structurally unsafe5. 8.5. Generally speaking, corrective action might take the form of demolition (with or without reconstruction) or repairing the existing structure. A primary consideration for each of these is that the first-floor floor and wall structures are substantially unsalvageable. A secondary consideration is that the remaining wood-frame structure is in an unstable condition due to the lack of positive connections between elements and a lack of lateral support. 8.6. Given the advanced state of deterioration of the lower half of the framing, there is no practical means of repairing the structure without rebuilding the first-floor walls and floor. This would necessitate removal and reconstruction of most or all of the existing foundation to allow it to receive the new structure. There are obvious implications to the removal of the lower half of a structure, that being that there must be some means of supporting the second floor of the building while the work is being done. Additionally, the instability of the second-floor and roof framing means that bracing and reinforcing of this portion of the building would be required before the supporting structure beneath is repaired. While this approach is possible, it may not be economically feasible, especially given the relatively small amount of original construction that would remain. 8.7. The following table is a broad indication of the approximate costs that might be involved in each of the different approaches. This is a Class 5 (Rough Order of Magnitude) estimate. A more precise estimate can only be determined once the specifications for the project are prepared. The quality and type of materials used will have a significant impact on the cost. It is assumed that for this analysis that if the structure were to be rebuilt, it would be done using modern methods and materials, i.e. “stick” framing. 4 Defined in the Structural Commentary L of the 2010 edition of the NBC-Part 4 of Division B, to mean the ability of a structure to absorb local failure without widespread collapse. 5 As per article 15.9 (2) of the Ontario Building Code Act, “A building is unsafe if the building is, a) structurally inadequate or faulty for the purpose for which it is used; or b) in a condition that could be hazardous to the health or safety of persons in the normal use of the building, persons outside the building or persons whose access to the building has not been reasonably prevented.” 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario 6 Work Demolition Only Repair Structure New Replacement Structure Demolition $50,000 $80,000 $50,000 Stabilize structure (sheathing, connections, etc.) $170,000 Foundation construction/repair $130,000 $50,000 Framing construction/repair $350,000 $100,000 Install systems and finishes $420,000 $370,000 Total (per sq.ft.) $50,000 ($25) $1,150,000 ($555) $570,000 ($275) 8.8. It is important to note that the cost of repairing the structure is significantly higher than rebuilding a new structure not only due to the complications of having to work around and under existing structure, but also due to the increased labour, equipment, and material costs involved in working with heavy timber framing. 8.9. If considering an option to relocate the building, please note that the building is in such poor condition that it is unlikely to withstand the activity and journey associated with relocation. 9. Summary 9.1. The building is structurally unsafe and poses a safety risk to occupants and persons near the building. Remedial action to either demolish or stabilize the building should be taken as soon as practical. 9.2. While it is possible to repair the building structure, this option is commercially unreasonable, especially given that only approximately half of the existing building could be salvaged. There is, therefore, very little value to be gained by the substantially increased cost of repair as compared to the construction of a new building. 9.3. Given the above, it is my professional opinion that the building should be demolished. A selection of representative photographs of some of the conditions described in this report is attached as Annex A. Also attached to this report is my curriculum vitae. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Graham Clarke, M.Sc., P.Eng., RHI Consulting Engineer 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario 7 Annex A – Selected Photographs PHOTO 1 - NORTH ELEVATION. PHOTO 2 - EAST ELEVATION. PHOTO 3 - WEST ELEVATION. PHOTO 4 - SOUTH ELEVATION. PHOTO 5 - BASEMENT SHOWING JOISTS AND MIXED COLUMN TYPES. PHOTO 6 - NOTCHED/DAMAGED JOISTS AND WOOD POSTS - BASEMENT. 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario 8 PHOTO 7 - ROTTED FLOOR JOIST - BASEMENT. PHOTO 8 - ROTTED FLOOR JOIST - BASEMENT. PHOTO 9 - ROTTED FLOOR JOIST - BASEMENT. PHOTO 10 - ROTTED BEAM - BASEMENT. PHOTO 11 - ROTTED BEAM - BASEMENT. PHOTO 12 - ROTTED JOIST - JOIST. 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario 9 PHOTO 13 - INADEQUATE ATTEMPTED REPAIR AT ROTTED JOIST - BASEMENT. PHOTO 14 - INADEQUATE ATTEMPTED REPAIR AT SAGGING FLOOR AROUND STAIRWELL - BASEMENT. PHOTO 15 - NOTCHED/DAMAGED JOIST - BASEMENT. PHOTO 16 - FLOOR OPENING FILLED IN WITH A MIX OF SHORT SECTIONS OF JOISTS - INADEQUATE PIECEMEAL REPAIR - BASEMENT. 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario 10 PHOTO 17 – IMPROPERLY-NOTCHED AND INADEQUATELY- SUPPORTED JOIST SUPPORTING THE SECTION OF FLOOR SHOWN IN PREVIOUS PHOTO - BASEMENT. PHOTO 18 - WOOD POSTS SUPPORTING FLOOR LACK FOOTINGS AND PROVIDE INADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR THE FLOOR DUE TO THE LAID-FLAT STUD ACTING AS A BEAM - BASEMENT. PHOTO 19 - CMU WALL SHOWING LOW-QUALITY MORTAR JOINTS AND LACK OF RUNNING BOND. PHOTO 20 - FIRST FLOOR. 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario 11 PHOTO 21 - FIRST FLOOR. PHOTO 22 - COLUMN CUT AND REMOVED - FIRST FLOOR. PHOTO 23 - SAME AS PREVIOUS PHOTO - THREE BEAMS CONVERGING ON CUT AND REMOVED COLUMN - FIRST FLOOR. PHOTO 24 - SHORT DIAGONAL BRACES FITTED LOOSELY INTO NOTCHES - FIRST FLOOR. PHOTO 25 - WATER STAINS - FIRST FLOOR. PHOTO 26 - CONCRETE POURED AT BASE OF EXTERIOR WALL - FIRST FLOOR. 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario 12 PHOTO 27 - INADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR JOISTS AT STAIRWELL - FIRST FLOOR. PHOTO 28 - SECOND FLOOR. PHOTO 29 - SECOND FLOOR. PHOTO 30 - ROOF FRAMING. PHOTO 31 - LOOSE CEILING FRAMING - SECOND FLOOR. PHOTO 32 - SHORT, LOOSE DIAGONAL BRACES - ONE IS COMPLETELY LOOSE - SECOND FLOOR. 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario 13 PHOTO 33 - LOOSELY-CONNECTED FRAMING - SECOND FLOOR. PHOTO 34 - EMPTY NOTCHES WHERE CEILING FRAMING HAS BEEN REMOVED - SECOND FLOOR. Graham Clarke, M.Sc., P.Eng., RHI, BSS 180 Station Street, Unit 33, Ajax, ON – graham@clarke.engineer Graham Clarke holds degrees in both Mechanical Engineering and Structural and Foundation Engineering and is a Consulting Engineer with 35 years’ experience in the inspection of buildings. Mr. Clarke’s areas of expertise include standard of care issues in the fields of inspection and construction, as well as the analysis and diagnosis of construction and building failures. Mr. Clarke is also an experienced technical trainer. Experience Owner/Consulting Engineer Clarke Engineering, Ajax, ON June 2014 – Present • Operates a consulting engineering practice focused on building inspection, training, and litigation support for construction and home inspection issues. • Provides inspection services related to mechanical, building envelope, and structural systems. • Prepares Expert Witness reports related to construction deficiency and professional liability issues. • Provides technical and soft-skill training for corporate clients and at regional and national building inspection conferences. • Consults on structural design. • Provides thermal imaging inspections with a focus on building envelope performance and leakage issues. • Qualified as an Expert Witness in Ontario Superior Court and Ontario Small Claims Court Vice President, Engineering Carson, Dunlop & Associates Ltd., Consulting Engineers, Toronto, ON May 1989 – May 2014 • Operated the home inspection division of Canada’s largest independent home inspection company with day-to-day, P&L, and strategic responsibilities. • Managed Carson, Dunlop, Rohmann & Associates, the commercial roofing inspection and consulting division of Carson Dunlop. • Hired, trained, supervised and mentored a technical staff of 12 to 18, including Professional Engineers. • Performed thousands of building inspections. • Prepared Expert Witness reports related to construction deficiency and professional liability issues. • Participated in the development and maintenance of report-writing systems, software and technical resource materials. • Taught and facilitated numerous training sessions and seminars at regional and national home inspection conferences, Realtor educational sessions, and other events. Instructor Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology, Toronto, ON Faculty of Continuing Education and Training September 2001 – December 2019 • Instructed various courses in the Home Inspection Certificate Program. • Worked with educational designers as a Subject Matter Expert to design classroom, online, and correspondence courses. Engineering Intern Thermaco Engineering Services (1986) Ltd., Mississauga, ON May 1988 – August 1988 • Performed commercial roofing inspections. • Assisted thermal imaging surveys of roofing and electrical systems. Education Master of Science – Structural and Foundation Engineering Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK 2021 Bachelor of Applied Science – Mechanical Engineering University of Toronto, Toronto, ON 1989 Building Science Certificate University of Toronto, Toronto, ON 2004 Ontario Building Code – Part 9: Building Envelope Ontario Building Code – Part 9: Structural Requirements Seneca College, Toronto, ON 2015 Volunteer/ Ontario Association of Home Inspectors Industry President (2001 – 2002) Canadian Association of Home & Property Inspectors Director (2004 – 2009, 2015); President (2015 – 2019); Past President (2019 – ) Recipient of the Stephen Greenford Award (2009) National Certification Authority for Home Inspectors Founding Chair (2005 – 2007) Canadian Standards Association Technical Subcommittee Member (2009 – ) • CSA Standard CAN/CSA-C22.6 No.1, “Electrical inspection code for existing residential occupancies.” • CSA Standard CAN/CSA-A770-16 “Home Inspection.” Tarion Warranty Corporation Consumer Advisory Council – Council Member (2021 – ) Home Construction Regulatory Authority Appeals Committee – Vice Chair (2021 – 2023) Discipline Committee – Vice Chair (2023 – ) Real Estate Council of Ontario Industry Advisory Group Member (2017 – 2019) Ontario Ministry of Consumer and Government Services Home Inspector Panel Member (2013 – 2018) Credentials Professional Engineer Professional Engineers Ontario Consulting Engineer Professional Engineers Ontario National Certificate Holder Canadian Association of Home & Property Inspectors Registered Home Inspector Canadian Association of Home & Property Inspectors New Construction Inspector Canadian Association of Home & Property Inspectors Registered Home Inspector Ontario Association of Home Inspectors ASHI Certified Inspector American Society of Home Inspectors Building Science Specialist Building Science Specialist Board of Canada Ontario Building Code BCIN: Building Structural Ontario Ministry of Housing Certified Commercial Property Inspector Certified Commercial Property Inspectors Association Other Ontario Society of Professional Engineers Professional Member Ontario Building Envelope Council Member 25 York Street, Suite 700 Toronto, Ontario M5J 2V5 Tel: 416 487 5256 wsp.com CA0023335.5880 March 18, 2024 City of Pickering Pickering Civic Complex One the Esplanade Pickering ON L1V 6K7 Attention: Emily Game Email: egame@pickering.ca Subject: 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Visual Structural Condition Assessment Dear Emily, As per your request we have prepared the following structural assessment. Please find below a summary of our assessment, including documents reviewed and limitations. It is our understanding that this assessment is being prepared to: •Determine if the remaining structure of the house can be salvaged and reused. •Identify structural elements, or assemblies, that need repairs, and to what extent. 1.EXTENT OF ASSESSMENT Our assessment is limited to the following areas of the building: •Structural wood framing system of the whole building. 2.BACKGROUND INFORMATION The building located at 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, is 2 storeys in height with a basement, built in mid-19th- century. Georgian house in Pickering the building is currently unoccupied. It is our understanding that the Client, the City of Pickering, has expressed concerns regarding condition of the remainder of existing structure. A brief description of these concerns is summarized below: •The City of Pickering has been considering the house to designate as a heritage site. •In 2021 the demolition of the house started without permit. Upon intervention from the City the process was stop and the house without envelop left unattended for some time. •In December 2021, a Preliminary Structural Assessment was completed and recommended that efforts could be made to stabilize the structure. The assessment provided several mitigation measures to repair house that was in poor condition. •In January 2024 the second assessment report was done. •In early 2024 the demolition application was submitted at the same time the city was contemplating to designate the house as a heritage site. The City is concern with condition of structure and integrity of the building. 3.DOCUMENTS REVIEWED The following documents were provided for our review: •Preliminary Structural Assessment, Rev. 1, dated December 20, 2021, prepared by TACOMA Engineers. •Condition assessment dated January 30, 2024, prepared by Clarke Engineering. Attachment 3 to Report PLN 10-24 Page 2 4. SITE VISIT We visited the site on March 6, 2024, to familiarize ourselves with the layout of the building and the areas of concerns. Present during our visit were: • Miki Brzakovic, WSP • Emily Game, City of Pickering During our site visit we carried a visual review of the visible parts of the structure under consideration. Our review did not include any destructive testing. 5. OBSERVATIONS Based on the available drawings and our site visit, the 2-floor wood structure with a gabled roof. The roof is seating on the north and south wood braced frame. Each heavy timber braced frame consists of 4-6”x12” posts connected to continuous wood beam at second ant attic floor. Each post is braced to the beam with knee bracing, exterior post with one and interior post with two bracings. In north south direction each floor has four beams align with posts, running north south. The beams at exterior walls are braced to posts with knee bracing. The floor structure consists of wood decking nailed to wood joists and supported on four wood beams. Interior and exterior walls are wood stud walls. Based on previous report the basement structure is combination of rubblestone masonry and concrete block structure. Number of provisional shoring including masonry piers have been placed to support ground floor beams. A detailed description of the elements reviewed, and their condition is provided below. A schematic framing plan of the ground and second floor, and general element location can be found on attached sketch SK-1. Floor Element or assembly Description Condition* Remedial Action required Roof Roof rafters Light weathering and sporadic light water damage Good No Roof Roof sheathing Roughly 80% of roof sheathing is in good condition with only light weathering. Good No Roof Roof sheathing About 20% of sheathing has light sporadic light water damage or is missing or broken. Fair Yes Second Interior wall studs Very light weathering Good No Exterior wall studs Light weathering Good No Wall sheathing Missing Missing Yes Floor joists and decking Light weathering Good No Ground Interior wall studs Very light weathering Good No Exterior wall studs Light weathering Good No Wall sheathing Missing Missing Yes Floor joists and decking Section loss, rotting, deflection, cracking Poor Yes Overall timber framing Timber braced frame and beams Light weathering, sporadic light water damage, loose connections Good Yes Overall lateral integrity Lateral force resisting system and floor diaphragms Exterior sheathing has been entirely removed, some knee bracings are missing, attic decking is missing, several joists are missing. Poor Yes *Description of the terms used in qualitative assessment: Page 3 Excellent: refers to an element (or part of an element) that is in “new” (as constructed) condition. No visible deterioration type defects are present, and the remedial action is not required. Good: refers to an element (or part of an element) where the first sign of minor defects is visible. These types of defects would not normally trigger any remedial action since the overall performance of the element is not affected. Fair: refers to an element (or part of an element) where medium defects are visible. These types of defects may trigger a “preventive maintenance” type of remedial action. Poor: refers to an element (or part of an element) where severe defects are visible. These types of defects would normally trigger rehabilitation or replacement. Based on detailed review we make the following general observation: 1. The roof structure and its elements that are not removed are in good condition with minor weathering deficiencies and may be salvaged and re-used. 2. The attic structure and its elements that are not removed are in good condition with minor weathering deficiencies and may be salvaged and re-used. 3. The second-floor structure, beams, posts, knee bracing, interior wall studs, exterior wall studs, excluding elements that are removed, are in good condition with minor deficiencies and may be salvaged and re-used. 4. The second-floor structure, joists and decking are in good condition with no deficiencies and may be salvaged and re-used. 5. The ground-floor structure, beams, posts, knee bracing, interior wall studs, exterior wall studs, excluding elements that are removed, are in good condition with minor deficiencies and may be salvaged and re-used. 6. The ground-floor structure, joists, decking, and beams are in poor condition and need replacement. 7. Missing elements at all levels, such as, exterior wall sheathing, interior wall sheathing, removed wood post, removed joists, removed studs need to be reinstated. 8. Overall building lateral stability and integrity is in poor condition. Exterior sheathing has been entirely removed, some knee bracings are missing, attic decking is missing, and several joists are missing. 6. ASSESSMENT Based on the above information, it is our opinion that the reminder of the structure is overall in good to fair condition and may be salvaged and re-used. The missing parts of the structure must be reinstated to bring the reminder of the structure to comply with the minimum requirements of the Ontario Building Code. The ground-floor structure, joists, decking, and beams are in poor condition and need replacement. 7. LIMITATIONS • This assessment is summary of present condition of structural elements, it is not a design of remedial work. • Documents provided for our assessment represent the as built condition. • The scope of our work and related responsibilities related to our work are defined in our proposal dated March 15, 2024. • Any user accepts that decisions made, or actions taken based upon interpretation of our work are the responsibility of only the parties directly involved in the decisions or actions. • No party other than the Client shall rely on the Consultant’s work without the express written consent of the Consultant, and then only to the extent of the specific terms in that consent. Any use which a third party makes of this work, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. Any third-party user of this report specifically denies any right to any claims, whether in contract, tort and/or any other cause of action in law, against the Consultant (including Sub-Consultants, their officers, agents, and employees). The work reflects the Consultant’s best judgement in light of the Page 4 information reviewed by them at the time of preparation. It is not a certification of compliance with past or present regulations. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Consultant, it shall not be used to express or imply warranty as to the fitness of the property for a particular purpose. No portion of this report may be used as a separate entity; it is written to be read in its entirety. • Only the specific information identified has been reviewed. No physical or destructive testing and no design calculations have been performed unless specifically recorded. Conditions existing but not recorded were not apparent given the level of study undertaken. • Only conditions seen during examination of representative samples can be said to have been appraised and comments on the balance of the conditions are assumptions based upon extrapolation. Therefore, this work does not eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for existing or future costs, hazards, or losses in connection with a property. We can perform further investigation on items of concern if so required. • The Consultant is not responsible for, or obligated to identify, mistakes or insufficiencies in the information obtained from the various sources, or to verify the accuracy of the information. • No statements by the Consultant are given as or shall be interpreted as opinions for legal, environmental or health findings. The Consultant is not investigating or providing advice about pollutants, contaminants, or hazardous materials. We trust that the above information meets your requirements. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Yours very truly, WSP CANADA INC. Miki Brzakovic, P.Eng. Project Manager CA0023335.5880 Condition Assessment.docx 18 Mar 2024 Page 5 301 Kingston Road, Pickering Visual Structural Condition Assessment Date: 2024-03-19 Scale: N.T.S. Drawn by: MMB Checked by: MMB GROUND AND SECOND FLOOR FRAMING PLANS Project No. CA23335.5880 25 YORK STREET, SUITE 700., TORONTO, ON CANADA M5J 2V5 PHONE: 416.487.5256 www.wsp.com Drawing No. SK-1 Structural Condition Review, Wood PROJECT NAME: 301 Kingston Road, Pickering WEATHER: Rainy, 0ºC PROJECT NO.: CA0023335.5880 REVIEWED BY: Miki Brzakovic DATE: 2024.03.06 Defects commonly occurring in wood: - Checks, Splits and Shakes. - Weathering. - Rot or Decay. - Insect Damage. - Abrasion and Wear. - Cracking, Splintering, Crushing and Shattering. - Fire and Chemical Damage. - Connection Deficiencies. […] Site Observations # ID/Element/ Assembly Description Condition/ Defects/Deterioration Severity Measurements 1 Roof assembly Wood rafters Light weathering Good condition (Light damage) N/R 2 Roof assembly Wood rafters and wood planks Light weathering and sporadic water damage, some planks replaced, couple of planks are damaged. Good condition (Light damage) N/R 3 Attic assembly Wood joists (Figures 4, 5, 6) Light weathering Good condition (Light damage) N/R 4 Attic assembly Wood beams (Figures 4 and 6) N/A Good condition N/R 5 Attic assembly Wood joists (Figures 3, 4, and 6) Several wood joists are missing. Missing Reinstate missing component. 6 Attic assembly Wood joists, 3 observed. (Figure 7) Water damage. Good condition (Light damage) N/R 7 2nd floor wall framing North beam (Figure 8) Water damage. Good condition (Light damage) N/R 8 2nd floor wall framing Knee bracing connection to the north beam, west corner (Figure 8) Connection deficiencies. Fair condition (Medium) To be rectified 9 2nd floor wall framing South wood beams and bracing (Figure 9) N/A Good condition N/R 10 2nd floor wall framing Diagonal bracing at north south (Figure 9) Diagonal bracing connecting post and beam is missing. Missing Reinstate missing component. 11 2nd floor interior walls framing Wood studs walls, 3”x4” studs at 1’ 8” (Figure 10) N/A Good condition N/R 12 2nd floor interior walls framing Interior wood stud walls (Figure 10) Some studs are missing. Missing Reinstate missing component. 13 2nd floor interior walls framing Interior wall sheathing (Figure 10) Wall sheathing is missing. Missing Reinstate missing component. 14 2nd floor exterior and interior walls framing Wood studs 3”x6” at 1’ 8” (Figure 11) N/A Good condition N/R 15 2nd floor exterior and interior walls framing Wall wood stud (Figure 11) Missing Missing Reinstate missing component. 16 2nd floor exterior and interior walls framing Walls Sheathing (Figure 11) Missing Missing Reinstate missing component. 17 2nd floor exterior and interior walls framing Wood joist (Figure 11) Several wood joists are missing. Missing Reinstate missing component. 18 2nd floor framing Wood joists 2.25” x 8” at 1’ 8” (Figures 12, 13) N/A Good condition N/A 19 2nd floor framing Wood decking (Figures 12, 13) N/A Good condition N/A 20 2nd and ground floor framing Wood beam and posts (Figures 14) N/A Good condition N/A 21 Ground floor framing Wood post (Figure 15) Part of the wood post below the window lintel has been cut. Missing Reinstate missing component. 22 Ground floor framing Interior wood stud walls, 3”x4” studs at 1’ 8” (Figure 17) N/A Good condition N/R 23 Ground floor framing North wood bracing frame, west end (Figure 18) N/A Good condition N/R 24 Ground floor framing North wood bracing frame, middle 12”x6” post (Figure 19) N/A Good condition N/R 25 Ground floor framing North-west wood bracing frame, knee bracing connection to post and beam (Figure 20) N/A Good condition N/R 26 Ground floor framing South wood bracing frame, west end (Figure 21) N/A Good condition N/R 27 Ground floor framing South wood bracing frame, west end, knee bracing and connection to post and beam (Figure 22) N/A Good condition N/R 28 Ground floor stud wall framing Exterior east wall, 3x4 wood studs (Figure 23) N/A Good condition N/R 29 Ground floor stud wall framing Exterior east wall, 2x4 wood studs (Figure 24) Medium weathering and decay. Fair condition To be replaced. 30 Ground floor stud wall framing Exterior north wall, 3x6 wood studs (Figure 25) N/A Good condition N/R 31 Ground floor stud wall framing Interior wall, 3x4 wood studs (Figure 26) N/A Good condition N/R 32 Ground floor stud wall framing Interior wall, 4x4 wood studs (Figure 26) N/A Good condition N/R 33 Ground floor framing Wood joists with plywood Sheathing (Figure 23) Deterioration and distress: floor shows differential deflection between edge and floor centre of 2.5”, for span of 325” this is l/130 Poor condition To be replaced. 34 Ground floor framing Wood beam west of opening (Figures 24 and 25) Very severe weathering and decay. Wood crumble under light finger pressure, more than 20% section loss. Poor condition (Very severe weathering and decay) To be replaced. 35 Ground floor framing Wood joist 2x8 at 2’ at middle bay north, very severe weathering, and decay (Figure 26) Very severe weathering and decay. Measured the smallest height 6” down from 8”, more than 20% section loss. Poor condition (Very severe weathering and decay) To be replaced. 36 Ground floor framing Wood joist 2x8 at 2’ at east bay, very severe weathering, and decay (Figure 27) Very severe weathering and decay. Wood crumble under light finger pressure, more than 20% section loss. Poor condition (Very severe weathering and decay) To be replaced. 37 Ground floor framing Wood joist 2x8 at 2’ at west bay, very severe weathering, and decay (Figure 28) Very severe weathering and decay. Measured the smallest height 5.5” down from 7.5”, more than 25% section loss. Poor condition (Very severe weathering and decay) To be replaced. 38 Ground floor framing Wood joist 2x8 at 2’ at west bay, very severe weathering, and decay (Figure 29) Very severe weathering and decay. Measured the smallest height 5.25” down from 7.5”, more than 25% section loss. Poor condition (Very severe weathering and decay) To be replaced. PHOTOS Figure 1: Site plan Photo 2: Building exterior Figure 3: Roof structure facing east Figure 4: Roof structure facing north Figure 5: Roof structure facing west Figure 6: Attic framing facing south Figure 7: Attic framing facing east, joist light water damage Figure 8: Attic framing facing north, beam, and frame knee bracing Figure 9: Attic framing facing south, beams and bracings Figure 10: Attic framing, interior wall studs Missing studs Figure 11: Attic framing, exterior and interior wall studs Figure 12: Second floor framing, wood decking on wood joists Missing studs and Sheathing for both, exterior and interior walls. Missing joists at attic space. Figure 13: Second floor framing, wood decking on wood joists Figure 14: Ground and second floor framing, wood beams and posts facing south Figure 15: Ground floor framing, missing post on the north wall framing Figure 16: Ground floor, north wood bracing frame east post 12” x 6” Missing wood post Figure 17: Ground floor interior wall framing Figure 18: Ground floor, north wood bracing frame west end Figure 19: Ground floor, north wood bracing frame middle post 12” x 6” Figure 20: Ground floor, north wood bracing frame knee bracing Figure 21: Ground floor, south wood bracing frame west end Figure 22: Ground floor, south wood bracing frame west end, knee bracing Figure 23: Ground floor, 3x4 wood stud wall at exterior east wall Figure 24: Ground floor, 2x4 wood stud at exterior east wall Figure 25: Ground floor, 3x6 wood stud at exterior north wall Figure 26: Ground floor, 3x4 wood stud at interior wall Figure 27: Ground floor, 3x4 wood stud at interior wall Figure 28: Ground floor, floor deflection Figure 29: Ground floor, wood beam south end, very severe weathering, and decay Figure 30: Ground floor, wood beam north end, very severe weathering, and decay Figure 31: Ground floor, wood joist at middle bay north, very severe weathering, and decay Figure 32: Ground floor, wood joist at east bay, very severe weathering, and decay Figure 33: Ground floor, wood joist at west bay, very severe weathering, and decay 7.5” 5.5 6.5” Figure 34: Ground floor, wood joist at west bay, very severe weathering, and decay Issued by: Miki Brzakovic P.Eng. Project Manager Miomir.brzakovic@WSP.com Tel.: (416) 644-0260 7.5” 5” 6.25” Guidance for Wood Assessment Deterioration / Defects Severity 1 Checks, Splits and Shakes Light - Damage extend for less than 5% into the member. Medium - Damage extend for between 5% and 10% into the member. Severe - Damage extend for between 10% and 20% into the member. Very Severe - Damage extend for more than 20% into the member. 2 Weathering Light - Slight surface weathering with less than 5% section loss. Medium - Surface weathering with 5% to 10% section loss. Severe - Loss of section between 10% and 20%. Very Severe - Loss of section greater than 20%. 3 Rot or Decay Light - Slight change in colour. The wood sounds solid and cannot be penetrated by a sharp object. Damage is superficial with less than 5% section loss. Medium - Surface is discoloured with black and brown streaks. The wood sounds solid when tapped and offers moderate resistance to penetration by a sharp object. Noticeable damage with 5% to 10% section loss. Severe - Surface is fibrous, checked, or crumbly and fungal fruiting bodies are growing on it. The wood sounds hollow when tapped and offers little resistance to penetration by a sharp object. Considerable damage with 10% to 20% section loss. Very Severe - The wood can be crumbled and disintegrated with ease. Extensive damage with section loss more than 20%. 4 Insect Damage Light - Occasional entrance or exit holes are present. The wood is solid and cannot be easily penetrated by a sharp object. Less than 5% section loss. Medium -Several entrance or exit holes are visible, and larvae or mature insects may be observed. The wood sounds generally solid when tapped and offers moderate resistance to penetration by a sharp object. 5% to 10% section loss. Severe - Extensive tunnelling and holes are present in the wood. Larvae and insects are readily visible. The wood sounds hollow when tapped and offers little resistance to penetration by a sharp object. 10% to 20% section loss. Very severe - Extensive tunnelling, holes, larvae and insects present. Wood can be crumbled and is disintegrated with ease. Greater than 20% section loss. 5 Abrasion and Wear Light - Slight surface wear with less than 5% section loss. Medium - Surface wear more noticeable with 5% to 10% section loss. Severe - Loss of section between 10% to 20%. Very Severe - Loss of section more than 20%. 6 Cracking, Splintering, Crushing and Shattering Light - Damage is mainly superficial with less than 5% section loss. Medium - Considerable damage with 5% to 10% section loss. Severe - Significant damage with 10% to 20% section loss. Very Severe - Extensive damage with section loss more than 20%. 7 Fire and Chemical Damage Light - Slight charring or softening of the wood surface with less than 5% section loss. Connectors unaffected. Medium - Deeper charring or softening with 5% to 10% section loss. Connectors slightly loosened. Severe - Section loss between 10% and 20% with several connectors loosened or deformed. Very severe - Extensive damage with section loss greater than 20% at critical locations. Many loose and severely deformed connectors. 8 Connection Deficiencies Light - Fasteners <5% loose, gusset plate <5% of plan area corrosion or cracks. Medium - Fasteners 5% - 10% loose, gusset plate 5% - 10% of plan area corrosion or cracks. Severe - Fasteners >10% loose, gusset plate >10% of plan area corrosion or cracks. Terms definition Defect An identifiable, unwanted condition that was not part of the original intent of design. Deterioration - A defect that has occurred over a period. Distress - A defect produced by loading. Elements The individual parts of a structure defined for inspection purposes. Several bridge components may be grouped together to form one bridge element for inspection purposes Heritage Impact Assessment 301 Kingston Road Pickering, ON Phone: 613-507-7817 Toll Free: 1-833-210-7817 E-mail: info@lhcheritage.com Complete as of 31 January 2024 Project # LHC0292 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. Kingston|Toronto|Ottawa 837 Princess Street, Suite 400 Kingston, ON K7L 1G8 Phone: 613-507-7817 Toll Free: 1-833-210-7817 E-mail: info@lhcheritage.com www.lhcheritage.com Attachment 4 to Report PLN 10-24 January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 HIA 301 Kingston Road i This page has been left blank deliberately January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 ii Report prepared for: Ed Saki Owner Energy Centre Inc. 420-3583 Sheppard Avenue East Toronto, ON M1T 3K8 Report prepared by: Diego Maenza, MPI, CAHP-Intern Graphics prepared by: Jordan Greene, BA Reviewed by: Christienne Uchiyama, MA, CAHP Benjamin Holthof, MPl, MMA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 iii RIGHT OF USE The information, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of Ed Saki (The ‘Owner’). Any other use of this report by others without permission is prohibited and is without responsibility to LHC. The report, all plans, data, drawings and other documents as well as all electronic media prepared by LHC are considered its professional work product and shall remain the copyright property of LHC, who authorizes only the Owners and approved users (including municipal review and approval bodies as well as any appeal bodies) to make copies of the report, but only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report by those parties. Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations and opinions given in this report are intended only for the guidance of Owners and approved users. REPORT LIMITATIONS The qualifications of the heritage consultants who authored this report are provided in Appendix A. All comments regarding the condition of the Property are based on a superficial visual inspection and are not a structural engineering assessment unless directly quoted from an engineering report. The findings of this report do not address any structural or physical condition related issues associated the Property or the condition of any heritage attributes. Concerning historical research, the purpose of this report is to assess potential impacts of the proposed site alteration on the cultural heritage value or interest and heritage attributes of the Property. The authors are fully aware that there may be additional historical information that has not been included. Nevertheless, the information collected, reviewed, and analyzed is sufficient to conduct this assessment. This report reflects the professional opinion of the authors and the requirements of their membership in various professional and licensing bodies. The review of policy and legislation was limited to that information directly related to cultural heritage management and is not a comprehensive planning review. Additionally, soundscapes, cultural identity, and sense of place analyses were not integrated into this report. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary only provides key points from the report. The reader should examine the complete report including background, results as well as limitations. LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. (LHC) was retained in November 2023 by Ed Saki of Energy Centre Inc. (the Owner) to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the Property at 301 Kingston Road (the Property) in the City of Pickering (the City), Ontario in the Regional Municipality of Durham (the Region). The Owner is proposing the demolition of the two-storey wood-frame building on the Property. LHC previously completed a Documentation and Commemoration Plan (DCP) for the Property in April 2022. The scope of the evaluation contained in the DCP was limited in that it was focussed on preparing a commemorative statement for the Property. The Property is listed as a non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City’s Municipal Heritage Register (MHR) under Section 27, Part IV of the OHA. Subsequent to the completion of the DCP, the City has indicated an intention to designate the Property under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). The purpose of this HIA is to undertake a fulsome evaluation of cultural heritage value or interest and an impact assessment of the Property and the proposed demolition. This cultural heritage evaluation was undertaken following guidance from the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (2006). The process included background research into the site, an on-site assessment, and evaluation of the cultural heritage value of the property based on the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest under the Ontario Heritage Act (O. Reg. 9/06). The impact assessment was prepared using guidance from the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (2006). This HIA is also guided by the City’s Heritage Impact Assessments Terms of Reference. 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 intersection of Altona Road and Kingston Road. It is accessed off of Kingston Road along an asphalt driveway. The Property is surrounded on all sides, except the north, by mature trees. A c.1860 two-storey building is located on an elevated area that slopes downward towards the west. The building 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 used for storage. In LHC’s professional opinion, the Property meets one criterion of O. Reg. 9/06 (criterion 4). As the Property does not meet at least two criteria, it would be not eligible for designation under Section 29, Part IV of the OHA. It is LHC’s understanding that retention in situ or relocation within a future development is not a viable alternative due to the advanced state of decay the building is in. The building is January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 v structurally unsafe. LHC finds there is a potential for direct adverse impacts through the removal of heritage attributes of the c.1860 two-storey wood-frame building on the Property. LHC recommends the following: •To mitigate the removal of the Property’s heritage attributes, an updated DCP is recommended to be prepared to incorporate the additional research and evaluation undertaken as part of this HIA and to further develop the commemoration plan for the Property. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS RIGHT OF USE ..................................................................................................................... III REPORT LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................... III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ IV TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................... VI INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 The Property ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Previous Studies ...................................................................................................................... 1 STUDY APPROACH ......................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Legislation and Policy Review ................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Historical Research .................................................................................................................. 4 2.3 Enquiries ............................................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Site Visit ............................................................................................................................... 5 2.5 City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessments Terms of Reference ..................................... 5 2.6 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................... 6 2.7 Adjacent Cultural Heritage Resources .................................................................................... 7 2.8 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................................. 7 POLICY AND LEGISLATION CONTEXT ............................................................................... 8 3.1 Provincial Context ................................................................................................................... 8 ................................................................................................... 8 3.1.2 Provincial Policy Statement (2020) ...................................................................................... 8 3.1.3 Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18 ........................................................................ 10 3.1.4 A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) ........................ 11 3.1.5 Provincial Planning Context Summary ............................................................................... 12 3.2 Regional Framework ............................................................................................................. 12 3.2.1 Durham Region Official Plan .............................................................................................. 12 3.2.2 Regional Planning Context Summary ................................................................................. 12 3.3 Local Framework ................................................................................................................... 13 3.3.1 City of Pickering Official Plan (1997, 2022 Consolidation) ................................................ 13 3.1.1 Planning Act, R.S.O 1990 January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 vii 3.3.2 Local Planning Context Summary ...................................................................................... 14 BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 15 4.1 Early Indigenous History ....................................................................................................... 15 4.1.1 Paleo Period (9500 – 8000 BCE) ........................................................................................ 15 4.1.2 Archaic Period (8000 – 1000 BCE) ..................................................................................... 15 4.1.3 Woodland Period (1000 BCE – 1650 CE) ............................................................................ 16 4.2 Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Historic Context (1600s and 1700s) ....................... 16 4.3 The Johnson-Butler Purchase and Williams Treaty .............................................................. 17 4.4 Post Euro-Canadian Contact History ..................................................................................... 18 4.5 Survey and European Settlement in the Area ...................................................................... 19 4.5.1Township of Pickering ......................................................................................................... 19 4.6 Property History .................................................................................................................... 24 4.7 Known Persons of Historical Interest Associated with the Property .................................... 29 4.7.1 William Holmes (1762-1834) ............................................................................................. 29 4.7.2 Thomas Dehart (1794-1850) .............................................................................................. 29 4.7.3 John M. Wesley (1810-1843) ............................................................................................. 30 4.7.4 John C. Wesley (1838-1920) .............................................................................................. 30 4.7.5 George Toyne (1856-1936) ................................................................................................ 31 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................... 35 5.1 Surrounding Context ............................................................................................................. 35 5.2 The Property ......................................................................................................................... 38 5.2.1 Exterior ............................................................................................................................... 38 5.2.2 Interior ............................................................................................................................... 42 5.3 Design Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 51 5.3.1 Georgian (1784-1850) ........................................................................................................ 51 5.4 Comparative Illustrations ...................................................................................................... 51 EVALUATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST ......................................... 55 6.1 Heritage Status ...................................................................................................................... 55 6.2 Previous Evaluations ............................................................................................................. 55 January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 viii 6.3 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation ..................................................................................... 56 6.4 Summary of Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 59 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST ........................................... 60 7.1 Proposed Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest ................................................ 60 7.1.1 Description of Property ...................................................................................................... 60 7.1.2 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest.............................................................. 60 7.1.3 List of Heritage Attributes .................................................................................................. 60 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OR SITE ALTERATION ........................ 61 IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................. 62 CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES ....................................... 63 10.1 Conservation Guidance ....................................................................................................... 63 MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONSERVATION STRATEGY .......................................... 66 SIGNATURES ...................................................................................................................... 68 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 69 Policy and Legislation Resources ................................................................................................ 69 Mapping Resources ..................................................................................................................... 70 Archival Resources ...................................................................................................................... 70 Additional Resources .................................................................................................................. 71 APPENDIX A QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................... 75 APPENDIX B GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................... 78 APPENDIX C CITY OF PICKERING HIA TERMS OF REFERENCE REQUIREMENTS AND HIA CONTENT .......................................................................................................................... 81 APPENDIX D POLICY TABLES .............................................................................................. 87 Durham Region Official Plan ....................................................................................................... 87 City of Pickering Official Plan ...................................................................................................... 87 January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 ix List of Figures Figure 1: Location Plan .................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Site Plan ........................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3: Map of Williams Treaties and Pre-Confederation Treaties ........................................... 19 Figure 4: The Property on 1837, 1860, 1877, and 1895 Historic Maps ........................................ 32 Figure 5: The Property on 1914, 1922, 1940, and 1963 Topographic Maps ................................ 33 Figure 6: The Property on 1946, 1954, and 1969 Aerial Photographs ......................................... 34 List of Tables Table 1: Property Chain of Ownership for 301 Kingston Road ..................................................... 24 Table 2: Comparative Illustrations of Nearby Buildings in the Rouge Hill Community ................ 52 Table 3: Comparative Illustrations of Buildings in the vernacular Georgian architectural style within the City of Pickering ........................................................................................................... 53 Table 4: Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation for 301 Kingston Road........................................... 56 Table 5: City of Pickering HIA ToR ................................................................................................. 81 Table 6: Durham Region Relevant Official Plan Policies ............................................................... 87 Table 7: City of Pickering Relevant Official Plan Policies .............................................................. 87 List of Images Image 1: View looking east along Kingston Road showing the village of Rouge Hill at left, 1909. ....................................................................................................................................................... 22 Image 2: View looking east along Kingston Road towards Rouge Hill, 1919................................ 23 Image 3: View looking east along Kingston Road towards Rouge Hill, 1932................................ 23 Image 4: View looking east towards Kingston Road at left and Highway 401 at right, 1970....... 24 Image 5: View looking south towards the north elevation (front façade). .................................. 27 Image 6: View looking southwest towards the east elevation. .................................................... 28 Image 7: View looking northeast towards the west and south elevations. ................................. 28 List of Photos Photo 1: View looking west along Kingston Road towards the Property. .................................... 36 Photo 2: View looking south along Altona Road towards the Property. ...................................... 36 Photo 3: View looking northwest at the intersection of Kingston Road and Altona Road towards 1320 Altona Road. ......................................................................................................................... 37 Photo 4: View looking west along Kingston Road. ....................................................................... 37 Photo 5: View looking east along Kingston Road towards the Property. ..................................... 38 Photo 6: View looking south towards the north elevation (front façade) ................................... 39 Photo 7: View of the front entranceway and concrete steps. ..................................................... 40 Photo 8: View looking northeast towards the west and south elevations. ................................. 41 Photo 9: View looking north towards the south and east elevations. ......................................... 41 Photo 10: View looking west towards the east elevation with a close-up of plaster cladding. ... 42 January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 x Photo 11: View of the cinder block foundation. ........................................................................... 43 Photo 12: View of the cinder block foundation, large hewn timber beams, milled joists, and floorboards. ................................................................................................................................... 44 Photo 13: View of the centre-hall plan showing the access points to the Basement and Second Floor levels. ................................................................................................................................... 45 Photo 14: View of milled wooden joists and braces..................................................................... 46 Photo 15: View of two rooms separated by milled wooden framing. ......................................... 46 Photo 16: View of milled wooden joists. ...................................................................................... 47 Photo 17: View of a large timber beam with mortise-tenon joinery. .......................................... 47 Photo 18: View of a large timber beam with a supporting brace. ............................................... 48 Photo 19: View of wooden ceiling boards and the access point to the Second Floor. ................ 48 Photo 20: View of several flat rectangular-head machine-cut iron nails. .................................... 49 Photo 21: View of the Second Floor showing the rafters and roof structure. ............................. 50 Photo 22: View of the roof structure. ........................................................................................... 51 January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 1 INTRODUCTION LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. (LHC) was retained by Ed Saki of Energy Centre Inc. (the Owner) to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the Property at 301 Kingston Road (the Property) in the City of Pickering (the City), Ontario within the Regional Municipality of Durham (the Region). The Owner is proposing the demolition of the two-storey wood-frame building on the Property. The purpose of this HIA is to undertake a fulsome evaluation of cultural heritage value or interest and an impact assessment of the Property and the proposed demolition. The Property was added to the City’s Municipal Heritage Register (MHR) in March 2021 as a non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest under Section 27, Part IV of the OHA. This cultural heritage evaluation was undertaken following guidance from the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (2006). The process included background research into the site, an on-site assessment, and evaluation of the cultural heritage value of the property based on the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest under the Ontario Heritage Act (O. Reg. 9/06). The impact assessment was prepared using guidance from the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (2006). This HIA is also guided by the City’s Heritage Impact Assessments Terms of Reference. 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 intersection of Altona Road and Kingston Road. It is accessed off of Kingston Road along an asphalt driveway. The Property is surrounded on all sides, except the north, by mature trees. A c.1860 two-storey building is located on an elevated area that slopes downward towards the west. The building 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 used for storage. 1.2 Previous Studies LHC previously completed a Documentation and Commemoration Plan (DCP) for the Property in April 2022. As noted in the DCP, “The purpose of [the] Documentation and Commemoration Plan [was] to provide a visual and textual documentary record of the Property, its architectural elements, and its surrounding context.” Prior to the DCP, the Property was one of four properties included in a 2020 study 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. A Preliminary Structural Report was prepared by Tacoma Engineers in December 2021. ¯ 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 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. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 4 STUDY APPROACH LHC follows a three-step approach to understanding and planning for cultural heritage resources based on the understanding, planning and intervening guidance from the Canada’s Historic Places Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada and MCM Ontario Heritage Tool Kit.1 Understanding the cultural heritage resource involves: •Understanding the significance of the cultural heritage resource (known and potential) through research, consultation and evaluation–when necessary. •Understanding the setting, context and condition of the cultural heritage resource through research, site visit and analysis. •Understanding the heritage planning regulatory framework around the cultural heritage resource. This HIA includes evaluation of the Property for cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI) and an assessment of impacts to the potential CHVI and heritage attributes of the Property. The evaluation and impact assessment are based on guidance from the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. This HIA is also guided by the City’s Heritage Impact Assessments Terms of Reference.2 A description of the proposed development or site alteration, measurement of development or site impact and consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods are included as part of planning for the cultural heritage resource.3 A list of definitions applied in this HIA is provided in Appendix B. 2.1 Legislation and Policy Review This HIA includes a review of provincial legislation, plans and cultural heritage guidance, and relevant municipal policy and plans. This review outlines the cultural heritage legislative and policy framework that applies to the Property (Section 3). 2.2 Historical Research Historical research for this HIA included local history research. LHC consulted primary and secondary research sources including: •Local histories; •Historic maps; •Aerial photographs; and, •Online sources about local history. 1 Canada’s Historic Places, “Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada”, 2010, 3, and Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries, “Heritage Property Evaluation” Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, 2006, 18. 2 MCM, “Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process”, Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, 2006 3 MCM, “Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process”, Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, 2006. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 5 Online sources consulted included (but was not limited to): • The Archives of Ontario; • Library and Archives Canada; • The Ontario Council of University Libraries, Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project; • The Canadian County Atlas Digital Project; • City of Pickering; • Pickering Museum; • Pickering Public Library; • University of Toronto Library; • York University Library; • Trent University Library; • ONLAND; • Ancestry; • FamilySearch; and, • The Internet Archive. See the References section for a list of references used in the preparation of this HIA. 2.3 Enquiries LHC contacted Emily Game, Senior Planner at the City of Pickering, Caitlan Madden, Collections Officer at the Pickering Museum, and Jessica Lanziner, Client Experience Specialist – Local History at the Pickering Public Library. 2.4 Site Visit A site review was undertaken on 7 December 2023 by Christienne Uchiyama and Diego Maenza (see Appendix A for qualifications. The purpose of this site visit was to document the current external and internal conditions of the Property, adjacent properties, and their surrounding context. Unless otherwise attributed all photographs in this HIA were taken during the site visit. A selection of photographs from the site visit that document the Property are included in Section 5.3 of this HIA. LHC Cultural Heritage Specialist, Colin Yu, previously visited the site on 10 February 2022. 2.5 City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessments Terms of Reference The City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessments Terms of Reference (the ToR) requires an HIA to assess the impact of a proposed development on the cultural heritage value of a property and recommend an overall approach to the conservation of cultural heritage resources. The City may use an HIA to guide decisions on the approval, modification or denial of a proposed January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 6 development or site alteration in order to conserve, protect and enhance a cultural heritage resource. The vision statement for HIAs states the following: People, in making decisions and undertaking actions, should recognize, respect and nurture Pickering’s cultural heritage. This celebration of local heritage will contribute to the enrichment of the City’s urban, rural and ecological systems. Pickering’s resulting patterns of diversity and character, integrating old with new, and natural with built, will give the City a unique identity. Table 5 in Appendix C outlines where in this report content required in the ToR is addressed. 2.6 Evaluation The Property was evaluated for CHVI against Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O. Reg. 9/06) under the OHA with the goal of determining if the Property satisfies the criteria and, as applicable, identifying and articulating heritage attributes (Section 6.2). O. Reg. 9/06 identifies the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Section 29, Part IV of the OHA and is used to create a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (SCHVI). Per O.Reg.9/06 properties meeting at least two criteria are eligible for designation under Section 29, Part IV of the OHA. The evaluation uses these criteria which are: 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. 5. The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 7 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark.4 This HIA includes a comparative analysis of properties with similar vernacular farmhouse style buildings within the City of Pickering and potential pre-1900 buildings within the Rouge Hill community (Table 2 and Table 3). Comparison properties for the vernacular farmhouse style are listed or designated heritage properties from the City’s MHR. This analysis is used to inform evaluation of the Property against the criteria from O. Reg. 9/06. 2.7 Adjacent Cultural Heritage Resources The City’s Municipal Heritage Register (MHR) was reviewed for adjacent cultural heritage resources. As the OP does not include a definition for adjacent cultural heritage resources, the PPS definition for adjacent was used to inform a search for adjacent cultural heritage resources (refer to Appendix B Glossary). At present, there are no properties meeting the definition of adjacent cultural heritage resources. 2.8 Impact Assessment The MCM’s Info Sheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans5 outlines seven potential negative impacts to be considered with any proposed development or site alteration. The impacts include, but are not limited to: 1. Destruction of any part of any significant heritage attribute or features; 2. Alteration that is not sympathetic or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; 3. Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or planting, such as a garden; 4. Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context, or a significant relationship; 5. Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or built and natural features; 6. A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; and 7. Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource. Given that plans for the future development of the Property have not advanced to a point where impacts can be assessed, the assessment of impacts considered the demolition of the structure and options for the Property and its (potential) heritage resources very broadly (Section 9.0). 4 Province of Ontario, “O. Reg. 9/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest under Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18,” as amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22, 2022. 5 MCM, “Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process”, Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, 2006. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 8 POLICY AND LEGISLATION CONTEXT 3.1 Provincial Context In Ontario, cultural heritage is considered a matter of provincial interest and cultural heritage resources are managed under Provincial legislation, policy, regulations, and guidelines. Cultural heritage is established as a key provincial interest directly through the provisions of the Planning Act, the PPS and the OHA. Other provincial legislation deals with cultural heritage indirectly or in specific cases. These various acts and the policies under these acts indicate broad support for the protection of cultural heritage by the Province. They also provide a legal framework through which minimum standards for heritage evaluation are established. What follows is a description of the applicable legislation and policy regarding the identification and evaluation of built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes and the assessment of impacts on their cultural heritage value or interest and heritage attributes. The Planning Act is the primary document for municipal and provincial land use planning in Ontario and was consolidated on 8 June 2023. This Act sets the context for provincial interest in heritage. It states under Part I (2, d): The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Tribunal, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as…the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest.6 Part 1, Section 3 (1) of The Planning Act enables the government to issue policy statements which includes the PPS. 7 Part 1, Section 3 (5) requires decisions of a municipal council, local board, a planning board, the minister of the Crown and a ministry, board, commission or agency of the government to conform to the PPS and other relevant provincial plans.8 The 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides direction for municipalities regarding provincial requirements and sets the policy foundation for regulating the development and use of land in Ontario. The Province deems cultural heritage and archaeological resources to provide important environmental, economic, and social benefits, and PPS directly addresses cultural heritage in Section 1.7.1e and Section 2.6.9 6 Province of Ontario, Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, last modified 8 June 2023, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13, Part I (2, d). 7 Province of Ontario, Planning Act, Part 1 S.3 (1). 8 Province of Ontario, Planning Act, Part I S. 3 (5). 9 Province of Ontario, “Provincial Policy Statement”, last modified May 2020, 29, https://files.ontario.ca/mmah- provincial-policy-statement-2020-accessible-final-en-2020-02-14.pdf. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 9 Section 1.7 of the PPS regards long-term economic prosperity and promotes cultural heritage as a tool for economic prosperity. The relevant subsection states that long-term economic prosperity should be supported by: 1.7.1e encouraging a sense of place, by promoting well-designed built form and cultural planning, and by conserving features that help define character, including built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. Section 2.6 of the PPS articulates provincial policy regarding cultural heritage and archaeology. The subsections state: 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. 2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. 2.6.4 Planning authorities should consider and promote archaeological management plans and cultural plans in conserving cultural heritage and archaeological resources. 2.6.5 Planning authorities shall engage with Indigenous communities and consider their interests when identifying, protecting and managing cultural heritage and archaeological resources.10 The definition of significance in the PPS states that criteria for determining significance for cultural heritage resources are determined by the Province under the authority of the OHA.11 The PPS makes the consideration of cultural heritage equal to all other considerations and recognizes that there are complex interrelationships among environmental, economic and social factors in land use planning. It is intended to be read in its entirety and relevant policies applied in each situation. The definition of conserved in the PPS states that the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is determined by the Province under the authority of the OHA. This may be achieved by the implementation of 10 Province of Ontario, “Provincial Policy Statement”, last modified May 2020, 29, https://files.ontario.ca/mmah- provincial-policy-statement-2020-accessible-final-en-2020-02-14.pdf. 11 Province of Ontario, “Provincial Policy Statement”, 2020, 51. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 10 recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or a HIA. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments. A HIA may be required by a municipality in response to Section 2.6.1 and 2.6.3 to conserve built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, and the heritage attributes of a protected heritage property. The Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c O.18 (Ontario Heritage Act or OHA) provides the provincial government and municipalities powers to conserve, protect, and preserve the heritage of Ontario. The OHA (consolidated on 1 July 2023) and associated regulations sets minimum standards for the evaluation of heritage resources in the province and give municipalities power to identify and conserve individual properties, districts, or landscapes of cultural heritage value or interest. Individual heritage properties are designated by municipalities under Part IV, Section 29 and heritage conservation districts are designated by municipalities under Part V, Section 41 of the OHA. Generally, an OHA designation applies to real property rather than individual structures.12 A municipality may list a property on a municipal heritage register under Section 27, Part IV of the OHA if it meets one of the nine criteria from O. Reg. 9/06. Individual heritage properties may be designated by municipalities under Section 29, Part IV of the OHA if they meet at least two of the nine criteria from O. Reg. 9/06. A municipality may designate heritage conservation districts under Section 41, Part V of the OHA. Under Section 27(9), a property owner must not demolish or remove a building or structure unless they give council at least 60 days notice in writing. Under Section 27(11), council may require plans and other information to be submitted with this notice which may include a HIA. The council of a municipality shall remove properties from their municipal heritage register if notice of intention to designate under Section 29 is not given on or before the second anniversary of the day the property was included in the register. The Property is listed under Section 27, Part IV of the OHA. As the Property was listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Register prior to 31 December 2022, Council shall either remove the Property from the Municipal Heritage Register or give notice of intention to designate on or before 1 January 2025. The Property was listed on the Municipal Heritage Register in March 2021. 12 Province of Ontario, Ontario Heritage Act R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 18, last modified 1 July 2023, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18 January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 11 The Property is located within the area regulated by the Growth Plan, which came into effect on 16 May 2019 and was consolidated on 28 August 2020. In Section 1.2.1, the Growth Plan states that its policies are based on key principles, which includes: Conserve and promote cultural heritage resources to support the social, economic, and cultural well-being of all communities, including First Nations and Métis communities.13 Section 4.1 Context, in the Growth Plan describes the area it covers as containing: …a broad array of important hydrologic and natural heritage features and areas, a vibrant and diverse agricultural land base, irreplaceable cultural heritage resources, and valuable renewable and non-renewable resources.14 It describes cultural heritage resources as: The GGH also contains important cultural heritage resources that contribute to a sense of identity, support a vibrant tourism industry, and attract investment based on cultural amenities. Accommodating growth can put pressure on these resources through development and site alteration. It is necessary to plan in a way that protects and maximizes the benefits of these resources that make our communities unique and attractive places to live.15 Policies specific to cultural heritage resources are outlined in Section 4.2.7, as follows: i. Cultural heritage resources will be conserved in order to foster a sense of place and benefit communities, particularly in strategic growth areas; ii. Municipalities will work with stakeholders, as well as First Nations and Métis communities, in developing and implementing official plan policies and strategies for the identification, wise use and management of cultural heritage resources; and, iii. Municipalities are encouraged to prepare archaeological management plans and municipal cultural plans and consider them in their decision-making.16 Amendment 1 to A Place to Grow aligns the definitions of A Place to Grow with the PPS. 13 Province of Ontario, A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, last modified August 28, 2020, 6, https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-place-to-grow-office-consolidation-en-2020-08-28.pdf 14 Province of Ontario, “A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe”, 2020, 39. 15 Province of Ontario, “A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe”, 2020, 39. 16 Province of Ontario, “A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe”, 2020, 47. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 12 In summary, cultural heritage resources are considered an essential part of the land use planning process with their own unique considerations. As the province, these policies and guidelines must be considered by the local planning context. In general, the province requires significant cultural heritage resources to be conserved. Multiple layers of municipal legislation enable a municipality to require a HIA for alterations, demolition or removal of a building or structure from a listed or designated heritage property. These requirements support the conservation of cultural heritage resources in Ontario following provincial policy direction. 3.2 Regional Framework The Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP) was adopted by Regional Council on 5 June 1991 and approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on 24 November 1993. The ROP was most recently consolidated on 26 May 2020. The ROP serves to guide growth and land use decisions to 2031. Section 2 includes cultural heritage resource policies with the goal “to preserve and foster the attributes of communities and the historic and cultural heritage of the Region”.17 Policy 2.3.49 states that: Regional Council shall encourage Councils of the area municipalities to utilize the Ontario Heritage Act to conserve, protect, and enhance the built and cultural heritage resources of the municipality, to establish Municipal Heritage Committees to consult regarding matters relating to built and cultural heritage resources planning and, the designation of heritage conservation districts and properties as provided for in the Ontario Heritage Act.18 The ROP does not include a section dedicated to cultural heritage resources and directs the development of these policies to the lower tier municipalities; however, there are general policies pertaining to cultural heritage in addition to the policy listed above. Commentary on the general cultural heritage policies has been included below in Appendix C (Table 6). The Region has acknowledged the identification and conservation of cultural heritage resources as an important element of the land use planning process. 17 Durham Region, Durham Regional Official Plan, last modified 26 May 2020, 3, https://www.durham.ca/en/doing-business/resources/Documents/PlanningandDevelopment/Official-Plan/2020- Durham-Regional-Official-Plan-Consolidation---Revised-1.pdf 18 Durham Region, “Durham Regional Official Plan,” 2020, 15. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 13 3.3 Local Framework The City of Pickering has a number of documents that provide policies and guidance for cultural heritage resources, including the City of Pickering Official Plan (2000) and the City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference (2022). The City of Pickering Official Plan (OP) (1997, 2022 Consolidation) was approved by Council on 3 March 1997 and approved by the Ontario Municipal Board on 21 October 1997. The OP was most recently consolidated in March 2022. A new Draft OP is currently being prepared. The OP provides a long-term set of visions, goals, and direction for the City to help appropriately address changes resulting from anticipated growth. Cultural heritage policies are addressed in Chapter 8 with the goal to conserve Pickering’s heritage in coordination with the City’s planning needs. The OP cultural heritage objectives are: 8.2 City Council shall: (a) identify important cultural heritage resources from all time periods, so that they can be appropriately conserved and integrated into the community fabric, including: significant heritage structures, features and sites; buildings, sites, and artifacts of historical, archaeological and architectural significance including modern or recent architecture; significant landscape features and characteristics, including vistas and ridge lines; and other locally important cultural heritage resources; (b) foster public awareness and appreciation of the City’s cultural heritage; (c) prevent the demolition, destruction or inappropriate alteration of important cultural heritage resources to the extent possible; (d) where possible, restore, rehabilitate, maintain and enhance important cultural heritage resources owned by the City, and encourage the same for those owned by others; (e) where possible, ensure development, infrastructure, capital works and other private and public projects conserve, protect and enhance important cultural heritage resources; and January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 14 (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.19 Commentary on the Property and the City’s broad cultural heritage policies is in Appendix D (Table 7). The City considers cultural heritage resources to be of value to the community and values them in the land use planning process. Through OP policies, the City has committed to identifying and conserving cultural heritage resources including archaeological resources. Development potential requires compatibility between new development and existing cultural heritage resources. 19 City of Pickering, Pickering Official Plan, Edition 9, 1997, office consolidation March 2022, https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/resources/Official-Plan---Main-Page/Edition-9/OP9ACC.pdf January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 15 BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS 4.1 Early Indigenous History The City of Pickering website includes the following Indigenous Territorial Land Acknowledgment: We acknowledge that the City of Pickering resides on land within the Treaty and Traditional Territories of the Mississauga, the Scugog Island First Nation, and Williams Treaty signatories, the Mississauga and Chippewa Nations. Pickering is also home to many Indigenous persons and communities who represent other diverse, distinct, and autonomous Indigenous nations. This acknowledgement reminds us of our responsibilities and relationships with the First Peoples of Canada, and to the ancestral lands of which we share, learn, work, and live.20 The following section provides a brief overview of early Indigenous history of the general area, followed by a general overview of early Euro-Canadian settlement. The pre-European contact (pre-contact) history of this area is long and diverse. Archaeologists generally divide the chronology of pre-contact land use in Southern Ontario into three primary periods based on characteristics of settlement patterns and material culture: Paleo, Archaic, and Woodland. The cultural history of southern Ontario began around 11,000 years ago following the retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet.21 During this archaeological period, known as the Paleo period (9500- 8000 BCE), the climate was similar to the present-day sub-arctic and vegetation was largely spruce and pine forests.22 The initial occupants of the province had distinctive stone tools. They were nomadic big-game hunters (i.e., caribou, mastodon, and mammoth) who lived in small groups and travelled over vast areas, possibly migrating hundreds of kilometres in a single year.23 During the Archaic archaeological period (8000-1000 BCE) the occupants of southern Ontario continued their migratory lifestyles, although they lived in larger groups and over time occupied smaller territories of land – possibly remaining within specific watersheds. People refined their stone tools during this period and developed polished or ground stone tool technologies. 20 City of Pickering, “Council Meeting, November 27”, 27 November 2023, accessed 8 January 2024, https://www.viddler.com/v/18753fba?secret=57115818 21 Christopher Ellis and D. Brian Deller, “Paleo-Indians”, in The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, ed. Christopher Ellis and Neal Ferris, London, ON: Ontario Archaeological Society, London Chapter, 1990, 37. 22 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, in Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks, prepared by the Toronto Region Conservation Authority, 2001, http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/37523.pdf 23 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 16 Evidence of long-distance trade has been found on archaeological sites from the Middle and Later Archaic times; including items such as copper from Lake Superior, and marine shells from the Gulf of Mexico.24 The Woodland archaeological period in southern Ontario (1000 BCE – CE 1650) represents a marked change in subsistence patterns, burial customs, and tool technologies, as well as the introduction of pottery making. The Woodland period is sub-divided into the Early Woodland (1000–400 BCE), Middle Woodland (400 BCE – CE 500) and Late Woodland (CE 500 - 1650).25 The Early Woodland is defined by the introduction of clay pots which allowed for preservation and easier cooking.26 During the Early and Middle Woodland, communities grew and were organized at a band level. Peoples continued to follow subsistence patterns focused on foraging and hunting. Woodland populations transitioned from a foraging subsistence strategy towards a preference for agricultural village-based communities around during the Late Woodland. During this period people began cultivating maize in southern Ontario. The Late Woodland period is divided into three distinct stages: Early Iroquoian (CE 1000–1300); Middle Iroquoian (CE 1300–1400); and Late Iroquoian (CE 1400–1650).27 The Late Woodland is generally characterised by an increased reliance on cultivation of domesticated crop plants, such as corn, squash, and beans, and a development of palisaded village sites which included more and larger longhouses. By the 1500s, Iroquoian communities in southern Ontario – and more widely across northeastern North America –organized themselves politically into tribal confederacies. South of Lake Ontario, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy comprised the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas, while Iroquoian communities in southern Ontario included the Petun, Huron, and Neutral Confederacies.28 Adjacent to the Pickering border, an intact late 1600s village was founded by Seneca peoples by the Rouge River and is known as the Bead Hill National Historic Site of Canada, being federally- recognized in 1991.29 4.2 Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Historic Context (1600s and 1700s) French explorers and missionaries began arriving in southern Ontario during the first half of the 17th century, bringing with them diseases for which the Indigenous peoples had no immunity, contributing to the collapse of the three southern Ontario Iroquoian confederacies. Also 24 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001. 25 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001. 26 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001. 27 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001. 28 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001; Haudenosaunee Confederacy, “Who Are We”, Haudenosaunee Confederacy, 2020, https://www.haudenosauneeconfederacy.com/who-we-are/ 29 Parks Canada, “Bead Hill National Historic Site of Canada”, Directory of Federal Heritage Designations, accessed 18 January 2024, https://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/page_nhs_eng.aspx?id=531 January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 17 contributing to the collapse and eventual dispersal of the Huron, Petun, and Attiwandaron, was the movement of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy from south of Lake Ontario. Between 1649 and 1655, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy waged war on the Huron, Petun, and Attiwandaron, pushing them out of their villages and the general area.30 As the Haudenosaunee Confederacy moved across a large hunting territory in southern Ontario, they began to threaten communities further from Lake Ontario, specifically the Ojibway (Anishinaabe). The Anishinaabe had occasionally engaged in conflict with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy over territories rich in resources and furs, as well as access to fur trade routes; but in the early 1690s, the Ojibway, Odawa and Patawatomi, allied as the Three Fires, initiated a series of offensive attacks on the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, eventually forcing them back to the south of Lake Ontario.31 Oral tradition indicates that the Mississauga played an important role in the Anishinaabe attacks against the Haudenosaunee.32 A large group of Mississauga established themselves in the area between present-day Toronto and Lake Erie around 1695, the descendants of whom are the Mississaugas of the Credit.33 Artifacts from all major Indigenous communities have been discovered in the Greater Toronto Area at over 300 archaeological sites.34 In 1669, Sulpician missionary priests, Francois de Fenelon and Michel Trouve, explored the Rouge River and Gandatsekwyagon.35 The Rouge River Portage extended from the mouth of the Rouge River northwards on the east bank along the river. 4.3 The Johnson-Butler Purchase and Williams Treaty The Johnson-Butler Purchase, or “Gunshot Treaty” was entered into in 1788 by representatives of the Crown and certain Anishinaabe peoples.36 The Treaty contained no exact description of the land covered and was meant to cover land as far as a person could hear a gunshot from the shore of Lake Ontario. The treaty covers the north shore of Lake Ontario, beginning at the eastern boundary of the Toronto Purchase and continuing east to the Bay of Quinte, where it meets the Crawford Purchase. As the Williams Treaties First Nations write: The Gunshot Treaty was made in a series of Councils, first in 1787 with Sir John Johnson and in 1788 with Lt. Colonel John Butler and then confirmed with Lt. 30 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, “The History of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation,” Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, 2018, http://mncfn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/The- History-of-MNCFN-FINAL.pdf 31 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, “History”, 3-4. 32 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, “History”, 3-4. 33 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, “History”, 3-4. 34 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Archaeology Opens a Window on the History of Indigenous Peoples in the GTA,” News, 2018, https://trca.ca/news/archaeology-indigenous-peoples-gta/ 35 Melba E. McKay, Pickering Women’s Institute, 1957, 11. 36 Government of Ontario, “Johnson-Butler Purchase”, 13 January 2022, accessed 18 January 2024, https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-ontario-treaties-and-reserves#t4 January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 18 Governor Simcoe between the Chippewas of Lake Huron and Lake Simcoe and the Mississaugas of Rice Lake, Mud Lake and Scugog, circa 1794-1795. This treaty concerned lands along the shore of Lake Ontario west of the Crawford Purchase and south of Lake Simcoe.37 Due to the uncertainty of land surrendered and breach of terms from European settlers, several Indigenous groups contested the earlier Treaty. A commission was set up by the Crown in 1916, led by R.V. Sinclair.38 Sinclair concluded: “The Indian title to these lands has never been extinguished and I am of the opinion that some arrangement should be made for quieting the title by the payment to the claimants of compensation in the same way that the Crown has dealt with other Indians whose title has been extinguished by treaty.” In 1923, to settle the matters as quickly as possible, A.S. Williams set out to resolve the land claim issues and offered the provincial limit of $500,000.39 The Williams Treaty encompassed approximately 52,000 km2 and was signed by seven Anishinaabe Nations and Crown representatives in 1923 (Figure 3). The haste to sign the Williams Treaty was in part due to European settlement on land that was not yet ceded by the First Nations groups. The unforeseen problem with the Williams Treaty was it overlapped with earlier Treaties, including Treaty 20, and omitted hunting and fishing rights – that were covered in earlier Treaties.40 4.4 Post Euro-Canadian Contact History Prior to the nineteenth century, the area saw only limited European or Euro-Canadian activity. French fur traders and Jesuit missionaries travelled with and lived with Indigenous communities in what would become Ontario from the early seventeenth-century until the British gained control of the area in the late eighteenth-century.41 International conflicts including the Seven Years War (1756-1763) between Great Britain and France, leading to the 1763 Royal Proclamation, and the American Revolution (1775-1783) lead to a push by the British Crown for greater settlement in Canada which in turn led to efforts to sign treaties with Indigenous peoples.42 The western part of the Province of Quebec, west of the Ottawa River (which would 37 Williams Treaties First Nations, “Gunshot Treaty,” Pre-Confederation Treaties, n.d. 38 Robert J. Surtees, “Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties”, Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1986. 39 Robert J. Surtees, “Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties”, Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1986, 19. 40 Robert J. Surtees, “Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties”, Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1986, 20. 41 Toronto Public Library, “Local History & Genealogy, Selections and Full PDFs of “The Jesuit Relations”: Sainte- Marie among the Hurons and Beyond,” accessed 18 January 2024, https://torontopubliclibrary.typepad.com/local- history-genealogy/2020/01/sainte-marie-among-the-hurons-selections-from-the-jesuit-relations-and-allied- documents.html 42 Peel Art Gallery, Museum, and Archives [PAMA], “About Peel,” 2022, accessed 19 January 2024, https://peelarchivesblog.com/about-peel/ January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 19 Figure 3: Map of Williams Treaties and Pre-Confederation Treaties43 eventually become Ontario) saw little settlement until Loyalists moved north following the American Revolution. 4.5 Survey and European Settlement in the Area In 1791, the Township of Pickering was first surveyed by Provincial Land Surveyor, Augustus Jones. It was initially known as Township No. 9, and then given the name Edinburgh. The Township was primarily settled after Asa Danforth completed construction of Kingston Road in 1796. This was a major road from Ancaster to Kingston, which was designed to be two rods wide to accommodate horses and situated a safe distance from Lake Ontario. The crossing of the Rouge River was through a rudimentary wooden bridge constructed by 1811. A majority of the Township was taken up by military and additional grants allocated to largely absentee landholders. Large portions of Township, in particular desirable lands along the shoreline, remained wild well into the 1800s when the original landowners began selling off parcels to new settlers. 43 Williams Treaties First Nations, Map of William Treaties and Pre-Confederation Treaties, https://williamstreatiesfirstnations.ca/maps-of-our-treaties/. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 20 The first Euro-Canadian settler in Pickering was William Peak, who arrived in 1798 and settled along the lakeshore at the mouth of Duffins Creek, working as a trader and interpreter with Indigenous peoples.44 By the beginning of the nineteenth century, the southeastern portion of the Township began to be settled by Quakers from the eastern United States. In 1809, the population of the Township numbered at 180 inhabitants.45 In 1811, Pickering Township became a separate municipality. In 1821, the Township was included in the East Riding of York County. As the Township was characterized by rolling hills covered in hardwood trees, settlement of the area flourished. By 1846, approximately 63,061 acres of land out of the total 74,660 acres in the Township were taken up and in use.46 In 1842, the population increased to 3,752 inhabitants.47 By 1850, it had increased to 6,385 inhabitants.48 Throughout the 1850s, in part due to the Crimean War and the resulting economic boom in Canada, the Township was considered one of the best settled townships in the County of Ontario and contained a number of fine farms. The economic centres were Audley and Duffins Creek (later Pickering Village).49 With the continuation of settlement along the north shore of Lake Ontario, the lake itself became a highway of communication and exports. At Frenchman’s Bay, a natural enclosed harbour was proposed as a location for a commercial harbour. In the 1840s, the Pickering Harbour Company was formed for the development and management of the harbour. By 1845, a channel was opened along the gravel bar that enclosed the harbour, and within a few years, Pickering Harbour, or Port of Liverpool, was a busy port exporting pine logs, timber and agricultural products.50 In 1875, the Pickering Harbour was improved which allowed for the export of large quantities of barley grown in the Township to the United States. During the latter part of the nineteenth century, the Township experienced an economic slump, where mills and small businesses closed and much of its population emigrated to other parts of Canada. 4.5.1.1 Kingston Road In 1796, following the survey and establishment of Yonge Street, the colonial administration intended to establish a road from the head of the lake (Hamilton) to Kingston, and engaged 44 J.E. Farewell, Ontario County: A Short Sketch of Its Settlement, Physical Features, and Resources with Brief Historical Notes, Whitby, ON: Gazette-Chronicle Press, 1907, 11-13; William R. Wood, Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Community, Toronto, ON: William Briggs, 1911, 16-18. 45 W.C. Murkar, “Early Settlers in Pickering”, Pickering News, 29 June 1961. 46 William H. Smith, Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer: Comprising Statistical and General Information Respecting All Parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West, Toronto, C.W.: H. & W. Rowsell, 1846, 146. 47 William H. Smith, Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer: Comprising Statistical and General Information Respecting All Parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West, Toronto, C.W.: H. & W. Rowsell, 1846, 146. 48 William H. Smith, Canada: Past, Present and Future, Being A Historical, Geographical, Geological and Statistical Account of Canada West, Vol. II, Toronto, C.W.: Thomas Maclear, 1851, 21. 49 R.A. Murison, The Village of Pickering 1800-1970, Pickering, ON: The Corporation of the Village of Pickering, 1970, 3. 50 William R. Wood, Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Community, Toronto, ON: William Briggs, 1911, 163-164. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 21 contractor Asa Danforth. In 1817, ongoing work on Kingston Road east of Scarborough was completed all the way through Kingston to Montréal. It was the first major land route for long distance transportation in Upper Canada. However, difficulty in maintaining Kingston Road limited its usefulness. The preferred mode of transportation for long distance travellers and shipping of goods was still by boat. By 1836, work was underway to “plank” Kingston Road from Toronto to Rouge Hill. This process involved securing 16-foot-wide planks of wood to cover the roadway and create a smoother surface. This improvement increased the popularity of Kingston Road as a travel route for coaches and sleds. Taverns and inns began to spring up along Kingston Road to accommodate the increasing number of travellers.51 Kingston Road was eventually converted to a gravel roadway and in 1898 the Toronto Railway Company began to operate a streetcar along Kingston Road. By 1905, the line was completed to West Hill and became the preferred mode of transportation along Kingston Road. In the 1920’s, Kingston Road was taken over by the Ontario Department of Public Highways and paved.52 4.5.1.2 Rouge Hill The Property is located in the historic Rouge Hill area in the City of Pickering. Rouge Hill was initially associated with a dangerous crossing of the Rouge River in the Township of Pickering. In 1847, a new and safer plank and macadamized road and bridge were constructed over the Rouge River and a small cluster of homes were established in the hamlet.53 Due to the terrain of the Rouge Hill area, it was described as “highly picturesque, the river making many beautiful curves in its course, and forming islands which are studded with timber”.54 In the early days of stagecoaching along Kingston Road, the east hill above the Rouge River became a station point were horses were changed, and as such this location attained local prominence. A sawmill was constructed on the west bank of the Rouge River and by 1850, two hotels were constructed on the east bank, and operated by James Black and Andrew Noble. In 1852, Emanuel Playter became the first postmaster of Rouge Hill, having previously operated a general store.55 The 1859 British-American Guide Book noted the population of Rouge Hill as having 50 inhabitants.56 Rouge Hill is noted in the 1860 Tremaine’s Map of the County of York. This map also shows four structures along the intersection of Kingston Road between Lots 32 and 33, Concession 3. By 1870, a post office, saw mill, planning mill, woolen mill, steam carriage factory, cheese factory, 51 City of Toronto, "Kingston Road– Wards 36, 43, 44–Kingston Road Initiative– Action Report”, 10 March 2009, accessed 26 January 2024, https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/sc/bgrd/backgroundfile-19593.pdf 52 City of Toronto, "Kingston Road– Wards 36, 43, 44–Kingston Road Initiative– Action Report”, 10 March 2009, accessed 26 January 2024, https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/sc/bgrd/backgroundfile-19593.pdf 53 William H. Smith, Canada: Past, Present and Future, Being A Historical, Geographical, Geological and Statistical Account of Canada West, Vol. II, Toronto, C.W.: Thomas Maclear, 1851, 21. 54 William H. Smith, Canada: Past, Present and Future, Being A Historical, Geographical, Geological and Statistical Account of Canada West, Vol. II, Toronto, C.W.: Thomas Maclear, 1851, 21. 55 Max Rosenthal, “Early Post Offices in Pickering Township”, Pickering Historical Society, 4 June 1965, accessed 29 November 2023, 7; William R. Wood, Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Community, Toronto, ON: William Briggs, 1911, 161. 56 The British American guide-book: being a condensed gazetteer, directory and guide, to Canada, the Western States, and principal cities on the Seaboard, New York, NY: H. Bailliere, 1859, 67. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 22 cabinet factory, wagon shop, cooperage, shoemaker, and weaver, along with multiple other tradesmen were located in the hamlet.57 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.” Hugh Graham was listed as the Postmaster. The post office appears to be identified on the 1877 J.H. Beers Atlas of Ontario County (Figure 4). In 1878, the bridge over the Rouge River was rebuilt.58 The 1895 C.E. Goad Map of the Township of Pickering shows the development of the hamlet from the intersection of Kingston Road and Altona Road (Figure 4). Rouge Hill remained relatively undeveloped into the twentieth century (Image 1). The 1914 Topographic Map illustrates four structures in the area, three constructed out of wood, and one out of stone/brick (Figure 5). By 1919, the original alignment of Kingston Road was straightened, and a new bridge was constructed (Image 2). The area remained largely unchanged until 1936 when major development in the area occurred (Figure 4 and Image 3). 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, new structures were built in the surrounding area, and Highway 401 was widened (Figure 5 and Image 4). Historic Aerial Photographs from 1946, 1954, and 1969 were also consulted and show a similar development of the area (Figure 6). Image 1: View looking east along Kingston Road showing the village of Rouge Hill at left, 1909.59 57 W.A. McKay, The Pickering Story, Pickering, ON: The Township of Pickering Historical Society, 1961, 120. 58 Tweedsmuir History – Pickering Women’s Institute, Years of Growth, 1957, 85 59 TheKing’sHighway.ca, “Photographic History of King’s Highway 2”, accessed 15 January 2024, https://www.thekingshighway.ca/PHOTOS-3/hwy2-143_lg.jpg January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 23 Image 2: View looking east along Kingston Road towards Rouge Hill, 1919.60 Image 3: View looking east along Kingston Road towards Rouge Hill, 1932.61 60 TheKing’sHighway.ca, “Photographic History of King’s Highway 2”, accessed 15 January 2024. 61 Facebook, “Scarborough, Looking Back..”. 5 April 2010, accessed 15 January 2024, https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10150179564900273&set=a.487003990272 January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 24 Image 4: View looking east towards Kingston Road at left and Highway 401 at right, 1970.62 4.6 Property History Table 1: Property Chain of Ownership for 301 Kingston Road Property Owner Years of Ownership Remarks William Holmes 1798 – 1834 All 200 acres Thomas Dehart 1834(?) – 1838 195 acres; £145.6s John Wesley 1838 – 1868 195 acres; £200. John C. Wesley 1868 – 1874 --- Richard Rodd 1874 – 1881 --- Robert and Naomi Moody 1881 – 1902 --- George Toyne 1902 – 1934 --- George E. Toyne 1934 – 1936 --- Helen D. Toyne 1936 – 1944 --- John A. Alderice and Alcona Alderice 1944 – 1968 --- Manfred Pfeiffer and Delmar F. Page 1968 – 1971 1 acre; $1,000 + mortgage Ruth C. Smith 1971 – 1971 0.80 acres; $2 62 Facebook, “Scarborough, Looking Back..”. 5 April 2010 accessed 15 January 2024. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 25 Property Owner Years of Ownership Remarks Ernest A.J. Salmon 1971 – 2016 0.80 acres; $2 Energy Centre Inc. 2016 – Present --- In 1792, William Holmes, with plans to settle in Upper Canada was granted 1,200 acres in Pickering Township. The Crown Patent was granted in 1798, which included Lot 32, Concession 3 Broken Front.63 He purchased additional land including Lots 26 to 33, Concession 2 Broken Front, Concession 3 Broken Front, and Concession 1 and 2 (Figure 3).64 Holmes’ plans were changed when he was transferred to Quebec (Lower Canada) in 1796, where his regiment was stationed.65 It is unlikely that Holmes, who owned the Property along with his numerous acres of land, built or commissioned any structures in Pickering Township. J.S. Howard, agent of William Holmes had sold the Property to Thomas Dehart for a sum of £132.s5.5d.66 In 1838, John Wesley purchased Lot 32, Concession 3 Broken Front from Thomas Dehart for £200.67 A subsequent transaction in 1842 appears to record the transfer of the 195 acres from William Holmes’ estate to John Wesley.68 A mortgage between John Wesley, innkeeper and William Proudfoot, trustee of the Home District Savings Bank for a sum of £150 that same year suggests a building may have been constructed around that time.69 The 1843 Plan and Section of the Kingston Road illustrates two buildings on the north and south side of Kingston Road within the Rouge Hill hamlet. According to the 1846 Brown’s Toronto City and Home District Directory, Sarah Wesley is listed as living on Lot 32.70 The 1853 Tax Assessment Roll lists Andrew Noble as a householder on 200 acres of Lot 32 valued at £1,100, and Emanuel Playter is listed as a householder on ¼ acres of Lot 32 valued at £100.71 The 1855 to 1858 Tax Assessment Rolls list Andrew Noble, innkeeper, as a householder on 196 acres of Lot 32 valued at £1,200.72 The 1859 Tax Assessment Roll lists John C. Wesley, merchant, as a freeholder on ¼ acres valued at $400, and John Head, innkeeper, as a householder on 196 acres valued at $4,800 under the ownership of John C. Wesley.73 63 Land Registry Ontario, Durham (LRO 40), Inst. Crown Patent; Barbara Tunis, “Holmes, William (d.1834),” Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 6., University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003, accessed 28 November 2023, http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/holmes_william_1834_6E.html 64 Branch Architecture, “Kingston Road Study Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report,” 2020, 27. 65 Barbara Tunis, “Holmes, William (d.1834),” Dictionary of Canadian Biography, 2003. 66 Land Registry Ontario, Durham (LRO 40), 1838, Inst. 16364. 67 Land Registry Ontario, Durham (LRO 40), 1838, Inst. 16364. It is unclear when Thomas Dehart came into possession of the property. 68 Land Registry Ontario, Durham (LRO 40), 1843, Inst. 21307. 69 Land Registry Ontario, Durham (LRO 40), 1843, Inst. 21394. 70 Brown’s Toronto City and Home District Directory, 1846-7, Toronto, C.W: George Brown, 1846, 65. 71 Tax Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1853. 72 Tax Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1852, Lines 84-85; Tax Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1858, Line 78. 73 Tax Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1859, Lines 83-84. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 26 The 1860 Tremaines’ Map of County of Ontario depicts a building on the Property. It also identifies the area as Rouge Hill. Additionally, it indicates that John C. Wesley owned the entire Lot 32 and shows this building along with two others along Kingston Road on this Lot, one immediately to the east and one on the opposite side of Kingston Road (Figure 4). In 1860, the mortgage on the Property was discharged and it appears under the name of Sarah Wesley. That same year and throughout the 1860s, a series of transactions took place, including multiple mortgage agreements between John C. Wesley and James Black, an innkeeper. The 1860 to 1864 Tax Assessment Rolls list John C. Wesley, innkeeper, as owning the 196 acres valued at $4,800, and Michael Brooks, storekeeper and postmaster, on ½ an acre under the ownership of John C. Wesley valued at $350.74 In 1874, the Property was purchased by Richard Rodd. The 1877 J.H. Beers & Co. Map of Pickering Township demonstrates a building on the Property along with two others along Kingston Road in this Lot, one immediately east and one on the opposite side of Kingston Road. The 1877 J.H. Beers & Co Map provides more detailed information including an arrow which illustrates the ownership of two parcels of land by Richard Rodd which is consistent with the 1860 Tremaines’ Map (Figure 4). In 1881, Robert and Naomi Moody purchased the Property.75 In 1902, they sold the Property to George Toyne for a sum of $8,000.76 That same year, George Toyne erected a silo as part of his farmstead.77 The 1913 King’s Official Route Guide notes that the Rouge Hill post office was located at the left side (south side) of Kingston Road and George Toyne had been the postmaster since 1902.78 The 1914 Topographic Map illustrates the frame building and a brick or stone building on the Property, one of which is noted as a post office, and illustrates the position of three other buildings on the north side of Kingston Road (Figure 5). The 1922 Topographic Map illustrates the buildings in higher fidelity including the brick or stone building on the Property (Figure 5). The 1936 Topographic Map illustrates the growth of the Rouge Hill community with buildings constructed along Kingston Road and along a newly extended Altona Road to the south. It does not identify the construction material of buildings (Figure 5). The 1943 Topographic Map illustrates the growth of the Rouge Hill community with buildings constructed along Kingston Road, along a newly extended Altona Road to the south, and the construction of Highway 401 further south. It does not identify the construction material of buildings (Figure 5). In 1944, George’s wife, Helen sold the one-acre Property to John and Alcona Alderice for a sum of $1,000.79 The 1946 Aerial Photograph demonstrates two buildings on the Property including the farmhouse structure with an addition surrounded by a row of trees along the property line along Kingston Road and Altona Road (Figure 6). The 1954 Aerial Photograph demonstrates the 74 Tax Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1861, Lines 83-84. 75 Land Registry Ontario, Durham (LRO 40), 1881, Inst. 5572. 76 Land Registry Ontario, Durham (LRO 40), 1902, Inst. 10046. 77 “Rouge Hill”, The Pickering News, 31 October 1902, 1. 78 Sidney J. King, King’s Official Route Guide, Section 7: King’s Routes of Michigan, Province of Ontario, Can., and New York, Chicago, IL: Sidney J. King, 1913, 248. 79 Land Registry Ontario, Durham (LRO 40), 1944, Inst. 24411. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 27 same buildings in higher fidelity with evidence of gardens and rows of trees visible. Kingston Road appears to have been widened and Highway 401 appears at the south of the Property (Figure 5). The 1962 Topographic Map illustrates the building on the Property. It does not identify the construction material of buildings (Figure 5). In 1968, the Property was sold to Manfred Pfeiffer and Delmar Page. The 1969 Aerial Photograph demonstrates the same buildings in higher fidelity with evidence of gardens and rows of trees visible. Kingston Road appears to have been widened and Highway 401 appears at the south of the Property (Figure 6). In 1971, it was conveyed to Ruth Smith (trustee), and then shortly after, Ernest A.J. Salmon purchased the Property.80 The 1974 Topographic Map illustrates the building on the Property and the severing of Altona Road by the expansion of Highway 401. It does not identify the construction material of buildings (Figure 6). In 2016, the Property was purchased by the current owners.81 In 2020, the Property was one of four properties evaluated by Branch Architecture as part of the Kingston Road Study: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (Image 5 through Image 7). Image 5: View looking south towards the north elevation (front façade).82 80 Land Registry Ontario, Durham (LRO 40), 1971, Inst. CO205500. 81 Land Registry Ontario, Durham (LRO 40), 2016, Inst. DR1500267. 82 Branch Architecture, “Kingston Road Study Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report,” 2020. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 28 Image 6: View looking southwest towards the east elevation.83 Image 7: View looking northeast towards the west and south elevations.84 83 Branch Architecture, “Kingston Road Study Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report,” 2020. 84 Branch Architecture, “Kingston Road Study Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report,” 2020. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 29 4.7 Known Persons of Historical Interest Associated with the Property William Holmes was born in Stewartstown, Northern Ireland to parents William (1730-1789) and Martha (née Stewart) (1732-1805). In 1789, he married his first wife, Mary Anne (née Jacobs) (1765-1803) in Quebec City and they had eight children.85 He was a doctor and military surgeon in Upper Canada. From 1790 to 1791 he was stationed in Newark (now Niagara-on-the- Lake). In 1792, with plans to settle in Upper Canada, William accepted a grant for 1,200 acres in Pickering Township and purchased additional land. However, in 1796 his regiment, the 5th Regiment of Foot, was relocated to Lower Canada, and Holmes’ family re-settled in Quebec City where he worked as a senior medical officer. William also established himself as in private medical practice working at both Hotel-Dieu and Hospital General. In 1807, after the death of his first wife Mary Ann four years prior, he married his second wife, Margaret (née MacNaider) (1764-1838) in Quebec City and they had one daughter. 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. William became a keen farmer and owned well-kept properties along Chemin Sainte-Foy. In addition to his rural holdings, he owned and leased out several townhouses in Quebec City. In 1834, he passed away in Quebec City and was buried at the Cimetière Anglican Saint-Matthew.86 Thomas Dehart was born in New York to the parents of Captain Daniel Dehart (1760-1842) and Elizabeth Dehart (née Mersereau) (1760-1851). Originally from Staten Island, New York, the family settled in Whitby Township after the American Revolution.87 Thomas served in the 3rd Regiment of the York Militia under Captain Heward’s 2nd Flank Company during the War of 1812 but deserted. Afterwards, he worked as a farmer. The 1822 Census of Whitby Township notes that he lived with eight family members.88 Around 1824, he married Rebecca Dehart (née McCauslin) (1805-1860) and had four children including Lathrop (1824-1864), Charles (1826 ), William (1828-1917), and Juliet (1836-Unknown).89 In the 1836 Walton’s Directory he is listed as living in Whitby on Broken Front, Lot 35 with siblings Daniel, Nicholas, and Jacob owning 85 Ancestry.ca, “Dr. William Holmes (1762-1834)”, user Peter Charles Smith, n.d., accessed 24 January 2024, https://www.ancestry.ca/family-tree/person/tree/167269431/person/152205905233/facts 86 Barbara Tunis, “Holmes, William (d.1834),” Dictionary of Canadian Biography, 2003; Branch Architecture, “Kingston Road Study Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report,” 2020. 87 Ancestry.ca, “Thomas Dehart (1794-1850)”, accessed 29 November 2023, https://www.ancestry.ca/family- tree/person/tree/52426656/person/262471322065/gallery?galleryPage=1 88 “1822 Census of Whitby Township”, Oshawa Vindicator, 18 May 1864, 2, accessed 29 November 2023, https://0901.nccdn.net/4_2/000/000/046/6ea/1822-census-of-whitby-township.pdf 89 1850 United States Federal Census, 1850, 352, accessed 29 November 2023, https://www.ancestry.ca/discoveryui-content/view/16245286:8054?ssrc=pt&tid=71505275&pid=212213418375 January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 30 adjacent properties.90 Around 1836, he moved to Hancock County, Illinois and continued farming there. In 1850, he passed away in California.91 John M. Wesley was born in England.92 The 1837 Walton’s City of Toronto and Home District Directory and the 1843 Toronto Directory and Street Guide notes that for several years John Wesley was the proprietor of the Neptune Inn.93 The 1838 deed between Thomas Dehart and John Welsey notes Welsey’s occupation as an innkeeper and his residence at the time as being in Toronto. According to the 1842 Census, John was living in Toronto and working as the proprietor of the Neptune Inn.94 He married Elizabeth (1802-1838), and they had two children, Emily (1837-1837) and John C. (1838-1920). Elizabeth passed away during childbirth and they were both buried in the Toronto General Burying Ground cemetery.95 John C. Welsey was born in Toronto to John Welsey and Elizabeth Welsey. In 1860, he married Elmira Welsey (née Keeler) (1841-1884) and had two daughters, Clara (1863-1931) and Mary (1865-1952). According to the 1861 Census, his family was living on the Property in a two-storey frame house, and he worked as a farmer. The other extended family members living in the house included Jane (1842) and Fanny (1843).96 John C. Wesley owned the Property for several decades and registered multiple mortgages on Property throughout the 1860s. In 1865, he worked as a postmaster at the Rouge Hill post office.97 According to the 1871 Census and the 1881 Census, he had moved to Whitby and worked in a soda water factory.98 In 1884, his wife Elmira passed away. In 1887, he married his second wife, Elmina (née Conklin) (1842-1923) in Port Hope. In 1898, he moved to Oakland, California, becoming a US citizen and running a bookstore.99 In 1920, he passed away in San Francisco, California. 90 Thomas E. Kaiser, Historic Sketches of Oshawa, Oshawa, ON: Reforming Printing & Publishing Co., 1921, 208. 91 Ancestry.ca, “Thomas Dehart (1794-1850)”, accessed 29 November 2023, https://www.ancestry.ca/family- tree/person/tree/52426656/person/262471322065/gallery?galleryPage=1 92 Find-a-Grave, “John M. Wesley (1810-1843)”, accessed 18 January 2024, https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/249735652/john-m-wesley 93 The City of Toronto and the Home District commercial directory and register with almanack and calendar for 1837, Toronto, U.C: T. Dalton & W.J. Coates, 1837, 33; Francis Lewis, The Toronto Directory and Street Guide for 1843-4, Toronto, C.W., H. & W. Rowsell, 1843, 78. 94 Library and Archives Canada, 1842 Census of Canada West, accession no. 47162032, 1842. 95 FamilySearch, “York. Burial Registers 1850-1959, Film 004455459, Image 49, https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-DRKS-W1H?view=index&action=view 96 Library and Archives Canada, 1861 Census of Canada West, 1861, 100, Line 32. 97 Library and Archives Canada, “Rouge Hill”, Archives / Post Offices and Postmasters, accession no. RG3-D-3, accessed 29 November 2023, http://central.bac-lac.gc.ca/.redirect?app=posoffposmas&id=9769&lang=eng 98 Library and Archives Canada, 1871 Census of Canada, 1871, 28, Line 14; Library and Archives Canada, 1881 Census of Canada, Enumeration District No. 132 Ontario South, Sub-district Whitby Town, 1881, 1, Line 23. 99 Department of Commerce and Labor, Thirteenth Census of the United States, Enumeration District No. 122, Oakland City, 1910, 18, Line 2. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 31 George Toyne was born in Friskney, Lincolnshire, England to parents George Toyne (1827-1897) and Elizabeth Toyne (née Linton) (1831-1906). In 1879, he married Sarah Foston, and they had four children including George Edward (1880-1943), Walter (1883), Harry (1885), and Nellie (1896-1988). The family immigrated from England to Canada in 1888, settling in Guelph for three years.100 Between 1902 and 1915, he worked as the postmaster for the Rouge Hill post office.101 In 1913, he served as a poundkeeper for the Township.102 During the early 1900s, the building on the Property was used as a polling station for various local By-laws (with the description in the Pickering News given solely as George Toyne’s House, Rouge Hill).103 According to the 1921 Census, the Toyne family lived on the Property and the building contained seven rooms.104 The 1931 Census demonstrates that the building on the Property was valued at $800, was constructed out of wood and had nine rooms, which indicates that a former rear addition may have been constructed between those years.105 A local road in the Rouge Hill community, Toynevale Road, was given its name due to the association with George Toyne.106 100 Ancestry.ca, “George Toyne (1854-1936)”, accessed 29 November 2023, https://www.ancestry.ca/family- tree/person/tree/111047899/person/330086652521/facts 101 Library and Archives Canada, “Rouge Hill”, Archives / Post Offices and Postmasters, accession no. RG3-D-3, accessed 29 November 2023, http://central.bac-lac.gc.ca/.redirect?app=posoffposmas&id=9769&lang=eng 102 “Pickering Council”, The Pickering News, 13 January 1913, 3. 103 “By-law No. 871”, The Pickering News, 1 January 1909, 4; “By-law No. 1159”, The Pickering News, 30 December 1921, 3. 104 Library and Archives Canada, Sixth Census of Canada, 1921, Enumeration District No. 3 Pickering, 1921, 1, Line 26. 105 Library and Archives Canada, Seventh Census of Canada, 1931, Enumeration District No. 3 Pickering Township, 1931, 1, Line 17. 106 “Neighbours Remember When”, The 1ST Rouge Hill Girl Guide Company, 1984, accessed 29 November 2023, 14, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/0/edoc/171193/498.pdf REFERENCE(S)1. Archives of O ntario, "P ickering Township", (http://ao.minisisinc.com/SCR IP TS/MW IMAIN.DLL/218039428/1/3/43697?R ECO R D&DATABASE=IMAGES_ W EB: accessed April 01, 2022), digitized map, scale unkown, 1837.2. Library and Archives Canada, "P lan and Section of the Kingston R oad from the R ouge H ill to the Eastern Boundary of the Township of W hitby", (http://central.bac-lac.gc.ca/.redirect?app=fonandcol&id=4129185&lang=eng: accessed 24 January, 2024), Digitized map, scale 1:7,920, 1843.3. Shier, J., "Tremaine's Map of the Couty of O ntario, U pper 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, 18604. J.H . Beers & Co., "Map of P ickeroing Township", In: J.H . Beers & Co., "Illustrated H istorical Atlas of the County of O ntario O nt.", (https://digital.library.mcgill.ca/countyatlas/searchmapframes.php: accessed March 31, 2022), digitized map, Toronto: J.H . Beers & Co., 1877.5. Charles E. Goad, “Map of the Township of P ickering, O ntario County”, scale 60 chains to 1 inch, Toronto, O N: Charles E. Goad, 1895.6. A.E. Guidal, “Guidal Landowners’ Map of P ickering Township, O ntario County, P rovince of O ntario”, Map and Advertising Co. Limited, 1917.P ortions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and itslicensors and are used under license. Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. CLIENT P R O JECTDocumentation and Commemoration P lan 301 Kingston R oad, P ickering, O ntario CO NSU LTANT DESIGNED LH CP R EP AR ED JG Y Y Y Y -MM-DD 2024-01-26 FIGU R E # TITLEHistoric Maps Showing the Property P R O JECT NO . LH C0292 4 1. All locations are approximate. NOTE(S) Legend P roperty Energy Centre Inc. 1843 1860 1877 0 800400 Meters 0 800400 Meters 0 800400 Meters 0 800400 Meters 0 800400 Meters 1895 1917 1837 0 800400 Meters 1843 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 REFERENCE(S)1. National Air Photo Library, "A10118-25", scale 1:20,000, roll A10118 photo 25, 1946.2. National Air Photo Library, "A12499-3", scale 1:10,000, roll A12499 line 6W photo 3, 1950.3. 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 2023-12-19 FIGURE # TITLEHistoric Aerial Photographs of the Property PROJECT NO. LHC0292 5 1. All locations are approximate. NOTE(S) Legend Property 0 50 10025 Meters ¯ Energy Centre Inc. 1946 1969 ¯ ¯1950 0 50 10025 Meters 0 100 20050 Meters January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 35 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.1 Surrounding Context The Property is located in Peel Plain physiographic region. The Peel Plain is characterized by level-to-undulating clay soils, gently rolling topography which slopes westerly towards the Rouge River valley from the Property. The Credit, Humber, Don, and Rouge Rivers and streams such as the Bronte, Oakville, and Etobicoke Creeks have cut deep valleys across the plain. Soils in the area are predominantly imperfectly drained and stone-free clay loam. The Property is in the Rouge River watershed and the most prominent natural feature, the Rouge River, is found 300 metres to the west. 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.107 The surrounding area can generally be characterised as urban with a mixture of commercial and residential properties. Commercial properties are clustered around the intersection of Kingston Road and Altona Road, and to the east; all of which front Kingston Road. Commercial properties are generally one-to-two-storeys in height with a flat roof. Commercial structures generally have large floor to ceiling windows, metal doors with large glass sidelights, and are clad in brick. Some commercial buildings are clad in plaster and vinyl. A few older buildings are clad in 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. Some exceptions exist such as gable roof, and wooden, vinyl, or stone siding. Kingston Road is a major four-lane road with the designation of Regional Road 2 which runs in a west-to-east direction. It has hydro poles, light fixtures, concrete curbs, and concrete sidewalks on the north and south sides of the road (Photo 1 through Photo 5). Kingston Road had much of the original road alignment altered during the early twentieth century. Altona Road is a four-lane road in a north-to-south direction. It has hydro poles, light fixtures, concrete curbs, and concrete sidewalks on the west and east sides of the road. Altona Road has had much of the original road alignment altered with the construction of Highway 401 in the 1940s. 107 Parks Canada, “Rouge National Urban Park”, 2021, accessed 11 December 2023, https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn- np/on/rouge January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 36 Photo 1: View looking west along Kingston Road towards the Property. Photo 2: View looking south along Altona Road towards the Property. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 37 Photo 3: View looking northwest at the intersection of Kingston Road and Altona Road towards 1320 Altona Road. Photo 4: View looking west along Kingston Road. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 38 Photo 5: View looking east along Kingston Road towards the Property. 5.2 The Property The Property is legally described as PT LT 32 RANGE 3 CONCESSION BROKEN FRONT AS IN CO205500; CITY OF PICKERING (PIN: 26300-0139 (LT)). LHC’s understanding of the existing conditions of the Property has been supplemented by a Structural Assessment prepared by Clarke Engineering, referenced below where relevant. The Structural Engineering Report prepared by Clarke Engineering describes the building as being structurally unsafe. It describes the advanced state of deterioration of the building and identifies the heavy presence of designated substances such as mould within the structural elements.108 A Class 5 (Rough Order of Magnitude) estimate was provided for different approaches, including rehabilitation. The cost of rehabilitating the building is estimated to be approximately $1,150,000 which is significantly higher than the cost of demolition and the cost of constructing a new building.109 The two-storey wood frame building appears to have been constructed on a rectangular plan. The building features a large medium-pitched gabled roof with asphalt shingles, and returned eaves on the west and east elevations which appear to have been altered with a perforated plain metal soffit and painted metal cladding at the fascia, bedmould, frieze and gable-end 108 Clarke Engineering, “Re: 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario”, Draft Structural Engineering Report, 19 January 2024, 6. 109 Clarke Engineering, “Re: 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario”, Draft Structural Engineering Report, 19 January 2024, 6. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 39 returns. The building does not have any exterior cladding. Formerly, the building had a painted aluminium siding, however, it did not provide adequate protection against water damage and rodent infestation. The building is wrapped by a grey and green tarp, held by stakes, as part of mothballing measures aimed at protecting the building. The building sits on a concrete platform. The north elevation (front façade) is balanced, although does not have a symmetrical window and door pattern (Photo 6). On the first floor, there is a centrally-placed front door flanked by two window openings (Photo 7). On the second floor, there are three evenly-placed window openings, however they do not align with the window openings below. The west and east elevations display a symmetrical window pattern (Photo 8 through Photo 10). The east elevation features the remnants of a vertical strip between the two windows, which indicated a probable alteration related to the former chimney. The front entranceway at the north elevation features a contemporary wooden door with four embossed panels, and two sidelights, a rectangular transom and transom light. Photo 6: View looking south towards the north elevation (front façade) January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 40 Photo 7: View of the front entranceway and concrete steps. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 41 Photo 8: View looking east towards the west elevation.110 Photo 9: View looking north towards the north and east elevations.111 110 Ed Saki, correspondence, 31 January 2024. 111 Ed Saki, correspondence, 31 January 2024. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 42 Photo 10: View looking west towards the east elevation with a close-up of plaster cladding. 5.2.2.1 Basement The basement is accessed by a narrow opening in the floor above. The stairwell is no longer present, and a makeshift aluminum ladder substitutes the original. The opening was created without structural reinforcement to surrounding joists and this has caused substantial weakening in the floor structure including the dropping of the central section of the floor by approximately 7 cm.112 The foundation is composed of 15 cm concrete masonry blocks which may have been installed in order to compensate for deficiencies in the original rubblestone foundation. Notable issues include block courses which are not level and mortar joints that are incomplete (Photo 11). At the base of the exterior walls, concrete has been poured into the base of the walls, covering the sill plate.113 Large timber beams and joists support the ceiling and First Floor above. There appears to be significant rot, insect damage, and mechanical damage to the First Floor framing including joists and beams (Photo 12). 112 Clarke Engineering, “Re: 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario”, Draft Structural Engineering Report, 19 January 2024, 2. 113 Clarke Engineering, “Re: 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario”, Draft Structural Engineering Report, 19 January 2024, 2. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 43 Photo 11: View of the cinder block foundation. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 44 Photo 12: View of the cinder block foundation, large hewn timber beams, milled joists, and floorboards. 5.2.2.2 First Floor The first floor is composed of four rooms, including a bathroom and it is accessed via the centre entranceway at the north elevation. It is arranged in a centre hall plan, with access to the basement through a small and narrow opening in the floor (Photo 13). The building has been mostly taken down to the frames with exposed studs and joists. Of note are large structural timber beams, joists, and braces (Photo 14 through Photo 16). The large timber beams have hand-hewn markings and notched beams that may have been recycled from another structure (Photo 17). The heavy timber framing consists of four timber columns spaced evenly across each of the north and south walls. Four timber beams run in a north-south direction and are supported by a timber column at each end. Timber beams also span between the columns in the north and south walls.114 The central entranceway’s architectural elements including the sidelights, transom, and door casing are more visible from the interior as the exterior has been covered up. The first floor has been significantly altered and the majority of interior elements have been removed. The floor has recently been refurbished and includes new laminate flooring. The ceiling consists of the identical flooring material. The windows have vinyl casings and newer glazing, with a horizontal placement. Large structural wooden beams have been repurposed into the structure and are 114 Clarke Engineering, “Re: 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario”, Draft Structural Engineering Report, 19 January 2024, 4. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 45 located above the windows. The timber frame of the building reveals a plaster-and-lath construction that divided the building’s rooms (Photo 18 and Photo 19). The plaster-and-lath ceiling reveals evidence having been covered by various wallpapers. Of note are the flat rectangle-head machine-cut iron nails which date between 1850 and 1890 (Photo 20). Photo 13: View of the centre-hall plan showing the access points to the Basement and Second Floor levels. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 46 Photo 14: View of milled wooden joists and braces. Photo 15: View of two rooms separated by milled wooden framing. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 47 Photo 16: View of milled wooden joists. Photo 17: View of a large timber beam with a lap joint. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 48 Photo 18: View of a large timber beam with a supporting brace. Photo 19: View of wooden ceiling boards and the access point to the Second Floor. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 49 Photo 20: View of several flat rectangular-head machine-cut iron nails. 5.2.2.3 Second Floor The second floor is accessed by a temporary metal ladder as there is no stairwell present. The floor is composed of similar materials and architectural elements of the First Floor. The rafters and roof are built using milled wooden planks. The roof and ceiling framing above the second floor shows evidence of historical water damage, but no significant rot was observed. The ceiling framing members generally simply sit in notches present in the beams, without any positive connection. A portion of the ceiling structure is missing at the southeast. There are no purlins, struts, knee walls, collar ties or ridge beams to provide additional structural support (Photo 21 and Photo 22).115 115 Clarke Engineering, “Re: 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario”, Draft Structural Engineering Report, 19 January 2024, 2. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 50 Photo 21: View of the Second Floor showing the rafters and roof structure. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 51 Photo 22: View of the roof structure. 5.3 Design Analysis The Georgian architectural style was brought to Upper Canada (present-day Ontario) by United Empire Loyalists relocating from the United States after the American Revolution. The style was cumulative of architectural fashion in Britain during the reign of the first three King Georges of England (1750 - 1820). Georgian architecture in Britain and in Canada was a modification of the Renaissance style adapted throughout Europe during the eighteenth century. It was a variation on the Palladian style which was known for balanced façades, muted ornament, and minimal detailing. Simplicity, symmetry, and solidity were the elements to be strived for.116 5.4 Comparative Illustrations Nearby extant buildings constructed before 1900 found in the Rouge Hill community in the City of Pickering are described in Table 2. From analysis of historical mapping (Figure 4 & Figure 5) and aerial photography (Figure 6), it is evident that three out of the four buildings which stood at the corners of the Kingston Road and Altona Road intersection remain extant. Listed and Designated properties with buildings in the vernacular Georgian farmhouse architectural style within the City of Pickering are described in Table 3. 116 Shannon Kyles, “Georgian (1750-1850)”, OntarioArchitecture, n.d., accessed 5 December 2023, http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/georgian.htm January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 52 Table 2: Comparative Illustrations of Nearby Buildings in the Rouge Hill Community Address Recognition Adjacency Notes Photo 1310-1312 Altona Road, Pickering, ON None None According to real estate listings, the buildings on this property are over 100 years old.117 The 1895 C.E. Goad Map illustrates that a building was situated in that location. Located on Lot 33, Broken Front, Concession 3. 1320 Altona Road, Pickering, ON None None The likely attributes of the building including the vernacular L-shaped plan, gable roof with Gothic dormers and a red brick chimney, gingerbread cresting, wooden finials, wooden window sills, and Mansard roof indicate its probable construction during the Victorian era. The 1860 Tremaines’ Map, the 1877 J.H. Beers Map, and the 1895 C.E. Goad Map 117 HouseSigma, “1312 Altona Road, Pickering”, Listing ID E4487429, 13 June 2019, accessed 9 January 2024, https://housesigma.com/bkv2/landing/rootpage/listing?id_listing=gaQmD7zZGMr7J9Bo&utm_campaign=listing&utm_source=user-share&utm_medium=desktop&ign= January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 53 Address Recognition Adjacency Notes Photo illustrates that a building was situated in that location (Figure 3). Located on Lot 33, Broken Front, Concession 3. Table 3: Comparative Illustrations of Buildings in the vernacular Georgian architectural style within the City of Pickering Address Recognition Adjacency Notes Photo 1505 Whitevale Road, Pickering, ON Designated Section 29, Part IV of the OHA By-law 6691/06 enacted on 24 July 2006. None One of the earliest surviving farmhouses in Pickering. The building dates to 1861 and is a classic example of an Ontario vernacular farmhouse. The exterior is Georgian in form, while the interior is representative of the mid 19th century, with a Greek revival sensibility.118 118 City of Pickering, Municipal Heritage Register, June 2021, accessed 18 January 2024. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 54 Address Recognition Adjacency Notes Photo 560 Park Crescent, Pickering, ON Designated Section 29, Part IV of the OHA By-law 7290/13 enacted on 8 July 2013. None The Newman House a 1 ½ storey, three-bay fieldstone farmhouse built in the mid-1850s in a modified Georgian style. The property is recognized for its design, historical, and contextual value.119 615 Whitevale Road, Pickering, ON Designated Section 29, Part IV of the OHA None The property displays design and physical value, historical associative value, and contextual value. The Henry Major House is a rare and representative style of the Georgian Classical Style. The house was constructed for Henry Major in the 1830s and is a 1 ½ storey timber-frame house is rare in the area. It is associated with the early settlement of the area and is important in maintaining and supporting the rural 19th century landscape along the Whitevale Road corridor.120 119 City of Pickering, Municipal Heritage Register, June 2021, accessed 18 January 2024. 120 City of Pickering, Municipal Heritage Register, June 2021, accessed 18 January 2024. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 55 EVALUATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST 6.1 Heritage Status The Property is listed on the City’s MHR under Section 27, Part IV of the OHA, and is not designated under Section 29, Part IV or Section 41, Part V of the OHA. The City’s MHR provides the following description of the Property which was added on 1 March 2021: 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.121 6.2 Previous Evaluations As discussed in Section 1.1, the Property was previously evaluated by Branch Architecture (2020). The 2020 study, Kingston Road Study: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, 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 scope of the 2020 study was: 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.122 The 2020 study recommended listing the Property indicating it met criteria: • 1 as a rare –but altered –example of an early to mid-19th century Georgian; • 4 for its associations with William Holmes; 121 City of Pickering, Municipal Heritage Register, June 2021, accessed 4 December 2023, 5, https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/resources/Municipal-Heritage-Register-June-2021-ACC.pdf 122 Branch Architecture, Kingston Road Study: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report. 2020: 1. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 56 • 8 as perhaps one of a few remaining buildings associated with the Rouge Hill community; and, • 9 as a prominently located structure (landmark). In 2022, LHC completed a Documentation and Commemoration Plan (DCP) for the Property “to provide a visual and textual documentary record of the Property, its architectural elements, and its surrounding context.” Based on the limited scope, the DCP recommended that the Property met criteria 4 for its association with the Rouge Hill community and criteria 9 as it “could be considered a landmark”. However, the following evaluation is based on more detailed historical research and assessment of the current condition of the Property and supersedes the evaluation in the DCP.123 6.3 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation The Property was evaluated for CHVI against O. Reg. 9/06 under the OHA with the goal of determining if the Property satisfies the criteria and, as applicable, identifying and articulating heritage attributes (Section 6.2). (Table 4). Table 4: Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation for 301 Kingston Road Criteria Criteria Met Justification 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. No The property does not meet this criterion. As discussed in Sections 5.0 and 5.3, the building has been altered and no longer retains sufficient characteristic features of the Georgian style for it to be a representative example. Particularly, the arrangement of the window openings lacks the symmetry that best characterises the style. The scale, massing, rectangular plan, and roof pitch remain evocative of the style. Visible alteration of elements within the interior indicate that this is not an early example of the Georgian style. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The Property does not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. The Property does not demonstrate evidence of more than average craftsmanship for the time in its construction. 123 LHC, Documentation and Commemoration Report, 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario. 2022: 28. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 57 Criteria Criteria Met Justification 3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The Property does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. There is no evidence to suggest that the Property meets this criterion. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. Yes The Property meets this criterion. As described in Section 4.7, although the Property was owned by William Holmes, no direct associations to him were identified with respect to 301 Kingston Road. There is no evidence to suggest he constructed the extant building. It may have been constructed for John Wesley Sr., or possibly John C. Wesley sometime prior to 1860. However, the extensive mortgages in the 1860s and the visible construction elements indicate that the extant building may have been constructed during this time to replace an earlier structure. The Property is associated with the Rouge Hill post office and postmasters including Emanuel Playter between 1852 and 1859, Michael Brooks between 1860 and 1864, John C. Wesley in 1865, and George Toyne between 1902 and 1915, after then it closed. The Property is directly associated with the development of the Rouge Hill community in the mid-nineteenth century, and this is illustrated by various historical maps showing the building at the intersection of Kingston Road and Altona Road. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 58 Criteria Criteria Met Justification 5. The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The Property does not yield information that contributes to the understanding of the community. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The Property does not demonstrate or reflect the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is important to a community. The building was built using vernacular plans and designs with Georgian influences that were widely available at the time. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. No The property does not meet this criterion. Although the Property has remained in its original position and orientation, it has lost all of the auxiliary farm buildings, structures, and vegetative landscape features including trees and hedgerows which made the Property a working farm for over 100 years. The surrounding area does not have a cohesive cultural heritage character to which the Property contributes. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. No The property does not meet this criterion. The property is not physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings. As discussed in Sections 4.5.1.1 and 4.6, although the Property has remained in its original position and orientation, it has lost all of the auxiliary farm buildings, structures, and vegetative landscape features including trees and hedgerows which made the Property a working farm for over 100 years. Although the Property, along with nearby properties 1310-1212 Altona Road and 1320 Altona Road are over 100 years old and form part of the historic fabric of the former January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 59 Criteria Criteria Met Justification hamlet, no links between the properties have been found. Additionally, the original alignment of Kingston Road has changed as it was straightened and widened during the twentieth century. The original function of the Rouge Hill hamlet as a stagecoach stop and post office had ceased by the early twentieth century with the closure of the post office in 1915. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The MCM defines landmark as: a recognizable natural or human-made feature used for a point of reference that helps orienting in a familiar or unfamiliar environment; it may mark an event or development; it may be conspicuous. As discussed in Sections 4.5 and 5.4, the Property is not a landmark. Despite its placement and location at the intersection of Kingston Road and Altona Road, the Property does not terminate at a vista and is not the focus of or part of any significant views. Historical photographs (Section 4.5.1.1) from the Rouge River bridge eastwards toward the Property do not show the Property. 6.4 Summary of Evaluation In our professional opinion, LHC finds that the Property meets one criterion of O. Reg. 9/06 (criterion 4). As the Property meets one of the nine criteria, a proposed Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest is found below (Section 7.0). However, the Property does not meet at least two criteria and, as such, would be not eligible for designation under Section 29, Part IV of the OHA. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 60 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST 7.1 Proposed Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest The property at 301 Kingston Road includes a vernacular detached residential building. The building is a c.1860 wood-frame two storey residential building on a rectangular plan. The property is located on the south side of Kingston Road between Altona Road and Rougemount Drive. It is bounded by Kingston Road to the north, Altona Road to the west, Highway 401 to the south, and 321-325 Kingston Road to the east. The property is legally described as PT LT 32 RANGE 3 CONCESSION BROKEN FRONT AS IN CO205500; CITY OF PICKERING (PIN: 26300-0139 (LT)). The property has historical and associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to the community of Rouge Hill. As described in Section 4.6, the property is directly associated with farming families in the historical Pickering Township which owned the property including the Wesley and Toyne families. The building on the property was constructed around 1860. The property is associated with the Rouge Hill post office and postmasters including Emanuel Playter between 1852 and 1859, Michael Brooks between 1860 and 1864, John C. Wesley in 1865, and George Toyne between 1902 and 1915, after then the office was closed. The heritage attributes that exhibit the cultural heritage value or interest of 301 Kingston Road include: • The c.1860 two-storey residential wood-frame building including its: o Form, scale, position, orientation, and massing on a rectangular-shaped plan; and, o Moderately-pitched gable roof with return eaves. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 61 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OR SITE ALTERATION The Owner is proposing the demolition of the two-storey building on the Property. The proposed Durham-Scarborough Bus Rapid Transit project (DSBRT) is expected to operate along an expanded Kingston Road right-of-way adjacent to the Property.124 This includes a 3.6 m by 40 m BRT platform stop, and a realigned 1.5 m – 1.8 m wide cycling track and 1.8 m wide sidewalk. The driveway access to the Property is proposed to be relocated as part of detailed designs and a retaining wall is proposed to be constructed.125 The 2021 Plan 40R-31305 survey illustrates that the Part 1 portion of the Property totalling 114.2 m² which encroaches between 3.07 m and 4 m from the property line is proposed to be expropriated for the right-of-way.126 As such, the impact assessment that follows considers the future of the Property and its cultural heritage resource very broadly. 124 Metrolinx, “Durham-Scarborough Bus Rapid Transit Environmental Assessment Plan and Profile”, Appendix A1.2: Pickering Design, August 2021, 1, https://assets.metrolinx.com/image/upload/v1663151621/Documents/Metrolinx/dsbrt_epr_appendixa1.2_pickeri ngdesign_0_iba6jf.pdf 125 Metrolinx, “Durham-Scarborough Bus Rapid Transit Environmental Assessment Plan and Profile”, Appendix A1.2: Pickering Design, August 2021, 1. 126 James A. Agyemang, O.L.S., Plan of Survey of Part of Lot 32, Range 3 Broken Front Concession Part of Lots 1 and 2 Registered Plan 350, Plan 40R-31305, Young & Young Surveying Inc., 25 March 2021. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 62 IMPACT ASSESSMENT As discussed in Section 6.2, the Property was evaluated against O. Reg. 9/06 and it was determined that the Property exhibits CHVI; but it does not satisfy the requirements for designation under Section 29, Part IV of the OHA. At this stage in planning and design, the purpose of this HIA is to identify and outline constraints, and assess potential impacts related to the cultural heritage resource on the Property. The proposed demolition of the extant structure will result in the removal of the cultural heritage resource and the loss of all heritage attributes. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 63 CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES 10.1 Conservation Guidance The following range of possible development options was explored for the Property. All options have been considered in relation to the applicable planning framework outlined in Section 3.0. The options have also taken existing conditions into consideration. An evaluation of options is identified below. The Property is determined to exhibit CHVI as outlined in Section 6.2, as such OP policies require and encourage conservation. As stated in Section 3.3.1, the City generally prefers the retention of heritage structures in situ as the first priority for conservation strategies. Relocation or dismantling for rebuilding is identified as a secondary strategy for conservation, with documentation and salvage of heritage features considered as a last option. A discussion of options follows. Option 1: Do Nothing and Retain Current Use This option would leave the Property as is. The c.1860 two-storey frame building on the Property is vacant and in a mothballed state. Considering the physical condition of the building, including the foundation, the structural elements, and the roof, extensive and costly work would be required to restore it.127 Without proper maintenance measures, the building will continue to deteriorate. Given the compromised physical condition and heritage integrity of the Property, and the amount of work and resources required for this option, it is not viable. Option 2: Rehabilitation in situ of the Property This option is the most preferred from a strictly heritage perspective, as it conserves and rehabilitates the building. However, given the narrow setback of the existing building from the Kingston Road right-of- way, it is understood that retention in its current location is not a viable option with respect to the future development of the Property and the proposed Durham-Scarborough Bus Rapid Transit project (DSBRT). The Structural Engineering Report prepared by Clarke Engineering describes the building as being structurally unsafe. It describes the advanced state of deterioration of the building and identifies the heavy presence of designated substances such as mould within the structural elements (Section 5.2).128 127 Clarke Engineering, “Re: 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario”, Draft Structural Engineering Report, 19 January 2024, 6. 128 Clarke Engineering, “Re: 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario”, Draft Structural Engineering Report, 19 January 2024, 6. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 64 A Class 5 (Rough Order of Magnitude) estimate was provided for different approaches, including rehabilitation. The cost of rehabilitating the building is estimated to be approximately $1,150,000 which is significantly higher than the cost of demolition and the cost of constructing a new building.129 Relocation of the Building within the Property and integration with any future development. As retention in situ is not possible, this option becomes the preferred from a strictly heritage perspective. However, given the structural condition of the building as discussed in the Structural Engineering Report (Section 5.2), relocation is not a viable option. The Structural Engineering Report prepared by Clarke Engineering describes the advanced deterioration condition of the building as being unlikely to withstand the activity and journey associated with potential relocation.130 Demolition of the Building on the Property. This option is –from a strictly heritage perspective –an option of last resort should retention in situ or relocation not be viable options. As the Property has CHVI that could be documented and commemorated, being primarily related to its historical or associative value, that there are structural and safety issues associated with the advanced state of deterioration of the building, and that the Property does not meet the threshold for designation under Section 29, Part IV of the OHA, that demolition with appropriate documentation and commemoration of the history is a viable option. Furthermore, since --in LHC’s professional opinion—the Property only meets one criteria from O. Reg. 9/06 it should not be designated under the OHA. Mitigation measures –in the event of demolition –include preparation of a Documentation, Salvage and Commemoration Plan (DCP) per OP Policy 8.8. It should include the following elements: o Photographs of the Property; o A log of all relevant images, including perspective photographs, elevations, and detail photographs of architectural elements; o A salvage plan for materials. Salvage must be guided by any Designated Substances Survey undertaken for the site; and, 129 Clarke Engineering, “Re: 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario”, Draft Structural Engineering Report, 19 January 2024, 6. 130 Clarke Engineering, “Re: 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario”, Draft Structural Engineering Report, 19 January 2024, 6. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 65 o Recommendations related to a statement and plan for commemorating the historical or associative value of the Property. LHC’s 2022 DCP generally satisfies this requirement and it is recommended that this HIA be appended to LHC’s 2022 DCP as it provides a fulsome overview of the history of the Property and its CHVI. It is further recommended that an updated Commemoration Plan be prepared to identify the most appropriate location and manner of commemoration. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 66 MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONSERVATION STRATEGY Based on the foregoing, demolition, with documentation, salvage (as appropriate) and commemoration is –as a last resort –the preferred alternative for the Property. Demolition will result in the loss of the cultural heritage resource and its heritage attributes. In order to mitigate this impact, an updated DCP is recommended to be prepared to incorporate the additional research and evaluation undertaken as part of this HIA and to further develop the commemoration plan for the Property. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 67 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. (LHC) was retained by Ed Saki of Energy Centre Inc. to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the Property at 301 Kingston Road (the Property) in the City of Pickering (the City), Ontario within the Regional Municipality of Durham (the Region). The Owner is proposing the demolition of the two-storey wood-frame building on the Property. The purpose of this HIA is to undertake a fulsome evaluation of cultural heritage value or interest and an impact assessment of the Property and the proposed demolition. The Property was added to the City’s Municipal Heritage Register (MHR) in March 2021 as a non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest under Section 27, Part IV of the OHA. This cultural heritage evaluation was undertaken following guidance from the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (2006). The process included background research into the site, an on-site assessment, and evaluation of the cultural heritage value of the property based on the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest under the Ontario Heritage Act (O. Reg. 9/06). The impact assessment was prepared using guidance from the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (2006). This HIA is also guided by the City’s Heritage Impact Assessments Terms of Reference. In our professional opinion, LHC finds that the Property meets one criterion of O. Reg. 9/06 (criterion 4). As it does not meet at least two criteria, the Property would be not eligible for designation under Section 29, Part IV of the OHA. It is LHC’s understanding that retention in situ or relocation within a future development is not a viable alternative due to the advanced state of decay the building is in. The building is structurally unsafe. LHC finds there is a potential for direct adverse impacts through the removal of heritage attributes of the c.1860 two-storey wood-frame building on the Property. LHC recommends the following: •To mitigate the removal of the Property’s heritage attributes, an updated DCP is recommended to be prepared to incorporate the additional research and evaluation undertaken as part of this HIA and to further develop the commemoration plan for the Property. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 68 SIGNATURES Christienne Uchiyama, M.A, CAHP Principal, Manager Heritage Consulting Services Diego Maenza, MPl, CAHP-Intern Heritage Planner January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 69 REFERENCES Policy and Legislation Resources City of Pickering, Municipal Heritage Register, June 2021, https://www.pickering.ca/en/city- hall/resources/Municipal-Heritage-Register-June-2021-ACC.pdf ---, Pickering Official Plan, Edition 9, 1997, office consolidation March 2022, https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/resources/Official-Plan---Main-Page/Edition- 9/OP9ACC.pdf ---, Terms of Reference Heritage Impact Assessments, April 2022. Durham Region, Durham Regional Official Plan, last modified 26 May 2020, https://www.durham.ca/en/doing- business/resources/Documents/PlanningandDevelopment/Official-Plan/2020-Durham- Regional-Official-Plan-Consolidation---Revised-1.pdf Government of Ontario, “Johnson-Butler Purchase”, 13 January 2022, accessed 18 January 2024, https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-ontario-treaties-and-reserves#t4 Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, “Heritage Conservation Principles for Landuse Planning”, Last modified 2007, http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/InfoSheet_Principles_LandUse_Planning.pdf ---. “Heritage Property Evaluation: A Guide to Listing, Researching and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario Communities”, The Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2006. http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage_Tool_Kit_HPE_Eng.pdf. ---. “PPS Info Sheet: Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process”, The Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2006. http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage_Tool_Kit_Heritage_PPS_infoSheet. pdf. ---. “Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties”, Last modified 28 April 28, 2010, https://files.ontario.ca/mhstci-standards-guidelines- heritage-properties-en-2022-04-29.pdf ---. Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties: Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process. Last modified 2014. http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/MTCS_Heritage_IE_Process.pdf National Park Service, “How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property”, Chapter VIII in National Register Bulletin, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources, 1997. Province of Ontario, “A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe”, last modified 28 August 2020, https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-place-to-grow-office- consolidation-en-2020-08-28.pdf. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 70 ---, “Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18”, last modified 1 July 2023, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18. ---, “O. Reg. 9/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest – Under Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18”, last modified 1 January 2023, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060009. ---, “Places to Grow Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 13”, last modified 1 June 2021, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/05p13. ---, “Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13”, last modified 8 June 2023, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13. ---, “Provincial Policy Statement”, last modified 1 May 2020, https://files.ontario.ca/mmah- provincial-policy-statement-2020-accessible-final-en-2020-02-14.pdf Mapping Resources A.E. Guidal, “Guidal Landowners’ Map of Pickering Township, Ontario County, Province of Ontario”, Map and Advertising Co. Limited, 1917. Charles E. Goad, “Map of the Township of Pickering, Ontario County”, scale 60 chains to 1 inch, Toronto, ON: Charles E. Goad, 1895. Geo. R. Tremaine, "Tremaine's Map of the County of Ontario, Canada West", (https://maps.library.utoronto.ca/hgis/countymaps/york/0008.jpg; accessed 5 June 2023), Toronto: Geo. C. Tremaine, 1860. J.H. Pope, "Township of Markham", In: "Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario", (https://digital.library.mcgill.ca/countyatlas/searchmapframes.php; accessed 5 June 2023), Toronto: Walker & Miles, 1878. National Air Photo Library, "A10113_056", roll A10113 line 19E photo 56, scale 1:20,000, 1946. ---, "A19508-17", (https://madgic.trentu.ca/airphoto/; accessed 14 June 2023), roll A19508 line 30W photo 17, scale 1:30,000, 1969. ---, "A25646_005", roll A25646 line 2E photo 5, scale 1:25,000, 1981. University of Toronto Libraries, "1954 Air Photos of Southern Ontario, photo 438.792", 1954. Archival Resources “1822 Census of Whitby Township”, Oshawa Vindicator, 18 May 1864, 2, accessed 29 November 2023, https://0901.nccdn.net/4_2/000/000/046/6ea/1822-census-of-whitby- township.pdf Ancestry.ca, 1850 United States Federal Census, 1850, 352, accessed 29 November 2023, https://www.ancestry.ca/discoveryui- content/view/16245286:8054?ssrc=pt&tid=71505275&pid=212213418375 January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 71 City of Toronto, "Kingston Road– Wards 36, 43, 44–Kingston Road Initiative– Action Report”, 10 March 2009, accessed 26 January 2024, https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/sc/bgrd/backgroundfile-19593.pdf Department of Commerce and Labor, Thirteenth Census of the United States, Enumeration District No. 122, Oakland City, 1910, 18, Line 2. Library and Archives Canada, Personal Census, Enumeration District No. 2, 1851, Line 33, 169 ---, Personal Census, Enumeration District No. 3, 1851, Line 26, 213. ---, Personal Census, Enumeration District No. 14, 1861, Line 19, 147. ---, Agricultural Census, Enumeration District No. 2, 1851, Line 22, 203. ---, 1861 Census of Canada, Personal Census, Enumeration District No. 14, 1861, Line 29, 148. ---, Census of Canada, 1891, York East, Township of Markham, 1891, Line 11, 10. ---, Sixth Census of Canada, 1921, York South, Enumeration Sub-District 5, 1921, Line 31, 15. ---, Seventh Census of Canada, 1931, York South, Enumeration Sub-District 28, 1931, Line 36, 7. Pickering Public Library, Tax Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1852, Lines 84-85. ---, Tax Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1858, Line 78. ---, Tax Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1859, Lines 83-84. ---, Tax Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1861, Lines 83-84. Additional Resources Ancestry.ca, “Dr. William Holmes (1762-1834)”, accessed 24 January 2024, https://www.ancestry.ca/family- tree/person/tree/167269431/person/152205905233/facts Ancestry.ca, “George Toyne (1854-1936)”, accessed 29 November 2023, https://www.ancestry.ca/family- tree/person/tree/111047899/person/330086652521/facts Ancestry.ca, “Thomas Dehart (1794-1850)”, accessed 29 November 2023, https://www.ancestry.ca/family- tree/person/tree/52426656/person/262471322065/gallery?galleryPage=1 Barbara Tunis, “Holmes, William (d.1834),” Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 6., University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003, accessed 28 November 2023, http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/holmes_william_1834_6E.html Branch Architecture, “Kingston Road Study Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report,” 2020. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 72 Brown’s Toronto City and Home District Directory, 1846-7, Toronto, C.W: George Brown, 1846, 65. “By-law No. 871”, The Pickering News, 1 January 1909, 4; “By-law No. 1159”, The Pickering News, 30 December 1921, 3. City of Pickering, “Council Meeting, November 27”, 27 November 2023, accessed 8 January 2024, https://www.viddler.com/v/18753fba?secret=57115818 Christopher Ellis and D. Brian Deller, “Paleo-Indians”, in The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, ed. Christopher Ellis and Neal Ferris, London, ON: Ontario Archaeological Society, London Chapter, 1990, 37. Clarke Engineering, “Re: 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario”, Draft Structural Engineering Report, 19 January 2024. Facebook, “Scarborough, Looking Back..”. 5 April 2010, accessed 15 January 2024, https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10150179564900273&set=a.487003990272 FamilySearch, “York. Burial Registers 1850-1959, Film 004455459, Image 49, https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-DRKS- W1H?view=index&action=view Find-a-Grave, “John M. Wesley (1810-1843)”, accessed 18 January 2024, https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/249735652/john-m-wesley Francis Lewis, The Toronto Directory and Street Guide for 1843-4, Toronto, C.W., H. & W. Rowsell, 1843. HouseSigma, “1312 Altona Road, Pickering”, Listing ID E4487429, 13 June 2019, accessed 9 January 2024, https://housesigma.com/bkv2/landing/rootpage/listing?id_listing=gaQmD7zZGMr7J9Bo &utm_campaign=listing&utm_source=user-share&utm_medium=desktop&ign= J.E. Farewell, Ontario County: A Short Sketch of Its Settlement, Physical Features, and Resources with Brief Historical Notes, Whitby, ON: Gazette-Chronicle Press, 1907. Library and Archives Canada, “Rouge Hill”, Archives / Post Offices and Postmasters, accession no. RG3-D-3, http://central.bac-ac.gc.ca/.redirect?app=posoffposmas&id=9769&lang=eng Max Rosenthal, “Early Post Offices in Pickering Township”, Pickering Historical Society, 4 June 1965, accessed 29 November 2023. Metrolinx, “Durham-Scarborough Bus Rapid Transit Environmental Assessment Plan and Profile”, Appendix A1.2: Pickering Design, August 2021, https://assets.metrolinx.com/image/upload/v1663151621/Documents/Metrolinx/dsbrt _epr_appendixa1.2_pickeringdesign_0_iba6jf.pdf January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 73 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, “The History of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation,” Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, 2018, http://mncfn.ca/wp- content/uploads/2018/04/The-History-of-MNCFN-FINAL.pdf Melba E. McKay, Pickering Women’s Institute, 1957, 11. “Neighbours Remember When”, The 1ST Rouge Hill Girl Guide Company, 1984, accessed 29 November 2023, 14, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/0/edoc/171193/498.pdf Parks Canada, “Bead Hill National Historic Site of Canada”, Directory of Federal Heritage Designations, accessed 18 January 2024, https://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/page_nhs_eng.aspx?id=531 ---, “Rouge National Urban Park”, 2021, accessed 11 December 2023, https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/on/rouge Peel Art Gallery, Museum, and Archives [PAMA], “About Peel,” 2022, accessed 19 January 2024, https://peelarchivesblog.com/about-peel/ “Pickering Council”, The Pickering News, 13 January 1913, 3. “Pickering Early Settlement”, Pickering Public Library, accessed 26 January 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=171240&dbid=0&repo=P ICKERING R.A. Murison, The Village of Pickering 1800-1970, Pickering, ON: The Corporation of the Village of Pickering, 1970. Robert J. Surtees, “Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties”, Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1986. “Rouge Hill”, The Pickering News, 31 October 1902, 1. Shannon Kyles, “Georgian (1750-1850)”, OntarioArchitecture, n.d., accessed 5 December 2023, http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/georgian.htm Sidney J. King, King’s Official Route Guide, Section 7: King’s Routes of Michigan, Province of Ontario, Can., and New York, Chicago, IL: Sidney J. King, 1913. The British American guide-book: being a condensed gazetteer, directory and guide, to Canada, the Western States, and principal cities on the Seaboard, New York, NY: H. Bailliere, 1859. The City of Toronto and the Home District commercial directory and register with almanack and calendar for 1837, Toronto, U.C: T. Dalton & W.J. Coates, 1837, 33. TheKing’sHighway.ca, “Photographic History of King’s Highway 2”, accessed 15 January 2024, https://www.thekingshighway.ca/PHOTOS-3/hwy2-143_lg.jpg January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 74 Thomas E. Kaiser, Historic Sketches of Oshawa, Oshawa, ON: Reforming Printing & Publishing Co., 1921. Toronto Public Library, “Local History & Genealogy, Selections and Full PDFs of “The Jesuit Relations”: Sainte-Marie among the Hurons and Beyond,” accessed 18 January 2024, https://torontopubliclibrary.typepad.com/local-history-genealogy/2020/01/sainte- marie-among-the-hurons-selections-from-the-jesuit-relations-and-allied- documents.html Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Archaeology Opens a Window on the History of Indigenous Peoples in the GTA,” News, 2018, https://trca.ca/news/archaeology- indigenous-peoples-gta/ --- “Chapter 3: First Nations”, in Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks, prepared by the Toronto Region Conservation Authority, 2001, http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/37523.pdf Tweedsmuir History – Pickering Women’s Institute, Years of Growth, 1957. W.A. McKay, The Pickering Story, Pickering, ON: The Township of Pickering Historical Society, 1961. W.C. Murkar, “Early Settlers in Pickering”, Pickering News, 29 June 1961. William H. Smith, Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer: Comprising Statistical and General Information Respecting All Parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West, Toronto, C.W.: H. & W. Rowsell, 1846. ---, Canada: Past, Present and Future, Being A Historical, Geographical, Geological and Statistical Account of Canada West, Vol. II, Toronto, C.W.: Thomas Maclear, 1851, 21. William R. Wood, Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Community, Toronto, ON: William Briggs, 1911. Williams Treaties First Nations, “Gunshot Treaty,” Pre-Confederation Treaties, n.d. ---, Map of William Treaties and Pre-Confederation Treaties, https://williamstreatiesfirstnations.ca/maps-of-our-treaties/. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 75 APPENDIX A Qualifications Christienne Uchiyama, MA CAHP - Principal, LHC Christienne Uchiyama MA CAHP is Principal and Manager - Heritage Consulting Services with LHC. She is a Heritage Consultant and Professional Archaeologist (P376) with two decades of experience working on heritage aspects of planning and development projects. She is currently Past President of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals and received her MA in Heritage Conservation from Carleton University School of Canadian Studies. Her thesis examined the identification and assessment of impacts on cultural heritage resources in the context of Environmental Assessment. Chris has provided archaeological and heritage conservation advice, support and expertise as a member of numerous multi-disciplinary project teams for projects across Ontario and New Brunswick, including such major projects as: all phases of archaeological assessment at the Canadian War Museum site at LeBreton Flats, Ottawa; renewable energy projects; natural gas pipeline routes; railway lines; hydro powerline corridors; and highway/road realignments. She has completed more than 300 cultural heritage technical reports for development proposals at all levels of government, including cultural heritage evaluation reports, heritage impact assessments, and archaeological licence reports. Her specialties include the development of Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, under both O. Reg. 9/06 and 10/06, and Heritage Impact Assessments. Diego Maenza, MPl CAHP Intern – Heritage Planner Diego Maenza is a Heritage Planner with LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. He holds a B.A. in Human Geography and Urban Studies from the University of Toronto and a Master of Planning degree from Dalhousie University. His thesis considered the urban morphological changes of railway infrastructure, landscapes, and neighbourhoods before and after the 1917 Halifax Explosion. Diego is a heritage professional with three years of public sector experience in Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Ontario through team-based and independent roles. He is an intern member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and a candidate member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI). At LHC, Diego has worked on numerous projects dealing with all aspects of Ontario’s cultural heritage. He has been lead author or co-author of over twelve cultural heritage technical reports for development proposals including Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, Heritage Impact Assessments, and Heritage Documentation Reports. Diego has also provided heritage planning advisory support for the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake and the Municipality of Port Hope which included work on heritage permit applications and work with municipal heritage committees. His work has involved a wide range of cultural heritage resources including institutional, infrastructural, industrial, agricultural. and residential sites in urban, suburban, and rural settings. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 76 Benjamin Holthof, MPl, MMA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP – Senior Heritage Planner Ben Holthof is a heritage consultant, planner and marine archaeologist with experience working in heritage consulting, archaeology and not-for-profit museum sectors. He has a Master of Urban and Regional Planning degree from Queens University; a Master of Maritime Archaeology degree from Flinders University of South Australia; a Bachelor of Arts degree in Archaeology from Wilfrid Laurier University; and a certificate in Museum Management and Curatorship from Fleming College. Ben has consulting experience in heritage planning, cultural heritage screening, evaluation, heritage impact assessment, cultural strategic planning, cultural heritage policy review, historic research and interpretive planning. He has been a project manager for heritage consulting projects including archaeological management plans and heritage conservation district studies. Ben has also provided heritage planning support to municipalities including work on heritage permit applications, work with municipal heritage committees, along with review and advice on municipal cultural heritage policy and process. His work has involved a wide range of cultural heritage resources including on cultural landscapes, institutional, industrial, commercial, and residential sites as well as infrastructure such as wharves, bridges and dams. Ben spent over 7 years working in museums as a curator which included caring for collections and exhibit development. He has experience with museum strategic planning, interpretive planning and policy development. His experience includes caring for historic museum buildings, sites and specialized large artifacts such as ships, boats and railway cars. Ben is also a maritime archaeologist having worked on terrestrial and underwater sites in Ontario and Australia. He has an Applied Research archaeology license from the Government of Ontario (R1062). Colin Yu, MA CAHP - 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 Province of Ontario. Colin is a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and member of the Board of Directors for the Ontario Association of Heritage Professionals (OAHP). 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. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 77 Jordan Greene, B.A. (Hons) – Mapping Technician Jordan Greene, B.A., joined LHC as a mapping technician following the completion of her undergraduate degree. In addition to completing her B.A. in Geography at Queen’s University, Jordan also completed certificates in Geographic Information Science and Urban Planning Studies. During her work with LHC Jordan has been able to transition her academic training into professional experience and has deepened her understanding of the applications of GIS in the fields of heritage planning and archaeology. Jordan has contributed to over 100 technical studies and has completed mapping for projects including, but not limited to, cultural heritage assessments and evaluations, archaeological assessments, environmental assessments, hearings, and conservation studies. In addition to GIS work she has completed for studies Jordan has begun developing interactive maps and online tools that contribute to LHC’s internal data management. In 2021 Jordan began acting as the health and safety representative for LHC. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 78 APPENDIX B Glossary Definitions are based on those provided in the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (PPS), Ontario Heritage Act (OHA), the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties – Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process (I&E Process), and the Durham Region Official Plan (ROP). Adjacent Lands those lands contiguous to a protected heritage property or as otherwise defined in the municipal official plan. (PPS). Archaeological resources include artifacts, archaeological sites, marine archaeological sites, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act. The identification and evaluation of such resources are based upon archaeological fieldwork undertaken in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. (PPS) Areas of archaeological potential. means areas with the likelihood to contain archaeological resources. Criteria to identify archaeological potential are established by the Province. The Ontario Heritage Act requires archaeological potential to be confirmed by a licensed archaeologist. (PPS) Built heritage means one or more significant buildings (including fixtures or equipment located in or forming part of a building), structures, monuments, installations, or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic, or military history and identified as being important to a community. For the purposes of these Standards and Guidelines, “structures” does not include roadways in the provincial highway network and in-use electrical or telecommunications transmission towers. (I&E Process) Built heritage resource: means a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Indigenous community. 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. (PPS) Character the combination of physical elements that together provide a place with a distinctive sense of identity. It may include geomorphology, natural features, pattern of roads, open spaces, buildings and structures, but it may also include the activities or beliefs that support the perceptions associated with the character. (I&E Process) Conserved means the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained under the Ontario Heritage Act. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments. (PPS) January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 79 Cultural heritage landscape means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Indigenous community. The area may include features such as buildings, structures, spaces, views, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Cultural heritage landscapes may be properties that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act, or have been included on federal and/or international registers, and/or protected through official plan, zoning by-law. (PPS; I&E Process) Development means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures requiring approval under the Planning Act, but does not include: a) activities that create or maintain infrastructure authorized under an environmental assessment process; b) works subject to the Drainage Act; or c) for the purposes of policy 2.1.4(a), underground or surface mining of minerals or advanced exploration on mining lands in significant areas of mineral potential in Ecoregion 5E, where advanced exploration has the same meaning as under the Mining Act. Instead, those matters shall be subject to policy 2.1.5(a). (PPS) Development: means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures, any of which require approval under the Planning Act, or that are subject to the Environmental Assessment Act, but does not include: a) the construction of facilities for transportation, infrastructure and utilities used by a public body; b) activities or works under the Drainage Act. (In the case of lands on the Oak Ridges Moraine, this applies only to the reconstruction, repair or maintenance of an existing drain approved under the Drainage Act.); and c) the carrying out of agricultural practices on land that continues to be used for agriculture uses. (ROP) Heritage attributes means, in relation to real property, and to the buildings and buildings on the real property, the attributes of the property, buildings and buildings that contribute to their cultural heritage value or interest (“attributs patrimoniaux”). (OHA) Heritage attributes means 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). (PPS) Heritage attributes means the physical features or elements that contribute to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property’s built or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting. (I&E Process) January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 80 Integrity means the degree to which a property retains its ability to represent or support the cultural heritage value or interest of the property. (I&E Process) Landmark means a recognizable natural or human-made feature used for a point of reference that helps orienting in a familiar or unfamiliar environment; it may mark an event or development; it may be conspicuous (I&E Process) Protected Heritage Property means property designated under Parts IV, V or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; property subject to a heritage conservation easement under Parts II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; property identified by the Province and prescribed public bodies as provincial heritage property under the Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal legislation, and UNESCO World Heritage Sites. (PPS) Qualified person(s) means individuals – professional engineers, architects, archaeologists, etc. – having relevant, recent experience in the conservation of cultural heritage resources. (I&E Process) Significant means in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act. (PPS) Spatial configuration means the arrangement of a property’s elements in relation to each other, to the site and to adjacent sites. (I&E Process) Statement of Cultural Heritage Value means a concise statement explaining why a property is of heritage interest; this statement should reflect one or more of the criteria found in Ontario Heritage Act O. Regs. 9/06 and 10/06. (I&E Process) View means a visual setting experienced from a single vantage point, and includes the components of the setting at various points in the depth of field. (I&E Process) January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 81 APPENDIX C City of Pickering HIA Terms of Reference Requirements and HIA Content Table 5: City of Pickering HIA ToR131 Requirement Location 1. Introduction to the Subject Property • A location plan (map and aerial photo) indicating the property/properties. • A current site plan. • A concise written and visual description of the property and its surroundings, identifying significant features, buildings, landscapes and views/vistas including any yet unidentified potential cultural heritage resources. • A summary of the heritage status of the property and including existing heritage descriptions (as available) as well as applicable heritage policies and guidelines. • Present owner’s contact information. The Location Plan and Site Plan are found in Section 1.0 of this HIA. A brief description of the Property and the surrounding area is found in Section 5.0 of this HIA. A description of the heritage status of the property within the Property is found in Section 6.1 of this HIA. The description of the heritage attributes of the c.1860 two-storey building on the Property are found in Section 7.1 of this HIA. The present owner contact information is on Page iii of this HIA. 2. Background Research and Analysis • A comprehensive history of the property as documented in pictorial and textual records and as observed in as-found evidence related to all potential cultural heritage value or interest of the site (both identified and unidentified) including: physical or design, historical or associative, and contextual values. • A chronological description of the site’s development from its Indigenous and pre- settlement condition through to its current lot A comprehensive history of the Property is found in Section 4.6 of this HIA. 131 City of Pickering, Terms of Reference Heritage Impact Assessments, April 2022. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 82 Requirement Location configuration, and itemizing the structures and landscapes, noting additions, alterations, removals, conversions, etc. • Reproductions of pictorial research materials including (but not limited to) maps, atlases, drawings, photographs, permit records, land title records, tax assessment rolls, directories, census records, etc. 3. Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest • An assessment of the property with respect to Ontario Regulation 9/06 - Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, describing the cultural heritage value or interest of the property as a whole and identifying all significant heritage attributes. Present the findings in a table organized according to each criterion with an explanation for each conclusion. An evaluation of CHVI under O. Reg. 9/06 is found in Section 6.2 of this HIA. 4. Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest • A statement of cultural heritage value or interest identifying the cultural heritage value(s) and describing the heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource(s). • This statement will be informed by current research and analysis of the site as well as pre- existing heritage descriptions. • This statement will be written in a way that does not respond to or anticipate any current or proposed interventions to the site. A Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest for the Property is found in Section 7.0 of this HIA. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 83 Requirement Location 5. Assessment of Existing Condition • A comprehensive written description of the existing physical condition of the structures on the site, including their exterior and interior. • Professional quality record photographs of the property in its present state, including: o views of the area surrounding the property to show it in context with adjacent properties and the immediate streetscape; o overall views of the property including all significant landscape features; o exterior views of each elevation of each building; o interior views of heritage attributes or features, and a representative selection of rooms; o close-up views of all interior and exterior heritage attributes. An assessment of existing conditions for the Property is found in Section 5.0 of this HIA. 6. Description of the Proposed Development or Site Alteration • A written and visual description of the proposed development or site alteration, including a proposed site plan, landscape plan, building elevations, and floor plans, where applicable. Submission material should clearly indicate the location of the on-site and adjacent cultural heritage resource(s) and the relationship of the proposed development to it. A description of the proposed development or site alteration for the Property is found in Section 8.0 of this HIA. 7. Impact of Development on Heritage Attributes • An assessment of the potential impacts (direct and indirect, physical and aesthetic) the proposed development or site alteration may have on the cultural heritage resource(s) and heritage attributes of the site and/or adjacent A preliminary impact assessment for the Property is found in Section 9.0 of this HIA. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 84 Requirement Location lands using established heritage conservation principles, standards and guidelines. Supplement the written description with visual diagrams, drawings and/or renderings as needed. • Positive impacts may include, but are not limited to: o Restoration of a building, including replacement of missing attributes; o Enhancement of an historic streetscape; o Rehabilitation of a cultural heritage resource to ensure long-term viability. • Negative impacts may include, but are not limited to: o The destruction of any significant heritage attribute or part thereof; o Alteration that is not sympathetic to the heritage attribute; o Shadows created by new development that alter the appearance of, or change the viability of a heritage attribute; o Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context, or significant spatial relationship; o Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas; o A change in land use which negates the property’s cultural heritage value; o Land disturbances such as a grade change that alters soils and drainage patterns that adversely affect a cultural heritage resource. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 85 Requirement Location 8. Considered Alternatives and Mitigation Strategies • An assessment of the mitigation measures, conservation methods, and/or alternative development options that avoid or limit the adverse impacts to the cultural heritage resource. • Mitigation options may include, but are not limited to: o Alternative development approaches; o Isolating development and site alteration from significant built and natural features and vistas; o Design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting, and materials; o Limiting height and density; o Compatible infill and additions; o Reversible alterations; o Relocation of a heritage resource, to be employed only as a last resort, if conservation cannot be achieved by any other means. Considered alternatives and mitigation strategies for the Property are found in Section 10.0 of this HIA. 9. Recommended Conservation Strategy • The preferred strategy recommended to best protect and enhance the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the on-site and adjacent cultural heritage resource(s) including, but not limited to: o An explanation of how the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the heritage resources informed and influenced the proposed development or site alteration; o A mitigation strategy including the proposed methods; o A conservation scope of work including the proposed methods; The recommended conservation strategy for the Property is found in Section 11.0 of this HIA. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 86 Requirement Location o An implementation and monitoring plan, as applies; o Referenced heritage policy, conservation principles and guidelines, and precedents; o If removal of the cultural heritage resource was recommended, the HIA will provide site specific guidelines to address commemoration/interpretation, salvaging, and/or documentation prior to demolition. 10. Conclusion and Recommendations • A concise summary of the findings of the report and clear recommendations regarding the most appropriate course of action for the property and its cultural heritage resources. Additional studies/plans may include: conservation; site specific design guidelines; interpretation / commemoration; lighting; landscaping; signage; structural/engineering analysis; site/building record and documentation; salvage; long-term maintenance; etc. The conclusion and recommendations is found in Section 12.0 of this HIA. 11. Appendices • A bibliography listing source materials and institutions • A summary of the author’s qualifications. The study will be submitted in hard copy (two copies) and in PDF format. The bibliography listing source materials and institutions is found in the References section of this HIA. A summary of the author’s qualifications is found in the Appendix A Qualifications section of this HIA. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 87 APPENDIX D Policy Tables Durham Region Official Plan Table 6: Durham Region Relevant Official Plan Policies132 Policy Policy Text Discussion 2.2.11 The conservation, protection and/or enhancement of Durham’s built and cultural heritage resources is encouraged. The Property is listed under Section 27, Part IV of the OHA on the City’s MHR. 2.3.4 In the consideration of development applications, Regional Council may require an archaeological survey and the preservation or rescue excavation of significant archaeological resources in cooperation with the Provincial Government. An Archaeological Assessment for the Property has not been undertaken. 2.3.51 In the preparation of area municipal official plans, Councils of the area municipalities shall ensure the inclusion of: h) policies for the protection, conservation and/or enhancement of built and cultural heritage resources. The Property is listed under Section 27, Part IV of the OHA on the City’s MHR. City of Pickering Official Plan Table 7: City of Pickering Relevant Official Plan Policies133 Policy Policy Text Discussion 8.4 (Ontario Heritage Act) City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, where warranted shall implement the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, including the designation under the Act of heritage sites and heritage districts. The Property is listed under Section 27, Part IV of the OHA on the City’s MHR. 132 Durham Region, Durham Regional Official Plan, 15. 133 City of Pickering, Pickering Official Plan, 1997 (2022), 109 January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 88 Policy Policy Text Discussion 8.7 (Cultural Heritage Inventory) City Council, in association with its heritage committee, shall: (a) conduct an inventory of heritage resources owned by the City, its boards and commissions, and establish an overall program for the maintenance, use, reuse or, if warranted, disposal of these resources; (b) maintain an inventory of heritage resources designated or worthy of designation under the Ontario Heritage Act; and (c) store and disseminate cultural heritage resource inventories and databases in convenient and publicly accessible locations and formats, and maintain an archive of heritage conservation information. The Property is listed under Section 27, Part IV of the OHA on the City’s MHR. 8.8 (Cultural Heritage Alteration and Demolition) City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, shall: (c) discourage or prevent the demolition or inappropriate alteration of a heritage resource, but where demolition or inappropriate alteration is unavoidable: (i) consider the acquisition and conservation of the resource; and (ii) if acquisition is not possible, conduct a thorough review and documentation of the resource for archival purposes; and As discussed in Section 8.0, the c.1860 two-storey frame building on the Property is proposed to be demolished. January 2024 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. LHC0292 89 Policy Policy Text Discussion 8.9 (Guidelines for Use and Reuse) City Council shall consider the following guidelines on the use and reuse of heritage resources: (a) maintain, if possible, the original use of heritage structures and sites, and if possible, retain the original location and orientation of such structures; (b) where original uses cannot be maintained, support the adaptive reuse of heritage structures and sites to encourage resource conservation; and (c) where no other alternative exists for maintaining heritage structures in their original locations, allow the relocation of the structure to appropriate sites or areas. As discussed in Section 8.0, the c.1860 two-storey frame building on the Property is proposed to be demolished. 8.10 (Archaeological Resources) City Council shall encourage the preservation or excavation of important archaeological sites, and in doing so shall: (a) require an archaeological assessment, as a condition of development, on sites having the potential of containing significant archaeological resources, which assessment shall be undertaken in consultation with the Province, the Region and/or the City; (b) require that any significant archaeological remains discovered by the archaeological assessment be conserved by removal and documentation or preservation on-site to the satisfaction of the Province, the Region and/or the City, and donated to an appropriate authority; and (c) utilize, where appropriate, zoning by-law provisions to preserve archaeological resources onsite. An Archaeological Assessment has not been undertaken for the Property. Evaluation of 301 Kingston Road as per Ontario Regulation 9/06 O. Reg 9/06 Criteria 2022 LHC Evaluation 2024 LHC Evaluation City of Pickering Evaluation Y/N Comment Y/N Comments Y/N Comments 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. 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. N The property does not meet this criterion. As discussed in Sections 5.0 and 5.3, the building has been altered and no longer retains sufficient characteristic features of the Georgian style for it to be a representative example. Particularly, the arrangement of the window openings lacks the symmetry that best characterises the style. The scale, massing, rectangular plan, and roof pitch remain evocative of the style. Visible alteration of elements within the interior indicate that this is not an early example of the Georgian style. Y The structure at 301 Kingston Road (also known as Toynevale) it is one of six Georgian or Georgian-influenced houses, and the last remaining two-storey Georgian in the City of Pickering, making it a rare example of its type. The building retains physical value through its style, massing, and form, including its end gable roof with return eaves, two- storey height, and rectangular plan. The use of hand-hewn timber framing is considered rare in a residential structure, with only two known examples within the City of Pickering (2595 Sixth Concession Road and 615 Whitevale Road). 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 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. N The Property does not meet this criterion. The Property does not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. The Property does not demonstrate evidence of more than average craftsmanship for the time in its construction. N The City of Pickering agrees with this evaluation. 3. The property has design value or physical value because it 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. N The Property does not meet this criterion. The Property does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. There is no evidence to suggest that the Property meets this criterion. N The City of Pickering agrees with this evaluation. 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. 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 Y The Property meets this criterion. As described in Section 4.7, although the Property was owned by William Holmes, no direct associations to him were identified with respect to 301 Kingston Road. There is no evidence to suggest he constructed the extant building. It may have been constructed for John Wesley Sr., or possibly John C. Wesley sometime prior to 1860. However, the extensive mortgages in the 1860s and the visible construction Y The property also has direct associations with the Toyne family, most notably George Toyne Jr., who lived at 301 Kingston Road until his death in 1943. His obituary in the July 16, 1943, Pickering News reads: Prominent Rouge Hill Citizen George Edward Toyne Passes in his 63rd year. A resident of Rouge Hills since boyhood, George Edward Toyne passed away early Friday morning July 9th, in his 63rd year. Attachment 5 to Report PLN 10-24 O. Reg 9/06 Criteria 2022 LHC Evaluation 2024 LHC Evaluation City of Pickering Evaluation Y/N Comment Y/N Comments Y/N Comments constructed during this time to replace an earlier structure. Although the Property was owned by William 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. elements indicate that the extant building may have been constructed during this time to replace an earlier structure. The Property is associated with the Rouge Hill post office and postmasters including Emanuel Playter between 1852 and 1859, Michael Brooks between 1860 and 1864, John C. Wesley in 1865, and George Toyne between 1902 and 1915, after then it closed. The Property is directly associated with the development of the Rouge Hill community in the mid-nineteenth century, and this is illustrated by various historical maps showing the building at the intersection of Kingston Road and Altona Road. A few days before the opening of the Fourth Victory Loan campaign, of which he was a leading district canvasser, he suffered a slight stroke from which he never recovered …The family settled near Guelph, where they remained for three years, coming to the Rouge, there remaining ever since. Mr. Toyne is therefore recognized as one of the oldest residents of the district…he took an interest in his community’s and nation’s affairs. Locally, he was one of the original members of the Rouge Hill School Board, a Warden of St. Paul’s Anglican Church, and a Past Master of the Doric Lodge. A local road in the Rouge Hill community, Toynevale Road, was given its name due to the association with George Toyne, further indicating his significance to the community. 5. The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. N The Property does not appear to yield or have potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. N The Property does not meet this criterion. The Property does not yield information that contributes to the understanding of the community. N The City of Pickering agrees with this evaluation. 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. N The Property is not important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of the area. N The Property does not meet this criterion. The Property does not demonstrate or reflect the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is important to a community. The building was built using vernacular plans and designs with Georgian influences that were widely available at the time. N The City of Pickering agrees with this evaluation. O. Reg 9/06 Criteria 2022 LHC Evaluation 2024 LHC Evaluation City of Pickering Evaluation Y/N Comment Y/N Comments Y/N Comments 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. N The Property is not physically, functionally, or historically linked to its surroundings. N The property does not meet this criterion. Although the Property has remained in its original position and orientation, it has lost all of the auxiliary farm buildings, structures, and vegetative landscape features including trees and hedgerows which made the Property a working farm for over 100 years. The surrounding area does not have a cohesive cultural heritage character to which the Property contributes. N The City of Pickering agrees with this evaluation. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. N The Property is not physically, functionally, or historically linked to its surroundings. N The property does not meet this criterion. The property is not physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings. As discussed in Sections 4.5.1.1 and 4.6, although the Property has remained in its original position and orientation, it has lost all of the auxiliary farm buildings, structures, and vegetative landscape features including trees and hedgerows which made the Property a working farm for over 100 years. Although the Property, along with nearby properties 1310-1212 Altona Road and 1320 Altona Road are over 100 years old and form part of the historic fabric of the former hamlet, no links between the properties have been found. Additionally, the original alignment of Kingston Road has changed as it was straightened and widened during the twentieth century. The original function of the Rouge Hill hamlet as a stagecoach stop and post office had ceased by the early twentieth century with the closure of the post office in 1915. Y As the earliest surviving building from the settlement of the area, the property, formerly known as Toynevale is historically linked to the settlement of Rouge Hill. The property remains linked to the broader community as the Toyne Family is commemorated through the name Toynevale Road, located south of the subject property. O. Reg 9/06 Criteria 2022 LHC Evaluation 2024 LHC Evaluation City of Pickering Evaluation Y/N Comment Y/N Comments Y/N Comments 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. Y Given its prominent location at the intersection of Altona and Kingston Roads, the Property could be considered a landmark. N The Property does not meet this criterion. The MCM defines landmark as: a recognizable natural or human-made feature used for a point of reference that helps orienting in a familiar or unfamiliar environment; it may mark an event or development; it may be conspicuous. As discussed in Sections 4.5 and 5.4, the Property is not a landmark. Despite its placement and location at the intersection of Kingston Road and Altona Road, the Property does not terminate at a vista and is not the focus of or part of any significant views. Historical photographs (Section 4.5.1.1) from the Rouge River bridge eastwards toward the Property do not show the Property. Y The MCM also considers whether the property is or includes a landmark that is meaningful to the community, the key physical characteristic of a landmark is its prominence within its context, e.g. a well-known marker in the community. Landmarks are usually memorable and easily discernable. The property at 301 Kingston Road is considered a gateway property into the City of Pickering. The building’s two storey massing and prominent siting at the intersections of Altona Road and Kingston Road are easily discernable for the public. 301 Kingston Road remains an integral part of the streetscape at Kingston and Altona Road and is therefore considered a landmark. The lack of archival photographs is inconsequential when considering if a property is considered a landmark.