Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 10, 2024Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda June 10, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Brenner For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Page 1.Call to Order/Roll Call 2.Disclosure of Interest 3.Delegations Members of the public looking to provide a verbal delegation to Members of the Planning& Development Committee may do so either in person or through a virtual connection intothe meeting. For more information, and to register as a delegate, visitwww.pickering.ca/delegation, and complete the on-line delegation form or email clerks@pickering.ca. The list of delegates who have registered to speak will be called upon one by one by the Chair in the order in which they have registered. Delegates are allotted a maximum of 5 minutes to make their delegation. Please be advised that your name will appear in the public record and will be posted on the City’s website as part of the meeting minutes. 4.Planning & Development Reports 4.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 15-24 1 Part IV Designation under the Ontario Heritage Act -The Percy House - 895 Wonder Drive (formerly 815 Highway 7) Recommendation: 1.That Council endorse the recommendations of the HeritagePickering Advisory Committee, dated September 7, 2022, todesignate 895 Wonder Drive (formerly 815 Highway 7) under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; 2.That Council direct staff to serve a Notice of Intention to Designatethe property located at 895 Wonder Drive, known as the PercyHouse, as a property of cultural heritage value or interest, pursuant, Members of the public may observe the meeting proceedings by viewing the livestream. A recording of the meeting will also be available on the City’s website following the meeting. Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda June 10, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Brenner For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, included as Attachments 5 and 6 to Report PLN 15-24; 3. That, should no Notice of Objection be received by the Clerk within 30 days of the publication of the Notice of Intention to Designate, the Designation By-law for 895 Wonder Drive, included as Attachment 4 to Report PLN 15-24, be presented to Council for passing, and that staff be directed to carry out the notice requirements as prescribed under Section 29(8) of the Ontario Heritage Act; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take such actions as necessary to give effect to this report. 4.2 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 16-24 162 Bill 23: Provincial Legislation Changes to the Ontario Heritage Act and Priority Properties for Designation - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Recommendation: 1. That Council endorse the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, dated March 27, 2024, to designate 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; 2. That Council direct staff to serve a Notice of Intention to Designate the property located at 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road, known as the George Falconer House and Store, as a property of cultural heritage value or interest, pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, included as Attachments 5 and 6 to Report PLN 16- 24; 3. That, should no Notice of Objection be received by the City Clerk within 30 days of the publication of the Notice of Intention to Designate, the Designation By-law for 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road, included as Attachment 4 to Report PLN 16-24, be presented to Council for passing, and that staff be directed to carry out the notice requirements as prescribed under Section 29(8) of the Ontario Heritage Act; and, Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda June 10, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Brenner For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take such actions as necessary to give effect to this report. 4.3 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 18-24 219 Bill 23: Priority Properties for Designation - 401 Kingston Road and 1 Evelyn Avenue Recommendation: 1. That Council endorse the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, dated April 24, 2024, not to designate 401 Kingston Road and 1 Evelyn Avenue under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; 2. That Council approve the removal of the properties at 401 Kingston Road and 1 Evelyn Avenue from the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take such actions as necessary to give effect to this report. 4.4 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 21-24 438 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2023-01 Draft Plan of Condominium CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership (607 & 609 Annland Street, 640 Liverpool Road & 1276, 1280, 1288, 1290, 1292 & 1294 Wharf Street) Recommendation: 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P, submitted by Liverpool Road Limited Partnership, to re-designate the lands located on the southwest corner of Liverpool Road and Annland Street from “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas” and “Open Space System – Marina Areas” to “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” to facilitate a residential common element condominium development be approved, and that the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 51 to the Pickering Official Plan as set out in Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda June 10, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Brenner For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Appendix I to Report PLN 21-24 be forwarded to Council for enactment; 2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23, submitted by Liverpool Road Limited Partnership, to facilitate a residential common element condominium development consisting of a maximum of 51 townhouse units, 10 of which will contain commercial floorspace at-grade fronting Liverpool Road, be approved, and that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment, as set out in Appendix II to Report PLN 21-24, be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; and, 3. That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01, submitted by Liverpool Road Limited Partnership, to establish a development block to facilitate a residential condominium development and a block for common amenity space, as shown in Attachment 5 to Report PLN 21-24, and the implementing conditions of approval, as set out in Appendix III, be endorsed. 5. Member Updates on Committees 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 15-24 Date: June 10, 2024 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Part IV Designation under the Ontario Heritage Act -The Percy House - 895 Wonder Drive (formerly 815 Highway 7) -File: A-3300-093 Recommendation: 1.That Council endorse the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, dated September 7, 2022, to designate 895 Wonder Drive (formerly 815 Highway 7) under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; 2.That Council direct staff to serve a Notice of Intention to Designate the property located at 895 Wonder Drive, known as the Percy House, as a property of cultural heritage value or interest, pursuant, to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, included as Attachments 5 and 6 to Report PLN 15-24; 3.That, should no Notice of Objection be received by the Clerk within 30 days of the publication of the Notice of Intention to Designate, the Designation By-law for 895 Wonder Drive, included as Attachment 4 to Report PLN 15-24, be presented to Council for passing, and that staff be directed to carry out the notice requirements as prescribed under Section 29(8) of the Ontario Heritage Act; and 4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take such actions as necessary to give effect to this report. Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval to proceed with the Part IV designation of the property at 895 Wonder Drive (formerly 815 Highway 7) (see Location Map, Attachment 1), known as the Percy House under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. This report provides background information and the draft designation by-law for 895 Wonder Drive. At the meeting held on September 7, 2022, the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee passed a motion recommending that the Percy House be designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that City Council approve the designation. The Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee supported the final siting of the Percy House on February 28, 2024, and, on March 27, 2024, the Committee supported the draft designation by-law. - 1 - PLN 15-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Part IV Designation under the Ontario Heritage Act -The Percy House – 895 Wonder Driver (formerly 815 Highway 7)Page 2 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 the Percy House at 895 Wonder Drive (formerly 815 Highway 7), under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Part IV designation of the Percy House will guide future changes to this heritage resource, to ensure that its heritage attributes are preserved. 1.Background Caplink Limited (FGF Brands) submitted applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment (City Files SP-2022-02 and A 04/22) to facilitate a food manufacturing facility, consisting of five buildings, including four manufacturing plants, and one distribution centre. These applications were approved by Council on February 6, 2023, and the Director, City Development & CBO issued draft plan approval on May 16, 2023. (Refer to Report PLN 03-23). The Draft Plan of Subdivision contains four blocks for employment uses, one block for a stormwater management facility, one block for a natural heritage feature, and one block for a future road widening and a new public street. Zoning By-law 7991/23 rezoned the lands to an appropriate zone category to permit the proposed uses and establish appropriate development standards. The property located at 815 Highway 7 is currently included on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register as a listed, non-designated property. The house is situated on the south side of Highway 7, west of Whites Road (see Location Map, Attachment 1). In summer 2024, the house will be relocated approximately 100 metres west of its current location. A new foundation will be constructed for the house and a Reference Plan illustrating its new location will be deposited with the Land Registry Office. It is expected that the Notice of Intention to Designate will be published after the R-Plan is deposited, but before the house is relocated. The Percy House will form part of the FGF Brands food manufacturing campus and is proposed to be used as a learning studio/office space. The applicant also proposes to demolish the rear addition to the Percy House, due to structural concerns, and to construct an addition, approximately 287 square metres in size. A conceptual rendering plan and site plan are shown below in Figure 1 and Figure 2. - 2 - PLN 15-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Part IV Designation under the Ontario Heritage Act -The Percy House – 895 Wonder Driver (formerly 815 Highway 7)Page 3 Figure 1: Rendering Plan of the Percy House and addition Figure 2: Conceptual site plan 2.Ontario Heritage Act 815 Highway 7 is a listed, non-designated property on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register. Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act authorizes the Council of a municipality to enact by-laws to designate real property, including all buildings and structures thereon, that demonstrate cultural heritage value or interest. Council shall, before giving notice of its intention to designate a property, consult with its municipal heritage committee. Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act provides criteria for determining whether a property has Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. If a property meets two or more of the criteria in Ontario Regulation 9/06, it is eligible for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. - 3 - PLN 15-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Part IV Designation under the Ontario Heritage Act -The Percy House – 895 Wonder Driver (formerly 815 Highway 7)Page 4 3.The property was found to have Cultural Heritage Value or Interest by a qualified heritage consultant In 2022, a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was completed for 815 Highway 7 by WSP Canada Inc (WSP). The HIA determined that Percy House met five of the nine criteria for determining whether a property has cultural heritage value or interest (see Photograph, Page 6 of this Report). The property was found to retain design/physical value, associative value, and contextual value (see Heritage Impact Assessment, Attachment 2). The HIA recommended that once designated, the property owner should enter into a Heritage Easement to ensure the long-term preservation and maintenance of the structure. The Percy House meets the Provincial requirement for evaluating cultural heritage value or interest as outlined in Ontario Regulation 9/06 and is therefore recommended for designation. Table 1 below presents the evaluation of the subject property using Ontario Regulation 9/06. Table 1: Evaluation of 815 Highway 7 as per Ontario Regulation 9/06 1. The property has design value or physical value because it, i.is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method, Y As demonstrated in Section 5.3.2 of the HIA, the residence at 815 Highway 7 reflects representative elements of the Ontario Cottage architectural style. This is a common architectural expression in the City of Pickering; however, the Percy House has an early and increasingly rare example of dichromatic brickwork. The patterned stringcourse below the roof line is an early example of a style that would come to characterize the region. As discussed in Section 5.3.4 of the HIA, the Central Ontario bank barns on the subject property are a representative expression of a Central Ontario barn and are now considered rare, with only one Part IV designated barn in the City of Pickering. Barns 1 and 2 appear to maintain their integrity through the retention of much of the original construction materials and application of historic building methods. Similarly, the wood silo at 815 Highway 7 is also a rare expression of nineteenth century silo construction, using wooden tongue-and-groove staves, wrapped in wooden cribs. - 4 - PLN 15-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Part IV Designation under the Ontario Heritage Act -The Percy House – 895 Wonder Driver (formerly 815 Highway 7)Page 5 ii.displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or Y The construction of the brick residence on the subject property displays a high degree of craftsmanship. The brickwork on the north façade is an early and increasingly rare example of dichromatic brickwork. This craftsmanship is evident in the patterned stringcourse below the moulded cornice, buff brick quoins and voussoirs and the fine use of the Flemish bond on the north façade. The central Ontario barns display mortise and tenon construction that is typical of the nineteenth century, but this is not considered to display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit iii.demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. N The property does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. The structures display construction techniques reflective of the era and style. 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i.has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, Y As 815 Highway 7 has functioned as a farm since 1853, it is directly associated with the agricultural development of the former Ontario Township and City of Pickering. This theme is significant as it contributed to the community’s early economy and continues to be practiced today. ii.yields, or has the potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or N The results of research did not indicate that 815 Highway 7 yields information that could contribute to the understanding of a community or culture. iii.demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. N The architect and builder of the building at 815 Highway 7 is unknown. 3. The property has contextual value because it, i.is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, Y As the property retains 46 acres of the original 50-acre lot and continues to be actively used for agriculture, 815 Highway 7 is important in maintaining the historical agricultural character of the area. - 5 - PLN 15-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Part IV Designation under the Ontario Heritage Act -The Percy House – 895 Wonder Driver (formerly 815 Highway 7)Page 6 ii.is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or Y 815 Highway 7 is associated with the early settlement of the area and is important in maintaining and supporting the rural 19th century landscape along the Highway 7 Road corridor. iii.is a landmark.N No significant views to the property distinguish the building as a notable or distinct property. It does not serve as a local landmark in the community. 3.1 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest The mid-nineteenth century farmstead, known as the Percy House, possesses design or physical value for the built heritage resource, displaying a high degree of craftsmanship located on the property. The one-and-a-half storey brick residence constructed c. 1853 demonstrates representative elements of an Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical and Georgian influences. These representative elements include the rectangular plan and symmetrical three-bay façade, side gable roof, entrance details including a wood surround with transom and sidelights, and multipaned windows. The residence reflects a unique vernacular interpretation of the style, characterized by its elaborate dichromatic brickwork, including the decorative stringcourse, quoins, and jack arches. Through its function as a farm since 1853, the Percy House is directly associated with the agricultural development of the former Ontario Township and City of Pickering. This theme is significant as it historically contributed to the community’s early economic growth and continues to be practiced today. Photograph 1: View to main façade of the Percy House (WSP 2022) - 6 - PLN 15-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Part IV Designation under the Ontario Heritage Act - The Percy House – 895 Wonder Driver (formerly 815 Highway 7) Page 7 4. The Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee and property owner have been consulted At its meeting held on September 7, 2022, the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee passed a motion recommending that 895 Wonder Drive (formerly 815 Highway 7), be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The final siting, and Reference Plan for the Percy House, was supported at the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee held on February 28, 2024 (see Draft Reference Plan, Attachment 3). The Committee was also consulted on, and supported, the draft designation by-law at a meeting held on March 27, 2024 (see Draft Designation By-law, Attachment 4). The owner of 895 Wonder Drive (formerly 815 Highway 7) has been provided with a copy of the draft designation by-law and general information on heritage designation. The owner has also agreed to enter into a Municipal Heritage Easement, which will ensure the ongoing maintenance and preservation of the Percy House, once relocated and restored. 5. Notice of Intention to Designate and Designation By-law have been prepared The Notice of Intention to Designate has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act and, subject to Council approval, will be published in The Toronto Star (see Notice of Intention to Designate, Attachment 5). A copy of the Notice of Intention to Designate will also be sent to the Ontario Heritage Trust and the property owner (see Notice of Intention to Designate, Attachment 6). Should no notice of objection be received by the Clerk within the 30-day timeframe, staff recommend that Council approve the draft designation by-law (see Attachment 4, Draft Designation By-law), and serve a Notice of Passing in accordance with Section 29(8) of the Ontario Heritage Act. 6. Conclusion The Part IV (individual) or Part V (Heritage Conservation District) 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. Additionally, owners of properties designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act require a Heritage Permit for most exterior alterations. To ensure the conservation of the Percy House, and to allow for the implementation of the Heritage Easement, staff recommend the designation of the Percy House at 895 Wonder Drive (formerly 815 Highway 7), under Section 29, Part IV, of the Ontario Heritage Act. - 7 - PLN 15-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Part IV Designation under the Ontario Heritage Act -The Percy House – 895 Wonder Driver (formerly 815 Highway 7)Page 8 Attachments: 1.Location Map, 895 Wonder Drive 2.Heritage Impact Assessment: 815 Highway 7, prepared by WSP, dated August 19, 2022 3.Draft Reference Plan 4.Draft Designation By-law for the Percy House at 895 Wonder Drive (formerly 815 Highway 7) 5.Notice of Intention to Designate to be published in The Toronto Star 6.Notice of Intention to Designate for the Ontario Heritage Trust and property owner 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 - 8 - Attachment 1 to Report PLN 15-24 Highway 407 Whites Road Highway 7 Sid e l i n e 2 8 Location MapFile:Municipal Address:Proposed Part IV Designation of 895 Wonder Drive Date: May. 08, 2024 ¯ 895 Wonder Drive (formerly 815 Highway 7) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\01-City Development\01-PLN Reports\2024\PLN XX-24 - 895 Wonder Drive (formerly 815 Highway 7)\PLNXX-24_LocationMapv2.mxd 1:4,500 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department ofNatural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment Proposed Wonder Drive Proposed Percy House Location Existing Percy House Location - 9 - Attachment 2 to Report PLN 15-24 CAPLINK LIMITED HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING AUGUST 19, 2022 - 10 - HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING CAPLINK LIMITED ORIGINAL REPORT DATE: AUGUST 19, 2022 WSP 582 LANCASTER STREET WEST KITCHENER, ON N2K 1M3 T: +1 519 743 8777 WSP.COM WSP PROJECT NUMBER: 221-03925-00 - 11 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page iii S I G N A T U R E S PREPARED BY Emily Game, BA. Cultural Heritage Specialist August 19, 2022 Date APPROVED1 BY (must be reviewed for technical accuracy prior to approval) Joel Konrad, PhD, CAHP Cultural Heritage Lead - Ontario August 19, 2022 Date WSP Canada Inc. (“WSP”) prepared this report solely for the use of the intended recipient, CapLink Limited, in accordance with the professional services agreement between the parties. In the event a contract has not been executed, the parties agree that the WSP General Terms for Consultant shall govern their business relationship which was provided to you prior to the preparation of this report. The report is intended to be used in its entirety. No excerpts may be taken to be representative of the findings in the assessment. The conclusions presented in this report are based on work performed by trained, professional and technical staff, in accordance with their reasonable interpretation of current and accepted engineering and scientific practices at the time the work was performed. The content and opinions contained in the present report are based on the observations and/or information available to WSP at the time of preparation, using investigation techniques and engineering analysis methods consistent with those ordinarily exercised by WSP and other engineering/scientific practitioners working under similar conditions, and subject to the same time, financial and physical constraints applicable to this project. 1 Approval of this document is an administrative function indicating readiness for release and does not impart legal liability on to the Approver for any technical content contained herein. Technical accuracy and fit-for-purpose of this content is obtained through the review process. The Approver shall ensure the applicable review process has occurred prior to signing the document. - 12 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page iv WSP disclaims any obligation to update this report if, after the date of this report, any conditions appear to differ significantly from those presented in this report; however, WSP reserves the right to amend or supplement this report based on additional information, documentation or evidence. WSP makes no other representations whatsoever concerning the legal significance of its findings. The intended recipient is solely responsible for the disclosure of any information contained in this report. If a third party makes use of, relies on, or makes decisions in accordance with this report, said third party is solely responsible for such use, reliance or decisions. WSP does not accept responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken by said third party based on this report. WSP has provided services to the intended recipient in accordance with the professional services agreement between the parties and in a manner consistent with that degree of care, skill and diligence normally provided by members of the same profession performing the same or comparable services in respect of projects of a similar nature in similar circumstances. It is understood and agreed by WSP and the recipient of this report that WSP provides no warranty, express or implied, of any kind. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it is agreed and understood by WSP and the recipient of this report that WSP makes no representation or warranty whatsoever as to the sufficiency of its scope of work for the purpose sought by the recipient of this report. In preparing this report, WSP has relied in good faith on information provided by others, as noted in the report. WSP has reasonably assumed that the information provided is correct and WSP is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of such information. The original of this digital file will be kept by WSP for a period of not less than 10 years. As the digital file transmitted to the intended recipient is no longer under the control of WSP, its integrity cannot be assured. As such, WSP does not guarantee any modifications made to this digital file subsequent to its transmission to the intended recipient. This limitations statement is considered an integral part of this report. - 13 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page v C O N T R I B U T O R S CLIENT CapLink Limited Martin Ng, P. Eng CapLink Limited 1295 Ormont Drive, Toronto, ON M9L 2W6 WSP Report Preparation Emily Game, B.A. Cultural Heritage Specialist Mapping/GIS Tanya Peterson, B.A. (Hons) Senior GIS Technician Report Review Joel Konrad, PhD, CAHP Cultural Heritage Lead, Ontario Cultural Heritage Specialist - 14 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WSP was retained by the Biglieri Group on behalf of CapLink Limited to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the property located at 815 Highway 7 in the City of Pickering. The report was undertaken to accompany the submission of a Site Plan Application for the 23.8- hectare development of two properties on Highway 7, including: 815 and 745 Highway 7 (the project location), which is proposing the phased construction of five industrial buildings as part of the development of the FGF Pickering Manufacturing Campus. The property at 815 Highway 7 is comprised of a one-and-a-half storey Ontario Cottage (the Percy House) with Neo-Classical and Georgian influences, constructed of brick in 1853, as well as two Central Ontario bank barns and two silos. The subject property is listed as a non- designated property on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register pursuant to Section 27 (1.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. This HIA has evaluated the subject property against the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06 and Ontario Regulation 10/06 criteria and determined that it possesses cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI) for its design or physical value, tied to the architecture, rarity and craftsmanship of the residence and bank barns. As such, a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes has been compiled. Evaluating the proposed development plan for the project location at 815 Highway 7 against the CHVI and List of Heritage Attributes, it was determined that the new industrial development would have major impacts on the property at 815 Highway 7, especially related to the removal of the two Central Ontario bank barns and the relocation of the Percy House. The following alternatives, mitigation measures and conservation options were considered to avoid or reduce these adverse impacts to the heritage attributes of the property: 1) Do nothing: preserve and maintain the Percy House, Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2 and all landscape heritage attributes in situ with no further development of the property. 2) Preserve and maintain the Percy House, barns and silos in situ with adaptive reuse of these structures and development of manufacturing campus around these structures on the property. 3) Relocate the Percy House within the site to a more convenient location with an adaptive reuse, dismantle and salvage heritage attributes from Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2 and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. 4) Remove the Percy House, Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2, salvaging heritage attributes from the structures and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. Based on a review of the alternatives, mitigation and conservation options analysis, Option 1, do nothing, is the preferred option from a cultural heritage perspective. However, a “do nothing” approach is not feasible as the subject property is designated Prestige Employment and Seaton Natural Heritage System in the Pickering Official Plan. As such, this approach would be a - 15 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page vii constraint on the proposed concept plan and future development. Option 2 and Option 3 are the next preferred options, followed finally by Option 4. The following conservation/mitigation strategies are recommended for Option 3: 1. The following should be implemented through the development application process: a. In accordance with the MHSTCI’s Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting and materials is a mitigation measure to reduce impacts to cultural heritage resources, including the preparation of a Landscape Plan around the Percy House. b. Complete a Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) to stabilize and conserve the Percy House in its current location before construction of the surrounding development begins and during construction. This includes the installation of temporary construction fencing between the Percy House and the proposed development. c. A Mothballing Plan be completed to examine the current condition of the Percy House and to suggest stabilization and maintenance measures necessary to temporarily mothball and secure the structures. d. Prepare a Conservation Plan detailing the conservation methods, required actions and trades for the conservation methods and an implementation schedule to conserve the heritage attributes of the landscape in the long-term. e. Prepare a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report for Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2, and if necessary, the one-storey south addition. f. Given the proximity of the adjacent heritage properties to the proposed limits of grading, a comprehensive pre-construction survey should be completed and a Zone of Influence Construction Vibration Study to monitor and mitigate vibration impacts during construction. Where possible prevent heavy equipment traffic from being routed in the vicinity of the Percy House to minimize potential effects from vibration. g. Fugitive dust emissions should be managed by creating a fugitive dust emissions plan following practices outlined in the Ontario Standards Development Branch Technical Bulletin: Management Approaches for Industrial Fugitive Dust Sources (2017). 2) Contract documentation should include information regarding the CHVI of the aforementioned properties, specifically the List of Heritage Attributes. 3) WSP recommends that 815 Highway 7 meets the criteria for heritage designation under O. Reg. 9/06 as a representative example of an early Ontario Cottage with Neo- Classical and Georgian influences, for its connection to the nineteenth century agricultural development of the City of Pickering as well as for its contribution to the surrounding Highway 7 streetscape. 4) Should development plans change significantly in scope or design after approval of this HIA, additional cultural heritage investigations may be required. Once finalized, a copy of this HIA should be distributed to the City of Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. - 16 - 815 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page viii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1 2 POLICY FRAMEWORK .................................. 5 2.1 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ............................................. 5 2.2 Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement .. 6 2.3 Ontario Heritage Act ............................................ 7 2.4 Ontario Regulation 9/06 ...................................... 7 2.5 Ontario Regulation 10/06 .................................... 8 2.6 Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries Heritage Resources in The Land Use Planning Process ................................................ 9 2.7 Region of Durham Official Plan ........................ 10 2.8 City of Pickering Official Plan ........................... 10 3 PROJECT METHODOLOGY ........................ 13 4 HISTORICAL CONTEXT ............................... 14 4.1 Pre-European Contact Period ........................... 14 4.2 Pre-Confederation Treaties ............................... 15 4.3 Ontario County .................................................. 16 4.4 Pickering Township ........................................... 16 4.5 Community of Whitevale ................................... 17 4.6 Community of Green River ............................... 18 4.7 Site Specific History: 815 Highway 7 ............... 18 815 Highway 7 .............................................................................. 18 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................. 22 5.1 815 Highway 7 .................................................... 22 Residence .................................................................................... 22 - 17 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page ix 5.1.1.1 Exterior ........................................................................................ 22 5.1.1.2 Interior ......................................................................................... 30 Bank Barn 1 and Silo 1 Exterior ..................................................... 51 Barn 1 Interior ............................................................................... 55 Bank Barn 2 and Silo 2.................................................................. 61 Barn 2 Interior ............................................................................... 64 Landscape Conditions ................................................................... 69 5.2 Study Area Context ........................................... 71 5.3 Architectural Style ............................................. 75 Ontario Cottage ............................................................................ 75 Comparative Analysis ................................................................... 76 Central Ontario Barn ..................................................................... 80 Comparative Analysis – Bank Barns at 815 Highway 7 ................... 80 6 CONSULTATION .......................................... 84 6.1 City of Pickering ................................................ 84 6.2 Federal and Provincial Review ......................... 84 7 DISCUSSION OF INTEGRITY ...................... 85 8 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION ........ 90 8.1 Evaluation using Ontario Regulation 9/06 ....... 90 8.2 Ontario Regulation 10/06 .................................. 92 8.3 Results of the Cultural Heritage Evaluation..... 94 8.4 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest ............................................................................ 94 Description of Historic Place .......................................................... 94 Heritage Value .............................................................................. 95 List of Heritage Attributes .............................................................. 95 9 PROPOSED UNDERTAKING AND IMPACTS ...................................................................... 98 9.1 Description of Proposed Undertaking.............. 98 Development Concept ................................................................... 98 - 18 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page x 9.2 Potential Impacts ............................................... 98 9.3 Evaluation of Impacts...................................... 101 9.4 Results of Impact Assessment ....................... 103 10 ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION OPTIONS....................... 104 10.1 Alternatives, Mitigation and Conservation Options Analysis.............................................. 104 10.2 Options Analysis ............................................. 109 10.3 Implementation and Monitoring...................... 112 11 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 114 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................... 116 - 19 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page xi TABLES TABLE 5-1: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HERITAGE PROPERTIES OF A SIMILAR AGE, STYLE AND/OR TYPOLOGY ............................. 77 TABLE 5-2: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF BARNS OF A SIMILAR AGE, STYLE AND/OR TYPOLOGY ........................................................ 82 TABLE 7-1: HERITAGE INTEGRITY ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPERTY ........................................ 86 TABLE 8-1: EVALUATION OF 815 HIGHWAY 7 AS PER O. REG. 9/06 ........................................ 90 TABLE 8-2: EVALUATION OF 815 HIGHWAY 7 AS PER O. REG. 10/06....................................... 92 TABLE 9-1: IMPACT GRADING........................ 100 TABLE 9-2: EVALUATION OF IMPACTS TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AT 815 HIGHWAY 7 .... 101 TABLE 10-1: ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION OPTIONS ............................ 105 TABLE 10-2: SHORT-TERM, MEDIUM-TERM AND LONG-TERM ACTIONS FOR OPTION 3 .......... 113 FIGURES FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION ........................ 2 FIGURE 2: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ............ 3 FIGURE 3: MAP OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ..... 4 FIGURE 4: ILLUSTRATED HISTORICAL ATLAS OF THE COUNTY OF PICKERING (J.H. BEERS & CO., 1877) ........................................................ 121 FIGURE 5: 1877 ILLUSTRATED HISTORICAL ATLAS OF ONTARIO COUNTY, PICKERING TOWNSHIP....................................................... 122 FIGURE 6: 1914 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ............ 123 FIGURE 7: 1933 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ............ 124 FIGURE 8: 1943 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ............ 125 FIGURE 9: 1954 AERIAL IMAGE...................... 126 FIGURE 10: 2000 AERIAL IMAGE .................... 127 - 20 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page xii APPENDICES A HISTORICAL MAPPING B SITE CONCEPT PLAN (MARCH 2022) C DRONE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS - 21 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 1 1 INTRODUCTION WSP was retained by the Biglieri Group on behalf of CapLink Limited to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the property located at 815 Highway 7 in the City of Pickering. The report was undertaken to accompany the submission of a Site Plan Application for the 23.8-hectare development of two properties on Highway 7, including: 815 and 745 Highway 7 (the project location, Figures 1 and 2), which is proposing the phased construction of five industrial buildings as part of the development of the FGF Pickering Manufacturing Campus. The property at 815 Highway 7 is composed of a one-and-a-half storey Ontario Cottage (the Percy House) constructed c. 1853 of brick with Neo-Classical and Georgian influences, as well as two Central Ontario bank barns and two silos (Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2) (Figure 3). The subject property is listed as a non-designated property on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register pursuant to Section 27 (1.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). The property owner’s contact information is as follows: Infrastructure Ontario Suite 2000, 1 Dundas Street West Toronto, ON, M5G 1Z3 In June 2022, ownership of the property will be transferred to: CapLink Limited 1295 Ormont Drive, Toronto, ON M9L 2W6 This HIA has been structured to adhere to the City of Pickering’s Terms of Reference: Heritage Impact Assessments (2022) and guidance provided in the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process (2006); the OHA; Section 2(d) of the Planning Act; and Section 2.6.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020). This document will provide: •A background on the project and introduction to the development site; •A description of the methodology used to investigate and evaluate the subject property; •A summary of background research and analysis related to the subject property; •An assessment of exterior existing conditions; •An evaluation of the subject property for Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) and a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes, if applicable; •A description of the proposed development and a summary of potentially adverse impacts; and •An assessment of alternative options, mitigation measures and conservation methods to be considered to avoid or limit negative impacts to the CHVI of the subject property. - 22 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: ESRI TOROPGRAPHIC BASEMAP HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:50,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 1: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA IN THE CITY OF PICKERING CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 2 Study Area.mxd Service Layer Credit Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance 0 1,900950 m - 23 - W H IT E S R O A D SID EL IN E 26 H I GHWAY 4 07 H I G H WA Y 7 H I G H W AY 4 0 7 S ID E L I NE 28 PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: LAND INFORMATION ONTARIO HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:4,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 2: PROJECT LOCATION CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 1 Location.mxd Service Layer Credit Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 0 16080 m - 24 - RESIDENCE DRIVEWAY SILO 1 BARN 1 SILO 2 BARN 2 W HIT E S R O A D HIG H W AY 7 WH I T E S R O A D PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: REGION OF DURHAM HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:1,236 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 3 Existing Condtions.mxd Service Layer Credit © 2021 Regional Municipality of Durham; 2020 Orthophotography provided by © First Base Solutions Inc.; © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2021. 0 5025 m - 25 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 5 2 POLICY FRAMEWORK 2.1 UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES On June 21st, 2021, the Canadian federal government enacted United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and confirmed that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Declaration - 2007) “must be implemented in Canada.” As a result, Indigenous peoples in Canada are recognized as having unique rights, including those that pertain to the conservation of Indigenous heritage. As per Articles 11 and 31 of the Declaration: 11. 1) Indigenous peoples have the right to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature. 31. 1) Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions. 2) In conjunction with Indigenous peoples, States shall take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these rights. These rights to historical sites, ceremonies, cultural traditions, etc. (collectively understood as Indigenous heritage) are pertinent to the Environmental Assessment process through Articles 25 and 26 of the Declaration, which state that: 25. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard. 26. 1) Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired. 2) Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired. 3) States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions, and land tenure systems of the Indigenous peoples concerned. - 26 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 6 2.2 PLANNING ACT AND PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT The Planning Act (1990) and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) [Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), 2020] issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act, provide Ontario-wide policy direction on land use planning. All decisions affecting land use planning “shall be consistent with” the PPS, which identifies that properties and features demonstrating significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological, technical or scientific interest are of provincial interest and should be conserved. The importance of identifying, evaluating and conserving built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes is noted in two sections of the PPS 2020: — Section 1.7.1 – Long-term economic prosperity should be supported by: e) encouraging a sense of place, by promoting well-designed built form and cultural planning, and by conserving features that help define character, including built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes — Section 2.6.1 – “Significant built heritage resources and significant heritage landscapes shall be conserved”; and, — Section 2.6.3 – “Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved.” The following concepts, as defined in the PPS, are fundamental to an understanding of the conservation of cultural heritage resources in Ontario: Built heritage resources (BHR) are defined as “a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Indigenous community. Built heritage resources are located on property that may be designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or that may be included on local, provincial, federal and/or international registers.” Conserved is defined as “the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has been approved, accepted or adopted by the relevant planning authority and/or decision-maker. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments.” Cultural heritage landscapes (CHL) “means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Indigenous community. The area may include features such as buildings, structures, spaces, views, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Cultural heritage landscapes may be properties that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act, or - 27 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 7 have been included on federal and/or international registers, and/or protected through official plan, zoning by-law, or other land use planning mechanisms.” Heritage attributes “means the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritage property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property’s built, constructed, or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (e.g. significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage property).” Significant means “in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act.” 2.3 ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT The OHA gives municipalities and the provincial government powers to preserve the heritage of Ontario, with a primary focus on protecting heritage properties and archaeological sites. The OHA grants authority to municipalities and the province to identify and designate properties of heritage significance, provide standards and guidelines for the preservation of heritage properties and enhance protection of heritage conservation districts, marine heritage sites and archaeological resources. Properties can be designated individually (Part IV of the OHA) or as part of a larger group of properties, known as a Heritage Conservation District (Part V of the OHA). Designation offers protection for the properties under Sections 33 and 34 of the OHA, prohibiting the owner of a designated property from altering, demolishing or removing a building or structure on the property unless the owner applies to the council of the municipality and receives written consent to proceed with the alteration, demolition or removal. In addition to designated properties, the OHA allows municipalities to list properties that are considered to have CHVI on their Register, which provides interim protection against demolition in the form of a 60-day delay in issuing a demolition permit. Under Part IV, Section 27, municipalities must maintain a Register of properties situated in the municipality that are of CHVI. Section 27 (1.1) states that the Register shall be kept by the Clerk and that it must list all designated properties (Part IV and V). Under Section 27 (1.2), the Register may include a property that has not been designated, but that the municipal council believes to possess CHVI. Listed properties, although recognized as having CHVI, are not protected under the OHA as designated properties are, but are acknowledged under Section 2 of the PPS (MMAH, 2020). 2.4 ONTARIO REGULATION 9/06 The evaluation of cultural heritage resources is guided by Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O. Reg 9/06), which provides three principal criteria with nine sub-criteria for determining CHVI. The criteria set - 28 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 8 out in the regulation were developed to identify and evaluate properties for designation under the OHA. Best practices in evaluating properties that are not yet protected employ O. Reg. 9/06 to determine if they have CHVI. These criteria include: design or physical value, historical or associative value and contextual value. 1. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 3. The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2). If a potential cultural heritage resources is found to meet any one of these criteria, it can then be considered an identified resource. 2.5 ONTARIO REGULATION 10/06 Ontario Regulation 10/06 provides the Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of Provincial Significance. This regulation was created in 2006 to be utilised to identify properties of provincial heritage significance under the Ontario Heritage Act. 1.(1) The criteria set out in subsection (2) are prescribed for the purposes of clause 34.5 (1) (a) of the Act. O. Reg. 10/06, s. 1 (1). (2) A property may be designated under section 34.5 of the Act if it meets one or more of the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest of provincial significance: 1. The property represents or demonstrates a theme or pattern in Ontario’s history. 2. The property yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of Ontario’s history. 3. The property demonstrates an uncommon, rare or unique aspect of Ontario’s cultural heritage. 4. The property is of aesthetic, visual or contextual importance to the province. - 29 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 9 5. The property demonstrates a high degree of excellence or creative, technical or scientific achievement at a provincial level in a given period. 6. The property has a strong or special association with the entire province or with a community that is found in more than one part of the province. The association exists for historic, social, or cultural reasons or because of traditional use. 7. The property has a strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organization of importance to the province or with an event of importance to the province. 8. The property is located in unorganized territory and the Minister determines that there is a provincial interest in the protection of the property. O. Reg. 10/06, s. 1 (2). 2.6 MINISTRY OF HERITAGE, SPORT, TOURISM AND CULTURE INDUSTRIES HERITAGE RESOURCES IN THE LAND USE PLANNING PROCESS The MHSTCI’s Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process (2006) identifies HIAs as an important tool to evaluate cultural heritage resources and to determine appropriate conservation options. The document identifies what an HIA should contain and any specific municipal requirements. To determine the effect that a proposed development or site alteration may have on a significant cultural heritage resource, Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process outlines seven potential negative or indirect impacts: •Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features; •Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; •Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden; •Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; •Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; •A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; •Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource. The MHSTCI’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties (2007), provide guiding principles for the development of appropriate conservation or mitigation measures: 1.Respect for documentary evidence Do not base restoration on conjecture. Conservation work should be based on historical documentation, such as historical photographs, drawings and physical evidence. - 30 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 10 2.Respect for the original location Do not move buildings unless there is no other means to save them. Site is an integral component of a building. Any change in site diminishes heritage value considerably. 3.Respect for historical material Repair or conserve rather than replace building materials and finishes, except where absolutely necessary. Minimal intervention maintains the historical content of the resource. 4.Respect for original fabric Repair with like materials, to return the resource to its prior condition without altering its integrity. 5.Respect for the building’s history Do not restore to one period at the expense of another. Do not destroy later additions to a house solely to restore it to a single time period. 6.Reversibility Alterations should be able to be returned to original conditions. This conserves earlier building design and technique. For instance, when a new door opening is put in a stone wall, the original stones are numbered, removed and stored, allowing for future restoration. 7.Legibility New work should be distinguishable from old. Buildings should be recognized as products of their own time, and new additions should not blur the distinction between old and new. 8.Maintenance With continuous care, future restoration will not be necessary. With regular upkeep, major conservation projects and their high costs can be avoided. 2.7 REGION OF DURHAM OFFICIAL PLAN The Durham Regional Official Plan (2020 - Office Consolidation) provides a series of policies for the conservation of cultural heritage resources. Section 2.3.49 of the document provides a policy for Built and Culture Heritage Resources, which states that the Regional Council shall encourage councils of the area municipalities to utilize the Ontario Heritage Act to conserve, protect, and enhance the built and cultural heritage resources of the municipality. The plan is clear to be consistent with the policies and direction provided through the PPS and encourages local municipalities to address cultural heritage resources in greater detail within their local official plans. 2.8 CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN The City of Pickering Official Plan (2018) provides cultural heritage conservation policies in Chapter 8. The following policies provide guidance for development proposals that may impact cultural heritage resources. 8.2 City Council shall: (a)identify important cultural heritage resources from all time periods, so that they can be appropriately conserved and integrated into the community fabric, including: - 31 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 11 (i)significant heritage structures, features and sites; (ii)buildings, sites, and artifacts of historical, archaeological and architectural significance including modern or recent architecture; (iii)significant landscape features and characteristics, including vistas and ridge lines; and (iv)other locally important cultural heritage resources; (b)foster public awareness and appreciation of the City’s cultural heritage; (c)prevent the demolition, destruction or inappropriate alteration of important cultural heritage resources to the extent possible; (d)where possible, restore, rehabilitate, maintain and enhance important cultural heritage resources owned by the City, and encourage the same for those owned by others; (e)where possible, ensure development, infrastructure, capital works and other private and public projects conserve, protect and enhance important cultural heritage resources; and (f)involve the public, business-people, landowners, local heritage experts, heritage committees, relevant public agencies, and other interested groups and individuals in cultural heritage decisions affecting the City. Cooperation with Others 8.3 City Council shall: (a)assist in identifying, protecting and promoting cultural heritage resources in the municipality, in cooperation with Federal, Provincial and Regional levels of government, as well as private agencies and individuals; (b)consult with its local architectural conservation advisory committee and other heritage committees, and participate with these committees and others in protecting important heritage resources, as necessary, through assembling, resale, public- private partnerships, acquisition or other forms of involvement; (c)ensure that plans, programs and strategies prepared by or for the City and its boards or commissions, shall respect the character and significance of the City’s heritage resources; and (d)use and encourage the use of available government and non-government funding and programs to assist in cultural heritage resource conservation. Ontario Heritage Act 8.4 City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, where warranted shall implement the provisions of the OHA, including the designation under the Act of heritage sites and heritage districts. Cultural Heritage Inventory - 32 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 12 8.7 City Council, in association with its heritage committee, shall: (a)conduct an inventory of heritage resources owned by the City, its boards and commissions, and establish an overall program for the maintenance, use, reuse or, if warranted, disposal of these resources; (b)maintain an inventory of heritage resources designated or worthy of designation under the OHA; and (c)store and disseminate cultural heritage resource inventories and databases in convenient and publicly accessible locations and formats, and maintain an archive of heritage conservation information. Cultural Heritage Alteration and Demolition 8.8 City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, shall: (a)allow alterations, additions or repairs to buildings designated under the OHA, provided the changes to the building do not detrimentally affect the heritage value; (b)allow new buildings, or alterations, additions or repairs to existing buildings within a Heritage Conservation District that are consistent with the District Conservation Guidelines; (c)discourage or prevent the demolition or inappropriate alteration of a heritage resource, but where demolition or inappropriate alteration is unavoidable: (i)consider the acquisition and conservation of the resource; and (ii)if acquisition is not possible, conduct a thorough review and documentation of the resource for archival purposes; and (d)ensure that designated cultural heritage buildings, and other important cultural heritage resources that are vacant for an extended period of time are inspected regularly to discourage vandalism and monitor conformity with the City’s Maintenance and Occupancy By-law. Guidelines for Use and Reuse 8.9 City Council shall consider the following guidelines on the use and reuse of heritage resources: (a)maintain, if possible, the original use of heritage structures and sites, and if possible, retain the original location and orientation of such structures; (b)where original uses cannot be maintained, support the adaptive reuse of heritage structures and sites to encourage resource conservation; and (c)where no other alternative exists for maintaining heritage structures in their original locations, allow the relocation of the structure to appropriate sites or areas. - 33 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 13 3 PROJECT METHODOLOGY An HIA evaluates the proposed impact of development on the heritage attributes of a property of potential CHVI. This HIA is guided by the MHSTCI Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process; the OHA; Section 2(d) of the Planning Act; Section 2.6.3 of the PPS, and the City of Pickering Terms of Reference: Heritage Impact Assessments (2022). To address the requirements of an HIA, this report provides the following information: • A summary of the history of the immediate context informed by a review of archival sources and historical maps; • Exterior and interior photographic documentation of the subject property, project location, and context; • A written description of the existing conditions and context of the subject property; • An evaluation of the subject property according to O. Reg. 9/06 and O. Reg. 10/06; • Preparation of a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes, if applicable; • A review of the proposed intervention; • Identification of impacts; • The identification and analysis of mitigation opportunities, as required; • The preferred strategy recommended to best protect and enhance the CHVI and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource; and • A summary statement and conservation recommendations. - 34 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 14 4 HISTORICAL CONTEXT 4.1 PRE-EUROPEAN CONTACT PERIOD The first populations to occupy southern Ontario are referred to as Paleoindians (Ellis and Deller, 1990:39). Paleo period populations moved into the region following the retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet approximately 11,000 years before present (BP). Early Paleo period groups are identified by their distinctive projectile point morphologies, exhibiting long grooves, or ‘flutes’, that likely functioned as a hafting mechanism. These Early Paleo group projectile morphologies include Gainey (c.10,900 BP), Barnes (c.10,700 BP), and Crowfield (c.10,500 BP) (Ellis and Deller, 1990:39-43). By approximately 10,400 BP, Paleo projectile points transitioned to various un-fluted varieties such as Holocombe (c.10,300 BP), Hi-Lo (c.10,100 BP), and Unstemmed and Stemmed Lanceolate (c.10,400 to 9,500 BP). These morphologies were utilized by Late Paleo period groups (Ellis and Deller, 1990:40). Both Early and Late Paleo period populations were highly mobile, participating in the hunting of large game animals. Paleo period sites often functioned as small campsites (less than 200 m2) where stone tool production and maintenance occurred (Ellis and Deller, 1990). By approximately 8,000 BP the climate of Ontario began to warm. As a result, deciduous flora began to colonize the region. With this shift in flora came new faunal resources, resulting in a transition in the ways populations exploited their environments. This transition resulted in a change of tool-kits and subsistence strategies recognizable in the archaeological record, resulting in what is referred to archaeologically as the Archaic period. The Archaic period in southern Ontario is dived into three phases: the Early Archaic (c.10,000 to 8,000 BP), the Middle Archaic (c.8,000 to 4,500 BP) and the Late Archaic (c.4,500 to 2,800 BP) (Ellis et al., 1990). The Archaic period is differentiated from earlier Paleo populations by several traits such as: 1) an increase in tool stone variation and reliance on local tool stone sources, 2) the emergence of notched and stemmed projectile point morphologies, 3) a reduction in extensively flaked tools, 4) the use of native copper, 5) the use of bone tools for hooks, gorges, and harpoons, 6) an increase in extensive trade networks and 7) the production of ground stone tools. Also noted is an increase in the recovery of large woodworking tools such as chisels, adzes, and axes (Ellis and Deller, 1990:65- 66). The Archaic period is also marked by population growth. Archaeological evidence suggests that by the end of the Middle Archaic period (c.4,500 BP) populations were steadily increasing in size (Ellis et al., 1990). Over the course of the Archaic period populations began to rely on more localized hunting and gathering territories. By the end of the Archaic period, populations were utilizing more seasonal rounds. From spring to fall, settlements would exploit lakeshore/riverine locations where a broad-based subsistence strategy could be employed, while the late fall and winter months would be spent at interior site where deer hunting was likely a - 35 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 15 primary focus with some wild edibles likely being collected (Ellis and Deller, 1990:114). This steady increase in population size and adoption of a more localized seasonal subsistence strategy eventually evolved into what is termed the Woodland period. The Woodland period is characterized by the emergence of ceramic technology for the manufacture of pottery. Like the Archaic period, the Woodland period is separated into three primary timeframes: the Early Woodland (approximately 800 BC to 0 AD), the Middle Woodland (approximately 0 AD to 700/900 AD) and the Late Woodland (approximately 900 AD to 1600 AD) (Spence et al., 1990; Fox, 1990). The Early Woodland period is represented in southern Ontario by two different cultural complexes: the Meadowood Complex (c.900 to 500 BC) and the Middlesex Complex (c.500 BC to 0 AD). During this period the life ways of Early Woodland population differed little from that of the Late Archaic with hunting and gathering representing the primary subsistence strategies. The pottery of this period is characterized by its relatively crude construction and lack of decorations. These early ceramics exhibit cord impressions, likely resulting from the techniques used during manufacture (Spence et al., 1990). The Middle Woodland period is differentiated from the Early Woodland period by changes in lithic tool morphologies (projectile points) and the increased elaboration of ceramic vessels (Spence et al., 1990). In southern Ontario, the Middle Woodland is observed in three different cultural complexes: the Point Peninsula Complex to the north and northeast of Lake Ontario, the Couture Complex near Lake St. Claire and the Saugeen Complex throughout the remainder of southern Ontario. These groups can be identified by their use of either dentate or pseudo-scalloped ceramic decorations. It is by the end of the Middle Woodland period that archaeological evidence begins to suggest the rudimentary use of maize (corn) horticulture (Warrick, 2000). The adoption and expansion of maize horticulture during the Late Woodland period allowed for an increase in population size, density, and complexity among Late Woodland populations. As a result, a shift in subsistence and settlement patterns occurred, with the adoption of a more sedentary village life and reliance on maize horticulture, with beans, squash and tobacco also being grown. Nearing the end of the Late Woodland Period (approximately 1400 AD) villages reached their maximum size. During this period, increased warfare resulted in the development of larger villages with extensive palisades. Early contact with European settlers at the end of the Late Woodland, Late Ontario Iroquoian period resulted in extensive change to the traditional lifestyles of most populations inhabiting southern Ontario. 4.2 PRE-CONFEDERATION TREATIES The study area, located in the City of Pickering, is situated on the lands of the William Treaties and the Johnson-Butler Purchase. The Williams Treaties were signed in October and November of - 36 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 16 1923 between the Crown and seven First Nations groups, including the Chippewa of Lake Simcoe (Beausoleil First Nation, Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, Chippewas of Rama First Nation) and the Mississauga of the north shore of Lake Ontario (Alderville First Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation, and Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation). The Williams Treaties were the last of the land cession treaties to be signed in Canada, which transferred over 20, 000 square kilometers of land in south-central Ontario to the Crown. 4.3 ONTARIO COUNTY The District of Nassau, created in 1788, was one of four original districts dividing what is now the Province of Ontario. This district was later renamed the Home District, which stretched form the Trent River to Long Point and north to the Severn River. Over the following years these districts were divided until there were 20 districts in all. In 1853, Ontario was separated to become its own County from the United Counties of Ontario, York and Peel. In 1869 its area was estimated at 360,000 acres with 210,000 acres of which were cleared and under cultivation (Conner and Coltson, 1869). By 1854, Ontario County included nine townships: Brock, Mara, Pickering, Rama, Reach, Scott, Thorah, Uxbridge, and Whitby. In the latter half of the nineteenth century the County was known for the quality of its grains and the principal manufactures were flour and lumber (Conner and Coltson, 1869). Ontario County was dissolved in 1974 and the Townships of Rama and Mara were added to Simcoe County. 4.4 PICKERING TOWNSHIP Pickering Township was established in 1791 when Augustus Jones began to survey the area on behalf of the government of Upper Canada. The eastern part of the township was settled by Loyalists, disbanded soldiers, emigrants from the United Kingdom, and a large number of Quakers from both Ireland and the US (Farewell, 1907). Loyalists and their relatives held the vast majority of land grants in Pickering Township in the years following the revolution (Johnson, 1973). By 1793, the Kingston Road was opened to serve as a horse path extending east from Simcoe’s Dundas Street, and in 1799, a rough roadway had been cut from Duffin’s Creek to Port Hope. While early roadworks made the Township more accessible to prospective settlers, actual settlement of Pickering Township proceeded very slowly. Although the first land patent was awarded to Major John Smith in 1792, the first legal settler in Pickering was William Peak in 1798 (Armstrong, 1985; Farewell, 1907). Difficulty clearing the forest led Peak and other early settlers to pursue non-agricultural means to augment income, including trading with Indigenous Peoples in the area (Johnson, 1973). Population growth and Township development remained slow during the early nineteenth century. The War of 1812 halted much of the county and township’s development. After the conflict, increased road traffic provided a boost in business to local innkeepers while soldiers worked to improve existing road conditions. With improved roadways, and a substantial water course in - 37 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 17 Duffin’s Creek, Pickering Township was soon able to establish saw and grist mills for the production of lumber and grain for export through Toronto. By 1817 the population was 330 (Johnson, 1973). Changes in land-granting policies in the 1820s led to further sales of land in Pickering Township and by 1820 the population was 575 (Johnson, 1973), which grew to 830 by 1825 (Johnson, 1973; Welch and Payne, 2015). A post office was established in 1829 but the hamlet of Duffin's Creek developed slowly. That same year, the Crown worked with the New England Company, a missionary group, to encourage farming and education for the First Nations people. The community that is now known as Curve Lake First Nation was established (Curve Lake First Nation, n.d.). The construction of the Grand Trunk Railway in 1856 and growing agricultural prosperity stimulated the community's development as an important grist-milling and local commercial centre. However, Pickering Township was slow to develop. By 1861 growth had stalled and between 1861 and 1891 a decline in population occurred. Inflation and a depression between 1874-76 did little to help. The population of Pickering Township peaked at 8,002 in 1861 (Johnson, 1973) and by 1891 numbered 5,998 (Johnson, 1973). Through most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the township remained primarily agricultural. As many communities on the periphery of Toronto, development increased following the Second World War. Manufacturing companies also moved to the township following the construction of Highway 401 in the 1950s and in 1974 the township was divided into eastern and northern parts. Following this, in 1974, the villages of Brougham, Claremont, Green River, Greenwood and Whitevale became the Town of Pickering. In 2000 the Town became incorporated as a City. 4.5 COMMUNITY OF WHITEVALE Situated 1.3 km to the southwest of the study area, the community of Whitevale was founded in 1820 by John Major who built a sawmill along Duffin’s Creek. The community as first known as Majorville as John Major and multiple members of his family lived on the surrounding properties. In 1845, Ira White arrived in Majorville and took over the sawmill. In 1855, the sawmill was purchased by his son, Truman. P. White, who also constructed a grist mill and a cooperage. In the same year, the community also constructed its first general store (Wood, 1911). He later constructed a planning factory in 1866, a brick woollen mill in 1867, and a schoolhouse sometime later. Truman White became a central pillar of the community, and the small hamlet was named Whitevale after him. By 1874, Whitevale contained three general stores, three dressmakers, three gardeners, two shoemaker shops, two churches, two blacksmiths, two wagon shops, a stave and heading factory, a barrel factory, a wagon and carriage factory, a cheese factory, a merchant and tailoring firm, a - 38 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 18 butcher shop, a tinsmith shop, a school house, an undertakers, a harness shop, a grist mill, a brush factory, a grindstone factory, a barber shop, a post office, and a hotel (Wood, 1911; Whitevale, n.d.). The continued prosperity of Whitevale did not last the turn of the century. The last quarter of the nineteenth century saw the community struck by separate fires at the cooperage, the carriage factory, the public hall, planning mill, grist mill, and the woollen mill. These problems were compounded when Whitevale was bypassed by the Ontario-Quebec railway line, built in 1884 (Whitevale, n.d.). Whitevale remains as an unincorporated community of the City of Pickering. 4.6 COMMUNITY OF GREEN RIVER Situated approximately 3 kilometres west of the subject property, the community of Green River was first settled by Benjamin Doten. Doten arrived in 1849 and established a wagon and blacksmith shop known as Dotenville Carriage Works. Osburn, Rice, Runnals, Vardon, Ferrier, Turner, MacIntyre, Poucher, and the Winter families were among the early families to settle in Green River. William Barnes built a sawmill in 1857 and by 1870, he added a factory to produce tubs, fork and brush handles and baskets. Edward and John Smith were an integral part of the development of Green River, in the early 1870s, they purchased a sawmill and restored it to working order, the also erected a grist mill, a store, and a public hall in the village; they also aided in the establishment of a post office in 1870 (Mika & Mika, 1981). In 1974, Green River was incorporated into the newly created Town of Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham. 4.7 SITE SPECIFIC HISTORY: 815 HIGHWAY 7 The Euro-Canadian land use history for 815 Highway 7, Pickering was produced using census returns, land registry records, city directories, historical mapping, and other primary and secondary sources, where available. 815 HIGHWAY 7 The subject property is within Lot 27, Concession V, in the Geographic Township of Pickering, now the City of Pickering. The property history has been completed with land registry records, historical maps, census records and archival photographs. It should be noted that the absence of structures or other features shown on the historical maps does not preclude their presence on these properties. Illustrating all homesteads on the historical atlas maps would have been beyond the intended scope of the atlas and, often, homes were only illustrated for those landowners who purchased a subscription. - 39 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 19 According to the abstract index, on August 4, 1821, Charles Denison received a patent from The Crown for all 200 acres (Book 211, Page 134). On the same day, Charles released all 200 acres to William Baldwin (Book 211, Page 134, Instrument 5083). On August 20, 1821, the lot is sold to William Sleigh (Book 211, Page 134, Instrument 5084). On December 9, 1826, William Sleigh sold Archibald Barker the northwest half of the lot (Book 211, Page 134, Instrument illegible), Barker purchased the northeast half of the lot from Wurz Landon On February 24, 1837. In 1871, a transaction occured between John Percy and William Major for the north half of the lot, the type of transaction, exact date and compensation, however, is illegible (Book 211, Page 134). The 1837 City of Toronto and the Home District Commercial Directory and Register (Walton, 1837) indicates several occupants for Lot 27, Concession V, they include: George Crowthers, Stephen Hubbard, William Sleigh and Albert Smith. No information regarding the presence of structures is provided in the directory. Roswell’s City of Toronto Directory and County of York for 1850-1851 (Armstrong, 1850) lists several occupants for Lot 27, Concession V, including Benjamin Milligan, John Percy and John Sleigh. No information regarding the presence of structures is provided in the directory. The 1851 Census lists John Percy, a 43-year old farmer, born in England as living his wife Elizabeth (née Young), also 43 (Plates 1 and 2), and their children Archibald (19), William (17), Mary Anne (9), James (8), Sylvenus (6), Uriah (5), John (3) and Frederick (3). The family is listed as belonging to the Wesleyan Methodist Church (Item No. 1126581, Page 215). J. Percy is assessed for the north quarter of Lot 7, Concession V in 1853, at this time he was identified as both a Householder and a Freeholder (Scheinman, 2004). Original concession roads are illustrated on the 1860 Tremaine Map of Ontario County (Figure 4, Appendix A), including present-day Highway 7 and Whites Road, as are the settlements of Brunswick Hill and Brougham located north and east of the subject property, respectively. The lands surrounding the subject property constituted a rural landscape. The Tremaine map indicates that Lot 27 is divided into two 50 acre and one 100 acre lots, with 815 Highway 7 located within the lot owned by J. Pursey [sic]. One structure is illustrated within the subject property on the 1861 Tremaine Map. The 1861 census lists John (51), Elizabeth (51) and their children, Archibald (27), William (25), Mary Anne (19), Uriah (17), John (13), Venice (17), Frederick (11), and Leslie (7), as living in a one-and-a-half storey brick house. The census indicates that two families were living in the house in 1861, however no information regarding the second family was provided (Item no. 2747140, Page 133). The 1871 Census lists John, 60, his wife Elizabeth, 61 and their children Uriah and Frederick, aged 21 and 25 respectively (Instrument 649389, Page 50). In 1871, the north half of Lot 27, Concession V is willed to Major William (Book 211, Page 134, Instrument illegible). To additional transactions between Barker Archibald et. ux and Uriah Percy et. ux and John Scott occur between 1871 and 1892, however the transaction type, exact date and compensation are illegible (Book 211, Page 134). - 40 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 20 John Percey died on October 10, 1872, he is interred with his wife, who died in 1884, at the Green River Baptist Cemetery, located at 600 Highway 7 (Photograph 100). Plate 1: Portrait of John Percy, date unknown (findagrave.com) Plate 2: Portrait of Elizabeth Percy, date unknown (findagrave.com) Similar to the 1860 Tremaine Map, one structure is illustrated on the 1877 Pickering Township Map (Figure 5, Appendix A). A. Percy is shown as owning a 50 acres within Lot 27, Concession V. A brick structure is shown on the 1914 NTS map, in the approximate location of the subject property (Figure 6, Appendix A). The brick structure is also present on the 1933 (Figure 7, Appendix A) and 1943 NTS maps (Figure 8, Appendix A). These maps show no change in the lands surrounding the subject property, as they continued to be rural in nature. The Percy Family retained ownership of Lot 27, Concession V until the late nineteenth century, when ownership was transferred to C. Berevell (Scheinman, 2004). All of Lot 27, Concession V was expropriated by the Crown and granted to the Ministry of Housing, Province of Ontario, on February 4, 1974 (Book 211, Page 134a, Instrument 252578). The lot is granted from the Ontario Land Corporation to Her Majesty The Queen in right of the Province of - 41 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 21 Ontario represented by the Minister of Transportation and communications for the Province of Ontario (Book 211, Page 134a, Instrument D136577). Aerial photographs from 1954 to 2006 were reviewed to assist in documenting changes to the rural landscape. A 1954 aerial photograph (Figure 9, Appendix A) of the subject property was reviewed, and while the quality of the photograph is poor, the house and the bank barns are visible. Development within the study area between 1954 and 2006 was relatively slow. The 2002 aerial photograph (Figure 10, Appendix A) clearly shows the house and two barns subject property; Highway 407 is also present, south of the subject property. Construction began on the Whites Road extension and the Highway 407 on-and off-ramps in 2018, and is in use as of 2022. The majority of the lands adjacent to 815 Highway 7 remain under active cultivation. - 42 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 22 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.1 815 HIGHWAY 7 The subject property at 815 Highway 7 is currently under active cultivation, on an approximately 18.7-hectare irregular shaped lot that includes a one-and-a-half storey brick Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical influences constructed c. 1853, two bank barns and two silos (Figure 3). The Percy House is currently vacant. The property is located on the south side of Highway 7, west of Whites Road, it is bounded on the east and west by lands associated with the Seaton Natural Heritage System in the City of Pickering. The residential building is oriented toward Highway 7 and barns are located south of the residence. The house is setback from Highway 7 approximately 30 metres. The following description of the subject property is based on site visits conducted on April 19, and April 29, 2022, by Emily Game, Cultural Heritage Specialist. Access to the project location was provided by the proponent, as such there were no limitations to the on-site investigation. RESIDENCE The one-and-a-half storey Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical and Georgian influences is set back from Highway 7 approximately 30 metres. The structure is oriented with its façade to Highway 7, slightly west of a straight, gravel driveway (Photograph 1). Constructed c. 1853, the one-and-a-half storey brick structure with a side gable roof was originally built to a rectangular plan, with one rear addition projecting from the south elevation. The main façade of the one-and-a-half storey structure was constructed using a fine example of Flemish bond, while the east, south, and west elevations were constructed using the Common bond. Flemish bond was considered to be of higher quality as more bricks were required to construct the wall, it also reflects a higher degree of craftsmanship. A 1913 contractors’ estimating book specifies that a mason should be able to lay 600 bricks in the Common bond per day in veneer work but only 200 when laid as fancy brickwork (Radford, 1913: 377). The one-and-a-half storey structure is sited on a foundation comprised of granite and field stone. The one-storey addition has a gable roof which spans south elevation is also of brick construction. The addition is laid in the Common bond pattern and is sited on a fieldstone foundation. 5.1.1.1 EXTERIOR North Elevation (Main Façade) The symmetrical three-bay north elevation represents the building’s main façade (Photograph 2). The centrally placed entrance features a wide surround, with a transom, sidelights and recessed panels; the entrance is topped with a flat arch in buff brick (Photograph 3). The entrance is - 43 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 23 flanked by a pair of rectangular window openings with flat arches in buff brick (Photograph 4). The windows retain their original six-over-six double-hung sash windows. The façade features buff brick quoins and a patterned stringcourse below the moulded cornice, this is an early example of dichromatic brickwork, a style that would come to characterize the region. A buff brick stringcourse is also present, immediately above the coursed and split granite foundation (Photograph 5). East Elevation The two-bay east elevation is symmetrical, and features an interior corbelled chimney; the return eaves are no longer extant on the east elevation. The interior chimney is flanked by two windows on both the main and upper storeys (Photographs 6 and 7). The windows on the east elevation are rectangular and have wooden sills, they retain their original six-over-six double-hung sash windows. The east elevation has been covered in stucco, however, the buff brick stringcourse is visible above the foundation, which on the east elevation, is comprised of fieldstone (Photograph 8). The east elevation of the rear addition is symmetrical with three bays, it is constructed using brick laid in the Common bond and is located on a fieldstone foundation (Photograph 9). The rectangular windows retain their six-over-six double-hung sash windows and have wood sill; they are topped with a jack arch. The door has been replaced with an aluminum screen door and a wood door. The porch appears to be original the structure and features a roof with exposed curved rafters (Photograph 10). South Elevation The original portion of the south elevation (Photograph 11) is largely obscured by the one-storey addition projecting from the rear elevation. One door is present on the south elevation of the addition. No windows were observed on the south elevation of the one-and-a-half storey structure. A large concrete block with brick fill is positioned against the door opening, this is likely supporting rear brick wall which appears to be collapsing. West Elevation The two-bay west elevation is symmetrical, and features an interior corbelled chimney; one return eave remains on the northwest corner of the house. The chimney is flanked by two windows on both the main and upper storeys. The windows on the east elevation are rectangular and have wooden sills and feature jack arches of buff brick; they retain their original six-over-six double-hung sash windows. The buff brick stringcourse extends on the west elevation above the foundation, which on the west elevation, is comprised of fieldstone (Photographs 12 and 13). The west façade of the rear addition is also symmetrical with three bays. The windows on the west façade have been removed and are covered with wood sheeting. The wood door on the west façade appears to be original (Photograph 14). - 44 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 24 Photograph 1: View to Percy House from gravel driveway (WSP, 2022) Photograph 2: Main façade of the Percy House (WSP, 2022) - 45 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 25 Photograph 3: Detail of wood door surround (WSP, 2022) Photograph 4: Detail of six-over-six window (WSP, 2022) Photograph 5: Detail of granite and fieldstone foundation and buff brick string course and quoins (WSP, 2022) - 46 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 26 Photograph 6: East façade and rear addition (WSP, 2022) Photograph 7: Overview of the east façade (WSP, 2022) - 47 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 27 Photograph 8: Detail of coursed fieldstone foundation and stuccoed exterior on the east façade (WSP, 2022) Photograph 9: East façade of the rear addition (WSP, 2022) - 48 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 28 Photograph 10: View to the north of the rear addition and east façade (WSP, 2022) Photograph 11: South façade of the rear addition (WSP, 2022) - 49 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 29 Photograph 12: Overview of the west façade (WSP, 2022) Photograph 13: Detail of return eaves on the west façade (WSP, 2022) - 50 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 30 Photograph 14: West façade of the rear addition (WSP, 2022) 5.1.1.2 INTERIOR MAIN FLOOR The Percy House is a well-crafted example of an Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical and Georgian influences. The one-and-a-half storey portion of the house follows Georgian design principles as seen through its centre hall plan (Photographs 15 and 16). Both floors of the one- and-a-half story building are composed of four approximately equal sized rooms and one staircase, all laid out to a rectangular plan. All four of the rooms are accessed by the centre hall and each of the rooms has a door allowing access to the adjacent space. The walls and ceilings are constructed of lath and plaster and metal and stone fireplace collars are present in most of the rooms. The floors consist of wide pine boards. Few alterations have been made to the house, with the exception of the addition of a bathroom on the main floor; the floorplan is unchanged. The newel posts, handrail and balusters are simple in form; the balusters are lathe-turned, with two balusters on each step (Photographs 17 and 19). The baseboards within the hallway are tall with a simple cap molding and a quarter round trim (Photograph 18). The floors in the hallway are covered in modern vinyl flooring. The room at the northeast corner of the house originally functioned as the parlour. The room features a corner cupboard with Gothic glazing, well-considered proportions and a Neo-Classical inspired cornice (Photograph 20). The floor-to-ceiling windows in the parlour have simple fielded - 51 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 31 panels below the sills and wide moulded surrounds (Photographs 21 and 22). The baseboards in the room are tall, and have a cap moulding (Photograph 23). The room at the northwest corner of the house features a fireplace mantel with a simple pilastered surround (Photographs 24 to 27). The window surrounds are less elaborate than those in the parlour and do not have fielded panels. The baseboards in the room are tall, and have a cap moulding topped with a bead. The room at the southeast corner of the house most recently functioned as a kitchen. The window surround has a similar profile to those in the northwest room. The baseboards are tall, have a quarter round trim and are topped with a half round moulding. A door, now covered, once provided access to the rear addition. The floors in the kitchen are covered in modern vinyl flooring (Photographs 28 to 30). The room at the southwest corner of the house was divided to accommodate the placement of a modern bathroom. The window surround has a similar profile to those in the northwest and southeast rooms. The baseboards in the room are tall, and are capped with a half round bead. The floors are covered in modern vinyl flooring (Photographs 31 and 32). The one-story addition is composed of two rooms, the northernmost room being the larger of the two. The exterior walls and ceilings are constructed of lath and plaster, while the dividing wall is constructed of dimensional lumber. The bottom three quarters of the walls in the addition are clad in a beaded wainscotting. The window and door frames are mostly unornamented and feature a simple bead. The ceiling in both rooms is covered in wood beadboard and the floors consist of unpainted tongue-and-groove boards. A fireplace is located on the southern wall of the addition (Photographs 33 to 42). - 52 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 32 Photograph 15: Centre hall of the Percy House (WSP, 2022) Photograph 16: Transom and sidelights in hall (WSP, 2022) Photograph 17: Detail of staircase in centre hall (WSP, 2022) - 53 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 33 Photograph 18: Detail of baseboard in centre hall (WSP, 2022) Photograph 19: Detail of newel post in centre hall (WSP, 2022) Photograph 20: Detail of cupboard in first floor room (WSP, 2022) - 54 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 34 Photograph 21: Detail of window in first floor room (WSP, 2022) Photograph 22: Detail of door in first floor room (WSP, 2022) Photograph 23: Overview of first floor room, showing door trim and baseboards (WSP, 2022) - 55 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 35 Photograph 24: Overview of first floor room (WSP, 2022) Photograph 25: Detail of window (WSP, 2022) Photograph 26: Detail of door trim (WSP, 2022) - 56 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 36 Photograph 27: Detail of mantle (WSP, 2022) Photograph 28: Overview of former kitchen (WSP, 2022) - 57 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 37 Photograph 29: Covered door in kitchen (WSP, 2022) Photograph 30: Modified trim in kitchen (WSP, 2022) Photograph 31: Overview of first floor room (WSP, 2022) Photograph 32: Example of wood door (WSP, 2022) - 58 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 38 Photograph 33: North wall of addition with two doors and wainscotting (WSP, 2022) Photograph 34: East wall of addition showing window, door and wainscotting (WSP, 2022) - 59 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 39 Photograph 35: Dividing wall in addition, showing door trim and wainscotting (WSP, 2022) Photograph 36: West wall of addition showing wainscoting, covered door and window trim (WSP, 2022) - 60 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 40 Photograph 37: Beadboard ceiling in addition (WSP, 2022) Photograph 38: Detail of window and picture rail in addition (WSP, 2022) - 61 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 41 Photograph 39: Detail of dimensional lumber wall (WSP, 2022) Photograph 40: Door on south wall of addition (WSP, 2022) Photograph 41: Detail of window and wainscotting in rear addition (WSP, 2022) - 62 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 42 Photograph 42: Fireplace on south wall of first floor addition (WSP, 2022) SECOND FLOOR The second floor is accessed via the staircase in the centre hall. The banister and lathe-turned baluster continue to the second story and the newel post in the second floor is identical to that on the main floor. The second floor consists of the landing/hallway, four bedrooms and two closets. The floor retains both painted and unpainted wide pine boards. The baseboards and window surrounds on the second floor are very simple and do not feature any moulding or decorative elements. The doors to each of the rooms consist of wood panelled doors, all the original locking mechanisms and doorknobs have been removed (Photographs 43 to 52). A stone fireplace collar is embedded in the floor of the bedroom in the southwest corner of the house (Photograph 53). - 63 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 43 Photograph 43: Overview of second floor landing (WSP, 2022) Photograph 44: Railing and newel post on second floor (WSP, 2022) Photograph 45: Example of door trim on second floor (WSP, 2022) - 64 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 44 Photograph 46: Overview of bedroom on second floor (WSP, 2022) Photograph 47: Overview of bedroom on second floor (WSP, 2022) Photograph 48: Overview of bedroom on second floor (WSP, 2022) - 65 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 45 Photograph 49: Overview of bedroom on second floor (WSP, 2022) Photograph 50: Overview of bedroom on second floor (WSP, 2022) - 66 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 46 Photograph 51: Overview of bedroom on second floor (WSP, 2022) Photograph 52: Overview of bedroom on second floor (WSP, 2022) - 67 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 47 Photograph 53: Stone fireplace collar in second floor bedroom (WSP, 2022) BASEMENT The basement is accessed by a simple wood staircase via the centre hall (Photograph 54). It is composed of two rooms, separated by a brick wall. The foundation is constructed of fieldstone which has been painted white. The room on the east side of the house has a dirt floor with has been covered with unmortared bricks. The room on the east side of the house has a poured concrete floor. The machine-cut, cross braced floor joists and subfloor are visible above (Image 83), and one hand-hewn beams is present in the middle of the basement for support. A door opening on the east wall of the basement provides access to the exterior via a storm door (Photographs 55 to 61). - 68 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 48 Photograph 54: Stairs in basement (WSP, 2022) Photograph 55: Detail of door in basement (WSP, 2022) Photograph 56: Overview of basement (WSP, 2022) - 69 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 49 Photograph 57: Overview of basement (WSP, 2022) Photograph 58: Fieldstone construction in basement (WSP, 2022) - 70 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 50 Photograph 59: Detail of hand-hewn beam in basement (WSP, 2022) Photograph 60: Exterior access on east wall of basement (WSP, 2022) Photograph 61: Example of window in basement (WSP, 2022) - 71 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 51 BANK BARN 1 AND SILO 1 EXTERIOR Barn 1 is oriented east to west, with a wooden silo (Silo 1) located west of the barn. The barn retains its original rectangular plan and was built into the natural topography of the lot, which slopes to the south. As such, entrances to the barn are provided on both the north (banked) and south eave-sides, with access to the upper level for crop and implement storage and working space provided on the north elevation, and access to the lower stable area provided via the south and west elevations. The barn is clad in vertical wood boards and features a gambrel roof clad in sheet metal, remnants of red paint are visible on the exterior. Vents are located at both the east and west ends of the roof line as are three evenly spaced lightening rods. The north elevation contains large sliding wood doors roughly in the centre of the elevation (Photograph 62). The foundation on the north façade is capped with cast-in-place concrete. Much of the exterior cladding from the main level of the east elevation has been lost, and with the exception of two windows in the lower level, there are no intentional openings (Photographs 63 and 64). The granite foundation appears intact on the east elevation. The south elevation of Barn 1 is partially clad in vertical wood board and board and batten, it appears there was at least one opening on the upper level of the barn which is now covered (Photograph 65). The lower level of the barn contains three door openings and one window opening. The western portion of the foundation has been capped in concrete and a portion of the interior wall has been rebuilt using the same material. The centre portion of the foundation also appears to have undergone repair; the exterior foundation is constructed using field stone of varying sizes. The eastern corner of the southern façade is likely the original building material; it consists of finely cut and laid granite blocks (Photograph 66). The west elevation of Barn 1 contains one window and one door in the lower level, there are no other openings on the west façade, including in the upper levels. A portion of the foundation, south of the door opening has collapsed (Photograph 67). The remains of a wooden silo are located immediately west of Barn 1. Silo 1 is an increasingly rare example of its type, constructed of vertical boards, bound with lapped planks (Photograph 68). Grain silos became part of Ontario agriculture about 1880, as silage reduced the incidences of sour hay and therefore bad tasting milk from cattle (McIlwraith, 1997: 187). The earliest silage containers were rectangular, lined bins inside barns. The first tower silos were built with vertical tongue-and-groove staves wrapped in iron hoops or wooden cribs (McIlwraith, 1997: 187). Some silos in the early twentieth century were constructed with clay tiles, but silos of poured concrete with steel reinforcing rods was much more common (McIlwraith, 1997: 187). As such, the wood silo on the property was likely constructed between 1880 and 1900. - 72 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 52 Photograph 62: North (banked) façade of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 63: East façade of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) - 73 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 53 Photograph 64: Window with wood frame in basement level of the east elevation (WSP, 2022) Photograph 65: South façade of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) - 74 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 54 Photograph 66: Detail of finely laid granite foundation on south foundation of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 67: Window, door and collapsed wall on the west elevation of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) - 75 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 55 Photograph 68: Remains of Silo 1 (WSP, 2022) BARN 1 INTERIOR The barn interior is divided into two levels; the lower stable level and the threshing floor.2 The lower level of the barn is accessed by three doors on the south elevation as well as one door on the west elevation. The lower level is comprised of animal stalls divided by a series of aisles providing access between the stalls and to doors on the south and west elevations. Portions of the floor in the stable level are covered in buff and red brick pavers. Large hand-hewn timbers and uncut logs support the upper storey (Photographs 69 to 72). The threshing floor of Barn 1 is accessed via an earthen ramp on the north façade. The threshing floor is open except for a granary at the western end of the barn, which is divided into several rooms for storage (Photographs 73 to 78). 2 Photographs of the threshing floors of Barn 1 and Barn 1 were taken from window, door and wall openings. Portions of the lower levels of Barns 1 and 2 were accessed only where it was deemed safe to do so. - 76 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 56 Photograph 69: Stalls and aisle in lower level of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 70: Stalls and interior wall of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) - 77 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 57 Photograph 71: Interior support wall in lower level of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 72: Brick pavers used as flooring in lower level of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) - 78 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 58 Photograph 73: Threshing floor of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 74: Granary in western end of Barn 1 (WSP, 2022) - 79 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 59 Photograph 75: View of interior gambrel roof construction (WSP, 2022) Photograph 76: Detail of treenails used in construction of framing (WSP, 2022) - 80 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 60 Photograph 77: Detail of treenails used in construction of framing (WSP, 2022) Photograph 78: Wide boards on floor of the haymow (WSP, 2022) - 81 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 61 BANK BARN 2 AND SILO 2 Barn 2 is oriented on a north to south axis, with a reinforced concrete silo located north of the barn. The barn retains its original rectangular plan and was built into the natural topography of the lot, which slopes to the south and west. As such, entrances to the barn are provided on both the east (banked) and north eave-sides, with access to the upper level for crop and implement storage and working space provided on the east elevation, and access to the lower stable area provided via the north and west elevations. The northwest, southwest and southeast corners of Barn 2 are supported by large concrete blocks. The barn is clad in vertical wood boards and features a gambrel roof clad in sheet metal. One vent is located at the south end of the roof line as well as three stacks located on the east and west gambrel roof lines. The northern façade of the barn is partially covered by the adjacent silo. There appears to be one door and two windows in the lower level, and one window on the threshing floor (Photograph 79). The foundation on the north façade consists of large granite blocks of a uniform size (Photograph 80). The east elevation contains large sliding wood doors roughly in the centre of the elevation (Photograph 81). The foundation on the east façade consists of large granite blocks and fieldstone of varying sizes. The south elevation of Barn 2 is almost entirely covered by thick vegetation, making it challenging to discern the configuration. It does not appear however, that there are any window or door openings on the south elevation (Photograph 82). Much of the exterior cladding from the west elevation of Barn 2 has been lost, however, it appears there is at least one door in the upper level. The lower level of the west façade of Barn 2 is highly altered, and it appears the stone foundation has been removed. At least three door openings and one window are visible on the lower level (Photograph 83). A concrete silo (Silo 2) with a domed top is located immediately north of Barn 2. Access to the silo is via a small opening on the south elevation of the structure and a built-in ladder provides access to the top of the silo. Given the silo is constructed of reinforced concrete, it was likely constructed in the first half of the twentieth century. - 82 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 62 Photograph 79: North elevation of Barn and Silo 2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 80: Window openings and large granite blocks on north façade of Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) - 83 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 63 Photograph 81: West elevation of Barn 2 and Silo 2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 82: South elevation of Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) - 84 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 64 Photograph 83: West elevation of Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) BARN 2 INTERIOR The barn interior is divided into two levels; the lower stable level and the threshing floor. The lower level of the barn is accessed by three doors on the west elevation as well as one door on the north elevation. The lower level is comprised of animal stalls divided by a series of aisles providing access between the stalls and to doors on the west and north elevations. Portions of the floor in the stable level are covered in buff and red brick pavers. Large hand-hewn timbers and uncut logs support the upper storey (Photographs 84 to 88). The threshing floor of Barn 2 is accessed via an earthen ramp on the west façade. The threshing floor is open except for a granary at the northern end of the barn, which is divided into several rooms for storage (Photographs 89 to 91). - 85 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 65 Photograph 84: Stalls in lower level of Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 85: Aisles in lower level of Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) - 86 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 66 Photograph 86: Example of hand-hewn beam in Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 87: Detail of hand-hewn support beam (WSP, 2022) - 87 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 67 Photograph 88: Red and buff brick pavers in lower level of Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 89: Threshing floor and granary in Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) - 88 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 68 Photograph 90: Detail of framing system in Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 91: Floorboards of threshing floor in Barn 2 (WSP, 2022) - 89 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 69 LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS The subject property consists of an 18.7-hectare irregular shaped lot with a generally flat topography, while the surrounding lands are actively farmed, the residence is vacant. The built elements of the property include a residence and two large bank barns and two silos, the residence is setback from Highway 7 approximately 30 metres, and the barns have an approximately 120 metre set back. The property is accessed via a straight gravel drive that connects Highway 7 to the cluster of buildings. Mature coniferous and deciduous trees are located on either side of the driveway. The north and eastern sides of the house are surrounded by a manicured grass law, dotted with mature trees and has open views to the surrounding agricultural fields and to Highway 7. A fenced paddock is located south of the house. The drive provides access to the property’s circulation route, which connects the property to the surrounding agricultural fields. A number of mature trees are located around the cluster of buildings and line the boundary of the agricultural fields to the east, south, and west. The lands east, west, and south of the residence and barns are comprised of agricultural fields; Ganatsekiagon Creek is located east of the buildings (Photograph 92 to 95). Photograph 92: Barn and silo 1 (right) and barn and silo 2 (left) (WSP, 2022) - 90 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 70 Photograph 93: View to west from front yard (WSP, 2022) Photograph 94: View from paddock to Barns 1 and 2 (WSP, 2022) - 91 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 71 Photograph 95: Barn yard south of barn 1 and west of barn 2 (WSP, 2022) 5.2 STUDY AREA CONTEXT The subject property is located in an evolving portion of the City that was historically characterized by nineteenth century agricultural farmsteads. Today the subject property is surrounded by agricultural fields proposed for development (Photographs 96 and 97). A nineteenth century farmstead with twentieth century modifications (745 Highway 7) (Photograph 98), is located west of the subject property. The demolition of 745 Highway 7 is proposed as part of this development. While there are no other structures immediately adjacent to the subject property, the lands east of 24 Sideline are also undergoing development as part of the Kubota Canada office and warehouse facility. On-ramps, off-ramps, and the extension of Whites Road associated with Highway 407 have been constructed within the eastern boundary of the subject property (Photograph 99). - 92 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 72 Photograph 96: View to south towards Highway 407 (WSP, 2022) Photograph 97: View to north across Highway 7 (WSP, 2022) - 93 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 73 Photograph 98: Main façade of 745 Highway 7, west of the subject property (WSP, 2022) Photograph 99: View to south of Whites Road (WSP, 2022) - 94 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 74 Photograph 100: John, Elizabeth and John Junior’s grave within the Green River Cemetery (WSP, 2022) - 95 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 75 5.3 ARCHITECTURAL STYLE ONTARIO COTTAGE The property at 815 Highway 7 is a vernacular structure and example of a historic Workers’ Cottage with Neo-Classical influences and Georgian. The term 'cottage' is derived from the Scottish word 'cotter', which was used to describe a person who owned a small shanty or lean-to as a residence, a garden and a plot of land large enough to feed a family (Kyles, 2017). Workers’ Cottages are characterized by a small building oftentimes constructed by the owner of a factory or farm and intended for the living quarters of individuals or families employed by the business (Kyles, 2017). In towns, factory owners built rows of Worker's Cottages, which were often dedicated as residences for good workers (Kyles, 2017). Cottages for labourers were illustrated in various early British and American books such as Lamond’s A Narrative of the Rise and Progress of Emigration (1821), Loudon’s An Encyclopaedia of Cottage, Farm, and Villa Architecture and Furniture (1839), Allen’s Rural Architecture: Farm Houses, Cottages and Out Buildings (1853), and Tarbuck’s The Builder’s Practical Director or Buildings for All Classes (c. 1856), as single or multiple units and inspired the design of cottages built for workers’ in Ontario throughout the nineteenth century (McKendry, 2016). Examples of these cottage designs are illustrated in Plate 3. In Ontario, Workers’ Cottages are observed as simple and vernacular frame structures to more elaborately detailed examples built of brick or stone and inspired by the Georgian, Regency and Gothic Revival styles. Some of these well-appointed examples are referred to as the Ontario Cottage, notably if they reflect the vernacular design of the Regency Cottage. This style generally includes an ornate doorway with a partial or full verandah surrounding it and the roof can have a dormer, a belvedere, and often two chimneys (Kyles, 2017). - 96 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 76 Plate 3: Simple Workers’ Cottages in nineteenth century architectural pattern books (McKendry, 2016) COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS A comparative analysis was undertaken to establish a baseline understanding of similar recognized rural heritage properties in the City of Pickering, to determine if the subject property “is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method” as described in O. Reg. 9/06. Comparative examples were drawn from Part IV designated and listed, non-designated properties within the City of Pickering. Residential dwellings were selected from this data set, with a preference for buildings of similar age, style, typology and material. Two comparable designated properties and four listed properties were identified within the City (see Table 5-1). Given that a large number of stylistically similar structures are not visible from the public right of way, this analysis does not represent all available properties, but the examples are intended to provide a representative sample of similar building typologies. - 97 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 77 Table 5-1: Comparative analysis of heritage properties of a similar age, style and/or typology Address Recognition Photograph Age Material Style 560 Park Crescent (Nesbit-Newman House) Designated (Part IV) (Google Street View©) 1850s Stone Ontario Cottage with Georgian influences; one-and-a-half storey; fieldstone construction; side gable roof with return eaves; symmetrical three-bay façade; eight-over-eight double-hung sash windows; rectangular window opening with jack arches; centrally placed entrance with transom and sidelights; pair of interior end chimneys. 615 Whitevale Road (Henry Major House) Designated (Part IV) (Google Street View©) 1830s Timber frame Ontario Cottage with Georgian Classical influences; one- and-a-half storey; timber frame construction; side gable roof with return eaves; symmetrical five-bay façade; 12- over-eight double-hung sash windows; rectangular window openings; centrally placed entrance with sidelights; rear fieldstone addition. 450 Finch Avenue Listed (PHC, 2020) c. 1850 Stone Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical influences; one-and- a-half storey; fieldstone construction; side gable roof with return eaves; symmetrical three-bay façade; six-over-six double-hung sash windows; rectangular window opening with jack arches; centrally placed entrance with transom and sidelights; pair of interior end chimneys. - 98 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 78 Address Recognition Photograph Age Material Style 3535 Mowbray Street Listed (Google Street View©) 1860 Brick Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical influences; one-and- a-half storey; dichromatic brick construction; side gable roof with return eaves; symmetrical three-bay façade; six- over-six double-hung sash windows; rectangular window opening with radiating brick voussoirs; centrally placed entrance with transom and sidelights; pair of interior end chimneys. 750 Whitevale Road Listed (Laurie Smith Consulting, 2015) Between 1851 and 1861 Stone Ontario Cottage with Georgian influences; one-and-a-half storey; fieldstone construction; side gable roof with return eaves; symmetrical five-bay façade; six-over-six double- hung sash windows; rectangular window opening with jack arches; centrally placed entrance with transom and sidelights; pair of interior end chimneys. 1390 Whitevale Road Listed (Laurie Smith Consulting, 2015a) Between 1832 and 1851 Stone Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical influences; one-and- a-half storey; fieldstone construction; side gable roof with return eaves; symmetrical three-bay façade; six-over-six double-hung sash windows; rectangular window opening with jack arches; centrally placed entrance; single end chimneys. - 99 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 79 Of these examples, the following architectural elements characteristic of the Ontario Cottage style were observed: • Type: All six are residential examples of Ontario Cottages with Georgian or Neo-Classical influences. • Plan: All examples are built to a square or rectangular plan. • Height: Each example is one-and-a-half storeys. • Roof: All examples have side gable roofs with return eaves. • Construction Material: Four examples are stone, one is timber frame, and one dichromatic brick. • Facade: Four of the examples are three-bays wide, two are five-bays wide, all have symmetrical facades. • Chimneys: Four examples have twin brick chimneys; one example has one brick chimney; and one example does not have chimneys. • Main Entrance: All examples have central front doors; four examples have both transoms and sidelights; one example has just sidelights and one example has neither a transom nor sidelights. • Windows: All examples have rectangular window openings. One example has eight-over- eight wood windows; one example had 12-over-eight wood windows; the remaining four examples have six-over-six double-hung sash windows. • Decorative elements: One example includes decorative dichromatic brick detail. • Alterations: Although it is difficult to confirm when viewed from the public ROW, it appears that two examples have undergone alterations through the addition of front-facing dormers. This comparative analysis suggests that the residence on the subject property at 815 Highway 7 demonstrates representative elements of the Ontario Cottage style including the: one-and-a-half storey height; dichromatic brick construction; rectangular plan and symmetrical three-bay façade; side gable roof with return eaves; paired chimneys; entrance details; and multipaned windows. Constructed c. 1853, the structure is one of two examples of a brick Ontario Cottage in the City of Pickering, making the Percy House one of the earliest structures in the area retaining its original exterior form. As such, when comparing the expression of the style at 815 Highway 7 to other local examples, it is unique in its dichromatic brickwork, wide door surround, heavily mortared granite foundation, and fine detailing and craftsmanship. It is acknowledged that the small number of examples reviewed means that this comparative analysis could be misleading. It was also challenging to fully assess the architectural details of each structure from the public ROW. As such, the cultural heritage evaluations included in Section 7 have not only considered the results of this comparative analysis, but typical architectural trends across Ontario. - 100 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 80 CENTRAL ONTARIO BARN The barns at 815 Highway 7 are representative examples of the Central Ontario style, a common barn design in southern Ontario dating to the last quarter of the nineteenth century (Ennals, 1972). The construction date of the barn is thought to date to roughly the same time period of the house, between 1861-1881, which is consistent with the building style and development history of the property. The Central Ontario barn is distinguished by its large size, usually 40-50 feet in width and 60-100 feet in length built to a rectangular plan, and is most often constructed of wood on a stone foundation with a gable or gambrel roof (Ennals, 1972). The two roof styles associated with the Central Ontario barn are indicative of the period of construction. Gable roofs were used up to about 1880, after which gambrel roofs were introduced. The barn on the subject property features a gambrel roof, which supports its estimated construction date prior to 1881 (Ennals, 1972). The gambrel roof was a design element adopted from Dutch style barns for functional reasons as it significantly increased the storage capacity of the loft. This was an important development as farmers began to practice mixed farming after 1880 and needed to store more feed to maintain their growing herds of livestock. The Central Ontario barn style is two storeys with a lower stable area and an upper level for crop and implement storage and working space. Access to the ground floor is provided by doorways leading to the farmyard and entry to the upper level is by means of an earth ramp leading to a large door in the eave-side (long side) (Ennals, 1972). The large double door and height of the second floor allowed wagons and machinery to be brought in for unloading and repair. This type of barn is known as a bank barn in southern Ontario. As is the case with the subject property, the barn is often set into a slope so that the upper level can be entered directly from the top of the slope. Typical of the Central Ontario barn, the second level is often constructed of heavy timber frames or “bents” and includes a drive-floor, which would serve as a work space and tool and machine storage; a granary (a room or series of rooms facing onto a passageway set at right angles to the drive floor); and an area for hay, straw, grain and crop storage (Ennals, 1972). The lower level would serve as a stable arranged to accommodate stalls for horses and livestock and may include space for root crop storage. The animals and water supply on the ground floor were protected in the winter by the hay insulation on the second floor, which preserved the animal’s body heat. Silos began to appear on Ontario farms in the 1870s to provide better storage for the grains and corn needed to feed the livestock (Kyles, 2016). First these silos were constructed of concrete block, then poured concrete, and later metal, which provided a more efficient curing environment (Kyles, 2016). COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS – BANK BARNS AT 815 HIGHWAY 7 A comparative analysis was undertaken to establish a baseline understanding of similar recognized mid-to-late nineteenth century Central Ontario style barns in the City of Pickering to determine if the barns at 815 Highway 7 “is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method” as described in O. Reg. 9/06. - 101 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 81 Upon a review of the City’s Heritage Properties Register, only one comparative example of a Part IV designated property containing a Central Ontario barn was identified in the municipality, making it challenging to compare contextually appropriate properties with recognized CHVI. Given the lack of Part IV designated barns within the City of Pickering, this O. Reg. 9/06 evaluation has also considered barn trends across Southern Ontario, rather than only locally within the City of Pickering (see Table 5-2). This approach was taken because the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register does not include any Part IV designated Central Ontario bank barns. Moreover, while some barns would inevitably be included on non-designated properties included on the Register, these were not readily identified, nor would a review of barns (which are often well set back) from the public right-of-way provide a reliable comparative analysis, making it challenging to compare contextually appropriate properties with recognized CHVI. This analysis does not represent all available properties, rather the examples are intended to provide a representative sample of similar building typologies - 102 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 82 Table 5-2: Comparative analysis of barns of a similar age, style and/or typology Address Recognition Photograph Age Material Style 1860 Seventh Concession Road (Thistle Ha’ Farm) Designated Part IV of the OHA (By-Law 2140/86), National Historic Site, protected by a heritage conservation easement agreement with the OHT No photo available Stone foundation, timber frame, clad in board and batten Mid-nineteenth century bank barn; rectangular plan; two storeys; gambrel roof; wood-frame construction with board; sheathing metal roof; fieldstone foundation; surviving evidence of a silo, component of an agricultural landscape. 13831, Leslie Street, Aurora, Ontario Part IV Designated (By- law 4729-05) c. 1840 Stone foundation, timber frame, clad in board and batten Mid-nineteenth century bank barn; rectangular plan; two storeys; gable roof; clad in board and batten; stone foundation. 748 Zeller Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Part IV Designated (By- law 98-177) c. 1870 Stone foundation, timber frame, clad in board and batten Late-nineteenth century bank barn; rectangular plan; two storeys; gable roof; clad in board and batten; stone foundation. 536 County Road 18, Fergus, Ontario National Historic Site of Canada No photo available 1877 Stone foundation, timber frame, clad in board and batten. Late-nineteenth century bank barn; rectangular plan; two storeys; gable roof; clad in board and batten; stone foundation; earthen ramp leading to sliding doors. - 103 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 83 Of these three examples, all are expressions of Central Ontario barns built in the mid-to-late nineteenth century. The following architectural elements characteristic of Central Ontario barns in the City of Pickering were observed: • Style: All three examples are bank barns with two levels, each accessed from ground-level. Two of the barns appear characteristically large. • Plan: The original portion of each example appears to have been built to a rectangular plan. • Roof: Three examples has a gable roof, one has a gambrel roof. All feature roofs clad in sheet metal. • Cladding: All three examples are clad in wood barn board, and one appear to have been painted. • Fieldstone Foundations: Each example has a fieldstone foundation. • Silos: One example includes a silo on the property. • Landscape: All examples appear to be a component of an agricultural landscape. • Alterations: Although it is difficult to confirm when viewed from the public ROW, it appears that all examples have undergone alterations through large and small additions, likely reflective of the evolving use of the structures for agricultural purposes through the decades. This comparative analysis suggests that the barns at 815 Highway 7 are a representative expression of the Central Ontario barn style. In assessing the architectural elements of the subject property reflective of the style, those observed include: the banked access and two storey height; original rectangular plan; wood barn board cladding; the gambrel roof clad in sheet metal; granite and fieldstone foundations; and the silos. Silo 1 is an increasingly rare example of its type, constructed of vertical boards, bound with lapped planks. Grain silos became part of Ontario agriculture about 1880, as silage reduced the incidences of sour hay and therefore bad tasting milk from cattle (McIlwraith, 1997: 187). The earliest silage containers were rectangular, lined bins inside barns. The first tower silos were built with vertical tongue-and-groove staves wrapped in iron hoops or wooden cribs (McIlwraith, 1997: 187). Some silos in the early twentieth century were constructed with clay tiles, but silos of poured concrete with steel reinforcing rods was much more common (McIlwraith, 1997: 187). As such, the wood silo on the property was likely constructed between 1880 and 1900. It is acknowledged that the small number of examples reviewed means that this comparative analysis could be misleading. It was also challenging to fully assess the architectural details of each comparative structure from the public ROW. As such, the cultural heritage evaluations included in Section 7 have not only considered the results of this comparative analysis, but typical architectural trends across Ontario. - 104 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 84 6 CONSULTATION 6.1 CITY OF PICKERING The City of Pickering’s Senior Planner – Heritage was contacted via email on April 7, 2022, to inquire about heritage interests related to the subject property at 815 Highway 7 and to confirm the scope of this HIA. A response was received the same day confirming that the scope of the HIA should reflect the City’s Terms of Reference: Heritage Impact Assessments (2022). The City’s Senior Planner – Heritage also confirmed the following: • 815 Highway 7 is a listed, non-designated property on the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register; and • At present, the City has no intention to designate the property and a municipal heritage easement agreement does not exist for the property. For information, on April 7, 2022, the Senior Planner – Heritage shared a Planning and Development Committee staff report dated March 17, 2008, that went to Council recommending 815 Highway 7 be added to the City’s Heritage Register. The Seaton Built Heritage Assessment: Prepared for the North Pickering Land Exchange Team, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Planning and Development Division (Scheinman, 2004) was also provided. The City of Pickering Official Plan was reviewed and it was confirmed that 815 Highway 7 is not located within an identified Cultural Heritage Landscape. 6.2 FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL REVIEW The MHSTCI’s list of Heritage Conservation Districts was reviewed, and the study area was not found to be located within a designated district (MHSTCI, 2019). The Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) plaque database was searched, as was the Federal Canadian Heritage Database. The subject property is not commemorated with an OHT plaque nor recognized with a federal heritage designation. It also does not appear that 815 Highway 7 is subject to an OHT conservation easement. - 105 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 85 7 DISCUSSION OF INTEGRITY In a heritage conservation context, the concept of integrity is linked not with structural condition, but rather to the literal definition of “wholeness” or “honesty” of a place. The MHSTCI Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process (2014:13) and Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Property Evaluation (2006:26) both stress the importance of assessing the heritage integrity in conjunction with evaluation under O. Reg. 9/06 yet provide no guidelines for how this should be carried out beyond referencing the US National Park Service Bulletin 8: How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property (US NPS n.d.). In this latter document, integrity is defined as ‘the ability of a property to convey its significance’, so can only be judged once the significance of a place is known. Other guidance suggests that integrity instead be measured by understanding how much of the asset is “complete” or changed from its original or “valued subsequent configuration” (English Heritage 2008:45; Kalman 2014:203). Kalman’s Evaluation of Historic Buildings, for example, includes a category for “Integrity” with sub-elements of “Site”, “Alterations”, and “Condition” to be determined and weighted independently from other criteria such as historical value, rather than linking them to the known significance of a place. Kalman’s approach is selected here and combined with research commissioned by Historic England (The Conservation Studio 2004), which proposed a method for determining levels of change in conservation areas that also has utility for evaluating the integrity of individual structures. The results for the property are presented in Table 7-1, and are considered when determining the CHVI of the property (see Section 8.0). - 106 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 86 Table 7-1: Heritage Integrity Analysis for the Property Element Original Material / Type Alteration Survival (%) Rating Comment Setting Rural with two lane (one in each direction) roads and farmhouses, outbuilding complexes, and agricultural lands on larger lots Highway 407, constructed south of the residence, has bisected lot 28, Concession V in an east to west direction. The extension of Whites Road is located east of the property. Several warehouse buildings are under construction east of the subject property. 75% Good Despite the current development of warehouse facilities east of the subject property, the presence Highway 407, and Whites Road, of the subject property maintains the rural character of the surrounding area, including active agricultural fields and stands of mature trees. Site location Set back and facing the nearest road Farmhouse: no alterations Barn 1: no alterations Barn 1: no alterations 100% Very good No additional comments Footprint Farmhouse: rectangular Barn 1: rectangular Barn 2: rectangular Farmhouse: south addition Barn 1: no change Barn 2: no change 100% Very good The rear wing on the farmhouse appears to be original to the farmhouse. The south additions to the farmhouse do obscure part of the south façade but have not impacted the front façade. Wall Farmhouse: brick load bearing Barn 1: timber frame construction Barn 2: timber frame construction Farmhouse: no change Barn 1: no change Barn 2: no change 100% Very good No additional comments Foundation Farmhouse: granite Barn 1: granite Barn 2: granite Farmhouse: some minor repairs around window using red brick Barn 1: repairs to the foundation using concrete and fieldstone 90% Very good Note that this rating refers to heritage integrity, not structural integrity - 107 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 87 Element Original Material / Type Alteration Survival (%) Rating Comment Barn 2: repairs to the foundation using concrete Exterior doors Farmhouse: panelled wood Barn 1: vertical board Barn 2: vertical board Farmhouse: two out of the three doors are replacements Barn 1: some vertical boards may have been replaced Barn 2: some vertical boards may have been replaced 40% Poor No additional comments Windows Farmhouse: wood Barn 1: wood Barn 2: wood Farmhouse: appears to retain all of the original wood windows and most of the wood storm windows Barn 1: retains all of the original wood windows, the glass however, is broken in some Barn 1: retains all of the original wood windows, the glass however, is broken in some 95% Very good No additional comments Roof Farmhouse: possibly wood shingle Barn 1: possibly wood shingle Barn 2: possibly wood shingle Farmhouse: original replaced in asphalt shingle Barn 1: reclad in metal Barn 2: reclad in metal 0% Poor No additional comments Chimneys Farmhouse: two interior chimneys Barn 1: n/a Barn 2: n/a Farmhouse: chimneys may require some repointing 90% Very good No additional comments Water systems Farmhouse: unknown, possibly copper Barn 1: unknown Barn 2: unknown Farmhouse: all water systems replaced Barn 1: unknown Barn 2: unknown 20% Poor No additional comments - 108 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 88 Element Original Material / Type Alteration Survival (%) Rating Comment Exterior decoration Farmhouse: dichromatic brickwork (quoins, decorative brickwork , window trim; red- brick Flemish bond on all sides Barn 1: vertical board Barn 2: vertical board Farmhouse: no changes Barn 1: no changes Barn 2: no changes 100% Very good No additional comments Exterior additions Farmhouse: no known additions Barn 1: no known additions Barn 2: no known additions Farmhouse: south addition Large barn: addition in severe state of disrepair, but likely no original to the barn 70% Very good The rear wing on the farmhouse appears to be original to the farmhouse. Interior plan Farmhouse: centre hall plan Barn 1: open and granary Barn 2: open and granary Farmhouse: no change Barn 1: no changes Barn 2: no changes 100% Very good No additional comment s Interior walls and floors Farmhouse: Lathe-and-plaster walls and pine flooring Barn 1: n/a Barn 2: n/a Farmhouse: no changes Barn 1: n/a Barn 2: n/a 100% Very good No additional comments Interior trim Farmhouse: tall baseboard with decorative moulding around openings Barn 1: n/a Barn 2: n/a Farmhouse: no changes Barn 1: n/a Barn 2: n/a 100% Very good No additional comment - 109 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 89 Element Original Material / Type Alteration Survival (%) Rating Comment Interior features (e.g., stairs, doors) Farmhouse: wood stairs, doors, fireplace, wainscotting, corner cupboard Farmhouse: no changes to wood stairs and doors, wood floors have been painted in some areas, corner cupboard and fireplace intact 90% Very good No additional comments Landscape features Domestic yard and farmyard features such as gardens and fencing and surrounding fields No significant alterations to domestic yard, or farmyard features and fields. 100% Very Good The property’s landscape features have not been significantly altered through the 21st century AVERAGE OF RATE OF CHANGE/HERITAGE INTEGRITY 80.58% Very Good Rating of Very Good is based on original element survival rate of between 76 to 100% - 110 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 90 8 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION 8.1 EVALUATION USING ONTARIO REGULATION 9/06 The principal built heritage resources on the subject property at 815 Highway 7 are a one-and-a- half storey Ontario Cottage and two bank barns. The property is a listed, non-designated property on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register. O. Reg. 9/06 of the OHA provides criteria for determining whether a property has CHVI. If a property meets one or more of the criteria in O. Reg. 9/06, it is eligible for designation under the OHA. Table 8-1 presents the evaluation of the subject property using O. Reg. 9/06. Table 8-1: Evaluation of 815 Highway 7 as per O. Reg. 9/06 O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria Criteria Met (Y/N) Justification 1. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method, Y As demonstrated in Section 5.3.2, the residence at 815 Highway 7 reflects representative elements of the Ontario Cottage architectural style. This is a common architectural expression in the City of Pickering, however the Percy House has an early and increasingly rare example of dichromatic brickwork. The patterned stringcourse below the roof line is an early example of a style that would come to characterize the region. As discussed in Section 5.3.4, the Central Ontario bank barns on the subject property are a representative expression of a Central Ontario barn and are now considered rare with only one Part IV designated barn in the City of Pickering. Barns 1 and 2 appear to maintain their integrity through the retention of much of the original construction materials and application of historic building methods. Similarly the wood silo at 815 Highway 7 is also a rare expression of nineteenth century silo construction using wooden tongue-and-groove staves wrapped in wooden cribs. - 111 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 91 O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria Criteria Met (Y/N) Justification ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or Y The construction of the brick residence on the subject property displays a high degree of craftsmanship. The brickwork on the north façade is an early and increasingly rare example of dichromatic brickwork and displays a high degree of craftsmanship. This craftmanship is evident in the patterned stringcourse below the moulded cornice, buff brick quoins and voussoirs and the fine use of the Flemish bond on the north façade. The central Ontario barns displays mortise and tenon construction that is typical of the nineteenth century, but this is not considered to display a high degree of craftmanship or artistic merit. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. N The property does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. The structures display construction techniques reflective of the era and style. 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, Y As 815 Highway 7 has functioned as a farm for at least 169 years, it is directly associated with the agricultural development of the former Ontario Township and City of Pickering. This theme is significant as it contributed to the community’s early economy and continues to be practiced today. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or N The results of research did not indicate that 815 Highway 7 yields information that could contribute to the understanding of a community or culture. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. N The architect and builder of the building at 815 Highway 7 is unknown. 3. The property has contextual value because it, - 112 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 92 O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria Criteria Met (Y/N) Justification i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, Y As the property retains 46 acres of the original 50- acre lot and continues to be actively used for agriculture, 815 Highway 7 is important in maintaining the historical agricultural character of the area. ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or Y 815 Highway 7 is associated with the early settlement of the area and is important in maintaining and supporting the rural 19th century landscape along the Highway 7 Road corridor. iii. is a landmark. N No significant views to the property distinguish the building as a notable or distinct property. It does not serve as a local landmark in the community. 8.2 ONTARIO REGULATION 10/06 Ontario Regulation 10/06 establishes the Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of Provincial Significance. This regulation was created in 2006 to be utilised to identify properties of provincial heritage significance under the OHA. All provincially owned properties with potential cultural heritage value or interest must be evaluated using O. Reg. 10/06 to determine provincial significance, if any. Table 8-2 presents the evaluation of the subject property using O. Reg. 9/06. Table 8-2: Evaluation of 815 Highway 7 as per O. Reg. 10/06 O. Reg. 10/06 Criteria Criteria Met (Y/N) Justification 1. The property represents or demonstrates a theme or pattern in Ontario’s history. N While the subject property is associated with the early settlement of the former Ontario County and specifically the area of Green River, it demonstrates this theme at the local / regional level rather than provincial. For this reason, the property does not meet this criterion. - 113 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 93 2. The property yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of Ontario’s history. N While the property reflects the early settlement and agricultural development, other properties – most notably Thistle Ha’ Farm (1860 Seventh Concession Road, Pickering), which is a National Historic Site of Canada – better illustrates the role of agriculture in Ontario’s history. The property does not have the potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of Ontario’s history. 3. The property demonstrates an uncommon, rare or unique aspect of Ontario’s cultural heritage. N While the property is an early example of an Ontario Cottage with dichromatic brickwork within Ontario County, there are many of this type of house found throughout the province; it does not demonstrate an uncommon, rare, or unique aspect of Ontario’s cultural heritage. 4. The property is of aesthetic, visual or contextual importance to the province. N The property’s visual and contextual importance is of a local nature; the property’s associations and contextual significance relate to its connections and role within the settlement of the former Ontario Township, as opposed to within the province. For this reason, the property does not meet this criterion. 5. The property demonstrates a high degree of excellence or creative, technical or scientific achievement at a provincial level in a given period. N While the property holds physical value at a local level, it was not found to exhibit a high degree of excellence or creative, technical, or scientific achievement. 6. The property has a strong or special association with the entire province or with a community that is found in more than one part of the province. The association exists for historic, social, or cultural reasons or because of traditional use. N The residence and barns were built by John Percy c. 1853, a farmer from England. The subject property does not demonstrate a strong or special association with the province as a whole, nor with a community that is significant within the Province of Ontario. Therefore, the property does not meet this criterion. - 114 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 94 7. The property has a strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organization of importance to the province or with an event of importance to the province. N The residence and barns were built in c. 1853 by John Percy during the early settlement of Ontario County. The subject property does not have a strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organization of importance to the province or with an event of importance to the province. Therefore, the building does not meet this criterion. 8. The property is located in unorganized territory and the Minister determines that there is a provincial interest in the protection of the property. O. Reg. 10/06, s. 1 (2). N The property is not located within an unorganized territory. Therefore, the subject property does not meet this criterion. 8.3 RESULTS OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION Based on the evaluation of the property at 815 Highway 7, the following results related to the property’s CHVI were identified: • The evaluation using the criteria of O. Reg. 9/06 determined that the subject property does possess CHVI for its design/physical value, associative value and contextual value at a local level; • The evaluation using the criteria of O. Reg. 10/06 determined that the subject property did not meet any of the criteria and . • Therefore, the subject property has been identified as a Provincial Heritage Property. 8.4 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST As the subject property at 815 Highway 7 was found to possess CHVI, the following Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes was prepared. DESCRIPTION OF HISTORIC PLACE 815 Highway 7 is an 18.7-hectare irregular shaped agricultural property situated on the south side of Highway 7, west of Whites Road in the north portion of the City of Pickering. The key - 115 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 95 resources are a one-and-a-half storey Ontario Cottage constructed of brick c. 1853 as well as two, two-storey Central Ontario bank barns and two silos. The property is listed on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register. HERITAGE VALUE The mid-nineteenth century farmstead at 815 Highway 7 possesses design or physical value for the unique, representative and rare built heritage resources displaying a high degree of craftsmanship located on the property. The one-and-a-half storey brick residence constructed c. 1853 demonstrates representative elements of an Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical and Georgian influences including the rectangular plan and symmetrical three-bay façade, side gable roof, entrance details including a wood surround with transom and sidelights, and multipaned windows. The residence reflects a unique vernacular interpretation of the style, characterized by its elaborate dichromatic brickwork, including the decorative stringcourse, quoins and jack arches. The large bank barns are representative expressions of a Central Ontario barn, a common design in Southern Ontario dating to the last quarter of the nineteenth century. The gambrel roof style is indicative of its period of construction, becoming commonly used by 1880 following a transition from gable roofs. The barns maintains their integrity through the retention of much of the original construction materials and application of historic building methods. The barns include many of the features typical of the style, including the banked access and two storey height, original rectangular plan, wood barn board cladding, and the gambrel roof clad in sheet metal. The intact concrete block silo and remains of the wood silo also contribute to the design and physical value of the property. Through its function as a farm for at least 169 years, 815 Highway 7 it is directly associated with the agricultural development of the former Ontario Township and City of Pickering. This theme is significant as it historically contributed to the community’s early economic growth and continues to be practiced today. As the property retains 46 acres of the original 50-acre lot and continues to be actively used for agriculture, 815 Highway 7 is important in maintaining the historical agricultural character of the surrounding area. The property is functionally and historically linked to its surroundings as indicated by the presence and placement of the Percy House, Central Ontario bank barns, the associated circulation patterns including the surrounding agricultural fields that continue to reflect the function of the historic nineteenth century farmstead. LIST OF HERITAGE ATTRIBUTES The heritage attributes that contribute to the cultural heritage value or interest of 815 Highway 7 include: Residence Exterior • One-and-a-half storey massing built to a rectangular plan; - 116 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 96 • Red brick construction using the Flemish bond, dichromatic brickwork including quoins and decorative brickwork under the moulded cornice; • Granite and fieldstone foundation; • Symmetrical three-bay façade and symmetrical two-bay side elevations; • Side gable roof with return eaves (on west façade only) and extant moulded cornice; • Paired interior end chimneys; • Centrally placed entrance with side lights, transom and wood surround with classical detailing; • Rectangular window openings with six-over-six double-hung sash windows, radiating brick voussoirs and wood sills; • Brick, one-storey, gable roof addition built to a rectangular plan projecting from the south elevation; built using the Common bond; • Verandah with a flared roof and exposed curved rafters; and • Its orientation toward Highway 7. Residence Interior • Extant original layout; • Fire place mantle; • Floor boards; • Tall baseboards; • Window and door surrounds; • Wainscotting and beaded ceiling; • Balustrade and knob capped newel post; • Stone fireplace collar embedded in second floor bedroom (southwest room); and • Built in corner cupboard in the parlour. Bank Barn 1 • Two-storey massing built to a rectangular plan; • Heavy square timber post and beam framing; • North eave-side upper level entrance built into banked slope; • Vertical wood board cladding; • Gambrel roof clad in sheet metal with vents and lightening rods; • Extant paver flooring of buff and red brick; • Remains of wood silo adjacent to bank barn. - 117 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 97 Bank Barn 2 • Two-storey massing built to a rectangular plan; • Heavy square timber post and beam framing; • East eave-side upper level entrance built into banked slope; • Vertical wood board cladding; • Gambrel roof clad in sheet metal; • Extant paver flooring of buff and red brick; • Concrete block silo with a metal domed top located adjacent to bank barn. Landscape • Drive leading from Highway 7 to the collection of nineteenth century structures on the property; • The relationship of the traditional farmstead to its surrounding agricultural tradition; and • Intact circulation routes and building arrangement setback from Highway 7. - 118 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 98 9 PROPOSED UNDERTAKING AND IMPACTS 9.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED UNDERTAKING DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT The proposed development concept for the project location consists of five food manufacturing buildings on the lot, to be built in two phases with Buildings 1, 2, and 3 constructed first, followed by Buildings 4 and 5. The lot is currently zoned Rural Agricultural, however, it is designated Prestige Employment and Seaton Natural Heritage System in the Pickering Official Plan. The total site area for the proposed development is 23.8 hectares with frontage on Highway 7 and Whites Road. The building footprints are approximately 21,471 (Building 1), 23,378 m2 (Building 2), 21,471 m2 (Building 3), 21,471 m2 (Building 4), and 9,858 m2 (Building 5). The site will contain approximately 87 truck loading bays, 690 parking stalls and 120 spaces for trailer parking. Vehicular access is proposed via signalized access point from Highway 7 with proposed municipal roads providing access to the proposed development. 9.2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS When determining the effects a development or site alteration may have on known or identified built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes, the MHSTCI Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process advises that the following “negative impacts” be considered: • Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes, or features3 • Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance4 • Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden5 • Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship6 3 This is used as an example of a direct impact in the MHSCTI Info Bulletin 3. 4 A direct impact in the MHSCTI Info Bulletin 3. 5 An indirect impact in the MHSCTI Info Bulletin 3. 6 An indirect impact in the MHSCTI Info Bulletin 3. - 119 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 99 • Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features7 • A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces8 • Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect a cultural heritage resource9 Other potential impacts may also be considered such as encroachment or construction vibration (Plate 4). Historic structures, particularly those built in masonry, are susceptible to damage from vibration caused by pavement breakers, plate compactors, utility excavations, and increased heavy vehicle travel in the immediate vicinity. Like any structure, they are also threatened by collisions with heavy machinery, subsidence from utility line failures, or excessive dust (Randl 2001:3-6). Plate 4: Examples of negative impacts Although the MHSTCI Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process identifies types of impact, it does not advise on how to describe its nature or extent. For this the MHSTCI Guideline 7 An example of a direct and indirect impact in the MHSCTI Info Bulletin 3. It is a direct impact when significant views or vistas within, from or of built and natural features are obstructed, and an indirect impact when “a significant view of or from the property from a key vantage point is obstructed”. 8 A direct impact in the MHSCTI Info Bulletin 3. 9 In the MHSTCI Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process this refers only to archaeological resources but in the MHSCTI Info Bulletin 3 this is an example of a direct impact to “provincial heritage property, including archaeological resources”. - 120 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 100 for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments (1990:8) provides criteria of: • Magnitude - amount of physical alteration or destruction that can be expected • Severity - the irreversibility or reversibility of an impact • Duration - the length of time an adverse impact persists • Frequency - the number of times an impact can be expected • Range - the spatial distribution, widespread or site specific, of an adverse impact • Diversity - the number of different kinds of activities to affect a heritage resource Since advice to describe magnitude is not included in the MHSTCI Guideline or any other Canadian guidance, the ranking provided in the ICOMOS Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties (ICOMOS 2011: Appendix 3B) is adapted here. While developed specifically for World Heritage Sites, it is based on a general methodology for measuring the nature and extent of impact to cultural resources in urban and rural contexts developed for the UK Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges [DMRB]: Volume 11, HA 208/07 (2007: A6/11) (Bond & Worthing 2016:166-167) and aligns with approaches developed by other national agencies such as the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (reproduced in Kalman & Létourneau 2020:390) and New Zealand Transport Agency (2015). The grading of impact is based on the “Guide to Assessing Magnitude of Impact” summarized in Table 9-1 below. Table 9-1: Impact Grading Impact Grading Description Major Change to heritage attributes that contribute to the CHVI such that the resource is totally altered. Comprehensive changes to the setting. Moderate Change to many heritage attributes, such that the resource is significantly modified. Changes to the setting of a heritage property, such that it is significantly modified. Minor Change to heritage attributes, such that the asset is slightly different. Change to the setting of a heritage property, such that it is noticeably changed. Negligible/Potential Slight changes to heritage attributes or the setting that hardly affects it. None No change to heritage attributes or setting. An assessment of potential impacts resulting from the proposed development on the property’s CHVI and heritage attributes is presented in Table 9-2. - 121 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 101 9.3 EVALUATION OF IMPACTS Table 9-2: Evaluation of Impacts to Subject Property at 815 Highway 7 POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACT SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACT WITHOUT MITIGATION SUMMARY OF IMPACT WITH MITIGATION Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes, or features As currently proposed, the development includes removal of the two barns and associated silos as well as all landscape features associated with the former farm use. Without mitigation this will result in destruction of heritage attributes, a direct and major impact that is irreversible, site-specific, and will occur once over a short period of time. With mitigation, the impact on the CHVI and heritage attributes of the evolved nineteenth century farm cultural heritage landscape, the farmhouse and the bank barn could be minimized. Major impact from demolition of most of the structures on the subject property and destruction of all the landscape heritage attributes and will occur once over a short period of time. By implementing the mitigation measures recommended in Section 10.1 the potential direct impact from destruction of the two barns and associated silos will be reduced to a moderate to major, irreversible, and site- specific impact that will occur once over a short period of time. Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance As currently proposed the development will include demolition of the two barns and associated silos (discussed above) and will include significant alteration to the agricultural landscape. The introduction of a modern manufacturing facility will result significantly alter the context of the remaining farmhouse. Without mitigation this will result in major impact that is irreversible, site specific, and will occur once over a short period of time. With minimized, Major impact from alteration of the farm landscape that will be irreversible and will occur once over a short period of time. By implementing the mitigation measures recommended in Section 10.1, the potential direct impact from alteration of the agricultural landscape will be reduced to a moderate to major, irreversible, and site- specific impact that will occur once over a short period of time. - 122 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 102 POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACT SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACT WITHOUT MITIGATION SUMMARY OF IMPACT WITH MITIGATION the impact of the alteration could be minimized. Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden As currently proposed, the farmhouse will remain on a reduced sized lot in the proposed development. No shadow impacts are anticipated given the farmhouse will be surrounded by single detached and townhouse dwellings. No shadow impact. No mitigation required. Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship The proposed development will isolate the farmhouse from its current context and sever its relationship with the barns and silos. Without mitigation this will result in a direct, major impact that is irreversible, site-specific, and will occur once over a short period of time. With mitigation, the isolation impacts can be mitigated. Major, direct, irreversible, site specific impact that will occur once over a short period of time. By implementing the mitigation measures recommended in Section 10.1 the potential direct impact from alteration of the agricultural landscape will be reduced to a minor impact. Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features As views to the subject property have not been identified as heritage attributes of 815 Highway 7. No impact No mitigation required. A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, The subject property is Rural Agricultural and designated Prestige Employment and Seaton Natural Heritage System in the Pickering Official Plan. The current permitted uses are Major, irreversible impact as the change in land use and zoning will result in removal of most of the structures By implementing the mitigation measures recommended in Section 10.1, the potential direct impact from change - 123 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 103 POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACT SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACT WITHOUT MITIGATION SUMMARY OF IMPACT WITH MITIGATION allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces agricultural uses and a single detached dwelling. The proposed use will result in a change in land use which will impact the property’s heritage attributes including the open space in front of the farmhouse, the driveway, and agricultural fields. Without mitigation measures, the change in land use will result in direct, major, irreversible, site specific impact that will persist over a long period of time. and landscape features on the property. in land use will be reduced to a minor, irreversible, and site- specific impact that will persist over a long period of time. Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that may affect a cultural heritage resource. The proposed development will relocate the farmhouse on site and grading will be designed appropriately so that drainage patterns will not negatively impact the farmhouse. No impact. No mitigation required. 9.4 RESULTS OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT The preceding impact assessment has determined that without conservation or mitigation measures, the proposed development will result in major impacts to the identified heritage attributes of the subject property. An options analysis of potential alternatives, mitigation and conservation options is provided in Section 10. - 124 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 104 10 ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION OPTIONS As the property was evaluated to have CHVI and will be impacted by the proposed development, WSP has identified four possible options to reduce or avoid the negative effects. These are informed by the objectives included in the City of Pickering Official Plan and are: 1) “Do Nothing”: Preserve and maintain the Percy House, Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2 and all landscape heritage attributes in situ with no further development of the property. 2) Preserve and maintain the Percy House, barns and silos in situ with adaptive reuse of these structures and development of manufacturing campus around these structures on the property. 3) Relocate the Percy House within the site to a more convenient location with an adaptive reuse, dismantle and salvage heritage attributes from Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2 and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. 4) Remove the Percy House, Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2, salvaging heritage attributes from the structures and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. The advantages and disadvantages of each option are presented in the following subsections, then analysed for feasibility. It is only after an option is determined to be not feasible that the next preferred approach is considered. 10.1 ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION OPTIONS ANALYSIS Table 10-1 weighs the available options and provides mitigation and conservation measures to ensure heritage resources are conserved. - 125 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 105 Table 10-1: Alternatives, Mitigation and Conservation Options OPTIONS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES MITIGATION/ CONSERVATION NOTES 1) “Do nothing”: preserve and maintain the Percy House, Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2 and all landscape heritage attributes in situ with no further development of the property. This option would maintain the general heritage principle that prefers minimal intervention to a heritage resource. It would ensure that the subject property retains all identified heritage attributes. This option is consistent with the Official Plan policy Section 8.2 (c) that states: prevent the demolition, destruction or inappropriate alteration of important cultural heritage resources to the extent possible, and Section 8.2 (d) that states: where possible, restore, rehabilitate, maintain and enhance important cultural heritage resources owned by the City, and encourage the same for those owned by others. Additionally Section 8.9 (a) that encourages retention of cultural heritage resources in their original location. This option is also keeping with the MHSTCI’s Eight Guiding Principles for the Conservation of Historic Places that identify a building should not be removed unless there is no other means to save it and that alterations to a cultural heritage resource should be reversible. Preservation is not a “do nothing” approach: to ensure the buildings do not suffer from rapid deterioration, repairs must be carried out and a systematic monitoring and repair program will be required for all exteriors and interiors. As identified in the MHSTCI Eight Guiding Principles (2007), maintenance is required to avoid costly conservation projects in the future. A Heritage Conservation Plan is a document that identifies how cultural heritage resources should be conserved. It should detail the conservation methods, required actions and trades for the conservation methods and an implementation schedule to conserve the landscape’s heritage attributes in the short-, medium-, and long-term. Heritage Conservation Plans are typically completed by structural engineers or architects with experience rehabilitating historic structures. 2) Preserve and maintain the Percy House, barns and silos in situ with adaptive reuse of these structures and development of manufacturing campus around these structures on the property. Although this option would involve a major intervention to the agricultural character of the subject property, it would result in maintenance of the heritage attributes belonging to the residence and barns. Section 8.9 (b) of the Pickering Official Plan requires consideration of adaptive reuse opportunities prior to considering relocation of a resource. While this option would retain the Percy House and barns, it would include removal of all the landscape heritage attributes and alter the agricultural character of the historic landscape and surrounding area. Preservation would require ongoing repair and maintenance to ensure the conservation of the Percy House and barns heritage attributes. The lack of active use will result in continued detrimental physical impacts to the dwelling and barn. Occupation for the dwelling is imperative. To stabilize and conserve the Percy House, barns and silos in their current location before construction of the surrounding development begins and during construction a Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) should be completed. There is often a lengthy period between the formal submission of a planning application and reoccupation of a heritage buildings. During this time, heritage buildings can be vulnerable to neglect, loss and accidental damage. An TPP should be completed by an engineer or architect with demonstrated experience working with historical structures and should include the following: • Marking heritage attributes on the construction plans; • Temporary construction fencing between the Percy House and/or Barns 1 2 and Silos 1 and 2 and the proposed development; • Establish a regular inspection and monitoring schedule; • Communication protocols that identify who should be informed about the heritage attributes and who should be contacted if there is accidental damage; • A plan for potential physical impacts such as accidental damage from machinery; - 126 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 106 OPTIONS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES MITIGATION/ CONSERVATION NOTES It would be difficult to find appropriate adaptive re-use options for the barns in the context of the desired use for large warehouses. Retention of these structures in their current location would also significantly reduce the size of the possible warehouses. Lastly, typical warehouse design is not inherently compatible with nineteenth century residence and barns and thus would present a challenge to successfully integrate. • A plan for appropriate repairs should damage occur to the building(s). • Regular inspection and monitoring protocol. A Mothballing Plan should be completed to examine the current condition of the Percy House and barns and to suggest stabilization and maintenance measures necessary to temporarily mothball and secure the structures and their heritage attributes until a future use is determined. A Heritage Conservation Plan is a document that identifies how cultural heritage resources should be conserved. It should detail the conservation methods, required actions and trades for the conservation methods and an implementation schedule to conserve the landscape’s heritage attributes in the short-, medium-, and long-term. Heritage Conservation Plans are typically completed by structural engineers or architects with experience rehabilitating historic structures. In accordance with the MHSTCI’s Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting and materials is a mitigation measure to reduce impacts to cultural heritage resources. The design of the building immediately surrounding the historic structures should be sensitively designed to reflect a similar massing, height, and materials. A vegetative buffer between the proposed buildings and adjacent Percy House, barns and silos would assist is reducing the visual impact of the modern design against the nineteenth century farm. A landscape plan should incorporate a vegetative screen between the new buildings and remnants of the farm. Construction activities often result in fugitive dust emission which can be detrimental to the long term protection of heritage resources. A fugitive dust emissions plan should follow practices outlined in the Ontario Standards Development Branch Technical Bulletin: Management Approaches for Industrial Fugitive Dust Sources (2017). Given the proximity of the adjacent heritage properties to the proposed development, a comprehensive pre- construction survey should be completed and a Zone of Influence Construction Vibration Study to monitor and mitigate vibration impacts during construction. Where possible prevent heavy equipment traffic from being routed in the vicinity of the Percy House and barns to minimize potential effects from vibration. 3) Relocate the Percy House within the site to a more convenient location with an adaptive reuse, dismantle and salvage heritage attributes from Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2 and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. Although this option would involve a major intervention to the agricultural character of the subject property, it would result in maintenance of some of the heritage attributes belonging to the Percy House. Given the difficulty in moving barns, they would likely have to be dismantled and elements could be salvaged and reused in the proposed development. Moving the Percy House would allow for more convenient placement, allowing the land to be maximized for the proposed warehouse use. While this option would retain the Percy House, it would include removal of all the barns and landscape heritage attributes and alter the agricultural character of the historic landscape and surrounding area. This option is inconsistent the MHSTCI’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historical Properties which encourages respect for original location. Additionally, the Pickering Official Plan states that development To stabilize and conserve the Percy House in its current location before construction of the surrounding development begins and during construction a Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) should be completed. There is often a lengthy period between the formal submission of a planning application and reoccupation of a heritage buildings. During this time, heritage buildings can be vulnerable to neglect, loss and accidental damage. An TPP should be completed by an engineer or architect with demonstrated experience working with historical structures and should include the following: • Marking heritage attributes on the construction plans; • Temporary construction fencing between the Percy House, Barns 1 and 2, Silos 1 and 2 and the proposed development; • Establish a regular inspection and monitoring schedule; - 127 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 107 OPTIONS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES MITIGATION/ CONSERVATION NOTES Section 8.9 (c) of the Official Plan requires consideration of relocation on-site prior to considering relocation of a resource off-site. should not result in any demolition, construction, alteration, remodeling, or any other action that would adversely affect the heritage features of the property. Relocating the Percy House would place the building at risk of accidental damage during the relocation operation, or total loss due to accident or unforeseen structural issues discovered during the relocation process. It is also in direct opposition to the MHSTCI Guiding Principle for “original location” which states that buildings should not be moved “unless there is no other means to save them since any change in site diminishes heritage value considerably”. This would still result in removal of the heritage attributes that reflect the value of the property as an evolved farm cultural heritage landscape. • Communication protocols that identify who should be informed about the heritage attributes and who should be contacted if there is accidental damage; • A plan for potential physical impacts such as accidental damage from machinery; • A plan for appropriate repairs should damage occur to the building(s). • Regular inspection and monitoring protocol. A Mothballing Plan should be completed to examine the current condition of the Percy House to suggest stabilization and maintenance measures necessary to temporarily mothball and secure the structure and its heritage attributes until a future use is determined. A Heritage Conservation Plan is a document that identifies how cultural heritage resources should be conserved. It should detail the conservation methods, required actions and trades for the conservation methods and an implementation schedule to conserve the landscape’s heritage attributes in the short-, medium-, and long-term. Heritage Conservation Plans are typically completed by structural engineers or architects with experience rehabilitating historic structures. In accordance with the MHSTCI’s Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting and materials is a mitigation measure to reduce impacts to cultural heritage resources. The design of the building immediately surrounding the historic structure should be sensitively designed to reflect a similar massing, height, and materials. A vegetative buffer between the proposed buildings and adjacent Percy House would assist is reducing the visual impact of the modern design against the nineteenth century house. A landscape plan should incorporate a vegetative screen between the new buildings and the Percy House. Prior to demolition of the two Central Ontario barns and associated silos, determine what materials can be salvaged and document those elements into a standardized salvage inventory. The results of this inventory should be included a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report (CHRDR). Should the one-storey south addition be deemed not structurally sound for relocation, it should also be subject to a CHRDR. A reputable contractor with expertise in salvage should be contracted to salvage the identified building materials. The contractor should prepare an approach for the labelling, storage and reassembly of material salvaged from the property, as appropriate, in accordance with guidance taken from the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, Section 4: Guidelines for Materials; • The ultimate destination of salvaged materials should be determined prior to the initiation of any salvage process; • Materials should only be salvaged if they are suitable for re-use in other buildings or projects, i.e., the material must not be irreparably damaged or infested; • The material must be extracted in a manner that ensures that it is not irreparably damaged; - 128 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 108 OPTIONS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES MITIGATION/ CONSERVATION NOTES • Should any of the material be damaged during removal, donation to a teaching institution or museum (i.e. Pickering Museum Village) should be considered to allow the material to provide an educational opportunity. Design the project to integrate new physical elements to the Percy House to be sympathetic and compatible with the Ontario Cottage. The Parks Canada’s Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2010) should be considered. Construction activities often result in fugitive dust emission which can be detrimental to the long term protection of heritage resources. A fugitive dust emissions plan should follow practices outlined in the Ontario Standards Development Branch Technical Bulletin: Management Approaches for Industrial Fugitive Dust Sources (2017). Given the proximity of the adjacent heritage properties to the proposed development, a comprehensive pre- construction survey should be completed and a Zone of Influence Construction Vibration Study to monitor and mitigate vibration impacts during construction. Where possible prevent heavy equipment traffic from being routed in the vicinity of the Percy House to minimize potential effects from vibration. 4) Remove the Percy House, Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2, salvaging heritage attributes from the structures and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. Some of the Percy House and barn’s heritage attributes could be salvaged and reused in the proposed development. This would result in the complete and irreversible loss of all the identified heritage attributes. This option is inconsistent with the Town of Pickering’s heritage policies in the Official Plan, the MHSTCI’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historical Properties and general heritage conservation best practices. Prior to demolition of the Percy House, two Central Ontario barns and associated silos, determine what materials can be salvaged and document those elements into a standardized salvage inventory. The results of this inventory should be included a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report (CHRDR). A reputable contractor with expertise in salvage should be contracted to salvage the identified building materials. The contractor should prepare an approach for the labelling, storage and reassembly of material salvaged from the property, as appropriate, in accordance with guidance taken from the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, Section 4: Guidelines for Materials; • The ultimate destination of salvaged materials should be determined prior to the initiation of any salvage process; • Materials should only be salvaged if they are suitable for re-use in other buildings or projects, i.e., the material must not be irreparably damaged or infested; • The material must be extracted in a manner that ensures that it is not irreparably damaged; • Should any of the material be damaged during removal, donation to a teaching institution or museum (i.e. Pickering Museum Village) should be considered to allow the material to provide an educational opportunity. - 129 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 109 10.2 OPTIONS ANALYSIS Based on the review of the alternatives, mitigation and conservation options analysis presented in Table 10-1, Option 1, preserve and maintain the Pery House, Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2 and all landscape heritage attributes in situ with no further development of the property, is the preferred option from a cultural heritage perspective. While Option 2 is the second choice, adaptive reuse of the farm buildings is challenging given that they were purpose built for farming and may prove difficult to compatibly integrate into the proposed development. Discussions with the Client have determined that Option 3 which involves the relocation of the Percy House to a more convenient site within the proposed development is supported by the Client. As illustrated on the Draft Plan, the Percy House will be relocated northwest of its current location, closer to Highway 7. Option 3 would see the removal of Barns 1 and 2, Silos 1 and 2, as well as all landscape features. To successfully facilitate Option 3, the MHSTCI’s Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process design guidelines should be consulted. These guidelines aim to harmonize mass, setback, setting and materials is a mitigation measure to reduce impacts to cultural heritage resources. A vegetative buffer between the proposed development and adjacent Percy House would assist in reducing the visual impact of the modern design against the nineteenth century farm. A landscape plan that incorporates a vegetative screen between the new buildings and remnants of the farm would be ideal. To stabilize and conserve the Percy House in its current location before construction of the surrounding development begins and during construction a Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) should be completed. There is often a lengthy period between the formal submission of a planning application and reoccupation of a heritage buildings. During this time, heritage buildings can be vulnerable to neglect, loss and accidental damage. An TPP should be completed by an engineer or architect with demonstrated experience working with historical structures and should include the following: • Marking heritage attributes on the construction plans; • Temporary construction fencing between the Percy House and the proposed development; • Establish a regular inspection and monitoring schedule; • Communication protocols that identify who should be informed about the heritage attributes and who should be contacted if there is accidental damage; • A plan for potential physical impacts such as accidental damage from machinery; • A plan for appropriate repairs should damage occur to the building(s); and • Regular inspection and monitoring protocol. Mothballing is a process for protecting a building from the environmental elements, neglect and vandalism. It includes stabilization and maintenance measures to ensure a building does not - 130 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 110 deteriorate. Mothballing is intended to be an interim solution undertaken while a property owner explores options for a building’s adaptive reuse on site, or while a building is vacant or is to be relocated off-stie and/or sold. A Mothballing Plan should be prepared by a qualified individual in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, 2nd Edition (Parks Canada 2010); the Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practices by the Canadian Association of Conservation of Cultural Property and the Canadian Association of Professional Conservators (2009); the MHSTCI’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties (2007); Preservation Briefs 31: Mothballing Historic Buildings (Park, 1993), and Well-Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundation’s Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation (Fram, 1998). A Heritage Conservation Plan is a document that identifies how cultural heritage resources should be conserved. It should detail the conservation methods, required actions and trades for the conservation methods and an implementation schedule to conserve the landscape’s heritage attributes in the short-, medium-, and long-term. Heritage Conservation Plans are typically completed by structural engineers or architects with experience rehabilitating historic structures. Detailed documentation and salvage is often the preferred mitigation strategy when retention or relocation of a structure is neither feasible nor warranted. While documentation and salvage can never truly mitigate the loss of a heritage resource, documentation creates a public record the structure and provides researchers and the public with a land use history, construction details and photographic record of the resource. The documentation and photographs contained within this report may serve as a sufficient record of the house and the outbuildings and this determination should be made by City staff. The purpose of salvaging heritage building material is to preserve portions of features of buildings or structures that have historical, architectural or cultural value and divert them from becoming land fill material. Sourcing materials for repair and replacement can be challenging, especially if the materials are from a historical source that no longer exists, such as a quarry, or a manufacturing facility that has closed (Parks Canada, 2010). As such, the careful salvage of these materials from one historic structure can represent an opportunity for the in-kind replacement of quality historical material on another. Some of these materials can also be incorporated into the new design if appropriate. If any materials are incorporated into the manufacturing campus, there should be an interpretive display to convey that these materials were reused from the previous structures on the site. In order to ensure heritage fabric is salvaged responsibly the following recommendations for salvage and reuse of materials includes: o A reputable contractor(s) with proven expertise in cultural heritage resource removal should be obtained to salvage the identified building components listed above; - 131 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 111 The contractor should prepare an approach for the labelling, storage and reassembly of material salvaged from the property, as appropriate, in accordance with guidance taken from the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, Section 4: Guidelines for Materials; The ultimate destination of salvaged materials should be determined prior to the initiation of any salvage process • Materials should only be salvaged if they are suitable for re-use in other buildings or projects, i.e., the material must not be irreparably damaged or infested; • The material must be extracted in a manner that ensures that it is not irreparably damaged; • Should any of the material be damaged during removal, donation to a teaching institution should be considered to allow the material to provide an educational opportunity. A list of Conservation Programs in Ontario is available on the National Trust for Canada’s website here: www.nationaltrustcanada.ca/resources/education/ conservation-programs. Construction activities often result in fugitive dust emission which can be detrimental to the long term protection of heritage resources. A fugitive dust emissions plan should follow practices outlined in the Ontario Standards Development Branch Technical Bulletin: Management Approaches for Industrial Fugitive Dust Sources (2017). Given the proximity of construction activities in proximity to the Percy House, the current proposed development has the potential to create vibrations that could negatively impact the structure. Ground vibration monitoring works should be conducted at the Percy House and Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2. The monitoring should use a digital seismograph capable of measuring and recording ground vibration intensities in digital format in each of three (3) orthogonal directions. This instrument should also be equipped with a wireless cellular modem for remote access and transmission of data. The installed instrument should be programmed to record continuously, providing peak ground vibration levels at a specified time interval (e.g., 5 minutes) as well as waveform signatures of any ground vibrations exceeding a threshold level that would be determined during monitoring (e.g., between 6-12 mm/s). The instrument should also be programmed to provide a warning should the peak ground vibration level exceed the guideline limits specified. In the event of either a threshold trigger or exceedance warning, data would be retrieved remotely and forwarded to designated recipients. If vibration has exceeded the guideline limits specified, a stop work order should be issued immediately and the adjacent Federal Heritage Buildings promptly inspected for any indication of disruption or damage. If identified, the evidence of disturbance or damage should be documented, then closely monitored during construction for further change in existing conditions. Once work is complete, a post-construction vibration monitoring report or technical memorandum should be - 132 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 112 prepared to document the condition of the heritage attributes of the properties listed above and recommend appropriate repairs, if necessary. Designation under Part IV of the OHA for the property including the Percy House, Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2 would provide long term protection against demolition and unsympathetic alterations. If designated under the OHA, the property owner would be required to request permission from the Town to make any alterations or to demolish any of the designated structures. Commemoration, also know as symbolic conservation is often a mitigation strategy when retention or relocation of heritage attributes is not feasible. It can often include the adaptive reuse of salvaged items from buildings (i.e. Creating benches from beams from the barn, creating landscape features from foundation stones) as well as an interpretive plaque that outlines the history of a site and its importance to the local community. If any salvaged items are used for a commemorative display, they should be appropriately catalogued and stored until they can be reused on-site. This should also be clearly communicator to the contractor. 10.3 IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING While Option 1 is the preferred alternative, an Implementation and Monitoring Plans have been identified for Option 3 in Table 10-2 below. The purpose of this plan is to conserve cultural heritage resources as the development is undertaken. The requirement for these heritage mitigation measures may be incorporated by the City of Pickering into the development application decision as a condition prior to the issuance of a Building Permit or during the development application process. - 133 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 113 Table 10-2: Short-term, medium-term and long-term actions for Option 3 CONSTRUCTION PHASE MITIGATION MEASURES DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CONDITIONS Pre- Construction In accordance with the MHSTCI’s Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting and materials is a mitigation measure to reduce impacts to cultural heritage resources, including the preparation of a Landscape Plan around the Percy House. ✓ Complete a Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) for the Percy House ✓ Complete a Mothballing Plan for the Percy House ✓ Complete a Heritage Conservation Plan for the Percy House Prepare a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report for Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2, and if necessary, the one-storey south addition ✓ Prepare a comprehensive pre-construction survey should be completed followed by a Zone of Influence Construction Vibration Study to identity the vibration zone of influence ✓ City of Pickering to consider designation of the subject property under Part IV of the OHA ✓* Manage fugitive dust emissions by creating a fugitive dust emissions plan following practices outlined in the Ontario Standards Development Branch Technical Bulletin: Management Approaches for Industrial Fugitive Dust Sources (2017). ✓ Construction Establish a plan to avoid impact to the resources during construction including a buffer around the structures with a silt fence and appropriate location of staging and construction materials and equipment. ✓ Manage fugitive dust emissions by following recommendations in the fugitive dust emissions plan n/a Post- Construction Implement any recommendations from the conservation plan ✓ *within 90 days of the receipt of a complete application - 134 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 114 11 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of the historical research, field review, site analysis and evaluation of the subject property against the criteria for heritage designation under O. Reg. 9/06 of the OHA, 815 Highway 7 was confirmed to possess CHVI. The proposed development, consisting of the construction of five food manufacturing buildings on the lot was evaluated and determined to pose major impacts to the identified heritage attributes of 815 Highway 7. Based on the review of the alternatives, mitigation and conservation options analysis, Option 1, Do Nothing, is the preferred option from a cultural heritage perspective. However, a Do Nothing approach is not feasible as the subject property is designated Prestige Employment and Seaton Natural Heritage System in the Pickering Official Plan, this approach would be a constraint on the proposed concept plan and future development. As such, Options 2 and Option 3 are the next preferred options, followed lastly by Option 4. The following conservation/mitigation strategies are recommended: 2. The following should be implemented through the development application process: h. In accordance with the MHSTCI’s Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting and materials is a mitigation measure to reduce impacts to cultural heritage resources, including the preparation of a Landscape Plan around the Percy House. i. Complete a Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) to stabilize and conserve the Percy House in its current location before construction of the surrounding development begins and during construction. This includes the installation of temporary construction fencing between the Percy House and the proposed development. j. A Mothballing Plan be completed to examine the current condition of the Percy House and to suggest stabilization and maintenance measures necessary to temporarily mothball and secure the structures. k. Prepare a Conservation Plan detailing the conservation methods, required actions and trades for the conservation methods and an implementation schedule to conserve the heritage attributes of the landscape in the long-term. l. Prepare a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report for Barns 1 and 2 and Silos 1 and 2, and if necessary, the one-storey south addition. m. Given the proximity of the adjacent heritage properties to the proposed limits of grading, a comprehensive pre-construction survey should be completed and a Zone of Influence Construction Vibration Study to monitor and mitigate vibration impacts during construction. Where possible prevent heavy equipment traffic from being routed in the vicinity of the Percy House to minimize potential effects from vibration. n. Fugitive dust emissions should be managed by creating a fugitive dust emissions plan following practices outlined in the Ontario Standards Development Branch Technical Bulletin: Management Approaches for Industrial Fugitive Dust Sources (2017). 5) Contract documentation should include information regarding the CHVI of the aforementioned properties, specifically the List of Heritage Attributes. 6) WSP recommends that 815 Highway 7 meets the criteria for heritage designation under O. Reg. 9/06 as a representative example of an early Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical and - 135 - 815 Highway 7 Road, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 115 Georgian influences, for its connection to the nineteenth century agricultural development of the City of Pickering as well as for its contribution to the surrounding Highway 7 streetscape. 7) Should development plans change significantly in scope or design after approval of this HIA, additional cultural heritage investigations may be required. 8) Once finalized, a copy of this HIA should be distributed to the City of Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive - 136 - 815 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 116 BIBLIOGRAPHY Armstrong, Frederick H. (1985). Handbook of Upper Canadian Chronology. Hamilton: Dundurn Press, Ltd. Curve Lake First Nation. (n.d.) History. Retrieved from: https://curvelakefirstnation.ca/ Connor & Coltson. (1869). The County of Ontario directory for 1869-70. Toronto: Hunter, Rose & Co. Canada’s Historic Places (2010) Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Second Edition. Canada’s Historic Places, Ottawa. Ellis, C.J. and D.B. Deller. (1990). Paleo-Indians. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 37-74. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. Ellis, C.J., I.T. Kenyon, and M.W. Spence. (1990). The Archaic. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 65-124. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. Ennals, P.M. (1972). “Nineteenth-Century Barns in Southern Ontario.” In The Canadian Geographer, pp. 256-269. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Farewell, J. E. (1907). County of Ontario: short notes as to the early settlement and progress of the county and brief references to the pioneers and some Ontario County men who have taken a prominent part in provincial and dominion affair. Whitby, ON: Gazette-Chronicle Press. Find a Grave. John Percy. Retrieved from: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/119333949/john- percy Fram, Mark (1993) Well-Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundation’s Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation. Third edition. Boston Mills Press, Erin, Ontario. Heritage Resources Centre (HRC). (2009). Ontario Architectural Style Guide. Retrieved from: www.therealtydeal.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/06/Heritage-Resource-Centre-Achitectural-Styles-Guide.pdf Historic England (2016) Understanding Historic Buildings: A Guide to Good Recording Practice. English Heritage, Swindon, UK. Historic England - 137 - 815 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 117 International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). (2011). Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties. Retrieved from: www.icomos.org/world_heritage/HIA_20110201.pdf Laurie Smith Consulting. (2015). Cultural Heritage Property Evaluation Report: 1390 Whitevale Road, Pickering, Ontario. Retrieved from: https://corporate.pickering.ca/weblink/1/doc/152704/Electronic.aspx Laurie Smith Consulting. (2015a). Cultural Heritage Property Evaluation Report: 750 Whitevale Road, Pickering, Ontario. Retrieved from: https://corporate.pickering.ca/weblink/1/doc/152699/Electronic.aspx Kalman, Harold (1979) The Evaluation of Historic Buildings. Parks Canada. Kalman, Harold (2014) Heritage Planning: Principles and Process. Routledge, New York. Kalman, Harold and Marcus Létourneau (2020) Heritage Planning: Principles and Process. Routledge, New York. Kyles, S. (2016). Barns. Retrieved from: www.ontarioarchitecture.com/barn.htm Library and Archives Canada (2021) Canadian Censuses. [accessed April 2022]. https://www.bac lac.gc.ca/eng/census/Pages/census.aspx McIlwraith, Thomas F. (1997) Looking for Old Ontario: Two Centuries of Landscape Change. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism & Culture Industries (MHSTCI). (2019). List of Heritage Conservation Districts. Retrieved from: www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/ heritage_conserving_list.shtml Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism & Culture Industries (MHSTCI). (2007). Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties. Retrieved from: www.heritagetrust.on.ca/en/pages/tools/tools-for-conservation/eight-guiding-principles Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism & Culture Industries (MHSTCI). (2006). - 138 - 815 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 118 Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process. Retrieved from: www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage_Tool_Kit_Heritage_PPS_infoSheet.pdf Ministry of Indigenous Affairs (2020) Map of Ontario Treaties and Reserves. Retrieved from: www.ontario.ca/page/map-ontario- treaties-and-reserves Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). (2020). Provincial Policy Statement. Retrieved from: www.ontario.ca/page/provincial-policy-statement- 2020 New Zealand Transport Agency (2015) Historic Heritage Impact Assessment Guide for State Highway Projects. New Zealand Government, Wellington. Ontario Council of University Libraries (n.d.) Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project: Bolton Sheets. [accessed April 2022]. https://ocul.on.ca/topomaps/collection/) Ontario Land Registry Access 2021 Abstract Index Books, Land Registry Office 40 (Pickering). [accessed April 2022]. https://www.onland.ca/ui/40/books/60706/viewer/838941323?page=1 Parks Canada. (2010). The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada 2nd Edition. Retrieved from: www.historicplaces.ca/media/18072/81468-parks-s+g-eng-web2.pdf Parslow Heritage Consulting Inc. Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report- 450 Finch Avenue, Part Lot 31, Concession 2, Geographical Township of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario. Retrieved from: file:///C:/Users/CAEG074036/Desktop/PHC%20Cultural-Heritage- Evaluation-Report.pdf Spence, M.W., R.H. Pihl, and C. Murphy. (1990). Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 125-170. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. Tremaine, George (1859) Tremaine’s Map of the Wellington County, Canada West. George R. and George M. Tremaine, Toronto Walton, George. (1837). The City of Toronto and the Home District Commercial Directory and Register with Almanack and Calendar for 1837. Toronto, Upper Canda, Dalton and W.J. Coates. - 139 - 815 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP August 2022 Page 119 Warrick, G. (2000). The Precontact Iroquoian Occupation of Southern Ontario. Journal of World Prehistory 14(4):415-456. Walker & Miles. (1877). Map of Toronto Township. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Peel, Ontario. Toronto, ON. - 140 - APPENDIX A HISTORICAL MAPPING - 141 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: TREMAINE, 1860 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:10,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 4: 1860 TREMAINE'S MAP OF THE COUNTY OF ONTARIO CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 4 1860 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 400200 m - 142 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: J.H. BEERS & CO., 1877 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:10,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 5: 1877 ILLUSTRATED HISTORICAL ATLAS OF THE COUNTY OF WATERLOO CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 5 1877 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 400200 m - 143 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: DEPARTMENT OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE, 1914 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:20,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 6: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ON 1914 NTS MAP CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 6 1914 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 800400 m - 144 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE, 1933 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:20,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 7: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ON 1933 NTS MAP CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 7 1933 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 800400 m - 145 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE, 1943 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:20,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 8: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ON 1943 NTS MAP CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 8 1943 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 800400 m - 146 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO MAP AND DATA LIBRARY HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:12,500 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 9: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ON 1954 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 9 1954 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 500250 m - 147 - PROJECT NO:DATE:SCALE: 221-03925-00 APRIL 2022 CREDITS: GOOGLE HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT: 815 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING PROJECT: 1:10,000 ± DRAWN BY: TP TITLE: FIGURE 10: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ON 2002 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH CAPLINK LIMITED CLIENT: LEGEND STUDY AREA Document Path: D:\aProjects\221-03925-00\MXD\221-03925-00 Figure 10 2002 AP.mxd Service Layer Credit 0 400200 m - 148 - APPENDIX B SITE CONCEPT PLAN (MARCH 2022) - 149 - 93.3[306'-3"] 214 . 6 [70 4 ' - 0 " ] 7.6[25'-0"] 16.5 [54 ' - 0 " ] 16. 5 [54 ' - 0 " ] 16. 5 [54 ' - 0 " ] 16. 5 [54 ' - 0 " ] 16.5 [54 ' - 0 " ] 16.5 [54' - 0 " ] 16. 5 [54 ' - 0 " ] 16. 5 [54 ' - 0 " ] 16.5 [54 ' - 0 " ] 16.5 [54 ' - 0 " ] 16.5 [54 ' - 0 " ] 16. 5 [54 ' - 0 " ] 16.5 [54 ' - 0 " ] 21.34[70'-0"]21.34[70'-0"]21.34[70'-0"]21.34[70'-0"] 12 D O C K S 2 StoreyOffice & TMWelfare Areas (22,700 sf)2109 sm 15.27[50'-1"] 24.7 4 [81'- 2 " ] AMM O N I A R O O M 4 , 0 0 0 s f 24' c l e a r h e i g h t Stru c t u r a l P l a t f o r m a b o v e for 4 c o o l i n g t o w e r s 24.3 9 [80'- 0 " ] 17 D O C K S 10x500KWGenerators 2x3000kvaSUBSTATION Flo u r Silo s DRIVE IN RAMP 14'W x 1 6 ' H OH Do o r Electr i c a l R o o m 1 2 0 0 s f Sprin k l e r R o o m 1 1 0 0 s f Mech a n i c a l R o o m 1 3 0 0 s f Procep t e r G r e a s e Inte r c e p t e r 3 0 0 0 g a l roug h i n f o r D A F S y s t e m 10.67[35'-0"]10.67[35'-0"] 16.46[54'-0"]16.46[54'-0"]16.46[54'-0"]16.46[54'-0"]16.46[54'-0"]16.46[54'-0"]16.46[54'-0"]16.46[54'-0"]16.46[54'-0"] 148.66[487'-9"] 64.55 [21 1 ' - 9 " ] 21.34 [70 ' - 0 " ] 21.34 [70' - 0 " ] 21.3 4 [70 ' - 0 " ] 2nd Floor Office3,800 SF Date: March 26, 2022 PROPOSED FGF FOOD MANUFACTURING CAMPUS 60 ACRES SITE PLAN CONCEPT # 6A FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE 19.92[65'-4"] TRAILERSTAGING 7.50 [24' - 7 " ] 31.45[103'-2"]6.50[21'-4"] 5.00[16'- 5 " ] 10.00[32'-10"] FIR E R O U T E FI R E R O U T E TOTALCAR PARKING220 10.00[32'-10"] FIR E R O U T E FI R E R O U T E 32 TOTALCAR PARKING200 30.47[100'-0"] 39.63[130'-0"]62.01[203'-5"] 39.63[130'-0"] 10.00[32'-10"] 20 . 0 Access Point Access Point FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE TRUCK TURN COURTYARD FIR E R O U T E FIR E R O U T E FIR E R O U T E FIR E R O U T E Gross Developable - 50.6 acres minus internal road - 3.5 acres Net Developable = 47.1 acres EXISTING SUB DIVISION BLOCKS: *BLOCK 1 - 7.43 Acres *BLOCK 2 - 18.55 Acres *BLOCK 3 - 5.01 Acres *BLOCK 5 - 5.58 Acres *BLOCK 6 - 14.03 Acres *BLOCK 22 - 5.43 Acres (Storm water Pond) *BLOCK 30 - 2.11 Acres (Natural Heritage) *BLOCK 49 - 0.73 Acres (Heritage Lot & House) TOTAL - 58.87 Acres 15.49[50'-10"] TRAILER PARKING TRAILER PARKING 40.71 [133 ' - 7 " ] 18.3 0 [60'- 1 " ] 18.4 0 [60'- 4 " ] TRAILER PARKING TRAILER PARKING 50 20 89 ACRES PARCEL 25.28 [82'- 1 1 " ] FG F W a y Wonder Drive Screen Wall Screen Wall FIR E R O U T E FIR E R O U T E 6.00[19'-8"] FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE Access PointAccess Point Access Point FIR E R O U T E FIR E R O U T E 19 FIR E R O U T E FIR E R O U T E 32.47 [106 ' - 6 " ] TRUCK TURN COURTYARD Relocate Heritage House 45.0 22 .0 Heritage Lot:815 HWY 7 SI D E L I N E 2 6 N68°52'05"E 291.575 N63°01'40"E47.515 N63°01'40"E23.365 N4 1°27'55"E 99.045 N12°43'35"E 96.305 N10°45'40"W 75.400 N10°45'40"W 125.080 N26 °13 '05"E 20. 6 75 N19°1 9'20"W 92.180 N64°29'10"W 21.155 N70°21'05"E 174.065N71°18'20"E 123.335N71°18'20"E 279.420N71°18'20"E59.820N71°18'20"E62.515N71°18'20"E20.130 N68°52'05"E20.120 N68°52'05"E 100.910 N68°51'30"E60.035 N06°11'40"E 50.300 N38°57'30"E 23.805 N70°14'40"E44.030N71°41'40"E20.160N70°21'05"E28.300 N25°30'50"E 21.275 N19°1 9'20 "W 92.905 N63 °46'55"W21.6 10 N03°07'20"E 33.760 N28°09'20"E 22.890 26.840 1.260 BLOCK 49 Heritage Lot 0.73Acres 0.30Ha 45.6 BLOCK 30Natural Heritage 2.11Acres 0.85Ha BLOCK 32 Natural Heritage 3.95Acres 1.60Ha BLOCK 31 Natural Heritage 3.07Acres 1.24Ha 18 .5 8.6 1 6 . 1 14.0 27 . 0 28.9 4 3 .7 62.6 4 1 . 4 30.0 12 .8 14.1 3 5 .6 1 3 2 . 1 59.6 64 .8 45.7 65 .1 64 .8 45.7 65 .1 14 1 . 7 39.4 93.8 54.2 37.1 45.7 21.9 9 8 . 4 NEWBLOCK 22Stormwater Pond 1.7 Acres +/- 6 .9 82.0 184.0 1 2 3 . 6 57.698.6114.4 82.9 6.0 11 7 .1 74.9 72 . 7 10 2.8 47.520.9 BLOCK 8 Prestige Employment General 42.30Acres 17.12Ha HIGHWAY 407 HIGHWAY 407 WHITES ROAD INTERCHANGE HIGHWAY 7 (MTO)HIGHWAY 7 (MTO) Northern Boundry of Seaton Neighboor 21 ACCESS POINT Current Road & Bridge Alignment Future New Road &Bridge Alignment to Phase 2 (89 Acres land NEWBLOCK 22 Stormwater Pond 1.6 Acres +/- 14.0 0 [45'- 1 1 " ]14m MTO Setback 14m MTO Setback 14m MTO Setback14m MTO Setback 22m 22 m 14. 0 0 [45'- 1 1 " ] 14.0 0 [45 ' - 1 1 " ] 14.0 0 [45'- 1 1 " ] Federal Airport Land 22.00[72'-2"] 11.00[36'-1"] 22.00 [72 ' - 2 " ] 11.0 0 [36 ' - 1 " ] 10.00 [32'- 1 0 " ] WH I T E S R O A D 29.9 9 [98'- 5 " ] 12.19[40'-0"]Cul-de-sac TRANSIT WAY 14.00 [45'-11"] 14m MTO Setback14.00 [45'-11"] 14m MTO Setback 14.00 [45'-11"] 14.00 [45'-11"] 14.00 [45'-11"] 14.00[45'-11"] 14.00[45'-11"] 14.00[45'-11"] 14 m MTO S e tba ck 14m M T O Setbac k 7.00 [23' - 0 " ] 86 TRAILER PARKING 51 36.0 0 [11 8 ' - 1 " ] TRAILER PARKING FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE Screen Wall 35.0 7 [11 5 ' - 1 " ] FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE BUILDING 3 TOTAL GFA 231,000 sf (21471 sm) 1st Floor 220,000 sf (20449 sm) 2nd Floor 11,400 sf (1060 sm) BUILDING 4 TOTAL GFA 231,000 sf (21471 sm)1st Floor 220,000 sf (20449 sm) 2nd Floor 11,400 sf (1060 sm) FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE FIRE ROUTE 93.3[306'-3"] 214 . 6 [70 4 ' - 0 " ] 7.6[25'-0"] 16.5 [54 ' - 0 " ] 16. 5 [54 ' - 0 " ] 16. 5 [54 ' - 0 " ] 16.5 [54 ' - 0 " ] 16.5 [54 ' - 0 " ] 16. 5 [54 ' - 0 " ] 16. 5 [54 ' - 0 " ] 16. 5 [54 ' - 0 " ] 16.5 [54 ' - 0 " ] 16.5 [54 ' - 0 " ] 16. 5 [54 ' - 0 " ] 16.5 [54 ' - 0 " ] 16.5 [54 ' - 0 " ] 21.34[70'-0"]21.34[70'-0"]21.34[70'-0"]21.34[70'-0"] 12 D O C K S 10x500KWGenerators 2 S t o r e y Offi c e & T M Welf a r e A r e a s (2 2 , 7 0 0 s f ) 210 9 s m 15.27[50'-1"] 24.7 4 [81 ' - 2 " ] AM M O N I A R O O M 4 , 0 0 0 s f 24' c l e a r h e i g h t Struc t u r a l P l a t f o r m a b o v e for 4 c o o l i n g t o w e r s 24.3 9 [80 ' - 0 " ] 17 D O C K S 2x3000kvaSUBSTATION Flo u r Silo s DRIVE IN RAMP 14'W x 1 6 ' H OH D o o r Elect r i c a l R o o m 1 2 0 0 s f Sprink l e r R o o m 1 1 0 0 s f Mech a n i c a l R o o m 1 3 0 0 s f Procep t e r G r e a s e Inte r c e p t e r 3 0 0 0 g a l rou g h i n f o r D A F S y s t e m 10.67[35'-0"]10.67[35'-0"] BUILDING 2 TOTAL GFA 230,000 sf (21378 sm) 1st Floor 219,000 sf (20356 sm) 2nd Floor 11,400 sf (1060 sm) BUILDING 1 TOTAL GFA 231,000 sf (21471 sm) 1st Floor 220,000 sf (20449 sm) 2nd Floor 11,400 sf (1060 sm) 93. 3 [30 6 ' - 3 " ] 214.6[704'-0"] 7.6 [25 ' - 0 " ] 16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"] 21.3 4 [70'- 0 " ] 21.3 4 [70 ' - 0 " ] 21.34 [70 ' - 0 " ] 21.34 [70' - 0 " ] 12 DOCKS2x3000kvaSUBSTATION 10x500KWGenerators 2 StoreyOffice & TMWelfare Areas (22,700 sf)2109 sm FlourSilos 15.2 7 [50 ' - 1 " ] 24.74[81'-2"]AMMONIA ROOM 4,000 sf24' clear height Structural Platform abovefor 4 cooling towers24.39[80'-0"] 17 DOCKS DRIVE IN RAMP 14'W x16'H OH Door Electrical Room 1200 sf Sprinkler Room 1100 sf Mechanical Room 1300 sf Procepter GreaseIntercepter 3000 galrough in for DAF System 10.6 7 [35' - 0 " ] 10.67 [35' - 0 " ] BUILDING 5 DISTRIBUTION CTR. Cross Dock TOTAL GFA 106,800 sf (9853 sm)1st Floor 103,000 sf (9574 sm) 2nd Floor 3,800 sf (278 sm) 10.0 0 [32'- 1 0 " ] 10.0 0 [32 ' - 1 0 " ] Access Point 60.32 [19 7 ' - 1 1 " ] 5.00[16'-5"] 5.00[16'-5"] 10.00[32'-10"] 5.00 [16 ' - 5 " ] 5.00[16'-5"] 5.00 [16 ' - 5 " ] Total Phase 1 (60 Acres) *4 Plants & 1 DC (1.1 million sf) *1st 2 Plants- (Building 1 &2) 2022/2023 (460,000 sf) FI R E R O U T E 3.00[9'-10"] 38.1 0 [12 5 ' - 0 " ] 5.00[16'- 5 " ] 33 923 6 14 22 21 Scr e e n W a l l 621.07[69'-1"] 17.6 0 [57 ' - 9 " ] 5.00 [16' - 5 " ] 7.50[24'-7"] 7.50[24'-7"] 6.20 [20 ' - 4 " ] 7.00 [23 ' - 0 " ]7.00 [23 ' - 0 " ] 32.1 2 [10 5 ' - 5 " ] 14.9 5 [49'- 1 " ] 10.0 0 [32' - 1 0 " ] 4.00[13'- 1 " ] 10.0 0 [32 ' - 1 0 " ] 4.00 [13'- 1 " ] 21.38 [70' - 2 " ] 25.1 1 [82 ' - 4 " ] 90 9 26 31 22.37[73'-5"] 6 6 6 PATIO PATIO PATIO PATIO TOTALCAR PARKING238 31 37 9 32 37 7.00[23'-0"]7.00[23'-0"] 19 38 7.00[23'-0"] Scre e n W a l l Scre e n W a l l 38 3.00[9'-10"] 10.00[32'-10"] 10.00[32'-10"] 93.3 [30 6 ' - 3 " ] 214.6[704'-0"] 7.6 [25 ' - 0 " ] 16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"]16.5[54'-0"] 21.34 [70' - 0 " ] 21.3 4 [70'- 0 " ] 21.3 4 [70 ' - 0 " ] 21.34 [70 ' - 0 " ] 12 DOCKS 2 StoreyOffice & TMWelfare Areas (22,700 sf)2109 sm 15.2 7 [50 ' - 1 " ] 24.74[81'-2"]AMMONIA ROOM 4,000 sf24' clear heightStructural Platform abovefor 4 cooling towers 24.39[80'-0"] 17 DOCKS 10x500KWGenerators 2x3000 KVA Substation FlourSilos DRI V E I N RA M P 14'W x16'H OH Door Electrical Room 1200 sf Sprinkler Room 1100 sf Mechanical Room 1300 sf Procepter GreaseIntercepter 3000 galrough in for DAF System 10.67 [35' - 0 " ] 10.67 [35 ' - 0 " ] 19 FIR E R O U T E 6.50[21'-4"]6.50[21'-4"] Screen Wall RelocatedHeritageHouse(FGFLearning Studi0) TRAILERSTAGING 41.98[137'-9"] TRUCK TURN COURTYARD 16.71[54'-10"] 6.20[20'-4"] 16.71[54'-10"] 6.50 [21'- 4 " ] Scre e n W a l l 6 8 23 7 7 23 23 22 47 41 9 39 16 TOTALCAR PARKING271 - 150 - APPENDIX C DRONE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS - 151 - - 152 - - 153 - Attachment 3 to Report PLN 15-24 - 154 - Attachment 4 to Report PLN 15-24 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/24 Being a by-law designate the lands legally described as that [Insert Legal description of property once registered] (the “Percy House”) and municipally known as 895 Wonder Drive (formerly 815 Highway 7), Pickering, as being cultural heritage value or interest. Whereas the Ontario Heritage Act authorizes the Council of a municipality to enact a by-law to designate real property, including all buildings and structures thereon, to be of cultural heritage value or interest; and Whereas on XXXX, XX, 2024, Council endorsed the recommendations of its Heritage Advisory Committee to designate the Percy House as being of cultural heritage value or interest; and Whereas the reasons for designation are set out in Schedule “A” to this by-law; and Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering has caused to be served on the owners of the Percy House and upon the Ontario Heritage Trust, Notice of Intention to designate the property and has caused the Notice of Intention to be published in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality as requested by the Ontario Heritage Act; and Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering enacts as follows: 1.The Percy House, known municipally as 895 Wonder Drive (formerly 815 Highway 7) is designated as being of cultural heritage value or interest for reasons set out in Schedule “A” attached hereto. 2.The City Solicitor is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be registered ontitle to the 895 Wonder Drive (the Percy House). 3.The City Clerk is authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be served upon the owners of the 895 Wonder Drive (the Percy House) and the Ontario Heritage Trust, and to publish notice of this by-law in a newspaper having general circulation in the City of Pickering asrequired by the Ontario Heritage Act. By-law passed on this XX of XXXX, 2024. ________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 155 - Schedule “A” By-law No. XXXX/24 Reasons for Designation Description of Property The Percy House, located at 895 Wonder Drive (formerly 815 Highway 7) is a one-and-a-half storey Ontario Cottage built c. 1853. The brick building was originally located on the south side of Highway 7, west of Whites Road. In 2024, the building was moved approximately 107 metres west to its current location. Reason for Designation The mid-nineteenth century farmstead, known as the Percy House, possesses design or physical value for the built heritage resource displaying a high degree of craftsmanship. The one-and-a-half storey brick residence constructed c. 1853 demonstrates representative elements of an Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical and Georgian influences. These representative elements include the rectangular plan and symmetrical three-bay façade, side gable roof, entrance details including a wood surround with transom and sidelights, and multipaned windows. The residence reflects a unique vernacular interpretation of the style, characterized by its elaborate dichromatic brickwork, including the decorative stringcourse, quoins, and jack arches. Through its function as a farm since 1853, the Percy House is directly associated with the agricultural development of the former Ontario Township and City of Pickering. This theme is significant as it historically contributed to the community’s early economic growth and continues to be practiced today. Description of Heritage Attributes The heritage attributes that contribute to the cultural heritage value or interest of 895 Wonder Drive (formerly 815 Highway 7) include: Residence Exterior •One-and-a-half storey massing built to a rectangular plan; •Red brick construction using the Flemish bond, dichromatic brickwork including quoinsand decorative brickwork under the moulded cornice; •Granite and fieldstone foundation; •Symmetrical three-bay façade and symmetrical two-bay side elevations; •Side gable roof with return eaves and extant moulded cornice; •Paired interior end chimneys; •Centrally placed entrance with side lights, transom, and wood surround with classicaldetailing; and •Rectangular window openings with six-over-six double-hung sash windows, radiating brick voussoirs and wood sills. - 156 - Residence Interior •Extant original layout; •Fireplace mantle; •Floor boards; •Tall baseboards; •Window and door surrounds; •Balustrade and knob capped newel post; •Stone fireplace collar embedded in second floor bedroom (southwest room); and •Built-in corner cupboard in parlour on main floor. - 157 - Highway 407 Whites Road Highway 7 Sid e l i n e 2 8 Location MapFile:Municipal Address:Proposed Part IV Designation of 895 Wonder Drive Date: May. 08, 2024 ¯ 895 Wonder Drive (formerly 815 Highway 7) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\01-City Development\01-PLN Reports\2024\PLN XX-24 - 895 Wonder Drive (formerly 815 Highway 7)\PLNXX-24_LocationMapv2.mxd 1:4,500 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department ofNatural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment Proposed Wonder Drive Proposed Percy House Location Existing Percy House Location - 158 - -Newspaper Version- Attachment 5 to Report PLN 15-24 Notice of Intent to Designate Property Of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Take Notice that the Council of the City of Pickering intends to designate the following property as a property of cultural heritage value or interest under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18 895 Wonder Drive (formerly 815 Highway 7) Block 4, Plan 40M-XXXX;Part XXXX, 40R-XXXX Pickering, Ontario Description of Property: 895 Wonder Drive (formerly 815 Highway 7) is a one-and-a-half storey Ontario Cottage built c. 1853. The brick building was originally located on the south side of Highway 7, west of Whites Road. In 2024, the building was moved approximately 107 metres west to its current location. Reason for Designation: The mid-nineteenth century farmstead, known as the Percy House, possesses design or physical value for the built heritage resource displaying a high degree of craftsmanship. The one-and-a-half storey brick residence constructed c. 1853, demonstrates representative elements of an Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical and Georgian influences. These representative elements include the rectangular plan and symmetrical three-bay façade, side gable roof, entrance details including a wood surround with transom and sidelights, and multipaned windows. The residence reflects a unique vernacular interpretation of the style, characterized by its elaborate dichromatic brickwork, including the decorative stringcourse, quoins, and jack arches. Through its function as a farm since 1853, the Percy House is directly associated with the agricultural development of the former Ontario Township and City of Pickering. This theme is significant as it historically contributed to the community’s early economic growth and continues to be practiced today. Any person may, within 30 days of the publication of this Notice, send by mail or deliver to the City Clerk, a notice of their objection to the proposed designation, together with a statement of reasons for the objection and all relevant facts. A copy of the Historical/Architectural Designation Report PLN 15-24 is available in the Clerks Division, Pickering Civic Complex, One The Esplanade, Monday to Friday, 8:30 am to 4:30 pm, or by calling 905.420.4611, or by email at clerks@pickering.ca DATED at the City of Pickering this XX day of XXXX, 2024 Susan Cassel, City Clerk City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 - 159 - -Ontario Heritage Trust / Property Owner Version- Attachment 6 to Report PLN 15-24 Notice of Intent to Designate Property Of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Take Notice that the Council of the City of Pickering intends to designate the following property as a property of cultural heritage value or interest under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18 895 Wonder Drive (formerly 815 Highway 7) [insert legal description] Pickering, Ontario Description of Property: 895 Wonder Drive (formerly 815 Highway 7) is a one-and-a-half storey Ontario Cottage built c. 1853. The brick building was originally located on the south side of Highway 7, west of Whites Road. In 2024, the building was moved approximately 107 metres west to its current location. Reason for Designation: The mid-nineteenth century farmstead, known as the Percy House, possesses design or physical value for the built heritage resource displaying a high degree of craftsmanship. The one-and-a-half storey brick residence constructed c. 1853 demonstrates representative elements of an Ontario Cottage with Neo-Classical and Georgian influences. These representative elements include the rectangular plan and symmetrical three-bay façade, side gable roof, entrance details including a wood surround with transom and sidelights, and multipaned windows. The residence reflects a unique vernacular interpretation of the style, characterized by its elaborate dichromatic brickwork, including the decorative stringcourse, quoins, and jack arches. Through its function as a farm since 1853, the Percy House is directly associated with the agricultural development of the former Ontario Township and City of Pickering. This theme is significant as it historically contributed to the community’s early economic growth and continues to be practiced today. Summary of Attributes for Designation: The heritage attributes that contribute to the cultural heritage value or interest of 895 Wonder Drive (formerly 815 Highway 7) include: Residence Exterior •One-and-a-half storey massing built to a rectangular plan; •Red brick construction using the Flemish bond, dichromatic brickwork includingquoins and decorative brickwork under the moulded cornice; •Granite and fieldstone foundation; •Symmetrical three-bay façade and symmetrical two-bay side elevations; •Side gable roof with return eaves and extant moulded cornice; - 160 - -Ontario Heritage Trust / Property Owner Version- •Paired interior end chimneys; •Centrally placed entrance with side lights, transom and wood surround with classicaldetailing; and •Rectangular window openings with six-over-six double-hung sash windows, radiatingbrick voussoirs and wood sills; Residence Interior •Extant original layout, •Fireplace mantle; •Floor boards •Tall baseboards •Window and door surrounds; •Balustrade and knob capped newel post; •Stone fireplace collar embedded in second floor bedroom (southwest room); and •Built-in corner cupboard in parlour on main floor. Any person may, within 30 days of the publication of this Notice, send by mail or deliver to the City Clerk, a notice of their objection to the proposed designation, together with a statement of reasons for the objection and all relevant facts. A copy of the Historical/Architectural Designation Report PLN 15-24 is available in the Clerks Division, Pickering Civic Complex, One The Esplanade, Monday to Friday, 8:30 am to 4:30 pm, or by calling 905.420.4611, or by email at clerks@pickering.ca DATED at the City of Pickering this XX day of XXXX, 2024 Susan Cassel, City Clerk City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 - 161 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 16-24 Date: June 10, 2024 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Bill 23: Provincial Legislation Changes to the Ontario Heritage Act and Priority Properties for Designation -1027-1031 Dunbarton Road -File: A-3300-074 Recommendation: 1.That Council endorse the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, dated March 27, 2024, to designate 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; 2.That Council direct staff to serve a Notice of Intention to Designate the property located at 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road, known as the George Falconer House and Store, as a property of cultural heritage value or interest, pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, included as Attachments 5 and 6 to Report PLN 16-24; 3.That, should no Notice of Objection be received by the City Clerk within 30 days of the publication of the Notice of Intention to Designate, the Designation By-law for 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road, included as Attachment 4 to Report PLN 16-24, be presented to Council for passing, and that staff be directed to carry out the notice requirements as prescribed under Section 29(8) of the Ontario Heritage Act; and 4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take such actions as necessary to give effect to this report. Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s approval to move forward with the Part IV designation of the property at 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road (see Location Map, Attachment 1), under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. This report provides additional information in the form of a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for the property. The enactment of Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, altered Provincial legislation, including the Planning Act, Conservation Authorities Act, and the Ontario Heritage Act. The bill now mandates the removal of listed properties from the register, without consulting the local Municipal Heritage Committee. Listing, a tool used for many years by most municipalities having heritage registers, will be curtailed by the Provincial requirement for listed buildings to be either designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act within a two-year timeframe, or removed from the register for at - 162 - PLN 16-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Bill 23: Provincial Legislation Changes to the Ontario Heritage Act and Priority Properties for Designation Page 2 least five years. Once these properties are removed, they will have no protection from demolition. In 2024, City staff completed a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road. It determined that the property meets four of the nine criteria as outlined in Ontario Regulation 9/06 (as amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22). This Regulation prescribes the criteria for municipal designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The property was found to retain design/physical, associative value, and contextual values. A property may be designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, if it meets two or more of the nine criteria. At the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee meeting held on March 27, 2024, the Committee passed a motion recommending that 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that City Council proceed with the designation. The property owner attended the meeting and spoke in opposition to the proposed heritage designation, citing concerns over the potential decrease in property value caused by the designation. Staff recommend that 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road be designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. 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. The property would, however, if designated, be eligible for the Heritage Property Tax Relief Program. The amount of the annual property tax reduction would be 20% of taxes payable. Discussion: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s approval to designate 1027- 1031 Dunbarton Road under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Part IV designation of the property will guide future changes to the heritage resources, to ensure that the heritage attributes are preserved. 1.Overview Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act authorizes the Council of a municipality to enact by-laws to designate real property, including all buildings and structures thereon, that demonstrate cultural heritage value or interest. Council shall, before giving notice of its intention to designate a property, consult with its municipal heritage committee. - 163 - PLN 16-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Bill 23: Provincial Legislation Changes to the Ontario Heritage Act and Priority Properties for Designation Page 3 On December 4, 2023, the Planning & Development Committee considered staff recommendation Report PLN 41-23, which authorized staff to complete a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road, to determine its Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and whether the property is a candidate for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. In 2024, City staff completed CHER for 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road, which identified that the property meets the provincial criteria for evaluating cultural heritage value, as set out in Ontario Regulation 9/06, and is therefore recommended for designation. 2. The City previously determined that the property has Cultural Heritage Value or Interest In consultation with the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, in 2016, the City retained the services of ERA Architects Inc. (ERA) to prepare a heritage assessment for 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road. This report was completed to determine if the property was a candidate for inclusion as a listed, non-designated property on the Municipal Heritage Register. ERA undertook a preliminary cultural heritage evaluation, which included a site visit and background research. The report, however, did not include an evaluation of the property using Ontario Regulation 9/06. The criteria set out in Ontario Regulation 9/06 were developed to identify and evaluate properties for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The property was found to have cultural heritage value related to its design, associations, and context. The building is a unique example of an 1880s brick building designed to accommodate both a business and a residence. The building was constructed for local harness-maker George Falconer (see Photographs 1 and 2 below). The building once formed part of the Village of Dunbarton – a community that is historically featured alongside Claremont, Whitevale and other communities in Pickering’s archival records. Based on this review of the 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road property, ERA supported the Pickering Heritage Committee’s interest in having the property listed on the Municipal Heritage Register. Of note, the Official Plan identifies the Village of Dunbarton as a ‘historic village’ and Community Improvement Area. It encourages “opportunities to rejuvenate the historic Village of Dunbarton” and new development that is compatible with the historic character of the area. To this purpose, the listing of culturally significant properties in Dunbarton on the Municipal Heritage Register provides the City with a framework to consider future development and permit applications about the heritage character of the area. - 164 - PLN 16-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Bill 23: Provincial Legislation Changes to the Ontario Heritage Act and Priority Properties for Designation Page 4 Photograph 1: Postcard of 1077-1031 Dunbarton Road, postmarked December 14, 1914 (Brian Winters Collection, Pickering Public Library) Photograph 2: Three-quarter view of north and west façades of 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road (City of Pickering, 2024) 3.Council passed a Resolution to include the property on the City’s Municipal Heritage Register Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act indicates that municipalities shall keep a register of properties in the municipality that are of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI). The register must contain all Part IV properties (individually designated) and Part V properties (within a Heritage Conservation District). The register may also include properties that have not been designated, but that Council believes may have CHVI. These are commonly known as “listed” properties. Council must consult with its Municipal Heritage Committee before including or removing a property on the register. In consultation with the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee and based on the recommendations in the 2016 Cultural Heritage Report by ERA, Council passed Resolution 202/16 to include the property on the City’s Municipal Heritage Register, under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act (see Attachment 2). 4.City staff completed a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road In 2024, City staff completed a CHER for 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road. The CHER indicated that the subject property met four of the nine criteria, as outlined in Ontario Regulation 9/06 (as amended by Ontario Regulation 529/22) and is therefore a candidate for designation. The property was found to retain design/physical value, associative value, and contextual value as outlined in Table 1 below (see Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Attachment 3). - 165 - PLN 16-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Bill 23: Provincial Legislation Changes to the Ontario Heritage Act and Priority Properties for Designation Page 5 Table 1: Evaluation of 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road as per Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria 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. Y Although not an early example of an Ontario Farmhouse, 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road contains a rare example of a purpose-built house and store. In accordance with the findings of the comparative analysis in Section 9.2 of the CHER, the building demonstrates representative elements of the vernacular farmhouse with its L-shaped plan, side gable roof, rectangular windows, covered verandah, three-bay principal façade, and use of dichromatic brick. A comparative analysis undertaken for the property determined there are no listed or designated vernacular farmhouses with attached storefronts in the City of Pickering, or surrounding municipalities. The analysis identified two designated Part IV buildings (also listed on the Canadian Register of Historic Places), both examples are vernacular farmhouses. 2.The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. N Although of late-nineteenth-century construction, the property does not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, but rather reflects construction techniques and materials common to its time. 3.The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. N The property does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. The structure displays construction techniques reflective of the era and style. 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 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road serves as a representation of the theme of historic small community establishment at the junctures of high-order roads. Located in the central commercial core of the village of Dunbarton, this building is representative of the late- nineteenth-century streetscape of the village - 166 - PLN 16-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Bill 23: Provincial Legislation Changes to the Ontario Heritage Act and Priority Properties for Designation Page 6 O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria Y/N Comments which would have included both commercial and residential buildings. The property also has a direct association with George Falconer, a local harness maker. His obituary describes Falconer as is described as one of Dunbarton’s most prominent citizens and a successful business owner. 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 results of the research did not indicate that 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road yields information that could contribute to the 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. N The architect and builder of the structure at 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road is unknown. As such, this criterion is not satisfied. 7.The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of an area. Y The subject property at 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road is important in supporting the historic village character of Dunbarton given it is a rare example of a combined residence and commercial buildings in the City of Pickering, and one of the few original houses in the Village of Dunbarton. The property contributes to the continuity and character of the Dunbarton Road and Dunchurch Street streetscapes. 8.The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings. Y The subject property is historically linked to its surroundings given its location in the historic Dunbarton Village, at a crossroad which intersects with the main street of the village. This is one of the few original houses in the Village of Dunbarton and is one of the few remaining villages in south Pickering with much of the lot pattern and built form intact. 9.The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. N No significant views of the property distinguish the building as a notable or distinct property. It does not serve as a local landmark in the community. - 167 - PLN 16-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Bill 23: Provincial Legislation Changes to the Ontario Heritage Act and Priority Properties for Designation Page 7 4.The Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee and property owner have been consulted On March 27, 2024, City Development staff consulted with the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee. The Committee passed a motion recommending that Council designate the property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, and staff advised that the Committee’s recommendation would be forwarded to Council for consideration in June 2024. At the March 27, 2024 meeting, the property owner spoke regarding concerns with the perceived interference or limitations on their ability to sell the property. While property owners are not required to support the designation for it to move forward, feedback received from the owners is considered, and added to the draft by-laws as appropriate. The owner of 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road has been provided with general information on heritage designation and a copy of the Draft Designation By-law (see Attachment 4). Once designated, the subject property is eligible for the Heritage Property Tax Relief Program. The amount of the annual tax reduction is 20% of taxes payable on the eligible property. At this time, only the municipal and school board components of the taxes are eligible for the 20% rebate. Currently, the Region of Durham is not participating in this program. 5.Notice of Intention to Designate and a Designation By-law has been prepared by City staff The Notice of Intention to Designate has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act and, subject to Council’s approval, will be published in The Toronto Star (see Notice of Intention to Designate, Attachment 5). A copy of the Notice of Intention to Designate will also be sent to the Ontario Heritage Trust and the property owner (see Notice of Intention to Designate, Attachment 6). Should no notice of objection be received by the City Clerk within the 30-day timeframe, staff recommends that Council approve the draft designation by-law (see Attachment 4) and serve a Notice of Passing in accordance with Section 29(8) of the Ontario Heritage Act. 6.Conclusion The Part IV (individual) or Part V (Heritage Conservation District) 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. Additionally, owners of properties designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act require a Heritage Permit for most exterior alterations. To ensure the continued conservation of the George Falconer House and Store, staff recommends designation of the George Falconer House and Store at 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road, under Section 29, Part IV, of the Ontario Heritage Act. - 168 - PLN 16-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Bill 23: Provincial Legislation Changes to the Ontario Heritage Act and Priority Properties for Designation Page 8 Attachments: 1.Location Map, 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road 2.Council Resolution 202/16 3.Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road, prepared by the City of Pickering, 2024 4.Draft Designation By-law for the George Falconer House and Store at 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road 5.Notice of Intention to Designate to be published in The Toronto Star 6.Notice of Intention to Designate for the Ontario Heritage Trust and property owner Prepared By: Emily Game, BA, CAHP Senior Planner, Heritage Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO EG:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 169 - Attachment 1 to Report PLN 16-24 SpartanCourt Cloudb e r r y C o u r t D u n c h u r c h S t r e e t Dunba r t o n R o a d Rambl e b e r r y A v e n u e Highway 4 0 1 K in g st o n R oa d DalewoodRavine Dalewood Ravine © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City Development Department Location MapFile:Municipal Address:Proposed Part IV Designation of 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: May 09, 2024 SCALE: 1:2,000 ¯ E 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\01-City Development\A-3300-074 Municipal Heritage Register\2023 Heritage Register Update\1027-1031DunbartonRd_LocationMap.mxd- 170 - Attachment 2 to Report PLN 16-24 Legislative Services Division &OHUN¶V2IILFH Directive Memorandum September 21, 2016 To: Catherine Rose (Acting) Director, City Development From:Debbie Shields City Clerk Subject:Direction as per Minutes of the Meeting of City Council held on September 19, 2016 Director, City Development, Report PLN 14-16 Addition of Non-Designated Property to the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Council Decision Resolution #202/16 That Council endorse the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee to include the property municipally known as 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register as a non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest, under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Please take any action deemed necessary. Debbie Shields /lr Copy: Chief Administrative Officer - 171 - pickering.ca Attachment 3 to Report PLN 16-24 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 1027- 1031 Dunbarton Road, Pickering Ontario - 172 - 1.Executive Summary The purpose of this Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) is to determine if 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road (subject property) retains Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI), and if it is a candidate for designation under Part IV, section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. This CHER for the subject property is part of the ongoing MunicipalRegister Review and Update. This CHER provides an in-depth analysis of the subject property through primary and secondary research and a visual inspection of the property. It evaluates the subject property against the criteria outlined in Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O. Reg. 9/06), includingdesign/physical value, historical/associative value, and contextual value. Additionally, theCHER includes a draft Statement of Significance and identifies key heritage attributes. The legislative framework for heritage property designation is established by the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) and is reinforced at the provincial level through the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019). Thepreservation of cultural heritage resources is further supported by the Region of Durham Official Plan and the City of Pickering Official Plan. The subject property is situated on Lot 25, Concession I, in the former Geographic Township of Pickering, in the historical County of Ontario (Figure 1). The brick building was constructed c. 1886 and was purpose-built as the George Falconer house and store.1027-1031 Dunbarton Road falls within the territory covered by the Johnson-ButlerPurchases (also known as the “Gunshot Treaty”), which was signed in 1788 byrepresentatives of the Crown and certain Anishinaabe peoples. These lands were the subject of a confirmatory surrender in the Williams Treaties of 1923. In 2016, the privately owned property was added as a listed non-designated property tothe City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register pursuant to Section 27 (1.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. Following a thorough evaluation in accordance with the OHA requirements, this CHER concludes that the property satisfies four criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06. It is therefore recommended that the property be officially designated under Part IV,section 29 of the OHA. 2.Subject Property 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road (formerly called Kingston Road) is located within the south half of Lot 25, Concession I, in the former Geographic Township of Pickering, in the historical County of Ontario. Specifically, the property is prominently sited on a corner lotsouth of Dunbarton Road and east of Dunchurch Street (Figure 1)1. The building iscomprised of two distinct sections: the north section which originally functioned asGeorge Falconer’s home (1031 Dunbarton Road) and the south section (1027 Dunbarton Road) which functioned as his store. 1 Dunbarton Road is oriented in an approximately southwest to northeast direction. For east of description in this report, Dunbarton Road will be described as east-west oriented. - 173 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 2 The building’s façade and active entrance are oriented towards Dunbarton Road. The building is set back approximately 3.7 metres from Dunbarton Road and 4.2 metres from Dunchurch Street. The property is accessed from a paved driveway north of the house. The legal description of the property is: Concession 1 South Part Lot 25. - 174 - �of Figure 1: Location of 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road File: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road PICKERING Municipal Address:1027-1031 Dunbarton Road City Development © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: Date: Jan. 18, 2024 © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© His Majesty the King in Department Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its SCALE: 1:1,500 I suppliers. All rights reserved.;© Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. THIS ISNOT API.ANOF SURVEY L:\PLANNING\01-Mapfiles\01-City Development\A-3300 Historical Heritage Conservation\A-3300-054 1027-1031 Dunbarton\CHER_ 1027-1031 Dunbarton\CHER_1027-1031 Dunbarton.aprx - 175 - �of PICKERING City Development Department 1027 Dunbarton Road 1031 Dunbarton Road Figure 2: Existing Conditions of 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road File: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Municipal Address:1027-1031 Dunbarton Road © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: Date: Jan. 18, 2024 © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its SCALE: 1:300 I suppliers. All rights reserved.;© Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. THIS ISNOT API.ANOF SURVEY L:\PLANNING\01-Mapfiles\01-City Development\A-3300 Historical Heritage Conservation\A-3300-054 1027-1031 Dunbarton\CHER_ 1027-1031 Dunbarton\CHER_1027-1031 Dunbarton.aprx - 176 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 5 3. Policy Framework 3.1 Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement The Planning Act (1990) and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) [Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), 2020] issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act, provide Ontario-wide policy direction on land use planning. All decisions affecting land use planning “shall be consistent with” the PPS, which identifies that properties and features demonstrating significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological, technical, or scientific interest are of provincial interest and should be conserved. The importance of identifying, evaluating, and conserving built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes is noted in two sections of the PPS 2020: — Section 2.6.1 – “Significant built heritage resources and significant heritage landscapes shall be conserved”; and, — Section 2.6.3 – “Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved.” The following concepts, as defined in the PPS, are fundamental to an understanding of the conservation of cultural heritage resources in Ontario: Built heritage resources (BHR) are defined as “a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Indigenous community. Built heritage resources are located on property that may be designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA), or that may be included on local, provincial, federal and/or international registers.” Conserved is defined as “the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has been approved, accepted or adopted by the relevant planning authority and/or decision-maker. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments.” Cultural heritage landscapes (CHL) “means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Indigenous community. The area may include features such as buildings, structures, spaces, views, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Cultural heritage landscapes may be properties that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act, or have been included on federal and/or international registers, and/or protected through official plan, zoning by- law, or other land use planning mechanisms.” - 177 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 6 Heritage attributes “means the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritage property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property’s built, constructed, or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (e.g. significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage property).” Significant means “in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act.” 3.2 Ontario Heritage Act (2005) The OHA gives municipalities and the provincial government powers to preserve the heritage of Ontario, with a primary focus on protecting heritage properties and archaeological sites. The OHA grants authority to municipalities and the province to identify and designate properties of heritage significance, provide standards and guidelines for the preservation of heritage properties and enhance the protection of heritage conservation districts, marine heritage sites and archaeological resources. Properties can be designated individually (Part IV of the OHA) or as part of a larger group of properties, known as a Heritage Conservation District (Part V of the OHA). The designation offers protection for the properties under Sections 33 and 34 of the OHA, prohibiting the owner of a designated property from altering, demolishing, or removing a building or structure on the property unless the owner applies to the council of the municipality and receives written consent to proceed with the alteration, demolition or removal. In addition to designated properties, the OHA allows municipalities to list properties that are considered to have CHVI on their Register, which provides interim protection against demolition in the form of a 60-day delay in issuing a demolition permit. Under Part IV, Section 27, municipalities must maintain a Register of properties situated in the municipality that are of CHVI. Section 27 (1.1) states that the Register shall be kept by the Clerk and that it must list all designated properties (Part IV and V). Under Section 27 (1.2), the Register may include a property that has not been designated, but that the municipal council believes to possess CHVI. Listed properties, although recognized as having CHVI, are not protected under the OHA as designated properties are but are acknowledged under Section 2 of the PPS (MMAH, 2020). 3.3 Ontario Regulation 9/06 The evaluation of cultural heritage resources is guided by O. Reg. 9/06 (as amended by O. Reg. 569/22), which provides nine criteria for determining CHVI. The criteria set out inthe regulation were developed to identify and evaluate properties for designation underthe OHA. Best practices in evaluating properties that are not yet protected employO.Reg. 9/06 to determine if they have CHVI. The criteria for determining CHVI underO.Reg: - 178 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 7 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 orconstruction method. 2.The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degreeof craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3.The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a highdegree of technical or scientific achievement. 4.The property has historical value or associative value because it has directassociations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, orinstitution that is significant to a community. 5.The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has thepotential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a communityor culture. 6.The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates orreflects 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, maintainingor supporting the character of an area. 8.The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually orhistorically linked to its surroundings. 9.The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. O. Reg. 569/22, s. 1. If a potential cultural heritage resource is found to meet any one of these criteria, it can then be considered an identified resource. 3.4 Durham Regional Official Plan The Durham Regional Official Plan (2020 - Office Consolidation) provides a series of policies for the conservation of cultural heritage resources. Section 2.3.49 of the document provides a policy for built and cultural heritage resources, which states that the Regional Council shall encourage councils of the area municipalities to utilize the Ontario Heritage Act to conserve, protect, and enhance the built and cultural heritage resources of the municipality. The plan is to be consistent with the policies and direction provided through the PPS and encourages local municipalities to address cultural heritage resources in greater detail within their local official plans. 3.5 Pickering Official Plan The City of Pickering Official Plan (2018) provides cultural heritage conservation policies in Chapter 8. The following policies provide guidance for development proposals that may impact cultural heritage resources. - 179 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 8 8.2 City Council shall: (a)identify important cultural heritage resources from all time periods, so that theycan be appropriately conserved and integrated into the community fabric,including: (i)significant heritage structures, features and sites; (ii)buildings, sites, and artifacts of historical, archaeological and architecturalsignificance including modern or recent architecture; (iii)significant landscape features and characteristics, including vistas andridge lines; and (iv)other locally important cultural heritage resources; (b)foster public awareness and appreciation of the City’s cultural heritage; (c)prevent the demolition, destruction or inappropriate alteration of important culturalheritage 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 otherprivate and public projects conserve, protect and enhance important culturalheritage resources; and (f)involve the public, business-people, landowners, local heritage experts, heritage committees, relevant public agencies, and other interested groups and individualsin cultural heritage decisions affecting the City. Ontario Heritage Act 8.4 City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, where warranted shall implement the provisions of the OHA, including the designation under the Act of heritage sites and heritage districts. Cultural Heritage Inventory 8.7 City Council, in association with its heritage committee, shall: (a)conduct an inventory of heritage resources owned by the City, its boards and commissions, and establish an overall program for the maintenance, use, reuse or, if warranted, disposal of these resources; (b)maintain an inventory of heritage resources designated or worthy ofdesignation under the OHA; and (c)store and disseminate cultural heritage resource inventories and databases in convenient and publicly accessible locations and formats, and maintain an archive of heritage conservation information. - 180 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 9 Cultural Heritage Alteration and Demolition 8.8 City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, shall: City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, shall: (a)allow alterations, additions or repairs to buildings designated under the OHA, provided the changes to the building do not detrimentally affect the heritage value; (b)allow new buildings, or alterations, additions or repairs to existing buildings withina Heritage Conservation District that are consistent with the District ConservationGuidelines; (c)discourage or prevent the demolition or inappropriate alteration of a heritageresource, 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 theresource for archival purposes; and (d)ensure that designated cultural heritage buildings, and other important culturalheritage resources that are vacant for an extended period of time are inspected regularly to discourage vandalism and monitor conformity with the City’sMaintenance and Occupancy By-law. 4.Methodology The recommendations of this CHER are based on an understanding of the physical values of the property; a documentation of its history through research; an analysis of its social and physical context; comparisons with similar properties, and mapping. This CHER is guided by key documents such as the Ontario Heritage Toolkit(MHSTCI, 2006). A CHER examines a property in its entirety, including its relationship to its surroundings, as well as its individual elements, i.e., engineering works, landscape, etc. This report will include: •A summary of the history of the immediate context informed by a review ofarchival sources and historical maps; •A summary of the land-use history of the property including key transfers of landand milestones informed by Land Registry records and additional archivalresearch into prominent owners of tenants such as or City Directories; •Thorough photographic documentation of the subject property and context; •A written description of the existing conditions and immediate context; •A comparative analysis, using buildings of a similar age, style, typology, contextand history to inform the evaluation of CHVI; •An evaluation of whether the property satisfies criteria under O. Reg. 9/06; and •A draft statement of CHVI if appropriate. - 181 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 10 5.Consultation Provincial and federal databases and inventories were consulted to gain further insightinto the potential significance of the property at 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road. The Ministryof Citizenship and Multiculturalism’s (MCM) current list of Heritage Conservation Districtswas consulted. No designated districts included the subject property (MCM, 2019). The Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) plaque database (OHT, 2021), the Canadian Register ofHistoric Places (Parks Canada, n.d.a) and the Directory of Federal HeritageDesignations (Parks Canada, n.d.b) were searched. Neither the property nor its groundsare commemorated with an OHT plaque, listed on the Canadian Register of Historic Places or the Federal Canadian Heritage Database. 5.1 Current Heritage Recognition In 2015, City staff were made aware that the subject property was for sale. The City of Pickering also received inquiries regarding the possibility of redeveloping the subject property, which included demolishing the existing building. In consultation with the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee (Heritage Pickering), the City retained the services of ERA Architects (ERA) to prepare a heritage assessment for 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road. Based on the recommendations of the heritage assessment and the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, and due to the possibility of demolition by the owner, Council passed Resolution #09/12 to include the property on the City’s Municipal Heritage Register under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act (see Council Resolution #09/12, Appendix A). 6.Historical Context 6.1 Pre-Contact Period The initial inhabitants of Southern Ontario, known as Paleoindians, arrived around 11,000 years before present (BP), following the retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet (Ellis and Deller, 1990:39). Early Paleo groups, recognizable by their distinctive projectile points with long grooves or 'flutes,' such as Gainey (c.10,900 BP), Barnes (c.10,700 BP), and Crowfield (c.10,500 BP), transitioned to un-fluted varieties like Holocombe (c.10,300 BP) and Hi-Lo (c.10,100 BP) by approximately 10,400 BP (Ellis and Deller, 1990:39-43). Late Paleo groups utilized these morphologies (Ellis and Deller, 1990:40) and were characterized by mobility and small campsites for stone tool production (less than 200 square metres) (Ellis and Deller, 1990). Around 8,000 BP, Ontario's climate warmed, leading to the colonization of deciduous flora and the emergence of the Archaic period. This period, spanning Early Archaic (c.10,000 to 8,000 BP), Middle Archaic (c.8,000 to 4,500 BP), and Late Archaic (c.4,500 to 2,800 BP) phases (Ellis et al., 1990), differed from Paleo populations in various ways, including increased tool stone variation, notched projectile points, native copper use, and population growth. The Archaic period saw the rise of extensive trade networks and the production of ground stone tools (Ellis and Deller, 1990:65-66). As population size increased, territories became more localized, and seasonal rounds were adopted for hunting and gathering (Ellis and Deller, 1990:114), leading to the transition into the Woodland period. - 182 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 11 The Woodland period, marked by ceramic technology, is divided into Early Woodland (c.800 BC to 0 AD), Middle Woodland (0 AD to 700/900 AD), and Late Woodland (900 AD to 1600 AD) periods (Spence et al., 1990; Fox, 1990). The Early Woodland period featured the Meadowood Complex (c.900 to 500 BC) and the Middlesex Complex (c.500 BC to 0 AD), characterized by crude pottery with cord impressions (Spence et al., 1990). In the Middle Woodland period, different cultural complexes emerged in Southern Ontario, with changes in lithic tool morphologies and elaborate ceramic vessels (Spence et al., 1990). Maize horticulture began rudimentary use by the end of the Middle Woodland period (Warrick, 2000). The Late Woodland period witnessed the expansion of maize horticulture, leading to increased population size and settlement complexity. Villages became more sedentary, relying on maize, beans, squash, and tobacco cultivation. By approximately 1400 AD, villages reached their maximum size, and increased warfare prompted the development of larger villages with extensive palisades. 6.2 Post-Contact Period 6.2.1 Pre-Confederation Treaties Early European presence began as early as 1615 with the exploration of this part of Southern Ontario by the French explorer Etienne Brulé, who travelled with the Huron along the major portage route known as the Toronto Carrying Place Trail, which connected Lake Ontario with Lake Simcoe to the north by way of the Humber River and the Holland Marsh (Steckley, 1987; Ramsden, 1990). In 1615-1616, Samuel De Champlain also travelled with the Huron northward to Georgian Bay. By the 1640s, the Huron, Petun, and Mississauga Anishinaabeg (Michi Saagiig) had been dispersed out of this region because of increasing conflicts with the Haudenosaunee and the warfare and disease that had arrived with European colonization. The large-scale population dispersals gave way for the Haudenosaunee to occupy the territory north of Lake Ontario where they settled along inland-running trade routes (Steckley, 1987; Ramsden, 1990). Due to increased military pressure from the French, and the return of the Anishinaabe Nations (Mississauga, Ojibwa, Odawa, and Potawatomi) who had previously retreated to the north, the Iroquois abandoned their villages along Lake Ontario. By the 1680s, the Anishinaabeg had returned and re-occupied the Lake Ontario area, as well as northward beyond the Haliburton Highlands. The Anishinaabeg later participated in a significant number of treaty agreements with the British Crown, establishing the foundation of Euro-Canadian settlement in southern Ontario (Ferris & Spence, 1995). After the American Revolution ended in 1783, many United Empire Loyalists began to move into southern Ontario creating a greater demand for land to settle. In 1787, senior officials from the Indian Department met with several Anishinaabe peoples to acquire land along the northern shores of Lake Ontario extending northward toward Lake Simcoe. The study area falls within the land surrendered in the 1787 Johnson-Butler Purchase, also known as the “Gunshot Treaty”. The treaty lands extended from the established Toronto Purchase (Treaty No. 13) and Cook’s Bay in the west to the Bay of Quinte and the 1783 Crawford Purchase in the east (Surtees, 1994:107). - 183 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 12 Due to irregularities in the 1787 Johnson-Butler Purchase, the Williams Commission negotiated two new treaties with the Chippewa and the Mississauga to address lands that had not yet been surrendered. The Williams Treaties were signed in 1923 by seven Anishinaabe First Nations and Crown representatives, transferring 2,000,000 ha of land to the Canadian Government between Lake Ontario and Lake Nipissing. The first of the Williams Treaties was signed by the First Nations of the Chippewa of Lake Simcoe (Beausoleil, Georgina Island, and Rama First Nations), and the second by the Mississauga of the north shore of Lake Ontario (Alderville, Curve Lake, Hiawatha, and Scugog Island First Nations). These land surrenders were combined into the Williams Treaties (Surtees, 1994; Wallace, 2020). The Williams Treaties also surrendered Indigenous hunting and fishing rights to off-reserve lands, a stipulation that differed from other land cessions. At the time of signing, given that this was a departure from the common practice of previous treaties, it was unclear that the Chippewa and Mississauga signatories were relinquishing these rights, and the territory covered by the Williams Treaties has been subject to several legal disputes between the descendants of the Indigenous signatories and the federal and provincial governments. 6.2.2 Ontario County Established in 1788, the District of Nassau was one of the original four districts that initially divided the present-day Province of Ontario. Subsequently, this district underwent a name change to become the Home District, encompassing an expanse stretching from the Trent River to Long Point and extending northward to the Severn River. Over the ensuing years, these districts underwent further division, resulting in a total of 20 districts. In 1853, Ontario emerged as a distinct entity, breaking away from the United Counties of Ontario, York, and Peel. By 1869, Ontario County, with an estimated area of 360,000 acres, of which 210,000 acres were cleared and cultivated, had taken shape (Connor & Coltson, 1869). In 1854, Ontario County comprised nine townships: Brock, Mara, Pickering, Rama, Reach, Scott, Thorah, Uxbridge, and Whitby. Throughout the latter part of the nineteenth century, the county gained recognition for the exceptional quality of its grains, with flour and lumber emerging as its primary manufacturing activities (Connor and Coltson, 1869). The dissolution of Ontario County occurred in 1974, leading to the incorporation of the Townships of Rama and Mara into Simcoe County 6.2.3 Pickering Township Pickering Township was officially established in 1791 through the survey efforts of Augustus Jones on behalf of the government of Upper Canada. The eastern portion of the township saw settlement by Loyalists, disbanded soldiers, immigrants from the United Kingdom, and a significant number of Quakers from Ireland and the US (Farewell, 1907). In the aftermath of the revolution, Loyalists and their relatives dominated land grants in Pickering Township (Johnson, 1973). By 1793, the Kingston Road was opened, serving as a horse path extending east from Simcoe's Dundas Street, and by 1799, a rudimentary roadway had been cut from - 184 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 13 Duffin's Creek to Port Hope. Despite early road development making the township more accessible, the actual settlement of Pickering Township progressed at a slow pace. Although Major John Smith received the first land patent in 1792, the inaugural legal settler was William Peak in 1798 (Armstrong, 1985; Farewell, 1907). The challenges of clearing the forest prompted Peak and other early settlers to explore non-agricultural endeavours to supplement income, such as trading with Indigenous Peoples in the region (Johnson, 1973). Throughout the early nineteenth century, population growth and township development faced sluggish progress, with the War of 1812 impeding much of the county and township's advancement. Following the conflict, increased road traffic provided a boost to local innkeepers, and with improved roadways and the presence of Duffin's Creek, Pickering Township established saw and grist mills for lumber and grain production. By 1817, the population reached 330 (Johnson, 1973). Changes in land-granting policies in the 1820s led to additional land sales in Pickering Township, with the population reaching 575 by 1820 and growing to 830 by 1825 (Johnson, 1973; Welch and Payne, 2015). A post office was established in 1829, but the development of the hamlet of Duffin's Creek was slow. In the same year, the Crown collaborated with the New England Company, a missionary group, to promote farming and education for the First Nations people, leading to the establishment of what is now known as Curve Lake First Nation (Curve Lake First Nation, n.d.). The construction of the Grand Trunk Railway in 1856 and increasing agricultural prosperity stimulated Pickering Township's development as a significant grist-milling and local commercial centre. However, overall township development was slow, and between 1861 and 1891, a population decline occurred. Factors such as inflation and a depression between 1874-76 further contributed to this decline. The population of Pickering Township reached its peak at 8,002 in 1861 (Johnson, 1973) and numbered 5,998 by 1891 (Johnson, 1973). The Country of Ontario Directory for 1869 describes Pickering Township as: The township of township of Pickering is bounded on the north by the township of Uxbridge, on the south, by Lake Ontario, on the east by the township of Whitby and on the west by the townships of Markham and Scarboro, county of York. This township being the largest, together with the richness of its soil makes it one of the most wealthy municipalities in the county. Its principal villages are, Whitevale, Brougham, Claremont and Duffin's Creek. Population over 7,000. (Conner & Colston, 1869). Through most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the township remained primarily agricultural. Like many communities on the periphery of Toronto, development increased following the Second World War. Manufacturing companies also moved to the township following the construction of Highway 401 in the 1950s. In 1974 the township was divided into eastern and northern parts. - 185 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 14 In 1974 the villages of Brougham, Claremont, Green River, Greenwood and Whitevale became the Town of Pickering. In 2000 the Town became incorporated as a City. 6.2.4 Village of Dunbarton The following history of the Village of Dunbarton has been excerpted from the Cultural Heritage Assessment (ERA 2016): The Village of Dunbarton is named for William Dunbar (1786-1869). Dunbar arrived in Quebec from Scotland in 1831. He proceeded to the Town of York and later purchased lands east of Toronto in 1840 (Pickering Township). It was here that he laid out this largely Scottish settlement on Kingston Road. Dunbar was involved in the community as an elder in the Presbyterian church, a Justice of the Peace, and a school commissioner. He also helped found the Pickering Harbour Company where he worked as a superintendent. His son William Dunbar Jr. inherited the property and spent his life working as a blacksmith in Dunbarton. His son, William T. Dunbar, owned and operated a general store in Duffins Creek (now Pickering Village) from 1880 to 1905, and constructed the Dunbar House on the north side of Dunbarton Road in the 1890s. The Village of Dunbarton was located along Kingston Road and had access to Frenchman’s Bay via an adjoining harbour. The April 3, 1896, edition of The Pickering News presents the following summary of the history and development of the village: The village of Dunbarton derived its name as well as its origin from its first proprietor and projector, the late William Dunbar, Esq. Half a century ago he, with his household, settled on the lot of land he had bought, and on which he lived till the day of his death, in 1869. Then, the now well cleared and cultured farms were but large woods and little clearings. . . Somewhere about thirty years ago, the villages and the adjoining harbour both had their inception, and in both Mr. Dunbar ever took an active interest, being in the latter not only a large shareholder but superintendent of the work. . . The village plots when laid out, were rapidly bought up and built upon. . . Three stores now, and for a long time past, have readily and reasonably supplied the wants of the community. One of them is the Post Office, with its mail twice each day. On the establishment of the Post Office, the inhabitants agreed to call it Dunbarton, in honour of its originator, the name first got and ever retained. Prominent as it ever ought to be, stands the church, a commodious and substantial brick building, belonging to the Presbyterians, while the outskirts is the goodly brick schoolhouse. Thus the spiritual and the intellectual are wisely cared for. For a considerable time, a tannery did good service in the village, but the removal of the railway station did much to injure the village and incommode the surrounding community. . . The situation is pleasant, having the beautiful bay with its harbour, in front, and the wide stretching lake beyond. The locality while its inhabitants alike in - 186 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 15 enterprise and intelligence will favourably compare with those of any other community. The Pickering Story by William A. McKay describes the village of Dunbarton in the mid-1800s as follows: Dunbarton had three general stores, a saddler, two carpenters, a tailor, a leather dealer, a hotel keeper and a teacher, Jonathan Holmes. Land in the vicinity was valued at $50 per acre. In 1951, The Telegram (Toronto) reported on a second wave of settlers arriving in Dunbarton to find work in local factories like GM in Oshawa and Johns-Mansville in Port Union. With this trend, farms were replaced with suburban housing developments. According to the Town of Pickering Community Improvement Policy and Background Study from 1986, the Village of Dunbarton once offered a full range of facilities to the surrounding rural area including a general store, restaurant, two gas stations a real estate office, doctor’s office, and a garden centre as well as recreation facilities in the Kiwanis Park. When the Canadian National Railway introduced a new freight rail line in the 1960s, Kingston Road was rerouted to bypass the hamlet and the roadway through the hamlet was renamed Dunbarton Road. With the changes to the highway and Canadian National Railway line, the public park was lost and the residential portion of Dunbarton on the north side of the rail line was divided from the newer commercial area to the south. The Study’s description of the north part of the village is as follows: The lands to the north of the tracks contain 16 residences with only two extremely large homes on the north side of Dunbarton and the remainder located on the south side and on Dunchruch Street. Several buildings on the south side appear to be old commercial buildings which have been converted to residential use. 6.2.5 Commercial Building Type in the Early Nineteenth Century to Mid-Twentieth Century During the early to mid-nineteenth century, commercial buildings were primarily constructed using wood, with a shift towards masonry in the later part of the century to enhance fire resistance. Initial commercial structures resembled residential properties, featuring one to two stories, uncomplicated massing, and gable roofs. These buildings served various purposes, such as general stores, hardware stores, banks, and other businesses that contributed to the local community (ASI, 2022). As the century advanced, commercial buildings evolved into "blocks," characterized by a single structure containing multiple narrow storefronts with a unified design. These structures were predominantly made of masonry, stood two to four stories tall, and had flat roofs. Positioned with a shallow setback from the sidewalk, they occupied the entire property parcel. The expression of their commercial function was evident through large, glazed storefront windows for displaying goods. Additionally, these buildings started incorporating other functions on the upper floors, such as offices or residences. This architectural trend facilitated a concentrated hub of commercial activities within the compact core area of villages or towns. In downtown areas, the prevalence of block formations or slender multi-story buildings persisted into the twentieth century. With the - 187 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 16 expansion of population centres in the late nineteenth century and the outward growth of residential neighbourhoods from downtowns, small commercial buildings emerged prominently on visible corners. These establishments typically specialized in the sale of grocery items (ASI, 2022). 6.3 Site Specific History The subject property is within Lot 25, Concession I, in the Geographic Township of Pickering, Ontario County, now the City of Pickering. The property history for 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road was completed using land registry records, historical maps, and census records. The absence of structures or other features shown on the historical maps does not preclude their presence on these properties. Illustrating all homesteads on the historical atlas maps would have been beyond the intended scope of the atlas and, often, homes were only illustrated for those landowners who purchased a subscription. 6.3.1 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road The key information gathered from primary sources regarding the early history of the property includes: •1837: William Dunbar and George White are listed as the occupants of Lot 25,Concession I in the 1837 City of Toronto and the Home District Commercial Directory and Register (Walton, 1837). •October 19, 1840: 100 acres of the west half of Lot 25, Concession I is granted toWilliam Dunbar. •1860: William Dunbar is shown as owning 100 acres of Lot 25, Concession I on the 1860 Tremaine Map of Ontario County. •March 5, 1886: William Dunbar sold a quarter acre to George William Falconer(Instrument No. 5952, Page 125). •1878: The village of Dunbarton is illustrated on the Historical Atlas map. •October 31, 1892: George William Falconer sold one-eighth of an acre to ThomasW. Holbourn (Instrument No. 7916, page 125). •1901: George Falconer, his wife Hattie and their two daughters are enumerated inthe 1901 Census. George is listed as a 39-year-old harness maker from Scotland(Item No. 2113517, page 6). •April 21, 1917: George Falconer dies (The Pickering News, April 27, 1017). •December 6, 1919: Part of Lot 25, Concession I is granted to Bertha V. Falconer. The City of Toronto and the Home District Commercial Directory and Register for 1837 (Walton, 1837) list two occupants for Lot 25, Concession I, including William Dunbar and George White. No information regarding the presence of structures is provided in the directory. - 188 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 17 The Abstract Books provided by the Land Registry (Land Registry Office [LRO] 40, Book ID 204) record the first patent was issued in 1840 from the Crown to William Dunbar for 100 acres of Lot 25, Concession I. Original concession roads are illustrated on the 1860 Tremaine Map of Ontario County (Figure 3), including present-day Dunbarton Road (formerly Kingston, or King Road) and Dunchurch Street, as is the settlement of Dunbarton. Given the high concentration of structures within the area, property ownership has not been illustrated on the 1860 Tremaine Map, but rather the area comprising the core of the Village has been shaded black. The village limits were confined to the west half of Lot 25, Concession I and were centred around the present-day intersection of Dunbarton Road and Dunchurch Street. Like the 1860 Tremaine Map, the 1877 Pickering Township map does not show individual property ownership within the limits of the village. However, William Dunbar is illustrated as the owner of the lands north of the village core (Figure 4). By 1877, the limits of the village of Dunbarton expanded to include the west half of Lot 25, Concession I, from the lot line to north of Kingston Road. On March 5, 1886: William Dunbar sold a quarter acre to George William Falconer (Instrument No. 5952, Page 125). George Falconer’s plans to construct a brick building are outlined in the March 5, 1886, edition of The Pickering News: Our enterprising harness-maker, Mr. George Falconer, having purchased the lot on the corner of King and Bay Streets, intends to build a fine brick structure, to be used as a harness shop. Whether it is owing to an increase of business and want of room, or whether Mr. Falconer intends to make two people one, remains to be discovered. Part of the material is already on the ground. The construction of the structure at 1027-1031 Dunbarton coincided with the construction of a new Presbyterian Church in the village. The cornerstone of the church was laid in June 1886. The August 19, 1887, edition of The Pickering News notes: Mr. George Falconer is having his dwelling repaired by Henderson & Son. The 1901 Census lists George Falconer, a 39-year-old harness maker, born in Scotland as living with his wife, Hattie, aged 29, and their children, Kathleen (7), and Bertha (3), also known as Rena and Birdie. No information about the structure at 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road is provided in the 1901 Census (Item no. 2113516, Page 10). In the same year, on March 15, 1901, the Dunbarton ratepayers submitted a petition to the Reeve and Members of the Council of the Township of Pickering, requesting, “. . . the privilege of spending all the statute labour monies inside Dunbarton Village. . .” The petition recommended that George Falconer be appointed commissioner for the Village of Dunbarton, suggesting that he was a leader and prominent figure in the community - 189 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 18 (Petition to the Municipal Council of the Township of Pickering. Pickering Public Library [2007-00298]). A postcard depicting 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road postmarked December 30, 1914, shows the north and west façades of the George Falconer House and store (Plate 1). The building’s defining architectural details are evident in the postcard including its red brick construction, buff brick quoins, jack arches, and verandah details. A brick stringcourse is visible on the north façade of the store building, and painted label mouldings are present above the windows on the house. A sign spans the façade of the store building which reads “Geo. Falconer Saddler.” Plate 1: Postcard of 1077-1031 Dunbarton Road, postmarked December 14, 1914 (Brian Winters Collection, Pickering Public Library) A structure is shown on the 1914 and 1917 NTS maps, in the location of 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road (Figure 5). The building is labelled with an “F” on the 1917 map, indicating a farrier or blacksmith shop. George Falconer died on April 21, 1917. His obituary was published in The Pickering News on April 27, 1917, and reads as follows: On Saturday last death removed one of our most prominent citizens, Mr. George Falconer, who died after a very brief illness at the age of fifty-years and two months. He had been feeling poorly for several days, but as he was able to be around, this condition was not considered serious. On Thursday, however, he became decidedly worse and medical aid was summoned when it was found he was suffering from pneumonia. He grew gradually worse until Saturday, when he passed away. The deceased was a son of the late James and Mrs. Falconer, and he succeeded his father in the harness-making business which he conducted most successfully. In the - 190 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 19 year 1892, he married Miss Harriet Wood of this village who survives him. He is also survived by two daughters, Rena and Birdie, and also two brothers, Alex., of Ayr, and Robert of Dunbarton. He was a member of the Presbyterian Church and a Liberal in politics. His funeral took place on Tuesday at Erskine cemetery and was largely attended. Much sympathy is expressed for Mrs. Falconer and her daughters in their sudden bereavement. Following George’s death, part of Lot 25, Concession I was granted to his daughter, Bertha V, on December 19, 1919. The Grant from July 1919 was registered on July 16, 1958. Lots 7 and 11 of the Dunbarton Town Plan are granted from Alexander Falconer (estate of Trustees) of the will of George W. Falconer to Kathleen M. Falconer (Instrument No. 66075, Page 36B). The transaction included a quarter acre with the south half of Lot 25, Concession I. By 1943, Highway 401 had been constructed south of the residence and Dunchurch Street no longer connects to Dixie Road. A 1954 aerial photograph (Figure 6) of the subject property was reviewed, the quality of the photograph is poor, and the house and store are not visible in the photograph. Lot 7, except the south half, is granted from Kathleen Laister (formerly Falconer) to James Wharrie on July 7, 1958 (instrument No. 66279, page 36B). - 191 - �of PICKERING City Development Department Figure 3: 1860 Tremaine’s Map of the County of Ontario, Canada West File: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Municipal Address:1027-1031 Dunbarton Road © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.;© Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. Date: Jan. 18, 2024 SCALE: 1 : 6c/ 000 I THISISNOTAPI.AN SURVEY L:\PLANNING\01-Mapfiles\01-City Development\A-3300 Historical Heritage Conservation\A-3300-054 1027-1031 Dunbarton\CHER_ 1027-1031 Dunbarton\CHER_1027-1031 Dunbarton.aprx - 192 - �of Figure 4: 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas Map PICKERING of the County of Ontario File: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Municipal Address:1027-1031 Dunbarton Road City Development © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: Date: Jan. 18, 2024 © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© His Majesty the King in Department Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its SCALE: 1:7,000 I suppliers. All rights reserved.;© Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. THIS ISNOT API.ANOF SURVEY L:\PLANNING\01-Mapfiles\01-City Development\A-3300 Historical Heritage Conservation\A-3300-054 1027-1031 Dunbarton\CHER_ 1027-1031 Dunbarton\CHER_1027-1031 Dunbarton.aprx - 193 - �of PICKERING City Development Department Figure 5: Location of the study area on a 1914 and 1917 NTS map File: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Municipal Address:1027-1031 Dunbarton Road © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.;© Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. Date: Jan. 18, 2024 SCALE: 1 : ac1 ooo I THISISNOTAPI.AN SURVEY L:\PLANNING\01-Mapfiles\01-City Development\A-3300 Historical Heritage Conservation\A-3300-054 1027-1031 Dunbarton\CHER_ 1027-1031 Dunbarton\CHER_1027-1031 Dunbarton.aprx - 194 - �of PICKERING City Development Department Figure 6: Location of the study area on a 1954 aerial photograph File: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Municipal Address:1027-1031 Dunbarton Road © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.;© Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. Date: Jan. 18, 2024 SCALE: 1 : 6c/ 000 I THISISNOTAPI.AN SURVEY L:\PLANNING\01-Mapfiles\01-City Development\A-3300 Historical Heritage Conservation\A-3300-054 1027-1031 Dunbarton\CHER_ 1027-1031 Dunbarton\CHER_1027-1031 Dunbarton.aprx - 195 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 24 7. Existing Conditions The description of the design / physical value of the structure at 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road is limited to the exterior features as the site visit for the CHER was conducted from the public right of way. Constructed c. 1886, the building retains its original form, massing, and footprint. 1027- 1031 Dunbarton Road consists of a one-and-a-half storey brick building, sited on a stone foundation. The structure is comprised of two distinct sections: the north section which originally functioned as George Falconer’s home (1031 Dunbarton Road) and the south section (1027 Dunbarton Road) which functioned as his store. The building is constructed of brick, using the Common bond. This bond is utilitarian, and in the case of 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road, has a row of headers inserted every seven courses. Although the exterior has been painted, decorative elements including quoined corners, brick corbelling, and square window arches are visible. While the original wood doors and window sash have been replaced with vinyl or metal replacements, the window configuration and sizes are unchanged. The original corbelled interior chimneys have been removed; a single exterior chimney is present on the north façade. 7.1 Discussion of Design and Physical Value 7.1.1 1027 Dunbarton Road: Former George Falconer Storefront 1027 Dunbarton Road is a one-and-a-half storey structure with a front-facing gable, concealed by a boomtown front (or false front). The main façade of 1027 Dunbarton Road is symmetrical with three bays, it represents the former storefront that once housed George Falconer's harness making business. The front façade consists of a centrally placed door, flanked by two large storefront windows. Two rectangular windows are present in the upper level of the façade. The most notable feature of the former storefront is the boomtown front with brick corbelling. A boomtown front is a tall facade that covers a lower building and was once a common feature of small commercial buildings in the nineteenth century. The boomtown front denoted a commercial use for buildings and created a more imposing façade. The south façade of 1027 Dunbarton Road is symmetrical with two rectangular windows topped with square window arches. The east façade of 1027 Dunbarton Road is asymmetrical with one door and one window opening. 7.1.2 1031 Dunbarton Road: Former George Falconer Home The main (west) façade of 1031 Dunbarton Road, features four bays and is one-and-a-half-storeys in height. The projecting bay has two centrally placed rectangular windows on the main floor and one centrally placed window in the upper storey. The house is accessed through an enclosed verandah that appears to be original to the structure. A dormer is located in the second story, off centered from the main entrance. The verandah features a divided-lite transom and sidelights with rounded windows. - 196 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 25 A pediment is located above the door surround. All window openings on the main façade are rectangular and have wood sills clad in metal. The north façade of 1031 Dunbarton Road is blank except for one window opening in the gable end. The original corbelled interior chimney has been replaced with an exterior chimney of brick construction. Photograph 1: Main (west) façade of the former George Falconer house and store (City of Pickering, 2024) Photograph 2: Three-quarter view of north and west façades of 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road (City of Pickering, 2024) Photograph 3: Three quarter view of the south and east façades (City of Pickering, 2024) Photograph 4: View of the east façade of 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road (City of Pickering, 2024) 8. Discussion of Contextual Value 8.1 Landscape Conditions 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road is a rectangular-shaped property having an area of 0.05 hectares, and situated on the corner of Dunbarton Road and Dunchurch Street, in the former Village of Dunbarton, now the City of Pickering. The subject property is - 197 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 26 located on the south side of Dunbarton Road, with its façade and active entrance facing Dunbarton Road, it is the only structure on the lot. The building spans the extent of the east-west property boundary and has a shallow setback from Dunbarton Road. The property is accessed via an asphalt driveway from Dunbarton Road, north of the structure. The north, east and south rear property boundaries are lined with wood fencing. The front and rear yards are flat and consist of manicured lawns. There are no intentional gardens or plantings. 8.2 Study Area Context Located in the former Village of Dunbarton, the subject building is in the core of the community, which was established in the mid-1800s. It is surrounded by nineteenth- century residential buildings to the north and east, and to the south by a post-1953 commercial / residential building. The houses west of the subject property are of modern construction, apart from 1043 Dunbarton Road (the W.T. Dunbar House), which is a highly altered Arts and Crafts-inspired structure dating to the early 1930s (Photographs 5 to 7). The surrounding former commercial and residential buildings are all between one and two-storeys and exhibit a variety of construction materials including red brick, wood siding, and stone. They reflect the architectural styles typical of the mid-nineteenth century through to the mid-twentieth century, indicating the evolution of the commercial streetscape. Dunbarton Road, east of Dunchurch Street is a two lane-divided urban road that is oriented approximately northeast to southwest. The road turns north, at the intersection of Cloudberry Road and curves east until it reaches a terminus at Dixie Road. Concrete curbs are located on both sides of the street, while sidewalks are only present on the south side of the street (Photographs 8 to 9). The construction of the York Subdivision of the Canadian National Railway caused Kingston Road to be rerouted south of the Village of Dunbarton. The segment of Kingston Road that once ran through the village was renamed Dunbarton Road. These modifications had a lasting impact on the village setting as they separated the residential area on the north side of the rail line from the newly established commercial area to the south. By 1986, these changes were apparent in the Community Improvement Policy and Background Study where the description of the community included mention of the former commercial buildings that were converted for residential uses and the lands to the north of the tracks containing 16 residences (ERA Architects Inc., 2016). The former Village of Dunbarton is within a residential context, surrounded by many late-twentieth- century residences (Photograph 10). - 198 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 27 Photograph 5: Example of nineteenth-century houses north of the subject property (City of Pickering, 2024) Photograph 6: Example of nineteenth-century houses south of the subject property (City of Pickering, 2024) Photograph 7: Example of modern and nineteenth-century houses west of the subject property (City of Pickering, 2024) Photograph 8: View to east on Dunbarton Road (City of Pickering, 2024) Photograph 9: View to west on Dunbarton Road (City of Pickering, 2024) Photograph 10: Example of modern subdivision on Dunbarton Road (City of Pickering, 2024) - 199 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 28 9.Architectural Style 9.1 Ontario Farmhouse The house and former store at 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road is an example of a vernacular Victorian “Suburban Villa” or “Farmhouse”, with Victorian influences. The term ‘vernacular’ is used to describe buildings constructed of local material often without the help of a professional architect and which do not reflect a widely recognized style of architecture. Barbara Raue describes vernacular architecture in Waterloo Ontario Book 1 in Colour Photos as, “influenced but not defined by a particular style, vernacular buildings are made from easily available materials and exhibit local design characteristics” (Raue, 2015). The Suburban Villa or Farmhouse in Ontario is one of three designs that was originally published in The Canadian Farmer. These designs were simple and affordable to build, and which contributed significantly to the evolution of the architectural landscape of nineteenth-century Ontario (Mance, 2013:29). One of these three designs, the “Suburban Villa or Farm House”, (Plate 2) is reflective of the structure at 1031 Dunbarton Road, constructed c. 1886. These structures typically include two floors, five bedrooms and formal rooms for entertaining. The style of farmhouse design has proven to be versatile and is found in many different expressions across Ontario. Victorian Vernacular Farmhouses are typically constructed of polychrome brick and have corbelled brick chimneys. They feature an asymmetrical façade, and segmental arched windows with two-over-two double-hung sash. The verandas were decorated with wood posts or decorative brackets. Plate 2: Illustration of a representative example of a Victorian vernacular farmhouse in Southern Ontario (City of Vaughan, 2007; 59) - 200 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 29 9.2 Comparative Analysis A comparative analysis was undertaken to establish a baseline understanding of similar recognized cultural heritage properties across Ontario, and to determine if the subject residence “is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method” as described in O. Reg. 9/06. No comparative examples of Part IV designated, Part V designated or listed properties within the City of Pickering were noted on the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register. The Ontario Heritage Trust database was reviewed to find similar residential buildings with attached storefronts. Two comparable designated properties were identified within the City of Markham and the Town of Lakefield (see Table 1 below), these buildings are of a similar age, style, typology, and material. This analysis does not represent all available properties, but the examples are intended to provide a representative sample of similar building typologies. - 201 - Table 1: Comparative analysis of heritage properties of similar age, style and/or typology to 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Resource / Address Heritage Recognition Date Material Style Photograph Tomlinson House and Store, and Craig Blacksmith Shop / 8953 Woodbine Avenue, Markham Designated Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act 1853 Frame Vernacular farmhouse, store, and blacksmith shop; one-and-a-half storey; L-shaped plan; wooden clapboard siding; side gable roof; symmetrical three-bay principal façade; rectangular windows; two-over-two wood windows; covered verandah with decorative bargeboard. Google Streetview 2023 46 Queen Street, Lakefield / T.C. YongeHouse andStore Designated Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act 1861- 1864 Frame Vernacular farmhouse and store; one-and-a-half storey; L-shaped plan; wooden clapboard siding; side gable roof; symmetrical five-bay principal façade; large storefront windows with recessed entrance; rectangular windows; residential entrance covered with bellcast roof. Google Streetview 2023 - 202 - The following architectural elements characteristic of nineteenth-century vernacular farmhouse buildings were observed: •Style: The structures are vernacular examples of the ‘Suburban Villa or FarmHouse’. •Plan: Both examples have L-shaped plans. •Roof: The examples have cross-gabled roofs. •Cladding: One building is clad in horizontal wood siding and one is clad in boardand batten. •Façade: One example has a three-bay principal façade, and one example has afive-bay principal façade. •Commercial Entrance: One building retains vestiges of a commercial storefront. •Windows: The examples have rectangular windows. •Window Detailing: The examples have simple wood window surrounds. •Location: Both examples are located within the town / village centre, on the corner of a main street or thoroughfare. •Alterations: The examples have undergone alterations through windowreplacement. This comparative analysis suggests that the George Falconer house and store demonstrate representative elements of a vernacular Ontario Farmhouse with Victorian influences. These elements include the one-and-a-half storey height, L-shaped plan; asymmetrical façade with multiple bays; rectangular windows, and side gable roof. Elements of the Victorian style are evident through the use of decorative dichromatic brickwork, including quoins, and jack arches. Although not considered an early example of its type, the building is a fine example of its type and style, despite the replacement of some details in modern materials. The proportions and massing of the house are preserved, as are its simplicity and clean lines. The building at 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road is the only remaining nineteenth-century house with an attached store in the City of Pickering, making it a rare example of its type. Of particular significance is the extant parapet wall, also known as a boomtown front, denoting the commercial use of the building. Recognizing the limited number of examples examined, it is acknowledged that this comparative analysis may be misleading. Additionally, fully assessing the architectural details of each structure from the public right-of-way poses challenges. Therefore, the cultural heritage evaluation presented in Section 9 not only considers the findings of this comparative analysis, but also incorporates typical architectural trends observed across Ontario. 10.Cultural Heritage Evaluation The principal structure on the subject property at 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road is a one- and-a-half storey vernacular residence with an attached storefront. 1027-1031Dunbarton Road is listed as a non-designated property on the City of Pickering’sMunicipal Heritage Register. - 203 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 32 O. Reg. 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act provides criteria for determining whether a property has Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. If a property meets two or more of the criteria, it is eligible for designation under the OHA. Table 1 presents the evaluation of the subject property using O. Reg. 9/06. Table 2: Evaluation of 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road as per Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria 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. Y Although not an early example of an Ontario Farmhouse, 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road contains a rare example of a purpose-built house and store. In accordance with the findings of the comparative analysis in Section 8.2, the building demonstrates representative elements of the vernacular farmhouse with its L-shaped plan, side gable roof, rectangular windows, covered verandah, three-bay principal façade and use of dichromatic brick. A comparative analysis undertaken for the property determined there are no listed or designated vernacular farmhouses with attached storefronts in the City of Pickering or surrounding municipalities. The analysis identified two designated Part IV buildings (also listed on the Canadian Register of Historic Places), both examples are vernacular farmhouses. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. N Although of late-nineteenth-century construction, the property does not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, but rather reflects construction techniques and materials common to its time. 3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. N The property does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. The structure displays construction techniques reflective of the era and style. - 204 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 33 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 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road serves as a representation of the theme of historic small community establishment at the junctures of high-order roads. Located in the central commercial core of the village of Dunbarton, this building is representative of the late-nineteenth- century streetscape of the village which would have included both commercial and residential buildings. The property also has a direct association with George Falconer, a local harness maker. His obituary describes Falconer as is described as one of Dunbarton’s most prominent citizens and a successful business owner. 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 results of the research did not indicate that 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road yields information that could contribute to the 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. N The architect and builder of the structure at 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road is unknown. As such, this criterion is not satisfied. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. Y The subject property at 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road is important in supporting the historic village character of Dunbarton given it is a rare example of a combined residence and commercial buildings in the City of Pickering and one of the few original houses in the Village of Dunbarton. The property contributes to the continuity and character of the Dunbarton Road and Dunchurch Street streetscapes. - 205 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 34 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. Y The subject property is historically linked to its surroundings given its location in the historic Dunbarton Village, at a crossroad which intersects with the main street of the village. This is one of the few original houses in the Village of Dunbarton and is one of the few remaining villages in south Pickering with much of the lot pattern and built form intact. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. N No significant views of the property distinguish the building as a notable or distinct property. It does not serve as a local landmark in the community. 10.1 Results of the Cultural Heritage Evaluation Based on the evaluation of the property at 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road against the criteria outlined in O. Reg. 9/06, the subject property has been confirmed to possess CHVI. As such, a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest has been provided. 11. Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest 11.1 Description of Historic Place 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road is a 0.05 of a hectare, rectangular property situated on the corner of Dunbarton Road and Dunchurch Street, in the former Village of Dunbarton, now the City of Pickering. The key resource on the property is a one-and-a-half storey vernacular Victorian house and store. The brick building was constructed c. 1886, purpose-built as the George Falconer house and store. The subject property is listed as a non-designated property on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register pursuant to Section 27 (1.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. 11.2 Heritage Value 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. Built c. 1886, the house and former store of George Falconer possesses design/physical value for the rare built heritage resource located on the property. Characteristic of a vernacular Victorian farmhouse, the former house of Falconer is one-and-a-half storeys in height and features a four-bay asymmetrical façade. The wood verandah, which is original to the house, features fine decorative detailing including the divided lite transom, and sidelights with arched windows. Decorative elements indicative of the Victorian style include buff brick quoins and jack arches, and wood sills. The George Falconer house and store represents an increasingly rare example of a residential building with an attached storefront, constructed in the nineteenth century. - 206 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 35 Of particular significance is the extant boomtown front, denoting the former commercial use of the building. The property has associative value through its connection with George Falconer. Falconer built the residence and store c.1886; he lived in the house until his death in 1917. George Falconer was described as one of Dunbarton’s most prominent citizens and a successful business owner. The property retains contextual value given its role in supporting the character of the historic village of Dunbarton and remains physically, visually and historically linked to its surroundings. The building at 1027-103 Dunbarton Road is one of the few original structures from the settlement of the village; it is historically linked to its surroundings given its location on a crossroad which intersects with the main street of Dunbarton village. 11.3 List of Heritage Attributes The cultural heritage attributes that reflect the CHVI of the design/physical value of the vernacular Victorian farmhouse and storefront at 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road include the: • Former Storefront Exterior • One-and-a-half storey brick storefront, with its boomtown front; • Symmetrical three-bay façade of the store; • Rectangular windows with wood sills; • Gable end roof and rectangular plan; • Stone foundation; and • Decorative elements including buff brick quoins, jack arches and corbelling. • Vernacular Farmhouse Exterior • One-and-a-half storey massing; • Asymmetrical four-bay main façade; • Rectangular windows with wood sills; • Front gable roof and l-shaped plan; • Stone foundation; • Decorative elements including buff brick quoins and jack arches; and • Verandah on the main façade, with wood surround. Key attributes that express the contextual value of the subject property include: • Location of the building on the subject property and its contribution to the continuity and character of the Dunbarton Street and Dunchurch Road streetscapes. - 207 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 36 12. Bibliography ASI. (2002). Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 601 Kingston Road West, 605 Kingston Road West and 607-611 Kingston Road West, Town of Ajax, Ontario. Armstrong, Frederick H. (1985). Handbook of Upper Canadian Chronology. Hamilton: Dundurn Press, Ltd. Curve Lake First Nation. (n.d.) History. Retrieved from: https://curvelakefirstnation.ca/ Connor & Coltson. (1869). The County of Ontario directory for 1869-70. Toronto: Hunter, Rose & Co. Canada’s Historic Places. (2010). Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Second Edition. Canada’s Historic Places, Ottawa. Dodd, C. F., Poulton, D. R., Lennox, P. A., Smith, D. G., & Warrick, G. A. (1990). The Middle Ontario Iroquoian Stage. In C. J. Ellis & N. Ferris (Eds.), The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650 (pp. 321-360). London, Ontario: London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society. Durham, Region of. (2020). Durham Region Official Plan – Office Consolidation. Retrieved from: https://www.durham.ca/en/doing-business/official-plan.aspx Ellis, C.J., I.T. Kenyon, and M.W. Spence. (1990). Paleo-Indians. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 37-74. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. Ellis, C.J., I.T. Kenyon, and M.W. Spence. (1990). The Archaic. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 65-124. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. FamilySearch.org. (n.d.). Abstract index books, ca. 1800-1958. Retrieved from: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-L3V4-C?cat=486525 Farewell, J. E. (1907). County of Ontario: short notes as to the early settlement and progress of the county and brief references to the pioneers and some Ontario County men who have taken a prominent part in provincial and dominion affairs. Whitby, ON: Gazette-Chronicle Press. J.H. Beers & Co. (1877). Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario. Toronto, ON. - 208 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 37 Library and Archives Canada (2021). Canadian Censuses. [accessed December 2023]. https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/census/Pages/census.aspx Mace, J. (2013). Beautifying the Countryside, Rural and Vernacular Gothic in Late Nineteenth-Century Ontario. In JSSAC Vol.38. No. 1. Retrieved from: https://dalspace.library.dal.ca/bitstream/handle/ 10222/65242/vol38_no1_29_36.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism & Culture Industries. (2019). List of Heritage Conservation Districts. Retrieved from: www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/ heritage_conserving_list.shtml Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism & Culture Industries. (2007). Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties. Retrieved from: www.heritagetrust.on.ca/en/pages/tools/tools-for-conservation/eight-guiding-principles Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism & Culture Industries. (2006). Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process. Retrieved from: www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage_Tool_Kit_Heritage_PPS_infoSheet.pdf Ministry of Indigenous Affairs. (2020). Map of Ontario Treaties and Reserves. Retrieved from: https://www.ontario.ca/page/map- ontario-treaties-and-reserves Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2020). Provincial Policy Statement. Retrieved from: www.ontario.ca/page/provincial-policy-statement-2020 Ontario Council of University Libraries. (n.d). Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project: Markham Sheets. Retrieved from: https://ocul.on.ca/topomaps/collection/ Ontario, Government of. (2020). A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Retrieved from: https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-place-to-grow-office-consolidation-en-2020-08-28.pdf Ontario Land Registry Access. (2021). Abstract Index Books, Land Registry Office 40 (Pickering). Retrieved from: https://www.onland.ca/ui/40/books/60706/viewer/838941323?page=1 - 209 - 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Page 38 Parks Canada. (n.d.a). Canadian Register of Historic Places. Retrieved from: https://www.historicplaces.ca/visit-visite/rep-reg_e.aspx Parks Canada. (n.d.b). Directory of Federal Heritage Designations. Retrieved from: https://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/search-recherche_eng.aspx Parks Canada. (2010). The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada 2nd Edition. Retrieved from: www.historicplaces.ca/media/18072/81468-parks-s+g-eng-web2.pdf Pickering, City of. (2022) Pickering Official Plan, Edition 9. Retrieved from: https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/resources/Official-Plan---Main-Page/Edition-9/OP9ACC.pdf Pickering Library. (n.d.) Local History Collection Digital Archive. Retrieved from: https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/Welcome.aspx?cr=1 Spence, M.W., R.H. Pihl, and C. Murphy (1990). Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 125-170. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. Tremaine, George. (1860). Tremaine’s Map of the Ontario County, Canada West. George R. and George M. Tremaine, Toronto Vaughan, City of. (2007). Design Guidelines: Thornhill Vaughan Heritage Conservation District Plan. Retrieved from: https://www.vaughan.ca/sites/default/files/8jThornhill%20Vaughan- HCD%20Study_pt9.pdf?file-verison=1680393600039 Walton, George. (1837). The City of Toronto and the Home District Commercial Directory and Register with Almanack and Calendar for 1837. Toronto, Upper Canada, Dalton and W.J. Coates. Warrick, G. (2000). The Precontact Iroquoian Occupation of Southern Ontario. Journal of World Prehistory 14(4):415-456. Williamson, R.F. (1990) The Early Iroquoian Period of Southern Ontario. In C.J. Ellis & N. Ferris (Eds.) The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650 (pp. 291-320). London, Ontario: London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society Walker & Miles. (1877). Map of Toronto Township. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Peel, Ontario. Toronto, ON. - 210 - Attachment 4 to Report PLN 16-24 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/24 Being a by-law designate the lands legally described as that Concession 1, South Part of Lot 25 (the “George Falconer House and Store”) and municipally known as 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road, Pickering, as being cultural heritage value or interest. Whereas the Ontario Heritage Act authorizes the Council of a municipality to enact a by-law to designate real property, including all buildings and structures thereon, to be of cultural heritage value or interest; and Whereas on XXXX, XX, 2024, Council endorsed the recommendations of its Heritage Advisory Committee to designate the 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road as being of cultural heritage value or interest; and Whereas the Reasons for Designation are set out in Schedule “A” to this by-law; and Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering has caused to be served on the owners of the 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road and upon the Ontario Heritage Trust, Notice of Intention to designate the property and has caused the Notice of Intention to be published in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality as requested by the Ontario Heritage Act; and Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering enacts as follows: 1.The George Falconer House and Store, known municipally as 1027-1031 DunbartonRoad is designated as being of cultural heritage value or interest for reasons set out inSchedule “A” attached hereto. 2.The City Solicitor is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be registered on title to the 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road (the George Falconer House and Store). 3.The City Clerk is authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be served upon the ownersof the 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road (the George Falconer House and Store) and theOntario Heritage Trust and to publish notice of this by-law in a newspaper having generalcirculation in the City of Pickering as required by the Ontario Heritage Act. By-law passed on this XX of XXXX, 2024. ________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 211 - Schedule “A” By-law No. XXXX/24 Reasons for Designation Description of Property 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road is a rectangular-shaped property having an area of 0.05 hectares, it is situated on the corner of Dunbarton Road and Dunchurch Street, in the former Village of Dunbarton, now the City of Pickering. The key resource on the property is a one-and-a-half storey vernacular Victorian house and store. The brick building was constructed c. 1886, purpose-built as the George Falconer house and store. Reason for Designation The property at 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. Built c. 1886, the house and former store of George Falconer possesses design/physical value for the rare built heritage resource located on the property. Characteristic of a vernacular Victorian farmhouse, the former house of Falconer is one-and-a-half storeys in height and features a four-bay asymmetrical façade. The wood verandah, which is original to the house, features fine decorative detailing including the divided lite transom, and sidelights with arched windows. Decorative elements indicative of the Victorian style include buff brick quoins and jack arches, and wood sills. The George Falconer house and store represents an increasingly rare example of a residential building with an attached storefront, constructed in the nineteenth century. Of particular significance is the extant boomtown front, denoting the former commercial use of the building. The property has associative value through its connection with George Falconer. Falconer built the residence and store c.1886; he lived in the house until his death in 1917. George Falconer was described as one of Dunbarton’s most prominent citizens and a successful business owner. The property retains contextual value given its role in supporting the character of the historic village of Dunbarton and remains physically, visually and historically linked to its surroundings. The building at 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road is one of the few original structures from the settlement of the village; it is historically linked to its surroundings given its location on a crossroad which intersects with the main street of Dunbarton Village. Description of Heritage Attributes The cultural heritage attributes that reflect the cultural heritage value or interest of the design/physical value of the vernacular Victorian farmhouse and storefront at 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road include the: •Former Storefront Exterior •One-and-a-half storey brick storefront, with its boomtown front; •Symmetrical three-bay façade of the store; •Rectangular windows with wood sills; •Gable end roof and rectangular plan; •Stone foundation; and - 212 - •Decorative elements including buff brick quoins, jack arches and corbelling. •Vernacular Farmhouse Exterior •One-and-a-half storey massing; •Asymmetrical four-bay main façade; •Rectangular windows with wood sills; •Front gable roof and L-shaped plan; •Stone foundation; •Decorative elements including buff brick quoins and jack arches; and •Verandah on the main façade, with wood surround. - 213 - SpartanCourt Cloudb e r r y C o u r t D u n c h u r c h S t r e e t Dunba r t o n R o a d Rambl e b e r r y A v e n u e Highway 4 0 1 K in g st o n R oa d DalewoodRavine Dalewood Ravine © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City Development Department Location MapFile:Municipal Address:Proposed Part IV Designation of 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: May 09, 2024 SCALE: 1:2,000 ¯ E 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\01-City Development\A-3300-074 Municipal Heritage Register\2023 Heritage Register Update\1027-1031DunbartonRd_LocationMap.mxd- 214 - -Newspaper Version- Attachment 5 to Report PLN 16-24 Notice of Intent to Designate Property Of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Take Notice that the Council of the City of Pickering intends to designate the following property as a property of cultural heritage value or interest under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Concession 1 South Part, Lot 25 Pickering, Ontario Description of Property: 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road is a rectangular-shaped property having an area of 0.05 hectares. It is situated on the corner of Dunbarton Road and Dunchurch Street, in the former Village of Dunbarton, now the City of Pickering. The key resource on the property is a one-and-a-half storey, vernacular Victorian house and store. The brick building was constructed c. 1886, purpose-built as the George Falconer house and store. Reason for Designation: Built c. 1886, the house and former store of George Falconer possesses design/physical value for the rare built heritage resource located on the property. Characteristic of a vernacular Victorian farmhouse, the former house of Falconer is one-and-a-half storeys in height, and features a four-bay asymmetrical façade. The wood verandah, which is original to the house, features fine decorative detailing including the divided lite transom, and sidelights with arched windows. Decorative elements, indicative of the Victorian style, include buff brick quoins and jack arches, and wood sills. The George Falconer house and store represents an increasingly rare example of a residential building with an attached storefront, constructed in the nineteenth century. Of particular significance is the extant boomtown front, denoting the former commercial use of the building. The property has associative value through its connection with George Falconer. Falconer built the residence and store c.1886. He lived in the house until his death in 1917. George Falconer was described as one of Dunbarton’s most prominent citizens, and a successful business owner. The property retains contextual value given its role in supporting the character of the historic village of Dunbarton, and remains physically, visually, and historically linked to its surroundings. The building at 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road is one of the few original structures from the settlement of the village. It is historically linked to its surroundings, given its location on a crossroad, which intersects with the main street of Dunbarton village. - 215 - -Newspaper Version- Any person may, within 30 days of the publication of this Notice, send by mail or deliver to the City Clerk, a notice of their objection to the proposed designation together with a statement of reasons for the objection and all relevant facts. A copy of the Historical/Architectural Designation Report PLN 16-24 is available in the Clerks Division, Pickering Civic Complex, One The Esplanade, Monday to Friday, 8:30 am to 4:30 pm or by calling 905.420.4611 or by email at clerks@pickering.ca. DATED at the City of Pickering this XX day of XXXX, 2024 Susan Cassel, City Clerk City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 - 216 - -Ontario Heritage Trust / Property Owner Version- Attachment 6 to Report PLN 16-24 Notice of Intent to Designate Property Of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Take Notice that the Council of the City of Pickering intends to designate the following property as a property of cultural heritage value or interest under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Concession 1 South Part, Lot 25 Pickering, Ontario Description of Property: 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road is a rectangular-shaped property having an area of 0.05 hectares. It is situated on the corner of Dunbarton Road and Dunchurch Street, in the former Village of Dunbarton, now the City of Pickering. The key resource on the property is a one-and-a-half storey vernacular Victorian house and store. The brick building was constructed c. 1886, purpose-built as the George Falconer house and store. Reason for Designation: Built c. 1886, the house and former store of George Falconer possesses design/physical value for the rare built heritage resource located on the property. Characteristic of a vernacular Victorian farmhouse, the former house of Falconer is one-and-a-half storeys in height and features a four-bay asymmetrical façade. The wood verandah, which is original to the house, features fine decorative detailing including the divided lite transom, and sidelights with arched windows. Decorative elements indicative of the Victorian style include buff brick quoins and jack arches, and wood sills. The George Falconer house and store represents an increasingly rare example of a residential building with an attached storefront, constructed in the nineteenth century. Of particular significance is the extant boomtown front, denoting the former commercial use of the building. The property has associative value through its connection with George Falconer. Falconer built the residence and store c.1886. He lived in the house until his death in 1917. George Falconer was described as one of Dunbarton’s most prominent citizens, and a successful business owner. The property retains contextual value given its role in supporting the character of the historic village of Dunbarton, and remains physically, visually, and historically linked to its surroundings. The building at 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road is one of the few original structures from the settlement of the village. It is historically linked to its surroundings, given its location on a crossroad, which intersects with the main street of Dunbarton village. - 217 - -Ontario Heritage Trust / Property Owner Version- Summary of Attributes for Designation: The heritage attributes that contribute to the cultural heritage value or interest of the George Falconer House and Store at 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road include the: Former Storefront Exterior • One-and-a-half storey brick storefront, with its boomtown front; • Symmetrical three-bay façade of the store; • Rectangular windows with wood sills; • Gable end roof and rectangular plan; • Stone foundation; and • Decorative elements including buff brick quoins, jack arches and corbelling Vernacular Farmhouse Exterior • One-and-a-half storey massing; • Asymmetrical four-bay main façade; • Rectangular windows with wood sills; • Front gable roof and L-shaped plan; • Stone foundation; • Decorative elements including buff brick quoins and jack arches; and • Verandah on the main façade, with wood surround. Any person may, within 30 days of the publication of this Notice, send by mail or deliver to the City Clerk, a notice of their objection to the proposed designation, together with a statement of reasons for the objection and all relevant facts. A copy of the Historical/Architectural Designation Report PLN 16-24 is available in the Clerks Division, Pickering Civic Complex, One The Esplanade, Monday to Friday, 8:30 am to 4:30 pm or by calling 905.420.4611 or by e-mail at clerks@pickering.ca. DATED at the City of Pickering this XX day of XXXX, 2024 Susan Cassel, City Clerk City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 - 218 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 18-24 Date: June 10, 2024 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Bill 23: Priority Properties for Designation -401 Kingston Road and 1 Evelyn Avenue-File: A-3300-074 Recommendation: 1.That Council endorse the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee,dated April 24, 2024, not to designate 401 Kingston Road and 1 Evelyn Avenue underSection 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; 2. That Council approve the removal of the properties at 401 Kingston Road and 1 EvelynAvenue from the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register; and 3.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take such actionsas necessary to give effect to this report. Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to provide the results of the additional research and evaluation undertaken for the properties at 401 Kingston Road and 1 Evelyn Avenue (see Location Maps, Attachments 1 and 2), and to obtain Council’s approval for the removal of these two properties from Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register. The enactment of Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, altered Provincial legislation, including the Planning Act, the Conservation Authorities Act, and the Ontario Heritage Act. The bill now mandates the removal of listed properties from the register without consulting the local Municipal Heritage Committee. These two properties were initially identified as candidates for designation during the Municipal Heritage Register review and update completed by City staff in 2023. That recommendation was based on a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) completed by Branch Architecture in 2020, as part of the Kingston Mixed Corridor Study. At the meeting held on November 22, 2023, the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee (HPAC) passed a motion recommending that 401 Kingston Road and 1 Evelyn Avenue be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Accordingly, the committee recommended that City Council proceed with the designations. Staff prepared Recommendation Report PLN 41-23 for the December 4, 2023 Planning & Development Committee meeting. The Report proposed seeking the Part IV designation of several properties, including 401 Kingston Road and 1 Evelyn Avenue. The owner of 1 Evelyn Avenue and a representative of the owner of 401 Kingston Road spoke at the meeting, respectively, against the designation of 1 Evelyn Avenue and 401 Kingston Road under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. - 219 - PLN 18-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Bill 23: Priority Properties for Designation Page 2 The Planning & Development Committee referred this matter back to staff to undertake further evaluations of these two properties. Staff were directed to report back to Council no later than the first quarter of 2024. City of Pickering staff completed additional research in the form of CHERs for 401 Kingston Road and 1 Evelyn Avenue and have determined the properties meet only one (not the minimum required two) of the nine criteria as outlined in Ontario Regulation 9/06. Furthermore, a CHER was completed by MHBC Planning Design & Landscape Architecture (MHBC) for 401 Kingston Road, which also identified that this property was not a candidate for designation as it met only one of the nine criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06. Staff recommend that Council remove the properties at 1 Evelyn Avenue and 401 Kingston Road from the City’s Municipal Heritage Register. 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: This report has no direct financial implications. Discussion: The purpose of this report is to provide an update regarding the additional research and evaluation undertaken for the properties at 401 Kingston Road and 1 Evelyn Avenue (see Location Maps, Attachments 1 and 2), and to seek Council’s approval to remove these two properties from the Municipal Heritage Register. 1.Background The properties at 401 Kingston Road and 1 Evelyn Avenue were initially identified ascandidates for designation during the Municipal Heritage Register review and update,completed by City staff in 2023. This recommendation was based on a Cultural HeritageEvaluation Report (CHER) completed by Branch Architecture in 2020 as part of the Kingston Road Study. The CHER completed by Branch Architecture determined 401 Kingston Road and 1 Evelyn Avenue retained design/physical value and contextualvalue, indicating the properties reflected a pattern of early twentieth century residentialdevelopment along Kingston Road. However, after additional research completed byCity staff, and by an external heritage consultant, it was determined that these properties do not retain contextual value. While the properties were developed in the early twentieth century, a substantial portion of the original lotting pattern was removedfor the construction of Highway 401. As such, these properties do not meet the criteriafor designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee (HPAC) was consulted on April 24, 2024. The HPAC considered the additional information presented by staff. Based on the new information, passed a motion recommending that Council remove 401 Kingston Roadand 1 Evelyn Avenue from the Municipal Heritage Register.- 220 - PLN 18-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Bill 23: Priority Properties for Designation Page 3 2.The City previously determined that these properties had Cultural Heritage Valueor Interest In 2020, the City retained Branch Architecture to complete a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for four properties along the Kingston Road Intensification Corridor. TheCHER assessed 401 Kingston Road and 1 Evelyn Avenue (see Location Maps,Attachments 1 and 2) against the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06, and it concludedthat both properties held Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI). The report found that 401 Kingston Road and 1 Evelyn Avenue contained representative examples of early twentieth-century bungalows within Pickering. Additionally, they werenoted to retain contextual value as they reflect the pattern of early twentieth-centurydevelopment along the Kingston Road Corridor (see Photographs 1 and 2 below). Photograph 1: 401 Kingston Road (City of Pickering, 2023) Photograph 2: 1 Evelyn Avenue (City of Pickering, 2024) 3.Council passed a Resolution to include these properties on the City’s Municipal Heritage Register Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act indicates that municipalities shall keep a registerof properties situated in the municipality that are of CHVI. The register must contain allPart IV properties (individually designated) and Part V properties (within a HeritageConservation District). The register may also include properties that have not been designated, but that Council believes may have CHVI. These are commonly known as “listed” properties. Council must consult with its Municipal Heritage Committee beforeincluding or removing a property on the register. Based on the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee (HPAC),Council passed Resolutions #602/21 and #603/21 to include these properties on the City’s Municipal Heritage Register under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act (see Council Resolutions #602/21 and #603/21, Attachment 3). - 221 - PLN 18-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Bill 23: Priority Properties for Designation Page 4 4. City staff completed Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports for 401 Kingston Road and 1 Evelyn Avenue In 2024, City staff completed CHERs for 401 Kingston Road and 1 Evelyn Avenue. The CHER determined 401 Kingston Road and 1 Evelyn Avenue met one of the nine criteria as outlined in Ontario Regulation 9/06, and are therefore not candidates for designation. The properties were found to retain design/physical value (see Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, Attachments 4 and 5). Based on research completed for the CHERs, staff determined that the properties do not retain contextual value as they are not physically, functionally, or visually linked to their surroundings. The construction of Highway 401, south of the subject properties, removed most of the properties with the Morgan & Dixon Plan, and very little of the original lot pattern and built form remain intact. 5. A Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report for 401 Kingston Road was submitted to the City by Decade Capital MHBC was retained by Decade Capital to undertake a CHER for the property located at 401 Kingston Road (see Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Attachment 6). The report determined the subject property met only one of the nine criteria as outlined in Ontario Regulation 9/06. The property was found to be a representative example of a craftsman bungalow. The report by MHBC did not identify any contextual or associative value for 401 Kingston Road. Based on their review, MHBC did not recommend 401 Kingston Road be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. 6. Heritage Pickering Advisory was consulted in 2024 Based on the information outlined in the CHERs completed by City staff and MHBC, City Development staff consulted with HPAC. At the meeting held on April 24, 2024, the Committee passed a motion recommending that Council remove 401 Kingston Road and 1 Evelyn Avenue from the Municipal Heritage Register. 7. Conclusion As outlined in the CHERs completed by the City of Pickering and MHBC, 401 Kingston Road and 1 Evelyn Avenue are not candidates for designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 as they only met one of the nine criteria. The properties retain Cultural Heritage Value or Interest for their design or physical value, as they are representative examples of Arts and Crafts Bungalows. However, changes to the surrounding area, including the construction of Highway 401 and recent development to the west along Kingston Road, have removed most of the twentieth-century residential development and original lot pattern. Due to these changes, the properties no longer retain contextual value. The background research completed by City staff, as well as by MHBC, for the subject properties, did not identify direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to the community. Staff recommend that Council approve the removal of these properties from the City’s Municipal Heritage Register. - 222 - PLN 18-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Bill 23: Priority Properties for Designation Page 5 Attachments: 1.Location Map, 401 Kingston Road 2.Location Map, 1 Evelyn Avenue 3. Resolutions #602/21 and #603/214.Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 401 Kingston Road, prepared by the City ofPickering, 20245.Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 1 Evelyn Avenue, prepared by the City of Pickering, 2024 6.Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, 401 Kingston Road, prepared by MHBC, 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 - 223 - Rougemount Drive Toynevale Road Ev e l y n A v e n u e Ch a n t i l l y R o a d Da h l i a C r e s c e n t Oa k w o o d D r i v e Frontier Court LyttonCourt D a l e w o o d D r i v e Ol d F o r e s t R o a d Highwa y 4 0 1 Rouge Hill Court Kingston Road East Woodlands Park South Petticoat Ravine © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City Development Department Location MapFile:Municipal Address:Municipal Heritage Register Review and Update THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: May 15, 2024 SCALE: 1:4,000 ¯ E 401 Kingston Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\01-City Development\A-3300-074 Municipal Heritage Register\2023 Heritage Register Update\401KingstonRd_LocationMap.mxd Attachment 1 to Report PLN 18-24 - 224 - Rougemoun t D r i v e Ro s e b a n k R o a d Hi g h w a y 4 0 1 Ev e l y n A v e n u e Toynevale Road Dalewood Drive K in g s t o n R o a d Ch a n t i l l y R o a d Frontier Court Granite Court Rouge Hill Court Old Forest Road East Woodlands Park South Petticoat Ravine © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City Development Department Location MapFile:Municipal Address:Municipal Heritage Register Review and Update THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: May 15, 2024 SCALE: 1:4,000 ¯ E 1 Evelyn Avenue SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\01-City Development\A-3300-074 Municipal Heritage Register\2023 Heritage Register Update\1EvelynAve_LocationMap.mxd Attachment 2 to Report PLN 18-24 - 225 - Attachment 3 to Report PLN 18-24Legislative Services Division Clerk’s Office Directive Memorandum May 31, 2021 To: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO From: Susan Cassel City Clerk Subject: Direction as per Minutes of the Meeting of City Council held on May 25, 2021 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 26-21 Additions to Municipal Heritage Register 401 Kingston Road, 1 Evelyn Avenue and 882-886 Kingston Road Council Decision Resolution #602/21 and 603/21 Please take any action deemed necessary. Susan Cassel Copy: Chief Administrative Officer 1.That Report PLN 26-21 of the Director, City Development & CBO, regarding the listing of 401 Kingston Road, 1 Evelyn Avenue and 882-886 Kingston Road on the Municipal Heritage Register be received; 2.That Council endorse the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering AdvisoryCommittee, dated November 25, 2020, to list 401 Kingston Road and 1 Evelyn Avenue on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register, under Section 27,Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and, 3.That staff be directed to take necessary actions to include the properties on theCity of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register. - 226 - pickering.ca Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Attachment 4 to Report PLN 18-24 - 227 - 1.Executive Summary The purpose of this Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) is to determine if 401 Kingston Road (subject property) retains Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) and if it is a candidate for designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.This CHER for the subject property is part of the ongoing Municipal Register Review andUpdate. This CHER provides an in-depth analysis of the subject property through primary and secondary research and a visual inspection of the property. It evaluates the subject property against the criteria outlined in Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O. Reg. 9/06), includingdesign/physical value, historical/associative value, and contextual value. Additionally, theCHER includes a draft Statement of Significance and identifies key heritage attributes. The legislative framework for heritage property designation is established by the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). It is reinforced at the provincial level through the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019). Thepreservation of cultural heritage resources is further supported by the Region of Durham Official Plan and the City of Pickering Official Plan. The subject property is situated on Lot 31, Concession III, Broken Front (B.F.), in the former Geographic Township of Pickering, in the historical County of Ontario (Figure 1). Two buildings are located within the property boundaries – Building 1 and Building 2(Figure 2). Building 1 is a one-and-a-half-storey frame building with brick veneer and wasconstructed between 1933 and 1936. Building 2 is a one-storey rectangular building witha flat roof and was built between 1993 and 2002. 401 Kingston Road falls within the territory covered by the Johnson-Butler Purchases (also known as the “Gunshot Treaty”), which was signed in 1788 by representatives ofthe Crown and certain Anishinaabe peoples. These lands were the subject of aconfirmatory surrender in the Williams Treaties of 1923. In 2021, the privately owned property was added as a listed non-designated property to the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register pursuant to Section 27 (1.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. Following a thorough evaluation in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Actrequirements, this CHER concludes that the property satisfies one of the nine criteria ofOntario Regulation 9/06. The property does not meet the provincial criteria for evaluating cultural heritage value as set out in Ontario Regulation 9/06 and is therefore not recommended for designation. 2.Subject Property 401 Kingston Road is located within the south half of Lot 31, Concession III, B.F., in theformer Geographic Township of Pickering, in the historical County of Ontario. Specifically, the property is located on the south side of Kingston Road, east of - 228 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 2 Rougemount Drive and west of Petticoat Creek and associated tablelands (Figure 1).1 The property is immediately north of Highway 401. Two buildings are located on the subject property, a one-and-a-half-storey brick building constructed between 1933 and 1936 (Building 1) and a one-storey rectangular building built in the twenty-first century (Building 2). Building 1 is oriented towards Kingston Road, with active entrances located on the west and south elevations; it is set back approximately 17 metres from Kingston Road. Building 2 is located approximately seven metres south of Building 1, it has active entrances on the north and west elevations. The property is accessed from a paved driveway and surface parking lot west of the structures. The legal description of the property is: Plan 230 Part of Lot 19 now 40R16160 Part 1 (save and except 40R31274 Parts 2 and 3). 1 Kingston Road is oriented in an approximately southwest to northeast direction. For east of description in this report, Kingston Road will be described as east-west oriented. - 229 - Rougemount Drive Toynevale Road Ev e l y n A v e n u e Ch a n t i l l y R o a d Da h l i a C r e s c e n t Oa k w o o d D r i v e Frontier Court LyttonCourt D a l e w o o d D r i v e Ol d F o r e s t R o a d Highwa y 4 0 1 Rouge Hill Court Kingston Road East Woodlands Park South Petticoat Ravine 1:4,000 SCALE:© The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City Development Department Figure 1: Location of 401 Kingston RoadFile:Municipal Address:Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 401 Kingston Road THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Sep. 07, 2023 ¯ E 401 Kingston Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\01-City Development\A-3300-074 Municipal Heritage Register\2023 Heritage Register Update\401KingstonRd_LocationMap.mxd- 230 - Building 2 af:j of Figure 2: Existing conditions of 401 Kingston Road File: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 401 Kingston Road PlCKERlNG Municipal Address: 401 Kingston Road City Development @ The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: Date: Jan. 31, 2024 @ King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.,@ His Majesty the King in Department Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;@ Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its SCALE: 1:500 I suppliers. All rights reserved.,@ Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. THIS ISNOTAPLANa= SURVEY. L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\01-City Development\A-3300 Historical Heritage Conservation\A-3300--074 -401 Kingston Rd\CHER_401Kingston.aprx - 231 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 5 3.Policy Framework 3.1 Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement The Planning Act (1990) and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) [Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), 2020] issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act, provide Ontario-wide policy direction on land use planning. All decisions affecting land use planning “shall be consistent with” the PPS, which identifies that properties and features demonstrating significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological, technical, or scientific interest are of provincial interest and should be conserved. The importance of identifying, evaluating, and conserving built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes is noted in two sections of the PPS 2020: — Section 2.6.1 – “Significant built heritage resources and significant heritage landscapes shall be conserved”; and, — Section 2.6.3 – “Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved.” The following concepts, as defined in the PPS, are fundamental to an understanding of the conservation of cultural heritage resources in Ontario: Built heritage resources (BHR) are defined as “a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Indigenous community. Built heritage resources are located on property that may be designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA), or that may be included on local, provincial, federal and/or international registers.” Conserved is defined as “the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has been approved, accepted or adopted by the relevant planning authority and/or decision-maker. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments.” Cultural heritage landscapes (CHL) “means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Indigenous community. The area may include features such as buildings, structures, spaces, views, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Cultural heritage landscapes may be properties determined to have cultural heritage value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act, or have been included on federal and/or international registers, and/or protected through official plan, zoning by-law, or other land use planning mechanisms.” - 232 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 6 Heritage attributes “means the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritage property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property’s built, constructed, or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (e.g. significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage property).” Significant means “in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act.” 3.2 Ontario Heritage Act (2005) The OHA gives municipalities and the provincial government powers to preserve the heritage of Ontario, with a primary focus on protecting heritage properties and archaeological sites. The OHA grants authority to municipalities and the province to identify and designate properties of heritage significance, provide standards and guidelines for the preservation of heritage properties, and enhance the protection of heritage conservation districts, marine heritage sites and archaeological resources. Properties can be designated individually (Part IV of the OHA) or as part of a larger group of properties, known as a Heritage Conservation District (Parts V of the OHA). The designation offers protection for the properties under Sections 33 and 34 of the OHA, prohibiting the owner of a designated property from altering, demolishing, or removing a building or structure on the property unless the owner applies to the council of the municipality and receives written consent to proceed with the alteration, demolition or removal. In addition to designated properties, the OHA allows municipalities to list properties that are considered to have CHVI on their Register, which provides interim protection against demolition in the form of a 60-day delay in issuing a demolition permit. Under Part IV, Section 27, municipalities must maintain a Register of properties situated in the municipality that are of CHVI. Section 27 (1.1) states that the Register shall be kept by the Clerk and that it must list all designated properties (Part IV and V). Under Section 27 (1.2), the Register may include a property that has not been designated, but that the municipal council believes to possess CHVI. Listed properties, although recognized as having CHVI, are not protected under the OHA as designated properties are but are acknowledged under Section 2 of the PPS (MMAH, 2020). 3.3 Ontario Regulation 9/06 The evaluation of cultural heritage resources is guided by O. Reg. 9/06 (as amended by O. Reg. 569/22), which provides nine criteria for determining CHVI. The criteria set out inthe regulation were developed to identify and evaluate properties for designation underthe OHA. Best practices in evaluating properties that are not yet protected employ O.Reg. 9/06 to determine if they have CHVI. The criteria for determining CHVI under O.Reg 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 orconstruction method.- 233 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 7 2.The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degreeof craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3.The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a highdegree of technical or scientific achievement. 4.The property has historical value or associative value because it has directassociations 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 thepotential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a communityor culture. 6.The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates orreflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who issignificant to a community. 7.The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintainingor supporting the character of an area. 8.The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually orhistorically linked to its surroundings. 9.The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. O. Reg. 569/22, s. 1. If a potential cultural heritage resource is found to meet any one of these criteria, it can then be considered an identified resource. 3.4 Durham Regional Official Plan The Durham Regional Official Plan (2020 - Office Consolidation) provides a series of policies for the conservation of cultural heritage resources. Section 2.3.49 of the document provides a policy for built and cultural heritage resources, which states that the Regional Council shall encourage councils of the area municipalities to utilize the Ontario Heritage Act to conserve, protect, and enhance the built and cultural heritage resources of the municipality. The plan is to be consistent with the policies and direction provided through the PPS and encourages local municipalities to address cultural heritage resources in greater detail within their local official plans. 3.5 Pickering Official Plan The City of Pickering Official Plan (2018) provides cultural heritage conservation policies in Chapter 8. The following policies guide development proposals that may impact cultural heritage resources. The City of Pickering Official Plan (2018) provides cultural heritage conservation policies in Chapter 8. The following policies provide guidance for development proposals that may impact cultural heritage resources. - 234 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 8 8.2 City Council shall: (a)identify important cultural heritage resources from all time periods, so that theycan be appropriately conserved and integrated into the community fabric,including: (i)significant heritage structures, features and sites; (ii)buildings, sites, and artifacts of historical, archaeological and architecturalsignificance including modern or recent architecture; (iii)significant landscape features and characteristics, including vistas andridge lines; and (iv)other locally important cultural heritage resources; (b)foster public awareness and appreciation of the City’s cultural heritage; (c)prevent the demolition, destruction or inappropriate alteration of important culturalheritage 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 otherprivate and public projects conserve, protect and enhance important culturalheritage resources; and (f)involve the public, business people, landowners, local heritage experts, heritage committees, relevant public agencies, and other interested groups and individualsin cultural heritage decisions affecting the City. Ontario Heritage Act 8.4 City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, where warranted shall implement the provisions of the OHA, including the designation under the Act of heritage sites and heritage districts. Cultural Heritage Inventory 8.7 City Council, in association with its heritage committee, shall: (a)conduct an inventory of heritage resources owned by the City, its boards and commissions, and establish an overall program for the maintenance, use, reuse or, if warranted, disposal of these resources; (b)maintain an inventory of heritage resources designated or worthy ofdesignation under the OHA; and (c)store and disseminate cultural heritage resource inventories and databases in convenient and publicly accessible locations and formats, and maintain an archive of heritage conservation information. - 235 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 9 Cultural Heritage Alteration and Demolition 8.8 City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, shall: (a)allow alterations, additions or repairs to buildings designated under the OHA,provided the changes to the building do not detrimentally affect the heritage value; (b)allow new buildings, or alterations, additions or repairs to existing buildings within a Heritage Conservation District that are consistent with the District ConservationGuidelines; (c)discourage or prevent the demolition or inappropriate alteration of a heritageresource, 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 theresource for archival purposes; and (d)ensure that designated cultural heritage buildings, and other important culturalheritage resources that are vacant for an extended period of time are inspectedregularly to discourage vandalism and monitor conformity with the City’s Maintenance and Occupancy By-law. 4.Methodology The recommendations of this CHER are based on an understanding of the physicalvalues of the property, documentation of its history through research, an analysis of its social and physical context, comparisons with similar properties, and mapping. This CHER is guided by key documents such as the Ontario Heritage Toolkit (Ministry ofHeritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries [MHSTCI], 2006). A CHER examines a property in its entirety, including its relationship to its surroundings,as well as its individual elements, i.e., engineering works, landscape, etc. This report will include: •A summary of the history of the immediate context informed by a review ofarchival sources and historical maps; •A summary of the land-use history of the property including key transfers of land and milestones informed by Land Registry records and additional archivalresearch into prominent owners of tenants such as City Directories; •Thorough photographic documentation of the subject property and context; •A written description of the existing conditions and immediate context; •A comparative analysis, using buildings of a similar age, style, typology, contextand history to inform the evaluation of CHVI; •An evaluation of whether the property satisfies criteria under O. Reg. 9/06; and •A draft statement of CHVI if appropriate. - 236 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 10 5.Consultation Provincial and federal databases and inventories were consulted to gain further insightinto the potential significance of the property at 401 Kingston Road. The Ministry ofCitizenship and Multiculturism’s (MCM) current list of Heritage Conservation Districtswas consulted. No designated districts included the subject property (MCM, 2019). The Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) plaque database (OHT, 2021), the Canadian Register ofHistoric Places (Parks Canada, n.d.a) and the Directory of Federal HeritageDesignations (Parks Canada, n.d.b) were searched. Neither the property nor its groundsare commemorated with an OHT plaque or listed on the Canadian Register of Historic Places or the Federal Canadian Heritage Database. 5.1 Current Heritage Recognition The Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of the property was evaluated in 2020; the CHER completed by Branch Architecture determined the property met two of the nine criteria outlined in Ontario Regulation 9/06 (Branch Architecture, 2020). In 2021, based on the recommendations of the CHER and the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, Council passed Resolution #602/21 and 603/21 to include the property on the City’s Municipal Heritage Register under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. 6.Historical Context 6.1 Pre-Contact Period The initial inhabitants of Southern Ontario, known as Paleoindians, arrived around 11,000 years before present (BP), following the retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet (Ellis and Deller, 1990:39). Early Paleo groups, recognizable by their distinctive projectile points with long grooves or 'flutes,' such as Gainey (c.10,900 BP), Barnes (c.10,700 BP), and Crowfield (c.10,500 BP), transitioned to un-fluted varieties like Holocombe (c.10,300 BP) and Hi-Lo (c.10,100 BP) by approximately 10,400 BP (Ellis and Deller, 1990:39-43). Late Paleo groups utilized these morphologies (Ellis and Deller, 1990:40) and were characterized by mobility and small campsites for stone tool production (less than 200 m2) (Ellis and Deller, 1990). Around 8,000 BP, Ontario's climate warmed, leading to the colonization of deciduous flora and the emergence of the Archaic period. This period, spanning Early Archaic (c.10,000 to 8,000 BP), Middle Archaic (c.8,000 to 4,500 BP), and Late Archaic (c.4,500 to 2,800 BP) phases (Ellis et al., 1990), differed from Paleo populations in various ways, including increased tool stone variation, notched projectile points, native copper use, and population growth. The Archaic period saw the rise of extensive trade networks and the production of ground stone tools (Ellis and Deller, 1990:65-66). As population size increased, territories became more localized, and seasonal rounds were adopted for hunting and gathering (Ellis and Deller, 1990:114), leading to the transition into the Woodland period. The Woodland period, marked by ceramic technology, is divided into Early Woodland (c.800 BC to 0 AD), Middle Woodland (0 AD to 700/900 AD), and Late Woodland (900 AD to 1600 AD) periods (Spence et al., 1990; Fox, 1990). The Early Woodland period featured the Meadowood Complex (c.900 to 500 BC) and the Middlesex Complex (c.500 - 237 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 11 BC to 0 AD), characterized by crude pottery with cord impressions (Spence et al., 1990). In the Middle Woodland period, different cultural complexes emerged in Southern Ontario, with changes in lithic tool morphologies and elaborate ceramic vessels (Spence et al., 1990). Maize horticulture began rudimentary use by the end of the Middle Woodland period (Warrick, 2000). The Late Woodland period witnessed the expansion of maize horticulture, leading to increased population size and settlement complexity. Villages became more sedentary, relying on maize, beans, squash, and tobacco cultivation. By approximately 1400 AD, villages reached their maximum size, and increased warfare prompted the development of larger villages with extensive palisades. 6.2 Post-Contact Period 6.2.1 Pre-Confederation Treaties Early European presence began as early as 1615 with the exploration of this part of Southern Ontario by the French explorer Etienne Brulé, who travelled with the Huron along the major portage route known as the Toronto Carrying Place Trail, which connected Lake Ontario with Lake Simcoe to the north by way of the Humber River and the Holland Marsh (Steckley, 1987; Ramsden, 1990). In 1615-1616, Samuel De Champlain also travelled with the Huron northward to Georgian Bay. By the 1640s, the Huron, Petun, and Mississauga Anishinaabeg (Michi Saagiig) had been dispersed out of this region because of increasing conflicts with the Haudenosaunee and the warfare and disease that had arrived with European colonization. The large-scale population dispersals gave way for the Haudenosaunee to occupy the territory north of Lake Ontario where they settled along inland-running trade routes (Steckley, 1987; Ramsden, 1990). Due to increased military pressure from the French, and the return of the Anishinaabe Nations (Mississauga, Ojibwa, Odawa, and Potawatomi) who had previously retreated to the north, the Iroquois abandoned their villages along Lake Ontario. By the 1680s, the Anishinaabeg had returned and re-occupied the Lake Ontario area, as well as northward beyond the Haliburton Highlands. The Anishinaabeg later participated in a significant number of treaty agreements with the British Crown, establishing the foundation of Euro-Canadian settlement in southern Ontario (Ferris & Spence, 1995). After the American Revolution ended in 1783, many United Empire Loyalists began to move into southern Ontario creating a greater demand for land to settle. In 1787, senior officials from the Indian Department met with several Anishinaabe peoples to acquire land along the northern shores of Lake Ontario extending northward toward Lake Simcoe. The study area falls within the land surrendered in the 1787 Johnson-Butler Purchase, also known as the “Gunshot Treaty”. The treaty lands extended from the established Toronto Purchase (Treaty No. 13) and Cook’s Bay in the west to the Bay of Quinte and the 1783 Crawford Purchase in the east (Surtees, 1994:107). Due to irregularities in the 1787 Johnson-Butler Purchase, the Williams Commission negotiated two new treaties with the Chippewa and the Mississauga to address lands that had not yet been surrendered. The Williams Treaties were signed in 1923 by seven Anishinaabe First Nations and Crown representatives, transferring 2,000,000 ha of land - 238 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 12 to the Canadian Government between Lake Ontario and Lake Nipissing. The first of the Williams Treaties was signed by the First Nations of the Chippewa of Lake Simcoe (Beausoleil, Georgina Island, and Rama First Nations), and the second by the Mississauga of the north shore of Lake Ontario (Alderville, Curve Lake, Hiawatha, and Scugog Island First Nations). These land surrenders were combined into the Williams Treaties (Surtees, 1994; Wallace, 2020). The Williams Treaties also surrendered Indigenous hunting and fishing rights to off-reserve lands, a stipulation that differed from other land cessions. At the time of signing, given that this was a departure from the common practice of previous treaties, it was unclear that the Chippewa and Mississauga signatories were relinquishing these rights, and the territory covered by the Williams Treaties has been subject to several legal disputes between the descendants of the Indigenous signatories and the federal and provincial governments. 6.2.2 Ontario County Established in 1788, the District of Nassau was one of the original four districts that initially divided the present-day Province of Ontario. Subsequently, this district underwent a name change to become the Home District, encompassing an expanse stretching from the Trent River to Long Point and extending northward to the Severn River. Over the ensuing years, these districts underwent further division, resulting in a total of 20 districts. In 1853, Ontario emerged as a distinct entity, breaking away from the United Counties of Ontario, York, and Peel. By 1869, Ontario County, with an estimated area of 360,000 acres, of which 210,000 acres were cleared and cultivated, had taken shape (Connor & Coltson, 1869). In 1854, Ontario County comprised nine townships: Brock, Mara, Pickering, Rama, Reach, Scott, Thorah, Uxbridge, and Whitby. Throughout the latter part of the nineteenth century, the county gained recognition for the exceptional quality of its grains, with flour and lumber emerging as its primary manufacturing activities (Connor and Coltson, 1869). The dissolution of Ontario County occurred in 1974, leading to the incorporation of the Townships of Rama and Mara into Simcoe County. 6.2.3 Pickering Township Pickering Township was officially established in 1791 through the survey efforts of Augustus Jones on behalf of the government of Upper Canada. The eastern portion of the township saw settlement by Loyalists, disbanded soldiers, immigrants from the United Kingdom, and a significant number of Quakers from Ireland and the US (Farewell, 1907). In the aftermath of the revolution, Loyalists and their relatives dominated land grants in Pickering Township (Johnson, 1973). By 1793, the Kingston Road was opened, serving as a horse path extending east from Simcoe's Dundas Street, and by 1799, a rudimentary roadway had been cut from Duffin's Creek to Port Hope. Despite early road development making the township more accessible, the actual settlement of Pickering Township progressed at a slow pace. Although Major John Smith received the first land patent in 1792, the inaugural legal - 239 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 13 settler was William Peak in 1798 (Armstrong, 1985; Farewell, 1907). The challenges of clearing the forest prompted Peak and other early settlers to explore non-agricultural endeavours to supplement income, such as trading with Indigenous Peoples in the region (Johnson, 1973). Throughout the early nineteenth century, population growth and township development faced sluggish progress, with the War of 1812 impeding much of the county and township's advancement. Following the conflict, increased road traffic provided a boost to local innkeepers, and with improved roadways and the presence of Duffin's Creek, Pickering Township established saw and grist mills for lumber and grain production. By 1817, the population reached 330 (Johnson, 1973). Changes in land-granting policies in the 1820s led to additional land sales in Pickering Township, with the population reaching 575 by 1820 and growing to 830 by 1825 (Johnson, 1973; Welch and Payne, 2015). A post office was established in 1829, but the development of the hamlet of Duffin's Creek was slow. In the same year, the Crown collaborated with the New England Company, a missionary group, to promote farming and education for the First Nations people, leading to the establishment of what is now known as Curve Lake First Nation (Curve Lake First Nation, n.d.). The construction of the Grand Trunk Railway in 1856 and increasing agricultural prosperity stimulated Pickering Township's development as a significant grist-milling and local commercial centre. However, overall township development was slow, and between 1861 and 1891, a population decline occurred. Factors such as inflation and a depression between 1874-76 further contributed to this decline. The population of Pickering Township reached its peak at 8,002 in 1861, and numbered 5,998 by 1891 (Johnson, 1973). The Country of Ontario Directory for 1869 describes Pickering Township as: The township of township of Pickering is bounded on the north by the township of Uxbridge, on the south, by Lake Ontario, on the east by the township of Whitby and on the west by the townships of Markham and Scarboro, county of York. This township being the largest, together with the richness of its soil makes it one of the most wealthy municipalities in the county. Its principal villages are, Whitevale, Brougham, Claremont and Duffin's Creek. Population over 7,000. (Conner & Colston, 1869). Through most of the nineteenth and twentieth century the township remained primarily agricultural. During the later years of the nineteenth century, a decrease in the demand for wheat resulted in an economic downturn for the predominantly agricultural township. The population of the township declined by more than 40% in the second half of the nineteenth century, and this downward trend persisted into the first half of the twentieth century (Nisbet, 1995). Like many communities on the periphery of Toronto, development increased following the Second World War. Manufacturing companies also moved to the township following the construction of Highway 401 in the 1950s. In 1974 the township was divided into eastern and northern parts. - 240 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 14 In 1974 the villages of Brougham, Claremont, Green River, Greenwood and Whitevale became the Town of Pickering. In 2000 the Town became incorporated as a city. 6.2.4 Kingston Road Kingston Road, also known as Danforth Road, Highway 2, Dundas Street, King Street, and Bond Street, was a military road commissioned by the government in 1796 to connect York (Toronto) to Kingston. Engineer Asa Danforth spearheaded this initiative, aiming to establish a vital overland military route linking Lake Ontario, Lake Saint Clair, and Lake Huron. The road served a dual purpose of promoting settlement in Upper Canada and deterring American expansionist interests. Despite commencing in 1796, progress was hampered by the challenging terrain of rocky and densely wooded landscapes (Byers & McBurney, 1982). By 1799, a segment from Toronto to Port Hope was completed, albeit initially as a muddy horse path. The road was macadamized in the mid-1800s, transforming it into a more navigable route. The final stretch, extending 837 km from Windsor to the Quebec border, was established. In 1917, the provincial Department of Highways took charge of maintaining the first 73.5 km of Highway 2, which remained a crucial route connecting Toronto and Quebec until the advent of Highway 401. In 1998, Highway 2 lost its provincial highway designation (Bevers, 2023). At the Rouge River crossing along Kingston Road, an early bridge existed, presenting challenges to travelers due to its sandy approaches. This bridge faced multiple washouts during spring freshets or heavy rains, leading to the occasional ferrying of travelers across the Rouge at this location. Kingston Road's significance as a transportation corridor persisted throughout the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Smith, 1851). 6.3 Site Specific History The subject property is within Lot 31, Concession III, B.F., in the Geographic Township of Pickering, Ontario County, now the City of Pickering. The property history for 401 Kingston Road was completed using land registry records, historical maps, and census records. The absence of structures or other features shown on the historical maps does not preclude their presence on these properties. Illustrating all homesteads on the historical atlas maps would have been beyond the intended scope of the atlas and, often, homes were only illustrated for those landowners who purchased a subscription. 6.3.1 401 Kingston Road The key information gathered from primary sources regarding the early history of the property includes: •October 19, 1840: 200 acres of Lot 31, Concession III, B.F. is granted to SenecaPalmer. •1860: Seneca Palmer is shown as owning 200 acres of Lot 31, Concession III, B.F. on the 1860 Tremaine Map of Ontario County, one structure is illustrated on - 241 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 15 the map on the north side of Kingston Road. •March 13, 1922: Plan 230, Morgan & Dixon’s Plan, was registered. •Between 1933 and 1936: 401 Kingston Road is constructed. Lot 31, Concession III, B.F. originally formed part of the Clergy Reserves land allocation in Pickering. The Abstract Books provided by the Land Registry (Land Registry Office [LRO] 40, Book ID 201) record the first patent was issued in 1846 from the Crown to Seneca Palmer for 200 acres. The Palmer family migrated from the United States to Upper Canada around 1796 and established themselves in Scarborough in approximately 1800. Seneca, along with his younger brothers John and Sherwood, relocated to the Township of Pickering to acquire land and establish their farms. Little else is known about the Palmer family, however, what is known is outlined in the 1999 article titled the Palmer Family: Settling in South Pickering by John W. Sabean. The early history of the Palmer family is sketchy and so far has been pieced together from what little documentation is available. The earliest references to the family date to 1802. Asa Danforth, reporting in that year on the condition of the Danforth Road, states that a settler named Palmer was located on the 10th mile post beyond York, which was probably Lot 23, Concession D in Scarborough. There is also a reference to a ‘Palmer’ family on a list of residents in the Township of Scarborough in 1802. The head of the family was James Palmer, Sr., who appeared in the records of Scarborough on several occasions to about 1815. In 1803, he was appointed pound keeper and in 1804 overseer of highways. In 1815, James Palmer, Sr. was noted in a York Militia List as being exempt from military draft. His family, as well as can be determined, consisted of his wife (name unknown), two daughters (one perhaps named Clara), and five sons (Seneca, John, and Sherwood who later moved to Pickering Township, and James and Charles who remained in Scarborough). The Brown’s Toronto City and Home Directory for 1846-47 (Brown, 1847) lists Seneca Palmer as occupying Lot 31, Concession III, B.F. No information regarding the presence of structures is provided in the directory. The 1851 Census lists Seneca Palmer as a 61-year-old farmer from the United States, living with his wife, Jane Palmer, aged 56, and their two children, George (19), and William (7) (Item no. 1097705, Page 171). Palmer is listed as holding 198 acres in Lot 31, Concession III, B.F. Fifty of the 198 acres were under cultivation with 23 acres under crop, including wheat, peas, oats, corn, potatoes, turnips, and hay, and 15 acres under pasture. Two acres were listed as occupying an orchard or gardens, the remainder of the lot was listed as under wood or wild. Palmer is also enumerated as having bulls, oxen, or steers, horses, sheep, and pigs (Item no. 1098143, Page 275). - 242 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 16 Original concession roads are illustrated on the 1860 Tremaine Map of Ontario County (Figure 3), including present-day Altona Road, Whites Road, and Kingston Road. The former Village of Rouge Hill is illustrated on the map, at the present-day intersection of Kingston and Altona Roads. Seneca Palmer is shown as owing all of Lot 31, Concession III, B.F. The historical atlas map depicts Petticoat Creek extending in a northwesterly direction from Lake Ontario and bisecting the property. One structure is illustrated on the lot owned by Palmer, located on the north side of Kingston Road, east of Petticoat Creek. Senecal Palmer died from pneumonia on October 15, 1873, his properties were willed to his wife. Two years later, in 1875, Jane died and willed 120 acres in the north half of the lot to her son George, and 80 acres in the south half to James (Book 40, Instrument Nos. 2741 and 2852, Page 79). No structure is illustrated within the subject property on the 1877 Pickering Township Map (Figure 4). G.S. Palmer is shown as owning 120 acres within the north portion of Lot 31, Concession, III B.F., and J.S. Palmer is shown as owning 80 acres in the south portion of the lot. A structure is shown on the north side of Kingston Road, east of Petticoat Creek, outside of the subject property. On March 15, 1882, George Kinlock purchased 27 acres from George and Mary Palmer (Book 40, Instrument No. 4595, page 79). The land changed hands several times before Plan 230, Morgan & Dixon’s Plan, was registered on March 13, 1922. It was named for the landowners Edwin Morgan and Mildred Dixon. 401 Kingston Road and the adjacent property at 1 Evelyn Avenue fall within this subdivision. 401 Kington Road is within Lot 19 of Plan 230. The frame building with brick veneer was constructed between 1933 and 1936 as part of a small development which included approximately six similar structures on the north and south sides of Kingston Road, west of Petticoat Creek (Figure 5 and Figure 6). A 1954 aerial photograph (Figure 7) of the subject property was reviewed, the quality of the photograph is poor, and the house is not clearly visible in the photograph. These structures included 1 Evelyn Avenue, 356 Kingston Road, 364 Kingston Road, 340 Kingston Road, and the Stroud Cottage at the intersection of Kingston Road and Rougemount. The Stroud Cottage was demolished (date unknown), and 356 Kingston Road and 364 Kingston Road were demolished between 2015 and 2016. 340 Kingston Road is extant; however, it has been highly altered to accommodate a gas station. Table 1 below provides a summary of the transactions for Lot 19 between 1922 and 1995 (LRO 40, Book 434). - 243 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 17 Table 1: Summary of Land Transaction within Lot 19 of Plan 230 Transaction / Instrument Number Instrument Date Grantor Grantee Notes Mortgage / 15888 July 6, 1922 Millicent M. Dixon Gates, Peter S. All, $2500 Grant / 16186 May 1, 1923 Mildred M. Dixon Annie and Horace Branson All, $4,500 Mortgage / 16184 May 1, 1923 Annie and Horace Branson Mildred M. Dixon $1,000 not recorded in full Quit Claim / 22210 September 3, 1936 Mildred M. Dixon Hazel Mae Colletta (Estate of Peter S Gates, deceased) All, $1 Grant / 22211 September 14, 1939 Estate of Peter S. Gates Silas Dixon All, $1,600 Grant / 26065 March 14, 1944 Silas Dixon (and others) Alexander Dixon Part, $1 Grant / 26066 Aug 15, 1946 Alexander Dixon and wife Louis E Staley -- Grant / 32410 November 1951 Louis E Staley Kathleen C. and John P. Quigg $3,200 By-law / 40114 May 19, 1955 By-law No. 2091 - City of Pickering. Designating Areas of Subdivision Control All Grant / 156171 June 15, 1967 Kathleen C. and John P. Quigg John A. Belcourt and Margaret L. Belcourt All – except highway Grant /198495 June 22, 1970 John A. Belcourt and Margaret L. Belcourt Jack Knowles (trustee) All – except highway Grant / 244810 June 26, 1973 Jack Knowles (trustee) Victor and Felicia Mastrogicomos All – except highway Grant / D14637 August 22, 1975 Victor and Felicia Mastrogicomos Brian D. and Christine A. Binns All – except highway - 244 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 18 Grant / D241775 February 16, 1987 Brian D. and Christine A. Binns Francis Walter All Grant / D249231 May 20, 1987 Francis Walter N. BigioniManagementServices Ltd., Hollow HoldingsLtd. All – except highway Transfer / D321039 August 22, 1989 N. Bigioni Management ServicesLtd. (25% int), HollowHoldings Ltd. (50%int) Cesaroni Holdings Ltd. (75% int) $525,000 Plan 40R-16060 March 28, 1995 -- -- Parts 1,2&3 Transfer / D459500 October 5, 1995 Cesaroni Holdings Ltd. (75% int), N. Bigioni Management Services Ltd. (25% int) 1138224 Ontario Ltd. $975,000 Part 1 on 40R-16060 - 245 - af:j of Figure 3: Location of subject property on the 1860 Tremaine's Map of the County of OntarioPlCKERlNG File: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 401 Kingston Road Municipal Address: 401 Kingston Road City Development @ The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: Date: Jan. 31, 2024 @ King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.,@ His Majesty the King in Department Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;@ Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its SCALE: 1:6,000 I suppliers. All rights reserved.,@ Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. THIS ISNOTAPLANOF SURVEY. L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\01-City Development\A-3300 Historical Heritage Conservation\A-3300--074 -401 Kingston Rd\CHER_401Kingston.aprx - 246 - af:j of Figure 4: Location of subject property on the 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario PlCKERlNG File: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 401 Kingston Road Municipal Address: 401 Kingston Road City Development @ The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: Date: Jan. 31, 2024 @ King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.,@ His Majesty the King in Department Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;@ Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its SCALE: 1:7,000 I suppliers. All rights reserved.,@ Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. THIS ISNOTAPLANOF SURVEY. L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\01-City Development\A-3300 Historical Heritage Conservation\A-3300--074 -401 Kingston Rd\CHER_401Kingston.aprx - 247 - af:j of Figure 5: Location of subject property on 1914 and 1933 NTS Maps File: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 401 Kingston Road PlCKERlNG Municipal Address: 401 Kingston Road City Development @ The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: Date: Jan. 31, 2024 @ King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.,@ His Majesty the King in Department Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;@ Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its SCALE: 1:8,000 I suppliers. All rights reserved.,@ Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. THIS ISNOTAPLANOF SURVEY. L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\01-City Development\A-3300 Historical Heritage Conservation\A-3300--074 -401 Kingston Rd\CHER_401Kingston.aprx - 248 - af:j of Figure 6: Location of subject property on 1936 and 1943 NTS Maps File: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 401 Kingston Road PlCKERlNG Municipal Address: 401 Kingston Road City Development @ The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: Date: Jan. 31, 2024 @ King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.,@ His Majesty the King in Department Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;@ Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its SCALE: 1:8,000 I suppliers. All rights reserved.,@ Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. THIS ISNOTAPLANOF SURVEY. L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\01-City Development\A-3300 Historical Heritage Conservation\A-3300--074 -401 Kingston Rd\CHER_401Kingston.aprx - 249 - af:j of Figure 7: Location of subject property on a 1954 aerial photograph File: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 401 Kingston Road PlCKERlNG Municipal Address: 401 Kingston Road City Development @ The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: Date: Jan. 31, 2024 @ King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.,@ His Majesty the King in Department Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;@ Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its SCALE: 1:6,000 I suppliers. All rights reserved.,@ Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. THIS ISNOTAPLANOF SURVEY. L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\01-City Development\A-3300 Historical Heritage Conservation\A-3300--074 -401 Kingston Rd\CHER_401Kingston.aprx - 250 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 24 7. Existing Conditions The description of the design / physical value of the structures at 401 Kingston Road was limited to the exterior features as the site visit for the CHER was conducted from the public right-of-way. Constructed between 1933 and 1936, Building 1 retains its original form, massing, and footprint. Building 1 consists of a one-and-a-half-storey frame building, sited on a poured concrete foundation. The building is clad in extruded brick laid in the running or stretcher bond, and fieldstone laid in a random pattern. The building’s exterior remains intact, with very few alterations. Most of the windows and doors appear to be original to the structure, as is the chimney on the west elevation. Building 2 is located approximately seven metres south of Building 1. It consists of a rectangular building with a flat roof; it is clad in corrugated metal. Given the sloping topography of the property, Building 2 is not clearly visible from the public right of way. A Montessori daycare currently operates from Building 1 and Building 2 on the subject property. 7.1 Discussion of Design and Physical Value 7.1.1 401 Kington Road: Building 1 Building 1 is a one-and-a-half-storey wood frame building with a brick veneer. The building has a medium-pitched side gable roof, punctuated on the north elevation by a dormer. The soffits are painted wood and display simple detailing including hipped return eaves on the east and west gable ends. The four elevations of the building display a combination of masonry types, including brick and fieldstone. The building is sited on a poured concrete foundation, finished with fieldstone, laid in a random pattern, and articulated with a pronounced beaded mortar joint. The fieldstone extends from grade level to the top of the cast stone windowsills on the main floor. Brick quoins are present at the corners of the building and on the window and door jambs. The remainder of the building, including the quoins, is clad in extruded brick, laid in the running, or stretcher bond. This bond type is created when bricks are laid with only their stretchers facing out, overlapping midway with the courses of bricks below and above. The running or stretcher bond is not a structural bond and is typically only used as a facing or veneer. North Façade The north (main) façade displays symmetrical organization, with a centrally placed porch, flanked by segmentally arched windows. A porch, topped with a pediment, projects from the centre of the building. The porch is supported with tapered half columns on brick piers with a cast stone cap. The porch is accessed through a wood door with divided lites on the west elevation of the porch. The centrally placed main entrance door consists of an unpainted wood door with three vertical fielded panels below six divided lites. The door opening is framed in brick with an arched brick lintel. The windows on the porch are - 251 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 25 grouped together and consist of single-hung three-over-one wood sash. A front-facing dormer is located on the north façade. Like the pediment on the porch, the tympanum is clad with painted wood shingles (Photographs 1 to 4). East Façade The east façade is asymmetrical and includes one main floor window on the south side of the elevation and two upper-floor windows in the gable peak. At least one window is on the basement level, however, a portion of the façade is covered by a shed and is not visible. The windows in the gable end have brick windowsills, while the main floor windows have cast stone windowsills. All windows on the east façade have arched brick lintels. Except for the basement window, all window inserts appear to be original to the structure and consist of three-over-one single-hung sash. An unadorned brick chimney is located on the east façade (Photograph 5). South Façade The south (rear) façade of Building 1 is three bays wide; it contains one window opening on the basement level, a door flanked by three windows on the ground level and one window opening in the upper storey. The window sash in the basement and upper storey have been replaced with modern vinyl inserts and the door now consists of a metal fire door. The remaining windows appear to be original to the house and contain single-hung, three-over-one sash (Photographs 5 and 6). West Façade The west façade of 401 Kingston Road is asymmetrical, punctuated by an external brick chimney, flanked on either side by two small windows. The base of the chimney projects from the house and similar to the rest of the house, is clad in fieldstone with brick quoins. A grouping of three windows is located near the southern corner of the house, and two windows are present in the gable end. All windows on the west elevation are topped with arched brick lintels; the main floor windows have cast stone sills, while the upper story windows have brick sills (Photographs 7 to 9). - 252 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 26 Photograph 1: Main (north) façade of 401 Kingston Road (City of Pickering, 2024) Photograph 2: North (front) façade, as viewed from the east (Branch Architecture, 2020) Photograph 3: West elevation of the porch (Branch Architecture, 2020) Photograph 4: East elevation of the porch (Branch Architecture, 2020) Photograph 5: East and south elevations of 401 Kingston Road (Branch Architecture, 2020) - 253 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 27 Photograph 6: West and south elevations of 401 Kingston Road (Branch Architecture, 2020) Photograph 7: West elevation of 401 Kingston Road (Branch Architecture, 2020) Photograph 8: West elevation, showing chimney and windows (Branch Architecture, 2020) Photograph 9: Three-part window on west elevation (Branch Architecture, 2020) 7.1.2 401 Kingston Road: Building 2 Building 2 is located approximately seven metres south of Building 1, a paved walkway provides access to Building 1 and Building 2 from a surface parking lot. Measuring approximately 16 metres east to west, and 19 metres north to south, the structure has a flat roof and is clad in corrugated metal; it has no defining architectural style or characteristics. - 254 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 28 Photograph 10: View of Building 2 from Kingston Road (City of Pickering, 2024) 8.Discussion of Contextual Value 8.1 Landscape Conditions 401 Kingston Road is a rectangular-shaped property having an area of 0.24 hectares, located on the south side of Kingston Road, west of Petticoat Creek, east of Rougemont Drive and north of Highway 401. Building 1, an Arts and Crafts bungalow, is oriented towards Kingston Road, with an approximately 17 metre setback from the street. Building 2 is a modern one-storey structure, located south of Building 1. The property is accessed via an asphalt driveway and surface parking lot from Kingston Road, west of the structures. The front yard of Building 1 is lined with a low iron fence and contains a playground / sandbox associated with the Montessori School. The remainder of the property consists of manicured lawns, dotted with mature trees; no intentional gardens or plantings are extant. The property and Kingston Road gently slope to the east towards Petticoat Creek and its tablelands. 8.2 Study Area Context The subject property at 401 Kingston Road is in the City of Pickering on the south side of Kingston Road between Rougemount Road and Petticoat Creek. The Kingston Road corridor is a four-lane divided road, generally oriented east to west. The residential properties to the north and west of the subject property range in height from one to six stories and exhibit a variety of construction materials, including brick, wood, and metal. These residential properties reflect the architectural styles typical of the mid-twentieth century through to the twenty-first century. The properties west of the subject property constitute modern commercial and education uses and are one storey in height. The subject property is located immediately north of Highway 401, a controlled access highway which traverses Southern Ontario from Windsor to the Ontario and Quebec boundary. - 255 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 29 Photograph 11: View to the east of 1 Evelyn Avenue and 401 Kingston Road (City of Pickering, 2024) Photograph 12: View to west along Kingston Road, showing a six-storey residential building (City of Pickering, 2024) Photograph 13: Example of residential dwellings on the north side of Kingston Road (City of Pickering, 2024) 9. Architectural Style 9.1 Bungalow The structure on the subject property is an example of an Arts and Crafts bungalow. Originating in Britain as a response to the dehumanizing effects of the Industrial Age, this movement encompassed artistic, ideological, and even political ideals. Its influence extended to various visual arts, including pottery, wallpaper, furniture design, and architecture. The Arts and Crafts movement reached North America, leaving a distinctive mark on structures built between 1900 and 1945, particularly evident in the architectural details of bungalows from that era (Blumenson, 1990). Arts and Crafts bungalows, like the one at 401 Kingston Road, showcase certain characteristics such as a mix of cladding materials (brick, stone, stucco, shingles, and horizontal wood), expansive verandahs or porches often extending from the main roof, dormer windows, wall gables, recessed entrances - 256 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 30 typically under porches, and exposed rafter tails or brackets, all contributing to symmetrical façades. Other stylistic elements often added to the Bungalow form include Tudor arches, undersized Palladian windows, and Spanish-inspired red pantile roofs. Bungalows were promoted by the Craftsman magazine, published in California and were popular with middle-class and wealthy homeowners. In Ontario, these structures are almost exclusively used for residential purposes and are constructed of rustic materials such as fieldstone and brick (Kyles, 2016). 9.2 Comparative Analysis A comparative analysis was undertaken to establish a baseline understanding of similar recognized cultural heritage properties across Ontario and to determine if the subject residence “is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method” as described in O. Reg. 9/06. Comparative examples were drawn from listed properties within the City of Pickering. An additional review of the Municipal Register for the nearby Town of Ajax and the Town of Whitby was also conducted. No similar properties were identified in the Town of Ajax; three similar properties were identified in the Town of Whitby (see Table 2 below). This analysis does not represent all available properties, but the examples are intended to provide a representative sample of similar building typologies. - 257 - Table 2: Comparative analysis of heritage properties of similar age, style and/or typology to 401 Kingston Road Address / Resource Heritage Recognition Date Material Style Photograph 1 Evelyn Avenue Listed on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register Frame, brick, stucco Arts and Crafts Bungalow; one-and-a-half storey; rectangular plan; clad in red brick and stucco; hipped roof; asymmetrical two-bay principal façade; overhanging porch supported by piers; groupings of windows with varied shapes and multi-paned glass; brick quoins and arched lintels; exterior chimneys. Google Streetview 2023 200 Henry Street, Whitby Listed on the Town of Whitby’s Inventory of Listed Properties 1921 Frame, brick veneer, stucco Arts and Crafts Bungalow; one-and-a- half storey; rectangular plan; clad in red brick and stucco; side gable roof with front-facing dormer; asymmetrical two-bay principal façade; overhanging porch supported by piers; groupings of windows with varied shapes and multi-paned glass; brick quoins and arched lintels; exterior chimneys. Google Streetview 2023 - 258 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 32 900 Byron Street South, Whitby Designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, located within Werden’s Plan Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (By-law No. 7297-17) 1914 Frame, brick veneer Arts and Crafts Bungalow; one-and-a- half storey; rectangular plan; clad in buff brick and stucco; side gable roof with front-facing dormer; asymmetrical two-bay principal façade; overhanging porch supported by piers; groupings of windows with varied shapes and multi-paned glass; arched lintels; exterior chimneys. Google Streetview 2023 111 Trent Street West, Whitby Designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, located within Werden’s Plan Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (By-law No. 7297-17) 1927 Frame, brick veneer Arts and Crafts Bungalow; one-and-a-half storey; rectangular plan; clad in red brick and stucco; side gable roof with front-facing dormer; symmetrical three-bay principal façade; overhanging porch supported by piers; groupings of windows with varied shapes and multi-paned glass; arched lintels; interior chimneys. Google Streetview 2023 - 259 - The following architectural elements characteristic of Arts and Crafts bungalows were observed: • Style: The structures are vernacular examples of Arts and Crafts bungalows of varying styles. • Plan: All examples have rectangular plans. • Roof: Three examples have side gable roofs with front-facing dormers, one example has a hipped roof. • Cladding: Two buildings are clad in a combination of red brick and stucco, one building is clad in buff brick, and one is clad in red brick and fieldstone. • Façade: Two examples have a three-bay principal façade, and two examples have a two-bay principal façade. • Windows: The examples have groupings of multi-paned windows with arched lintels. • Decorative elements: Two examples have brick quoins. • Alterations: The examples have undergone minor alterations through some window replacements. This comparative analysis suggests the subject property demonstrates representative elements of an Arts and Crafts bungalow. These elements include the one-and-a-half storey height, groupings of multi-paned windows, a combination of materials including brick, stone and cedar shingles, a side gable roof punctuated by a front dormer and a rectangular plan. Although not considered an early example of its type, the building is a good example of its type and style and a rare example of an Arts and Crafts Bungalow in the city of Pickering. Recognizing the limited number of examples examined, it is acknowledged that this comparative analysis may be misleading. Additionally, fully assessing the architectural details of each structure from the public right of way poses challenges. Therefore, the cultural heritage evaluation presented in Section 9 not only considers the findings of this comparative analysis but also incorporates typical architectural trends observed across Ontario. 10. Cultural Heritage Evaluation The principal structure on the subject property at 401 Kingston Road is a one-and-a-half-storey bungalow, inspired by the Arts and Crafts movement. 401 Kingston Road is listed as a non-designated property on the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register. O. Reg. 9/06 of the OHA provides criteria for determining whether a property has CHVI. If a property meets two or more of the criteria, it is eligible for designation under the OHA. Table 3 presents the evaluation of the subject property using O. Reg. 9/06. - 260 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 34 Table 3: Evaluation of 401 Kingston Road as per Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria 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. Y 401 Kingston Road contains a representative example of an Arts and Crafts bungalow (Building 1), built between 1933 and 1936. Although not an early example of the style, 401 Kingston Road is one of two remaining bungalows constructed during the Arts and Crafts period in Pickering. This makes 401 Kingston Road a rare example of its type in the city. In accordance with the findings of the comparative analysis in Section 9.2, the building demonstrates representative elements of an Arts and Crafts bungalow with its one-and-a-half-storey height, multi- paned windows, a combination of materials including brick, fieldstone and cedar shingles, side gable roof punctuated by a front dormer and a rectangular plan. The comparative analysis determined there is one listed bungalow in the City of Pickering, similar to the structure on the subject property. There are no similar listed or designated properties in the Town of Ajax; three similar properties are situated in the Town of Whitby. As such, 401 Kingston Road is considered a representative example of Arts and Crafts architecture in the City of Pickering. Building 2 was constructed between 1993 and 2002, it has no defining architectural style or characteristics. - 261 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 35 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. N Building 1 and Building 2 do not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, but rather they reflect construction techniques and materials common to their time. 3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. N The property does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. The structures display construction techniques reflective of the eras and styles in which they were built. 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. N Historical research completed for the property did not identify any notable individuals, associations, institutions, or themes associated with the property. Therefore, this criterion is not satisfied. 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 results of the research did not indicate that 401 Kingston Road yields information that could contribute to the 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. N The architect and builder of Building 1 and Building 2 are unknown. As such, this criterion is not satisfied. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. N The subject property is not important in defining or maintaining the character of the surrounding area. Therefore, the property does not meet this criterion. - 262 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 36 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. N The subject property does not retain contextual value as it is not physically, functionally, or visually linked to its surroundings. The construction of Highway 401 south of the subject properties removed most of the properties with the Morgan & Dixon Plan, and very little of the original lot pattern and built form remain intact. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. N No significant views to the property distinguish the building as a notable or distinct property. It does not serve as a local landmark in the community. 10.1 Results of the Cultural Heritage Evaluation Based on the results of research, site investigation, and application of the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06, the property at 401 Kingston Road does not retain Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and is therefore not a candidate for designation. Accordingly, a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes has not been prepared. - 263 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 37 11.Bibliography Armstrong, Frederick H. (1985). Handbook of Upper Canadian Chronology. Hamilton: Dundurn Press, Ltd. Curve Lake First Nation. (n.d.) History. Retrieved from: https://curvelakefirstnation.ca/ Bevers, Cameron. (2023). Photographic History of King’s Highway 2. Retrieved from: https://www.thekingshighway.ca/PHOTOS/Hwy2photos.htm. Blumenson, John (1990). Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Syles and Building Terms, 1784 to Present. Fitzhenry and Whitesite, Toronto. Branch Architecture. (2020). Kingston Road Study: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report. Brown, George. (1847). Brown's Toronto City and Home District Directory: 1846-7. Retrieved from: https://www.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.8_00012_1/1 Byers & McBurney. (1982). The Governor’s Road: Early Buildings and Families from Mississauga to London. University of Toronto Press. Connor & Coltson. (1869). The County of Ontario directory for 1869-70. Toronto: Hunter, Rose & Co. Canada’s Historic Places. (2010). Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Second Edition. Canada’s Historic Places, Ottawa. Dodd, C. F., Poulton, D. R., Lennox, P. A., Smith, D. G., & Warrick, G. A. (1990). The Middle Ontario Iroquoian Stage. In C. J. Ellis & N. Ferris (Eds.), The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650 (pp. 321-360). London, Ontario: London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society. Durham, Region of. (2020). Durham Region Official Plan – Office Consolidation. Retrieved from: https://www.durham.ca/en/doing-business/official-plan.aspx - 264 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 38 Ellis, C.J., I.T. Kenyon, and M.W. Spence. (1990). Paleo-Indians. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 37-74. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. Ellis, C.J., I.T. Kenyon, and M.W. Spence. (1990). The Archaic. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 65-124. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. FamilySearch.org. (n.d.). Abstract index books, ca. 1800-1958. Retrieved from: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-L3V4-C?cat=486525 Farewell, J. E. (1907). County of Ontario: short notes as to the early settlement and progress of the county and brief references to the pioneers and some Ontario County men who have taken a prominent part in provincial and dominion affairs. Whitby, ON: Gazette-Chronicle Press. J.H. Beers & Co. (1877). Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario. Toronto, ON. Kyles, Shannon. (2017). Ontario Architecture. Bungalow. Retrieved from: http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/bungalow.html Library and Archives Canada (2021). Canadian Censuses. [accessed December 2023]. https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/census/Pages/census.aspx Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism & Culture Industries. (2019). List of Heritage Conservation Districts. Retrieved from: www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/ heritage_conserving_list.shtml Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism & Culture Industries. (2007). Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties. Retrieved from: www.heritagetrust.on.ca/en/pages/tools/tools-for-conservation/eight-guiding-principles Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism & Culture Industries. (2006). Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process. Retrieved from: www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage_Tool_Kit_Heritage_PPS_infoSheet.pdf Ministry of Indigenous Affairs. (2020). Map of Ontario Treaties and Reserves. Retrieved from: https://www.ontario.ca/page/map- ontario-treaties-and-reserves Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2020). Provincial Policy Statement. Retrieved from: www.ontario.ca/page/provincial-policy-statement-2020. - 265 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 39 Nisbet, Rob. (1995) The Town Site of Ajax. In Archie MacDonald (ed.). A Town Called Ajax. The Ajax Historical Board. Ontario Council of University Libraries. (n.d). Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project: Markham Sheets. Retrieved from: https://ocul.on.ca/topomaps/collection/ Ontario, Government of. (2020). A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Retrieved from: https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-place-to-grow-office-consolidation-en-2020-08-28.pdf Ontario Land Registry Access. (2021). Abstract Index Books, Land Registry Office 40 (Pickering). Retrieved from: https://www.onland.ca/ui/40/books/60706/viewer/838941323?page=1 Parks Canada. (n.d.a). Canadian Register of Historic Places. Retrieved from: https://www.historicplaces.ca/visit- visite/rep-reg_e.aspx Parks Canada. (n.d.b). Directory of Federal Heritage Designations. Retrieved from: https://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/search-recherche_eng.aspx Parks Canada. (2010). The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada 2nd Edition. Retrieved from: www.historicplaces.ca/media/18072/81468-parks-s+g-eng-web2.pdf Pickering, City of. (2022) Pickering Official Plan, Edition 9. Retrieved from: https://www.pickering.ca/en/city- hall/resources/Official-Plan---Main-Page/Edition-9/OP9ACC.pdf Pickering Library. (n.d.) Local History Collection Digital Archive. Retrieved from: https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/Welcome.aspx?cr=1 Sabean, John. (1999). The Palmer Family, Settling in South Pickering. Retrieved from: https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=171064&page=1 Smith, W.H. (1851). Canada: Past, Present and Future. Retrieved from: https://archive.org/details/canadapastpresen02smit_0/page/10/mode/2up Spence, M.W., R.H. Pihl, and C. Murphy (1990). Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 125-170. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. - 266 - 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 40 Tremaine, George. (1860). Tremaine’s Map of the Ontario County, Canada West. George R. and George M. Tremaine, Toronto Walton, George. (1837). The City of Toronto and the Home District Commercial Directory and Register with Almanack and Calendar for 1837. Toronto, Upper Canada, Dalton and W.J. Coates. Warrick, G. (2000). The Precontact Iroquoian Occupation of Southern Ontario. Journal of World Prehistory 14(4):415-456. Williamson, R.F. (1990) The Early Iroquoian Period of Southern Ontario. In C.J. Ellis & N. Ferris (Eds.) The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650 (pp. 291-320). London, Ontario: London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society Walker & Miles. (1877). Map of Toronto Township. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Peel, Ontario. Toronto, ON. Warrick, G. (2000). The Precontact Iroquoian Occupation of Southern Ontario. Journal of World Prehistory 14(4):415-456. Williamson, R.F. (1990) The Early Iroquoian Period of Southern Ontario. In C.J. Ellis & N. Ferris (Eds.) The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650 (pp. 291-320). London, Ontario: London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society Walker & Miles. (1877). Map of Toronto Township. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Peel, Ontario. Toronto, ON. - 267 - pickering.ca Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Attachment 5 to Report PLN 18-24 - 268 - 1.Executive Summary The purpose of this Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) is to determine if 1 Evelyn Avenue (subject property) retains Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) and if it is a candidate for designation under Part IV, section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.This CHER for the subject property is part of the ongoing Municipal Register Review andUpdate. This CHER provides an in-depth analysis of the subject property through primary and secondary research and a visual inspection of the property. It evaluates the subject property against the criteria outlined in Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O. Reg. 9/06), includingdesign/physical value, historical/associative value, and contextual value. Additionally, theCHER includes a draft Statement of Significance and identifies key heritage attributes. The legislative framework for heritage property designation is established by the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). It is reinforced at the provincial level through the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019). Thepreservation of cultural heritage resources is further supported by the Region of Durham Official Plan and the City of Pickering Official Plan. The subject property is situated on Lot 31, Concession III, Broken Front (B.F.), in the former Geographic Township of Pickering, in the historical County of Ontario (Figure 1). Two buildings are located within the property boundaries – Building 1 and Building 2(Figure 2). The principal built heritage resource on the property is Building 1, a one-and-a-half-storey frame dwelling with brick veneer. Building 2 consists of a one-storey frameoutbuilding with a square footprint and a hipped roof; it is located approximately 9 metres south of Building 1. Building 1 and Building 1 are connected by a modern addition. 1 Evelyn Avenue falls within the territory covered by the Johnson-Butler Purchases (alsoknown as the “Gunshot Treaty”), which was signed in 1788 by representatives of theCrown and certain Anishinaabe peoples. These lands were the subject of a confirmatorysurrender in the Williams Treaties of 1923. In 2021, the privately owned property was added as a listed non-designated property to the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register pursuant to Section 27 (1.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. Following a thorough evaluation in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Actrequirements, this CHER concludes that the property satisfies one of the nine criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06. The property does not meet the provincial criteria for evaluating cultural heritage value as set out in Ontario Regulation 9/06 and is therefore notrecommended for designation. 2.Subject Property 1 Evelyn Avenue is located within the south half of Lot 31, Concession III, B.F., in the former Geographic Township of Pickering, in the historical County of Ontario. Specifically, the property is located on the south side of Kingston Road, east of - 269 - 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Page 2 Rougemount Drive and west of Petticoat Creek and associated tablelands (Figure 1).1 The property is immediately north of Highway 401. Two buildings are located on the subject property, a one-and-a-half-storey brick dwelling, now used as a law office (Building 1) and a one-storey building with a square footprint and hipped roof (Building 2). Both buildings were constructed between 1936 and 1943. Building 1 is oriented towards Evelyn Avenue, with an active entrance located on the west elevation. It is set back approximately 22 metres from Kingston Road. Building 2 is located approximately nine metres south of Building 1, it has active entrances on the west elevation. The property is accessed from a paved driveway and surface parking lot west of the structures. The legal description of the property is: Plan 230 Part of Lot 10, now 40R12418 Part 1 (save and except 40R31274 Part 7). 1 Kingston Road is oriented in an approximately southwest to northeast direction. For east of description in this report, Kingston Road will be described as east-west oriented. - 270 - Rougemoun t D r i v e Ro s e b a n k R o a d Hi g h w a y 4 0 1 Ev e l y n A v e n u e Toynevale Road Dalewood Drive K in g s t o n R o a d Ch a n t i l l y R o a d Frontier Court Granite Court Rouge Hill Court Old Forest Road East Woodlands Park South Petticoat Ravine 1:4,000 SCALE:© The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City Development Department Figure 1: Location of 1 Evelyn AvenueFile:Municipal Address:Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 1 Evelyn Avenue THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Sep. 07, 2023 ¯ E 1 Evelyn Avenue SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\01-City Development\A-3300-074 Municipal Heritage Register\2023 Heritage Register Update\1EvelynAve_LocationMap.mxd- 271 - rn < Cl) -< ::, � Cl) ::, C: Cl) �of PICKERING City Development Department Figure 2: Existing conditions of 1 Evelyn Avenue c::::I Building 1 c::I Building 2 File: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 1 Evelyn Avenue Municipal Address:1 Evelyn Avenue © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: Date: Mar. 11, 2024 © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its SCALE: 1:400 I suppliers. All rights reserved.;© Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. THIS ISNOT API.ANOF SURVEY L:\PLANNING\01-Mapfiles\01-City Development\A-3300 Historical Heritage Conservation\A-3300-074 - 1 EvelynAve\CHER_ 1EvelynAYe.aprx - 272 - 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Page 5 3.Policy Framework 3.1 Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement The Planning Act (1990) and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) [Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), 2020] issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act, provide Ontario-wide policy direction on land use planning. All decisions affecting land use planning “shall be consistent with” the PPS, which identifies that properties and features demonstrating significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological, technical, or scientific interest are of provincial interest and should be conserved. The importance of identifying, evaluating, and conserving built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes is noted in two sections of the PPS 2020: — Section 2.6.1 – “Significant built heritage resources and significant heritage landscapes shall be conserved”; and, — Section 2.6.3 – “Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved.” The following concepts, as defined in the PPS, are fundamental to an understanding of the conservation of cultural heritage resources in Ontario: Built heritage resources (BHR) are defined as “a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Indigenous community. Built heritage resources are located on property that may be designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA), or that may be included on local, provincial, federal and/or international registers.” Conserved is defined as “the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has been approved, accepted or adopted by the relevant planning authority and/or decision-maker. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments.” Cultural heritage landscapes (CHL) “means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Indigenous community. The area may include features such as buildings, structures, spaces, views, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Cultural heritage landscapes may be properties determined to have cultural heritage value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act, or have been included on federal and/or international registers, and/or protected through official plan, zoning by-law, or other land use planning mechanisms.” - 273 - 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Page 6 Heritage attributes “means the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritage property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property’s built, constructed, or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (e.g. significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage property).” Significant means “in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act.” 3.2 Ontario Heritage Act (2005) The OHA gives municipalities and the provincial government powers to preserve the heritage of Ontario, with a primary focus on protecting heritage properties and archaeological sites. The OHA grants authority to municipalities and the province to identify and designate properties of heritage significance, provide standards and guidelines for the preservation of heritage properties, and enhance the protection of heritage conservation districts, marine heritage sites and archaeological resources. Properties can be designated individually (Part IV of the OHA) or as part of a larger group of properties, known as a Heritage Conservation District (Part V of the OHA). The designation offers protection for the properties under Sections 33 and 34 of the OHA, prohibiting the owner of a designated property from altering, demolishing, or removing a building or structure on the property unless the owner applies to the council of the municipality and receives written consent to proceed with the alteration, demolition or removal. In addition to designated properties, the OHA allows municipalities to list properties that are considered to have CHVI on their Register, which provides interim protection against demolition in the form of a 60-day delay in issuing a demolition permit. Under Part IV, Section 27, municipalities must maintain a Register of properties situated in the municipality that are of CHVI. Section 27 (1.1) states that the Register shall be kept by the Clerk and that it must list all designated properties (Parts IV and V). Under Section 27 (1.2), the Register may include a property that has not been designated, but that the municipal council believes to possess CHVI. Listed properties, although recognized as having CHVI, are not protected under the OHA as designated properties are but are acknowledged under Section 2 of the PPS (MMAH, 2020). 3.3 Ontario Regulation 9/06 The evaluation of cultural heritage resources is guided by O. Reg. 9/06 (as amended by O. Reg. 569/22), which provides nine criteria for determining CHVI. The criteria set out inthe regulation were developed to identify and evaluate properties for designation underthe OHA. Best practices in evaluating properties that are not yet protected employ O.Reg. 9/06 to determine if they have CHVI. The criteria for determining CHVI under O.Reg 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 orconstruction method.- 274 - 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Page 7 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to a community. 5. The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. O. Reg. 569/22, s. 1. If a potential cultural heritage resource is found to meet any one of these criteria, it can then be considered an identified resource. 3.4 Durham Regional Official Plan The Durham Regional Official Plan (2020 - Office Consolidation) provides a series of policies for the conservation of cultural heritage resources. Section 2.3.49 of the document provides a policy for built and cultural heritage resources, which states that the Regional Council shall encourage councils of the area municipalities to utilize the Ontario Heritage Act to conserve, protect, and enhance the built and cultural heritage resources of the municipality. The plan is to be consistent with the policies and direction provided through the PPS and encourages local municipalities to address cultural heritage resources in greater detail within their local official plans. 3.5 Pickering Official Plan The City of Pickering Official Plan (2018) provides cultural heritage conservation policies in Chapter 8. The following policies guide development proposals that may impact cultural heritage resources. 8.2 City Council shall: - 275 - 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Page 8 (a) identify important cultural heritage resources from all time periods, so that they can be appropriately conserved and integrated into the community fabric, including: (i) significant heritage structures, features and sites; (ii) buildings, sites, and artifacts of historical, archaeological and architectural significance including modern or recent architecture; (iii) significant landscape features and characteristics, including vistas and ridge lines; and (iv) other locally important cultural heritage resources; (b) foster public awareness and appreciation of the City’s cultural heritage; (c) prevent the demolition, destruction or inappropriate alteration of important cultural heritage resources to the extent possible; (d) where possible, restore, rehabilitate, maintain and enhance important cultural heritage resources owned by the City, and encourage the same for those owned by others; (e) where possible, ensure development, infrastructure, capital works and other private and public projects conserve, protect and enhance important cultural heritage resources; and (f) involve the public, business-people, landowners, local heritage experts, heritage committees, relevant public agencies, and other interested groups and individuals in cultural heritage decisions affecting the City. Ontario Heritage Act 8.4 City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, where warranted shall implement the provisions of the OHA, including the designation under the Act of heritage sites and heritage districts. Cultural Heritage Inventory 8.7 City Council, in association with its heritage committee, shall: (a) conduct an inventory of heritage resources owned by the City, its boards and commissions, and establish an overall program for the maintenance, use, reuse or, if warranted, disposal of these resources; (b) maintain an inventory of heritage resources designated or worthy of designation under the OHA; and (c) store and disseminate cultural heritage resource inventories and databases in convenient and publicly accessible locations and formats, and maintain an archive of heritage conservation information. Cultural Heritage Alteration and Demolition - 276 - 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Page 9 8.8 City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, shall: (a) allow alterations, additions or repairs to buildings designated under the OHA, provided the changes to the building do not detrimentally affect the heritage value; (b) allow new buildings, or alterations, additions or repairs to existing buildings within a Heritage Conservation District that are consistent with the District Conservation Guidelines; (c) discourage or prevent the demolition or inappropriate alteration of a heritage resource, but where demolition or inappropriate alteration is unavoidable: (i) consider the acquisition and conservation of the resource; and (ii) if acquisition is not possible, conduct a thorough review and documentation of the resource for archival purposes; and (d) ensure that designated cultural heritage buildings, and other important cultural heritage resources that are vacant for an extended period of time are inspected regularly to discourage vandalism and monitor conformity with the City’s Maintenance and Occupancy By-law. 4. Methodology The recommendations of this CHER are based on an understanding of the physical values of the property, documentation of its history through research, an analysis of its social and physical context, comparisons with similar properties, and mapping. This CHER is guided by key documents such as the Ontario Heritage Toolkit (Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries [MHSTCI], 2006). A CHER examines a property in its entirety, including its relationship to its surroundings, as well as its individual elements, i.e., engineering works, landscape, etc. This report will include: • A summary of the history of the immediate context informed by a review of archival sources and historical maps; • A summary of the land-use history of the property including key transfers of land and milestones informed by Land Registry records and additional archival research into prominent owners of tenants such as City Directories; • Thorough photographic documentation of the subject property and context; • A written description of the existing conditions and immediate context; • A comparative analysis, using buildings of a similar age, style, typology, context and history to inform the evaluation of CHVI; • An evaluation of whether the property satisfies criteria under O. Reg. 9/06; and • A draft statement of CHVI if appropriate. 5. Consultation Provincial and federal databases and inventories were consulted to gain further insight into the potential significance of the property at 1 Evelyn Avenue. The Ministry of - 277 - 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Page 10 Citizenship and Multiculturism’s (MCM) current list of Heritage Conservation Districts was consulted. No designated districts included the subject property (MCM, 2019). The Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) plaque database (OHT, 2021), the Canadian Register of Historic Places (Parks Canada, n.d.a) and the Directory of Federal Heritage Designations (Parks Canada, n.d.b) were searched. Neither the property nor its grounds are commemorated with an OHT plaque or listed on the Canadian Register of Historic Places or the Federal Canadian Heritage Database. 5.1 Current Heritage Recognition The Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of the property was evaluated in 2020 (see Branch Architecture CHER, Attachment 1). The CHER completed by Branch Architecture determined the property met two of the nine criteria outlined in Ontario Regulation 9/06. In 2021, based on the recommendations of the CHER and the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, Council passed Resolution #602/21 and 603/21 to include the property on the City’s Municipal Heritage Register under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act (see Council Resolution #602/21 and 603/21, Attachment 2). 6. Historical Context 6.1 Pre-Contact Period The initial inhabitants of Southern Ontario, known as Paleoindians, arrived around 11,000 years before present (BP), following the retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet (Ellis and Deller, 1990:39). Early Paleo groups, recognizable by their distinctive projectile points with long grooves or 'flutes,' such as Gainey (c.10,900 BP), Barnes (c.10,700 BP), and Crowfield (c.10,500 BP), transitioned to un-fluted varieties like Holocombe (c.10,300 BP) and Hi-Lo (c.10,100 BP) by approximately 10,400 BP (Ellis and Deller, 1990:39-43). Late Paleo groups utilized these morphologies (Ellis and Deller, 1990:40) and were characterized by mobility and small campsites for stone tool production (less than 200 m2) (Ellis and Deller, 1990). Around 8,000 BP, Ontario's climate warmed, leading to the colonization of deciduous flora and the emergence of the Archaic period. This period, spanning Early Archaic (c.10,000 to 8,000 BP), Middle Archaic (c.8,000 to 4,500 BP), and Late Archaic (c.4,500 to 2,800 BP) phases (Ellis et al., 1990), differed from Paleo populations in various ways, including increased tool stone variation, notched projectile points, native copper use, and population growth. The Archaic period saw the rise of extensive trade networks and the production of ground stone tools (Ellis and Deller, 1990:65-66). As population size increased, territories became more localized, and seasonal rounds were adopted for hunting and gathering (Ellis and Deller, 1990:114), leading to the transition into the Woodland period. The Woodland period, marked by ceramic technology, is divided into Early Woodland (c.800 BC to 0 AD), Middle Woodland (0 AD to 700/900 AD), and Late Woodland (900 AD to 1600 AD) periods (Spence et al., 1990; Fox, 1990). The Early Woodland period featured the Meadowood Complex (c.900 to 500 BC) and the Middlesex Complex (c.500 BC to 0 AD), characterized by crude pottery with cord impressions (Spence et al., 1990). In the Middle Woodland period, different cultural complexes emerged in Southern Ontario, with changes in lithic tool morphologies and elaborate ceramic vessels (Spence - 278 - 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Page 11 et al., 1990). Maize horticulture began rudimentary use by the end of the Middle Woodland period (Warrick, 2000). The Late Woodland period witnessed the expansion of maize horticulture, leading to increased population size and settlement complexity. Villages became more sedentary, relying on maize, beans, squash, and tobacco cultivation. By approximately 1400 AD, villages reached their maximum size, and increased warfare prompted the development of larger villages with extensive palisades. 6.2 Post-Contact Period 6.2.1 Pre-Confederation Treaties Early European presence began as early as 1615 with the exploration of this part of Southern Ontario by the French explorer Etienne Brulé, who travelled with the Huron along the major portage route known as the Toronto Carrying Place Trail, which connected Lake Ontario with Lake Simcoe to the north by way of the Humber River and the Holland Marsh (Steckley, 1987; Ramsden, 1990). In 1615-1616, Samuel De Champlain also travelled with the Huron northward to Georgian Bay. By the 1640s, the Huron, Petun, and Mississauga Anishinaabeg (Michi Saagiig) had been dispersed out of this region because of increasing conflicts with the Haudenosaunee and the warfare and disease that had arrived with European colonization. The large-scale population dispersals gave way for the Haudenosaunee to occupy the territory north of Lake Ontario where they settled along inland-running trade routes (Steckley, 1987; Ramsden, 1990). Due to increased military pressure from the French, and the return of the Anishinaabe Nations (Mississauga, Ojibwa, Odawa, and Potawatomi) who had previously retreated to the north, the Iroquois abandoned their villages along Lake Ontario. By the 1680s, the Anishinaabeg had returned and re-occupied the Lake Ontario area, as well as northward beyond the Haliburton Highlands. The Anishinaabeg later participated in a significant number of treaty agreements with the British Crown, establishing the foundation of Euro-Canadian settlement in southern Ontario (Ferris & Spence, 1995). After the American Revolution ended in 1783, many United Empire Loyalists began to move into southern Ontario creating a greater demand for land to settle. In 1787, senior officials from the Indian Department met with several Anishinaabe peoples to acquire land along the northern shores of Lake Ontario extending northward toward Lake Simcoe. The study area falls within the land surrendered in the 1787 Johnson-Butler Purchase, also known as the “Gunshot Treaty”. The treaty lands extended from the established Toronto Purchase (Treaty No. 13) and Cook’s Bay in the west to the Bay of Quinte and the 1783 Crawford Purchase in the east (Surtees, 1994:107). Due to irregularities in the 1787 Johnson-Butler Purchase, the Williams Commission negotiated two new treaties with the Chippewa and the Mississauga to address lands that had not yet been surrendered. The Williams Treaties were signed in 1923 by seven Anishinaabe First Nations and Crown representatives, transferring 2,000,000 ha of land to the Canadian Government between Lake Ontario and Lake Nipissing. The first of the Williams Treaties was signed by the First Nations of the Chippewa of Lake Simcoe (Beausoleil, Georgina Island, and Rama First Nations), and the second by the - 279 - 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Page 12 Mississauga of the north shore of Lake Ontario (Alderville, Curve Lake, Hiawatha, and Scugog Island First Nations). These land surrenders were combined into the Williams Treaties (Surtees, 1994; Wallace, 2020). The Williams Treaties also surrendered Indigenous hunting and fishing rights to off- reserve lands, a stipulation that differed from other land cessions. At the time of signing, given that this was a departure from the common practice of previous treaties, it was unclear that the Chippewa and Mississauga signatories were relinquishing these rights, and the territory covered by the Williams Treaties has been subject to several legal disputes between the descendants of the Indigenous signatories and the federal and provincial governments. 6.2.2 Ontario County Established in 1788, the District of Nassau was one of the original four districts that initially divided the present-day Province of Ontario. Subsequently, this district underwent a name change to become the Home District, encompassing an expanse stretching from the Trent River to Long Point and extending northward to the Severn River. Over the ensuing years, these districts underwent further division, resulting in a total of 20 districts. In 1853, Ontario emerged as a distinct entity, breaking away from the United Counties of Ontario, York, and Peel. By 1869, Ontario County, with an estimated area of 360,000 acres, of which 210,000 acres were cleared and cultivated, had taken shape (Connor & Coltson, 1869). In 1854, Ontario County comprised nine townships: Brock, Mara, Pickering, Rama, Reach, Scott, Thorah, Uxbridge, and Whitby. Throughout the latter part of the nineteenth century, the county gained recognition for the exceptional quality of its grains, with flour and lumber emerging as its primary manufacturing activities (Connor and Coltson, 1869). The dissolution of Ontario County occurred in 1974, leading to the incorporation of the Townships of Rama and Mara into Simcoe County. 6.2.3 Pickering Township Pickering Township was officially established in 1791 through the survey efforts of Augustus Jones on behalf of the government of Upper Canada. The eastern portion of the township saw settlement by Loyalists, disbanded soldiers, immigrants from the United Kingdom, and a significant number of Quakers from Ireland and the US (Farewell, 1907). In the aftermath of the revolution, Loyalists and their relatives dominated land grants in Pickering Township (Johnson, 1973). By 1793, the Kingston Road was opened, serving as a horse path extending east from Simcoe's Dundas Street, and by 1799, a rudimentary roadway had been cut from Duffin's Creek to Port Hope. Despite early road development making the township more accessible, the actual settlement of Pickering Township progressed at a slow pace. Although Major John Smith received the first land patent in 1792, the inaugural legal settler was William Peak in 1798 (Armstrong, 1985; Farewell, 1907). The challenges of clearing the forest prompted Peak and other early settlers to explore non-agricultural - 280 - 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Page 13 endeavours to supplement income, such as trading with Indigenous Peoples in the region (Johnson, 1973). Throughout the early nineteenth century, population growth and township development faced sluggish progress, with the War of 1812 impeding much of the county and township's advancement. Following the conflict, increased road traffic provided a boost to local innkeepers, and with improved roadways and the presence of Duffin's Creek, Pickering Township established saw and grist mills for lumber and grain production. By 1817, the population reached 330 (Johnson, 1973). Changes in land-granting policies in the 1820s led to additional land sales in Pickering Township, with the population reaching 575 by 1820 and growing to 830 by 1825 (Johnson, 1973; Welch and Payne, 2015). A post office was established in 1829, but the development of the hamlet of Duffin's Creek was slow. In the same year, the Crown collaborated with the New England Company, a missionary group, to promote farming and education for the First Nations people, leading to the establishment of what is now known as Curve Lake First Nation (Curve Lake First Nation, n.d.). The construction of the Grand Trunk Railway in 1856 and increasing agricultural prosperity stimulated Pickering Township's development as a significant grist-milling and local commercial centre. However, overall township development was slow, and between 1861 and 1891, a population decline occurred. Factors such as inflation and a depression between 1874-76 further contributed to this decline. The population of Pickering Township reached its peak at 8,002 in 1861 and numbered 5,998 by 1891 (Johnson, 1973). The Country of Ontario Directory for 1869 describes Pickering Township as: The township of township of Pickering is bounded on the north by the township of Uxbridge, on the south, by Lake Ontario, on the east by the township of Whitby and on the west by the townships of Markham and Scarboro, county of York. This township being the largest, together with the richness of its soil makes it one of the most wealthy municipalities in the county. Its principal villages are, Whitevale, Brougham, Claremont and Duffin's Creek. Population over 7,000. (Conner & Colston, 1869). Through most of the nineteenth and twentieth century, the township remained primarily agricultural. During the later years of the nineteenth century, a decrease in the demand for wheat resulted in an economic downturn for the predominantly agricultural township. The population of the township declined by more than 40% in the second half of the nineteenth century, and this downward trend persisted into the first half of the twentieth century (Nisbet, 1995). Like many communities on the periphery of Toronto, development increased following the Second World War. Manufacturing companies also moved to the township following the construction of Highway 401 in the 1950s. In 1974 the township was divided into eastern and northern parts. - 281 - 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Page 14 In 1974 the villages of Brougham, Claremont, Green River, Greenwood and Whitevale became the Town of Pickering. In 2000 the Town became incorporated as a city. 6.2.4 Kingston Road Kingston Road, also known as Danforth Road, Highway 2, Dundas Street, King Street, and Bond Street, was a military road commissioned by the government in 1796 to connect York (Toronto) to Kingston. Engineer Asa Danforth spearheaded this initiative, aiming to establish a vital overland military route linking Lake Ontario, Lake Saint Clair, and Lake Huron. The road served a dual purpose of promoting settlement in Upper Canada and deterring American expansionist interests. Despite commencing in 1796, progress was hampered by the challenging terrain of rocky and densely wooded landscapes (Byers & McBurney, 1982). By 1799, a segment from Toronto to Port Hope was completed, albeit initially as a muddy horse path. The road was macadamized in the mid-1800s, transforming it into a more navigable route. The final stretch, extending 837 km from Windsor to the Quebec border, was established. In 1917, the provincial Department of Highways took charge of maintaining the first 73.5 km of Highway 2, which remained a crucial route connecting Toronto and Quebec until the advent of Highway 401. In 1998, Highway 2 lost its provincial highway designation (Bevers, 2023). At the Rouge River crossing along Kingston Road, an early bridge existed, presenting challenges to travelers due to its sandy approaches. This bridge faced multiple washouts during spring freshets or heavy rains, leading to the occasional ferrying of travelers across the Rouge at this location. Kingston Road's significance as a transportation corridor persisted throughout the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Smith, 1851). 6.3 Site Specific History The subject property is within Lot 31, Concession III, B.F., in the Geographic Township of Pickering, Ontario County, now the City of Pickering. The property history for 1 Evelyn Avenue was completed using land registry records, historical maps, and census records. The absence of structures or other features shown on the historical maps does not preclude their presence on these properties. Illustrating all homesteads on the historical atlas maps would have been beyond the intended scope of the atlas and, often, homes were only illustrated for those landowners who purchased a subscription. 6.3.1 1 Evelyn Avenue The key information gathered from primary sources regarding the early history of the property includes: • October 19, 1840: 200 acres of Lot 31, Concession III, B.F. is granted to Seneca Palmer. • 1860: Seneca Palmer is shown as owning 200 acres of Lot 31, Concession III, B.F. on the 1860 Tremaine Map of Ontario County, one structure is illustrated on - 282 - 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Page 15 the map on the north side of Kingston Road. •March 13, 1922: Plan 230, Morgan & Dixon’s Plan, was registered. •Between 1936 and 1943: 401 Kingston Road is constructed. Lot 31, Concession III, B.F. originally formed part of the Clergy Reserves land allocation in Pickering. The Abstract Books provided by the Land Registry (Land Registry Office [LRO] 40, Book ID 201) record the first patent was issued in 1846 from the Crown to Seneca Palmer for 200 acres. The Palmer family migrated from the United States to Upper Canada around 1796 and established themselves in Scarborough in approximately 1800. Seneca, along with his younger brothers John and Sherwood, relocated to the Township of Pickering to acquire land and establish their own farms. Little else is known about the Palmer family, however, what is known is outlined in the 1999 article titled the Palmer Family: Settling in South Pickering by John W. Sabean. The early history of the Palmer family is sketchy and so far has been pieced together from what little documentation is available. The earliest references to the family date to 1802. Asa Danforth, reporting in that year on the condition of the Danforth Road, states that a settler named Palmer was located on the 10th mile post beyond York, which was probably Lot 23, Concession D in Scarborough. There is also a reference to a ‘Palmer’ family on a list of residents in the Township of Scarborough in 1802. The head of the family was James Palmer, Sr., who appeared in the records of Scarborough on several occasions to about 1815. In 1803, he was appointed pound keeper and in 1804 overseer of highways. In 1815, James Palmer, Sr. was noted in a York Militia List as being exempt from the military draft. His family, as well as can be determined, consisted of his wife (name unknown), two daughters (one perhaps named Clara), and five sons (Seneca, John, and Sherwood who later moved to Pickering Township, and James and Charles who remained in Scarborough). The Brown’s Toronto City and Home Directory for 1846-47 (Brown, 1847) lists Seneca Palmer as occupying Lot 31, Concession III, B.F. No information regarding the presence of structures is provided in the directory. The 1851 Census lists Seneca Palmer as a 61-year-old farmer from the United States, living with his wife, Jane Palmer, aged 56, and their two children, George (19), and William (7) (Item no. 1097705, Page 171). Palmer is listed as holding 198 acres in Lot 31, Concession III, B.F. Fifty of the 198 acres were under cultivation with 23 acres under crop, including wheat, peas, oats, corn, potatoes, turnips, and hay, and 15 acres under pasture. Two acres were listed as occupying an orchard or gardens, the remainder of the lot was listed as under wood or wild. Palmer is also enumerated as having bulls, oxen, or steers, horses, sheep, and pigs (Item no. 1098143, Page 275). - 283 - 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Page 16 Original concession roads are illustrated on the 1860 Tremaine Map of Ontario County (Figure 3), including present-day Altona Road, Whites Road, and Kingston Road. The former Village of Rouge Hill is illustrated on the map, at the present-day intersection of Kingston and Altona Roads. Seneca Palmer is shown as owing all of Lot 31, Concession III, B.F. The historical atlas map depicts Petticoat Creek extending in a northwesterly direction from Lake Ontario and bisecting the property. One structure is illustrated on the lot owned by Palmer, located on the north side of Kingston Road, east of Petticoat Creek. Senecal Palmer died from pneumonia on October 15, 1873, his properties were willed to his wife. Two years later, in 1875, Jane died and willed 120 acres in the north half of the lot to her son George, and 80 acres in the south half to James (Book 40, Instrument Nos. 2741 and 2852, Page 79). No structure is illustrated within the subject property on the 1877 Pickering Township Map (Figure 4). G.S. Palmer is shown as owning 120 acres within the north portion of Lot 31, Concession, III B.F., and J.S. Palmer is shown as owning 80 acres in the south portion of the lot. A structure is shown on the north side of Kingston Road, east of Petticoat Creek, outside of the subject property. On March 15, 1882, George Kinlock purchased 27 acres from George and Mary Palmer (Book 40, Instrument No. 4595, page 79). The land changed hands several times before Plan 230, Morgan & Dixon’s Plan, was registered on March 13, 1922. It was named for the landowners Edwin Morgan and Mildred Dixon. 1 Evelyn Avenue and the adjacent property at 401 Kingston Road fall within this subdivision. 1 Evelyn Avenue was granted from Mildred Morgan to Silas R. Dixon on March 7, 1930 (Instrument No. 18671, page 125). The property remained in their possession until November 19, 1943, when it was granted to John Horace and Dorothea Daniell-Jenkins (Instrument No. 24196, page 125). 401 Kington Road is within Lot 10 of Plan 230. The frame building with brick veneer was constructed between 1936 and 1943 as part of a small development which included approximately six similar structures on the north and south sides of Kingston Road, west of Petticoat Creek (Figure 5 and Figure 6). A 1954 aerial photograph (Figure 7) of the subject property was reviewed, the quality of the photograph is poor, and the house and rear building are not clearly visible in the photograph. These structures included 401 Kingston Road, 356 Kingston Road, 364 Kingston Road, 340 Kingston Road, and the Stroud Cottage at the intersection of Kingston Road and Rougemount. The Stroud Cottage was demolished (date unknown), and 356 Kingston Road and 364 Kingston Road were demolished between 2015 and 2016. 340 Kingston Road is extant; however, it has been highly altered to accommodate a gas station. Heinz and Ilse Wolf bought the lot in 1980. In 1998 it was sold to Mike Lindo, and the following year it was transferred to a company named 1000683 Ontario Ltd. The building currently houses a law office. - 284 - Subject Area �of Figure 3: Location of subject property on the 1860 Tremaine's Map of the County of Ontario PICKERING File: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 1 Evelyn Avenue Municipal Address:1 Evelyn Avenue City Development © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: Date: Mar. 11, 2024 © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© His Majesty the King in Department Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its SCALE: 1:7,000 I suppliers. All rights reserved.;© Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. THIS ISNOT API.ANOF SURVEY L:\PLANNING\01-Mapfiles\01-City Development\A-3300 Historical Heritage Conservation\A-3300-074 - 1 EvelynAve\CHER_ 1EvelynAYe.aprx - 285 - �of Figure 4: Location of subject property on the 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario PICKERING File: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 1 Evelyn Avenue Municipal Address:1 Evelyn Avenue City Development © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: Date: Mar. 11, 2024 © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© His Majesty the King in Department Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its SCALE: 1:7,000 I suppliers. All rights reserved.;© Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. THIS ISNOT API.ANOF SURVEY L:\PLANNING\01-Mapfiles\01-City Development\A-3300 Historical Heritage Conservation\A-3300-074 - 1 EvelynAve\CHER_ 1EvelynAYe.aprx - 286 - �of PICKERING City Development Department Figure 5: Location of subject property on 1914 and 1933 NTS Maps File: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 1 Evelyn Avenue Municipal Address: 1 Evelyn Avenue © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.;© Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. Date: Mar. 11, 2024 SCALE: 1 : ac1 ooo I THISISNOTAPI.AN SURVEY L:\PLANNING\01-Mapfiles\01-City Development\A-3300 Historical Heritage Conservation\A-3300-074 - 1 EvelynAve\CHER_ 1EvelynAYe.aprx - 287 - �of PICKERING City Development Department Figure 6: Location of subject property on 1936 and 1943 NTS Maps File: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 1 Evelyn Avenue Municipal Address: 1 Evelyn Avenue © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.;© Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. Date: Mar. 11, 2024 SCALE: 1 : ac1 ooo I THISISNOTAPI.AN SURVEY L:\PLANNING\01-Mapfiles\01-City Development\A-3300 Historical Heritage Conservation\A-3300-074 - 1 EvelynAve\CHER_ 1EvelynAYe.aprx - 288 - �of PICKERING City Development Department Figure 7: Location of subject property on a 1954 aerial photograph File: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 1 Evelyn Avenue Municipal Address:1 Evelyn Avenue © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.;© Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. Date: Mar. 11, 2024 SCALE: 1 : 6c/ 000 I THISISNOTAPI.AN SURVEY L:\PLANNING\01-Mapfiles\01-City Development\A-3300 Historical Heritage Conservation\A-3300-074 - 1 EvelynAve\CHER_ 1EvelynAYe.aprx - 289 - 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Page 22 7. Existing Conditions The description of the design / physical value of the structures at 1 Evelyn Avenue was limited to the exterior features as the site visit for the CHER was conducted from the public right of way. Constructed between 1936 and 1943, Building 1 retains its original massing and footprint. Building 1 consists of a one-and-a-half-storey frame building, sited on a poured concrete foundation. The building is clad in extruded brick laid in the running or stretcher bond, and fieldstone laid in a random pattern. Building 2 is located approximately nine metres south of Building 1. It consists of a square building with a hipped roof; it is clad in the same brick and fieldstone treatment as Building 1. Building 2 is set into the hillside and displays a two-storey elevation to the east. A law office currently operates from the building. 7.1 Discussion of Design and Physical Value 7.1.1 1 Evelyn Avenue: Building 1 Building 1 is a one-and-a-half-storey wood frame building with a brick veneer. The building has a rectilinear plan with a projecting bay at the northeast corner of the building, towards Petticoat Creek. The building has a hipped roof, punctuated by an addition. Building 1 is connected to Building 2 by a modern, one-storey addition. The four elevations of the building display a combination of masonry types, including brick and fieldstone; the building is sited on a poured concrete foundation. The main body of the exterior walls is clad in fieldstone with brick quoins and quoin treatments at the window and door jambs. The extruded brick is laid in the running, or stretcher bond. This bond type is created when bricks are laid with only their stretchers facing out, overlapping midway with the courses of bricks below and above. The running or stretcher bond is not a structural bond and is typically only used as a facing or veneer. North Façade The north façade of 1 Evelyn Avenue is asymmetrical, punctuated by an external brick chimney, flanked on either side by two windows. The base of the chimney projects from the house and similar to the rest of the house, is clad in fieldstone with brick quoins. All windows on the north elevation are topped with arched brick lintels and have cast stone sills, the openings contain single-hung three-over-one wood sash (Photograph 1). The project bay on the northeast elevation appears to be symmetrical with two window openings on the ground floor and two windows within the basement level. The windows on the ground floor consist of single-hung three-over-one wood sash. The projecting bay is clad in a combination of extruded brick and fieldstone. East Façade - 290 - 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Page 23 The east façade of 1 Evelyn Avenue was not visible during the site visit as photographs were taken from the public right of way. South Façade The south (rear) façade of Building 1 was not fully visible during the field review and a portion of the façade is concealed by a shed-roof addition. The façade contains at least one three-over-one sash window and features the same brick and fieldstone treatment used on the other elevations. West Façade The west (main) façade of 401 Kingston Road represents the current active entrance to the building. The façade displays an asymmetrical arrangement. The main entrance door and two windows are covered with a porch with a flat roof. The porch is supported by two brick and fieldstone piers. A grouping of windows is located towards the southern corner of the façade, it consists of two three-over-one, single-hung sash windows surrounded by brick quoins (Photograph 1). Photograph 1: North and west façades of 1 Evelyn Avenue (City of Pickering, 2024) Photograph 2: West elevation of 1 Evelyn Avenue (City of Pickering, 2024) 7.1.2 1 Evelyn Avenue: Building 2 Building 2 is located approximately nine metres south of Building 1, a low addition with a flat roof connects Buildings 1 and 2. Measuring approximately 7.5 metres east to west, and 7.5 metres north to west, the structure has a hipped roof and displays the same material pallet as Building 1. The exterior of the building is clad in a combination of extruded brick laid in the running bond and fieldstone with a pronounced mortar joint. The building is set into the hillside and displays a two-storey elevation to the east. The west elevation of Building 2 is symmetrical with two centrally placed windows, each flanked with a door. The windows and doors on Building 2 consist of modern vinyl and metal inserts (Photograph 3). - 291 - 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Page 24 Photograph 3: View of Building 2 from Evelyn Avenue (City of Pickering, 2024) 8. Discussion of Contextual Value 8.1 Landscape Conditions 1 Evelyn Avenue is a 0.38-hectare, irregularly shaped property located on the south side of Kingston Road, immediately west of Petticoat Creek, and north of Highway 401. Building 1, an Arts and Crafts bungalow, is oriented towards Evelyn Avenue, with an approximately 22 metre setback from Kingston Road. Building 2 is a one-storey structure, located approximately nine metres south of Building 1. The property is accessed via an asphalt driveway and surface parking lot from Kingston Road, west of the structures. A paved walkway with small gardens on either side extends from the parking lot to the main entrance. The front yard of Building 1 is dotted with mature coniferous and deciduous trees. The property and Kingston Road gently slope to the east towards Petticoat Creek and its tablelands. 8.2 Study Area Context The subject property at 1 Evelyn Avenue is in the City of Pickering on the south side of Kingston Road, immediately west of Petticoat Creek. The Kingston Road corridor is a four-lane divided road, generally oriented east to west. The residential properties to the north and west of the subject property range in height from one to six stories and exhibit a variety of construction materials, including brick, wood, and metal. These residential properties reflect the architectural styles typical of the mid-twentieth century through to the twenty-first century. The properties west of the subject property constitute modern commercial and education uses and are one storey in height (Photographs 4 to 6). The subject property is located immediately north of Highway 401, a controlled access highway which traverses Southern Ontario from Windsor to the Ontario and Quebec boundary. - 292 - 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Page 25 Photograph 4: View to the east of 1 Evelyn Avenue and 401 Kingston Road (City of Pickering, 2024) Photograph 5: View to west along Kingston Road, showing a six-storey residential building (City of Pickering, 2024) Photograph 6: Example of residential dwellings on the north side of Kingston Road (City of Pickering, 2024) 9.Architectural Style 9.1 Bungalow The structure on the subject property is an example of an Arts and Crafts bungalow. Originating in Britain as a response to the dehumanizing effects of the Industrial Age, this movement encompassed artistic, ideological, and even political ideals. Its influence extended to various visual arts, including pottery, wallpaper, furniture design, and architecture. The Arts and Crafts movement reached North America, leaving a distinctive mark on structures built between 1900 and 1945, particularly evident in the architectural details of bungalows from that era (Blumenson, 1990). Arts and Crafts bungalows, like the one at 1 Evelyn Avenue, showcase certain characteristics such as a mix of cladding materials (brick, stone, stucco, shingles, and horizontal wood), expansive verandahs or porches often extending from the main roof, dormer windows, wall gables, recessed entrances typically under porches, and exposed rafter tails or brackets, all contributing to - 293 - 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Page 26 symmetrical façades. Other stylistic elements often added to the Bungalow form include Tudor arches, undersized Palladian windows, and Spanish-inspired red pantile roofs. Bungalows were promoted by the Craftsman magazine, published in California and were popular with middle class and wealthy homeowners. In Ontario, these structures are almost exclusively used for residential purposes and are constructed of rustic materials such as fieldstone and brick (Kyles, 2016). 9.2 Comparative Analysis A comparative analysis was undertaken to establish a baseline understanding of similar recognized cultural heritage properties across Ontario and to determine if the subject residence “is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method” as described in O. Reg. 9/06. Comparative examples were drawn from listed properties within the City of Pickering. An additional review of the Municipal Register for the nearby Town of Ajax and the Town of Whitby was also conducted. No similar properties were identified in the Town of Ajax; three similar properties were identified in the Town of Whitby (see Table 1 below). This analysis does not represent all available properties, but the examples are intended to provide a representative sample of similar building typologies. - 294 - Table 1: Comparative analysis of heritage properties of similar age, style and/or typology to 1 Evelyn Avenue Address / Resource Heritage Recognition Date Material Style Photograph 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Listed on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register 1933- 1936 Frame, brick Arts and Crafts Bungalow; one-and-a-half-storey; rectangular plan; clad in red brick and stucco; hipped roof; symmetrical three-bay principal façade; enclosed porch supported by piers; groupings of windows with varied shapes and multi-paned glass; brick quoins and arched lintels; exterior chimney. City of Pickering 2023 200 Henry Street, Whitby Listed on the Town of Whitby’s Inventory of Listed Properties 1921 Frame, brick veneer, stucco Arts and Crafts Bungalow; one-and-a-half storey; rectangular plan; clad in red brick and stucco; side gable roof with front-facing dormer; asymmetrical two-bay principal façade; overhanging porch supported by piers; groupings of windows with varied shapes and multi-paned glass; brick quoins and arched lintels; exterior chimneys. Google Streetview 2023 - 295 - 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Page 28 900 Byron Street South, Whitby Designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, located within Werden’s Plan Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (By-law No. 7297-17) 1914 Frame, brick veneer Arts and Crafts Bungalow; one-and-a-half storey; rectangular plan; clad in buff brick and stucco; side gable roof with front-facing dormer; asymmetrical two-bay principal façade; overhanging porch supported by piers; groupings of windows with varied shapes and multi-paned glass; arched lintels; exterior chimneys. Google Streetview 2023 111 Trent Street West, Whitby Designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, located within Werden’s Plan Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (By-law No. 7297-17) 1927 Frame, brick veneer Arts and Crafts Bungalow; one-and-a-half storey; rectangular plan; clad in red brick and stucco; side gable roof with front-facing dormer; symmetrical three-bay principal façade; overhanging porch supported by piers; groupings of windows with varied shapes and multi-paned glass; arched lintels; interior chimneys. Google Streetview 2023 - 296 - The following architectural elements characteristic of Arts and Crafts bungalows were observed: •Style: The structures are vernacular examples of Arts and Crafts bungalows ofvarying styles. •Plan: All examples have rectangular plans. •Roof: The examples have side gable roofs with front-facing dormers. •Cladding: Two buildings are clad in a combination of red brick and stucco, onebuilding is clad in buff brick, and one is clad in red brick and fieldstone. •Façade: Two examples have a three-bay principal façade, and two exampleshave a two-bay principal façade. •Windows: The examples have groupings of multi-paned windows with arched lintels. •Decorative elements: Two examples have brick quoins. •Alterations: The examples have undergone minor alterations through some window replacements. This comparative analysis suggests the subject property demonstrates representative elements of an Arts and Crafts bungalow. These elements include the one-and-a-half storey height, groupings of multi-paned windows, a combination of materials including brick, stone and cedar shingles, a side gable roof punctuated by a front dormer and a rectangular plan. Although not considered an early example of its type, the building is a good example of its type and style and a rare example of an Arts and Crafts Bungalow in the city of Pickering. Recognizing the limited number of examples examined, it is acknowledged that this comparative analysis may be misleading. Additionally, fully assessing the architectural details of each structure from the public right of way poses challenges. Therefore, the cultural heritage evaluation presented in Section 9 not only considers the findings of this comparative analysis but also incorporates typical architectural trends observed across Ontario. 10.Cultural Heritage Evaluation The principal structure on the subject property at 1 Evelyn Avenue is a one-and-a-half-storey bungalow, inspired by the Arts and Crafts movement. 1 Evelyn Avenue is listed asa non-designated property on the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register. O. Reg. 9/06 of the OHA provides criteria for determining whether a property has CHVI. If a property meets two or more of the criteria, it is eligible for designation under the OHA. Table 2 presents the evaluation of the subject property using O. Reg. 9/06. - 297 - 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Page 30 Table 2: Evaluation of 1 Evelyn Avenue as per Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria 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. Y 1 Evelyn Avenue contains a representative example of an Arts and Crafts bungalow (Building 1), built between 1936 and 1943. Although not an early example of the style, 1 Evelyn Avenue appears to be one of two remaining bungalows constructed during the Arts and Crafts period in the City of Pickering. In accordance with the findings of the comparative analysis in Section 9.2, the building demonstrates representative elements of an Arts and Crafts bungalow with its one-and-a-half storey height, multi- paned windows, a combination of materials including brick and fieldstone, and rectilinear plan. The comparative analysis determined there is a listed bungalow in the City of Pickering, similar to the structure on the subject property. There are no similar listed or designated properties in the Town of Ajax; three similar properties are situated in the Town of Whitby. As such, 1 Evelyn Avenue is considered a representative example of Arts and Crafts architecture in the City of Pickering. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. N Building 1 and Building 2 do not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, but rather they reflect construction techniques and materials common to their time. 3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. N The property does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. The structures display construction techniques reflective of the eras and styles in which they were built. - 298 - 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Page 31 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. N Historical research completed for the property did not identify any notable individuals, associations, institutions, or themes associated with the property. Therefore, this criterion is not satisfied. 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 results of the research did not indicate that 1 Evelyn Avenue yields information that could contribute to the 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. N The architect and builder of Building 1 and Building 2 are unknown. As such, this criterion is not satisfied. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. N The subject property is not important in defining or maintaining the character of the surrounding area. Therefore, the property does not meet this criterion. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. N The subject property does not retain contextual value as it is not physically, functionally, or visually linked to its surroundings. The construction of Highway 401 south of the subject properties removed most of the properties with the Morgan & Dixon Plan, and very little of the original lot pattern and built form remain intact. - 299 - 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Page 32 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. N No significant views to the property distinguish the building as a notable or distinct property. It does not serve as a local landmark in the community. 10.1 Results of the Cultural Heritage Evaluation Based on the results of research, site investigation, and application of the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06, the property at 401 Kingston Road does not retain Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and is therefore not a candidate for designation. Accordingly, a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and List of Heritage Attributes has not been prepared. - 300 - 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Page 33 11.Bibliography Armstrong, Frederick H. (1985). Handbook of Upper Canadian Chronology. Hamilton: Dundurn Press, Ltd. Curve Lake First Nation. (n.d.) History. Retrieved from: https://curvelakefirstnation.ca/ Bevers, Cameron. (2023). Photographic History of King’s Highway 2. Retrieved from: https://www.thekingshighway.ca/PHOTOS/Hwy2photos.htm Blumenson, John (1990). Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Syles and Building Terms, 1784 to Present. Fitzhenry and Whitesite, Toronto. Branch Architecture. (2020). Kingston Road Study: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report. Brown, George. (1847). Brown's Toronto City and Home District Directory: 1846-7. Retrieved from: https://www.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.8_00012_1/1 Byers & McBurney. (1982). The Governor’s Road: Early Buildings and Families from Mississauga to London. University of Toronto Press Connor & Coltson. (1869). The County of Ontario directory for 1869-70. Toronto: Hunter, Rose & Co. Canada’s Historic Places. (2010). Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Second Edition. Canada’s Historic Places, Ottawa. Dodd, C. F., Poulton, D. R., Lennox, P. A., Smith, D. G., & Warrick, G. A. (1990). The Middle Ontario Iroquoian Stage. In C. J. Ellis & N. Ferris (Eds.), The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650 (pp. 321-360). London, Ontario: London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society. Durham, Region of. (2020). Durham Region Official Plan – Office Consolidation. Retrieved from: https://www.durham.ca/en/doing-business/official-plan.aspx Ellis, C.J., I.T. Kenyon, and M.W. Spence. (1990). Paleo-Indians. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 37-74. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. - 301 - 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Page 34 Ellis, C.J., I.T. Kenyon, and M.W. Spence. (1990). The Archaic. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 65-124. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. FamilySearch.org. (n.d.). Abstract index books, ca. 1800-1958. Retrieved from: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-L3V4-C?cat=486525 Farewell, J. E. (1907). County of Ontario: short notes as to the early settlement and progress of the county and brief references to the pioneers and some Ontario County men who have taken a prominent part in provincial and dominion affairs. Whitby, ON: Gazette-Chronicle Press. J.H. Beers & Co. (1877). Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario. Toronto, ON. Kyles, Shannon. (2017). Ontario Architecture. Bungalow. Retrieved from: http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/bungalow.html Library and Archives Canada (2021). Canadian Censuses. Retrieved from: https://www.bac- lac.gc.ca/eng/census/Pages/census.aspx Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism & Culture Industries. (2019). List of Heritage Conservation Districts. Retrieved from: www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/ heritage_conserving_list.shtml Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism & Culture Industries. (2007). Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties. Retrieved from: www.heritagetrust.on.ca/en/pages/tools/tools-for-conservation/eight-guiding-principles Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism & Culture Industries. (2006). Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process. Retrieved from: www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage_Tool_Kit_Heritage_PPS_infoSheet.pdf Ministry of Indigenous Affairs. (2020). Map of Ontario Treaties and Reserves. Retrieved from: https://www.ontario.ca/page/map- ontario-treaties-and-reserves Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2020). Provincial Policy Statement. Retrieved from: www.ontario.ca/page/provincial-policy-statement-2020 - 302 - 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Page 35 Nisbet, Rob. (1995) The Town Site of Ajax. In Archie MacDonald (ed.). A Town Called Ajax. The Ajax Historical Board. Ontario Council of University Libraries. (n.d). Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project: Markham Sheets. Retrieved from: https://ocul.on.ca/topomaps/collection/ Ontario, Government of. (2020). A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Retrieved from: https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-place-to-grow-office-consolidation-en-2020-08-28.pdf Ontario Land Registry Access. (2021). Abstract Index Books, Land Registry Office 40 (Pickering). Retrieved from: https://www.onland.ca/ui/40/books/60706/viewer/838941323?page=1 Parks Canada. (2010). The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada 2nd Edition. Retrieved from: www.historicplaces.ca/media/18072/81468-parks-s+g-eng-web2.pdf Pickering, City of. (2022) Pickering Official Plan, Edition 9. Retrieved from: https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/resources/Official-Plan---Main-Page/Edition-9/OP9ACC.pdf Sabean, John. (1999). The Palmer Family, Settling in South Pickering. Retrieved from: https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=171064&page=1 Smith, W.H. (1851). Canada: Past, Present and Future. Retrieved from: https://archive.org/details/canadapastpresen02smit_0/page/10/mode/2up Spence, M.W., R.H. Pihl, and C. Murphy (1990). Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 125-170. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. Tremaine, George. (1860). Tremaine’s Map of the Ontario County, Canada West. George R. and George M. Tremaine, Toronto - 303 - 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Page 36 Warrick, G. (2000). The Precontact Iroquoian Occupation of Southern Ontario. Journal of World Prehistory 14(4):415-456. Williamson, R.F. (1990) The Early Iroquoian Period of Southern Ontario. In C.J. Ellis & N. Ferris (Eds.) The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650 (pp. 291-320). London, Ontario: London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society Walker & Miles. (1877). Map of Toronto Township. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Peel, Ontario. Toronto, ON. - 304 - Attachment 6 to Report PLN 18-24 - 305 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | i Project Personnel ...................................................................................................... 3 Glossary of Abbreviations .......................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 5 1.0 Description of Context & Subject Property ............................................................ 6 1.1 Description of Context ...................................................................................... 6 1.2 Description of Subject Property ......................................................................... 7 1.3 Heritage Status .............................................................................................. 11 2.0 Policy Context ................................................................................................... 12 2.1 The Planning Act and PPS 2020 ....................................................................... 12 2.2 The Ontario Heritage Act ................................................................................ 13 2.3 Durham Regional Official Plan ......................................................................... 13 2.3 Pickering Official Plan (Edition 9) ..................................................................... 14 3.0 Historical Overview ............................................................................................ 16 3.3 401 Kingston Road ......................................................................................... 16 5.0 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources ........................................................... 29 5.1 Evaluation Criteria .......................................................................................... 29 5.2 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources ........................................................ 30 5.2.1 Design/Physical Value ............................................................................... 30 5.2.2 Historical/Associative Value ....................................................................... 30 5.2.3 Contextual Value ...................................................................................... 30 5.3 Summary of Evaluation ................................................................................... 35 9.0 Recommendations and Conclusions .................................................................... 36 10.0 Works Consulted ............................................................................................. 37 Appendix A ............................................................................................................. 38 Title Search (next page) .......................................................................................... 38 Appendix B ............................................................................................................. 39 Kingston Road Study, Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (Branch Architecture, 2020)39 - 306 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | ii Appendix C ............................................................................................................. 40 Staff Bios. ............................................................................................................... 40 - 307 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 3 Project Personnel Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Managing Director of Cultural Heritage Senior Review Vanessa Hicks, MA, CAHP Heritage Planner Research, Author Lucy Chen Technician GIS/Maps - 308 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 4 Glossary of Abbreviations HIA Heritage Impact Assessment MHBC MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited MCM Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (formerly the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries) OHA Ontario Heritage Act OHTK Ontario Heritage Toolkit O-REG 9/06 Ontario Regulation 9/06 for determining cultural heritage significance PPS 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (2020) - 309 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 5 Executive Summary MHBC was retained to undertake a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for the property located at 401 Kingston Road, hereinafter noted as the “subject property”. The subject property is listed on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register as per Part IV, Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. This report is being provided to the Council of the municipality as supplementary information given the recommendation to Council that the subject property be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The purpose of this CHER is to provide an evaluation of the property as per Ontario Regulation 9/06 and determine whether or not the property meets the legislated criteria for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Summary of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest This report concludes that the subject property meets 1 criteria under Ontario Regulation 9/06. The property is considered a representative example of a Craftsman bungalow architectural style. There is no evidence that the property has historical/associate or contextual values. Recommendations The Ontario Heritage Act identifies that a property must meet at least 2 criteria under Ontario Regulation 9/06 to be designated under Part IV. Given that the property only meets 1 criteria, it does not qualify for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. We recommend that the property not be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. - 310 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 6 1.0 Description of Context & Subject Property 1.1 Description of Context A site visit was undertaken by MHBC staff in August 2022 as well as January 2024. The context of the area can be described as urban with commercial developments and some remaining early 20th century single detached buildings, including the existing brick building at 401 Kingston Road (See Figures 1 - 4). As per a review of available historic aerial photos (provided in Section 3.0 of this report) he vast majority of early to mid. 20th century streetscape patterns have been removed. Figures 1 & 2: (left) View of the context of the subject property looking west towards Rougemount Drive along Kingston Road, (right) View of Kingston Road looking east towards Evelyn Avenue. (Source: MHBC, 2024) - 311 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 7 Figures 3 & 4: (left) View of adjacent property at 393 Kingston Road looking south, (right) View of Kingston Road looking east towards the subject property (Source: MHBC, 2024) 1.2 Description of Subject Property The subject property is located at 401 Kingston Road, Pickering. The property is situated north of the 401, south of Kingston Road, and east of Rougemount Drive. The property can be described as a rectangular-shaped lot approximately 0.64 acres in size. It is important to note that according to land registry information, the subject property is addressed as 413 Kingston Road (legally described as Pt Lts 17 & 18 PL 230 As In D503217; S/t D304495, T/w D304494; Pickering). The subject property is functionally related to the property at 401 Kingston Road and both include structures used to facilitate a Montessori School. The report will refer to the subject property noted in Figure 1 below as “401 Kingston Road” in order to remain consistent with information provided by the municipality. The subject property currently includes a single-detached brick building dated between approximately 1922 and 1930. The building has been adaptively re-used as a Montesorri school. The property also includes a contemporary building in the rear yard which was constructed in the late 20th century. The property also includes surface parking, a playground, and landscaped open space (See Figure 5). - 312 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 8 Figure 5: Aerial photograph of the subject property at 401 Kingston Road, (Source: Durham Region Interactive Map, accessed 2024) The building can be described as a 1.5 storey side-gabled brick building constructed in the Craftsman bungalow architectural style, likely between 1922 and 1930. - 313 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 9 Figure 6: View of building at 401 Kingston Road (noted with red arrow), (Source: MHBC, 2024) Figures 7 & 8: (left) Front elevation, looking south, (right) East elevation, looking west (Source: MHBC, 2024) - 314 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 10 Figures 9 & 10: (left) Rear elevation, looking north (right) West elevation, looking south-east, (Source: MHBC, 2024) Figure 11: North and west elevations of rear contemporary building, looking south- east (Source: MHBC, 2024) - 315 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 11 1.3 Heritage Status The subject property is listed on the City of Pickering Municipal heritage register as per Part IV, Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The register identifies that the property is of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) for the existing 20th century bungalow. Figure 12: Excerpt of the City of Pickering Heritage Register noting the property at 401 Kingston Road (Source: City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register (2021), accessed 2024). The property was brought forward to the Pickering Planning & Development Committee by City staff and recommended for designation under part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act on December 2023. A Notice of Intention to Designate the property under Part IV Section 29 (1.1) of the Ontario Heritage Act has not been published. - 316 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 12 2.0 Policy Context 2.1 The Planning Act and PPS 2020 The Planning Act makes a number of provisions regarding cultural heritage, either directly in Section 2 of the Act or Section 3 respecting policy statements and provincial plans. In Section 2, the Planning Act outlines 18 spheres of provincial interest that must be considered by appropriate authorities in the planning process. One of the intentions of The Planning Act is to “encourage the co-operation and co-ordination among the various interests”. Regarding cultural heritage, Subsection 2(d) of the Act provides that: The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as... (d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest; The Planning Act therefore provides for the overall broad consideration of cultural heritage resources through the land use planning process. In support of the provincial interest identified in Subsection 2 (d) of the Planning Act, and as provided for in Section 3, the Province has refined policy guidance for land use planning and development matters in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS). The PPS is “intended to be read in its entirety and the relevant policy areas are to be applied in each situation”. This provides a weighting and balancing of issues within the planning process. When addressing cultural heritage planning, the PPS provides for the following: 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. Significant: e) in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and - 317 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 13 criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act. 2.2 The Ontario Heritage Act The Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O, 1990, c.0.18 remains the guiding legislation for the conservation of significant cultural heritage resources in Ontario. This Heritage Impact Assessment has been guided by the criteria provided with Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act, as Amended in 2022 as per Bill 23 (Schedule 6). Ontario Regulation 9/06 outlines the mechanism for determining cultural heritage value or interest. Here, a property must meet at least 2 of 9 criteria to be considered for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. 2.3 Durham Regional Official Plan The Region of Durham Official Plan provides policies regarding the management and conservation of cultural heritage resources related to the scope of this report, as follows: Section 2 – Environment 2.1 Goals 2.1.3 To preserve and foster the attributes of communities and the historic and cultural heritage of the Region. 2.2 General Policies 2.2.11 The conservation, protection and/or enhancement of Durham's built and cultural heritage resources is encouraged. BUILT AND CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES 2.3.49 Regional Council shall encourage Councils of the area municipalities to utilize the Ontario Heritage Act to conserve, protect and enhance the built and cultural heritage resources of the municipality, to establish Municipal Heritage Committees to consult regarding matters - 318 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 14 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. 2.3 Pickering Official Plan (Edition 9) Chapter 8 of the Pickering Official Plan includes policies related to the management of cultural heritage resources. The following includes policies of the Official Plan which are related to the scope of this CHER: Cultural Heritage Goal 8.1 City Council shall respect its cultural heritage, and conserve and integrate important cultural heritage resources from all time periods into the community. Cultural Heritage Objectives 8.2 City Council shall: (a) identify important cultural heritage resources from all time periods, so that they can be appropriately conserved and integrated into the community fabric, including: (i) significant heritage structures, features and sites; (ii) buildings, sites, and artifacts of historical, archaeological and architectural significance including modern or recent architecture; (iii) significant landscape features and characteristics, including vistas and ridge lines; and (iv) other locally important cultural heritage resources; (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; Ontario Heritage Act - 319 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 15 8.4 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. - 320 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 16 3.0 Historical Overview 3.3 401 Kingston Road The following provides a summary of the evolution of the context and the subject property over time. The subject property is located on the south half of Lot 31, Concession 3, former Township of Pickering. According to land registry records, all 200 acres of Lot 31 were granted from the Crown to Seneca Palmer in 1836. The subject lands are located within the historic settlement of Rougehill. According to Wood (1874), the community of Rouge Hill was established along the former “Road to Kingston” which was established in the early 19th century as a route between York and Kignston. The Rouge River and the corresponding settlement of Rouge Hill is cited as “…one of the stations where the horses were changed, and as such attained some little local prominence.” (Wood, 1874: 160-161). The community also had a historic connection with shipbuilding. According to a review of the 1861 Tremaine Map of Pickering Township, the community of Rouge Hill is situated along the Road to Kingston (now Pickering Road) near the River Rouge. The subject lands are noted as being owned by Seneca Palmer, situated south of Petticoat Creek. According to the 1861 census of Pickering Township, Seneca Palmer (b. 1791) was a farmer from the United States. - 321 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 17 Figure 13: Tremaine Map Pickering Township, X. Approximate location of subject property outlined in red circle. The approximate location of the subject property is indicated on the Tremaine map (See Figure 14 below). No buildings are noted on the property at this time. Figure 14: Tremaine Map Pickering Township, X. Approximate location of subject property outlined in red circle. - 322 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 18 According to the 1877 Illustrated County Atlas of Pickering Township, the subject property is located on land owned by G.S. Palmer. No buildings or features are indicated on the subject property. The G.S. Palmer residence is noted on the north side of what is now Pickering Road, east of Petticoat River (See Figure 15). Figure 15: Illustrated County Atlas Map Pickering Township. Approximate location of subject property noted in red. The property changed hands several times in the 19th century until it was purchased by Griffith B. Clarke in 1919. There is no record of Griffith Clark residing in Pickering. Instead, the 1920 census records show Griffith Clark as residing in the City of Toronto. This suggests that the existing dwelling at 401 Kingston Road was not constructed by this time. The property was sold by Elmore J. Rowe to Edwin Morgan in 1922. The title abstract indicates that the property included 27 acres of land at this time. According to the 1930 census of Pickering Township, Edwin Morgan is noted as farmer residing in a brick dwelling in the settlement of Rouge Hill. Therefore, it is likely that the building was constructed between 1922 and 1930. - 323 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 19 Figure 16: Excerpt of the 1930 Pickering Census noting Edwin and Mary Morgan, (Source: Ancestry.ca) The property changed hands several times over the 20th century. In 1922, Morgan & Dixon’s Plan was created, and the subject property became part of lots 17 & 18 (See Figure 17). The Plan resulted in the creation of Evelyn Avenue, east of the subject property. Figure 17: Illustrated County Atlas Map Pickering Township. Approximate location of subject property noted in red. According to the 1951 aerial photograph, the individual features of the subject property are difficult to decipher. However, the aerial photograph provides evidence of the streetscape patterns along Pickering Road at this time. - 324 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 20 The context includes mature trees and vegetation on private lands. Several driveways are visible which provide access to single-detached residences on the west side of Petticoat Creek. Evelyn Avenue is also clearly visible. Figure 18: Excerpt of the 1951 aerial photo of Rouge Hill, Pickering Township (Source: City of Toronto Aerial Photographs, accessed 2024) According to the 1961 aerial photograph, the context of the area includes residential buildings in proximity of the subject lands. Similar to the 1951 aerial photograph, several single-detached buildings are located along the street between what is now Rougemount Drive to the west and Petticoat Creek to the east. The buildings are setback from the street, providing landscaped open space in front yards. The properties include driveways providing access to detached garages and Kingston Road. Evelyn Avenue 401 Kingston Road - 325 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 21 Figure 19: Excerpt of the 1961 aerial photo of Rouge Hill, Pickering Township (Source: City of Toronto Aerial Photographs, accessed 2024) According to a detail of the 1961 aerial photograph, the property at what is now 401 Kingston Road includes the existing brick dwelling (See Figure 20). Figure 20: Detail excerpt of the 1961 aerial photo of Rouge Hill, Pickering Township. Location of existing dwelling at 401 Kingston Road outlined in red circle. (Source: City of Toronto Aerial Photographs, accessed 2024) 401 Kingston Road Evelyn Avenue Ro u g e m o u n t D r . - 326 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 22 According to the 1971 aerial photograph of the context of the area has changed. Kingston Road appears to have been widened, and additional buildings constructed (including buildings with surface parking) (See Figure 21). Figure 21: Excerpt of the 1971 aerial photo of Rouge Hill, Pickering Township. Newly commercial development outlined in yellow. (Source: City of Toronto Aerial Photographs, accessed 2024) 401 Kingston Road Evelyn Avenue - 327 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 23 Figure 22: Detail excerpt of the 1971 aerial photo of Rouge Hill, Pickering Township noting the location of the brick building at 401 Kingston Road with red arrow. (Source: City of Toronto Aerial Photographs, accessed 2024) According to the 1981 aerial photograph of the context of the subject property, the area was becoming increasingly urbanized with commercial developments. Several commercial buildings are indicated on the aerial photograph (outlined in yellow) (See Figure 23). - 328 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 24 Figure 23: Excerpt of the 1981 aerial photo of Rouge Hill, Pickering Township noting the location of the brick building at 401 Kingston Road with red arrow. Commercial developments outlined in yellow. (Source: City of Toronto Aerial Photographs, accessed 2024) The individual features of the brick building at 401 Kingston Road are not clearly visible on the 1981 aerial photograph. The aerial photograph appears to depict building(s) or features. One of these is clearly visible on the 1971 aerial photograph (east of the brick building which is located on the subject property). 401 Kingston Road Evelyn Avenue Ro u g e m o u n t D r . - 329 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 25 Figure 24: Detail excerpt of the 1981 aerial photo of Rouge Hill, Pickering Township noting the location of the brick building at 401 Kingston Road with red arrow. (Source: City of Toronto Aerial Photographs, accessed 2024) According to the 2002 aerial photograph, the context of the subject property became increasingly urbanized between 1981 and the early 21st century. The majority of the context includes higher density commercial and residential developments. The streetscape patterns which are evident in early to mid. 20th century aerial photos have considerably change from single-detached residential within a semi-urban area, to being primarily commercial and higher density residential (See Figure 25). - 330 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 26 Figure 25: Excerpt of the 2002 aerial photo of the context of the subject property noting the location of the brick building at 401 Kingston Road with red arrow. (Source: Google Satellite Imagery, accessed 2024) According to the 2002 aerial photograph, the existing contemporary building located to the rear of the brick structure had been constructed (See Figure 26). - 331 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 27 Figure 26: Excerpt of the 2002 aerial photo of the context of the subject property noting the location of the brick building at 401 Kingston Road with red arrow. (Source: Google Satellite Imagery, accessed 2024) According to the 2022 aerial photograph of the context of the subject property, there were no major changes between 2002 and 2022. The area remains urban in nature (See Figure 27). - 332 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 28 Figure 27: Excerpt of the 2022 aerial photo of the context of the subject property noting the location of the brick building at 401 Kingston Road with red arrow. (Source: Google Earth, accessed 2024) - 333 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 29 5.0 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources The following sub-sections of this report provide an evaluation of the subject lands as per Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act. These criteria have been adopted as standard practice in determining significant cultural heritage value or interest. 5.1 Evaluation Criteria Ontario Regulation 9/06 prescribes that that: A property may be designated under section 29 of the Act if it meets two or more or the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest: The property has design value or physical value because it, 1. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, 2. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or 3. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. The property has historical value or associative value because it, 4. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, 5. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or 6. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. The property has contextual value because it, 7. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, 8. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or 9. is a landmark. - 334 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 30 5.2 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources The following provides an evaluation of the property as per Ontario Regulation 9/06. 5.2.1 Design/Physical Value The property demonstrates design/physical value as it includes a representative example of a building constructed in the Craftsman bungalow architectural style. As per a review of land abstract and census records, the dwelling was likely constructed between 1922 and 1930 for Edwin Morgan. The building includes features which are indicative of the Craftsman style of architecture, including scale/massing, brick & cobblestone construction, side-gabled roof, and dormer windows. There is no evidence to suggest that the building was constructed with a high degree of craftsmanship, artistic merit, technical or scientific achievement. Instead, the building was constructed with materials and methods which were commonplace at the time. 5.2.2 Historical/Associative Value The property does not demonstrate historical/associative value for any direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to a community. The existing building was not developed until the early 20th century. The existing building was constructed between approximately 1922 and 1930. According to available census records, the original owner, Edwin Morgan was a farmer of English descent. There is no evidence to suggest that E. Morgan or any subsequent owners were significant to the community. There is no evidence to suggest that the property is directly associated to any significant theme, event, belief, activity, or organization. The property is not likely to yield further information which would contribute to the understanding of the community. 5.2.3 Contextual Value The subject property does not demonstrate contextual value. The property is not important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of the area. As per the research provided in this report, the context of the area has changed over time. As per a review of available aerial photographs, the character of the area was primarily semi- urban residential in the early to mid. 20th century and included a series of single- - 335 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 31 detached houses along either side of Kingston Road between Rougemount Drive and Petticoat Creek. During the early to mid. 20th century the character of the area was that of an early 20th century residential neighbourhood with the corresponding streetscape patterns. The area became increasingly urbanized towards the late 20th century with residential and commercial developments of increased densities. This resulted in the removal of early 20th century single-detached dwellings which previously dominated the context of the area. Given that the character of the area is increasingly urban with a mix of higher density commercial and residential developments, the subject property does not define, maintain, or support the existing context of the area. The property does not demonstrate contextual value for any physical, functional, visual, or historical links to its surroundings. The building is a remaining early 20th century single-detached dwelling in a setting which became increasingly urbanized during the second half of the 20th century. The subject property has no significant link to any adjacent properties. This report acknowledges that the property located at 1 Evelyn Avenue was also identified in the report completed by Branch Architecture as being of potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (provided in Appendix B). Here, the report describes the building at 1 Evelyn Avenue as a being constructed in an early 20th century bungalow architectural style. The report identifies the following on page 15, The unique fieldstone treatment on the exterior walls [of 1 Evelyn Avenue] is also found at 401 Kingston Road which was also contained within the Morgan and Dixon Plan. - 336 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 32 Figure 28: View of 401 Kingston Road looking east across Evelyn Avenue (Source: MHBC, 2024) It is important to note that the Branch architecture report does not identify a contextual relationship between the property at 1 Evelyn Avenue and the subject property at 401 Kingston Road. Instead, it identifies under design/physical value that both buildings include a similar fieldstone treatment at the exterior and are both included on part of the Morgan and Dixon Plan which was created in the 1922 as follows: - 337 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 33 Figure 29: Excerpt of the cultural heritage evaluation for 401 Kingston Road, (Source: Branch Architecture, 2022) While Branch Architecture the report acknowledges there are similarities in the use of cobblestones for both properties at 1 Evelyn Avenue and 401 Kingston Road, there is no evidence to support that these similarities add substantial CHVI to the property at 401 Kingston Road. Instead, there are a range of architectural styles dating to the early 20th century which typically incorporated the use of both stone and masonry. This includes bungalows and Craftsman style buildings, for example. There is no evidence to support that both buildings were purposefully designed to have similarities, or that they were constructed by the same builders, designers, or craftsmen. Figures 30 & 31: (left) View of 1 Evelyn Avenue looking east from Evelyn Avenue, (right) Detail view of cobblestones and masonry at 401 Kingston Road (Source: MHBC, 2024) - 338 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 34 The two buildings at 401 Kingston Road and 1 Evelyn Avenue are both situated south of Kingston Road and are located approximately 65 metres from each other. These two buildings are what remains of other buildings which previously existed in the immediate context in the early to mid. 20th century as per a review of aerial photographs provided in this report. By circumstance, these two buildings remain and others have been removed. These buildings can be seen within the same general viewshed looking south along Evelyn Avenue. However, available guidance from the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (formerly the Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport) states that whether or not views simply exist does not support a significant relationship or significant view. The Heritage Identification and Evaluation Process document of the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism provides guidance on the criteria under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and states the following as it relates to visual relationships, Visual – i.e., where there is a visual connection between it and at least one feature in the context. It is not visually linked merely because adjacent properties can be seen from it; Therefore, best practice and guidelines support that coincidental spatial and visual relationships do not meet criteria under Ontario Regulation 9/06 as it relates to contextual values. The subject property is not considered a landmark of the local community. For example, the building would not serve as a distinguishable landmark by which one would give directions or serve as a memorable focal point within the existing landscape. Ontario Regulation 9/06 401 Kingston Road 1. Rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method Yes. Property includes a representative example of a building constructed in the Craftsman bungalow architectural style. The building is not considered early, rare, or unique. 2. Displays high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit No. The building was constructed with materials and techniques which were considered commonplace at the time it was constructed. 3. Demonstrates high degree of technical or scientific achievement No. The building does not demonstrate any evidence of having a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4. Direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, institution that is significant No. As per a review of available land abstracts and primary sources (such as census records), the property is not associated with any person, themes, events, beliefs, activities, organizations or institutions which are considered significant. 5. Yields, or has potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture No. Legislative guidance demonstrates that this criterion is most commonly associated with archaeological resources. - 339 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 35 5.3 Summary of Evaluation The following chart provides a summary in chart format of the evaluation of the subject property as per Ontario Regulation 9/06 which is provided in Section 6.2 of this report: 6. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to the community. No. The builder is unknown, but should be added to the historic record should this information become available. 7. Important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area No. As per the research provided in this report, the context of the area has changed over time. As per a review of available aerial photographs, the character of the area was primarily semi-urban residential in the early to mid. 20th century and included a series of single-detached houses along either side of Kingston Road between Rougemount Drive and Petticoat Creek. During the early to mid. 20th century the character of the area was that of an early 20th century residential neighbourhood with the corresponding streetscape patterns. The area became increasingly urbanized towards the late 20th century with residential and commercial developments of increased densities. This resulted in the removal of early 20th century single-detached dwellings which previously dominated the context of the area. Given that the character of the area is increasingly urban with a mix of higher density commercial and residential developments, the subject property does not define, maintain, or support the existing context of the area. 8. Physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings No. The property does not demonstrate contextual value for any physical, functional, visual, or historical links to its surroundings. The building is a remaining early 20th century single-detached dwelling in a setting which became increasingly urbanized during the second half of the 20th century. The subject property has no significant link to any adjacent properties. 9. Is a landmark No. The subject property is not considered a landmark of the local community. For example, the building would not serve as a distinguishable landmark by which one would give directions or serve as a memorable focal point within the existing landscape. - 340 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 36 9.0 Recommendations and Conclusions Given that the property does not quality for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, we recommend that the property not be designated. - 341 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 37 10.0 Works Consulted Branch Architecture. Kingston Road Study, Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report. November, 2020. Fuller, Robert M. Barclays of Pickering. n.d. Government of Canada. Parks Canada. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. 2010. Heritage Resources Centre. Ontario Architectural Style Guide. University of Waterloo, 2009. McKay, William A. The Pickering Story. Township of Pickering Historical Society, 1961. Mills, Rych. Kitchener (Berlin) 1880-1960. Arcadia Publishing, 2002. Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries. InfoSheet#5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans, 2006 Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process. 2014. n.a. Pickering Township Oral History Project. 1972. North Pickering Community Development Project. The Historical Complexities of Pickering, Markham, Scarborough and Uxbridge. 1973. Ontario Ministry of Culture. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, InfoSheet #2, Cultural Heritage Landscapes . Queens Printer for Ontario, 2006. Wood, William R. Past Years in Pickering, Sketches of the History of the Community. 1874. - 342 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 38 Appendix A Title Search (next page) - 343 - Chain OF TITLE 413 Kingston Road, Pickering Parcel Register 26309-0183 – Part Lots 17 & 18 Plan 230 as in D503217 (except parts 4 & 5 on 40R31274) Originally – Part Lot 31 3rd Broken Front Concession, Twp of Pickering LRO #40 Durham Region Page 1 of 8 Instr. No. Type Registration Date From To Value / Land / Remarks Patent 20 Oct 1836 CROWN PALMER, SENECA All Lot 31 3rd Broken Front Concession – 200 Acres 1600 Will 16 May 1866 7 Nov 1873 PALMER, SENECA 3749 Bargain & Sale 15 Dec 1879 PALMER, GEORGE S. & w ORMISTON, DAVID 27 Acres 3750 Bargain & Sale 15 Dec 1879 ORMISTON, DAVID & w PALMER, MARY J. 27 Acres 4595 Bargain & Sale 16 Mar 1882 PALMER, MARY J. & G. S. KINLOCH, GEORGE 27 Acres – “land later covered by Plan 230” 13746 Will 19 Jun 1915 7 Aug 1915 KINLOCH, GEORGE 27 Acres 13776 Caution 9 Oct 1915 DALES, JOHN R., Extr of Estate of George Kinloch 13959 Grant 26 May 1919 DALES, JOHN R., Extr of Estate of George Kinloch, deceased & DALES, JOHN R. & wife ESTATE OF JOHN VAN HORNE, deceased, UPPER, AMANDA, Administrator MOON, CHARLOTTE McGARBIE, VICTORIA $1.00 – 27 Acres – same land in 4595 14726 Grant 7 Jul 1919 ESTATE OF JOHN VAN HORNE, deceased, CLARKE, GRIFFITH B. 27 Acres – assumption of mortgage & $29,000 – same land in 4595 - - 344 - Chain OF TITLE 413 Kingston Road, Pickering Parcel Register 26309-0183 – Part Lots 17 & 18 Plan 230 as in D503217 (except parts 4 & 5 on 40R31274) Originally – Part Lot 31 3rd Broken Front Concession, Twp of Pickering LRO #40 Durham Region Page 2 of 8 UPPER, AMANDA, Administrator MOON, CHARLOTTE McGARBIE, VICTORIA VAN HORNE, MARY 15220 Grant 22 Oct 1920 CLARKE, GRIFFITH B. ROWE, ELMORE J. Part Lot 31 - $5,600 – as in 14726 15697 Grant 2 Feb 1922 ROWE, ELMORE J. MORGAN, EDWIN 27 Acres - $27,000 +assumption of mortgage for $40,000 – as in 15220 - 15755 Grant 1 Apr 1922 MORGAN, EDWIN DIXON, MILDRED M. 11 45/100 Acres - $2200 + W pt of land in 15697 - 230 Plan 6 Jul 1922 MORGAN & DIXON’S PLAN Lots 17 & 18 16885 Grant Sep 16 1925 DIXON, MILDRED M. SAVAGE, LESLIE VERNON Lots 17 & 18- $250.00 17200 Grant Sep 20 1926 SAVAGE, LESLIE VERNON & wife LOWREY, ALFRED A. Lots 17 & 18 - $2.00 & C. 17202 Mortgage Sep 23 1926 LOWREY, ALFRED A. & wife LOWRY, DANIEL A. Lots 17 & 18 - $1,000.00 20371 Quit Claim Sep 21 1934 LOWRY, ALFRED A. & wife LOWRY, DANIEL A. Lots 17 & 18 - $2.00 & C. 20374 Grant Sep 24 1934 LOWRY, DANIEL A. & wife McCHESNEY, JAMES GUY McCHESNEY, ANNIE C. Lots 17 & 18 - $2.00 & C. 18 Expropriation Plan Sep 27 1937 Showing land required for Public purposes of Ontario Part Lot 17 - 345 - Chain OF TITLE 413 Kingston Road, Pickering Parcel Register 26309-0183 – Part Lots 17 & 18 Plan 230 as in D503217 (except parts 4 & 5 on 40R31274) Originally – Part Lot 31 3rd Broken Front Concession, Twp of Pickering LRO #40 Durham Region Page 3 of 8 45 Exprop Plan 16 Feb 1939 Land required for New Highway Part Lots 17 & 18 22071 Grant Jul 7 1939 McCHESNEY, JAMES GUY McCHESNEY, ANNIE C. TRINNELL, LOCKHART TRINNELL, GRACE EMILY Lots 17 & 18 except part taken for highway – $2.00 & C. D80101 Power of Attorney Nov 8 1978 TRINNELL, GRACE E. TRINNELL, COLIN R. Lots 17 & 18 – irregular parcel – Survey attached to document & copied below – page 5 D117587 Letters Probate Dec 30, 1980 TRINNELL, GRACE EMILY TRINNELL, LOCKHART COLIN Lots 17 & 18 D128197 Grant 19/08/81 TRINNELL, LOCKHART C. Executor of Estate of Grace Emily Trinnell TRINNELL, LOCKHART C. As described in D80101 (Power of Attorney) D137575 Mortgage 15 04 82 TRINNELL, LOCKHART C. VICTORIA AND GREY TRUST COMPANY $65,000.00 – As in D128197 D138501 Grant 05 05 82 ESTATE OF TRINNELL, GRACE E. TRINNELL, LOCKHART C. As described in 128197 D165001 Grant 29 09 83 TRINNELL, LOCKHART C. CHURCHILL, DOROTHY As described in D128197 D190150 Transfer 08 01 85 THE NATIONAL VICTORIA AND GREY TRUST COMPANY SHORTREED, DAVID HARRY As described in D138501, under Power of Sale in Mortgage D137575 D304495 Transfer/ Easement 24 02 89 SHORTREED, DAVID HARRY N. BIGIONI MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD. Easement over parts 2 & 4 on 40R11875 - 346 - Chain OF TITLE 413 Kingston Road, Pickering Parcel Register 26309-0183 – Part Lots 17 & 18 Plan 230 as in D503217 (except parts 4 & 5 on 40R31274) Originally – Part Lot 31 3rd Broken Front Concession, Twp of Pickering LRO #40 Durham Region Page 4 of 8 HOLLOW HOLDINGS LTD. Each ½ interest D450655 Transfer 95 04 21 SHORTREED, DAVID HARRY SHORTREED, DAVID HARRY SHORTREED, ELEANOR MAY $2.00 – Part Lot 17 & 18– T/W & S/T temp int. D503217 Transfer 1997/10/10 SHORTREED, DAVID HARRY SHORTREED, ELEANOR MAY 750985 ONTARIO INC. $400,000.00 Part Lot 17 & 18 - T/W & S/T Easement Automated 26 Oct 1998 – Parcel Register26308-0046 – First Conversion from Book – Part Lots 17 & 18 Plan 230 – as in D503217 40R31274 Ref Plan 2021/03/09 Parts 4 & 5 – Transferred to The Regional Municipality of Durham New Parcel Register 26308-0182 New Parcel Register - 26309-0183 - Created 2023/05/17 – Part Lots 17 & 18 Plan 230 as in D503217 – Save & Except Parts 4 & 5 on 40R31274. Division from Parcel Register 26308-0046 DR2209068 Transfer 2023/02/06 750985 ONTARIO INC. 401 KINGSTON ROAD CORPORATION $2,993,070 E. & O. E. – Completed by P.L.P. Titles Ltd. on the 2 February 2024 – Please note – Information has been gathered from On-Line Microfilmed copies of the Old Index Books – Due to the difficulty of analysing the information to compile this Chain of Title - Complete Accuracy cannot be relied upon - Names & Dates & Registration Numbers are difficult to read – Deeds have not been printed or descriptions plotted - - 347 - Chain OF TITLE 413 Kingston Road, Pickering Parcel Register 26309-0183 – Part Lots 17 & 18 Plan 230 as in D503217 (except parts 4 & 5 on 40R31274) Originally – Part Lot 31 3rd Broken Front Concession, Twp of Pickering LRO #40 Durham Region Page 5 of 8 - 348 - Chain OF TITLE 413 Kingston Road, Pickering Parcel Register 26309-0183 – Part Lots 17 & 18 Plan 230 as in D503217 (except parts 4 & 5 on 40R31274) Originally – Part Lot 31 3rd Broken Front Concession, Twp of Pickering LRO #40 Durham Region Page 6 of 8 - 349 - Chain OF TITLE 413 Kingston Road, Pickering Parcel Register 26309-0183 – Part Lots 17 & 18 Plan 230 as in D503217 (except parts 4 & 5 on 40R31274) Originally – Part Lot 31 3rd Broken Front Concession, Twp of Pickering LRO #40 Durham Region Page 7 of 8 - 350 - Chain OF TITLE 413 Kingston Road, Pickering Parcel Register 26309-0183 – Part Lots 17 & 18 Plan 230 as in D503217 (except parts 4 & 5 on 40R31274) Originally – Part Lot 31 3rd Broken Front Concession, Twp of Pickering LRO #40 Durham Region Page 8 of 8 - 351 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 39 Appendix B Kingston Road Study, Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (Branch Architecture, 2020) - 352 - CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT KINGSTON ROAD STUDY Pickering, Ontario November 1, 2020 - 353 - Cover Image: 301 Kingston Road, 2019. (Branch Architecture, BA) PREPARED FOR: Elizabeth Martelluzzi, Planner II, Heritage City Development Department City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 E: emartelluzzi@pickering.ca PREPARED BY: Branch Architecture 2335 County Road 10 Picton, ON K0K 2T0 T: (613) 827-5806 Issued: 2020.06.16 DRAFT 2020.11.01 R1 - 354 - i Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 CONTENTS 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Project Framework & Background 1.2 Property Addresses and Lot Descriptions 2 Land Grants 2 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Historical Maps 3 1 Evelyn Avenue 7 3.1 Property Description 3.2 Background Research 3.3 Building Description & Site Photos 3.4 Evaluation 4 301 Kingston Road 16 4.1 Property Description 4.2 Background Research 4.3 Building Description & Site Photos 4.4 Evaluation 5 401 Kingston Road 26 5.1 Property Description 5.2 Background Research 5.3 Building Description 5.4 Evaluation 6 882 & 886 Kingston Road 37 6.1 Property Description 6.2 Background Research 6.3 Building Description & Site Photos 6.4 Evaluation 7 Discussion 59 Appendix 1: Sources Appendix 2: Summary of Land Records - 355 - ii KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 1. Approximate location of subject properties. (Bing maps annotated by BA) 1 Evelyn Avenue 882 Kingston Road 401 Kingston Road 301 Kingston Road PROJECTNORTH - 356 - 1 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 1 Introduction 1.1 Project Framework & Background Branch Architecture was retained by the City of Pickering as a heritage consultant to assess the potential cultural heritage value of four properties of heritage significance identified in the Kingston Road Corridor and Speciality Retailing Node Draft Intensification Plan. These properties are: 1 Evelyn Avenue; 301 Kingston Road; 401 Kingston Road; and, 882 Kingston Road. The scope of this cultural heritage evaluation includes the following: 1.Undertake a site visit to each property, including a walk around the subject building. 2.Conduct preliminary background research on the history of the properties and their immediate setting. 3.Undertake general photographic documentation of the property and surroundings. 4.Prepare a Preliminary Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report including the following for each property: •A written description of the property and building(s); •General photographs of each property and buildings; and, •Preliminary heritage evaluation based on Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Branch Architecture undertook on site visits to 401 and 882 Kingston Road on March 2, 2020, and to 301 Kingston Road on October 19, 2020. The visits consisted of walking around each property and the immediate context, and completing a visual review of the building exterior and interior (where access was permitted). All the properties were reviewed from the street in December of 2019. Branch Architecture prepared this Cultural Heritage Evaluation in accordance with Ontario Regulation 9/06 - Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, the Ontario Heritage Act, the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada as well as other charters and guidelines that exemplify heritage best practice. 1.2 Property Addresses and Lot Descriptions •1 Evelyn Avenue - PLAN 230 PT LOT 10 NOW RP 40R12418 PART 1 •301 Kingston Road - CON BF RANGE 3 PT LOT 32 •401 Kingston Road - PLAN 230 PT LOT 19 NOW RP 40R16160 PART 1 •882 & 886 Kingston Road - CON BF RANGE 3 PT LOT 27 AND RP 40R2628 PART 1 TO 4 AND RP 40R15853 PART 1,2,3 - 357 - 2 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 2 Land Grants 2.1 Introduction The Constitutional Act of 1791, known as the Canada Act, divided the Province of Quebec into Upper Canada to the west and Lower Canada to the east. As part of this Act, land grants in the newly surveyed townships were issued under the newly estab- lished provincial governments. In 1792, the responsibility of granting lands was del- egated to Lt. Governor Col. John Graves Simcoe. Simcoe followed British land granting tradition and, in effect, made members of his legislative council landed gentry. By the end of his term of office in 1796, he had placed one seventh of the surveyed townships in the hands of the Church of England (known as the Clergy Reserves) and provided well for his council and his civil servants. In the Pickering Township alone, of the 74,660 acres which the township contains, 18,800 were in the hands of five people; one of them the newly appointed Surveyor-General, two others, members of his family.1 Much of the Pickering Township was either granted to members of the military or allo- cated as additional land grants to absentee landholders. As such, there was little land left for new settlers purchasing land to establish a homestead here.2 Large areas of land, in particular the most desirable lands along the shoreline, remained wild well into the 1800s when the original landowners and the Church began selling off parcels to new settlers. The subject properties are located within Broken Front Concession 3 as shown on the 1877 County Atlas (opposite): •Con. 3 B.F., Lot 27 - 862 Kingston Road; •Con. 3 B.F., Lot 31 - 1 Evelyn Avenue and 401 Kingston Road; and, •Con. 3 B.F., Lot 32 - 301 Kingston Road. All these lots are bisected by Kingston Road. Kingston Road was a military road, dating from 1800, that served as the primary route for pioneers travelling between York (Toronto) and the Bay of Quinte (Kingston). In 1796, an American engineer named Asa Danforth was awarded with the contract for the road - a road two rods wide and far enough from the shore to avoid enemy forces from observing troop movements. 1 The Pickering Story, p. 21.2 The Crown provided Loyalists with 200 acres and military grants of up to 5,000 acres for free. Settlers paid the Crown for 200 acre parcels. - 358 - 3 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 2. The Ontario County Atlas, 1877. (The County Atlas Project, McGill University) Lo t 3 2 Lo t 3 1 Broken Front Con. 3 Broken Front Con. 2 Con. 1 Lo t 3 3 Lo t 2 9 Lo t 2 8 Lo t 3 0 Lo t 2 6 Lo t 2 5 Lo t 2 7 Lo t 2 3 Lo t 2 4 1 Evelyn Avenue 882 Kingston Road 401 Kingston Road 301 Kingston Road PROJECTNORTH Kingston Rd Kingston Rd 2.2 Historical Maps - 359 - 4 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 3.Township of Pickering, County of Ontario Crown Lands Map No. 28, by Thomas Ridout, 1823 with later revisions. The clergy reserve lands are identified in blue. (Ontario Archives, OA) Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F. 4.Tremaine’s Map of the County of Ontario, Upper Canada by John Shier Esq. P.L.A. & County Engineer and published by Geo. C. Tremaine, 1860. (University of Toronto Map & Data Library) Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F.Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. - 360 - 5 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 5. The Ontario County Atlas, 1877. (The County Atlas Project, McGill University) 6. Map of the Township of Pickering by Chas E. Goad, 1895. (Pickering Archives, PA) Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F.Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F.Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. - 361 - 6 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 7.Gidual Landowners’ Map of Pickering, c. 1917. (PA) 8.Map of Pickering Township, Centennial Souvenir, 1967. (PA) Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F.Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F.Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. - 362 - 7 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 3 1 Evelyn Avenue 9. 1 Evelyn Avenue, west elevation. (Google streetview) Rougemoun t D r i v e High way 4 0 1 Ev e l y n A v e n u e Toynevale Road Dalewood Drive Kings ton Road Ch a n t i l l y R o a d Ro s e b a n k R o a d Frontier Court Granite Court Rouge Hill Court Old Forest Road East WoodlandsPark SouthPetticoatRavine 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Location Map File: Property Description: A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯ E Pt Lot 10, Plan 230, Now Pt, 1 40R-12418 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\1EvelynAve_LocationMap.mxd (1 Evelyn Avenue)10. 1 Evelyn Avenue, location map. (City of Pickering) - 363 - 8 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 3.1 Property Description One Evelyn Avenue falls within the south half of Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 31. The parcel was created as part of the Morgan & Dixon’s Plan (Plan No. 230) dated July 6, 1922. 3.2 Background Research Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 31 Concession 3 Broken Front Lot 31 originally formed part of the Clergy Reserves land allocation in Pickering.1 Seneca Palmer (1787-1873) received the patent for Lot 31 of the third broken front concession in Pickering in 1846.2 The Palmer family immigrated to Upper Canada from the United States around 1976 and settled in Scarborough in and around 1800. Seneca and his younger brothers John and Sherwood moved to the Township of Pickering to purchase land and establish their own farms. Seneca’s land petition of March 1819 describes him as follows: That your Petitioner was born in the United States of America, has resided in this province 23 years, is 27 years of age, is a son of James Palmer Senior an old settler in Scarborough, is married, and has never received any land from the Crown.3 Local historian John Sabean’s research of the Palmer Family suggests that Seneca Palmer farmed the land prior to gaining a land patent for Lot 31 in 1846. In a petition to purchase the property from the Crown, dated 21 February 1837, Palmer is described as ‘of the Township of Pickering’ and states that he has already cleared about 30 acres of the lot.4 1 The Crown Lands map (figure 3) notes Zephaniah Jones on this lot. According to Sabean’s article on the Palmer family, Jones leased this land from the Clergy Reserve from as early as 1823. Jones appears on Pickering Town Records as early as 1820. 2 Brown’s Toronto City and Home District Directory, 1846-1847, also lists Seneca Palmer on Lot 31, p. 62. 3 Upper Canada Land Petitions quoted in Sabean article. 4 The Palmer Family, p. 2. The Palmer Family “The early history of the Palmer fam- ily is sketchy and so far has been pieced together from what little documentation is available. The earliest references to the family date to 1802. Asa Danforth, reporting in that year on the condition of the Danforth Road, states that a settler named Palmer was located on the 10th mile post beyond York, which was probably Lot 23, Concession D in Scarborough. There is also a reference to a ‘Palmer’ family on a list of residents in the Township of Scarborough in 1802. The head of the family was James Palmer, Sr., who appears in the records of Scarborough on several occasions to about 1815. In 1803, he was appointed pound keeper and in 1804 overseer of highways. In 1815, a James Palmer, Sr. was noted in a York Militia List as being exempt from military draft. His family, as well as can be determined, consisted of his wife (name unknown), two daughters (one perhaps named Clara), and five sons (Seneca, John, and Sherwood who later moved to Pickering Town- ship, and James and Charles who remained in Scarborough).” - The Palmer Family: Settling in South Pickering by John W. Sabean - 364 - 9 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 By 1851, Seneca had established a 198 acre farm. There were 50 acres under cultivation including, 23 acres under crop (wheat, peas, oats, corn, potatoes, turnips and hay) and 15 acres under pasture. There was also an orchard or garden and livestock including cattle, horses, sheep, pigs. The remainder of the lot was wooded or ‘wild’.5 The 1851 census records show the Palmer family included Seneca, his wife Jane Jacques (1796-1875) and two chil- dren - George (age 19) and William (age 7). At that time the family was living in a one-storey brick house.6 7 Sabean’s article on the Palmer family describes the family residence as follows: ... one-and-a-half storey brick structure, is a fine example of the vernacular Regency-style cottage... As befitting the Regency style, the house is set in a picturesque landscape on a height of land over- looking the Petticoat.”8 9 George Palmer (1833-1891) remained on the family farm with his parents, while the other children left to start their own homesteads. Of note, two siblings had houses on adja- cent properties.10 11 After Seneca died of pneumonia on October 15, 1873, the properties in Pickering and Scarborough were willed to his wife Jane.12 Following her death in 1875, Lot 31 was divided between two of the sons: George received the north part of 120 acres, and James the south part of 80 acres. John and William acquired the Scarborough lands. 5 Year: 1851; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario County, Canada West (Ontario); Schedule: B; Roll: C_11742; Page: 275; Line: 9. 6 Year: 1851; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario County, Canada West (Ontario); Schedule: A; Roll: C_11742; Page: 171; Line: 42. 7 The 1851 census also notes Seneca’s older sons and their families under his listing: John, his wife Sarah, and daughter Mary; and, James, his wife Ellen as well as their children Jane and Seneen. Both families were living in 1 1/2 storey frame houses. 8 The Palmer Family, p. 2. 9 According to local papers, in 1998 the house was slated to be removed to allow for the construction of a new library. 10 Library and Archives Canada; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Census Returns For 1861; Roll: C-1057. 11 Year: 1871; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario South, Ontario; Roll: C-9973; Page: 69; Family No: 243. 12 Death certificate, Archives of Ontario; Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Collection: MS935; Reel: 5. 11.Seneca Palmer house, sketch (above) and in 1998 (be- low). (Pathways, Vol 2., No. 4) - 365 - 10 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER In 1882, George Kinlock purchased a 27 acre parcel along Kingston Road from George and Mary Palmer. Kinlock, a farmer, lived here with his mother (also named Mary).13 He died on July 19, 1915.14 The Pickering News remembered him under the Rosebank neighbourhood news column: Geo. Kinlock, an old resident, died at his resi- dence just north of here on Monday morning. The deceased, who was 68 years of age, was a bachelor and lived alone since the death of his mother some years ago. His funeral took place on Tuesday to St. Margaret’s cemetery, Scarboro.15 The executors of Kinlock’s will put the land up for sale the following August. Griffith B. Clarke purchased the 27 acre lot on June 26, 1919. The farm changed hands several times before Plan 230 - Morgan & Dixon’s Plan - was registered on March 13, 1922. It was named for the land owners Edwin Morgan and Mildred Dixon. The properties at 1 Evelyn Avenue and 401 Kingston Road fall within this subdivision. Lot 10 - 1 Evelyn Avenue The property at 1 Evelyn Avenue was granted to Silas R. Dixon, Mildred’s spouse, in 1930. The property remained in the Dixon family ownership until 1943. In 1921 Mildred and Silas Dixon lived in Pickering with their children Evelyn, Alexander, Leonard, Ruby and Russel, though it is not confirmed if they resided here.16 The next property owners were John Horace and Dorothea Daniell-Jenkins. Heinz and Ilse Wolf bought the lot in 1980. In 1998 it was sold to Mike Lindo, and the following year it was transferred to a company named 1000683 Ontario Ltd. The building currently houses a law office. 13 Year: 1891; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario West, Ontario, Canada; Roll: T-6358; Family No: 134. 14 Archives of Ontario; Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Collection: MS935; Reel: 211. 15 The Pickering News, Friday, July 23, 1915, Vol. XXXIV, p. 1. (PA). 16 Reference Number: RG 31; Folder Number: 75; Census Place: Pickering (Township), Ontario South, Ontario; Page Number: 1. 12. Property sale advert. (The Pickering News, August 27, 1915) - 366 - 11 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 3.3 Building Description & Site Photos Branch Architecture completed a visual review of this prop- erty from the street in December of 2019. It was a prelim- inary review focused on gaining a visual understanding of the site and building for the purposes of evaluating its potential cultural heritage value. The residential form buildings (house and outbuilding) at 1 Evelyn Avenue are examples of early 20th century bungalow style architecture in Pickering. The bungalow style house gained popularity in American in the early 20th century. It was popularized in California where American designers drew inspiration from the British version of India’s banglas style of home (Bengali style). In Ontario, the bungalow style is almost exclusively residential as it was commonly found in house pattern catalogues. The typical bungalow is a one or one-and-a-half storey dwelling with a front porch or verandah and displaying rustic materials such as textured brick, fieldstone and/or stucco. The roof is either a broad, low-pitched roof with a wide front dormer or a medium pitch front gable style. The following description of the property is limited as views from the street are obscured by mature trees: • The house is a two-storey building with a masonry - a mix of brick and stone - cladding. The building has a rectilinear plan with a projecting bay at the north-east corner of the building. The second floor of the main house and the connection to the one-storey outbuilding to the south appear to be additions. • The front (west-facing) elevation displays an asymmet- rical organization. The front entrance door is located between window openings and beneath flat roof canopy resting on square masonry piers. 13. American bungalow style home, 1921. (Sears Roebuck) 14. Canadian bungalow style home, 1922. (The Halliday Co.) - 367 - 12 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER •The exterior walls are clad in a mix of brick and multi-colour fieldstone. The main body of the wall is fieldstone with brick quoins and a brick quoin treatment at the window and door jambs. The extruded red brick is laid in a running bond (suggesting a wood frame construction). •The window openings are rectangular with a concrete sill and an arched brick lintel. The windows are wood with a mix of fixed and single hung sash types. On the ground floor there several types: paired single-hung windows with shorter upper sash (with most divided vertically into three panes); and, single-hung windows (with a shorter upper sash divided vertically into three panes). At the second floor addition, the windows are aluminium or vinyl fixed windows. •The roof has a hipped profile set at a low pitch. The roof is covered in asphalt shingle and the rain gear is painted metal. There is a tall brick chimney at the north wall and a second at the addition. •The one-story outbuilding south of the house displays a similar construction. It is one- storey structure set into the hillside so as to display a two-storey elevation to the east. It is mixed masonry (to match the house) with a hipped roof. The symmetrical front facade facing Evelyn Avenue displays two doors flanking a pair of small sash windows. 15.1 Evelyn Avenue property, aerial view looking west, Aug. 2020. (Google streetview) - 368 - 13 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 16. 1 Evelyn Avenue property as seen from the corner of Kingston Road and Evelyn Avenue, Aug. 2019. (Google streetview) 17. 1 Evelyn Avenue house (left) and outbuilding (right), west (front) elevation, Aug. 2019. (Google streetview) - 369 - 14 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 18. 1 Evelyn Avenue house, west (front) elevation, 2020. (City staff) - 370 - 15 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 3.4 Evaluation The following evaluates 1 Evelyn Avenue in relation to Ontario Regulation 9/06. Criteria Description Assessment Design or Physical Value i. is a rare, unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method; The building is a represent- ative example of an early 20th century bungalow in Pickering. The unique fieldstone treatment on the exterior walls is also found at 401 Kingston Road which was also contained within the Morgan and Dixon Plan. ii. displays a high degree of crafts- manship or artistic merit, or; None found. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. None found. Historical or Associative Value i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organi- zation, or institution that is significant to a community; None found. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or; None found. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community. None found. Contextual Value i. is important in defining, maintain- ing, or supporting the character of an area; No. ii. is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings, or; Reflects the pattern of early 20th century residential de- velopment along Kingston Road in Pickering. iii. is a landmark.No. - 371 - 16 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 4 301 Kingston Road 19. 301 Kingston Road, north elevation, Dec. 2019. (BA) Ro ugemountDrive FawndaleRoadValley Gate Alt o n a R o a d Le k a n i C o u r t Toynevale Road Win e t t e R o a d Pine Ridg e R oa d RougeHillCourt D a l e w o o d D r i v e Kin g sto n Road Brookridge Gate Highway 4 0 1 Ly t t o n C o u r t Riv e r v i e w C r e s c e n t 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location Map File: Property Description: A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯ E Pt Lot 32, B.F.C. Range 3 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\301KingstonRd_LocationMap.mxd (301 Kingston Road) City of Toronto 20. 301 Kingston Road, loca- tion map. (City of Pickering) - 372 - 17 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 4.1 Property Description The subject property falls within the south half of Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 32. The parcel was likely created when the concession lot was subdivided in 1944. 4.2 Background Research Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 32 The patent for Lot 32 of the third broken front concession was granted to William Holmes in 1798. Holmes owned multiple parcels in the Township of Pickering; the lots were located between French Man’s Bay and the Rouge River, and found within Concession 1 and along the lake, lots 26 through 33. William Holmes received a patent for Lot 32 on May 22, 1798. William Holmes (1766- 1834) was a doctor and military surgeon in Upper Canada. From 1790 to 1791 he was stationed in Newark near Niagara-on-the-Lake. In 1792, with plans to settle in Upper Canada, he accepted a grant for 1,200 acres in Pickering Township and purchased addi- tional land. However, in 1796 his regiment was relocated to Lower Canada, and Holmes’ family re-settled in Quebec where he worked as a senior medial officer. He also established himself as in private medical practice working at both Hotel-Dieu and Hospital General. By the early 1800s, he and his family were living in Upper Town Quebec City. After the death of his first wife Mary Ann in 1803, he remarried Margaret Macnaider in 1807. He main- tained an active medical career including the following positions: President of the Quebec examiners (1813); member of the Vaccine Board (1817); Justice of the Peace (1821); and, Commissioner for the relief of the insane and foundlings (1816). In the 1820s, Holmes retired from practice, delegating his responsibilities to younger doctors and staff. 1 John Wesley purchased the 195 acre parcel at Con. 3 BF, Lot 32 from William Holmes on June 26, 1843.2 The 1861 census indicates that John Charles Wesley (1838-1920) was a farmer that was born in Toronto. According to the 1861 census, John was married to Elmira Wesley (1841-1884) and they were living in a two storey frame house. The other extended family members living in the house included Jane (18) and Fanny (17) Wesley.3 Wesley owned the property for several decades and registered multiple mortgages on the south part of the lot in the 1860s. Between 1868 and 1871 there was several instruments listed on the south part of the lot, though these records are largely illegible. 1 Dictionary of Canadian Biography, William Holmes. 2 “Sarah Wesley” is listed as the resident of this lot in Brown’s Toronto City and Home District Direc- tory, 1846-1847, p. 65. Her relationship to John is not known. 3 Library and Archives Canada; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Census Returns For 1861; Roll: C-1057. - 373 - 18 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER In 1874, the part of the lot south of Kingston Road was purchased by Richard Rodd (1837- 1900); Rodd is also recorded on the 1877 Atlas Map. Richard, his wife Susan (1834-1899) and their eight children lived in Pickering in 1881.4 Richard was a farmer and the family immigrated from England. They lived in Whitby before buying the farm in Pickering.5 Robert and Naomi Moody purchased the lot in either 1881 or 1891.6 They sold the prop- erty south of Kingston Road to George Edward Toyne (1886-1943) on March 18, 1902 for $8,000. After George’s death in 1943, George’s wife Helen sold the one acre lot on the south side of Kingston Road to John and Alcone Alderice. The lot was sold to Manfred Pfeiffer and Delmar Page in 1968, and then granted to Ruth Smith (trustee) on Jan. 4, 1971. Ernest A.J. Salmon purchased the lot on January 16, 1971. Rouge Hill This intersection is identified in historical maps as ‘Rouge Hill’. While little is written about this community along the Grand Trunk Railway line, the 1892-93 Ontario Directory includes the following snapshot in time: A P O on the rive Rouge (which furnishes power), in Pickering tp, Ontario Co, 11 miles s-w of Whitby, the co seat, and 3 n of Pt Union, on the GTR, its nearest bank at Pickering. It contains a flour mill, Bible Christian church and public school. Residents listed - Wm. Maxwell, flour mill; John Pearce mason and contractor; Roger Pearce, mason and contractor; William Pearce, Mason and contractor; and Luke Wallace, carpenter.7 According to the Pickering Tweedsmere scrapbook, this area was also known as East Rouge Hill. 4.3 Building Description & Site Photos Branch Architecture completed a visual review of this property from the street in December of 2019, followed by a visit with the owner on October 19, 2020. There were preliminary reviews focused on gaining a visual understanding of the site and building for the purposes of evaluating its potential cultural heritage value, and did not include access to the interior. The building at 301 Kingston Road is an example of a mid 19th century Georgian house in Pickering, likely dating to the mid-1800s. This style dates to 1750-1850. Based on the English Palladian and Georgian styles, this style arrived in Upper Canada first with the 4 Year: 1881; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario South, Ontario; Roll: C_13244; Page: 84; Family No: 412 5 Year: 1871; Census Place: Whitby, Ontario South, Ontario; Roll: C-9974; Page: 67; Family No: 256 6 This date is difficult to read. 7 Ontario Gazetteer and Directory for 1892-93, p. 1029. - 374 - 19 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 United Empire Loyalists and later with British immigrants. Georgian buildings were known for balanced façades, restrained ornamentation, and minimal detailing. It was employed by Upper Canadian settlers desiring, “a sturdy house that reflected his simple dignity”.8 Common features of this building style include: a box-like massing up to 3 storeys in height; symmetrical elevations and classical proportions often displaying a balanced arrangement of windows and doors with flat or splayed window arches; simple designs with limited clas- sical detailing; medium to high pitch gable roofs with half floors in attics and windows on gable ends; chimneys flanking gable end walls; either timber construction with clapboard siding or solid plain brick buildings; vertical sash windows with wood or stone sills; and, a central entrance door with a transom light and side lights. The following is a description of the building with observations: • The house is a two-storey building with a gable roof. It is located on the south side of Kingston Road and overlooks Kingston Road from a small rise. At the rear of the resi- dence are several one-storey additions. • The front (north-facing) facade displays a balanced (though not symmetrical) arrange- ment of openings. On the ground floor there is a centrally placed front door flanked by window openings. On the second floor are three evenly placed window openings; they do not align with the openings below. • The side (east and west) elevations display a symmetrical arrangement of window openings. On the east elevation there is a vertical strip between the windows; this is likely an alteration related to the chimney. • The building has a stone foundation laid in a random pattern. In 2020, a pre-painted aluminum skirt flashing was installed over the foundation visible above grade. • The exterior walls are clad in horozontal pre-painted aluminum siding with a edge board detail at the base of the wall, corners and eaves. Given the depth of wall extending out from the stone foundation, it appeared that the original siding may be concealed under the existing, however, the owner advised that under the existing siding are plain wood planks laid horizontally (not a finished painted clapboard or masonry). This suggests that the original cladding has been removed. • The front entrance opening is framed by a pedimented lintel and side panels. These elements have been covered in painted metal. In front of the entrance is a poured concrete step with a modern wood railing at the east side. 8 Ontario Architecture, www.ontarioarchitecture.com. - 375 - 20 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER • In 2019, the front entrance doorway was composed of a six-panel wood door flanked by wood columns, inset sidelights (2 lights over a base panel) and an inset four-light transom. The framing elements (door frame and stiles) and the base panels at the side- lights were overclad in painted metal. By October of 2020, the doors and windows had been replaced and the pediment concealed under new metal. • The window openings are rectangular with a thin sill and wide frames at the top, sides and mullions. In 2019, the windows appear to be constructed of wood and were made up of a sash windows with exterior storm windows. There was a mix of window arrangements and patterns. On the ground floor there is: a grouping of three windows consisting of a 6-over-12 sash flanked by 4-over-6 sash windows; pairs of 4-over-6 sash windows; and, pairs of 4-over-1 sash windows. At the second floor there are 4-over-1 sash windows in pairs and threes and, at the rear elevation, 6-over-1 sash windows. By October of 2020, the windows had been replaced with single pane windows. The wood sill have also been overclad in pre-painted metal. • The roof has a medium pitch gable roof profile. The roof is covered in asphalt shingle and the rain gear is painted metal. The eaves appear to have been altered with a perfo- rated metal soffit and painted metal overcladding at the fascia, bedmold, frieze and gable-end returns. There is a single red brick chimney at the east wall. 21. Aerial view looking north-east, 2020. (Google streetview) - 376 - 21 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 22. North (front) elevation, 2019. (BA) 23. North (front) elevation, 2020. (BA) - 377 - 22 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 24. Front entrance, 2019. (BA)25. Front entrance, 2020. (BA) 26. Stone foundation, 2019. (BA)27. Metal skirt at foundation, 2020. (BA) - 378 - 23 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 28. East (left) and north (right) elevations, 2019. (BA) 29. East (left) and north (right) elevations, 2020. (BA) - 379 - 24 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 30. West (left) and south (right) elevations, 2019. (BA) 31. West (left) and south (right) elevations, 2020. (BA) - 380 - 25 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 4.4 Evaluation The following evaluates 301 Kingston Road in relation to Ontario Regulation 9/06. Criteria Description Assessment Design or Physical Value i. is a rare, unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method; The building is a rare (and altered) example of an early to mid-19th century Georgian residence in Pickering. ii. displays a high degree of crafts- manship or artistic merit, or; Further investigation required. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. None known. Historical or Associative Value i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organi- zation, or institution that is significant to a community; The property has associations with early Pickering landowner and military doctor William Holmes. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or; No. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community. None known. Contextual Value i. is important in defining, maintain- ing, or supporting the character of an area; No. ii. is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings, or; The property is associ- ated with the Rouge Hill community, and is perhaps one of a few remaining buildings from this time. iii. is a landmark.The building is promi- nently located at the intersection of Alton and Kingston roads, and marks the west edge of Kingston Road. - 381 - 26 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 5 401 Kingston Road 32. 401 Kingston Road, north elevation. (BA) RougemountDrive Toynevale Road Ev e l y n A v e n u e Ch a n t i l l y R o a d Dah l i a C r e s c e n t Oa k w o o d D r i v e Frontier Court LyttonCourt Da l e w o o d D r i v e Old F o r e s t R o a d Highway 4 0 1 Rouge Hill Court Kingston Road EastWoodlandsParkSouthPetticoatRavine 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Location Map File: Property Description: A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯ E Pt Lt 19, Plan 230, Now Pt 1, 40R-16160 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\401KingstonRd_LocationMap.mxd (401 Kingston Road)33. 401 Kingston Road, loca- tion map. (City of Pickering) - 382 - 27 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 5.1 Property Description The subject property falls within the south half of Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 31. The parcel was created as part of the Morgan & Dixon’s Plan (Plan No. 230) dated July 6, 1922. 5.2 Background Research Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 31 See 1 Evelyn Avenue for early settlement history. Lot 19 - 401 Kingston Road The property at 1 Evelyn Avenue was granted to Annie and Horace Branson in 1923. Based on the land records, it appears this transaction was not fulfilled as in 1936 the estate of Peter S. Gates registered a quit claim on the property, likely in relation to a 1922 mort- gage. In 1939, the property was granted to Silas Dixon. In 1944, the property was granted to Silas’ son Alexander. Two years later, the property was sold to Louis E. Staley. Kathleen and John Quigg owned the property between 1951 and 1967. From 1967 the property changed hands several times - John and Margaret Belcourt (1967); Jack Knowles (1970); Victor and Felicia Mastrogicomos (1973); Brian and Christine Binns, (1975); Walter Francis (1987) - before being purchased by a pair of management / hold- ings companies. It was transferred to 1138224 Ontario Ltd. in 1995. A Montessori daycare is currently operating out of the building. 5.3 Building Description For the purposes of this CHER, Branch Architecture visited the property on March 2, 2020. The inspection included walking around the building and through each floor, and completing a visual review and photographic documentation. The review focused on gaining a visual understanding of the site and building for the purposes of evaluating its potential cultural heritage value. The building at 401 Kingston Road is an example of an early 20th century bungalow in Pickering. The Bungalow style house was an American import to Canada in the early 20th century. It was popularized in California; the Americans were inspired by the British version of India’s banglas style of home (Bengali style). In Ontario, the Bungalow style is almost exclusively residential as it was commonly found in house pattern catalogues. The Bungalow is generally a one or one-and-a-half storey dwelling with a front porch or verandah and displaying rustic materials such as textured brick, fieldstone and/ or stucco. The roof is either a broad, low-pitched roof with a wide front dormer or a medium pitch front gable style. - 383 - 28 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER The following is a description of the building with observations: • The house is a one-and-a-half storey wood frame building with a brick veneer and topped with a gable roof. • The front (north-facing) facade displays a symmetrical organization. There is a centrally placed front porch (with an entrance door within) framed by windows on either side. Above is a roof dormer of a similar configuration to the porch. • The building has a poured concrete foundation with large field stones mixed in. On the exterior, the foundation wall displays fieldstone laid in a random pattern and artic- ulated with a pronounced beaded mortar joint. • The exterior walls display a mix of masonry. The fieldstone extends up from the foun- dation to the top of the window sill. The remainder of the exterior walls are clad in an extruded red brick laid in a running bond. The quoins and porch piers are also red brick. • The enclosed front porch has a front gable appearance. The porch is entered from the east side via a wood step. The porch is framed with brick piers at the corners; the piers have a concrete cap and support squared wood columns. The base of the wall is fieldstone with a concrete cap. The upper wall areas are infilled with fixed wood windows following a symmetrical layout. The triangular pediment of the roof gable is infilled with painted wood shingle. • The front door is wood. The upper panel is glazed and is composed of 6 divided lights (3 panes wide). The lower panels is made up of three vertical wood panels. The door opening is framed in brick with an arched brick linel. • The window openings are rectangular with a concrete sill and an arched brick lintel. The windows are wood with a mix of fixed and single hung sash types. On the ground floor there four types: three single-hung windows with shorter upper sash (most divided vertically into three panes); single-hung windows (with shorter upper sash divided verti- cally into three panes); small fixed windows; and, at the front proch, fixed windows with three panes across the top. At the second floor there are single-hung windows (with shorter upper sash divided vertically into three panes). • The roof has a gable roof profile set at a medium pitch and with a gable roof dormer on the front (north) elevation. The roof is covered in asphalt shingle, the eaves are painted wood and display simple detailing including hipped eaves returns on the side gables. The rain gear is painted metal. There is a single chimney at the west wall. It is red brick with a metal cap. • The interior layout is largely intact; its displays a traditional three bedroom house. Further, many of the original elements remain, including wood trim, baseboards, window and door casings, doors, windows, wood flooring on the ground floor, stairs, and a fireplace mantle. - 384 - 29 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 34. North (front) elevation. (BA) 35. North (front) elevation, as viewed from the east. (BA) - 385 - 30 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 36. Porch, west elevation with entry door. (BA)37. Porch, west wall. (BA) 38. North elevation, quoin treatment. (BA)39. Porch, upper post and eaves. (BA) - 386 - 31 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 40. Porch, interior. (BA)41. Front door with quoins at door. (BA) 42. West elevation. (BA) - 387 - 32 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 43.West elevation, eaves return. (BA)44.West elevation, chimney and eaves. (BA) 45.West elevation, base of chimney. (BA)46.West elevation, three part window. (BA) - 388 - 33 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 47.South and west elevations. (BA) 48.South elevation, rear door. (BA)49.South elevation, single window. (BA) - 389 - 34 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 50. South and east elevation. (BA) 51. Foundation, interior. (BA)52. Wall treatments, brick and fieldstone (BA) - 390 - 35 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 53. Interior, second floor window. (BA)54. Interior, kitchen. (BA) 55. Interior, three part window on ground floor. (BA) - 391 - 36 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 5.4 Evaluation The following evaluates 401 Kingston Road in relation to Ontario Regulation 9/06. Criteria Description Assessment Design or Physical Value i. is a rare, unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method; The building is a represent- ative example of an early 20th century bungalow in Pickering. Of note, is the unique fieldstone treatment on the exterior walls. This is also found at 1 Evelyn Avenue which was also con- tained within the Morgan and Dixon Plan. ii. displays a high degree of crafts- manship or artistic merit, or; None found. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. None found. Historical or Associative Value i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organi- zation, or institution that is significant to a community; None found. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or; None found. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community. None found. Contextual Value i. is important in defining, maintain- ing, or supporting the character of an area; No. ii. is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings, or; Reflects the pattern of early 20th century residential de- velopment along Kingston Road in Pickering. iii. is a landmark.No. - 392 - 37 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 6 882 & 886 Kingston Road 56. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill as viewed from east parking lot. (BA) West ShoreBoulevard Kingston Road ShadybrookDriveEd g e w o o d R o a d Gold e n ridge Road Fa i r p o r t R o a d DunbartonRoad Kates Lane SpruceHillRoad Sheppard Avenue Rushton Road Merritton Road Ad a C o urt Bayly Stre e t Hig hw a y 401 VistulaRavine 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location Map File: Property Description: A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯ E Pt Lot 27, B.F.C. Range 3 and Pt 1-4, 40R-2628 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\882-886KingstonRd_LocationMap.mxd and Pt 1-3, 40R-15853 (882-886 Kingston Road)57. 882 Kingston Road, loca- tion map. (City of Pickering) - 393 - 38 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 6.1 Property Description The legal description for 882 and 886 Kingston Road falls within the north half Concession 3 B.F., Lot 27 and is located directly west of the Village of Dunbarton. The existing lot was created on October 30, 1975. On June 1, 1976 the owners - Harry A. Newman and his wife - granted the subject property to “The Incumbent and Churchwardens of St. Paul’s on the Hill Dunbarton”. 6.2 Background Research Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 27 The following describes the early ownership of Concession 3 B.F., Lot 27 and the crea- tion of the subject property at 882 and 886 Kingston Road. William Holmes received the patent for this lot on May 28, 1796. See section 4.2 for background on Mr. Holmes. In 1832, Holmes sold the 200 acre lot to John Galbraith. In 1838, Henry Cowan purchased 111 acres on the north part of the lot. The Cowan family had immigrated to Canada in 1832 and settled at the mouth of the Rouge River on Lot 32 B.F. In 1840, Cowan sold the northern 100 acres to Thomas Courtice (1801-1860). Courtice acquired the remaining 11 acres in 1849. Thomas Courtice and his first wife Mary immi- grated from outside Devonshire, England in 1831. They settled in Darlington, Ontario before Mary died a few years after their arrival in Upper Canada. Thomas then married Mary Annis (1811-1899) of Pickering and, in 1841, the family relocated to Lot 27.1 2 The family farmed the lands and by 1851 the land was largely cleared with 57 acres of wheat, peas, oats, potatoes, turnips and hay as well as 15 acres of pasture.3 According to Past Years in Pickering, “He was a member of the Bible Christian Church and filled the office of the class leader and local preacher very acceptably from early manhood til the close of his life.”4 On Aug. 29, 1856, Courtice severed off several parcels; two were sold to The Grand Trunk Railway Company, and one small parcel was sold to the Trustees of School Sec. No. 3. The Dunbarton public school was built here and it operated until 1924.5 The remainder of the land was willed to Andrew James Courtice and later, in turn, to Levi Anni. 1 The Annis family arrived from Massachusetts in 1793. They settled Lot 6 B.F. of Pickering, 2 Brown’s Toronto City and Home District Directory, 1846-1847, p. 62. 3 Year: 1851; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario County, Canada West (Ontario); Schedule: B; Roll: C_11742; Page: 275; Line: 3. 4 Past Years in Pickering, p. 230. 5 In the land abstract it appears that the lot was enlarged c. 1880 with the purchase of more acreage north of Kingston Road by school trustees. This area of the ledger is larger illegible. - 394 - 39 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 According to the property records, on January 1, 1924 Harry A. Newman and his wife exchanged a parcel of their land and $1,200 with the school trustees for the property with the old school house. The intent of this trade was to convert the school into a church for the local Anglican congregation. The Village of Dunbarton The Village of Dunbarton is named for William Dunbar (1786-1869). Dunbar arrived in Lower Canada (Quebec) from Scotland in 1831. He continued on to the Town of York and, in 1840, purchased lands in Pickering Township.6 It was here that he laid out a predom- inantly Scottish settlement on Kingston Road. Dunbar worked as a blacksmith and was actively involved in the community; he was an elder in the Presbyterian church, a Justice of the Peace, and a school commissioner. He also contributed to the founding of the Pickering Harbour Company where he was employed as a the superintendent. His son William Dunbar Jr. inherited the property and spent his life working as a blacksmith in Dunbarton.7 His son, William T. Dunbar, owned and operated a general store in Duffins Creek (now Pickering Village) from 1880 to 1905, and constructed the Dunbar House on the north side of Dunbarton Road. The Village of Dunbarton was located along Kingston Road and had access to Frenchman’s Bay via an adjoining harbour. The April 3, 1896 edition of The Pickering News presents the following summary of the history of the village: The Village of Dunbarton derived its name as well as its origin from its first proprietor and projector, the late William Dunbar, Esq. Half a century ago he, with his household, settled on the lot of land he had bought, and on which he lived till the day of his death, in 1869. Then, the now well cleared and cultured farms were but large woods and little clearings. . . Somewhere about thirty years ago, the villages and the adjoining harbour both had their inception, and in both Mr. Dunbar ever took an active interest, being in the latter not only a large shareholder but superintendent of the work. . . The village plots when laid out, was rapidly bought up and built upon. . . Three stores now, and for a long time past, have readily and reasonably supplied the wants of the community. In one of them is the Post Office, with its mails twice each day. On the establishment of the Post Office the inhabitants agreed to call it Dunbarton, in honour of its originator, the name first got and ever retained. 6 William Dunbar’s deed to the west 1/2 of Lot 25, Concession 1, Pickering, Upper Canada is dated October 19, 1840. The Pickering Story conjectures that the time spent securing the property purchase can be linked to the families membership in the Reform Party as they were apprehended and kept under guard during the Rebellion of 1837. 7 Past Years in Pickering, pg.235. - 395 - 40 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER Prominent as it ever ought to be, stands the church, a commodious and substan- tial brick building, belonging to the Presbyterians, while the outskirts is the goodly brick school house. Thus the spiritual and the intellectual are wisely cared for. For a considerable time a tannery did good service in the village, but the removal of the railway station did much to injure the village and incommode the surrounding community. . . The situation is pleasant, having the beautiful bay with its harbour, in front, and the wide stretching lake beyond. The locality is while its inhabitants alike in enterprise and intelligence will favourably compare with those of any other community. The Dunbarton School, Section No. 3 The Dunbarton school house was built in 1857. According to Past Years in Pickering, “the brick for it and for the brick house on the farm opposite being made in the hollow south of the Kingston Road on the farm.”8 The Anglican Church in Pickering In the early 1800s, settlers were focused on clearing lands with an aim to establish a home- stead. Communities like Pickering were often served by a travelling missionary. According to Shumovich, by 1828 John Strachan (rector of St. James and Archdeacon of York): ... was most concerned about the ‘spiritual destitution’ of the families pioneering around York and the wilderness of Upper Canada, and the large numbers of Anglicans who has immigrated to the area from the British Isles. Rev. Adam Elliott was appointed as the visiting missionary, and in November of 1832 the Township of Pickering was added to his circuit. Initially, he held services in, “log school houses, taverns, barns and crowded houses all the way from Lake Ontario to Georgian Bay.”9 The first service in the Village of Pickering was held in the home of Mr. Francis Sey. The St. George’s Anglican Church was built circa 1856. It served residents of the Pickering Village as well as its membership in Dunbarton. St. Paul’s On-the-Hill The subject property has served Dunbarton’s Anglican community since 1925. In the early 1920s, the Dunbarton Anglican community began to distance itself from the Village of Pickering congregation. With an aim to establish a new church, church member and Toronto lawyer Harry A. Newman acquired this property in 1924. The property held the former Dunbarton School S.S. No. 3 (c. 1857). This exchange provided the school board with vacant land to construct a new two room school upon, and the former school was 8 Past Years in Pickering, p. 170. 9 St. Paul’s On-The-Hill, p. 2. - 396 - 41 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 renovated to serve as a place of worship for the ‘Mission of St. George’s’ or ‘The Dunbarton Mission’. The first service was held by Rev. Douglas Langford on November 8, 1925. Over the coming years, the parish continued to distinguish itself from the St. George’s Church. In 1933 it was renamed “St. Paul’s in-the-Hill, Dunbarton”. All the while, the two congregations continued to share the Rev. E.G. Robinson. He served as Rector from 1929-1953. In 1934, under the leadership of Harry Newman, the parish set about building a church. Newman built the church on this land (still owned my him) and leased it to the congre- gation for $1 /year until 1976. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill was designed by Architect Leo Hunt Stanford (1898-1970), son of Toronto architect Joseph Hunt Stanford. The family had immigrated from England to Canada in 1902. Leo was educated in Toronto and trained under his father. In 1922, Leo he became a partner in the firm. After his father died in 1935, Leo took over the practice that operated into the 1960s. Their portfolio was largely made up of residences, apartments and commer- cial buildings; of note is the Canadian National Institute for the Blind in Toronto. 10 The St. Paul’s On-The-Hill church is sited atop of a gently sloped hill with a south overlook across Kingston Road and on to Lake Ontario.11 The original church had a recta- linear plan (running east-west) with a tower at its south-east corner. The main entrance was located at the south-facing side of the tower and the chancel was found at its west end. The building was masonry construction displaying brick with stone accent details, and defined by tall stepped buttresses, arched wood windows, and saddleback roof of slate shingle. 10 Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950, www. dictionaryofarchitectsincanada.org. 11 It was located west of the existing church and former school house. Before its demolition in 1991, this building served as the parish hall. 59. Church of the Ascension, Toronto. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill) 60. Pews from Buttonville church. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill) 58. Mr. and Mrs. Harry A. Newman. (St. Paul’s On-The- Hill) 61. Front elevation drawing by Leo Hunt Stanford Architect. (on display at St. Paul’s On-The-Hill) - 397 - 42 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 62. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill, Nov. 1934. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill) 63. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill, Nov. 1984. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill) 64. Floor plans, St. Paul’s On- the-Hill. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill) - 398 - 43 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 The St. Paul’s On-The-Hill publication described the entry procession of the new church as follows: The interior of St. Paul’s is in keeping with the traditional design of small churches in rural Ontario. The floor plan shows the structure is made up of three rectan- gular box shapes. A small porch with six straight stairs lead to a set of Gothic lancet arched double wooden doors. These doors, centred on the south facade of the square tower, lead into a small entrance and stairs. The entrance leads to a nave without side aisles and the stairs lead down to the basement and up to the balcony which was added in 1983. The nave moves forward to the chancel... 12 According to St. Paul’s on-the-Hill, a unique aspect of the church is that it was constructed with materials reclaimed from other Ontario churches demolished: • Brick and windows were salvaged from the former Anglican Church of Ascension in Toronto; and, • Curved pews came from the former Buttonville Methodist Church (c. 1774).13 The church was formally opened on November 16, 1934 by Rev. D.T. Owen, Archbishop of Toronto. Rev. E.G. Robinson continued to lead the St. Paul’s On-The-Hill congregation as well as that of St. George’s. In 1939 his responsibilities expanded to include the growing Town of Ajax. With the outbreak of World War II and the subsequent establishment of the muni- tions plant (Defense Industries Ltd. or D.I.L.) in the Township of Pickering, Ajax quickly expanded into a community of 4,000. By 1943, the community had erected a church shared by four co-operating communions - Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian and United Church. Rev. Robinson lead the Anglican congregation. On May 1, 1959, St. Paul’s began worship as an independent parish under Rev. C.E. Olive as rector. He lived at the new two-storey rectory located directly south-west of the church. The site now contained three structures - the church, the parish hall in the old Durbanton school house, and the rectory.14 12 St. Paul’s On-The-Hill, p. 8. 13 The pews have since been replaced. 14 St. Paul’s On-The-Hill, p. 7. Rectors 1924-1930: Rev. Douglas B. Langford 1930-1953: Rev. E.G. Robinson 1953-1956: Rev. Jack Crouch 1956-1959: Rev. Dr. H.S. Shepherd 1959-1962: Rev. C.E. Olive 1962-1967: Rev. Ben P. Symth 1967-1969: Rev. Charles Dymond65. Rectory. (St. Paul’s On-The- Hill) 1970-1972: Rev. Wm. J. Rhodes 1973-1978: Rev. S.G. West 1978-1981: Rev. Gregory W. Physick 1982-2002/3: Rev. Brian H. McVitty 2004-2019: Rev. Canon Kimberly Beard Incumbent - 399 - 44 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER The arrival of 1976 brought the end of the lease agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Newman. At this time the Newman’s transferred the property deed to the rector and churchwardens. On March 21, 1976, St. Paul’s On-The-Hill was consecrated by Archbishop Lewis Garnsworthy. In 1983, the church interior was renovated. The work included a new balcony that added 55 seats while preserving the aesthetic of the church. 66. View to chancel after the renovation, Octo- ber 1985. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill) 67. Balcony, October 1985. (St. Paul’s On-The- Hill) 68. Site Plan drawing of church addition and renovation, 1991. Footprint of the original church shown in blue. (DLIA) Rectory Church addition Original church Parish Hall - 400 - 45 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 In 1989, Davidson-Langley Incorporated Architect (DLIA) was engaged to complete the renovation of and an addition to the church. The architectural firm was founded in 1985 by Elizabeth Jane Davidson and operated until 2013. Davidson came from a family of estab- lished Ontario architects.15 DLIA designed worked on many ecclesiastical buildings as well as commercial, residential, recreational and institutional buildings. Religous projects by the firm included the Church of St. Clements (Toronto), Metropolitan United Church (Toronto) and St. George’s Anglican Church (Pickering). Their work at St. Paul’s On-The- Hill won the Town of Pickering’s Economic Development Award in 1991. This expansion project included for the renovation of the existing 3,000 square foot church as well as a 9,000 square foot addition to the west. Within the addition is a new entry with offices, an additional congregation space, an underground gymnasium, a day care centre, and meeting rooms. As with the original building, the new building incorporated salvaged materials including reclaimed brick.16 6.3 Building Description & Site Photos For the purposes of this CHER, Branch Architecture visited the property on March 2, 2020. The inspection included walking around the building and through the main floor, and completing a visual review and photographic documentation. The review focused on gaining a visual understanding of the site and building for the purposes of evaluating its potential cultural heritage value. This review did not include the rectory building. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill is a 20th century church likely influenced by the traditional rural Ontario church with elements of Gothic and Gothic Revival architecture. According to the Ontario Heritage Trust website: Gothic Revival is an architectural movement that sought to revive the Gothic style, which flourished in Europe in the medieval period. The Gothic Revival movement began in the 1740s in England; interest in reviving the style soon spread to North America. With regard to religious architecture, the Gothic Revival was intertwined with the “High Church” movement and the Anglo-Catholic concern with the growth of religious non-conformism.17 In the second half of the 19th century, Gothic Revival architecture emerged as a popular residential building style in Ontario (with the Gothic Revival Cottage popularized by the Canada Farmer) and a common style for religious buildings in the mid- to late 19th century. As such, a number of Gothic Revival subcategories developed with buildings 15 Davidson’s great grandfather was an esteemed Toronto architect Henry Langley. Langley was the founding partner of the architectural firm Langley & Langley which later became Langley, Langley & Burke. The other partners were Henry’s son Charles Langley and Charle’s cousin Edmund Burke. The firm was responsible for many ecclesiastical buildings across Ontario. Their portfolio included several notable structures in Toronto such as the Necropolis, the spire of St. James Cathedral, and the Horticultural Pavillion at Allan Gardens 16 At the site tour, staff recalled the brick had been salvaged from a building in Oakville. 17 Ontario Heritage Trust, Architectural styles. www.heritagetrust.on.ca - 401 - 46 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER often displaying a mix. The following features are found in Gothic Revival architecture: pointed arch windows; rib vaulted ceilings; buttresses; steeply pitched roofs; and, an overall emphasis on height. The following is a description of St. Paul’s on-the-Hill with observations: • The church is located on the top of a gently sloped hill and with a view south over Kingston Road and the 401 to Lake Ontario. The site also includes the rectory building west of the church, three parking areas, a large cross and a cell tower. See figure 63 for site plan and figure 64 for an aerial view. • The church is a one-storey building with a lower level set into the hillside, and a square tower at its south-east corner. • The original St. Paul’s on-the-Hill was a one-story building with a basement. • The building is constructed with buff coloured brick laid in a common bond pattern and with stone detailing at the windows, doors, buttresses and tower roof parapet. • The 1934 floor plan was composed of three rectangular elements - the tower / entry, the nave, and the alter. • The two-storey brick tower is located at the south-west corner of the building. The corners are defined by tall brick buttresses with stone caps where the buttress steps out. The tower has a flat roof and the parapet displays a crenellated treat- ment finished with capstones.18 The primary entry to the church was located at the doorway on the south-facing elevation; this remains as the ceremonial entrance. It is a double door opening with a pointed arch. Typical to all openings, the arch has a stone keystone and rectangular stones at its base. The original door has been replaced with a set of wood panelled doors and panelled infill above. • The nave was divided into four equal bays. Each is defined by the brick buttresses and has a tall pointed arch window at its centre and, at the north elevation, a small basement window with a brick arch below. The stone window sills have angled stooling. The east elevation displays a grouping of three windows with a larger circle window above. The existing windows are repalacements. • The alter was removed as part of the 1990 addition. • The 1990 addition extended the congregation space west and introduced a new wing running south from the west end of the building. • The original building was maintained as the congregation space with the addition of a three-sided or hexagonal apse at the west end. The 1990 wing houses the main entrance, offices, meeting spaces on the second floor, and a daycare with a dedicated entrance on the lower level. 18 Staff noted that the brick parapet had been rebuilt to match existing. - 402 - 47 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 • Similar to the original building, the masonry exterior is buff coloured brick with stone details and follows with rhythm of the bays. The wing generally follows the architectural detailing of the original building, with variation limited to the new entrances. • The new doorways have a half circle or Palladian style transom and flanking side- lights (with the exception of the west entrance does not have sidelights). The main entrance also has a peaked canopy with exposed cross-bracing similar to the congregation space. • The roof has a gable roof profile set at a medium pitch. The roof is covered in asphalt shingle, the eaves and rain gear are painted metal. - 403 - 48 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 69. Aerial view looking north, 2020. (Google streetview) 70. Cross. (BA)71. Cell tower. (BA) - 404 - 49 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 72. North elevation as viewed from Sheppard Avenue. (Google streetview) 73. North elevation, original bays at left and addition at right. (BA) - 405 - 50 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 74. Addition, west elevation. (BA) 75. Addition, exterior at apse. (BA)76. Addition, west entrance. (BA) - 406 - 51 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 77. Addition, south elevation. (BA)78. Addition, south entrance. (BA) 79. Addition, circular window and brick cross at top of south wall. (BA) 80. Addition, south windows. (BA) - 407 - 52 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 81. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill as viewed from the base of the stairs at the south parking lot. (BA) 82. Addition, east elevation with main entrance. (BA) - 408 - 53 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 83. Original building, south elevation. (BA) 84. Addition, main entrance with 1990 date stone at left. (BA) 85. Original building, west entrance with 1934 date stone at left. (BA) 86. Original building, south elevation. (BA) - 409 - 54 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 87.Addition, typical bay. (BA)88.Original building, typical bay. (BA) 89.Original building, typical window at tower. (BA) 90.Original building, base of buttress with salvaged capstone. (BA) - 410 - 55 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 91. Original tower, west and south elevations. (BA) 92. Original tower, east and north elevations. (BA) 93. Original tower, plaque at interior. (BA) - 411 - 56 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 94.Nave looking to balcony. (BA)95.Nave looking to altar. (BA) 96.View from balcony. (BA) - 412 - 57 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 97. Samples of stained glass works throughout the church. (BA) - 413 - 58 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 6.4 Evaluation The following evaluates 882 and 886 Kingston Road in relation to Ontario Regulation 9/06. Criteria Description Assessment Design or Physical Value i. is a rare, unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method; The church is a representa- tive example of a masonry Gothic-style church in Ontario. The use of masonry salvaged from the former Church of Ascension in Toronto is a unique aspect of its construction. ii. displays a high degree of crafts- manship or artistic merit, or; No. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. No. Historical or Associative Value i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organi- zation, or institution that is significant to a community; The property is historically linked to Pickering’s Anglican community. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or; No. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community. The original church is associ- ated with Toronto architect Leo Hunt Stanford. Contextual Value i. is important in defining, maintain- ing, or supporting the character of an area; No. ii. is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings, or; The church is historically linked to the development of Dunbarton. iii. is a landmark.St. Paul’s on-the-Hill’s setting atop the hill at Kingston and Fairport roads make is a visual landmark along Kingston Road. - 414 - 59 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 7 Discussion This assessment finds that all the properties included in this assessment have cultural heri- tage value to the City of Pickering. They were all found to satisfy one or more criteria set out in O. Reg 9/06. Based on the findings of this evaluation, I recommend that the City include these prop- erties on its Municipal Heritage Register s: •List 1 Evelyn Avenue, 301 Kingston Road and 401 Kingston Road; and, •Designate 882 & 886 Kingston Road, St. Paul’s On-the-Hill under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. - 415 - 60 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER Appendix 1: Sources 1.Commonwealth Resource Management Ltd. Manual of Guidelines. Prepared for the Management Board Secretariat Government of Ontario, June 1994. 2.Fram, Mark. Well-Preserved. Toronto: The Boston Mills Press, 1998. 3.J.H. Beers & Co. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario. Toronto: J.H.Beers & Co., 1877. 4.McKay, William A. The Pickering Story. Pickering: The Township of Pickering Historical Society, 1961. 5.Wood, William. Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Commmunity. Toronto: William Briggs, 1911. 6.MacRae, Marion and Anthony Adamson. Hallowed Walls: Church Architecture in Upper Canada. Toronto: Clarke, Irwin & Co., 1975. 7.McIlwraith, Thomas F. Looking For Old Ontario: Two Centuries of Landscape Change. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997. 8.Mikel, Robert. Ontario House Styles. Toronto: James Lorimer & Co. Ltd., 2004. 9.Sabean, John W. The Palmer Family: Settling in South Pickering. Pickering Township Historical Society Pathmaster, Summer Edition Vol. 2 no. 4, 1999. 10.Sabean, John W. Time Present and Time Past: A Pictorial History of Pickering. Pickering: Altona Editions, 2000. 11.Sears, Roebuck and Co. Honor Bilt Modern Homes. Chicago - Philadelphia. 1921. 12.Shumovich, Elizabeth. St. Paul’s On-The-Hill: 1925-1985. Anglican Church of Canada. 13.---. The Village of Pickering 1880-1970. Pickering: The Corporation of the Village of Pickering, 1970. Websites •Ancentry. www.ancestry.ca •Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950, www.dictionaryofarchitectsin- canada.org. •Davidson-Langley Incorporated Architects. www.dlia.ca. •Library and Archives of Canada. www.bac-lac.gc.ca •Ontario Architecture, www.ontarioarchitecture.com. •Ontario Archives. www.archives.gov.on.ca •Ontario Land Registry Access. www.onland.ca •Pickering Archives. www.coporate.pickering.ca •St. Paul’s on-the-Hill Anglican Church. www.stpaulonthehill.com - 416 - 61 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 Appendix 2: Summary of Land Records Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 27 / 882-886 Kingston Road Instrument Date1 Grantor Grantee Notes Patent May 28, 1796 Holmes, William B&S Jan. 27, 1832 Holmes, William Galbraith, John All B&S Mar. 17, 1838 Galbraith, John Cowan, Henry 111a N pt. B&S “Cowan, Henry Galbraith, Nancy 11 acres B&S Sept. 19, 1840 Cowan, Henry Courtis, Thomas 100 acres B&S Jan. 2, 1849 Richards, Thos. M W Courtis, Thomas 11 acres B&S Oct. 22, 1874 Courtice, Thomas Courtice Andrew, James N111 acres B&S -----Annis, Levi Pt of N lot, N. 111 ac. ex. 3 3.4 ac. +7.00 B&S Aug. 29, 1856 Courtice, Thomas Trustee of School No. 3 1/4 acre B&S ---2 ---Trustee of School No. 3 N. of Kingston Rd Grant Jan. 1, 1924 Newman, Harry A & Wife Public School Board of School No. 3 2 acres, $1200 plus exchange Grant Jan 1, 1924 Trustees of Public School Board of School No. 3 Newman, Mary A part N. of Kingston Rd. Grant Dec. 10, 1975 Newman, Harry A + wife The Incumbent and Church wardens of St. Paul’s on the Hill, Dunbarton Part of sketch attached. 1 This is the date of the instrument, not the “date of registry”. 2 Likely in the 1880s, definitely between 1877 and 1893. - 417 - 62 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 31 Transaction Date Grantor Grantee Notes Patent Oct. 20, 1846 Crown Palmer, Seneca 200 acres Will May 16, 1866 Palmer, Seneca Mort Jan 27, 1877 Palmer, George S + wife The Freehold L&S Co. 120 acres, $1500 B&S Mar. 15, 1882 Palmer, Mary J and G.S. Kinlock, George 27 acres - land covered by Plan 230 Will --- ------27 acres Grant June 26, 1919 --- 1 Clarke, Griffith B 27 acres Grant Oct. 5, 1920 Clarke, Griffith B +wife Rowe, Elmore J part, $5600 Grant Dec. 1, 1921 Rowe, Elmore Morgan, Edwin 27 acres Grant Feb. 24, 1922 Morgan, Edwin+wife Dixon, Mildred $2,200,note about plan Plan 230 Mar. 13, 1922 Morgan & Dixon’s Plan part 1 Notes where writing on land abstract is illegible. This likely relates to the executors of the will. - 418 - 63 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 1 Evelyn Avenue - Plan 230, Lot 10 Instrument Date of Sale / Grant1 Grantor Grantee Notes Grant Mar. 7, 1930 Dixon, Mildred M.Dixon, Silas R.All, $1 Hwy. Plan 18 Sept. 1927 Province Hwy. Plan 45 Dec. 1938 Province Grant Nov. 19, 1943 Dixon, Silas Russell Daniell-Jenkins John H + Dorothea All except hwy. $1 Grant Mar. 21, 1946 Daniell-Jenkins John H + Dorothea The Director, The Veterans Land Act All except hwy. $5050 By-law May 9, 1955 By-law No. 2091 - City of Pickering Designating Areas of Subdivision Control ALL Grant May 7, 1959 The Director, The Veterans Land Act Daniell-Jenkins John H + Dorothea All except hwy. $1 Plan 40-R-535 June 3, 1971 Grant July 29, 1980 Daniell-Jenkins, Dorothea Wolf, Heinz W + Ilse M All except hwy. $2 Notice 31 05 89 Wolf, Heinz W + Ilse M Lindo, Mike - in trust $790,000 Plan 40R-12418 Part 1 26 07 89 Transfer 15 08 89 Wolf, Heinz W + Ilse M Lindo, Mike $790,000 Transfer 92 12 99 Federal Business Development Bank 1000683 Ontario Ltd. $360,000 1 This is the date of the instrument, not the “date of registry”. - 419 - 64 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 401 Kingston Road - Plan 230, Lot 19 Instrument Date1 Grantor Grantee Notes Mort.July 6, 1922 Dixon, Millicent M.Gates, Peter S.All, $2500 Grant May 1, 1923 Dixon, Mildred M.Branson, Annie & Horace All, $4,500 Mort.May 1, 1923 Branson, Annie & Horace Dixon, Mildred M.$1,000 not recorded in full QC Sept. 3, 1936 Dixon, Mildred M.Colletta, Hazel Mae (Estate of Peter S Gates, deceased) All, $1 Grant Sept. 14, 1939 Estate of Peter S. Gates Dixon, Silas All, $1,600 Grant Mar 14, 1944 Dixon, Silas (and others) Dixon, Alexander part, $1 Grant Aug 15, 1946 Dixon, Alexander + wife Staley, Louis E. Grant Nov. 1951 Staley, Louis E.Quigg, Kathleen C + John P $3,200 By-law May 19, 1955 By-law No. 2091 - City of Pickering Designating Areas of Subdivision Control All Grant June 15, 1967 Quigg, Kathleen C + John P Belcourt, John A + Margaret L All - except Hwy. Grant June 22, 1970 Belcourt, John A + Margaret L Knowles, Jack (trustee) All - except Hwy. Grant June 26, 1973 Knowles, Jack (trustee) Mastrogicomos, Victor + Felicia All - except Hwy. Grant Aug 22, 1975 Mastrogicomos, Victor + Felicia Binns, Brian D & Christine A. All - except Hwy. Grant 16 02 87 Binns, Brian D & Christine A. Francis, Walter All? 1 This is the date of the instrument, not the “date of registry”. - 420 - 65 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 Instrument Date1 Grantor Grantee Notes Grant 20 05 87 Francis, Walter N. Bigioni Management Services Ltd. Hollow Holdings Ltd. All - except Hwy. Transfer 22 08 89 N. Bigioni Management Services Ltd. (25% int) Hollow Holdings Ltd. (50% int) Cesaroni Holdings Ltd. (75% int) $525,000 Plan 40R-16060 95 03 28 Parts 1,2&3 Transfer 95 10 05 Cesaroni Holdings Ltd. (75% int), N. Bigioni Management Services Ltd. (25% int) 1138224 Ontario Ltd. $975,000 Part 1 on 40R-16060 - 421 - 66 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 32 / 301 Kingston Road No.Transaction Date Grantor Grantee Notes Patent May 22, 1798 Crown Holmes, William BS June 26, 1843 Holmes, William Wesley, John 195 acres, 150 pounds Will May 11, 1868? --June --, 1874 Cochrane, Samuel?? Rodd, Richard 5572 B&S Dec. 1, 1881 or 1891 Rodd, Richard Moody, ------ 10046 B&S Mar. 18, 1902 Moody, Naomi + Robert Toyne, George S. of Kingston Rd. $8,000 as in No. 5572 21217 Grant Mar. 31,1934 Toyne, George + wife Toyne, George Edward 21050 Grant Nov. 21, 1936 Toyne, George Edward Toyne, Helen Davidson part, as in No. 20217 all restriction 24411 Grant Sept. 1, 1944 Toyne, Helen Davidson Alderice, John Alfred; Alderice, Alcona 1 ac. on S. side Kingston Rd. $1,000 + mort. No. 21050 31434 Mortgage May 25, 1951 Alderice, John Alfred; Alderice, Alcona Toyne, Helen Davidson S. side of Kingston Rd. $5,500 as No 24411 175120 Grant July 23, 1968 Alderdice, Alcona Pfeiffer, Manfred; Page, Delmar F (partner- ship property) part S. of Kingston Rd. As des. in No 31434 - 422 - 67 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 No.Transaction Date Grantor Grantee Notes 205389 Grant Jan. 4, 1971 Pfeiffer, Manfred; Page, Delmar F (partner- ship property) Smith, Ruth C (trustee) part S. of Kingston Rd.; part of land in No. 175120 ex. hwy - lying N of lot 7 in Plan 350 (see hwy plan 785) (0.80ac)+- 205500 Grant Jan. 16, 1971 Smith, Ruth C (trustee) Salmon, Ernest A.J. pt. S of Kingston Rd (0.80 ac+-) as des. in No. 205389 - 423 - Page 1 of 11 Minutes/Meeting Summary Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee November 25, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Attendees: J. Dempsey S. Croteau J. Irwin R. Smiles C. Sopher E. Martelluzzi, Planner II Heritage R. Perera, Committee Coordinator Guests:Isabel Lima, Planner l, City of Pickering Melanie Hare, Urban Strategies Inc. Grant Mason, Urban Strategies Inc. Stuart Chan, ERA Architects Janice Quieta, ERA Architects Muky Rajadurai, Altona Group Ed Saki, 301 Kingston Road Absent:E. John D. Felin A. Khan W. Jamadar Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 1.Welcome & Introductions E. Martelluzzi welcomed everyone to the electronic meeting. 2.Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 3.Review and Approval of Agenda Moved by S. Croteau Seconded by R. Smiles E. Martelluzzi reviewed the agenda items. Agenda approved. 4.Approval of Minutes - 424 - Page 2 of 11 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) -June 24, 2020 Moved by S. Croteau Seconded by J. Dempsey That the minutes of the October 28, 2020 meeting of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee be approved pending minor edits. Carried 5.Business Arising From Minutes There were no items of business arising from the minutes. 6.New Business 6.1 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/19 - Altona Group, 1294 Kingston Road - Resubmission of Heritage Impact Assessment E.Martelluzzi noted that the proposed development was in the process of resubmission following comments received by Council, Staff, and members of the public, and that the applicant had submitted studies, plans, and justification as part of the resubmission including the Heritage impact assessment. She noted that the City’s Heritage Consultant and the applicant was in agreement with moving forward with the findings of the report, and reminded the Committee that there still remains a number of undecided factors associated with the application and that the heritage aspect is only one part of the application. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, E. Martelluzzi outlined the location plan, and noted that Altona Group was proposing a mixed-use development consisting of two buildings having heights of 25-storeys and 13-storeys, and to facilitate this development, the applicant proposes to utilize the Bonus Zoning provisions of the City’s Official Plan to increase the maximum permit building height from 15-storeys to 25-storeys, in exchange for the provision of a community benefit under Section 37 of - 425 - Page 3 of 11 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) the Planning Act. She added that in return for the additional increase in building height, the applicant was proposing to retain and restore the Old Liverpool House along with a number of proposed zoning by- law amendments. E. Martelluzzi noted that on December 16, 2019, Council listed 1294 Liverpool Road on the Municipal Heritage Register, which meant that any owner shall give Council 60 days’ notice in writing prior to demolition or removal of the building. She noted the 5 key changes from the original submission which include relocating the Old Liverpool House approximately 16 metres to the south of its existing location, reducing the adjacent podium height from 8 to 6 storeys, lowering the tower overhang, updating the heritage forecourt design and the conservation strategy. She further outlined the summary comments provided in the peer review by Branch Architecture. E. Martelluzzi stated that Staff concur with Branch Architecture’s analysis, and that the Heritage Impact Assessment had been updated to respond to the Peer Review comments from the first submission with further changes to the design which respond to the Old Liverpool House in a sympathetic yet distinct way. She noted that the next steps include incorporating the comments received from the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee in a staff report to the Planning & Development Committee, and that through the Site Plan review process, the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee would have an opportunity to review and comment on the conservation plan, details regarding the restoration of the Old Liverpool House, and the landscaping surround the building. Melanie Hare, Urban Strategies, and Stuart Chan, ERA Architects, joined the electronic Committee meeting via audio connection and provided the Committee with the reasoning behind the 5 key changes made from the original submission referring to a PDF presentation circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting. - 426 - Page 4 of 11 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) A question and answer period ensued between Committee Members and Ms. Martelluzzi, Ms. Hare, and Mr. Chan, regarding: •whether the applicant was in discussion with the City to replace the existing daycare located in the subject lands; •that the applicant is in the right path with the changes made through the resubmission; •how the proposed landscape features and the proposed cemented area in front of the Old Liverpool House would fit with the current environment of the roadway and sidewalks on Liverpool road and Kingston Road; •space between the sidewalk and the porch of the Old Liverpool House; •concern regarding the closeness of the Liverpool house to Kingston road in relation to traffic and road salt during the winter months; •rational for increasing the structure height to provide funding to restore the Old Liverpool house; •concern regarding the type of plants to be planted in the proposed planters in the landscape features between the Kingston road and the Old Liverpool house and whether the proposed streetscape is a part of the intensification plan for the area; •whether the applicant intend to sell the Old Liverpool House; •clarification on a heritage easement agreement; •ensuring that the applicant does not receive any financial relief pertaining to heritage maintenance as the applicant would receive the benefit from the ability to add additional storeys pending Council approval; and, •whether the heritage tax benefit does not apply to the applicant. Moved by S. Croteau Seconded by J. Dempsey 1.That Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee supports the relocation, restoration and - 427 - Page 5 of 11 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) preservation of the Old Liverpool House as presented in the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by ERA Architects Inc. dated July 30, 2020, and the site plan prepared by Kirkor Architects and Planners, Z1.3, dated July 22, 2020; 2.That, after the Old Liverpool House has been moved to its new location, that a reference plan be provided to the City of Pickering to identify the new location of the Old Liverpool House and the Heritage Forecourt and that Council designates the property under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; 3.That the site plan application include a Conservation Plan and Costing Estimate and that the materials be forwarded to the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee for comment; 4.That, after a designation by-law has been registered on title, that a heritage plaque be placed on the building or on the site at the owner’s expense; and, 5.That the City enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the owner to ensure the ongoing maintenance, protection and repair of the Old Liverpool House in keeping with the Heritage Designation By-law and the Ontario Heritage Act. Carried 6.2 Kingston Road Corridor Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report E. Martelluzzi referred to a Memorandum circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting and noted that in October 2017, City Council directed staff to undertake an Intensification Study for the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node. She added that in June 2019, Staff consulted the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee on the Intensification Plan and advised that there were 5 properties within the study areas along Kingston Road that had been identified in the cultural heritage portion of the study. The properties include 1970 Brock Road, 301 - 428 - Page 6 of 11 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) Kingston Road, 882 & 886 Kingston Road (St.Paul’s- on-the-Hill Anglican Church), 401 Kingston Road, and1 Evelyn Avenue. She reminded the Committee that at the time, the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee recommended that staff study the four properties for potential inclusion on the Municipal Heritage Register. M.Martelluzzi provided an overview of the two ways to list a property on the Municipal Heritage Register as outlined in a Memorandum circulated to the Committee Members prior to the meeting. She noted that the City hired Branch Architecture to prepare a Cultural Heritage Evaluation report, which included a written description of each property and building(s), general photographs and a preliminary heritage evaluation based on Ontario Regulation 9/06- Criteria for Determining Heritage Value or Interest. She added that Staff worked with property owners to gain access and meet on each property. She noted that the owner of 1 Evelyn Avenue, did not provide access to their property, and that the church warden for St. Paul’s noted that the Church’s Executive Committee is in not support of listing the property, however, as staff have not heard back from the Archdiocese yet, the Staff recommendations outlined in the Memorandum circulated to the Committee still stand. Ed Saki, 301 Kingston Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to provide his comments regarding 301 Kingston road. Mr. Saki provided a brief history of the additions done to the property, noting that these additions were not done with heritage in mind. He noted that the practicality of maintaining the house is low, as it is in poor and deteriorating condition. He noted that as the house had been altered heavily, he does not agree with the recommendation from Branch Architects to list the property on the Municipal Heritage Registry. A discussion period ensued between Committee members regarding: - 429 - Page 7 of 11 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) •whether the church was not in support of listing the site on Municipal Heritage Registry; •that listing a property on the Municipal Heritage Register would not prevent day to day alterations; •the Committee’s responsibility to preserve the heritage attributions in the community; •whether any of the proposed properties to be listed are commercial; and, •the need to consider the proposed properties in relation to its ability to restore the properties to its original condition. Moved by J. Dempsey Seconded by S. Croteau 1.That Heritage Pickering recommends to Council that 301 Kingston Road, 401 Kingston Road, 1 Evelyn Avenue and 882 & 886 Kingston Road be listed on the Municipal Heritage Register, under Section 27 of theOntario Heritage Act; 2.That staff, in consultation with Heritage Pickering, work with St. Paul’s On-the-Hill and the Archdiocese to actively pursue Designation of this important cultural heritage resource in Pickering; and, 3.That all four properties, along with 1970 Brock Road (the Post Manor) be identified on Land Use Schedule XIV of the proposed Official Plan Amendment 38 and that policy wording be included in the amendment, in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement, to state that development and site alteration on or adjacent to those lands not be permitted unless the proposed development and site alteration has be evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected or identified heritage property will be conserved. Carried 6.3 Circulation: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2020-02 & Zoning By-law Amendment A 10/20 - Medallion - 430 - Page 8 of 11 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) Developments (Pickering Finch) Ltd. - 450 Finch Avenue E. Martelluzzi referred to a memorandum circulated to the Committee and noted that the property was currently noted on the City’s Inventory of Historic Places, but is not listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Register, and that it was not protected from demolition or alteration. She added that the applicant was proposing to rezone the subject lands to permit a residential subdivision consisting of 31 lots for detached dwellings fronting onto the extensions of Rougewalk Drive and Mahogany Court, and that the applicant proposes to demolish the current stone building in order to facilitate the development. E. Martelluzzi added that in support of the proposal, the applicant had submitted a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, prepared by Parslow Heritage Consultancy Inc, and Staff retained Branch Architecture to peer review the submitted Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report. She added that Branch Architecture recommended a number of revisions to the report, including revising it to be a Heritage Impact Assessment which was more widely used in practice, and recommended that a heritage architect who was a member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals prepare the revision. She noted that Branch Architecture also recommended a more fulsome analysis of the site’s historical and contextual background, such as its proximity to the neighbourhood of Cherrywood. She further added that Parslow Heritage Consultancy reviewed the property under Ontario Regulation 9/06, Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, and discovered that the property met one or more Criteria, and therefore would be eligible for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. She noted that Branch Architecture recommended that, based on the findings of the report, as well as further research and analysis, that the City pursue designating this cultural heritage resource under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. - 431 - Page 9 of 11 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) E.Martelluzzi stated that the next steps include receiving comments or concerns from the Committee regarding the proposal, and that all comments would be included in staff’s Information Report to be presented to a Planning & Development Committee. She added that an Electronic Statutory Public Meeting was scheduled to be held on January 4, 2021 to obtain comments surrounding residents and property owners, and that Staff would be requesting the applicant to prepare a revised Heritage Impact Assessment and would bring this matter back to Heritage Pickering for consideration and recommendation. A discussion period ensued between Members of the Committee regarding: •the need for a revised report from the heritage consultant in order to move forward with the decision regarding designation; •the purpose for listing the property as the house is in a deteriorating state and require lot of work and money to rehabilitate the property; •whether there is concern regarding the owner demolishing the building; •whether the Committee could list the property under section 27 ahead of the Staff report as listing the property in the Municipal Heritage Registry would require the owner to notify the City prior to demolition; •whether the Committee would need to conduct further investigation to designate the property once the revised report as noted by Branch Architects is resubmitted; and, •whether the new report could provide the statement of character and rational for designating the property. Moved by S. Croteau Seconded by R. Smiles 1.That the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee recommend that 450 finch road be listed on the Municipal Heritage Register; 2.that the report be revised as per Branch Architect’s recommendation; and, - 432 - Page 10 of 11 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 3. that the revised heritage impact assessment be presented to the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee to consider future designation and conservation of the property. Carried 6.4 Approval of 2021 Heritage Pickering Meeting Schedule Moved by J. Dempsey Seconded by J. Irwin Committee meetings will be held every 4th Wednesday of the month and that the December month be a recess unless a meeting is required. Carried 7. Correspondence 7.1 Summary of 2020 Heritage Permit approvals by delegated authority E. Martelluzzi referred to a memorandum circulated to the committee regarding the 2020 heritage permit approvals, and noted that HP 01/20 was not included in the list and that a letter was sent to the owner to apply for a heritage permit. 8. Other Business C. Sopher noted that a correction may be needed to the date of 1976 in the third paragraph on page 8 of the Branch Architecture’s report pertaining to agenda item 6.2. E. Martelluzzi to look into this. 9. Next Meeting January 27, 2021 Adjournment - 433 - Meeting Adjourned: 8:20 pm Copy: City Clerk - 434 - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 40 Appendix C Staff Bios. - 435 - - 436 - 200-540 BINGEMANS CENTRE DRIVE KITCHENER / ONTARIO /N2B3X9 / T:519.576.3650 / F: 519-576-0121 / WWW.MHBCPLAN.COM - 437 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 21-24 Date: June 10, 2024 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2023-01 Draft Plan of Condominium CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership (607 & 609 Annland Street, 640 Liverpool Road & 1276, 1280, 1288, 1290, 1292 & 1294 Wharf Street) Recommendation: 1.That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P, submitted by Liverpool Road Limited Partnership, to re-designate the lands located on the southwest corner of Liverpool Road and Annland Street from “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas” and “Open Space System – Marina Areas” to “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” to facilitate a residential common element condominium development be approved, and that the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 51 to the Pickering Official Plan as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 21-24 be forwarded to Council for enactment; 2.That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23, submitted by Liverpool Road Limited Partnership, to facilitate a residential common element condominium development consisting of a maximum of 51 townhouse units, 10 of which will contain commercial floorspace at-grade fronting Liverpool Road, be approved, and that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment, as set out in Appendix II to Report PLN 21-24, be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; and 3.That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01, submitted by Liverpool Road Limited Partnership, to establish a development block to facilitate a residential condominium development and a block for common amenity space, as shown in Attachment 5 to Report PLN 21-24, and the implementing conditions of approval, as set out in Appendix III, be endorsed. Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s decision regarding applications submitted by Liverpool Road Limited Partnership. These applications include Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate the development of a residential common element condominium with 51 townhouse units. The subject properties are located west of Liverpool Road, north of Wharf Street, and south of Annland Street in the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. The subject lands include nine properties, - 438 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 2 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership municipally known as 607 and 609 Annland Street, 640 Liverpool Road and 1276, 1280, 1288, 1290, 1292 and 1294 Wharf Street (see Location Map and Air Photo, Attachments 1 and 2). In 2023, Liverpool Road Partnership Limited submitted applications for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision, and Draft Plan of Condominium to facilitate a residential common element condominium development consisting of 51 townhouse units accessed through an internal private road and Wharf Street. The units fronting Liverpool Road are designed to be live/work units with a minimum of 50 square metres of ground-floor space intended for commercial uses. In response to feedback from area residents and technical comments expressed by City staff, the applicant has made minor refinements to the conceptual plan. These include increasing the commercial floor space for the live/work units, providing a pedestrian connection from Wharf Street to the interior private road, and relocating the landscaped entry feature to the northwest corner of Liverpool Road and Annland Street to create a commemoration open space for the former Avis House. Residents expressed concerns about parking, traffic, urban design, commercial uses, dwelling construction, property maintenance, public connections and natural areas. These issues have been addressed by the applicant through revisions to the plan, submission of additional supporting materials, and conditions of draft plan approval. City Development staff support the proposed development. It is consistent with Provincial Plans and conforms to the Durham Regional Official Plan. Although the current Pickering Official Plan designation does not permit the requested number of units, the proposal can be supported as it represents a logical and orderly development. The modest increase in density extends the pattern of townhouse development from the south. The proposed built form maintains the intent of the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines and contributes to the nautical village. The height, massing and scale of the proposed townhouse units are consistent with the range of dwelling types and built forms within the established surrounding neighbourhood, enhancing the streetscape along Liverpool Road, Annland Street and Wharf Street. To address the loss of the Avis House, staff request that the applicant continue to work with City staff through the Site Plan Approval process to explore options for enlarging the private park space at the northwest corner of Liverpool Road and Wharf Street. This space should be sufficiently sized to accommodate robust landscaping, seating and commemoration features, including a public art installation. Accordingly, staff recommends that Council approve Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P, Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23, and Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01, including the conditions of draft plan approval. - 439 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 3 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority of Advance Innovation & Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced Community. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. Discussion: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s decision regarding applications submitted by Liverpool Road Limited Partnership. These applications include an Official Plan Amendment, a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Subdivision. The applicant is proposing to re-designate the subject lands from “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas” and “Open Space System – Marina Areas” to “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas”, and establish site-specific zoning performance standards to facilitate a residential common element condominium containing a maximum of 51 townhouses, including 10 live/work units fronting Liverpool Road. Additionally, the applicant is seeking approval of a draft plan of subdivision to allow the applicant to create the privately owned parcels of tied land through a process called “lifting part lot control”. 1.Background 1.1 Property Description The subject properties are located west of Liverpool Road, north of Wharf Street, and south of Annland Street. The subject lands comprise nine properties, municipally known as 607 and 609 Annland Street, 640 Liverpool Road and 1276, 1280, 1288, 1290, 1292 and 1294 Wharf Street (see Location Map, Attachment 1). The lands have a combined area of approximately 1.17 hectares, with approximately 77.6 metres of frontage along Liverpool Road, 144.3 metres of frontage along Wharf Street, and 146.6 metres of frontage along Annland Street. The parcel of land along Frenchman’s Bay (1276 Wharf Street) does not have street frontage. The properties at 1280, 1288 and 1290 Wharf Street, 607 Annland Street, are currently occupied by detached dwellings. The rear yard of 1290 Wharf Street is currently used for the outside storage of boats. 640 Liverpool Road was previously occupied by a detached dwelling. 609 Annland Street and a part of 640 Liverpool Road are currently leased by the City of Pickering for a gravel-surfaced, seasonal public parking lot. The property at 1292 Wharf Street is used for outside storage of equipment and materials. A metal accessory building and outside storage occupy 1294 Wharf Street. Surrounding land uses include (see Air Photo Map, Attachment 2): North: Across Annland Street is an established residential subdivision consisting of one to three-storey detached dwellings. - 440 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 4 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership East: Across Liverpool Road is an established residential subdivision consisting of one to three-storey detached dwellings. South: Across Wharf Street are three-storey townhouses, a condominium complex consisting of three-storey townhouse dwellings, a restaurant (Port Restaurant), and a waterfront property occupied by a detached dwelling. West: Immediately to the west are three waterfront properties, one being occupied by a detached dwelling, and the other two being utilized for outside storage of boats and equipment; a 7.0 metre wide easement in favour of the Region of Durham is registered over a portion of the vacant lands immediately to the west to accommodate a 4.5 metre wide trunk sanitary sewer, serving areas to the north within the Bay Ridges Community, and a private right-of-way providing access to 1276, 1280 and 1288 Wharf Street. Further west is Frenchman’s Bay. 1.2 Avis House 640 Liverpool Road was previously occupied by a single detached dwelling, known as the Avis House (see Figures 1 and 2, below). At the time the applications were made, the building was not listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Register or designated under Part IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act. However, the building was identified on the City’s Inventory of Heritage Properties. Constructed circa 1850, the former house and tavern retained physical value as a rare surviving example of an Ontario Vernacular frame house with Georgian influences. Characteristic of the style, the Avis House was one-and-a-half storeys tall, had a three-bay symmetrical façade and the exterior was originally clad with pebble dash stucco cladding. This cladding was fashionable in the late Regency aesthetic, popular between 1830 and 1850. 640 Liverpool Road is historically associated with William Walter Sparks and the Avis Family. William Sparks was a notable resident who served as Harbourmaster of Frenchman’s Bay. He was prominent in local politics until his death in 1917, sitting on Pickering’s Council and acting as Township Reeve and Deputy Reeve. The Avis Family owned the property between 1893 and 2021. The property was associated with the early settlement of Fairport Village, the development of Frenchman’s Bay as an economic hub, and as a leisure area in the early twentieth century. Furthermore, through its function as a tavern from the 1850s into the early twentieth century, the property played an important role as a social and community centre. - 441 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 5 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership Figure 1: Avis House (right) and tavern (left) (viewed from Wharf Street) c. 1905, (Pickering Public Library) Figure 2: Avis House (viewed from south and northwest, respectively) c. 2023, Heritage Studio Despite ongoing discussions regarding the documented heritage value of the building and the retention of the dwelling, which is further detailed under Section 3.5 of this report, the applicant obtained a demolition permit and demolished the building in November 2023. 1.3 Applicant’s Initial and Current Proposal Liverpool Road Partnership Limited submitted applications for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision, and Draft Plan of Condominium to facilitate a residential common element condominium development consisting of 51 townhouse units accessed through an internal private road and Wharf Street. The conceptual site plan illustrates a total of four rear-lane townhouse blocks (Blocks 1 to 4), containing a total of 20 units fronting Annland Street and Liverpool Road with parking and garage access at the rear of the dwelling units. Units fronting Liverpool Road are proposed to be live/work units, with dedicated commercial space at-grade. The remaining six - 442 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 6 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership townhouse blocks (Blocks 5 to 10), are proposed to be traditional street townhouses consisting of 31 units, and will have parking and garage access at the front of each dwelling unit (see Original Conceptual Site Plan, Attachment 3). All of the townhouse units are proposed to be three storeys in height. The private amenity space for the rear-lane units will be second and third-floor balconies along the front and rear of the units, while private rear yards will be provided for the street townhouse units. Through collaboration with City staff, the applicant has made minor refinements to their proposal to address concerns raised by area residents (see Revised Conceptual Site Plan, Attachment 4): •slightly increasing the commercial floor space for the live/work units from 45 square metres to 50 square metres •relocating the landscaped entry feature, initially proposed between Blocks 3 and 4, to the northwest corner of Liverpool Road and Annland Street, which will be a privately owned, publicly accessible open space, intended to commemorate the Avis House •providing a walkway connection between Wharf Street and the internal private road •reducing the maximum front yard porch and step projection of internal units from 3.0 to 2.5 metres to provide additional soft-landscaping and snow storage Vehicular access to the internal private road is to be provided through two full-moves accesses along the northerly portion of the site from Annland Street, and a single full-moves access from Wharf Street. The Wharf Street access is proposed to be aligned with an existing private road connection on the south side of Wharf Street, which provides access to the residential condominium complex immediately to the south. A 1.5 metre wide pedestrian walkway is proposed along one side of the private road and will provide connections to existing sidewalks on Liverpool Road and Annland Street. Resident parking for both the rear-lane townhouses and street townhouses, is proposed at a ratio of two parking spaces per dwelling unit. The street townhouses and rear-lane townhouses fronting Liverpool Road will accommodate one parking space within a private garage, and one space on a driveway. Parking spaces for the rear-lane townhouses fronting Annland Street will be accommodated within a double private garage. These units will not have a surface driveway. Visitor parking is provided at a rate of 0.34 spaces per unit, for a total of 18 parking spaces, which will be distributed throughout the site. The proposal provides a 350-square metre outdoor amenity area located to the west of the residential proposal, adjacent to Frenchman’s Bay. It is proposed to be accessed through a walkway connection from the residential development. This portion of land is currently landlocked as it is not contiguous with the applicant’s land ownership. To access this parcel, the applicant will be required to obtain an access easement over 1272 Wharf Street. - 443 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 7 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership The applicant has also applied for Draft Plan of Subdivision. The draft plan creates a single block for residential use and a block for the private amenity area adjacent to Frenchman’s Bay (see Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision, Attachment 5). Obtaining draft plan approval is a technical requirement to allow the applicant to create the privately owned parcels of tied land through a process called “lifting part lot control”. The application for Draft Plan of Condominium will establish the common elements of the proposal (see Revised Draft Plan of Condominium, Attachment 6). The common element features include the private amenity spaces, the water meter room, visitor parking areas, the private road and the internal pedestrian walkways. The development will be subject to site plan approval. 2.Comments Received 2.1 Comments received in writing and expressed at the May 4, 2023, Public Open House Meeting and June 5, 2023, Statutory Public Meeting A Public Open House was held on May 4, 2023. Approximately 25 residents attended. A Statutory Public Meeting was held on June 5, 2023, at which four delegations provided comments. The following is a list of key comments and concerns that were expressed at the Open House, Statutory Public meeting, and written submissions received: •stated that they support the re-development of the lands and that the proposed townhouse design complements the existing character of the surrounding area •commented that the scale and layout of the proposed development will integrate into the existing neighbourhood •outlined that the proposed townhouse units are a preferred, and more desirable built form, than an apartment building •requested the applicant consider an alternative built form that is more accessible to seniors, such as three-storey apartments, or single-floor stacked townhouse units •requested additional window glazing and increased ceiling heights, be provided for the live/work units along Liverpool Road, and that minimum standards for such be included in the zoning by-law •requested the live/work units along Liverpool Road be setback further from the property line to provide additional space for outdoor uses associated with commercial businesses such as café or restaurant patios •concerned regarding the loss of the City’s surplus parking area currently located on the subject lands •requested an increase in By-law Services monitoring of local streets within the community for parking infractions, should this proposal move forward ahead of the City securing new parking areas to replace the loss of the surplus parking lot - 444 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 8 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership •commented that a reduction in the proposed parking ratios could encourage less vehicular traffic to and from the subject lands •concerned that the proposal will worsen existing vehicular traffic, particularly during the summer months •requested a new stop sign be provided at the intersection of Liverpool Road and Commerce Street •concerned the proposed units fronting and having driveway access from Wharf Street will increase traffic movements and vehicular trips along Wharf Street, negatively impacting existing property owners •concerned that the proposal will provide inadequate visitor parking to support the proposed units, resulting in parking on municipal roadways •questioned if employee parking will be provided for the proposed live/work units •concerned that the proposal would compound an existing parking problem at the south end of Liverpool Road and the broader community •commented that the proposal provides insufficient parking, and that each unit will require parking for more than two vehicles •requested that future construction be scheduled to avoid negative impacts on existing wildlife on the subject lands •outlined the proposed architectural design and building materials appear to be of low quality and would pose a long-term maintenance issue •requested that a high-quality urban design, sympathetic to the existing nautical village character of the area, be provided •suggested the applicant consider providing a swimming pool as a part of the common element amenity space •questioned if the applicant is considering providing private boat slips (dock condominiums) along Frenchman’s Bay •questioned who the future construction company will be •questioned if bird-friendly glazing could be provided in future units •requested the waterfront parcel be publicly accessible and connected by dedicated continuous pathways along the waterfront •concerned regarding the future maintenance and/or alteration of approved architectural design and landscape features •requested a commemorative plaque be included within the future development recognizing the previous Avis family ownership of 640 Liverpool Road The following are comments expressed by Members of the Planning & Development Committee at the Statutory Public Meeting: • inquired about the number of parks and open spaces in the surrounding area • requested clarification on whether the amenity space along the waterfront could be publicly accessible • questioned the number of vehicular connections proposed - 445 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 9 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership • questioned whether the units would have basements or were at a risk for flooding • requested clarification on the number of parking space proposed • questioned if a wider variety of unit types could be considered for different demographics • questioned if there was assurance that there would not be negative impacts the Frenchman’s Bay as a result of the construction • inquired if the rehabilitation of the concrete wall on the waterfront parcel of land was proposed •questioned if electric vehicle charging infrastructure is proposed in the development 2.2 Agency Comments 2.2.1 Region of Durham •no objection to the proposal subject to the conditions of draft approval of the plan of subdivision and plan of condominium (common element) provided •the Region has requested that an “H” Holding Symbol be imposed on the subject site through the zoning by-law •the “H” Holding Symbol shall be in place until the owner has satisfied all the requirements of the Regional Municipality of Durham with respect to the provision of sewer and water services, Regional roads, and entered into any necessary agreements in this regard •sanitary sewerage capacity will be allocated and controlled through the execution of a servicing agreement with the Region •the Official Plan Amendment application is exempt from Regional approval, in accordance with Regional By-law 11-2000 •the proposed development is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement that encourage the efficient use of land, infrastructure, and planned public service facilities, providing a compact built form at an appropriate density •the applications conform with the objectives of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, which encourages an array of housing types in the Province’s Built Boundary and will assist with reaching the City’s intensification allocation •the Regional Official Plan (ROP) designates the subject lands as “Living Areas”, “Waterfront Areas” and “Waterfront Places” •“Living Areas” are intended to be used predominantly for housing purposes with a full range of housing options at higher densities by intensifying and redeveloping existing areas, particularly along arterial roads •Lands within the “Waterfront Areas” shall generally be developed as people places •“Waterfront Areas” are to be developed as focal points along the Lake Ontario waterfront, having a mix of uses, which may include residential, commercial, marina, recreational, tourist, and cultural and community facilities •the applications will facilitate the intensification of an underutilized site with medium density residential infill development and add an array of housing types in the area, which is consistent with the policies of the ROP - 446 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 10 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership • water and sanitary sewage capacity are currently available from the existing supply from Annland Street and trunk sewer immediately to the west of the lands; however, servicing capacity is only assigned and allocated upon execution of a development agreement with the Region of Durham 2.2.2 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) • the subject lands are within a TRCA Regulated Area of the Frenchman’s Bay Watershed, and a permit is required from the TRCA before any development takes place • the site is regulated with respect to the Provincially Significant Wetlands and high lake level (flooding) associated with the Lake Ontario shoreline along the west portion of the lands • TRCA initially requested that the parcel of land at 1276 Wharf Street be transferred into public ownership, however, recognizes that this parcel of land is not continuous with City or TRCA owned lands, which poses a long-term access and maintenance issue • TRCA staff are satisfied with the proposed development limits and the use of 1276 Wharf Street as a private amenity area, provided no structures or buildings are constructed on this parcel • the applicant has prepared an Environmental Impact Study to the satisfaction of the TRCA, which found that the risk to Frenchman’s Bay as a result of the proposed development is minimal, and can be mitigation through stormwater management mitigation measures • the applicant also prepared a Costal Study to the satisfaction of the TRCA, which found that the residential block of land was located beyond the shoreline hazard limit, and was not at risk of flooding • TRCA has no objections to the proposal, subject to the conditions of draft approval of the plan of subdivision and condominium provided, which include requirements for stormwater management measures, grading, and the submission of a restoration planting plan for the private amenity space 2.2.3 Durham District School Board • no objections to the proposal • students from this development will be accommodated within existing neighbourhood schools 2.2.4 Durham Catholic District School Board • no objections to the proposal • students from this development will attend Father Fenelon Catholic Elementary School located at 795 Eyer Drive and St. Mary Catholic School located at 1918 Whites Road - 447 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 11 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership 2.3 Comments from City Departments 2.3.1 Engineering Services •no objection to the proposal, subject to the conditions of draft approval provided •the owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise of the City of Pickering including, among other matters, the execution of a subdivision agreement between the owner and the City concerning the provision and installation of roads, services, grading, drainage, utilities, tree compensation, construction management, cash-in-lieu of parkland, noise attenuation, street lighting, public sidewalks and any other matters 2.3.2 Fire Services •no objections to the proposed development 2.3.3 Sustainability Sustainability staff have reviewed the Sustainable Development Report/Checklist, prepared by Brian Moss & Associated Ltd., dated April 22, 2024, and have no objection to the approval of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to facilitate the proposed development. The applicant has noted that the proposal will achieve all mandatory Tier 1 requirements of the Integrated Sustainable Design Standards (ISDS) for low-rise residential development by including the following sustainability elements: •providing residents with educational information packages to familiarize them with the adjacent natural areas, including wildlife information, and other sustainability development features and lifestyle practices, such as anti-littering and illegal dumping •maintaining sufficient setbacks from natural features •constructing buildings to achieve the Energy Star® rating •providing street trees along the internal private road and public roads •using permeable pavement to capture and infiltrate run-off •providing native and drought tolerant landscape plantings •providing dedicated interior storage for separate recyclables, organics and garbage containers to support waste diversion and reduction •providing for EV charging in accordance with the ISDS Through the site plan approval process, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that the proposal has been designed in accordance with the City of Pickering Council-approved ISDS Checklist for Low Rise Residential Development. The final sustainable design features to be incorporated into the development will be presented to the Site Plan Review Panel for their feedback before the Director, City Development & CBO issues site plan approval. - 448 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 12 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership 3. Planning Analysis 3.1 The proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan The Provincial Policy Statement 2020, (PPS), provides provincial policy direction on land use planning. The PPS provides for appropriate development while protecting resources of provincial interest, public health and safety, and the quality of the natural and built environment. The PPS supports improved land use planning and management, which contributes to a more effective and efficient land-use planning system. The PPS indicates that healthy, livable and safe communities are to be sustained by, among other matters, promoting efficient development and land use patterns; accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential; and avoiding development which may cause environmental concerns. The PPS outlines that new development should have a compact form, mix of uses and densities that allow for the efficient use of land, in areas that are supported by planned or existing transit services. The PPS also generally directs development and site alteration to locations outside of hazardous lands that would be impacted by flooding hazards and/or erosion hazards. The proposed development promotes residential intensification and provides appropriate density where existing infrastructure and public service facilities are available. The residential dwellings are proposed to be located outside of the 100-year flood plain of Frenchman’s Bay, which will protect the built environment. The proposed development is consistent with the PPS. A Place to Grow sets out a planning vision for growth throughout the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The subject lands are located within the “built up area” of the City of Pickering. The proposed development will contribute to the achievement of more compact complete communities and assist the City and Region to meet their respective intensification targets, which is to accommodate 50 percent of all growth within the existing limits of the currently built boundary of the Region and City. The proposed development provides for a compact form of development that is in keeping with the City’s growth management strategy to direct growth to infill development. The overall height, massing, and building form are sensitive to the surrounding residential land uses within the community and continue the pattern of medium density development immediately to the south. The proposal conforms to the Growth Plan. 3.2 An amendment to the Pickering Official Plan is required The westerly portion of the subject lands (1276, 1280 and 1288 Wharf Street and 607 Annland Street) are designated “Open Space System – Marina Areas”, and the remaining lands (1290, 1292 and 1294 Wharf Street, 609 Annland Street and 640 Liverpool Road) are designated “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas” within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. - 449 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 13 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership The “Open Space System – Marina Areas” designation provides for marinas, yacht clubs, marina supportive uses such as restaurants, limited retail sales, limited residential uses in conjunction with marinas and yacht clubs, and aquaculture, in addition to conservation, environmental protection, and agricultural uses. The “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas” designation provides for housing and related uses, with a maximum net residential density of 30 units per hectare. The Bay Ridges Neighbourhood Policies recognize the subject lands as being within the “Liverpool Road Waterfront Node”, which is described as an area that exhibits a unique mix of built and natural attributes. Built form and public space within the Waterfront Node are to be of high-quality design with a nautical theme. The Bay Ridges Neighbourhood policies further restrict permitted uses on the subject lands, except the Liverpool Road frontage, to only non-residential uses listed above to strengthen and complement the existing working marinas of the area. The lands fronting Liverpool Road are further identified as “Liverpool Road Corridor”. Residential uses may be permitted up to a maximum density of 55 units per net hectare within the Corridor provided that a significant public benefit is achieved through the design and construction of the dwellings to allow the ground floors facing the street to be easily converted to accommodate a range of uses including the retailing of good and services, and offices by incorporating the Ontario Building Code construction requirements applicable to commercial uses. The applicant has proposed residential uses on the entirety of the subject lands resulting in a density of approximately 45 units per net hectare, which exceeds the permitted density range. To permit the development, the applicant has proposed an amendment to the Official Plan to re-designate the residential block from “Open Space System – Marina Areas” and “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas” to “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas”, increasing the residential density from 30 units per net hectare to 45 units per net hectare. The amenity area lands adjacent to Frenchman’s Bay will remain designated “Open Space System – Marina Areas”. 3.3 The applicant’s request to increase the density on the subject lands is appropriate and is consistent with developments to the south in the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood Despite being identified as “Open Space System – Marina Areas” within the Official Plan, the existing townhouse condominium complex located immediately to the south (1295 Wharf Street) has a net residential density of approximately 35.2 units per net hectare. The density of the existing condominium development falls within the density range of the “Medium Density” designation. Annland Street, and Liverpool Road north of Annland Street, are identified as municipal collector roads within the City’s Official Plan, which are intended to carry local and neighbourhood traffic in greater volumes than local roads. - 450 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 14 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership The proposed residential development, consisting of three-storey townhouse units, is appropriate, desirable and in keeping with the existing building form of the immediately surrounding neighbourhood, which consists of detached and townhouse dwellings ranging between one to three storeys in height. The proposal provides for a modest increase in density that will further extend the pattern of townhouse development started to the south and continue the established streetscape along Liverpool Road. The residential units fronting Liverpool Road will maintain the Corridor policies by providing a minimum ground floor area of 50 square metres that will be constructed in accordance with the Ontario Building Code to be able to be used for commercial purposes. The live/work units will enable small-scale personal service and office uses to be established along Liverpool Road, servicing the community, as envisioned. The proposal is located along two collector roads that can accommodate the traffic generated by this development. The proposal will also assist in providing for a mix of housing forms and tenure within an area that is well-serviced by existing infrastructure and will assist the City in achieving its intensification targets. The subject lands do not have water frontage or access to Frenchman’s Bay. The lands do not currently contain an operating marina or support a marina in the surrounding area. As such, the residential proposal will not interfere with the existing marina operations located to the south of the lands on Frenchman’s Bay or preclude the lands to the west of the subject lands, which have water access, to be used to support marina functions. 3.4 The proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines The Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines were adopted by Council in 2002 to provide design objectives for the waterfront area in Bay Ridge Neighbourhood. The Guidelines indicate that the westerly portion of the subject lands as a “Marina Mixed Use Area”, and the Liverpool Road frontage as “Liverpool Road Corridor”. Lands in the Marina Mixed Use Area are intended to be developed in a manner that creates a high-quality built form that is sensitive to views of the water, provides a critical link for visual and physical public accessibility to the waterfront where appropriate, has an attractive pedestrian scale, and builds upon existing neighbourhood patterns. Lands within the Liverpool Road Corridor are intended to be developed to achieve a high level of design and architectural quality, featuring a vibrant pedestrian environment. This area represents the tourism and service commercial uses that complement the marina, recreation and waterfront trail uses within the Waterfront Node. Within the Liverpool Corridor, the ground floors of residential units fronting Liverpool Road are to be designed and constructed in such a way that the ground floor can be easily converted in the future to accommodate a range of uses. - 451 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 15 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership The Guidelines outline that architectural design consideration for new development should reflect the Great Lakes Nautical Village theme by incorporating design details, such as balconies, decks, front porches, wider doorways, street level access, awnings and window boxes. The Guidelines set out detailed development standards and policies addressing: • the protection of views and vistas • maintenance of existing road network • opportunities for additional off-road trail connections • continuance of street and block patterns • provision of pedestrian-friendly built form • creative parking strategies • compliance with relevant environmental management policies • stormwater best management practices ensuring post development flows are equal or better to that of predevelopment flows The proposed development will maintain and advance the priorities of the Development Guidelines through: • assembling developable lands to provide a cohesive development block • developing underutilized lands that have been identified as an area of opportunity for new development • orienting townhouse units to frame the public streets surrounding the site to provide a continuous streetwall along Liverpool Road, Annland Street and Wharf Street • maintaining existing visual connections to Frenchman’s Bay from Liverpool Road along Annland Street and Wharf Street • maintaining a consistent front yard setback as the existing condominium development to the south to create a consistent streetscape along the west side of Liverpool Road • placing buildings close to the street, and having active ground floor uses, promoting a safe public environment and enhancing the streetline of the waterfront trail • locating a pedestrian entrance to units facing Liverpool Road improves access to the building from the street, and creates a pedestrian-friendly and animated entryway (see Conceptual Elevations – Live/Work Units, Attachment 7) • articulating the townhouse units at the corner of the Liverpool Road and Annland Street Road intersection improving the prominence of the site from the north, and establishing a gateway to the nautical village • contributing to the range of uses and commercial opportunities along Liverpool Road through the provision of ten live/work units with ground floors that can be used for commercial purposes • incorporating front yard porches and second and third-floor balconies to contribute to the nautical village theme - 452 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 16 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership • providing townhouse blocks with mansard-style roof designs to maintain consistency with the nautical architectural design established immediately to the south • providing building heights of three storeys near adjacent dwellings and incorporating decorative features such as turrets to create a visually interesting roofline (see Conceptual Elevations – Traditional Townhouse Units & Rear-Lane Townhouse Units, Attachments 8 and 9, respectively) • incorporating high-quality façade materials such as brick and natural stone in light colour tones will reflect the Great Lakes Nautical Village theme • aligning the new private road connection on the north side of Wharf Street with the existing private road connection on the opposite side of the road Based on the foregoing, staff are satisfied that the proposal reflects the intent of the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines. Through the site plan review process, staff will continue to ensure the site design and architectural treatment of the proposed development is consistent with the Guidelines. 3.5 The applicant demolished an identified heritage resource (Avis House) Policy 8.1 in the Official Plan states that City Council shall respect its cultural heritage, and conserve and integrate important cultural heritage resources from all periods into the community. Policy 8.2 further states that Council shall foster public awareness and appreciation of the City’s cultural heritage and prevent the demolition of important heritage resources to the extent possible. In support of the proposed development, the applicant submitted a Cultural Heritage Review Letter, prepared by MHBC Planning, dated November 29, 2022. The Letter provided a high-level assessment of the cultural heritage significance of the property, if any cultural heritage resources may be adversely impacted by the proposed development and provided recommendations related to potential mitigation measures. The Letter outlines that the subject lands do not meet the legislated criteria for identifying cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 as they determined the property only met one of the nine criteria. Further, the applicant also submitted a Building Condition Assessment report, prepared by Clarke Engineering, dated November 7, 2022, and a Hazardous Building Materials Survey, prepared by RiskCheck Environmental Ltd., dated December 2, 2022, which provided an assessment of the condition of the structure. The City retained a heritage consultant, Heritage Studio, to conduct a peer review of the submitted information and provide recommendations to the City. Through comments dated June 15, 2023, Heritage Studio identified that the existing dwelling appears to meet four of the nine criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06, defining it as a “significant built heritage resource” in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, and thereby, making it a candidate for long-term protection under the Ontario Heritage Act. - 453 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 17 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership Heritage Studios identified that the feasibility of restoring or rehabilitating the house as part of the redevelopment plan was not established through the initial materials and its demolition would be premature. To determine the most appropriate conservation treatment for the dwelling, Heritage Studios concluded that the following should be submitted in support of the proposed applications: • an updated Cultural Heritage Review Letter, which provides additional historical research, including consultation with the community, Pickering Township Historical Society, Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, etc., to conclusively identify the house’s cultural heritage value • further testing and identification of the mold to confirm if it is present in the frame structure and to determine the extent of needed remediation • establishing the feasibility of restoring/rehabilitating the house for continued residential use or commercial/restaurant use within the proposed redevelopment plan Staff agreed with the findings of Heritage Studios' analysis, and as a result, requested that the applicant explore opportunities to retain and restore the existing structure, and integrate it with the broader development proposal. Staff expressed to the applicant that the location of the former structure on the periphery of the subject lands made it an ideal candidate for preservation, without adversely impacting the broader development proposal. Despite the comments of the City’s Peer Review Heritage Consultant and request by staff, the applicant obtained a demolition permit and demolished the structure in November 2023, without preparing the revised Cultural Heritage Review Letter, or conducting a further structural assessment, to determine the feasibility of retaining and restoring the dwelling. 3.6 The applicant proposes to commemorate the demolished heritage resource by providing a privately owned, publicly accessible space at the northwest corner of Liverpool Road and Wharf Street The City’s Official Plan discourages the demolition, or inappropriate alteration, of heritage resources. When such resources are demolished, the City encourages the development of a commemoration plan to foster public awareness and appreciation of cultural heritage resources. Interactive forms of commemoration, such as public art installations, building murals, landscape features and commemorative parks, are recommended. Large-scale and more interactive commemorations foster an understanding of how heritage links past, present, and future communities. In this case, a further analysis of the building was not completed by the applicant before its demolition. Given that the dwelling met four of the nine criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06, defining it as a “significant built heritage resource”, staff advised the applicant that a robust commemoration program is required to account for the complete loss of the resource. - 454 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 18 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership To account for the loss of the Avis House, the applicant has proposed to create a privately owned, publicly accessible, open space (POPs), at the northwest corner of Liverpool Road and Wharf Street for commemoration purposes. This area was formerly occupied by the Avis House. In support of the proposed commemoration, the applicant submitted an Interpretive Heritage Plan detailing the location, conceptual layout, and design of the open space, along with proposed commemoration measures. The POPs space will cover an area of 202 square metres with 22 metres of frontage along Wharf Street and 8.4 metres of frontage along Liverpool Road. The POPs will contain: • a 2.0 metre wide walkway between Liverpool Road and Annland Street • soft landscaping, including tree and shrub plantings • seating areas • a commemorative plaque • a public art installation (see Figure 3, below) Figure 3: Conceptual Landscape Plan submitted by MHBC The applicant has also committed to contributing $20,000 towards a future public art piece for the space, which will be secured through the future site plan application. Staff appreciate and support the applicant’s effort to create an open space that will be a focal point in the community, and commission a public art piece. The configuration and size of the open space are important to ensure it is well designed, and that the scale and proportion of the open space create an intimate and comfortable environment. - 455 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 19 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership While staff support the location of the proposed POPS space, the applicant is strongly encouraged to increase its width. This would provide greater frontage along Liverpool Road, enhancing the exposure and visibility of the POPs. A wider POPs space would allow for robust landscaping, an enhanced commemoration plaque detailing the history of the Avis House and its connection to Frenchman’s Bay, and ample space for a public art piece recognizing the property’s history and evolution. Before issuing Site Plan Approval, the applicant must address the staff comments noted above. The Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, and the Site Plan Review Panel will be consulted and will have opportunities to review and comment on the detailed design of the open space, landscaping, the wording for the commemorative plaque, and the design of the public art piece. 3.7 Sufficient parking supply will be provided for residents, visitors, and live/work units Several concerns were expressed by area residents that the number of parking spaces proposed for residents, visitors, and live/work units, may not be sufficient to support the development, and would result in overflow parking on municipal roadways. Additionally, area residents questioned if dedicated parking would be provided for employees of the live/work units. The table below outlines the minimum number of parking spaces required by the recommended site-specific zoning by-law contained in Appendix II: Type Number of Units Proposed Parking Rate Number of Spaces Townhouse Units 41 units 2.0 space per unit 82 0.34 spaces per unit for visitors 14 Live/Work Townhouse Units 10 units 2.0 spaces per unit 20 0.34 spaces per unit for visitors 4 Total 120 The proposed parking ratios for the townhouse and live/work units are the same as with the parking requirements established by the City within the Seaton Community (Zoning By-law 7364/14), as well as the condominium development immediately to the south at 1295 Wharf Street. The proposed visitor parking ratios also exceed the parking requirements established for similar townhouse developments within the community, such as immediately to the south at 1295 Wharf Street or to the north at the former Holy Redeemer Catholic School site, which require a minimum of 0.25 spaces per unit. The increased visitor parking ratio - 456 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 20 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership will provide five additional on-site parking spaces beyond the City’s minimum requirement. This will assist in serving visitors to commercial uses along Liverpool Road and minimize the use of existing municipal on-street parking spaces. Live/work units contain a very small amount of floorspace for commercial purposes (50 square metres). These spaces are intended to be used by the principal resident of the residential unit to operate a small-scale business, such as an accountant's office, convenience store or hairdresser. Given the limited amount of commercial floorspace proposed for each unit, the need for additional staff members is not anticipated. The applicant is providing a minimum interior garage of 3.0 metres by 6.0 metres for the traditional townhouse units and live/work units, and a minimum interior garage size of 5.6 metres by 5.7 metres, which maintains the City’s standards for single and double car garages, respectively. Additionally, the applicant is proposing an interior storage area within each unit that is accessible from the private garage. This area will provide dedicated space for the storage of household items, such as bikes, waste bins and yard equipment, ensuring that the interior garage remains available for the parking of vehicles, as intended (see Figure 4: Examples of Interior Storage Area, below). Figure 4: Examples of Interior Storage Area Staff are supportive of the parking ratios proposed and are satisfied that a sufficient number of parking spaces will be provided to accommodate this development. - 457 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 21 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership 3.8 The temporary municipal parking lot on part of the subject lands will be removed to facilitate the proposal, and result in a modest increase in demand on surrounding parking areas 609 Annland Street and portions of 640 Liverpool Road were previously leased by the City of Pickering for seasonal waterfront public parking. The parking area provided a total of 40 parking spaces. Many area residents expressed concern regarding the loss of the temporary parking area, and outlined that the proposed development would worsen parking problems in the waterfront area, particularly during the summer. An area resident requested that the City consider providing additional by-law parking enforcement and monitoring of the surrounding areas following the removal of the surplus parking lot. The land was initially leased by the City in May 2018 for a five-year term, ending in May 2023. Despite the conclusion of the lease term, the City is still able to continue to use the land for temporary parking on a month-to-month basis, which is currently being done. The owner of the lands is, however, entitled to terminate the month-to-month lease at any time. In support of the proposed development, the applicant submitted a Parking Observation Study, prepared by Dillon Consulting, dated August 2022. The report provided an analysis of the existing parking supply and parking demand in the waterfront area in the summer (along Liverpool Road, south of Commerce Street), and the impact of removing the temporary municipal parking lot. The Study conducted observations of the following parking areas, at peak times (Friday evening between 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm, Saturday mid-day between 12:00 pm to 3:00 pm and Sunday afternoon between 2:00 to 5:00 pm) in July and August 2022: • on-street parking on the east/west side of Liverpool Road between Commerce Street and Lake Ontario • on-street parking on the south side of Annland Street, east of Liverpool Road • on-street parking on the south side of Wharf Street east of Liverpool Road • temporary surface lot on the south side of Annland Street • surface lot on the east side of Liverpool Road The observations were conducted on days when good weather was present and parking demand would be highest. The study found that the temporary surface lot on the subject lands was observed to have a peak occupancy of 5 percent on Friday evening, 15 percent on Saturday mid-day and 58 percent on Sunday afternoon. The study concluded that the temporary surface lot is minimally occupied, and that the loss of this parking area is not expected to have a negative impact on the parking demand in the community during the majority of the peak demand periods (Friday evenings and Saturday mid-day). The loss may, however, result in a modest impact on Sunday afternoons, when parking demand is at its highest. - 458 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 22 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership As noted previously, the proposed development will also provide for sufficient on-site parking to support the proposed residential units and live/work units. This will minimize any negative impacts the proposed development will have on parking demand within the surrounding community during the peak season. Notwithstanding the findings of the study and the on-site parking provided to support the proposed residents and live/work units, the City of Pickering continues to implement a seasonal paid permit parking program from May 1st to October 1st annually, when parking demand in the waterfront communities (Bay Ridges and West Shore) is at its highest. The program was initiated in 2021 to mitigate negative parking impacts on the waterfront community and to prioritize free parking for Pickering residents. The program enables seven additional Municipal Law Enforcement Officers to be hired each season to be dedicated to by-law enforcement within the waterfront area, including illegal parking, during times of peak demand. 3.9 The private amenity space adjacent to Frenchman’s Bay is landlocked and is not desirable for public use The applicant has proposed a 350 square metre outdoor private amenity area located to the west of the residential proposal, adjacent to Frenchman’s Bay on lands municipally known as 1276 Wharf Street. This portion of land is currently landlocked as it is not contiguous with the applicant’s land ownership. To access this parcel, the applicant will be required to obtain a permanent access easement over 1272 Wharf Street, which will be registered on title to enable a walkway between the residential block and the amenity area. Area residents requested that this private amenity space be made available to members of the public, and that a pedestrian path be provided through the subject lands along the west property line between Annland Street and Wharf Street, to improve physical and visual public accessibility to the waterfront. 1276 Wharf Street is located entirely within the TRCA regulated area and is almost entirely located within the 100-year flood plain. The parcel does not have access to Frenchman’s Bay due to an intervening piece of shoreline owned by the Pickering Harbour Company. The parcel is not contiguous to any city-owned lands, nor does Council have a planned acquisition strategy for waterfront property. Consequently, this parcel is not appropriate for public use or access and would not advance connectivity or access to the waterfront. Public access and connectivity along the waterfront trail will continue to be maintained along the west side of Liverpool Road and the south side of Annland Street, where a 2.0 metre wide multi-use sidewalk is provided surrounding the site. The existing location of the waterfront trail is supported by the policies of the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node. - 459 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 23 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership 3.10 The proposal will not negatively impact natural features and will be appropriately setback from Frenchman’s Bay The TRCA has advised that the subject lands are regulated with respect to the Provincially Significant Wetlands, and high lake level (flooding) associated with the Lake Ontario shoreline, along the west of the subject lands due to Frenchman’s Bay. The policies of the Official Plan identify the shoreline of Frenchman’s Bay as a part of the Natural Heritage System, requiring protection. The policies further outline that a minimum vegetation protection buffer of 30 metres adjacent to shorelines shall be provided. To support the proposed development, the applicant has submitted an Environmental Impact Study (EIS), prepared by GHD, dated October 2022 (revised November 2023) and a Coastal Study, prepared by GEI Consultants, dated December 22, 2022 (updated May 2023). The EIS assessed the quality and extent of natural heritage features both on, and adjacent to, the subject lands. This includes examining the proximity and impact of the proposed development to Frenchman’s Bay. The Coastal Study provided an assessment of the flood risks to the subject lands from Lake Ontario and Frenchman’s Bay. The EIS highlighted that no significant natural features were identified within the boundaries of the subject lands or vicinity of the subject lands, except the Lake Ontario Shoreline (Frenchman’s Bay) which is located adjacent to the westerly parcel of land at 1276 Wharf Street. The EIS recognized that this parcel of land is proposed to be a private amenity area and will not contain any residential dwellings. Alteration to this piece of land will be limited to soft and hard landscaping and will not include any structures or buildings. The study outlined that the only risk to Frenchman’s Bay from the proposed development is in the form of stormwater run-off. The EIS concluded that the proposed protection buffers to the residential block are appropriate, and that any potential impacts on Frenchman’s Bay from the proposed development can be mitigated. This can be achieved by implementing careful design measures, which include grading and managing stormwater and implementing a plan for sediment and erosion control, and robust native replanting and restoration within the private amenity area. The Coastal Study highlighted that the only portion of the subject lands that fall within the 100-year flood level is the parcel at 1276 Wharf Street. The balance of the subject lands is located more than 40 metres away from Frenchman’s Bay and outside the shoreline hazard limit for flooding. The Coastal Study concluded that the proposed development block is not at risk of flooding and that floodproofing measures for residential uses are not required. The Study recognized that 1276 Wharf Street is proposed to be a private amenity area and recommends that additional shoreline floodproofing be provided along the westerly edge of the private amenity area given the existing concrete wall along this property is in a poor state of repair. - 460 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 24 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership As detailed in Section 2.2.2 of this report, the TRCA has advised that they are satisfied with the proposed development limits, including the use of 1276 Wharf Street as a private amenity area. TRCA staff are satisfied with the recommendations of the revised EIS and Coastal Study, which will be implemented through the detailed design, as a condition of draft plan of subdivision approval, and the site plan approval process. 3.11 Vehicular traffic from the future development will not impact the existing road network Several area residents have expressed that the proposed development will result in a significant increase in vehicle traffic volumes entering and exiting the subject lands, negatively impacting the surrounding road network. Residents have outlined that the volume of vehicle trips along this road is currently excessive, and the proposed development would worsen this condition, particularly during peak summer months. Residents also outlined that traffic counts relied upon in the submitted TIS are not accurate or representative due to the date on which they were taken (2017), and that the study did not examine the Liverpool/Krosno intersection. In support of the proposal, the applicant submitted a Transportation Brief, prepared by Dillon Consulting, dated October 2022. In response to the comments raised by area residents, the applicant submitted a revised Transportation Brief, dated September 2023. and included the Liverpool/Krosno intersection in the assessment. The revised study investigated traffic conditions and the effects of the proposed development on the surrounding area, and the intersections of Liverpool Road/Bayly Street, Liverpool Road/Krosno Boulevard, Liverpool Road/Annland Street, and Liverpool Road/Wharf Street. The revised study utilized updated traffic counts from September 2023. The study forecasts that the new residential development will generate a total of 24 trips during the morning peak hour (17 outbound and 7 inbound trips) and 29 trips during the afternoon peak hour (16 outbound and 13 inbound trips). The report advised that this results in one additional trip in either direction along Liverpool Road every three to eight minutes, which is considered negligible. Given the relatively low number of vehicle trips to and from the proposal during peak hours, negative impacts on the neighbouring properties, and at the study intersections are not expected. Residents along Wharf Street also expressed concern that the future units fronting on, and having driveway access from Wharf Street, will increase traffic movements and vehicular trips along the road, negatively impacting existing property owners. In a response letter, dated October 3, 2023, the applicant's traffic engineer advised that the 15 townhouse units fronting Wharf Street are anticipated to result in a total of seven vehicle trips during the AM peak hour, and nine vehicle trips in the PM peak hour, that will use Wharf Street. Additionally, visitor parking for the proposed units is provided within the proposed development, accessible from the private road connections along Annland Street and the easterly end of Wharf Street. As such, vehicle trips along Wharf Street from visitors to these units will be minimal. The proposed units are not anticipated to have a negative impact on traffic along Wharf Street. - 461 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 25 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership The City’s Engineering Department and the Region of Durham Works Department, have reviewed the submitted Traffic Brief and revised Traffic Brief and are satisfied with the findings. 3.12 Response to Key Concerns raised at the May 4, 2023, Public Open House Meeting and June 5, 2023, Statutory Public Meeting The table below summarizes the key concerns raised at the May 4, 2023, Public Open House Meeting and the June 5, 2023, Statutory Public Meeting and staff’s response. Concerns Staff’s Response The proposal will remove surplus parking spaces currently provided for and required by the restaurant at 1289 Wharf Street (Port Restaurant) Sufficient on-site parking is provided at 1289 Wharf Street to support the restaurant The lands at 1289 Wharf Street are currently zoned “O3B” under Zoning By-law 2511, which permits a restaurant use. The lands are currently occupied by the Port Restaurant. The zoning by-law requires a minimum of 31 parking spaces to be provided on-site to support the existing restaurant use. Based on a site visit to the property in May 2023, staff observed that 51 parking spaces were provided, which exceeds the minimum number of parking requirements by 20 spaces. As such, sufficient on-site parking is provided at 1289 Wharf Street to support the existing restaurant, and no additional off-site parking is required. Requested the live/work units along Liverpool Road be setback further from the property line to provide additional space for outdoor uses associated with commercial businesses The live/work units will be sufficiently setback from Liverpool Road The ten live/work fronting Liverpool Road will maintain a minimum setback of 4.5 from the front lot line. The live/work units within the condominium development to the south, at 1295 Wharf Street, maintain a setback ranging between 3.0 metres and 3.5 metres from the Liverpool Road lot line. The proposed live/work units will provide an additional 1.0 metre setback between the exterior of the building and the lot line that is currently provided for existing live/work units along the west side of Liverpool Road. The proposed setback will enable sufficient space for outdoor uses associated with commercial businesses. - 462 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 26 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership Concerns Staff’s Response Requested additional window glazing and increased ceiling heights, be provided for the live/work units along Liverpool Road, and that minimum standards for such be included in the zoning by-law. Minimum standards for live/work units have been included in the site-specific zoning by-law The live/work units will be required to provide a minimum of 50 square metres of floorspace on the ground floor which can be used for commercial uses. A minimum floor-to-ceiling height of 2.7 metres is required for the ground floor, which will enable their use for commercial purposes. The minimum floor-to-ceiling height required under the site-specific zoning by-law exceeds the requirements of the Ontario Building Code. Additionally, as a condition of draft plan approval, the applicant will be required to construct the residential floorspace and commercial floorspace within the townhouse, as separate units under the Ontario Building Code, which includes separate mechanical/ventilation systems, fire separation, and provision of a universal washroom for commercial uses. Requested bird- friendly glazing be provided Opportunities for bird-friendly glazing will be reviewed through the application for site plan approval One resident requested that the applicant consider providing bird-friendly glazing for townhouse units due to the proximity to Frenchman’s Bay. Bird strike mitigation measures, such as bird-friendly glazing, is not typically utilized in townhouse developments due to the limited risk that low-rise construction poses to birds. However, the applicant has advised that they will explore opportunities to provide such glazing through the detailed building design during the site plan approval stage. Future maintenance and/or alteration of approved architectural design and landscape features The proposed development will be subject to site plan control and will be a common element condominium. The applicant will be required to submit detailed elevations, specifying architectural features, building materials, and exterior façade treatments, for each townhouse block as a part of the application for site plan approval. Through the site plan process, the building design will be peer reviewed by the City’s Urban Design Consultant, prior to approval. To ensure that the proposal is constructed in accordance with the approved elevation drawings, the applicant will be required to enter into a Site Plan - 463 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 27 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership Concerns Staff’s Response Agreement with the City, and post security guaranteeing the completion of the work. The maintenance of front yards, including the repair and/or replacement of landscaping elements in front of dwelling units that front Liverpool Road, Annland Street and Wharf Street, will be the responsibility of the property owner. Should the property owner neglect their responsibility of maintaining the approved landscape elements, the condominium corporation will be responsible. Maintenance of common element features, such as the private amenity area and landscaping surrounding the private roads and parking areas, will be the responsibility of the condominium corporation and will be collectively paid for by all unit owners. These requirements will be included in the Condominium Declaration. Questioned if the applicant will provide private boat slips (dock condominiums) along Frenchman’s Bay The property does not have access to Frenchman’s Bay. The portion of the applicant's land ownership nearest Frenchman’s Bay (1276 Wharf Street) does not have access to the water's edge due to an intervening piece of land along the shore owned by the Pickering Harbour Company. As such, the applicant is unable to provide boat slips as a part of the proposed development. Questioned if the environmental impact study addressed the impact on existing red foxes that inhabit the lands, and requested that consideration be given to scheduling construction activities when they are away from their den Red foxes are not a protected species To address the concern expressed by an area resident, the applicant submitted a revised Environmental Impact Study (EIS), which assessed the presence of red foxes on the subject lands, and provided recommendations to minimize impact on the species. The EIS outlined that red foxes were observed on the subject lands and established a den in 2022, which was further expanded in spring/early summer 2023, where there were reports of three kits in the area. The EIS outlines that red foxes are not a protected species in Ontario. However, it identified that breeding season typically occurs between January and March, with kits being born between March and May. By the age of three months, kits are independent and leave dens. The EIS recommends that, if feasible, any demolition and site alteration be done outside of the period - 464 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 28 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership Concerns Staff’s Response between April and August, which will minimize the impact on the denning period of red fox, as well as bird breeding. Questioned who the Future Construction Company will be A construction company has not been selected Area residents questioned who the future developer of the project would be. The applicant has advised that at this time, the developer/construction company has not been selected. Concerned regarding the future noise, parking and dust impact from future construction Measures to mitigate impacts from construction activities will be addressed through the submission of a Construction Management Plan Through the site plan approval process, the applicant will be required to submit a Construction Management Plan, to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services, which addresses a variety of mitigation measures to be implemented during the construction process to minimize any negative noise, dust and traffic impacts. The mitigation measures could include a gravel mud mat, a construction staging area, sediment fencing, and a tree protection zone. As part of the site plan approval process, the applicant will be required to enter into a Site Plan Agreement with the City, which will require that the applicant implement the measures outlined in the submitted Construction Management and Erosion/Sediment Control Plan as approved by City staff. 3.13 Technical matters will be addressed as conditions of subdivision approval and through site plan approval Detailed design issues will be considered through the subdivision agreement and site plan approval processes. These requirements will address matters such as, but not limited to: • heritage commemoration • drainage and grading • site servicing • noise attenuation • façade and building material treatments • cash-in-lieu of parkland • tree compensation - 465 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 29 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership • requirements for a Construction Management Plan • landscaping of entryway and common amenity area • resident, visitor and accessible parking spaces • waste management collection • location of community mailboxes • location of hydro transformers, gas meters and other utilities 3.14 Draft Approval of the Draft Plan of Condominium is delegated to the Director, City Development An application for a common element condominium is delegated to the Director, City Development for final approval. No further approvals are required at this time. 3.15 Conclusion The applicant’s proposal satisfies the Official Plan policies respecting the creation of live/work units along the Liverpool Road Corridor. The applicant has worked with City staff, and external agencies, to address various technical requirements. Staff support Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P to increase the permissible density for the lands to 45 units per net hectare, and the related Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23. Further, staff recommend that the site-specific implementing by-laws, as set out in Appendix I and Appendix II to this report, respectively, be approved and forwarded to Council for enactment. Staff recommend that Council endorse Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2021-01, as shown in Attachment 3 to this report, and the Conditions of Approval set out in Appendix III to this report. Appendices Appendix I Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 51 to the Pickering Official Plan Appendix II Recommended Zoning By-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Appendix III Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2023-01 - 466 - PLN 21-24 June 10, 2024 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01 Page 30 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership Attachments 1.Location Map 2.Air Photo Map 3.Original Conceptual Site Plan 4.Revised Conceptual Site Plan 5.Draft Plan of Subdivision 6.Revised Draft Plan of Condominium 7.Conceptual Elevations – Live/Work Units 8.Conceptual Elevations – Traditional Townhouse Units 9.Conceptual Elevations – Rear-Lane Townhouse Units Prepared By: Original Signed By Cody Morrison Principal Planner, Development Review Original Signed By Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP (Acting) Director, City Development Original Signed By Catherine Rose For Kyle Bentley, P.Eng. Director, City Development & CBO CM:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 467 - Appendix I to Report PLN 21-24 Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 51 to Pickering Official Plan for Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P - 468 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/24 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 51 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 23-001/P) Whereas pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p. 13, subsections 17(22) and 21(1), the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering may, by by-law, adopt amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering; And whereas pursuant to Section 17(10) of the Planning Act, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has by order authorized Regional Council to pass a by-law to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; And whereas on February 23, 2000, Regional Council passed By-law 11/2000 which allows the Region to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; And whereas the Region has advised that Amendment 51 to the City of Pickering Official Plan is exempt from Regional approval; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. That Amendment 51 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, is hereby adopted; 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward to the Regional Municipality of Durham the documentation required by Procedure: Area Municipal Official Plans and Amendments. 3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing hereof. By-law passed this 24th day of June, 2024. ________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 469 - Exhibit “A” to By-law XXXX/24 Recommended Amendment 51 to the City of Pickering Official Plan - 470 - Recommended Amendment 51 to the Pickering Official Plan Purpose: The purpose of this amendment is to re-designate the lands located on the southwest corner of Liverpool Road and Annland Street from “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas” and “Open Space System- Marina Areas” to “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” to facilitate a residential common element condominium development. Location: The site specific amendment affects the lands located on the southwest corner of Liverpool Road and Annland Street, described as Lots 8 to 12, Plan M-89, City of Pickering. Basis: Through the review of Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P, Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23, Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2023-01 and Draft Plan of Condominium CP-2023-02, City Council determined that the Amendment facilitates a development that is compatible with the surrounding community, and is an appropriate intensification project in Pickering’s urban area. The Amendment is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, and conforms to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) and the Durham Regional Official Plan. Actual Amendment: The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: 1. Amending Schedule I – Land Use Structure by replacing the “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas” and “Open Space System – Marina Areas” designations with “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” designation for lands located on the south of Annland Street, west of Liverpool Road and north of Wharf Street, as illustrated on Schedule ‘A’ attached to this amendment. Implementation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. Interpretation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. OPA 23-001/P A 02/23 SP-2023-01 CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Partnership - 471 - Pl e a s a n t S t r e e t F r o n t R o a d Cit y o f T o r o n t o Cit y o f M a r k h a m Tow n o f W h i t b y TownofAjax Township of Uxbridge Area ShownonThis Map Open Space System Marina Area Natural Area Urban Residential Areas Low Density Land Use Structure Existing Official Plan Schedule 'A' to Amendment '51' City of PickeringCity Development Department© June, 2024This Map Forms Part of Edition 9 of the Pickering Official Plan andMust Be Read in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Edition 9 Extract of Schedule I to the Pickering Official Plan Re-designate from "Urban Residential Areas- Low Density Areas" and "Open Space System- Marina Areas" to "Urban Residential Areas - Medium Density Areas" Wharf Street Li v e r p o o l R o a d Annland Street - 472 - Appendix II to Report PLN 21-24 Recommended Zoning By-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 - 473 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/24 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 2511, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, Lots 8 to 12 and 16, Plan M-89, and Part of Lot 23 Broken Front Concession 3 (A 02/23) Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering received an application to rezone the subject lands being Lots 8 to 12 and 16, Plan M-89, and Part of Lot 23, Broken Front Concession 3, in the City of Pickering to permit the development of up to 51 townhouse units, 10 of which with potential for ground floor commercial uses; And whereas an amendment to Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, is deemed necessary to permit such development; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.Schedule I Schedule I to this By-law with notations and references shown thereon are hereby declared to be part of this By-law. 2.Area Restricted The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands being Lots 8 to 12 and 16, Plan M-89, and Part of Lot 23, Broken Front Concession 3, designated “(H)MD-H23”, “(H)MD-H24”, “(H)MU-35” and “OS-HL-6” on Schedule I to this By-law. 3.General Provisions No building, structure, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, occupied, erected, moved or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of this By-law. 4.Definitions In this By-law, (1)“Air Conditioner” means any mechanical equipment which is required for residential domestic use and which must be installed outdoors including central air conditioning units, heat pumps, heat exchange units, emergency generators and other such equipments. (2)“Balcony” means an attached covered or uncovered platform projecting from the face of an exterior wall, including above a porch, which is only directly accessible from within a building, usually surrounded by a balustrade or railing, and does not have direct exterior access to grade. - 474 - By-law No. XXXX/24 Page 2 (3)“Bay, Bow, Box Window” means a window that protrudes from the main wall, usually bowed, canted, polygonal, segmental, semicircular or square sided with window on front face in plan; one or more storeys in height, which may or may not include a foundation; may or may not include a window seat; and may include a door. (4)“Business Office” means a building or part of a building in which the management or direction of business, a public or private agency, a brokerage or a labour or fraternal organization is carried on and which may include a telegraph office, a data processing establishment, a newspaper publishing office, the premises of a real estate or insurance agent, or a radio or television broadcasting station and related studios or theatres, but shall not include a retail store; (5)“Commercial School” means a school which is operated for gain or profit and may include the studio of a dancing teacher or music teacher, or an art school, a golf school or any other such school operated for gain or profit, but shall not include any other school defined herein; (6)“Condominium, Common Element” means spaces and features owned in common by all shareholders in a condominium and may include private streets, walkways, and parking and amenity areas. (7)“Deck” means a raised platform attached to the exterior wall of a building and with direct access from within a building and from grade. (8)(a)“Dwelling” means a building or part of a building containing one or more dwelling units, but does not include a mobile home or trailer; (b)“Dwelling, Detached” means a single dwelling which is freestanding, separate and detached from other main buildings or structures; (c)“Dwelling, Multiple – Horizontal” means a building containing three or more dwelling units attached horizontally by an above-grade wall or walls; (d)“Dwelling Unit” means one or more habitable rooms occupied or capable of being occupied as a single, independent, and separate housekeeping unit containing a separate kitchen and sanitary facilities. (9)“Floor Area – Residential” means the area of the floor surface contained within the outside walls of a storey or part of a storey. (10)“Gross Floor Area – Residential” means the aggregate of the floor areas of all storeys of a building or structure, or part thereof as the case may be, other than a private garage, an attic, or a cellar. (11)“Height, Dwelling” means the vertical distance between the established grade, at the front of the house, and in the case of a flat roof, the highest point of the roof surface or parapet wall, or in the case of a mansard roof the deck line, or in the case of a gabled, hip or gambrel roof, the mean height between eaves and ridge. - 475 - By-law No. XXXX/24 Page 3 (12)“Lands, Subject” means the lands subject of this by-law. (13)(a) “Lot” means an area of land fronting on a street which is used or intended to be used as the site of a building, or group of buildings, as the case may be, together with any accessory buildings or structures, or a public park or open space area, regardless of whether or not such lot constitutes the whole of a lot or block on a registered plan of subdivision; (b)“Lot Area” means the total horizontal area within the lot lines of a lot; (c)“Lot Frontage” means the width of a lot between the side lot lines measured along a line parallel to and 7.5 metres distant from the front lot line; (d)“Lot, Through” means a lot bounded on opposite sides by a street. (14)“Parapet Wall” means the portion of an exterior wall extending above the roof. (15)“Park, Private” means an area of land not under the jurisdiction of a public authority that is designed or maintained for active or passive recreational purposes; (16)“Personal Service Shop” means an establishment in which a personal service is performed and which may include a barber shop, a beauty salon, a shoe repair shop, a tailor or a dressmaking shop or a photographic studio, but shall not include an adult entertainment parlour as defined herein or a body-rub parlour as .defined in Section 224(9)(b) of the Municipal Act R.S.O.1990, Chapter M.45, as amended from time to time, or any successor thereto; (17)“Porch” means a roofed deck or portico structure attached to the exterior wall of a building. A basement may be located under the porch. (18)“Private garage” means an enclosed or partially enclosed structure for the storage of one or more vehicles, in which structure no business or service is conducted for profit or otherwise. (19)“Professional Office” means a building or part of a building in which medical, legal or other professional service is performed or consultation given, and which may include a clinic, the offices of an architect, a chartered accountant, an engineer, a lawyer or physician, but shall not include a body-rub parlour as defined in Section 224(9)(b) of the Municipal Act, R.S.O.1990, chapter M.45, as amended from time to time, or any successor thereto; (20)“Park, Private” means a park which is maintained by a condominium corporation. (21)"Retail Store" means a building or part of a building in which goods, wares, merchandise, substances, articles or things are stored, kept and offered for retail sale to the public (22)(a) “Street” means a right-of-way or roadway that is used by vehicles and includes a public highway and a private street within a condominium. - 476 - By-law No. XXXX/24 Page 4 (b)“Street, Private” means: (i)a right-of-way or roadway that is used by vehicles and is maintained by a condominium corporation; (ii)a private road condominium, which provides access to individual freehold lots; (iii)a private right-of-way over private property, that provides access to lots abutting the private street; but is not maintained by a public body and is not a lane. (23)“Wall, Front” means the wall of the dwelling closest to the front lot line. (24)“Water Meter Building” means a building or structure that contains devices supplied by the Region of Durham which measures the quality of water delivered to a property. (25)(a) “Yard” means an area of land which is appurtenant to and located on the same lot as a building or structure and is open, uncovered, and unoccupied above ground except for such accessory buildings, structures, or other uses as are specifically permitted thereon; (b)“Front Yard” means a yard extending across the full width of a lot between the front lot line of the lot and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (c)“Front Yard Depth” means the shortest horizontal dimension of a front yard of a lot between the front lot line and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (d)“Rear Yard” means a yard extending across the full width of a lot between the rear lot line of the lot, or where there is no rear lot line, the junction point of the side lot lines, and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (e)“Rear Yard Depth” means the shortest horizontal dimension of a rear yard of a lot between the rear lot line of the lot, or where there is no rear lot line, the junction point of the side lot lines, and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (f)“Side Yard” means a yard of a lot extending from the front yard to the rear yard, and from the side lot line to the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (g)“Side Yard Width” means the shortest horizontal dimension of a side yard of a lot between the side lot line and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (h)“Flankage Side Yard” means a side yard immediately adjoining a street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street;- 477 - By-law No. XXXX/24 Page 5 (i)“Flankage Side Yard Width” means the shortest horizontal dimension of a flankage side yard of a lot between the lot line adjoining a street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street, and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot. 5.Provisions (1)Uses Permitted (“MD-H23”, “MD-H24” and “MU-35” Zones) (a)No person shall within the lands zoned “MD-H23”, “MD-H24” and “MU-35” on Schedule I to this By-law, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: (i)Multiple Dwelling – Horizontal (2)Zone Requirements (“MD-H23”, “MD-H24” and “MU-35” Zones) No person shall within the lands zoned “MD-H23”, “MD-H24” and “MU-35” on Schedule I to this By-law, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building except in accordance with the following provisions: “MD-H23” Zone “MD-H24” Zone “MU-35” Zone (a) Number of Dwelling Units (maximum) 51 dwelling units (b) Lot Frontage (minimum) 6.0 metres (c) Lot Area (minimum) 130 square metres (d) Front Yard Depth (minimum) 4.5 metres 4.5 metres, but, may be reduced to 3.7 metres for end units (e) Side Yard Depth (minimum) 1.5 metres, except where dwellings on abutting lots share a common wall, no interior side yard shall be required adjacent to that wall on either lot. May be reduced to 1.2 metres for the most westerly unit fronting Wharf Street. 1.5 metres, except where dwellings on abutting lots share a common wall, no interior side yard shall be required adjacent to that wall on either lot. 1.2 metres, except where dwellings on abutting lots share a common wall, no interior side yard shall be required adjacent to that wall on either lot. - 478 - By-law No. XXXX/24 Page 6 “MD-H23” Zone “MD-H24” Zone “MU-35” Zone (f) Rear Yard Depth (minimum) 6.5 metres 0.6 metres 4.4 metres (g) Flankage Yard Depth (minimum) 2.4 metres 1.9 metres (h) Building Height (maximum) 11.0 metres (3 storeys) (i) Driveway Width (maximum) 3.4 metres Nil 3.4 metres (j) Parking Requirements (minimum) 2.0 parking spaces per dwelling unit (k) Visitor Parking Requirements (minimum) 0.34 of a parking space per dwelling unit (l) Garage Requirements Minimum 1 private garage per lot attached to the main building, the vehicular entrance of which shall be located not less than 6.0 metres from a private or public street. Minimum 1 private garage per lot attached to the main building. Minimum 1 private garage per lot attached to the main building, the vehicular entrance of which shall be located not less than 6.0 metres from a private or public street. (m) Interior Garage Size (minimum) A private garage shall have a minimum width of 3.0 metres and a minimum depth of 6.0 metres. A private garage shall have a minimum width of 5.6 metres and a minimum depth of 6.0 metres. A private garage shall have a minimum width of 3.0 metres and a minimum depth of 6.0 metres. (o) Private Park (minimum) 200 square metres, with a minimum frontage of 8.0 metres along Liverpool Road and 22.0 metres along Wharf Street. - 479 - By-law No. XXXX/24 Page 7 (3)Special Provisions (“MD-H23”, “MD-H24” and “MU-35” Zones) (a)Projections such as window sills, chimney breasts, fireplaces, belt courses, cornices, pilasters, eaves, eave troughs and other similar architectural features may be permitted in any required yard, provided that no such feature projects into the required yard more than 0.6 metres or half the distance of the required yard, whichever is less; (b)A bay, box or bow window, with or without foundation, having a maximum width of 4.0 metres may encroach into any required yard to a maximum of 0.6 metres or half the distance of the required yard, whichever is less; (c)Air conditioners are permitted on a lot provided they are located in the rear yard or side yard or on a balcony or roof. In addition, such units shall not be located any closer than 0.6 metres to a side lot line and shall not be located on any easement in favour of the City; (d)Outdoor Private Amenity Area for lands zoned “MD-H24” and “MU-35” on Schedule I to this By-law: (i)a minimum of 12 square metres of outdoor private amenity area shall be provided on a balcony or above the garage; (ii)accessory structures such as pergolas, sheds or other similar structures shall not be permitted on the balcony above the garage at the rear of the dwelling unit; (iii)the outdoor private amenity area located above the garage at the rear of the dwelling unit shall not be enclosed. (4)Special Provisions (“MD-H23” Zone) (a) A porch, uncovered deck or balcony and associated steps may encroachinto any required front yard, side yard and flankage yard to a maximum of 2.5 metres or half the distance of the required yard, whichever is less; (b)A porch or uncovered deck or balcony may encroach into any required rear yard to a maximum of 2.0 metres; (c)Stairs to a porch or uncovered deck may encroach to within 3.5 metres of a rear lot line. (5)Special Provisions (“MD-H24” Zone) (a)A porch, uncovered deck or balcony may encroach into any required front yard to a maximum of 2.5 metres; (b)Stairs to a porch, uncovered deck or entrance may encroach to within 0.45 of a metre of the front lot line. - 480 - By-law No. XXXX/24 Page 8 (6) Special Provisions (“MU-35” Zone) (a) Dwelling units within the “MU-35” Zone shall provide a minimum ground floor area of 50 square metres, with a minimum finished ceiling height of 2.7 metres, exclusive of stairwells, to enable their use for commercial purposes; (b) Despite Section 5(1)(a)(i) above, the following non-residential uses may be permitted within only the ground floor of a Multiple Dwelling – Horizontal dwelling unit: (i) Business office (ii) Professional office (iii) Commercial school (iv) Professional service shop (v) Retail store (c) A porch, uncovered deck or balcony may encroach into any required front or rear yard to a maximum of 2.5 metres or half the distance of the required yard, whichever is less; (d) Stairs to a porch, uncovered deck or entrance may encroach to within 0.45 of a metre of the front lot line. (7) Special Regulations (“MD-23”, MD-H24” and “MU-35” Zones) (a) Despite the provisions of Section 5.6 of By-law 2511, as amended, the requirement for the frontage on a public street shall be satisfied by establishing frontage on a common element condominium street for the lands on Schedule I to this By-law; (b) Despite Section 5(6)(a) above, the lot line abutting Annland Road shall be deemed to be the Front Lot Line for the lands Zoned “MD-H24” on Schedule I to this By-law; (c) Despite Section 5(6)(a) above, the lot line abutting Liverpool Road shall be deemed to be the Front Lot Line for the lands zoned “MU-35” on Schedule I to this By-law; (d) A water meter building required by the Region of Durham for the purpose of measuring the quantity of water delivered shall be exempt from the “MD- 23”, MD-H24” and “MU-35” zone provisions and zone requirements; (e) Sections 5.20, 5.21.1, 5.21.2(a)(b)(d)(f), 6.4, 6.6 and 6.7a)(iv) of By-law 2511, as amended shall not apply to the lands zoned “MD-23”, MD-H24” and “MU-35” on Schedule I to this By-law. - 481 - By-law No. XXXX/24 Page 9 6. Provisions (1) Uses Permitted (“OS-HL-6” Zone) (a) No person shall within the lands zoned “OS-HL-6” on Schedule I to this By-law, use any lot or erect any buildings or structures for any purpose except the following: (i) Preservation and conservation of the natural environment, soil and wildlife; (ii) Resource management; (iii) Private park. (2) Zone Requirements (“OH-HL-6” Zone) (a) No building or structures shall be permitted to be erected, nor shall placing or removal of fill be permitted, except where buildings or structures are used only for purposes of floor and erosion control, or resource management. 7. Model Homes (1) A maximum of 1 block, together with not fewer than 2 parking spaces per Model Home, may be constructed on the lands zoned “MD-H23” as set out in Schedule I attached to this By-law prior to the division of those lands by lifting of part lot control; (2) A maximum of 1 block, together with not fewer than 2 parking spaces per Model Home, may be constructed on the lands zoned “MD-H24” as set out in Schedule I attached to this By-law prior to the division of those lands by lifting of part lot control; (3) A maximum of 1 block, together with not fewer than 2 parking spaces per Model Home, may be constructed on the lands zoned “MU-35” as set out in Schedule I attached to this By-law prior to the division of those lands by lifting of part lot control; (4) For the purpose of this By-law, “Model Home” shall mean a dwelling unit which is not used for residential purpose, but which is used exclusively for sales, display and marketing purposes pursuant to an agreement with the City of Pickering. 8. Provisions (“(H)MD-H23”, “(H)MD-H24” and “(H)MU-35” Zones) (1) Uses Permitted (“(H)MD-H23”, “(H)MD-H24” and “(H)MU-35” Zones) Until such time as the “(H)” Holding Provision is lifted, the lands shall not be used for any purposes other than the existing lawful uses, located on the land or in existing buildings or structures, provided such use continues in the same manner and for the same purpose for which they were used on the day this by-law was passed. - 482 - By-law No. XXXX/24 Page 10 (2) Zone Requirements (“(H)MD-H23”, “(H)MD-H24” and “(H)MU-35” Zones) The “(H)” Holding Symbol shall be removed from the “(H)MD-H23”, “(H)MD-H24” and “(H)MU-35” Zones until the completion of the following: (a) the owner has satisfied all the requirements of the Regional Municipality of Durham with respect to the provision of sewer and water services, Regional roads, and entered into any necessary agreements in this regard. 9. By-law 2511 By-law 2511, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I to this By-law. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 2511, as amended. 10. Effective Date This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. By-law passed this 24th day of June, 2024. ________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 483 - Wharf Street Li v e r p o o l R o a d Annland Street F r o n t R o a d Pl e a s a n t S t r e e t Clerk Mayor XXXX/24 50 . 0 m (H)MD-H24 (H)MD-H23 (H)MU-35 27 . 7 m 77 . 7 m 27 . 7 m 17 . 5 m 87.4m 87.8m 29.1m 28.7m115.6m 51 . 2 m 29.7m 4.7m 31.1m 29.8m 11 . 3 m 5 . 6 m 6. 0 m OS-HL-6 i N Schedule I to By-Law Passed This 24th Day of June 2024 - 484 - Appendix III to Report PLN 21-24 Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2023-01 (Draft) - 485 - Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2023-01 (Draft) General Conditions 1. That the Owner shall prepare the final plan and shall include a land use table generally based on the draft plan of subdivision, identified as Drawing Number 21280-15dp, prepared by Brian Moss and Associates Ltd., dated December 7, 2022, which illustrates one (1) development block and one (1) private open space block. Region of Durham 2. That the Owner shall name road allowances included in this draft plan to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham and the City of Pickering. 3. That the Owner shall submit plans showing the proposed phasing to the Region of Durham and the City of Pickering for review and approval if this subdivision is to be developed by more than one registration. 4. That the Owner shall grant to the Region, any easements required to provide Regional services for this development. The easements shall be in locations and of such widths as determined by the Region. 5. That the Owner shall provide for the extension of such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities which are external to, as well as within, the limits of this plan that are required to service this plan. In addition, the Owner shall provide for the extension of sanitary sewer and water supply facilities within the limits of the plan, which are required to service other developments external to this subdivision. Such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities are to be designed and constructed according to the standards and requirements of the Region of Durham. All arrangements, financial and otherwise for said extensions are to be made to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham, and are to be completed prior to final approval of this plan. 6. That prior to entering into a Subdivision Agreement, the Region of Durham shall be satisfied that adequate water pollution control plant and water supply plant capacities are available to the proposed subdivision. 7. That the Owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Region of Durham. This shall include, among other matters, the execution of a Subdivision Agreement between the Owner and the Region concerning the provision and installation of sanitary sewers, water supply, roads and other regional services. 8. That prior to the finalization of this plan of subdivision, the Owner must provide satisfactory evidence to the Region of Durham in accordance with the Region's Soil and Groundwater Assessment Protocol to address site contamination matters. Such evidence may include the completion of a Regional Reliance Letter and Certificate of Insurance. Depending on the nature of the proposal or the findings of any Record of Site Condition (RSC) Compliant Phase One Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), an RSC Compliant Phase Two ESA may also be required. The findings of the Phase Two ESA could also necessitate the requirement for an RSC through the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, accompanied by any additional supporting information. - 486 - Recommended Conditions of Approval Page 2 SP-2023-01 – Liverpool Road Limited Partnership (Draft) 9. That the Owner shall agree in the City of Pickering’s Subdivision Agreement to implement the recommendations of the report, entitled “Environmental Noise Assessment” prepared by YCA Engineering Limited, dated December 2022, which specifies noise attenuation measures for the development. The measures shall be included in the subdivision agreement and must also contain a full and complete reference to the noise report (i.e., author, title, date and any revisions/addenda) and shall include any required warning clauses identified in the study. 10. That the Owner shall carry out an archaeological assessment of the subject property and mitigation and/or salvage excavation of any significant heritage resources to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. No grading or other soil disturbance shall take place on the subject property prior to a letter of clearance from the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. Subdivision Agreement 11. That the Owner enters into a subdivision agreement with and to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering to ensure the fulfillment of the City’s requirements, financial and otherwise, which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the conditions outlined in this document. 40M-Plan 12. That the Owner submits a Draft 40M-Plan to the satisfaction of the City Development Department. Street Names 13. That street signage be provided to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering. 14. That the streets be named to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering. Development Charges & Development Review & Inspection Fee 15. That the Owner satisfies the City financially with respect to the Development Charges Act. 16. That the Owner satisfies the City with respect to payment for the Development Services Engineering Review Fee, Residential Lot Grading Review Fee, Road Degradation Fee, and Development Services Inspection Fees and any additional fees which may be applicable. Pre-Condition Survey 17. That the Owner submits a pre-condition survey for 595 Annland Street and 1272 Wharf Street, to the satisfaction of the City. A qualified professional must prepare the surveys which must be undertaken before any site work commences. - 487 - Recommended Conditions of Approval Page 3 SP-2023-01 – Liverpool Road Limited Partnership (Draft) Stormwater 18. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services, respecting the stormwater drainage and management system to service all the lands in the subdivision, and any provision regarding easements. 19. That the Owner satisfy the Director, Engineering Services regarding the revision of stormwater maintenance fees. Grading 20. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services, respecting the submission and approval of a grading control plan. 21. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services, respecting authorization from abutting landowners for all off-site grading. Geotechnical Investigation 22. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services, respecting the submission and approval of a geotechnical soil analysis. Fill & Topsoil 23. That the City of Pickering’s Fill & Topsoil By-law prohibits soil disturbance, removal, or importation of material to the site unless a permit has been issued. No on-site works prior to Draft Plan Approval is permitted. A Fill and Topsoil Permit will be required should grading works proceed prior to a Subdivision Agreement. Construction/Installation of City Works & Services 24. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services, respecting the construction of Municipal Services such as roads, curbs, storm sewers, sidewalks, and boulevard designs. 25. That the Owner satisfies the City respecting arrangements for the provision of all services required by the City. 26. That the Owner satisfies the appropriate authorities respecting arrangements for the provision of underground wiring, street lighting, cable television, natural gas and other similar services. 27. That the Owner agrees that the cost of any relocation, extension, alteration or extraordinary maintenance of existing services necessitated by this development shall be the responsibility of the Subdivider. 28. That the Owner satisfies the City with respect to arrangements necessary to provide for the coordination of services and roads with adjacent lands and any phasing of development that may be required. - 488 - Recommended Conditions of Approval Page 4 SP-2023-01 – Liverpool Road Limited Partnership (Draft) Phasing & Development Coordination 29. That if this subdivision is to be developed by more than one registration, the Owner will be required to submit a plan showing the proposed phasing, all to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham and the City. Dedications/Transfers/Conveyances/Reserves 30. That the Owner conveys to the City, at no cost, any easements and any reserves as required by the City. Easements 31. That the Owner, to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Services, provides any required easement for works, facilities or use rights that are required by the City of Pickering. 32. That the Owner conveys any easements to any utility to facilitate the installation of their services in a location(s) satisfactory to the City and the utility. 33. That the Owner arranges, at no cost to the City, any easements required on third-party lands for servicing and such easements shall be in a location as determined by the City and/or the Region and are to be granted upon request at any time after draft approval. 34. That the Owner obtains, at no cost to the City, a 3.0 metre wide permanent access easement over the lands municipally known as 1272 Wharf Street, in favour of the subject lands for access to Block 2, to the satisfaction of the City. Utility Coordination Plan 35. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services, respecting the submission and approval of an Utility Coordination Plan, which demonstrates that the private park located at the northwest corner of Liverpool Road and Annland Street and municipal boulevards adjacent thereto, are not encumbered by above grade utility installations. Construction Management Plan 36. That the Owner satisfies the City respecting the submission and approval of a Construction Management, with such Plan to contain, among other matters: (i) details of erosion and sedimentation controls during all phases of construction and provide maintenance requirements to maintain these controls; (ii) addressing the parking of vehicles and the storage of construction and building materials during servicing and house construction, and ensuring that such locations will not impede the flow of traffic or emergency vehicles on either existing streets, or the proposed public street; - 489 - Recommended Conditions of Approval Page 5 SP-2023-01 – Liverpool Road Limited Partnership (Draft) (iii) confirmation that the City’s Noise By-law will be adhered to and that all contractors, trades and suppliers are advised of this By-law; (iv) the provision of mud and dust control on all roads within and adjacent to the site; (v) type and timing of construction fencing; (vi) location of construction trailers; and (vii) details of the temporary construction access. 37. That the Owner shall agree in the subdivision agreement, in wording acceptable to the City, to maintain all stormwater management and erosion and sedimentation control structures operating and in good repair during the construction period. Fencing 38. That the Owner satisfies the City with respect to the provision of temporary fencing around the entire perimeter of the subject lands during construction, prior to the commencement of any works. 39. That the Owner agrees to install a 1.8 metre high board-on-board wood privacy fence along the west property line of Block 1, where the adjacent lands are existing residential lots fronting onto Wharf Street or Annalnd Street, to the satisfaction of the City. 40. That the owner agrees to install a 1.8 metre high board-on-board wood privacy fence along the north and south property lines of Block 2, to the satisfaction of the City. Landscaping 41. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services, respecting the submission and approval of a boulevard street tree planting plan. 42. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services with the submission of a Tree Inventory & Preservation Plan illustrating the protection of trees and other natural features where appropriate, with specific attention to preservation in all public open spaces prior to the approval of a Preliminary Grading Plan. Tree Compensation 43. That the Owner agrees that prior to final approval of the draft plan, compensation for the loss of tree canopy will be required either through replacement planting or cash-in-lieu, to be paid to the City of Pickering. In accordance with Council Resolution #387/18, approved on January 15, 2018, tree removal compensation is to be calculated in accordance with the City of Pickering Tree Inventory, Preservation and Removal Compensation requirements. Where compensation through replanting is being considered, the Owner will be required to provide a Landscape Plan indicating the location, size and species of all trees, including boulevard trees, to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Services. - 490 - Recommended Conditions of Approval Page 6 SP-2023-01 – Liverpool Road Limited Partnership (Draft) Engineering Plans 44. That the Owner satisfies the City respecting the submission of appropriate engineering drawings that detail, among other things, City services, roads, storm sewers, sidewalks, lot grading, streetlights, fencing, fibre optic conduit and tree planting, and financially-secure such works. 45. That the engineering plans be coordinated with the architectural design objectives. 46. That the Owner ensures that the engineering plans are coordinated with the streetscape/architectural plans and further that the engineering plans coordinate the driveway, street hardware, and street trees to ensure that conflicts do not exist, asphalt is minimized, and all objectives of the streetscape/architectural control guidelines can be achieved. Noise Attenuation 47. That the Owner shall agree in the subdivision agreement to implement the recommended noise control measures and warning clauses of the study entitled “Environmental Noise Assessment,” prepared by YCA Engineering Limited., dated December 2022. Parkland Dedication 48. That the Owner satisfies the City with respect to the payment of cash-in-lieu in accordance with the parkland dedication requirements of the Planning Act. Fire 49. That the Owner agrees that no development will proceed on any land until adequate services are available including adequate water pressure to the satisfaction of the City’s Fire Services Department. Model Homes 50. That the Owner enters into a model home agreement with the City, if applicable for this draft plan. All model homes must satisfy all architectural requirements. Heritage 51. That prior to final approval, the Owner shall provide a detailed Interpretive Commemoration Plan, prepared by a qualified heritage consultant, to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development. 52. That the Owner acknowledges and agrees in the subdivision agreement, prior to issuance of final Site Plan approval, to provide final drawings substantially in accordance with the approved Interpretive Commemoration Plan, to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development. - 491 - Recommended Conditions of Approval Page 7 SP-2023-01 – Liverpool Road Limited Partnership (Draft) Commercial Floorspace 53. That the Owner shall acknowledge, and agree in the subdivision agreement, that the residential and non-residential floorspace of Units 1 to 10, are to be constructed as separate units under the Ontario Building Code, which includes separate mechanical/ventilation systems, fire separation, and provision of a universal washroom for commercial use. 54. That the Owner shall agree to include a warning clause in all Offers of Purchase and Sale, and the future Condominium Declaration for Units 1 to 10, which specifies the following: “Despite the non-residential uses permitted under the zoning by-law for portions of the ground floor of Units 1 to 10, the Owner shall acknowledge that should they wish to use, or sublease, such portion of the dwelling for a non-residential use permitted under the zoning by-law, they shall agree to apply for a building permit and comply with all applicable building code requirements for such use, which may include requirements to upgrade structural or mechanical components of the building, including fire separation.” Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 55. That prior to the initiation of final grading, and prior to the registration of this Draft Plan of Subdivision or any phase thereof, the Owner shall submit the following to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), and the City of Pickering, for review and approval: a. A detailed Stormwater Management Report to include a detailed design for the storm drainage system for the proposed development including: i. plans illustrating how this drainage system will tie into surrounding drainage systems and stormwater management techniques which may be required to control minor or major flows; ii. appropriate Low Impact Development stormwater management practices to be used to treat stormwater, to mitigate the impacts of development on the quality and quantity of ground and surface water resources as it relates to terrestrial and aquatic habitat; iii. detailed design and maintenance plans for any stormwater management facilities; iv. an Erosion and Sediment Control Report and Plan, consistent with the Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction (Greater Golden Horseshoe Area Conservation Authorities, 2006), as amended; and, v. location and description of all outlets and other facilities which may require a permit pursuant to regulations under the Conservation Authorities Act. - 492 - Recommended Conditions of Approval Page 8 SP-2023-01 – Liverpool Road Limited Partnership (Draft) b. That the Owner shall update the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report to demonstrate that the bioretention facility has been sized to adequately retain the first 5mm of runoff on-site. 56. That the Owner shall agree in the subdivision agreement, in wording acceptable to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA): a. To carry out, or cause to be carried out, to the satisfaction of the TRCA, the recommendations of the technical reports referenced in Condition #55; b. To agree to, and implement, the requirements of the TRCA's conditions in wording acceptable to the TRCA; c. To design and implement on and off-site erosion and sediment control; d. To maintain all stormwater management and erosion and sedimentation control structures operating and in good repair during the construction period, in a manner satisfactory to the TRCA; e. To obtain all necessary permits pursuant to the Conservation Authorities Act, from the TRCA; f. To implement all water balance/infiltration measures identified in the approved SWM Report; g. The Owner shall implement a Restoration Planting Plan to the TRCA’s satisfaction for the lands below the Shoreline Hazard Limit on Block 2, prior to the occupancy of the first dwelling unit; and h. The Owner agrees to not construct any shelters, docks, or ancillary buildings below the Shoreline Hazard Limit on Block 2, as identified in Drawing No. A101, Site Plan, prepared by Cassidy and Co., and dated October 17, 2023. 57. That the Owner shall agree that the Draft Plan of Subdivision shall be subject to any redline revisions necessary to implement the above conditions. Canada Post 58. That the Owner agrees to include in all offers of purchase and sale, a statement that advises the prospective purchaser that mail delivery will be from a designated Community Mailbox, and to include the exact locations (list of lot #s) of each of these Community Mailbox locations; and further, advise any affected homeowners of any established easements granted to Canada Post. 59. That the Owner agrees, prior to offering any of the residential units for sale, to place a "Display Map" on the wall of the sales office in a place readily available to the public which indicates the location of all Canada Post Community Mailbox site locations, as approved by Canada Post and the City of Pickering. - 493 - Recommended Conditions of Approval Page 9 SP-2023-01 – Liverpool Road Limited Partnership (Draft) 60. That the Owner agrees to consult with Canada Post Corporation and the City of Pickering to determine a suitable location for the placement of the Community Mailbox(es) and to indicate these locations on appropriate servicing plans. 61. That the Owner agrees to provide the following for each Community Mailbox site and include these requirements on the appropriate servicing plans: (i) An appropriately sized sidewalk section (concrete pad) for the Community Mailboxes on. (ii) Any required walkway across the boulevard. (iii) Any required curb depressions for wheelchair access. 62. That the Owner agrees to determine and provide a suitable temporary Community Mailbox location(s), which may be utilized by Canada Post until the curbs, sidewalks and final grading have been completed at the permanent Community Mailbox location(s). 63. That the Owner agrees to provide Canada Post at least 60 business days’ notice prior to the confirmed first occupancy date to allow for the community mailboxes to be ordered and installed at the prepared temporary location. Bell Canada 64. That the Owner acknowledges and agrees to convey any easement(s) as deemed necessary by Bell Canada to service this new development. The Owner further agrees and acknowledges to convey such easements at no cost to Bell Canada. 65. That the Owner agrees that should any conflict arise with existing Bell Canada facilities where a current and valid easement exists within the subject area, the Owner shall be responsible for the relocation of any such facilities or easements at their own cost. Other Approval Agencies 66. That any approvals which are required from the Region of Durham or any utility for the development of this plan be obtained by the Owner and upon request written confirmation be provided to the City as verification of these approvals. 67. That the Owner, through the approval of the Utility Coordination Plan for the location(s), is to enter into an agreement with Canada Post Corporation for the provision of a Community Mailbox(es), including technical specifications and financial terms. Plan Revisions 68. That the Owner acknowledges and agrees that the draft plan of subdivision and associated conditions of approval may require revisions to the satisfaction of the City, to implement or integrate any recommendation resulting from studies required as conditions of approval. - 494 - Recommended Conditions of Approval Page 10 SP-2023-01 – Liverpool Road Limited Partnership (Draft) 69. That the Owner revises the draft plan as necessary to the satisfaction of the City, to accommodate any technical engineering issues which arise during the review of the final engineering drawings. Required revisions may include revising the number of residential building lots or reconfiguring the roads or lots to the City’s satisfaction. 70. That the Owner agrees to implement the requirements of all studies that are required by the City for the development of this draft plan of subdivision to the satisfaction of the City. Notes to Draft Approval 1. As the Owner of the proposed subdivision, it is your responsibility to satisfy all conditions of draft approval in an expeditious manner. The conditions of draft approval will be reviewed periodically and may be amended at any time prior to final approval. The Planning Act provides that draft approval may be withdrawn at any time prior to final approval. 2. All plans of subdivision must be registered in the Land Titles system within the Regional Municipality of Durham. 3. Where agencies’ requirements are required to be included in the City of Pickering subdivision agreement, a copy of the agreement should be sent to agencies in order to facilitate their clearance of conditions for final approval of the plan. The addresses and emails of these agencies are: a) Planning Department, Region of Durham, 605 Rossland Road East, Whitby, ON L1N 6A3, applications-precons@durham.ca. b) Planning and Development, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 101 Exchange Avenue, Vaughan, ON L4K 5R6, durhamplan@trca.ca. c) Canada Post Corporation, 1395 Tapscott Road, 2nd Floor, Scarborough, ON M1X 0C7, nadya.singh@canadapost.postescanada.ca. d) Bell Canada, CA.Circulations@wsp.com. 4. Prior to final approval of the plan for registration, the Director, City Development & CBO for the City of Pickering shall be advised in writing by: a) The Region of Durham, how Conditions 1 to 10, inclusively, have been satisfied; b) The Toronto and Region Conservation, how Conditions 55 to 57, inclusively, have been satisfied; c) Canada Post Corporation, how Conditions 58 to 63, inclusively, have been satisfied; d) Bell Canada, how Conditions 64 and 65, inclusively, have been satisfied; and 5. This draft approval shall lapse three (3) years from the date the draft approval has been granted if the noted conditions have not been fulfilled, or if it has not been extended by the City of Pickering. - 495 - Attachment 1 to Report PLN 21-24 Liv e r p o o l R o a d F r o n t R o a d Annland Street Broadview Street Commerce Street Wharf Street Ple a s a n t S t r e e t F r e n c h m a n ' sB a y ProgressFrenchman'sBay East Park 1276 12821288 12 9 0 12 9 2 1280 1294 607 60 9 640 © 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:Applicant:Municipal Address: OPA 23-001/P, A 02/23, SP-2023-01 & CP-2023-02 Date: May18, 2023 ¯ E Liverpool Road Limited Partnership607 & 609 Annland Street, 640 Liverpool Road & SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\OPA\2023\OPA 23-001P, A02-23, SP-2023-01 & CP-2023-02\OPA 23-001P_LocationMap.mxd 1:2,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. 1276, 1280, 1288, 1290, 1292 & 1294 Wharf Street - 496 - ~o/ P1CKER1NG Air Photo Map File : OPA 23-001/P, A 02/23, SP-2023-01 & CP-2023-02 Applicant: Liverpool Road Limited Partnership Municipal Address. 607 & 609Annland Street, 640 Liverpool Road & 1276, 1280, 1288, 1290, • 1292 & 1294 Wharf Street City Development Department © The Corporation of the City of Pid<ering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,All rights reserved.; © HerMajesty the Queen in Righi of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; ©Teranet Enterprises Inc. and ~s suppfiers,All rights reserved.:© Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. Date: May. 18, 2023 SCALE: 1:4,000 I THt$l$N01API.A/1<$-St,AVEY Attachment 2 to Report PLN 21-24 - 497 - Attachment 3 to Report PLN 21-24 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2023 April 23, 2023DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Original Conceptual Site Plan FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 23-001/P, A 02/23, SP-2023-01 & CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership 607 & 609 Annland Street, 640 Liverpool Road & 1276, 1280, 1288, 1290, 1292 & 1294 Wharf Street 1272 Wharf Street Outdoor Amenity Area Easement Required Full Moves Access Live- Work Units Full Moves Access Block 1 Block 2 Block 9 Block 8 Block 5Block 6Block 7 Bl o c k 3 Bl o c k 4 Bl o c k 1 0 Vi s i t o r Pa r k i n g Vi s i t o r Pa r k i n g Vi s i t o r Pa r k i n g Vi s i t o r Pa r k i n g Live- Work Units Landscaped Entry Feature - 498 - Attachment 4 to Report PLN 21-24 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2023 May 10, 2024DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Revised Conceptual Site Plan FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 23-001/P, A 02/23, SP-2023-01 & CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership 607 & 609 Annland Street, 640 Liverpool Road & 1276, 1280, 1288, 1290, 1292 & 1294 Wharf Street N - 499 - Attachment 5 to Report PLN 21-24 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2023 April 23, 2023DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 23-001/P, A 02/23, SP-2023-01 & CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership 607 & 609 Annland Street, 640 Liverpool Road & 1276, 1280, 1288, 1290, 1292 & 1294 Wharf Street N - 500 - Attachment 6 to Report PLN 21-24 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2023 May 10, 2024DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Revised Draft Plan of Condominium FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 23-001/P, A 02/23, SP-2023-01 & CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership 607 & 609 Annland Street, 640 Liverpool Road & 1276, 1280, 1288, 1290, 1292 & 1294 Wharf Street - 501 - Attachment 7 to Report PLN 21-24 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2023 May 10, 2024DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Conceptual Elevations - Live/Work Units FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 23-001/P, A 02/23, SP-2023-01 & CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership 607 & 609 Annland Street, 640 Liverpool Road & 1276, 1280, 1288, 1290, 1292 & 1294 Wharf Street View from Liverpool Road View from Wharf Street View from Annland Street - 502 - Attachment 8 to Report PLN 21-24 Conceptual Elevations - Traditional Townhouse Units City Development Department May 10, 2024FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. OPA 23-001/P, A 02/23, SP-2023-01 & CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited PartnershipApplicant: Municipal Address: DATE: File No: 607 & 609 Annland Street, 640 Liverpool Road & 1276, 1280, L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2023 1288, 1290, 1292 & 1294 Wharf Street View from Wharf Street View from Private Road - 503 - Attachment 9 to Report PLN 21-24 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2023 May 10, 2024DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Conceptual Elevations - Rear-Lane Townhouse Units FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 23-001/P, A 02/23, SP-2023-01 & CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership 607 & 609 Annland Street, 640 Liverpool Road & 1276, 1280, 1288, 1290, 1292 & 1294 Wharf Street View from Annland Street - 504 -