Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLN 18-24Report 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 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. 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. 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 as candidates for designation during the Municipal Heritage Register review and update, completed by City staff in 2023. This recommendation was based on a Cultural Heritage Evaluation 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 contextual value, indicating the properties reflected a pattern of early twentieth century residential development along Kingston Road. However, after additional research completed by City 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 removed for the construction of Highway 401. As such, these properties do not meet the criteria for 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 Road and 1 Evelyn Avenue from the Municipal Heritage Register. 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 Value or 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. The CHER 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 concluded that 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 were noted to retain contextual value as they reflect the pattern of early twentieth-century development 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 register of properties situated in the municipality that are of 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. 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). 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. 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 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 Da l e w o o d D r i v e O l d F o r e s t R o a d Highway 40 1 Rouge Hill Court Kingston Road EastWoodlandsParkSouthPetticoatRavine © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Municipal Address: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 Rougemoun t D r i v e Ro s e b a n k R o a d Hig 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 st 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 RoadEastWoodlandsParkSouthPetticoatRavine © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Municipal Address: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 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. pickering.ca Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Attachment 4 to Report PLN 18-24 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 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), including design/physical value, historical/associative value, and contextual value. Additionally, the CHER 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). The preservation 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 was constructed between 1933 and 1936. Building 2 is a one-storey rectangular building with a 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 of the Crown and certain Anishinaabe peoples. These lands were the subject of a confirmatory 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 Act requirements, 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 not recommended for designation. 2. Subject Property 401 Kingston Road 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 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. 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 Da l e w o o d D r i v e O l d F o r e s t R o a d Highway 40 1 Rouge Hill Court Kingston Road EastWoodlandsParkSouthPetticoatRavine 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 DevelopmentDepartment 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 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 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.” 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 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. 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 or construction method. 401 Kingston Road, 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. 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. 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 8 8.2 City Council shall: (a) identify important cultural heritage resources from all time periods, so that they can be appropriately conserved and integrated into the community fabric, including: (i) significant heritage structures, features and sites; (ii) buildings, sites, and artifacts of historical, archaeological and architectural significance including modern or recent architecture; (iii) significant landscape features and characteristics, including vistas and ridge lines; and (iv) other locally important cultural heritage resources; (b) foster public awareness and appreciation of the City’s cultural heritage; (c) prevent the demolition, destruction or inappropriate alteration of important cultural heritage resources to the extent possible; (d) where possible, restore, rehabilitate, maintain and enhance important cultural heritage resources owned by the City, and encourage the same for those owned by others; (e) where possible, ensure development, infrastructure, capital works and other private and public projects conserve, protect and enhance important cultural heritage resources; and (f) involve the public, business people, landowners, local heritage experts, heritage committees, relevant public agencies, and other interested groups and individuals in cultural heritage decisions affecting the City. 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. 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 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. 401 Kingston Road, Pickering Ontario Page 10 5. Consultation Provincial and federal databases and inventories were consulted to gain further insight into the potential significance of the property at 401 Kingston Road. The Ministry of 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; 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.500 401 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 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 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. 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 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 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). 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). 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 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. Bigioni Management Services Ltd., Hollow Holdings Ltd. All – except highway Transfer / D321039 August 22, 1989 N. Bigioni Management Services Ltd. (25% int), Hollow Holdings 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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). 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) 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. 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. 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 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. 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. pickering.ca Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: 1 Evelyn Avenue, Pickering Ontario Attachment 5 to Report PLN 18-24 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 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), including design/physical value, historical/associative value, and contextual value. Additionally, the CHER 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). The preservation 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 frame outbuilding 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 (also known as the “Gunshot Treaty”), which was signed in 1788 by representatives of the Crown and certain Anishinaabe peoples. These lands were the subject of a confirmatory 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 Act requirements, 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 not recommended 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 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. Rougemoun t D r i v e Ro s e b a n k R o a d Hig 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 st 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 RoadEastWoodlandsParkSouthPetticoatRavine 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 DevelopmentDepartment 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 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 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.” 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 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. 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 or construction method. 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: 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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). 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. 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 �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 �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 �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 �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 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 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). 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. 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 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. 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 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 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: The examples have side gable roofs with front-facing dormers. • 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 1 Evelyn Avenue is a one-and-a-half-storey bungalow, inspired by the Arts and Crafts movement. 1 Evelyn Avenue 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 2 presents the evaluation of the subject property using O. Reg. 9/06. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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 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. Attachment 6 to Report PLN 18-24 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 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | ii Appendix C ............................................................................................................. 40 Staff Bios. ............................................................................................................... 40 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 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) 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. 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) 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). 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. 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) 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) 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. 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 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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 . 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 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). 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 . 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). 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). 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). 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) 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. 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- 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. 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: 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) 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. 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. 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. 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. Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 38 Appendix A Title Search (next page) 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 - 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 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 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 - 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 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 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 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 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 39 Appendix B Kingston Road Study, Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (Branch Architecture, 2020) CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT KINGSTON ROAD STUDY Pickering, Ontario November 1, 2020 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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 Hig h w a y 401 Ev e l y n A v e n u e Toynevale Road Dalewood Drive Kin gsto n R o a d 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 RoadEastWoodlandsParkSouthPetticoatRavine 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Property Description:A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯ E Pt Lot 10, Plan 230, Now Pt, 1 40R-12418 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\1EvelynAve_LocationMap.mxd (1 Evelyn Avenue)10. 1 Evelyn Avenue, location map. (City of Pickering) 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 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) 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) 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.) 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) 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) 14 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 18. 1 Evelyn Avenue house, west (front) elevation, 2020. (City staff) 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. 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 PineRidge Road RougeHillCourt Dal e w o o d D r i v e Kingsto n R o a d Brookridge Gate Highway 401 Lyt t o n C o u r t Riv e r v i e w C r e s c e n t 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Property Description:A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯ E Pt Lot 32, B.F.C. Range 3 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\301KingstonRd_LocationMap.mxd (301 Kingston Road) City of Toronto 20. 301 Kingston Road, loca- tion map. (City of Pickering) 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. 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. 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. 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) 21 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 22. North (front) elevation, 2019. (BA) 23. North (front) elevation, 2020. (BA) 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) 23 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 28. East (left) and north (right) elevations, 2019. (BA) 29. East (left) and north (right) elevations, 2020. (BA) 24 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 30. West (left) and south (right) elevations, 2019. (BA) 31. West (left) and south (right) elevations, 2020. (BA) 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. 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 Ol d F o r e s t R o a d Highway 40 1 Rouge Hill Court Kingston Road EastWoodlandsParkSouthPetticoatRavine 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Property Description:A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯ E Pt Lt 19, Plan 230, Now Pt 1, 40R-16160 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\401KingstonRd_LocationMap.mxd (401 Kingston Road)33. 401 Kingston Road, loca- tion map. (City of Pickering) 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. 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. 29 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 34. North (front) elevation. (BA) 35. North (front) elevation, as viewed from the east. (BA) 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) 31 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 40. Porch, interior. (BA)41. Front door with quoins at door. (BA) 42. West elevation. (BA) 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) 33 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 47. South and west elevations. (BA) 48. South elevation, rear door. (BA)49. South elevation, single window. (BA) 34 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 50. South and east elevation. (BA) 51. Foundation, interior. (BA)52. Wall treatments, brick and fieldstone (BA) 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) 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. 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) W est S h ore Boulevard Kingston Road ShadybrookDriveEd g e w o o d R o a d G old e n ridge Road Fa i r p o r t R o a d DunbartonRoad Kates Lane SpruceHillRoad Sheppard Avenue Rushton Road Merritton Road Ad a C o urt Bayly Street High w ay 4 0 1 VistulaRavine 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Property Description:A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯ E Pt Lot 27, B.F.C. Range 3 and Pt 1-4, 40R-2628 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\882-886KingstonRd_LocationMap.mxd and Pt 1-3, 40R-15853 (882-886 Kingston Road)57. 882 Kingston Road, loca- tion map. (City of Pickering) 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. 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. 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. 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) 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) 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 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 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 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. 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. 48 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 69.Aerial view looking north, 2020. (Google streetview) 70.Cross. (BA)71.Cell tower. (BA) 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) 50 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 74. Addition, west elevation. (BA) 75. Addition, exterior at apse. (BA)76. Addition, west entrance. (BA) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 56 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 94. Nave looking to balcony. (BA)95. Nave looking to altar. (BA) 96. View from balcony. (BA) 57 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 97.Samples of stained glass works throughout the church. (BA) 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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”. 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”. 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 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 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 Page 1 of 11 Minutes/Meeting Summary Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee November 25, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Attendees: J. Dempsey S. CroteauJ. IrwinR. SmilesC. SopherE. Martelluzzi, Planner II HeritageR. 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. JohnD. FelinA. KhanW. 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 electronicmeeting. 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. Agendaapproved. 4. Approval of Minutes 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 developmentwas in the process of resubmission followingcomments received by Council, Staff, and membersof the public, and that the applicant had submittedstudies, plans, and justification as part of theresubmission including the Heritage impactassessment. She noted that the City’s HeritageConsultant and the applicant was in agreement withmoving forward with the findings of the report, andreminded the Committee that there still remains anumber of undecided factors associated with theapplication and that the heritage aspect is only onepart 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 theprovision of a community benefit under Section 37 of 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 MunicipalHeritage Register, which meant that any owner shallgive Council 60 days’ notice in writing prior todemolition or removal of the building. She noted the 5key changes from the original submission whichinclude relocating the Old Liverpool Houseapproximately 16 metres to the south of its existinglocation, reducing the adjacent podium height from 8to 6 storeys, lowering the tower overhang, updatingthe heritage forecourt design and the conservationstrategy. She further outlined the summarycomments provided in the peer review by BranchArchitecture. E. Martelluzzi stated that Staff concur with BranchArchitecture’s analysis, and that the Heritage ImpactAssessment had been updated to respond to thePeer Review comments from the first submission withfurther changes to the design which respond to theOld Liverpool House in a sympathetic yet distinctway. 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. 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 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 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: 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 the Ontario 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 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. 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, 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 Meeting Adjourned: 8:20 pm Copy: City Clerk Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 401 Kingston Road, Pickering March, 2024 MHBC | 40 Appendix C Staff Bios. 200-540 BINGEMANS CENTRE DRIVE KITCHENER / ONTARIO /N2B3X9 / T:519.576.3650 / F: 519-576-0121 / WWW.MHBCPLAN.COM