The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLN 07-25 Report to Council Report Number: PLN 07-25 Date: February 24, 2025 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Notice of Intent to Demolish 575 Highway 7 – The Vardon House - File: A-3300-098 Recommendation: 1. That the recommendations of the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee, dated January 22, 2025, to permit the demolition of 575 Highway 7, under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act be endorsed; 2. That staff be directed to remove 575 Highway 7 from the Pickering Heritage Register; and 3. That staff be directed to continue to collaborate with the applicant to finalize a Commemoration Plan and report back to the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee. Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s approval to permit the demolition of the Vardon House (c.1853), and its associated barn, at 575 Highway 7, a non-designated heritage property, under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Notice of Intent to Demolish, submitted by Caplink Limited, is in keeping with the approved Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision for the applicant’s Phase II expansion of a food manufacturing facility. As part of Caplink’s development applications, a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was completed in 2023, and subsequently peer reviewed by the City. The HIA determined that the property does not meet the criteria for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. In 2023, the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee did not oppose demolition, but recommended developing a Commemoration Plan, including salvaging materials. The Committee reaffirmed its recommendations at the January 22, 2025 meeting, when a Notice of Intent to Demolish was presented for review. As a result, the Committee recommended that Council approve the demolition. Staff support the demolition, citing economic development priorities, the planned preservation of the Percy House providing future heritage interpretation on the Caplink lands, and the heritage integrity of the Vardon House being compromised as a result of modern construction interventions over the past several decades. PLN 07-25 February 24, 2025 Subject: Notice of Intent to Demolish 575 Highway 7 – The Vardon House Page 2 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of Champion Economic Leadership & Innovation; Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community; and Strengthen Existing & Build New Partnerships. Financial Implications: No direct financial implications for the City are associated with the recommended action to designate. Background: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s approval to permit the demolition of the Vardon House (c.1853), and its associated barn, at 575 Highway 7, a non-designated heritage property, under section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The property at 575 Highway 7, includes a one-and-a-half-storey Ontario Gothic Cottage, known as the Vardon House (circa 1853), along with a barn and landscape features reflecting the property’s agricultural history. It is listed as a non-designated property on the City’s Municipal Heritage Register, under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. As part of the applicant’s proposal, the Vardon House and barn are proposed to be demolished. 1. Discussion 1.1 The Vardon House and Barn The Vardon House is a one-and-a-half-storey Ontario Gothic Cottage with Neoclassical influences. The house is set back approximately 30 metres from Highway 7, with its façade facing the highway and slightly east of a straight, gravel driveway (see Photograph 1 below). Photograph 1: View of house and barn (WSP 2022) PLN 07-25 February 24, 2025 Subject: Notice of Intent to Demolish 575 Highway 7 – The Vardon House Page 3 Believed to have been constructed in 1853, the Vardon House was originally built on a rectangular plan, with a rear addition projecting from the south elevation. The main façade of the structure was likely modified at an unknown date to include elements of the Gothic Revival style, such as a gabled centre bay with a steeply pitched roof, board and batten siding, gingerbread scrollwork and finial and pendant in the gable. The foundation material consists of board-formed concrete, and the foundation appears to be raised. This concrete foundation is likely a replacement for the original stone foundation. The one-and-a-half-storey rear addition has a gable roof and is sited on a concrete foundation. The west elevation is clad in board and batten, and the east and south elevations are clad in horizontal vinyl siding. The barn, a late-19th-century Central Ontario bank barn, retains some original elements, such as hand-hewn timbers, and mortise-and-tenon joints. While architecturally representative of its type, the barn is not unique within the region. 1.2 Heritage Value Assessment Under Ontario Regulation 9/06, a property must meet criteria related to physical/design, associative/historical, and contextual value to qualify for heritage designation. The Vardon House and barn exhibit the following heritage attributes: a. Physical/Design Value: • The Vardon House is a representative example of an Ontario Gothic Cottage, featuring a central gable peak, symmetrical three-bay façade, and decorative gingerbread scrollwork. It is one of the earliest examples of its kind in the area, retaining its original board-and-batten cladding. • The barn is a well-preserved example of a Central Ontario bank barn, characterized by a gambrel roof, banked access, and original construction materials, including hand-hewn timbers and mortise-and-tenon joints. b. Associative/Historical Value: • The property is associated with the Vardon family, early settlers in the region who contributed to the development of the local community. Historical records show the Vardon family established a school on the property in the mid-19th century. c. Contextual Value: • The Vardon House and barn are part of a historical agricultural landscape, contributing to the rural character of the Highway 7 corridor. They maintain physical and historical connections to the surrounding area, reinforcing the cultural heritage significance of the site. PLN 07-25 February 24, 2025 Subject: Notice of Intent to Demolish 575 Highway 7 – The Vardon House Page 4 1.3 Caplink Redevelopment In May 2024, Council approved a Zoning By-law Amendment application, and endorsed a Draft Plan of Subdivision, submitted by Caplink Limited, to support the second phase of their food manufacturing facility (see Resolution #492/24, Attachment 1). The subject lands, municipally known as 575, 625 and 685 Highway 7, are located on the south side of Highway 7, east of North Road, and north of Highway 407 (see Location Map, Attachment 2). The facility includes six buildings for manufacturing, warehousing (distribution, logistics and freezer storage), and office spaces. The Draft Plan of Subdivision proposes the creation of eight blocks: six blocks for employment uses, two blocks for road widening along Highway 7 and North Road, and two new streets. On April 19, 2024, the Director, City Development & CBO issued draft plan approval (see Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision, Attachment 3). 1.4 Notice of Intent to Demolish On December 9, 2024, Caplink Limited submitted a demolition permit to demolish the Vardon House and barn to proceed with the works associated with the Council approved Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision. In support of this permit, the applicant provided an updated Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) and supporting documents (see Updated Heritage Impact Assessment, Attachment 4). Due to the December holiday season, the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee did not hold its regular meeting. The applicant agreed to extend the 60-day consultation period to allow the matter to be reviewed at the January 2025 meeting (see Deferral Letter, Attachment 5). Staff reviewed the updated HIA and supporting documents and confirmed that the property does not meet the criteria for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Staff support issuing the demolition permit, and continuing collaborating with the applicant to develop a comprehensive Commemoration Plan for the site, prior to the registration of the draft plan of subdivision. 1.5 Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee A Notice of Intent to Demolish was submitted by Caplink Limited on December 9, 2024 to the City of Pickering. A report on the Notice of Intent to Demolish was presented to the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee on January 22, 2025. The Committee recommended to Council that the demolition proceed and that work continue on the development of a Commemoration Plan, as required in the approved conditions of the draft plan of subdivision. 1.6 Commemoration Plan While the details of a Commemoration Plan are still being developed, the applicant has demonstrated a commitment to acknowledging the site’s historical significance. PLN 07-25 February 24, 2025 Subject: Notice of Intent to Demolish 575 Highway 7 – The Vardon House Page 5 Salvaged materials from the Vardon House and barn will be integrated into the plan. The plan will be addressed comprehensively in a future memo to the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee prior to the City releasing the draft plan of subdivision for registration. 2. Conclusion: The Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee concurs that 575 Highway 7 does not merit designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and recommends that Council remove the property from the City’s Municipal Heritage Register. The proposed demolition of the Vardon House and barn reflects the City’s commitment to balancing heritage conservation with economic development. While these structures contribute to the historical landscape of Highway 7, their physical alterations and the site’s strategic designation for employment use support the decision not to pursue heritage designation. The HIA and its peer review confirm that the Vardon House does not meet the necessary criteria under the Ontario Heritage Act, and the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee has not opposed its removal. Although the demolition will result in the loss of a historical asset, the City and the applicant are taking responsible steps to mitigate the impact. A Commemoration Plan will ensure that the site’s heritage is acknowledged, with salvaged materials repurposed for educational or interpretive uses. Additionally, the restoration and repurposing of the Percy House for heritage interpretation serve as an alternative means to honour the history of this area of the City. Moving forward, staff will continue working with the applicant to finalize the Commemoration Plan and present a final plan to the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee for review and endorsement. Attachments: 1. Council Resolution #492/24 2. Location Map 3. Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision 4. Updated Heritage Impact Assessment – 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering (revised October 16, 2024) 5. Deferral Letter, January 6, 2025 PLN 07-25 February 24, 2025 Subject: Notice of Intent to Demolish 575 Highway 7 – The Vardon House Page 6 Prepared By: Original Signed By Matt Somerville, 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 MS:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Legislative Services Division Clerk’s Office Directive Memorandum May 31, 2024 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 27, 2024 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 12-24 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-03 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/23 Caplink Limited (575, 625 and 685 Highway 7) Seaton Community Council Decision Resolution #492/24 Please take any action deemed necessary. Susan Cassel Copy: Chief Administrative Officer 1.That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-03, submitted by Caplink Limited, on lands being Part Lots 27 and 28, Concession 5, to establish a plan of subdivision consisting of six blocks for employment uses, road widenings, and new municipal roads, as shown on Attachment 5 to Report PLN 12-24, and the implementing conditions of approval, as set out in Appendix I, be endorsed; and, 2.That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/23, submitted by Caplink Limited, to implement Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2023-03 and permit a food manufacturing campus on lands being Part Lots 27 and 28, Concession 5, be approved, and that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment as set out in Appendix II to Report PLN 12-24, be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment. Attachment 1 to Report PLN 07-25 Attachment 2 to Report PLN 07-25 North Roa d Highway 407 City Development Department Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: SP-2023-03, A011/23 Date: Jul. 05, 2023 ¯ Caplink Limited 575,625 and 685 Highway 7 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\SP\2023\SP-2023-03, A011-23 Caplink Limited\SP-2023-XX_LocationMap.mxd 1:10,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department ofNatural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. Attachment 3 to Report PLN 07-25 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A-3300 Historical Heritage Conservation Jan. 15, 2024DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Draft Plan of Subdivision FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A-3300-098 Caplink Ltd. 575 Highway 7 N REPORT Heritage Impact Assessment 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering, Ontario Submitted to: Caplink Limited Submitted by: WSP Canada Inc. 25 York Street, suite 700 Toronto, ON, M5J 2V5 Canada CA-WSP-231-00193-00 Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 Attachment 4 to Report PLN 07-25 Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 i Distribution List One PDF copy - Caplink Limited One PDF copy - The Biglieri Group One PDF copy - WSP Canada Inc. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 ii Limitations The conclusions presented in this report are based on work performed by trained, professional and technical staff, in accordance with their reasonable interpretation of current and accepted engineering and scientific practices at the time the work was performed. The content and opinions contained in the present report are based on the observations and/or information available to WSP at the time of preparation, using investigation techniques and engineering analysis methods consistent with those ordinarily exercised by WSP and other engineering/scientific practitioners working under similar conditions, and subject to the same time, financial and physical constraints applicable to this project. WSP disclaims any obligation to update this report if, after the date of this report, any conditions appear to differ significantly from those presented in this report; however, WSP reserves the right to amend or supplement this report based on additional information, documentation or evidence. WSP makes no other representations whatsoever concerning the legal significance of its findings. The intended recipient is solely responsible for the disclosure of any information contained in this report. If a third party makes use of, relies on, or makes decisions in accordance with this report, said third party is solely responsible for such use, reliance or decisions. WSP does not accept responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken by said third party based on this report. WSP has provided services to the intended recipient in accordance with the professional services agreement between the parties and in a manner consistent with that degree of care, skill and diligence normally provided by members of the same profession performing the same or comparable services in respect of projects of a similar nature in similar circumstances. It is understood and agreed by WSP and the recipient of this report that WSP provides no warranty, express or implied, of any kind. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it is agreed and understood by WSP and the recipient of this report that WSP makes no representation or warranty whatsoever as to the sufficiency of its scope of work for the purpose sought by the recipient of this report. In preparing this report, WSP has relied in good faith on information provided by others, as noted in the report. WSP has reasonably assumed that the information provided is correct and WSP is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of such information. The original of this digital file will be kept by WSP for a period of not less than 10 years. As the digital file transmitted to the intended recipient is no longer under the control of WSP, its integrity cannot be assured. As such, WSP does not guarantee any modifications made to this digital file subsequent to its transmission to the intended recipient. This limitations statement is considered an integral part of this report. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 iii Contributors CLIENT Caplink Limited Martin Ng, P. Eng Caplink Limited 1295 Ormont Drive, Toronto, ON M9L 2W6 WSP Report Preparation Claire Forward, BA (Hons.), MA, MSc Cultural Heritage Specialist Mapping/GIS Tanya Peterson, B.A. (Hons) Senior GIS Technician Report Review and Approval Heidy Schopf, MES, CAHP Cultural Heritage Team Lead Report Approval Mike Teal Archaeology Team Lead Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 iv Executive Summary WSP Canada Inc. (WSP) was retained by the Biglieri Group on behalf of Caplink Limited (the Client) to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the property located at 575 Highway 7 in the City of Pickering, Ontario (the subject property). This HIA is a revision of the HIA previously submitted for the project, dated May 16, 2023 (the 2023 HIA). The subject property was historically located in Lot 30, Concession V, Township of Pickering and now includes a one-and-a-half storey side gabled frame house with Gothic Revival exterior treatment (the Vardon House), constructed between 1850 and 1900, as well as a Central Ontario bank barn. The subject property is listed as a non-designated property on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register pursuant to Section 27 (1.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). The Client is proposing to develop property with the municipal addresses of 575, 625 and 685 Highway 7 for employment uses. As part of the proposed development, the Client intends to demolish the Vardon House and barn. On May 27, 2024, City Council approved the Draft Plan of Subdivision (City File No. SP-2023-03) and Zoning By-law Amendment (A 11/23) applications for Phase 2 of FGF Pickering Manufacturing Campus. The Phase 2 lands are approximately 36 hectares in size and located on the south side of Highway 7, east of North Road and north of Highway 407. The Draft approved Plan of Subdivision will create employment blocks, including six blocks for employment uses, two road widening blocks located along Highway 7 and North Road, and two new municipal roads (Wonder Drive and StonefireRoad). Item 57 of the Final Conditions of Approval dated April 19, 2024, requested the issuance of a revised HIA prior to final approval. This revised HIA addresses peer review comments received on the 2023 HIA. This HIA evaluated the subject property against the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O. Reg. 9/06) (as amended by O. Reg. 569/22) and Ontario Regulation 10/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The heritage evaluation determined that the subject property possesses cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI) as a late nineteenth century Ontario Gothic Cottage that is associated with the early settlement of Pickering. Accordingly, a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and list of heritage attributes have been developed. WSP assessed the proposed development plan to identify potential direct and indirect impacts to the CHVI and heritage attributes of the subject property. The impact assessment determined that: ▪ The proposed development will result in major direct impacts to 575 Highway 7 since the destruction of the Vardon House, barn, and associated landscape elements is proposed. The following alternatives, mitigation and conservation options were considered to avoid or reduce these adverse impacts to the heritage attributes of the property: 1) Do nothing: preserve and maintain the Vardon House, barn and all landscape heritage attributes in situ with no further development of the property. 2) Relocate the Vardon House within the site to a more convenient location with an adaptive reuse, dismantle and salvage heritage attributes from the barn and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. 3) Remove the Vardon House and barn salvaging heritage attributes from the structures and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. Based on a review of the alternatives, mitigation and conservation options analysis, Option 1, do nothing, is the preferred option from a cultural heritage perspective. However, a “do nothing” approach is not feasible as the Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 v subject property is designated Prestige Employment and Seaton Natural Heritage System in the Pickering Official Plan. Option 2 was also not considered to be feasible as relocating the subject residence from its existing context would remove its contextual and diminish its historical or associative CHVI. As such, Option 3 is the next preferred alternative. The following conservation/mitigation strategies are recommended for Option 3, and should be implemented through the development application process: 1) Prepare a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report for residence and barn on the subject property. 2) That options for symbolic conservation using salvaged materials be explored within the proposed development. 3) Should development plans change significantly in scope or design after approval of this HIA, additional cultural heritage investigations may be required. 4) Once finalized, a copy of this HIA should be distributed to the City of Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 vi GLOSSARY Adjacent lands Those lands contiguous to a protected heritage property or as otherwise defined in the municipal official plan (Government of Ontario 2024). Built Heritage Resource: Means a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Indigenous community. (Government of Ontario 2024). Conserved: Means the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained. 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 should be included in these plans and assessments (Government of Ontario 2024). Cultural Heritage Landscape: Means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Indigenous community. The area may include features such as buildings, structures, spaces, views, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association (Government of Ontario 2024). Heritage Attributes: Means, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act, in relation to real property, and to the buildings and structures on the real property, the attributes of the property, buildings and structures that contribute to their cultural heritage value or interest (Government of Ontario 2024). Protected Heritage Property: Means property designated under Part IV or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; property included in an area designated as a heritage conservation district under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act; property subject to a heritage conservation easement or covenant under Part II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; property identified by a provincial ministry or a prescribed public body as a property having cultural heritage value or interest under the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal heritage legislation; and UNESCO World Heritage Sites (Government of Ontario 2024). Significant: 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. (Government of Ontario 2024) Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 vii Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................1 2 POLICY FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................................................5 2.1 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples .....................................................5 2.2 Regulatory Requirements ................................................................................................................5 2.3 Guidance Documents .................................................................................................................... 10 3 PROJECT METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 12 4 HISTORICAL CONTEXT ......................................................................................................................... 13 4.1 Indigenous History ........................................................................................................................ 13 4.2 Pre-Confederation Treaties ........................................................................................................... 14 4.3 Township survey and Settlement ................................................................................................... 14 4.4 Property History ............................................................................................................................ 16 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................................... 28 5.1 Residence ..................................................................................................................................... 28 5.2 Barn .............................................................................................................................................. 33 5.3 Landscape Conditions ................................................................................................................... 37 5.4 Property Context ........................................................................................................................... 39 5.5 Architectural Style ......................................................................................................................... 40 6 CONSULTATION .................................................................................................................................... 49 6.1 City of Pickering ............................................................................................................................ 49 6.2 Federal and Provincial Review ...................................................................................................... 49 7 DISCUSSION OF INTEGRITY ................................................................................................................. 50 8 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION ................................................................................................... 53 8.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation ............................................................................................... 53 8.2 Ontario Regulation 10/06 ............................................................................................................... 54 8.3 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest ............................................................................ 56 9 PROPOSED UNDERTAKING AND IMPACTS ......................................................................................... 58 Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 viii 9.1 Description of Proposed Undertaking ............................................................................................ 58 9.2 Potential Impacts........................................................................................................................... 58 10 ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION OPTIONS ......................................................... 62 10.1 Options Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 65 10.2 Implementation and Monitoring...................................................................................................... 66 11 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 68 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................................. 69 TABLES Table 5-1: Comparative analysis of heritage properties of a similar age, style and/or typology ........................... 44 Table 5-2: Comparative analysis of barns of a similar age, style and/or typology ............................................... 48 Table 7-1: Heritage Integrity Analysis for the Subject Property .......................................................................... 51 Table 8-1: Evaluation of 575 Highway 7 as per O. Reg. 9/06 ............................................................................. 53 Table 8-2: Evaluation of 575 Highway 7 as per O. Reg. 10/06 ........................................................................... 54 Table 9-1: Impact Grading................................................................................................................................. 60 Table 9-2: Evaluation of Impacts to Subject Property at 575 Highway 7 ............................................................. 60 Table 10-1: Alternatives, Mitigation and Conservation Options .......................................................................... 63 Table 10-2: Short-term, medium-term and long-term actions for Option 3 .......................................................... 67 FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location ...................................................................................................................................2 Figure 2: Location of Study Area in the City of Pickering, Ontario ........................................................................3 Figure 3: Map of Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................4 Figure 4: 1860 Tremaine’s Map of the County of Ontario, Canada West ............................................................ 21 Figure 5: 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario ..................................................................... 22 Figure 6: Location of the Study Area on 1914 NTS Map .................................................................................... 23 Figure 7: Location of the Study Area on 1922 NTS Map .................................................................................... 24 Figure 8: Location of the Study Area on 1943 NTS Map .................................................................................... 25 Figure 9: Location of the Study Area on 1954 Aerial Photograph ....................................................................... 26 Figure 10: Location of the Study Area on 2002 Aerial Photograph ..................................................................... 27 Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 ix APPENDICES APPENDIX A FGF Food Manufacturing Campus – Phase 2 Draft Plan of Subdivision dated June 20, 2024 APPENDIX B Built Heritage Assessment: 575 Highway 7 APPENDIX C Assessor Qualifications Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 1 1 INTRODUCTION WSP was retained by the Biglieri Group on behalf of Caplink Limited (the Client) to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the property located at 575 Highway 7 in the City of Pickering, Ontario (the subject property) (Figure 1 to Figure 3). The subject property was historically located in Lot 30, Concession V, Township of Pickering and now includes a one-and-a-half storey side gabled frame house with Gothic Revival exterior treatment (the Vardon House), constructed between 1850 and 1900, as well as a Central Ontario bank barn. The subject property is listed as a non-designated property on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register pursuant to Section 27 (1.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). The Client is proposing to develop property with the municipal addresses of 575, 625 and 685 Highway 7 for employment uses. As part of the proposed development, the Client intends to demolish the Vardon House and barn. On May 27, 2024, City Council approved the Draft Plan of Subdivision (City File No. SP-2023-03) and Zoning By-law Amendment (A 11/23) applications for Phase 2 of FGF Pickering Manufacturing Campus. The Phase 2 lands are approximately 36 hectares in size and located on the south side of Highway 7, east of North Road and north of Highway 407. The Draft approved Plan of Subdivision will create employment blocks, including six blocks for employment uses, two road widening blocks located along Highway 7 and North Road, and two new municipal roads (Wonder Drive and Stonefire Road). Item 57 of the Final Conditions of Approval dated April 19, 2024, requested the issuance of a revised HIA prior to final approval. This revised HIA addresses peer review comments received on the 2023 HIA. In March 2023, the subject property was transferred to: Caplink Limited 1295 Ormont Drive, Toronto, ON M9L 2W6 The subject property was previously owned by: Infrastructure Ontario Suite 2000, 1 Dundas Street West Toronto, ON, M5G 1Z3 This HIA has been structured to adhere to the City of Pickering’s Terms of Reference: Heritage Impact Assessments (City of Pickering 2022) and guidance provided in the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM) Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process (MCM 2006); the OHA; Section 2(d) of the Planning Act; and Section 2.6.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020). This document will provide: ▪ A background on the project and introduction to the development site; ▪ A description of the methodology used to investigate and evaluate the subject property; ▪ A summary of background research and analysis related to the subject property; ▪ An assessment of exterior existing conditions; ▪ An evaluation of the subject property for Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) and a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and list of heritage attributes, if applicable; ▪ A description of the proposed development and a summary of potentially adverse impacts; and, ▪ An assessment of alternative options, mitigation measures and conservation methods to be considered to avoid or limit negative impacts to the CHVI of the subject property. PA T H : S : \ C l i e n t s \ C a p L i n k _ L i m i t e d \ 5 7 5 _ H i g h w a y _ 7 \ 9 9 _ P R O J \ 2 3 1 - 0 0 1 9 3 - 0 0 \ 4 0 _ P R O D \ 0 0 0 1 _ H I A \ 2 3 1 - 0 0 1 9 3 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 - H C - 0 0 0 1 . m x d P R I N T E D O N : 2 0 2 4 - 0 8 - 2 7 A T : 6 : 3 5 : 3 0 P M IF T H I S M E A S U R E M E N T D O E S N O T M A T C H W H A T I S S H O W N , T H E S H E E T S I Z E H A S B E E N M O D I F I E D F R O M : A N S I B 25 m m 0 CAPLINK LIMITED 1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE 1. CONTAINS INFORMATION LICENSED UNDER THE OPEN GOVERNMENT LICENCE - ONTARIO 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 UTM ZONE 17N 3. IMAGERY: SOURCES: ESRI, HERE, GARMIN, INTERMAP, INCREMENT P CORP., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GEOBASE, IGN, KADASTER NL, ORDNANCE SURVEY, ESRI JAPAN, METI, HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 575 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING, ONTARIO PROJECT LOCATION 231-00193-00 0001 1 1 2024-08-27 ---- AS ---- CF PROJECT NO.CONTROL REV.FIGURE YYYY-MM-DD DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED NOTE(S) REFERENCE(S) CLIENT PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANT LEGEND WATERCOURSE RAILWAY STUDY AREA KEY MAP 1:500,000SCALE 1:15,000 METRES 0 300 600150 PA T H : S : \ C l i e n t s \ C a p L i n k _ L i m i t e d \ 5 7 5 _ H i g h w a y _ 7 \ 9 9 _ P R O J \ 2 3 1 - 0 0 1 9 3 - 0 0 \ 4 0 _ P R O D \ 0 0 0 1 _ H I A \ 2 3 1 - 0 0 1 9 3 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 - H C - 0 0 0 2 . m x d P R I N T E D O N : 2 0 2 4 - 0 8 - 2 7 A T : 6 : 3 7 : 1 3 P M IF T H I S M E A S U R E M E N T D O E S N O T M A T C H W H A T I S S H O W N , T H E S H E E T S I Z E H A S B E E N M O D I F I E D F R O M : A N S I B 25 m m 0 CAPLINK LIMITED 1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE 1. CONTAINS INFORMATION LICENSED UNDER THE OPEN GOVERNMENT LICENCE - ONTARIO 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 UTM ZONE 17N 3. IMAGERY: SOURCES: ESRI, HERE, GARMIN, INTERMAP, INCREMENT P CORP., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GEOBASE, IGN, KADASTER NL, ORDNANCE SURVEY, ESRI JAPAN, METI, HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 575 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING, ONTARIO LOCATION OF STUDY AREA IN THE CITY OF PICKERING,ONTARIO 231-00193-00 0001 1 2 2024-08-27 ---- AS ---- CF PROJECT NO.CONTROL REV.FIGURE YYYY-MM-DD DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED NOTE(S) REFERENCE(S) CLIENT PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANT LEGEND STUDY AREA 1:15,000 METRES 0 300 600150 KEY MAP 1:500,000SCALE BARN HOUSE HIGHWAY 7 PA T H : S : \ C l i e n t s \ C a p L i n k _ L i m i t e d \ 5 7 5 _ H i g h w a y _ 7 \ 9 9 _ P R O J \ 2 3 1 - 0 0 1 9 3 - 0 0 \ 4 0 _ P R O D \ 0 0 0 1 _ H I A \ 2 3 1 - 0 0 1 9 3 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 - H C - 0 0 0 3 . m x d P R I N T E D O N : 2 0 2 4 - 0 8 - 2 7 A T : 5 : 2 9 : 3 1 P M IF T H I S M E A S U R E M E N T D O E S N O T M A T C H W H A T I S S H O W N , T H E S H E E T S I Z E H A S B E E N M O D I F I E D F R O M : A N S I B 25 m m 0 CAPLINK LIMITED 1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE 1. CONTAINS INFORMATION LICENSED UNDER THE OPEN GOVERNMENT LICENCE - ONTARIO 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 UTM ZONE 17N 3. IMAGERY: © 2024 REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM; 2022 ORTHOPHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY © FIRST BASE SOLUTIONS INC.; © KING'S PRINTER FOR ONTARIO, 2024. HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 575 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING, ONTARIO EXISTING CONDITIONS 231-00193-00 0001 1 3 2024-08-27 ---- AS ---- CF PROJECT NO.CONTROL REV.FIGURE YYYY-MM-DD DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED NOTE(S) REFERENCE(S) CLIENT PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANT LEGEND STUDY AREA 1:600 METRES 0 10 205 Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 5 2 POLICY FRAMEWORK 2.1 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples On June 21st, 2021, the Canadian federal government enacted United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and confirmed that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Declaration - 2007) “must be implemented in Canada.” As a result, Indigenous peoples in Canada are recognized as having unique rights, including those that pertain to the conservation of Indigenous heritage. As per Articles 11 and 31 of the Declaration: 11. 1) Indigenous peoples have the right to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature. 31. 1) Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions. 2) In conjunction with Indigenous peoples, States shall take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these rights. These rights to historical sites, ceremonies, cultural traditions, etc. (collectively understood as Indigenous heritage) are pertinent to the land development process through Articles 25 and 26 of the Declaration, which state that: 25. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard. 26. 1) Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired. 2) Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired. 3) States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions, and land tenure systems of the Indigenous peoples concerned. 2.2 Regulatory Requirements 2.2.1 Planning Act and Provincial Planning Statement The Planning Act (1990) and the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) [Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), 2024] 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. Policies pertaining to Cultural Heritage and Archaeology are contained within Section 4.6 of the PPS. The property Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 6 does not contain a protected heritage property as defined in the 2024 PPS, as such, the below are provided for information purposes. 4.6.1. Protected heritage property, which may contain built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes, shall be conserved. 4.6.3. Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property unless the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. 2.2.2 Ontario Heritage Act The OHA gives municipalities and the provincial government powers to preserve the heritage of Ontario, with a primary focus on protecting heritage properties and archaeological sites. The OHA grants authority to municipalities and the province to identify and designate properties of heritage significance, provide standards and guidelines for the preservation of heritage properties and enhance protection of heritage conservation districts, marine heritage sites and archaeological resources. Properties can be designated individually (Part IV of the OHA) or as part of a larger group of properties, known as a Heritage Conservation District (Part V of the OHA). Designation offers protection for the properties under Sections 33 and 34 of the OHA, prohibiting the owner of a designated property from altering, demolishing or removing a building or structure on the property unless the owner applies to the council of the municipality and receives written consent to proceed with the alteration, demolition or removal. The Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, gives municipalities and the provincial government powers to protect heritage properties and archaeological sites (Government of Ontario 1990). The Ontario Heritage Act includes two regulations for determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI): O. Reg. 569/22 and O. Reg. 10/06. O. Reg. 569/22 provides criteria to determine the CHVI of a property at a local level while O. Reg. 10/06 provides criteria to determine if a property has CHVI of provincial significance. For this study, O. Reg. 569/22 is used to evaluate the Study Area at a local level. 2.2.2.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 The evaluation of cultural heritage resources is guided by Ontario Regulation 9/06 (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. 9/06 are: 1) The property has design or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, 4) The property has design or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or 5) The property has design or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 6) 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, 7) 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, or Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 7 8) 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. 9) The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, 10) The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or 11) The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. 2.2.2.2 Ontario Regulation 10/06 O. Reg. 10/06 provides the criteria to determine if a property has CHVI of provincial significance. This regulation was created in 2006 to be utilised to identify properties of provincial heritage significance under the Ontario Heritage Act. The criteria for determining CHVI of provincial significance under O. Reg. 10/06 include: 1) The property represents or demonstrates a theme or pattern in Ontario’s history. 2) The property yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of Ontario’s history. 12) The property demonstrates an uncommon, rare or unique aspect of Ontario’s cultural heritage. 13) The property is of aesthetic, visual or contextual importance to the province. 14) The property demonstrates a high degree of excellence or creative, technical or scientific achievement at a provincial level in a given period. 15) The property has a strong or special association with the entire province or with a community that is found in more than one part of the province. The association exists for historic, social, or cultural reasons or because of traditional use. 16) The property has a strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organization of importance to the province or with an event of importance to the province. 17) The property is located in unorganized territory and the Minister determines that there is a provincial interest in the protection of the property. 2.2.3 Envision Durham (2023) On September 3, 2024, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing approved the new Durham Region Official Plan “Envision Durham” (Durham Region 2023). The 2023 Official Plan contains goals and policies that guide long-term planning and development within the region. Chapter 3 of the Official Plan contains policies pertaining to built and cultural heritage for the region and encourage area municipalities to address cultural heritage resources in greater detail within their local official plans. 2.2.4 City of Pickering Official Plan The City of Pickering Official Plan (2018) provides cultural heritage conservation policies in Chapter 8. The following policies provide guidance for development proposals that may impact cultural heritage resources. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 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. Cooperation with Others 8.3 City Council shall: a) assist in identifying, protecting and promoting cultural heritage resources in the municipality, in cooperation with Federal, Provincial and Regional levels of government, as well as private agencies and individuals; b) consult with its local architectural conservation advisory committee and other heritage committees, and participate with these committees and others in protecting important heritage resources, as necessary, through assembling, resale, public-private partnerships, acquisition or other forms of involvement; c) ensure that plans, programs and strategies prepared by or for the City and its boards or commissions, shall respect the character and significance of the City’s heritage resources; and d) use and encourage the use of available government and non-government funding and programs to assist in cultural heritage resource conservation. Ontario Heritage Act 8.4 City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, where warranted shall implement the provisions of the OHA, including the designation under the Act of heritage sites and heritage districts. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 9 Cultural Heritage Inventory 8.7 City Council, in association with its heritage committee, shall: a) conduct an inventory of heritage resources owned by the City, its boards and commissions, and establish an overall program for the maintenance, use, reuse or, if warranted, disposal of these resources; b) maintain an inventory of heritage resources designated or worthy of designation under the OHA; and c) store and disseminate cultural heritage resource inventories and databases in convenient and publicly accessible locations and formats, and maintain an archive of heritage conservation information. Cultural Heritage Alteration and Demolition 8.8 City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, shall: a) allow alterations, additions or repairs to buildings designated under the OHA, provided the changes to the building do not detrimentally affect the heritage value; b) allow new buildings, or alterations, additions or repairs to existing buildings within a Heritage Conservation District that are consistent with the District Conservation Guidelines; c) discourage or prevent the demolition or inappropriate alteration of a heritage resource, but where demolition or inappropriate alteration is unavoidable: i) consider the acquisition and conservation of the resource; and ii) if acquisition is not possible, conduct a thorough review and documentation of the resource for archival purposes; and d) ensure that designated cultural heritage buildings, and other important cultural heritage resources that are vacant for an extended period of time are inspected regularly to discourage vandalism and monitor conformity with the City’s Maintenance and Occupancy By-law. Guidelines for Use and Reuse 8.9 City Council shall consider the following guidelines on the use and reuse of heritage resources: a) maintain, if possible, the original use of heritage structures and sites, and if possible, retain the original location and orientation of such structures; b) where original uses cannot be maintained, support the adaptive reuse of heritage structures and sites to encourage resource conservation; and c) where no other alternative exists for maintaining heritage structures in their original locations, allow the relocation of the structure to appropriate sites or areas. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 10 Documenting Former Built Heritage Resources 11.64 City Council requires that where preservation of a built heritage resource is not possible, new development shall document the historical context of the built heritage resource through one or more of the following techniques: a) the preservation and display of fragments of former buildings, structures and landscaping in their historic context; b) marking the traces of former locations, shapes and circulation lines of buildings, structures, travel routes and spaces; c) the display of graphic material describing the former structures and landscape complex; d) recall the former architecture, plan and landscaping in the new development; and e) the salvage of information through archaeological exploration and recording of buildings, structures and landscape through measured drawings and photogrammetry. 2.3 Guidance Documents The MCM’s Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process (2006) identifies HIAs as an important tool to evaluate built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes and to determine appropriate conservation options. The document identifies what an HIA should contain and any specific municipal requirements. To determine the effect that a proposed development or site alteration may have on a significant cultural heritage resource, this guidance document outlines seven potential direct or indirect impacts: ▪ Direct Impacts ▪ Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features; ▪ Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; ▪ Indirect Impacts ▪ Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden; ▪ Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; ▪ Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; ▪ A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; ▪ Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource. The MCM’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties (2007), provide guiding principles for the development of appropriate conservation or mitigation measures: Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 11 1) Respect for documentary evidence: Do not base restoration on conjecture. Conservation work should be based on historical documentation, such as historical photographs, drawings and physical evidence. 2) Respect for the original location: Do not move buildings unless there is no other means to save them. Site is an integral component of a building. Any change in site diminishes heritage value considerably. 18) Respect for historical material: Repair or conserve rather than replace building materials and finishes, except where absolutely necessary. Minimal intervention maintains the historical content of the resource. 19) Respect for original fabric: Repair with like materials, to return the resource to its prior condition without altering its integrity. 20) Respect for the building’s history: Do not restore to one period at the expense of another. Do not destroy later additions to a house solely to restore it to a single time period. 21) Reversibility: Alterations should be able to be returned to original conditions. This conserves earlier building design and technique. For instance, when a new door opening is put in a stone wall, the original stones are numbered, removed and stored, allowing for future restoration. 22) Legibility: New work should be distinguishable from old. Buildings should be recognized as products of their own time, and new additions should not blur the distinction between old and new. 23) Maintenance: With continuous care, future restoration will not be necessary. With regular upkeep, major conservation projects and their high costs can be avoided. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 12 3 PROJECT METHODOLOGY An HIA evaluates the proposed impact of development on the heritage attributes of a property of potential CHVI. This HIA is guided by the MCM Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process; the OHA; Section 2(d) of the Planning Act; Section 2.6.3 of the PPS, and the City of Pickering Terms of Reference: Heritage Impact Assessments (2022). To address the requirements of an HIA, this report provides the following information: ▪ A summary of the history of the immediate context informed by a review of archival sources and historical maps; ▪ Exterior and interior photographic documentation of the subject property, project location, and context; ▪ A written description of the existing conditions and context of the subject property; ▪ An evaluation of the subject property according to O. Reg. 9/06 and O. Reg. 10/06; ▪ Preparation of a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and list of heritage attributes, if applicable; ▪ A review of the proposed intervention; ▪ Identification of impacts; ▪ The identification and analysis of mitigation opportunities, as required; ▪ The preferred strategy recommended to best protect and enhance the CHVI and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource; and ▪ A summary statement and conservation recommendations. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 13 4 HISTORICAL CONTEXT 4.1 Indigenous History The cultural history of southern Ontario began approximately 11,000 years ago when the glaciers had melted, and the land was re-exposed. The land was quickly settled by bands of hunters and gatherers who are thought to have been large game hunters. This period is referred to as the Paleo-Indian Period and it is thought to have lasted until approximately 9,000 years ago. After 9,500 years ago, there was a long period when the climate was variable and the bare lands left by the glaciers were becoming re-forested, resulting in patchier, more diverse ecozones. This period is referred to as the Archaic Period and it is thought to have lasted until 3,000 years ago as people were adapting to diverse environmental settings. The Archaic adaptation is generally thought to have centered on localized resources, often forest resources, and groups of people are thought to have been less mobile, an adaptation that continued to develop until the arrival of Europeans. In southern Ontario, the Archaic Period is divided into the Early, Middle and Late Archaic. The Archaic Period is followed by the Woodland Period. The major technological change in the Early Woodland Period is the introduction of pottery. During this time, people are thought to have developed more community organization and the manufacture of clay pottery is thought to indicate less residential mobility. The Early Woodland Period transitioned into the Middle Woodland Period approximately 2,400 years ago. During the Middle Woodland Period in southern Ontario community and kin identity became more deeply entrenched, and more sedentary communities developed. By around 500 Common Era (CE), maize cultivation had been widely adopted in Ontario, marking the transition between the Middle Woodland and Late Woodland Periods. The Late Woodland Period saw the development of recognizable Iroquoian and Anishnaabe cultures in southern Ontario, as well as intensified cultivation of crops such as corn, beans, squash, sunflower and tobacco. Greater sedentism led to increasing settlement populations and greater complexity of settlement organization. Village sites dating to this time are often found on terraces overlooking the floodplains of large rivers, though settlements were also located near smaller watercourses. Iroquoian villages tended to be small, palisaded compounds with longhouses occupied by families. As the Late Woodland Period progressed, more intercommunity communication and integration became necessary to maintain the sedentary agricultural way of life. Later Iroquoian villages were larger and more heavily palisaded, and longhouses were larger also. Algonquian settlements tended to be less populous and temporary. When French explorers, missionaries, and fur traders arrived in southern Ontario in the early 17th century, they met diverse communities across the Great Lakes region, such as the nations of the Iroquoian Wendat (Huron), Attawandaron (Neutral), Tionnontaté or Khionontateronon (Petun), and Haudenosaunee (Six Nations), and Anishnaabe Ojibwe, Odawa, Nipissing, and Algonquin. Contact with Europeans disrupted the traditional Indigenous political dynamics, allegiances, and ways of life at different times and to varying degrees throughout Ontario. By the mid-17th century, European disease and conflict had driven the Wendat, Attawandaron, Tionnontaté or Khionontateronon from their traditional territories and they were forces to relocate to other regions as way of survival for their Nations. Indigenous lifeways adapted in complex and varied ways as European colonization intensified from the 18th century onwards, and after the British colonial regime gained control of Canada in 1763, Treaties were established between the Crown and Indigenous Nations for lands across Ontario. It is now recognized that the British —and later Canadian governments— and Indigenous Nations had different understandings of these treaties, but they remain legally binding agreements that “form the basis of the relationship between Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 14 Indigenous and non-Indigenous people” (Government of Ontario 2021). Presently, there are ongoing land claims between Indigenous Nations and the Government of Canada related to differing perspectives on treaty lands and traditional territory in Ontario (Sault 2021; Six Nations of the Grand River 2022; Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation 2022; and Haudenosaunee Confederacy 2022). Presently, Durham Region has developed the following land acknowledgement to recognize the traditional territory of Indigenous Nations who called, and still call, the land home before the arrival of settlers: "The Region of Durham exists on lands that the Michi Saagiig Anishinaabeg inhabited for thousands of years prior to European colonization. These lands are the traditional and treaty territories of the Nations covered under the Williams Treaties, including the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation, Alderville First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, and the Chippewa Nations of Georgina Island, Beausoleil and Rama. We honour, recognize, and respect Indigenous Peoples as rights holders and stewards of the lands and waters on which we have the privilege to live. In our efforts towards reconciliation, we continue to build and strengthen relationships with First Nations, as well as the large Métis communities and growing Inuit communities here in Durham. We commit to learning from Indigenous values and knowledge, building opportunities for collaboration, and recognizing that we are all connected”. (Durham Region 2023) 4.2 Pre-Confederation Treaties The subject property, located in the City of Pickering, is situated on the lands of the William Treaties and the Johnson-Butler Purchase. The Williams Treaties were signed in October and November of 1923 between the Crown and seven First Nations groups, including the Chippewa of Lake Simcoe (Beausoleil First Nation, Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, Chippewas of Rama First Nation) and the Mississauga of the north shore of Lake Ontario (Alderville First Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation, and Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation). The Williams Treaties were the last of the land cession treaties to be signed in Canada, which transferred over 20,000 square kilometers of land in south-central Ontario to the Crown. 4.3 Township survey and Settlement The District of Nassau, created in 1788, was one of four original districts dividing what is now the Province of Ontario. This district was later renamed the Home District, which stretched form the Trent River to Long Point and north to the Severn River. Over the following years these districts were divided until there were 20 districts in all. In 1853, Ontario County was separated from the United Counties of Ontario, York and Peel. In 1869, Ontario County was estimated at 360,000 acres with 210,000 acres of which were cleared and under cultivation (Conner and Coltson, 1869). By 1854, Ontario County included nine townships: Brock, Mara, Pickering, Rama, Reach, Scott, Thorah, Uxbridge, and Whitby. In the latter half of the nineteenth century the County was known for the quality of its grains and the principal manufactures were flour and lumber (Conner and Coltson, 1869). Ontario County was dissolved in 1974 and the Townships of Rama and Mara were added to Simcoe County. 4.3.1 Pickering Township Pickering Township was established in 1791 when Augustus Jones began to survey the area on behalf of the government of Upper Canada. The eastern part of the township was settled by Loyalists, disbanded soldiers, Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 15 emigrants from the United Kingdom, and a large number of Quakers from both Ireland and the United States (US) (Farewell, 1907). Loyalists and their relatives held the vast majority of land grants in Pickering Township in the years following the revolution (Johnson, 1973). By 1793, Kingston Road was opened to serve as a horse path extending east from Simcoe’s Dundas Street, and in 1799, a rough roadway had been cut from Duffin’s Creek to Port Hope. While early roadworks made the Township more accessible to prospective settlers, actual settlement of Pickering Township proceeded very slowly. Although the first land patent was awarded to Major John Smith in 1792, the first legal settler in Pickering was William Peak in 1798 (Armstrong, 1985; Farewell, 1907). Difficulty clearing the forest led Peak and other early settlers to pursue non-agricultural means to augment income, including trading with local Indigenous Peoples (Johnson, 1973). Population growth and township development remained slow during the early nineteenth century. The War of 1812 halted much of the county and township’s development. After the conflict, increased road traffic provided a boost in business to local innkeepers while soldiers worked to improve existing road conditions. With improved roadways, and a substantial water course in Duffin’s Creek, Pickering Township was soon able to establish saw and grist mills for the production of lumber and grain for export through Toronto. By 1817, the population was 330 (Johnson, 1973). Changes in land-granting policies in the early nineteenth century led to further sales of land in Pickering Township and by 1820 the population was 575 (Johnson, 1973), which grew to 830 by 1825 (Johnson, 1973). A post office was established in 1829 but the hamlet of Duffin's Creek developed slowly. That same year, the Crown worked with the New England Company, a missionary group, to encourage farming and education for the First Nations people. The community that is now known as Curve Lake First Nation was established (Curve Lake First Nation, n.d.). The construction of the Grand Trunk Railway in 1856 and growing agricultural prosperity stimulated the community's development as an important grist-milling and local commercial centre. However, Pickering Township was slow to develop. By 1861 growth had stalled and between 1861 and 1891 a decline in population occurred. Inflation and a depression between 1874-76 did little to help. The population of Pickering Township peaked at 8,002 in 1861 (Johnson, 1973) and by 1891 numbered 5,998 (Johnson, 1973). Through most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the township remained primarily agricultural. As many communities on the periphery of Toronto, development increased following the Second World War. Manufacturing companies also moved to the township following the construction of Highway 401 in the 1950s and in 1974 the township was divided into eastern and northern parts. In 1974, the villages of Brougham, Claremont, Green River, Greenwood and Whitevale amalgamated to become the Town of Pickering. In 2000, the Town became incorporated as a City. 4.3.2 Community of Whitevale Situated 1.3 km to the southwest of the subject property, the community of Whitevale was founded in 1820 by John Major who built a sawmill along Duffin’s Creek. The community as first known as Majorville as John Major and multiple members of his family lived on the surrounding properties. In 1845, Ira White arrived in Majorville and took over the sawmill. In 1855, the sawmill was purchased by his son, Truman. P. White, who also constructed a grist mill and a cooperage. In the same year, the community also constructed its first general store (Wood, 1911). He later constructed a planning factory in 1866, a brick woollen mill in 1867, and Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 16 a schoolhouse sometime later. Truman White became a central pillar of the community, and the small hamlet was named Whitevale after him. By 1874, Whitevale contained three general stores, three dressmakers, three gardeners, two shoemaker shops, two churches, two blacksmiths, two wagon shops, a stave and heading factory, a barrel factory, a wagon and carriage factory, a cheese factory, a merchant and tailoring firm, a butcher shop, a tinsmith shop, a school house, an undertakers, a harness shop, a grist mill, a brush factory, a grindstone factory, a barber shop, a post office, and a hotel (Wood, 1911; Whitevale, n.d.). The continued prosperity of Whitevale did not last and during the last quarter of the nineteenth century the community was struck by separate fires at the cooperage, the carriage factory, the public hall, planning mill, grist mill, and the woollen mill. These problems were compounded when Whitevale was bypassed by the Ontario-Quebec railway line, built in 1884 (Whitevale, n.d.). Whitevale remains as an unincorporated community of the City of Pickering. 4.3.3 Community of Green River Situated approximately 3 kilometres west of the subject property, the community of Green River was first settled by Benjamin Doten. Doten arrived in 1849 and established a wagon and blacksmith shop known as Dotenville Carriage Works. The Osburn, Rice, Runnals, Vardon, Ferrier, Turner, MacIntyre, Poucher, and the Winter families were among the early families to settle in Green River. William Barnes built a sawmill in 1857 and by 1870, he added a factory to produce tubs, fork and brush handles, and baskets. Edward and John Smith were an integral part of the development of Green River, in the early 1870s, they purchased a sawmill and restored it to working order, the also erected a grist mill, a store, and a public hall in the village; they also aided in the establishment of a post office in 1870 (Mika & Mika, 1981). In 1974, Green River was incorporated into the newly created Town of Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham. 4.4 Property History The Euro-Canadian land use history for 575 Highway 7, Pickering was produced using census returns, land registry records, city directories, historical mapping, and other primary and secondary sources, where available. The subject property is within Lot 30, Concession V, in the Geographic Township of Pickering, Ontario County. now the City of Pickering. The property history has been completed with land registry records, historical maps and census records. It should be noted that the absence of structures or other features shown on the historical maps does not preclude their presence on these properties. Illustrating all homesteads on the historical atlas maps would have been beyond the intended scope of the atlas and, often, homes were only illustrated for those landowners who purchased a subscription. The key information gathered from primary sources regarding the early history of the property includes: ▪ May 17, 1802: All 200 acres granted to Isabella Hill. ▪ November 28, 1816: All 200 acres were sold to James Tinline (Instrument No. 12947, Page 46). ▪ 1837: No occupants are listed for Lot 30, Concession V in the 1837 City of Toronto and the Home District Commercial Directory and Register (Walton, 1837). Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 17 ▪ September 4, 1841: Angelica Givins and others sold 200 acres to William Turner for £600.00 (Instrument No. 18802, Page 46). ▪ 1842: Robert and Thomas Vardon and their families arrived from New Brunswick in 1842 and settled on Lots 29 and 30, Concession V (Wood, 1911). ▪ October - November 1845: The north half of the lot was purchased by Thomas Vardon (Book 40, Instrument No. 25655, Page 46). Thomas went on to subdivide the north half of Lot 30, Concession V; the south half of the north half of the lot was sold to Robert Vardon on December 17, 1845 and the northwest corner of the lot was sold to the Municipal Council on November 5, 1844, no compensation is listed in the abstract book (Book 40, Instrument No. 26248 and 28470, Page 46). ▪ A school was located on the subject property, the exact date is unknown, however archival information suggested it was built between 1842 (Plate 1) and 1848. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 18 Plate 1: History of the Green River School, c. 1965 (Courtesy of the Pickering Public Library) The book Past Years in Pickering : Sketches of the History of the Community indicates: The first school in Section No. 11 (Green River) was built at Brunswick Hill in 1839 or the early thirties, the second about the year 1848 on Lot 30, Concession V. (Wood, p. 172) The Vardons, Turners and other New Brunswick families which settled in the neighbourhood were loyal Baptists, and as soon as possible secured the services of such ministers as were available. The first services were held in the School house on the corner of the Vardon farm. One of the earliest who ministered to them was Rev. Thomas Gostick, who, commencing with the year 1843, seems to have been for a time their regular pastor. In 1847, Thomas L. Davidson, a student of the Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 19 Canada Baptist College, Montreal, was called and soon after ordained. In that year also a chapel was erected on Brunswick Hill, and opened and dedicated on May 28th, 1848. The deacons at this time were William Winter, W. B. Clark and Robert Vardon. (Wood, p. 96) Roswell’s City of Toronto Directory and County of York for 1850-1851 (Armstrong, 1850) lists several occupants for Lot 30, Concession V, including Thomas Burton, Edward Evans, George Varden [sic] and Robert Varden [sic]. No information regarding the presence of structures is provided in the directory. The 1851 Agricultural Census lists Thomas Vardon as actively farming 50 acres of Lot 30, Concession V (Item No. 1413972, Page 277).Thomas Vardon and his wife Hannah aged 47 and 42 years respectively are enumerated in the 1851 Census. Thomas’s occupation is listed as a farmer, the census also notes that both Thomas and Hannah were born in New Brunswick and belong to the Baptist church. The Census also notes that the residence is noted as being outside of the village limits, no information regarding the house is provided in the Census (Item No. 1413988, Page 245). Original concession roads are illustrated on the 1860 Tremaine Map of Ontario County (Figure 4), including present-day Highway 7 and Whites Road, as are the settlements of Brunswick Hill and Brougham located north and east of the subject property, respectively. The lands surrounding the subject property constituted a rural landscape. The Tremaine map indicates that Lot 30 is divided into two 100 acre lots, with 575 Highway 7 located within the lot owned by T. Vardon. Two structures are illustrated within the subject property on the 1860 Tremaine Map, including the Vardon House and the schoolhouse, located at the northwest corner of the lot. The 1861 Census lists Thomas (56), Hannah (52) and their child, Thomas (19), as living in a one-and-a-half storey frame house. The census indicates that a single family was living in the house in 1861 (Item no. 1693980, Page 132). On December 11, 1866, 25 acres of the north half of the lot was sold by Thomas W. Vardon to Smith Vardon for $1,500. William H. Vardon purchased 25 acres (the north half of the north half of the lot), from Thomas W. Vardon (Instrument No. 28572 and 426, Page 46). Twenty-five acres of the north half of the north half of the lot were purchased by Simon Beattie from William H. Vardon on November 3, 1870 (Instrument No. 774, Page 46) and the remaining 25 acres of the north half of the north half were purchased by Edwin J. Vardon from Smith Sydney Vardon on February 7, 1871 (Instrument No. 858, Page 46). The 1871 lists Simon Beattie, a 43-year-old widow, from Scotland as belonging to the Presbyterian church. His children, Mary (8), Robert (2) and William (28), and two servants, William Jane and Elizabeth Sommerville are also listed (Item No. 649365, Page, 35). Beattie is also enumerated in the 1871 Head of Household Census (Item No. 257476, Page, 35). On May 4, 1875, Simon Beattie went on to sell 25 acres of the lot to David Brown (Instrument No. 2163, Page 46). On February 24, 1879, Robert Milne purchased the north quarter of the north half of the lot from Janet Brown (Instrument No. 3508, Page 46). One structure is illustrated on the 1877 Pickering Township Map (Figure 5), with D. Brown shown as owning 25 acres within Lot 30, Concession V. The schoolhouse is not illustrated on the 1877 map. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 20 A brick structure is shown on the 1914 NTS map, in the approximate location of the subject property (Figure 6). This likely a transcription error as previous census information denotes a frame structure on the subject property. The 1881 Census lists Robert Milne, aged 40, his wife Euphemia, aged 38 and their children George S. (8), Walter B. (6), Christina L. (4), Robert (2) and Arthur (8 months) as well as Christina Brown, a 70 year old widow (Item No. 3433104, Page 51). No information regarding the structure on the subject property is provided. The transactions in the Abstract Book are illegible between 1879 and 1921, however, based on subsequent, legible transactions, the Milne family owned the subject property until 1957. On June 22, 1921 the north half of Lot 30, Concession V was willed from Robert Milne to Euphemia Milne (Book 40, Instrument No. 4366, Page 146143). One hundred acres of Lot 30, Concession V was willed from Walter B. Milne on August 16, 1957, no recipient of the will is recorded in the Abstract Book (Book 40, Instrument No. 111316, Page 146). The structure is also present on the 1933 (Figure 7) and 1943 NTS maps (Figure 8), the maps, however, do not indicate building material. These maps show no change in the lands surrounding the subject property, as they continued to be rural in nature. All of Lot 30, Concession V was expropriated by the Crown and granted to the Ministry of Housing, Province of Ontario, on February 1, 1974 (Book 40, Page 146B). The lot is granted from the Ontario Land Corporation to Her Majesty The Queen in right of the Province of Ontario represented by the Minister of Transportation and communications for the Province of Ontario on March 13, 1982 (Book 40, Page 146C, Instrument D136577). A 1954 aerial photograph (Figure 9) of the subject property was reviewed, and while the quality of the photograph is poor, the house and the bank are visible. Development within the subject property between 1954 and 2002 was relatively slow. The 2002 aerial photograph (Figure 10) clearly shows the house and barn on the subject property; Highway 407 is also present, south of the subject property. By 2002, an extension of North Road was constructed south of Highway 7, near the western edge of the property. By this time Highway 407 was also constructed south of the property line. The majority of the lands adjacent to 575 Highway 7 remain under active cultivation. PA T H : S : \ C l i e n t s \ C a p L i n k _ L i m i t e d \ 5 7 5 _ H i g h w a y _ 7 \ 9 9 _ P R O J \ 2 3 1 - 0 0 1 9 3 - 0 0 \ 4 0 _ P R O D \ 0 0 0 1 _ H I A \ 2 3 1 - 0 0 1 9 3 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 - H C - 0 0 0 4 . m x d P R I N T E D O N : 2 0 2 4 - 0 8 - 2 7 A T : 5 : 2 9 : 4 0 P M IF T H I S M E A S U R E M E N T D O E S N O T M A T C H W H A T I S S H O W N , T H E S H E E T S I Z E H A S B E E N M O D I F I E D F R O M : A N S I B 25 m m 0 CAPLINK LIMITED 1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE 1. CONTAINS INFORMATION LICENSED UNDER THE OPEN GOVERNMENT LICENCE - ONTARIO 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 UTM ZONE 17N 3. TREMAINE, 1860 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 575 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING, ONTARIO 1860 TREMAINE'S MAP OF THE COUNTY OF ONTARIO, CANADAWEST 231-00193-00 0001 1 4 2024-08-27 ---- AS ---- CF PROJECT NO.CONTROL REV.FIGURE YYYY-MM-DD DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED NOTE(S) REFERENCE(S) CLIENT PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANT LEGEND STUDY AREA 1:15,000 METRES 0 300 600150 PA T H : S : \ C l i e n t s \ C a p L i n k _ L i m i t e d \ 5 7 5 _ H i g h w a y _ 7 \ 9 9 _ P R O J \ 2 3 1 - 0 0 1 9 3 - 0 0 \ 4 0 _ P R O D \ 0 0 0 1 _ H I A \ 2 3 1 - 0 0 1 9 3 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 - H C - 0 0 0 5 . m x d P R I N T E D O N : 2 0 2 4 - 0 8 - 2 7 A T : 5 : 2 9 : 4 6 P M IF T H I S M E A S U R E M E N T D O E S N O T M A T C H W H A T I S S H O W N , T H E S H E E T S I Z E H A S B E E N M O D I F I E D F R O M : A N S I B 25 m m 0 CAPLINK LIMITED 1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE 1. CONTAINS INFORMATION LICENSED UNDER THE OPEN GOVERNMENT LICENCE - ONTARIO 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 UTM ZONE 17N 3. J.H. BEERS & CO., 1877 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 575 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING, ONTARIO 1877 ILLUSTRATED HISTORICAL ATLAS OF THE COUNTY OFONTARIO 231-00193-00 0001 1 5 2024-08-27 ---- AS ---- CF PROJECT NO.CONTROL REV.FIGURE YYYY-MM-DD DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED NOTE(S) REFERENCE(S) CLIENT PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANT LEGEND STUDY AREA 1:15,000 METRES 0 300 600150 PA T H : S : \ C l i e n t s \ C a p L i n k _ L i m i t e d \ 5 7 5 _ H i g h w a y _ 7 \ 9 9 _ P R O J \ 2 3 1 - 0 0 1 9 3 - 0 0 \ 4 0 _ P R O D \ 0 0 0 1 _ H I A \ 2 3 1 - 0 0 1 9 3 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 - H C - 0 0 0 6 . m x d P R I N T E D O N : 2 0 2 4 - 0 8 - 2 7 A T : 5 : 2 9 : 5 2 P M IF T H I S M E A S U R E M E N T D O E S N O T M A T C H W H A T I S S H O W N , T H E S H E E T S I Z E H A S B E E N M O D I F I E D F R O M : A N S I B 25 m m 0 CAPLINK LIMITED 1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE 1. CONTAINS INFORMATION LICENSED UNDER THE OPEN GOVERNMENT LICENCE - ONTARIO 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 UTM ZONE 17N 3. DEPARTMENT OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE, 1914 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 575 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING, ONTARIO 1914 NATIONAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY MAP 231-00193-00 0001 1 6 2024-08-27 ---- AS ---- CF PROJECT NO.CONTROL REV.FIGURE YYYY-MM-DD DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED NOTE(S) REFERENCE(S) CLIENT PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANT LEGEND STUDY AREA 1:15,000 METRES 0 300 600150 PA T H : S : \ C l i e n t s \ C a p L i n k _ L i m i t e d \ 5 7 5 _ H i g h w a y _ 7 \ 9 9 _ P R O J \ 2 3 1 - 0 0 1 9 3 - 0 0 \ 4 0 _ P R O D \ 0 0 0 1 _ H I A \ 2 3 1 - 0 0 1 9 3 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 - H C - 0 0 0 7 . m x d P R I N T E D O N : 2 0 2 4 - 0 8 - 2 7 A T : 5 : 2 9 : 5 8 P M IF T H I S M E A S U R E M E N T D O E S N O T M A T C H W H A T I S S H O W N , T H E S H E E T S I Z E H A S B E E N M O D I F I E D F R O M : A N S I B 25 m m 0 CAPLINK LIMITED 1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE 1. CONTAINS INFORMATION LICENSED UNDER THE OPEN GOVERNMENT LICENCE - ONTARIO 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 UTM ZONE 17N 3. DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE, 1933 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 575 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING, ONTARIO 1933 NATIONAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY MAP 231-00193-00 0001 1 7 2024-08-27 ---- AS ---- CF PROJECT NO.CONTROL REV.FIGURE YYYY-MM-DD DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED NOTE(S) REFERENCE(S) CLIENT PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANT LEGEND STUDY AREA 1:15,000 METRES 0 300 600150 PA T H : S : \ C l i e n t s \ C a p L i n k _ L i m i t e d \ 5 7 5 _ H i g h w a y _ 7 \ 9 9 _ P R O J \ 2 3 1 - 0 0 1 9 3 - 0 0 \ 4 0 _ P R O D \ 0 0 0 1 _ H I A \ 2 3 1 - 0 0 1 9 3 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 - H C - 0 0 0 8 . m x d P R I N T E D O N : 2 0 2 4 - 0 8 - 2 7 A T : 5 : 3 0 : 0 3 P M IF T H I S M E A S U R E M E N T D O E S N O T M A T C H W H A T I S S H O W N , T H E S H E E T S I Z E H A S B E E N M O D I F I E D F R O M : A N S I B 25 m m 0 CAPLINK LIMITED 1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE 1. CONTAINS INFORMATION LICENSED UNDER THE OPEN GOVERNMENT LICENCE - ONTARIO 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 UTM ZONE 17N 3. DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE, 1943 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 575 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING, ONTARIO 1943 NATIONAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY MAP 231-00193-00 0001 1 8 2024-08-27 ---- AS ---- CF PROJECT NO.CONTROL REV.FIGURE YYYY-MM-DD DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED NOTE(S) REFERENCE(S) CLIENT PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANT LEGEND STUDY AREA 1:15,000 METRES 0 300 600150 PA T H : S : \ C l i e n t s \ C a p L i n k _ L i m i t e d \ 5 7 5 _ H i g h w a y _ 7 \ 9 9 _ P R O J \ 2 3 1 - 0 0 1 9 3 - 0 0 \ 4 0 _ P R O D \ 0 0 0 1 _ H I A \ 2 3 1 - 0 0 1 9 3 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 - H C - 0 0 0 9 . m x d P R I N T E D O N : 2 0 2 4 - 0 8 - 2 7 A T : 5 : 3 0 : 0 9 P M IF T H I S M E A S U R E M E N T D O E S N O T M A T C H W H A T I S S H O W N , T H E S H E E T S I Z E H A S B E E N M O D I F I E D F R O M : A N S I B 25 m m 0 CAPLINK LIMITED 1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE 1. CONTAINS INFORMATION LICENSED UNDER THE OPEN GOVERNMENT LICENCE - ONTARIO 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 UTM ZONE 17N 3. UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO MAP AND DATA LIBRARY HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 575 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING, ONTARIO 1954 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH 231-00193-00 0001 1 9 2024-08-27 ---- AS ---- EG PROJECT NO.CONTROL REV.FIGURE YYYY-MM-DD DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED NOTE(S) REFERENCE(S) CLIENT PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANT LEGEND STUDY AREA 1:15,000 METRES 0 300 600150 PA T H : S : \ C l i e n t s \ C a p L i n k _ L i m i t e d \ 5 7 5 _ H i g h w a y _ 7 \ 9 9 _ P R O J \ 2 3 1 - 0 0 1 9 3 - 0 0 \ 4 0 _ P R O D \ 0 0 0 1 _ H I A \ 2 3 1 - 0 0 1 9 3 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 - H C - 0 0 1 0 . m x d P R I N T E D O N : 2 0 2 4 - 0 8 - 2 7 A T : 5 : 3 0 : 1 4 P M IF T H I S M E A S U R E M E N T D O E S N O T M A T C H W H A T I S S H O W N , T H E S H E E T S I Z E H A S B E E N M O D I F I E D F R O M : A N S I B 25 m m 0 CAPLINK LIMITED 1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE 1. CONTAINS INFORMATION LICENSED UNDER THE OPEN GOVERNMENT LICENCE - ONTARIO 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 UTM ZONE 17N 3. GOOGLE HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 575 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING, ONTARIO 2002 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH 231-00193-00 0001 1 10 2024-08-27 ---- AS ---- ---- PROJECT NO.CONTROL REV.FIGURE YYYY-MM-DD DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED NOTE(S) REFERENCE(S) CLIENT PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANT LEGEND STUDY AREA 1:6,000 METRES 0 120 24060 Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 28 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject property at 575 Highway 7 is currently under active agricultural cultivation, on an approximately 16.4-hectare rectangular lot that includes a one-and-a-half storey frame building that has been modified to include Ontario Gothic detailing as well as one Central Ontario bank barn (Figure 3). The property is located on the south side of Highway 7, east of North Road and west of Whites Road in the City of Pickering. The property is bounded on the east and west by lands associated with the Seaton Natural Heritage System, by Highway 407 to the south, and agricultural land to the north. The residential building is oriented toward Highway 7 and the barn is located south of the residence. The following description of the subject property is based on the site visit conducted on April 6, 2023, by Emily Game, Cultural Heritage Specialist. Access to the project location was provided by the proponent, however, interior access to the residence was not granted, representing a limitation to the on-site investigation. 5.1 Residence The subject property includes a one-and-a-half storey Ontario Gothic Cottage with Neoclassical style influences, which is also known as the Vardon House. The house is set back from Highway 7 by approximately 30 metres and is oriented with its façade to Highway 7, slightly east of a straight, gravel driveway (Photograph 1 to Photograph 15). Constructed in between 1850 and 1900, the Vardon House was originally built to a rectangular plan, with one rear addition projecting from the south elevation. The main façade of the structure was likely modified at an unknown date to include elements of the Gothic Revival style including a gabled centre bay with a steeply pitched roof, board and batten siding, gingerbread scrollwork and finial and pendant in the gable. The foundation material consists of board-formed concrete, and the foundation appears to be raised. This concrete foundation is likely a replacement for the original stone foundation. The one-and-a-half storey rear addition has a gable roof and concrete foundation. The west elevation is clad in board and batten, and the east and south elevations are clad in horizontal vinyl siding. 5.1.1 North Elevation (Front Façade) The symmetrical three-bay north elevation represents the building’s main façade (Photograph 1). The structure, finished in wood board and batten siding, is set at grade. The side gable roof is clad in asphalt shingles. The entrance to the house is located within a projecting bay with a steeply pitched roof. In keeping with the Ontario Gothic Cottage style, a round headed window is located in the central gable peak. The central gable peak features delicate gingerbread scroll work with a drooped shape and a simple finial. The entrance is highlighted by a door casing reflective of the Neoclassical style featuring flat wood pilasters with a simple block base, topped with a decorative entablature (Photograph 2). A panelled door is located within the surround that has two panels with rounded tops, mimicking the shape of the windows in the gable end (Photograph 3). The entrance is flanked by a pair of rectangular window openings with simple wood surrounds and plain wood sills. The original six-over-six double-hung sash windows have been replaced with new vinyl inserts. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 29 5.1.2 East Elevation The original portion of the residence’s east elevation is two-bays and organized asymmetrically (Photograph 5 and Photograph 6). The gable peak of the roof features delicate gingerbread scroll work with a simple finial. An interior brick chimney projects from the gable peak and a stainless steel stove pipe projects from an opening in the northside of the foundation and travels up the elevation beyond the roofline. The upper storey includes a pair of rectangular window openings with simple wood surrounds and plain wood sills with new vinyl inserts. One larger rectangular window is located on the south side of the lower level of the elevation and also features simple wood surrounds and a plain wood sill with new vinyl insert. One rectangular window is located in the south side of the board-formed concrete foundation. The east elevation of the rear one-and-a-half storey addition is one bay and includes a small rectangular window opening below the roofline. One larger, three-paned, rectangular window is located on the lower level of the elevation and features simple wood surrounds and a plain wood sill with a new vinyl insert (Photograph 7). 5.1.3 South Elevation The original portion of the south elevation is largely obscured by the one-and-a-half storey addition projecting to the rear (Photograph 8 and Photograph 9). The original elevation (Photograph 10) includes one small square window opening with a plain wood sill below the roofline and one door opening at the main level (Photograph 11). Both the window and door include simple wood surrounds. The window is a replacement unit and a wood panel door with a large lite is located behind an aluminium storm door. The south elevation of the one-and-a-half storey addition features a gable roofline with one rectangular window opening and a door opening on the upper level. Both appear to be contemporary replacements and include simple wood surrounds. The lower half of the door is blocked by a utilitarian wood railing. The lower level of the elevation is composed of an enclosed wood frame porch with a slopped roof and large plate glass windows. The enclosed porch is accessed from the east via a wood panel door with four lites. 5.1.4 West Elevation The original portion of the residence’s west elevation is two-bays and organized asymmetrically (Photograph 12 and Photograph 13). Like the east elevation, the gable peak of the roof features delicate gingerbread scroll work with a simple finial. The upper storey includes a pair of rectangular window openings with simple wood surrounds and plain wood sills with new vinyl inserts (Photograph 14). One larger rectangular window is located on the north side of the lower level of the elevation that also features simple wood surrounds and a plain wood sill with a replacement unit (Photograph 15). The south side of the lower level includes a door opening with simple wood surrounds. Two rectangular windows are located in the board-formed concrete foundation. The west elevation of the rear one-and-a-half storey addition is also asymmetrically designed and includes two small rectangular window openings below the north side of the roofline and one larger rectangular window is located on the lower level of the elevation and features simple wood surrounds and a plain wood sill with a new vinyl insert. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 30 Photograph 1: Façade (north elevation) of the Vardon House Photograph 2: Detail of door surround Photograph 3: Detail of window on projecting bay Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 31 Photograph 4: Three-quarter view of the north and east elevations Photograph 5: East elevation of house at 575 Highway 7 Photograph 6: East elevation of original portion of house Photograph 7: East elevation of addition Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 32 Photograph 8: Three-quarter view of the east and south elevations Photograph 9: South elevation of the house Photograph 10: Detail of original portion of the south elevation Photograph 11: Detail of door opening in original portion of the south elevation Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 33 Photograph 12: Three-quarter view of the south and west elevations Photograph 13: West elevation of the house Photograph 14: Detail of joining of original portion of house and rear addition on the west elevation Photograph 15: Detail of window opening in original portion of the west elevation 5.2 Barn 5.2.1 Barn Exterior The barn on the subject property is oriented east to west, it retains its original rectangular plan and was built into the natural topography of the lot, which slopes to the south. As such, entrances to the barn are provided on both the north (banked) and south eave-sides, with access to the upper level for crop and implement storage and working space provided on the north elevation, and access to the lower stable area provided via the south and west elevations. The foundation of the barn consists of fieldstone (Photograph 16). The barn is clad in vertical wood boards and features a gambrel roof clad in sheet metal. Four evenly spaced lightening rods are present on the ridgeline. The north elevation contains large sliding wood doors roughly in the centre of the elevation (Photograph 17). Two windows and one door are also extant on the lower level of the north elevation. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 34 The east elevation of the barn contains two windows in the lower level, a door which provides access to the threshing floor and one door on the west gable which provides access to the hay mow (Photograph 18). The window openings on the east façade and portions of the foundation have been reinforced with new concrete. The south elevation of the barn is partially obscured by a large frame addition. The upper level of the western half of the barn is clad in new plywood, while the remaining elevation is clad in vertical boards. It appears there was at least one opening on the upper level of the barn. The lower level of the barn contains two door openings and two window openings (Photograph 19 and Photograph 20). The lower level of the west façade contains one paneled door and three small windows. The door opening is reinforced with new concrete. With the exception of two windows in the lower level, there are no intentional openings on the upper levels on the east elevation (Photograph 21). Photograph 16: Detail of fieldstone foundation Photograph 17: North (banked) elevation of the barn Photograph 18: East elevation of the barn Photograph 19: South elevation of the barn Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 35 Photograph 20: South façade of the barn Photograph 21: West elevation of the barn 5.2.2 Barn Interior The barn interior is divided into two levels; the lower stable level and the threshing floor.0F 1 The lower level of the barn is accessed by doors on the south elevation, one on the north elevation as well as one door on the west elevation. The animal stalls that once divided the lower level have been removed and the lower level consists of two rooms. Large hand-hewn timbers and uncut logs support the upper storey (Photograph 22 to Photograph 24). The threshing floor of the barn is accessed via an earthen ramp on the north façade. The threshing floor is open except for a granary at the western end of the barn, which is divided into several rooms for storage (Photograph 25 to Photograph 28). The construction method is exposed inside the barn and demonstrates typical large timbers with evidence of hand-hewing, and mortise and tenon and tree nail construction. Photograph 22: Lower level of the barn Photograph 23: Lower level of the barn 1 Photographs of the threshing floors of the barn were taken from window, door and wall openings. Portions of the lower levels of the structure were accessed only where it was deemed safe to do so. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 36 Photograph 24: Hand-hewn beams in lower level Photograph 25: Threshing floor of the barn Photograph 26: Threshing floor of the barn Photograph 27: Granary in western end of the barn Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 37 Photograph 28: Detail of treenails used in construction of framing 5.3 Landscape Conditions The subject property consists of a 16.4-hectare rectangular lot with a generally flat topography, while the surrounding lands are actively farmed. The built elements of the property include a one-and-a-half storey frame residence and one large bank barn (Photograph 29). The residence is setback from Highway 7 approximately 30 metres, and the barn has an approximately 68 metre set back. The property is accessed via a straight gravel drive that connects Highway 7 to the cluster of buildings (Photograph 30). Mature coniferous and deciduous trees are located on either side of the driveway. The house is surrounded by a manicured grass law, dotted with mature trees and has open views to the surrounding agricultural fields and to Highway 7 (Photograph 31). A number of mature trees are located around the cluster of buildings and line the boundary of the agricultural fields to the east, south, and west. The lands east, west, and south of the residence and barn are comprised of agricultural fields (Photograph 32). Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 38 Photograph 29: View to property, including house, barn and mature trees Photograph 30: View down straight gravel drive that connects Highway 7 to cluster of buildings Photograph 31: Manicured lawn south of residence Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 39 Photograph 32: View to surrounding agricultural fields 5.4 Property Context The subject property is located in an evolving portion of the City of Pickering that was historically characterized by nineteenth century agricultural farmsteads. Today the subject property is surrounded by agricultural fields proposed for development (Photograph 32). A nineteenth century farmstead with twentieth century modifications (745 Highway 7) (Photograph 33), is located 750 metres east of the subject property. The demolition of 745 Highway 7 is proposed as part of this development. While there are no other structures immediately adjacent to the subject property, the Green River Baptist Cemetery is located north east of the subject property. Highway 407 is located approximately 480 metres south of the residence (Photograph 34). There are no listed or designated heritage properties adjacent to the subject property. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 40 Photograph 33: Main façade of 745 Highway 7, west of the subject property Photograph 34: Green River Baptist Cemetery 5.5 Architectural Style 5.5.1 Ontario Gothic Revival The property at 575 Highway 7 is an example of a side gabled frame house built in Ontario Gothic Cottage style. The Ontario Gothic Cottage style is a subset of the Gothic Revival architectural style. Gothic Revival style reflected a renewed interest in the building forms and styles of the English Gothic period. Gothic Cottages in Ontario date from the early nineteenth century but accelerated in popularity when landscape designers such as J.C. Loudon and A.J. Downing and The Canada Farmer promoted the style in 1864. The February 1864 edition of The Canada Farmer offered two small one-storey cottage designs (Plate 2 and Plate 3). In November of the same year a larger one-and-a-half storey design was offered (Plate 4 to Plate 6). These were not new or revolutionary designs, but through The Canada Farmer they caught the attention of a wide audience. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 41 Plate 2: "A Small Gothic Cottage – Front Elevation" (The Canada Farmer, 1864, Vol. 1, No. 2, P. 21) Plate 3: "A Small Gothic Cottage, Ground Plan" (The Canada Farmer, 1864, Vol. 1, No. 2, P. 21) Plate 4: "A Cheap Farm House – Front Elevation" (The Canada Farmer, 1864, Vol. 1, No. 22, P. 340) Plate 5: "A Cheap Farm House – Section" (The Canada Farmer, 1864, Vol. 1, No. 22, P. 340) Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 42 Plate 6: "A Cheap Farm House – Ground and Attic Plan" (The Canada Farmer, 1864, Vol. 1, No. 22, P. 341) 5.5.1.1 Comparative Analysis A comparative analysis was undertaken to establish a baseline understanding of similar recognized rural heritage properties in the City of Pickering, to determine if the subject property “is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method” as described in O. Reg. 9/06. Comparative examples were drawn from Part IV designated and listed, non-designated properties within the City of Pickering. Residential dwellings were selected from this data set, with a focus on buildings of similar age, style, typology and material. Three comparable designated properties and one listed property was identified within the City (Table 5-1). Given that a large number of stylistically similar structures are not visible from the public right of way, this analysis does not represent all available properties, but the examples are intended to provide a representative sample of similar building typologies. Of these examples, the following architectural elements characteristic of the Gothic Revival Ontario Cottage style were observed: ▪ Type: All four are residential examples of Ontario Gothic Cottages, with one example exhibiting Georgian influences. ▪ Plan: All examples are built to a rectangular plan. ▪ Height: Each example is one-and-a-half storeys. ▪ Roof: All examples have side gable roofs with central gable peaks. One example has decorative gingerbread scrollwork in the central gable peak. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 43 ▪ Construction Material: Three examples are stone and one is dichromatic brick. ▪ Facade: Three of the examples are three-bays wide, one is five-bays wide, and all have symmetrical facades. ▪ Chimneys: Three examples have twin brick chimneys and one example does not have a chimney. ▪ Main Entrance: All examples have central front doors; two examples have both transoms and sidelights; two examples have just sidelights; and one example has a later addition of a covered porch obscuring the entrance details. ▪ Windows: All examples have rectangular window openings. Two examples have six-over-six wood windows and two examples have replacement windows. Three examples have a Gothic arch window in the central gable peak and one example has a Palladian window. ▪ Decorative elements: One example includes decorative dichromatic brick detail and another example features intricately patterned, roughly squared stone work and detailing. ▪ Alterations: Although it is difficult to confirm when viewed from the public ROW, it appears that all examples have received a rear addition. Once example is now vacant and some original windows have been removed, and the central entrance of one example has been enclosed. This comparative analysis suggests that the residence on the subject property at 575 Highway 7 demonstrates representative elements of the Ontario Gothic Cottage style including the: one-and-a-half storey height; rectangular plan and symmetrical three-bay façade; side gable roof; central gable peak with a window and decorative gingerbread scrollwork; and the central entrance. Constructed between 1850 and 1900, the structure appears to be a rare example of a board and batten clad Ontario Gothic Cottage in the City of Pickering, making the Vardon House one of the earliest structures in the area retaining its original exterior form. As such, when comparing the expression of the style at 575 Highway 7 to other local examples, it is unique in its board and batten cladding, wood door entablature, and fine gingerbread scrollwork detailing. It is acknowledged that the small number of examples reviewed means that this comparative analysis could be misleading. It was also challenging to fully assess the architectural details of each structure from the public ROW. As such, the cultural heritage evaluations included in Section 7 have not only considered the results of this comparative analysis, but typical architectural trends across Ontario. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 44 Table 5-1: Comparative analysis of heritage properties of a similar age, style and/or typology Address Recognition Photograph Age Material Style 2319 Wildwood Crescent (formerly 2101 Valley Farm Road; Palmer Voss House) Designated Part IV (By-law 5573/99) (TRREB, 2023) 1850-1870 Stone The stone house was built in two stages, the first part during the 1850s and the second part in approximately 1870. The house is a vernacular example of the Gothic Revival architectural style with a centre gable, pointed arch window and decorative gable finials, pendants and curvilinear vergeboard as well as twin brick chimneys. 2865 Sideline 16 (Walter Percy House) Designated Part IV (By-law 7346/14) (DurhamRegion.com, 2014) 1875-1885 Stone The Ontario Gothic Cottage is one-and-a-half storeys with a symmetrical three-bay façade constructed of intricately patterned, roughly squared stone work and detailing. It features a side gable roof with a central gable peak with a Gothic arched window with a stone voussoir and twin brick chimneys. The other window openings are segmentally arched and a centrally placed entrance includes a transom window. The residence includes a rear addition. 940 Whitevale Road (William Major House) Designated Part IV (By-law 7594/17) (LSHC, 2015) 1850-1860 Stone The William Major House is a stone Georgian style dwelling with Gothic Revival influences, reflecting the transition between the two styles in the mid-nineteenth century. It features a low- pitched gable roof with twin brick chimneys; a five-bay, symmetrical façade; a wide, central doorcase with transom and sidelights; a heavily molded door; Classical detailing such as the overhanging molded cornice, plain, wide frieze, and returned eaves; and a central, Palladian window. The residence includes a rear addition. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 45 Address Recognition Photograph Age Material Style 4585 Sideline 20 Listed (Google Street View©) 1860-1900 Brick The Ontario Gothic Cottage is one-and-a-half storeys with a symmetrical three-bay façade with dichromatic brick cladding and detailing. It features a side gable roof with a central gable peak with a Gothic arched window. The other window openings are segmentally arched and a centrally placed entrance is enclosed. The residence includes a rear addition. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 46 5.5.2 Central Ontario Barn The barn at 575 Highway 7 is a representative example of a Central Ontario style barn, a common design in southern Ontario dating to the last quarter of the nineteenth century (Ennals, 1972). The construction date of the barn is thought to date to roughly the same time period of the house, between 1861-1881, which is consistent with the building style and development history of the property. The Central Ontario barn is distinguished by its large size, usually 40-50 feet in width and 60-100 feet in length built to a rectangular plan and is most often constructed of wood on a stone foundation with a gable or gambrel roof (Ennals, 1972). The two roof styles associated with the Central Ontario barn are indicative of the period of construction. Gable roofs were used up to about 1880, after which gambrel roofs were introduced. The barn on the subject property features a gambrel roof, which supports its estimated construction date prior to 1881 (Ennals, 1972). The gambrel roof was a design element adopted from Dutch style barns for functional reasons as it significantly increased the storage capacity of the loft. This was an important development as farmers began to practice mixed farming after 1880 and needed to store more feed to maintain their growing herds of livestock. The Central Ontario barn style is two storeys with a lower stable area and an upper level for crop and implement storage and working space. Access to the ground floor is provided by doorways leading to the farmyard and entry to the upper level is by means of an earth ramp leading to a large door in the eave-side (long side) (Ennals, 1972). The large double door and height of the second floor allowed wagons and machinery to be brought in for unloading and repair. This type of barn is known as a bank barn in southern Ontario. As is the case with the subject property, the barn is often set into a slope so that the upper level can be entered directly from the top of the slope. Typical of the Central Ontario barn, the second level is often constructed of heavy timber frames or “bents” and includes a drive-floor, which would serve as a work space and tool and machine storage; a granary (a room or series of rooms facing onto a passageway set at right angles to the drive floor); and an area for hay, straw, grain and crop storage (Ennals, 1972). The lower level would serve as a stable arranged to accommodate stalls for horses and livestock and may include space for root crop storage. The animals and water supply on the ground floor were protected in the winter by the hay insulation on the second floor, which preserved the animal’s body heat. Silos began to appear on Ontario farms in the 1870s to provide better storage for the grains and corn needed to feed the livestock (Kyles, 2016). First these silos were constructed of concrete block, then poured concrete, and later metal, which provided a more efficient curing environment (Kyles, 2016). 5.5.2.1 Comparative Analysis – Bank Barn at 575 Highway 7 A comparative analysis was undertaken to establish a baseline understanding of similar recognized mid-to- late nineteenth century Central Ontario style barns in the City of Pickering to determine if the barn at 575 Highway 7 “is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method” as described in O. Reg. 9/06. Upon a review of the City’s Heritage Properties Register, only one comparative example of a Part IV designated property containing a Central Ontario barn was identified in the municipality, making it challenging to compare contextually appropriate properties with recognized CHVI. Given the lack of Part IV designated barns within the City of Pickering, this O. Reg. 9/06 evaluation has also considered barn trends across Southern Ontario, rather than only locally within the City of Pickering (Table 5-2). Moreover, while some barns would inevitably be included on non-designated properties included on the Register, these were Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 47 not readily identified, nor would a review of barns (which are often well set back) from the public right-of-way provide a reliable comparative analysis, making it challenging to compare contextually appropriate properties with recognized CHVI. This analysis does not represent all available properties, rather the examples are intended to provide a representative sample of similar building typologies. Of these three examples, all are expressions of Central Ontario barns built in the mid-to-late nineteenth century. The following architectural elements characteristic of Central Ontario barns in the City of Pickering were observed: ▪ Style: All three examples are bank barns with two levels, each accessed from ground-level. Two of the barns appear characteristically large. ▪ Plan: The original portion of each example appears to have been built to a rectangular plan. ▪ Roof: Three examples have a gable roof, one has a gambrel roof. All feature roofs clad in sheet metal. ▪ Cladding: All three examples are clad in wood barn board, and one appear to have been painted. ▪ Fieldstone Foundations: Each example has a fieldstone foundation. ▪ Silos: One example includes a silo on the property. ▪ Landscape: All examples appear to be a component of an agricultural landscape. ▪ Alterations: Although it is difficult to confirm when viewed from the public ROW, it appears that all examples have undergone alterations through large and small additions, likely reflective of the evolving use of the structures for agricultural purposes through the decades. This comparative analysis suggests that the barn at 575 Highway 7 is a representative expression of the Central Ontario barn style. In assessing the architectural elements of the subject property reflective of the style, those observed include: the banked access and two storey height; original rectangular plan; wood barn board cladding; the gambrel roof clad in sheet metal; granite and fieldstone foundations; and the silos. It is acknowledged that the small number of examples reviewed means that this comparative analysis could be misleading. It was also challenging to fully assess the architectural details of each comparative structure from the public ROW. As such, the cultural heritage evaluations included in Section 7 have not only considered the results of this comparative analysis, but typical architectural trends across Ontario. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 48 Table 5-2: Comparative analysis of barns of a similar age, style and/or typology Address Recognition Photograph Age Material Style 1860 Seventh Concession Road (Thistle Ha’ Farm) Designated Part IV of the OHA (By-Law 2140/86), National Historic Site, protected by a heritage conservation easement agreement with the OHT No photo available n/a Stone foundation, timber frame, clad in board and batten Mid-nineteenth century bank barn; rectangular plan; two storeys; gambrel roof; wood-frame construction with board; sheathing metal roof; fieldstone foundation; surviving evidence of a silo, component of an agricultural landscape. 13831, Leslie Street, Aurora, Ontario Part IV Designated (By-law 4729-05) c. 1840 Stone foundation, timber frame, clad in board and batten Mid-nineteenth century bank barn; rectangular plan; two storeys; gable roof; clad in board and batten; stone foundation. 748 Zeller Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Part IV Designated (By-law 98-177) c. 1870 Stone foundation, timber frame, clad in board and batten Late-nineteenth century bank barn; rectangular plan; two storeys; gable roof; clad in board and batten; stone foundation. 536 County Road 18, Fergus, Ontario National Historic Site of Canada No photo available 1877 Stone foundation, timber frame, clad in board and batten. Late-nineteenth century bank barn; rectangular plan; two storeys; gable roof; clad in board and batten; stone foundation; earthen ramp leading to sliding doors. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 49 6 CONSULTATION 6.1 City of Pickering The City of Pickering’s Senior Planner – Heritage was contacted via email on April 28, 2023, to inquire about heritage interests related to the subject property at 575 Highway 7 and to confirm the scope of this HIA. A response was received the same day confirming the following: ▪ 575 Highway 7 is a listed, non-designated property on the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register, its heritage value description is as follows: ▪ 575 Highway 7 Vardon Family Home: Built in 1853, Farmstead, Gothic Revival cottage For information, the Senior Planner shared a link to the City’s Municipal Heritage Register and the Seaton Built Heritage Assessment: Prepared for the North Pickering Land Exchange Team, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Planning and Development Division (Scheinman, 2004). A copy of the Seaton ’04 Built Heritage Assessment for 575 Highway 7 is located in Appendix A. The City of Pickering Official Plan was reviewed and it was confirmed that 575 Highway 7 is not located within an identified Cultural Heritage Landscape. 6.2 Federal and Provincial Review The MCM’s list of Heritage Conservation Districts was reviewed, and the study area was not found to be located within a designated district (MCM, 2019). The Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) plaque database was searched, as was the Federal Canadian Heritage Database. The subject property is not commemorated with an OHT plaque nor recognized with a federal heritage designation. It also does not appear that 575 Highway 7 is subject to an OHT conservation easement. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 50 7 DISCUSSION OF INTEGRITY In a heritage conservation context, the concept of integrity is linked not with structural condition, but rather to the literal definition of “wholeness” or “honesty” of a place. The MCM Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process (Government of Ontario 2014:13) and Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Property Evaluation (Government of Ontario 2006:26) both stress the importance of assessing the heritage integrity in conjunction with evaluation under O. Reg. 9/06 yet provide no guidelines for how this should be carried out beyond referencing the US National Park Service Bulletin 8: How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property (US NPS n.d.). In this latter document, integrity is defined as ‘the ability of a property to convey its significance’, so can only be judged once the significance of a place is known. Other guidance suggests that integrity instead be measured by understanding how much of the asset is “complete” or changed from its original or “valued subsequent configuration” (English Heritage 2008:45; Kalman 2014:203). Kalman’s Evaluation of Historic Buildings, for example, includes a category for “Integrity” with sub-elements of “Site”, “Alterations”, and “Condition” to be determined and weighted independently from other criteria such as historical value, rather than linking them to the known significance of a place. Kalman’s approach is selected here and combined with research commissioned by Historic England (The Conservation Studio, 2004), which proposed a method for determining levels of change in conservation areas that also has utility for evaluating the integrity of individual structures. The results for the property are presented in Table 7-1, and are considered when determining the CHVI of the property (see Section 8). Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 51 Table 7-1: Heritage Integrity Analysis for the Subject Property ELEMENT ORIGINAL MATERIAL / TYPE ALTERATION SURVIVAL RATING COMMENT Setting Rural with two lane (one in each direction) roads and farmhouses, outbuilding complexes, and agricultural lands on larger lots Highway 407, constructed south of the residence, has bisected Lot 30, Concession V in an east to west direction. Several warehouse buildings have been Draft Plan of Subdivision approved. 80% Very good Despite the current development of warehouse facilities east of the subject property, the presence Highway 407 south of the subject property maintains the rural character of the surrounding area, including active agricultural fields and stands of mature trees. Site location Set back and facing the nearest road Farmhouse: no alterations Barn 1: no alterations 100% Very good No additional comments Footprint Farmhouse: rectangular Barn: rectangular Farmhouse: south addition Barn: no change 100% Very good The rear wing on the farmhouse appears to be original to the farmhouse. The south addition to the farmhouse does obscure part of the south façade but has not impacted the front façade. Wall Farmhouse: Frame construction Barn: timber frame construction Farmhouse: no change Barn: no change 100% Very good No additional comments Foundation Farmhouse: possibly fieldstone Barn: granite Farmhouse: Board-formed concrete Barn: repairs to the foundation using concrete and fieldstone 40% Good The original foundation of the house has been removed and replaced with a foundation constructed of board-formed concrete. The foundation also appears to be raised. Note that this rating refers to heritage integrity, not structural integrity Exterior doors Farmhouse: panelled wood Barn: vertical board Farmhouse: the panelled wood doors appear to be original to the house Barn: some vertical boards may have been replaced 95% Very good No additional comments Windows Farmhouse: wood Barn: wood Farmhouse: Majority of the windows have been replaced with new vinyl sash, three round headed windows remaining Barn: retains all of the original wood windows, the glass however, is broken in some 30% Poor No additional comments Roof Farmhouse: possibly wood shingle Barn: possibly wood shingle Farmhouse: original replaced in asphalt shingle Barn: reclad in metal 0% Poor No additional comments Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 52 ELEMENT ORIGINAL MATERIAL / TYPE ALTERATION SURVIVAL RATING COMMENT Chimneys Farmhouse: two interior chimneys Barn: n/a Farmhouse: the double chimneys have been removed 0% Poor No additional comments Water systems Farmhouse: unknown, possibly copper Barn: unknown Farmhouse: all water systems replaced Barn: unknown 0% Poor No additional comments Exterior decoration Farmhouse: Board and batten siding, gingerbread scrollwork and finial and pendant in the gable. Barn: vertical board Farmhouse: no changes Barn: no changes 100% Very good No additional comments Exterior additions Farmhouse: Addition on south elevation Barn: no known additions Farmhouse: south addition Barn: addition in severe state of disrepair, but likely no original to the barn 70% Very good The rear wing on the farmhouse appears to be original to the farmhouse. Landscape features Domestic yard and farmyard features No significant alterations to domestic yard, or farmyard features and fields. 100% Very Good The property’s landscape features have not been significantly altered through the 21st century AVERAGE OF RATE OF CHANGE/HERITAGE INTEGRITY 63% Good Rating of Good is based on original element survival rate of between 51 to 75% Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 53 8 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION 8.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation The principal built heritage resources on the subject property at 575 Highway 7 are a one-and-a-half storey side-gable Ontario Gothic Cottage house and a Central Ontario bank barn. The property is a listed, non- designated property on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register. O. Reg. 9/06 (as amended by O. Reg. 569/22) of the OHA provides criteria for determining whether a property has CHVI. If a property meets one or more of the criteria in O. Reg. 9/06, it is eligible for designation under the OHA. Table 8-1presents the evaluation of the subject property using O. Reg. 9/06. Table 8-1: Evaluation of 575 Highway 7 as per O. Reg. 9/06 O. REG. 9/06 CRITERIA OUTCOME JUSTIFICATION 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. Y As demonstrated in Section 5.5.1.1, the house at 575 Highway 7 displays the typical one-and-a-half storey height and the distinct massing which includes a central gable peak on the front facade as well as the symmetrical three-bay facade, round headed wood windows and sills. Constructed between 1850 and 1900, the structure appears to be a rare example of a board and batten clad Ontario Gothic Cottage in the City of Pickering, making the Vardon House one of the earliest structures in the area retaining its original exterior form. As such, when comparing the expression of the style at 575 Highway 7 to other local examples, it is unique in its board and batten cladding, wood door entablature, and fine gingerbread scrollwork detailing. As discussed in Section 5.5.2.1, the Central Ontario bank barn on the subject property is a representative expression of a Central Ontario barn and are now considered rare with only one Part IV designated barn in the City of Pickering. The barn appears to maintain its integrity through the retention of much of the original construction materials and application of historic building methods. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. N The property does not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit but rather reflects modest and vernacular construction techniques and materials. As noted in Section 7, many of the original building features and materials, such as the brick chimneys, wood window sash and original foundation have been removed and replaced with modern materials. The central Ontario barn displays mortise and tenon construction that is typical of the nineteenth century, but this is not considered to display a high degree of craftmanship or artistic merit. 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 era and style. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. Y As 575 Highway 7 has functioned as a farm for at least 169 years, it is directly associated with the agricultural development of the former Ontario Township and City of Pickering. This theme is significant as it contributed to the community’s early economy and continues to be practiced today. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 54 O. REG. 9/06 CRITERIA OUTCOME JUSTIFICATION The property has a direct association with the Vardon Family, they were relatively early settlers who established a school on the subject property. The school was in existence until the mid-nineteenth century. 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 research did not indicate that 575 Highway 7 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 house was likely constructed as a side gable dwelling which was later renovated to reflect elements of the Gothic Revival cottage as promoted by A.J. Dowling in the mid- nineteenth century. The architect and builder of the building at 575 Highway 7 is unknown. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. Y As the property retains 44.86 acres of the original 50-acre lot and continues to be actively used for agriculture, 575 Highway 7 is important in maintaining the historical agricultural character of the area. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. Y 575 Highway 7 is associated with the early settlement of the area and is important in maintaining and supporting the rural nineteenth century landscape along the Highway 7 Road corridor. 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. 8.2 Ontario Regulation 10/06 Ontario Regulation 10/06 establishes the Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of Provincial Significance. This regulation was created in 2006 to be utilised to identify properties of provincial heritage significance under the OHA. All provincially owned properties with potential cultural heritage value or interest must be evaluated using O. Reg. 10/06 to determine provincial significance, if any. Table 8-2 presents the evaluation of the subject property using O. Reg. 9/06. Prior to March 2023, the subject property was provincially owned and, as a result, Ontario Regulation 10/06 was also used to evaluate the property. Table 8-2: Evaluation of 575 Highway 7 as per O. Reg. 10/06 O. REG. 10/06 CRITERIA Outcome JUSTIFICATION 1. The property represents or demonstrates a theme or pattern in Ontario’s history. N While the subject property is associated with the early settlement of the former Ontario County and specifically the area of Green River, it demonstrates this theme at the local / regional level rather than provincial. For this reason, the property does not meet this criterion. 2. The property yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of Ontario’s history. N While the subject property reflects the early settlement and agricultural development, other properties – most notably Thistle Ha’ Farm (1860 Seventh Concession Road, Pickering), which is a National Historic Site of Canada – better illustrates the role of agriculture in Ontario’s history. The property does not have the potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of Ontario’s history. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 55 O. REG. 10/06 CRITERIA Outcome JUSTIFICATION 3. The property demonstrates an uncommon, rare or unique aspect of Ontario’s cultural heritage. N While the property is an early example of the application of the Ontario Gothic Cottage style, there are many of this type of house found throughout the province; it does not demonstrate an uncommon, rare, or unique aspect of Ontario’s cultural heritage. 4. The property is of aesthetic, visual or contextual importance to the province. N The property’s visual and contextual importance is of a local nature; the property’s associations and contextual significance relate to its connections and role within the settlement of the former Ontario Township, as opposed to within the province. For this reason, the property does not meet this criterion. 5. The property demonstrates a high degree of excellence or creative, technical or scientific achievement at a provincial level in a given period. N While the property holds physical value at a local level, it was not found to exhibit a high degree of excellence or creative, technical, or scientific achievement at a provincial level. 6. The property has a strong or special association with the entire province or with a community that is found in more than one part of the province. The association exists for historic, social, or cultural reasons or because of traditional use. N The residence and barn was built by Thomas Vardon between 1850 and 1900, a farmer from New Brunswick. The subject property does not demonstrate a strong or special association with the province as a whole, nor with a community that is significant within the Province of Ontario. Therefore, the property does not meet this criterion. 7. The property has a strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organization of importance to the province or with an event of importance to the province. N The residence and barn was built in between 1850 and 1900 by Thomas Vardon during the early settlement of Ontario County. The subject property does not have a strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organization of importance to the province or with an event of importance to the province. Therefore, the building does not meet this criterion. 8. The property is located in unorganized territory and the Minister determines that there is a provincial interest in the protection of the property. O. Reg. 10/06, s. 1 (2). N The property is not located within an unorganized territory. Therefore, the subject property does not meet this criterion. 8.2.1 Results of the Cultural Heritage Evaluation Based on the evaluation of the property at 575 Highway 7, the following results related to the property’s CHVI were identified: ▪ The evaluation using the criteria of O. Reg. 9/06 determined that the subject property does possess CHVI at a local level for physical/design, historical/associative, and contextual reasons; and Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 56 ▪ The evaluation using the criteria of O. Reg. 10/06 determined that the subject property does not have CHVI at a provincial level. 8.3 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest As the subject property at 575 Highway 7 was found to possess CHVI, the following statement of cultural heritage value or interest and list of heritage attributes was prepared. 8.3.1 Description of the property 575 Highway 7 is an 18.15-hectare irregular shaped agricultural property situated on the south side of Highway 7, east of North Road in the north portion of the City of Pickering. The property contains a one-and- a-half storey side gabled Ontario Gothic Cottage that was constructed in between 1850 and 1900. The property also contains a two-storey Central Ontario bank barn that dates to the nineteenth century. The property is listed on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register. 8.3.2 Statement of cultural Heritage value or interest The subject property, 575 Highway 7, possesses design or physical value for the early and representative built heritage resources located on the property. Specifically, the Vardon House is a representative example of an Ontario Gothic Cottage. The Vardon House is a one-and-a-half storey house with a central gable peak on the front facade as well as the symmetrical three-bay facade, round headed wood windows and sills. Constructed in 1853, the house appears to be a rare example of a board and batten clad Ontario Gothic Cottage in the City of Pickering, making the Vardon House one of the earliest structures in the area retaining its original exterior form. As such, when comparing the expression of the style at 575 Highway 7 to other local examples, it is unique in its board and batten cladding, wood door entablature, and fine gingerbread scrollwork detailing. The barn is a representative example of a Central Ontario bank barn, a common design in Southern Ontario dating to the last quarter of the nineteenth century. The gambrel roof style is indicative of its period of construction, becoming commonly used by 1880 following a transition from gable roofs. The barn maintains its integrity through the retention of much of the original construction materials and application of historic building methods. The barn includes many of the features typical of the style, including the banked access and two storey height, original rectangular plan, wood barn board cladding, and the gambrel roof clad in sheet metal. Through its function as a farm since between 1850 and 1900, 575 Highway 7 it is directly associated with the agricultural development of the former Ontario Township and City of Pickering. This theme is significant as it historically contributed to the community’s early economic growth and continues to be practiced today. As the property retains 44.86 acres of the original 50-acre lot and continues to be actively used for agriculture, 575 Highway 7 is important in maintaining the historical agricultural character of the surrounding area. The property is functionally and historically linked to its surroundings as indicated by the presence and placement of the Vardon House, Central Ontario bank barn, the associated circulation patterns including the surrounding agricultural fields that continue to reflect the function of the historic nineteenth century farmstead. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 57 8.3.3 Heritage Attributes The heritage attributes that contribute to the CHVI of 575 Highway 7 include: House Exterior ▪ One-and-a-half storey massing built to a rectangular plan; ▪ Symmetrical three-bay façade with project gable; ▪ Extant round headed windows; ▪ Decorative elements such a board and batten cladding, wood door entablature, and fine gingerbread scrollwork detailing; ▪ Rectangular window openings wood frames; ▪ One-and-half storey, gable roof addition built to a rectangular plan projecting from the south elevation; ▪ Orientation toward Highway 7. Bank Barn ▪ Two-storey massing built to a rectangular plan; ▪ Heavy square timber post and beam framing; ▪ North eave-side upper-level entrance built into banked slope; ▪ Vertical wood board cladding; ▪ Gambrel roof clad in sheet metal with lightening rods; Landscape ▪ Driveway connecting Highway 7 to the core of the farm complex; ▪ Intact circulation routes and building arrangement setback from Highway 7. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 58 9 PROPOSED UNDERTAKING AND IMPACTS 9.1 Description of Proposed Undertaking The proposed development concept for the project location consists of six food manufacturing buildings on the lot. The lot is currently zoned Rural Agricultural; however, it is designated Prestige Employment and Seaton Natural Heritage System in the Pickering Official Plan. Caplink intends to demolish the Vardon House and barn. Draft Plan of Subdivision (City File No. SP-2023- 03) and Zoning By-law Amendment (A 11/23) applications for Phase 2 of FGF Pickering Manufacturing Campus at 575, 625 and 685 Highway 7 have been adopted by City Council on May 27, 2024. The Phase 2 lands are approximately 36 hectares in size and located on the south side of Highway 7, east of North Road and north of Highway 407. The Draft approved Plan of Subdivision created employment blocks, including six blocks for employment uses, two road widening blocks located along Highway 7 and North Road, and two new municipal roads (Wonder Drive and Stonefire Road). A site plan of the proposed development concept is provided in Appendix B. 9.2 Potential Impacts When determining the effects a development or site alteration may have on known or identified built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes, the MCM Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process advises that the following direct and indirect be considered: ▪ Direct Impact: A permanent or irreversible negative affect on the CHVI of a property that results in the loss of a heritage attribute. Direct impacts include destruction or alteration. ▪ Indirect Impact: An impact that is the result of an activity on or near a cultural heritage resource that may adversely affect the CHVI and/or heritage attributes of a property. Indirect impacts include shadows, isolation, direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas, a change in land use, or land disturbances. It should be noted that land disturbances, as defined in MCM InfoSheet #5, can be considered as a direct impact to archaeological resources. An archaeological assessment is beyond the scope of this study since recommendations regarding archaeological resources must be made by a professional archaeologist licensed by the MCM. Other potential impacts may also be considered such as encroachment or construction vibration (Plate 7). Historical structures, particularly those built in masonry, are susceptible to damage from vibration caused by pavement breakers, plate compactors, utility excavations, and increased heavy vehicle travel in the immediate vicinity. Like any structure, they are also threatened by collisions with heavy machinery, subsidence from utility line failures, or excessive dust (Randl 2001:3-6). Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 59 Plate 7: Examples of negative impacts Although the MCM Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process identifies types of impact, it does not advise on how to describe its nature or extent. For this the MCM Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments (1990:8) provides criteria of: ▪ Magnitude - amount of physical alteration or destruction that can be expected ▪ Severity - the irreversibility or reversibility of an impact ▪ Duration - the length of time an adverse impact persists ▪ Frequency - the number of times an impact can be expected ▪ Range - the spatial distribution, widespread or site specific, of an adverse impact ▪ Diversity - the number of different kinds of activities to affect a heritage resource Since advice to describe magnitude is not included in the MCM Guideline or any other Canadian guidance, the ranking provided in the ICOMOS Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties (ICOMOS 2011: Appendix 3B) is adapted here. While developed specifically for World Heritage Sites, it is based on a general methodology for measuring the nature and extent of impact to cultural resources in urban and rural contexts developed for the UK Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges [DMRB]: Volume 11, HA 208/07 (2007: A6/11) (Bond & Worthing 2016:166-167) and aligns with approaches developed by other national agencies such as the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (reproduced in Kalman & Létourneau 2020:390) and New Zealand Transport Agency (2015). The grading of impact is based on the “Guide to Assessing Magnitude of Impact” summarized in Table 9-1 below. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 60 An assessment of potential impacts resulting from the proposed development on the property’s CHVI and heritage attributes is presented in Table 9-2. Table 9-1: Impact Grading Impact Grading Description Major Change to heritage attributes that contribute to the CHVI such that the resource is totally altered. Comprehensive changes to the setting. Moderate Change to many heritage attributes, such that the resource is significantly modified. Changes to the setting of a heritage property, such that it is significantly modified. Minor Change to heritage attributes, such that the asset is slightly different. Change to the setting of a heritage property, such that it is noticeably changed. Negligible/Potential Slight changes to heritage attributes or the setting that hardly affects it. None No change to heritage attributes or setting. Table 9-2: Evaluation of Impacts to Subject Property at 575 Highway 7 Criteria Evaluation Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features; Impact: Major Analysis: The proposed development concept involves the demolition of the house and barn which were identified as representative examples of their styles and would remove all the landscape heritage attributes. Mitigation measures are required. Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; Impact: None Rationale: The subject property will not be altered, rather it is proposed to be demolished, resulting in the full removal of its historic fabric and appearance. Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden; Impact: None/N/A Rationale: The subject residence is proposed to be demolished. As such, no new shadows will be created that alter the appearance of the heritage attributes as they will be removed. Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; Impact: None/N/A Rationale: Heritage attributes will not be isolated from their surrounding environment, context or significant relationship. The property is proposed to be demolished, resulting in the removal of all heritage attributes. Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or to built and natural features; Impact: None/N/A Rationale: No significant views were identified as heritage attributes of the subject property. Accordingly, no impacts related to views are anticipated. A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; Impact: Major Rationale: The change is land use to allow large scale warehouses will make it difficult to conserve this nineteenth century farm landscape. Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage Impact: Potential Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 61 Criteria Evaluation patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource. Rationale: A Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment is currently being completed for the subject property. The results of the assessment were not available at the time this report was produced. 9.2.1 Impact Assessment summary The preceding impact assessment determined that without conservation or mitigation measures, the proposed development will result in major direct and indirect impacts to the identified heritage attributes of the subject property. The anticipated impacts are related to: ▪ Destruction of the Vardon House and associated barn as a result of the construction of the food manufacturing facility; ▪ A change in land use from rural agricultural to employment lands, which threatens the continued viability of the farm complex in situ; and ▪ Land disturbances related to the construction of the food manufacturing facility. Given that direct and impacts are anticipated, an options analysis of potential alternatives, mitigation and conservation options is provided in Section 10. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 62 10 ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION OPTIONS As the subject property was evaluated to have CHVI and will be impacted by the proposed development, WSP has identified four possible options to reduce or avoid the negative effects. These are informed by the objectives included in the City of Pickering Official Plan and are: 1) “Do Nothing”: Preserve and maintain the Vardon House, associated barn and all landscape heritage attributes in situ with no further development of the property. 2) Relocate the Vardon House within the site to a more convenient location with an adaptive reuse, dismantle and salvage heritage attributes from barn and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. 3) Remove the Vardon House and associated barn, salvaging heritage attributes from the structures and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. The advantages and disadvantages of each option are presented in Table 10-1. It is only after an option is determined to not be feasible that the next preferred approach is considered. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 63 Table 10-1: Alternatives, Mitigation and Conservation Options Options Advantages Disadvantages Mitigation/ Conservation Notes 1) “Do Nothing”: Preserve and maintain the Vardon House, associated barn and all landscape heritage attributes in situ with no further development of the property. This option would maintain the general heritage principle that prefers minimal intervention to a heritage resource. It would ensure that the subject property retains all identified heritage attributes. This option is consistent with the Official Plan policy Section 8.2 (c) that states: prevent the demolition, destruction or inappropriate alteration of important cultural heritage resources to the extent possible, and Section 8.2 (d) that states: where possible, restore, rehabilitate, maintain and enhance important cultural heritage resources owned by the City, and encourage the same for those owned by others. Additionally Section 8.9 (a) that encourages retention of cultural heritage resources in their original location. This option is also keeping with the MCM’s Eight Guiding Principles for the Conservation of Historic Places that identify a building should not be removed unless there is no other means to save it and that alterations to a cultural heritage resource should be reversible. Preservation is not a “do nothing” approach: to ensure the buildings do not suffer from rapid deterioration, repairs must be carried out and a systematic monitoring and repair program will be required for all exteriors and interiors. As identified in the MCM Eight Guiding Principles (2007), maintenance is required to avoid costly conservation projects in the future. None necessary. 2) Relocate the Vardon House within the site to a more convenient location with an adaptive reuse, dismantle and salvage heritage attributes from barn and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. Although this option would involve a major intervention to the agricultural character of the subject property, it would result in maintenance of some of the heritage attributes belonging to the Vardon House. Given the difficulty in moving barn, it would likely have to be dismantled and elements could be salvaged and reused in the proposed development. Moving the Vardon House would allow for more convenient placement, allowing the land to be maximized for the proposed manufacturing facility. Section 8.9 (c) of the Official Plan requires consideration of relocation on-site prior to considering relocation of a resource off-site. While this option would retain the Vardon House, it would include removal of all the barn and landscape heritage attributes and alter the agricultural character of the historic landscape and surrounding area. This option is inconsistent the MCM’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historical Properties which encourages respect for original location. Additionally, the Pickering Official Plan states that development should not result in any demolition, construction, alteration, remodeling, or any other action that would adversely affect the heritage features of the property. Relocating the Vardon House would place the building at risk of accidental damage during the relocation operation, or total loss due to accident or unforeseen structural issues discovered during the relocation process. It is also in direct opposition to the MCM Guiding Principle for “original location” which states that buildings should not be moved “unless there is no other means to save them since any change in site diminishes heritage value considerably”. This would still result in removal of the heritage attributes that reflect the value of the property as an evolved farm cultural heritage landscape. To stabilize and conserve the Vardon House in its current location before construction of the surrounding development begins and during construction a Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) should be completed. There is often a lengthy period between the formal submission of a planning application and reoccupation of a heritage buildings. During this time, heritage buildings can be vulnerable to neglect, loss and accidental damage. A TPP should be completed by a qualified engineer or architect with demonstrated experience working with historical structures and should include the following: ▪ Marking heritage attributes on the construction plans; ▪ Temporary construction fencing between the Vardon House, barn and the proposed development; ▪ Establish a regular inspection and monitoring schedule; ▪ Communication protocols that identify who should be informed about the heritage attributes and who should be contacted if there is accidental damage; ▪ A plan for potential physical impacts such as accidental damage from machinery; ▪ A plan for appropriate repairs should damage occur to the building(s). ▪ Regular inspection and monitoring protocol. A Mothballing Plan should be completed to examine the current condition of the Vardon House to suggest stabilization and maintenance measures necessary to temporarily mothball and secure the structure and its heritage attributes until a future use is determined. A Heritage Conservation Plan is a document that identifies how cultural heritage resources should be conserved. It should detail the conservation methods, required actions and trades for the conservation methods and an implementation schedule to conserve the landscape’s heritage attributes in the short-, medium-, and long-term. Heritage Conservation Plans are typically completed by structural engineers or architects with experience rehabilitating historic structures. In accordance with the MCM’s Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting and materials is a mitigation measure to reduce impacts to cultural heritage resources. The design of the building immediately surrounding the historic structure should be sensitively designed to reflect a similar massing, height, and materials. A vegetative buffer between the proposed buildings and adjacent Vardon House would assist is reducing the visual impact of the new food production facility against the nineteenth century house. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 64 Options Advantages Disadvantages Mitigation/ Conservation Notes A landscape plan should incorporate a vegetative screen between the new buildings and the Vardon House. Prior to demolition of the Central Ontario barn, determine what materials can be salvaged and document those elements into a standardized salvage inventory. The results of this inventory should be included a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report (CHRDR). A reputable contractor with expertise in salvage should be contracted to salvage the identified building materials. The contractor should prepare an approach for the labelling, storage and reassembly of material salvaged from the property, as appropriate, in accordance with guidance taken from the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, Section 4: Guidelines for Materials; ▪ The ultimate destination of salvaged materials should be determined prior to the initiation of any salvage process; ▪ Materials should only be salvaged if they are suitable for re-use in other buildings or projects, i.e., the material must not be irreparably damaged or infested; ▪ The material must be extracted in a manner that ensures that it is not irreparably damaged; ▪ Should any of the material be damaged during removal, donation to a teaching institution or museum (i.e. Pickering Museum Village, Algonquin College) should be considered to allow the material to provide an educational opportunity. Design the project to integrate new physical elements to the Vardon House to be sympathetic and compatible with the residence. The Parks Canada’s Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2010) should be considered. Construction activities often result in fugitive dust emission which can be detrimental to the long term protection of heritage resources. A fugitive dust emissions plan should follow practices outlined in the Ontario Standards Development Branch Technical Bulletin: Management Approaches for Industrial Fugitive Dust Sources (2017). Given the proximity of the adjacent heritage properties to the proposed development, a comprehensive pre-construction survey should be completed and a Zone of Influence Construction Vibration Study to monitor and mitigate vibration impacts during construction. Where possible prevent heavy equipment traffic from being routed in the vicinity of the Vardon House to minimize potential effects from vibration. 3) Remove the Vardon House and associated barn, salvaging heritage attributes from the structures and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. Some of the Vardon House and barn’s heritage attributes could be salvaged and reused in the proposed development. This option would provide a record of the residence and recommendations for items to be salvaged, if appropriate. These elements could be potentially integrated into the proposed development. Historical materials could also be donated for reuse in other historical structures or to teaching institutions. The salvage and reuse of material is consistent with Pickering Official Plan policy 11.64 a, c and e. This would result in the complete and irreversible loss of all the identified heritage attributes. This option is inconsistent with the Town of Pickering’s heritage policies in the Official Plan, the MCM’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historical Properties and general heritage conservation best practices. Prior to demolition of the Vardon House and Central Ontario barn, determine what materials can be salvaged and document those elements into a standardized salvage inventory. The results of this inventory should be included a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report (CHRDR). A reputable contractor with expertise in salvage should be contracted to salvage the identified building materials. The contractor should prepare an approach for the labelling, storage and reassembly of material salvaged from the property, as appropriate, in accordance with guidance taken from the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, Section 4: Guidelines for Materials; ▪ The ultimate destination of salvaged materials should be determined prior to the initiation of any salvage process; ▪ Materials should only be salvaged if they are suitable for re-use in other buildings or projects, i.e., the material must not be irreparably damaged or infested; ▪ The material must be extracted in a manner that ensures that it is not irreparably damaged; ▪ Should any of the material be damaged during removal, donation to a teaching institution or museum (i.e. Pickering Museum Village or Algonquin College) should be considered to allow the material to provide an educational opportunity. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 65 10.1 Options Analysis Based on the review of the alternatives, mitigation and conservation options analysis presented in Table 10-1, Option 1, preserve and maintain the residence in situ with no further development of the property, is the preferred option from a cultural heritage perspective, followed by Option 3 and lastly Option 2. 10.1.1 Option 1 Option 1 is the preferred alternative from a cultural heritage perspective as it would maintain the general heritage principle that prefers minimal intervention to a heritage resource. However, as described in Section 9, the subject property is designated Prestige Employment, which in the Pickering Official Plan is intended to be more focused on offices and lighter industrial uses. The intent is to direct Prestige Employment uses, such as offices and light manufacturing uses without outdoor storage, to the Highway 407 corridor and locate population-serving uses, such as personal services, retailers, education, health care and government land uses closer to residential areas. The intent is to create an economically and fiscally sustainable community in the long term through a balance of residential and employment growth in the Seaton Urban Area. As such, a “do nothing” approach would not address the City of Pickering’s objectives for significant job growth within these areas. 10.1.2 Option 2 Option 2 is the least preferred alternative, and best practices dictate that this option is to be considered as a last resort prior to demolition. Although relocation of the subject residence is consistent with the principle of preservation of material to its highest integrity and would maintain some heritage attributes, removal from its existing context in the Highway 7 corridor would remove its contextual and diminish its historical or associative CHVI. The CHVI of 575 Highway 7 is derived from the contribution it makes to defining and maintaining the nineteenth century agricultural character of Highway 7; relocation of the house would significantly reduce its historical authenticity and constitute an adverse effect on the CHVI. Given the functional site requirements of the proposed development, including the overall size and placement of the buildings, the location of the truck loading bays and transportation routes, the relocation of the Vardon House to a prominent Highway 7 facing location is not available. As such, relocation is not a recommended conservation option. 10.1.3 Option 3 Option 3, demolition, represents the recommended alternative and would result in the removal of the residence and all its heritage attributes. This alternative has only been selected as relocation has not proven to be a feasible option. This option preserves a record of the property’s heritage attributes in a manner scaled to their level of cultural heritage significance. Prior to demolition of the Vardon House and Central Ontario barn, determine what materials can be salvaged and document those elements into a standardized salvage inventory. The results of this inventory should be included a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report (CHRDR). A reputable contractor with expertise in salvage should be contracted to salvage the identified building materials. The contractor should prepare an approach for the labelling, storage and reassembly of material salvaged from the property, as appropriate, in accordance with guidance taken from the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, Section 4: Guidelines for Materials; Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 66 ▪ The ultimate destination of salvaged materials should be determined prior to the initiation of any salvage process; ▪ Materials should only be salvaged if they are suitable for re-use in other buildings or projects, i.e., the material must not be irreparably damaged or infested; ▪ The material must be extracted in a manner that ensures that it is not irreparably damaged; ▪ Should any of the material be damaged during removal, donation to a teaching institution or museum (i.e. Pickering Museum Village or Algonquin College) should be considered to allow the material to provide an educational opportunity. While documentation and salvage can never truly mitigate the loss of a heritage resource, documentation creates a public record the structure and provides researchers and the public with a land use history, construction details and photographic record of the resource. The documentation and photographs contained within this report may serve as a sufficient record of the house and the outbuildings and this determination should be made by City staff. The purpose of salvaging heritage building material is to preserve portions of features of buildings or structures that have historical, architectural or cultural value and divert them from becoming land fill material. Sourcing materials for repair and replacement can be challenging, especially if the materials are from a historical source that no longer exists, such as a quarry, or a manufacturing facility that has closed (Parks Canada, 2010). As such, the careful salvage of these materials from one historic structure can represent an opportunity for the in-kind replacement of quality historical material on another. Some of these materials can also be incorporated into the new design if appropriate. If any materials are incorporated into the manufacturing campus, there should be an interpretive display to convey that these materials were reused from the previous structures on the site. If any salvaged items are used for a commemorative display, they should be appropriately catalogued and stored until they can be reused on-site. This should also be clearly communicator to the contractor. Symbolic conservation allows for the recovery of heritage components of a property and reuses them to construct a visible record of the resource. This approach, along with the reuse of portions of a property, is often the recommended mitigation strategy when retention or relocation of a structure is determined not to be feasible. Preliminary options for symbolic conservation onsite include: ▪ Incorporation of salvaged materials, such as field stones, bricks, timber beams, wood planks, floor boards, etc. into entry gates, retaining walls, fences, benches or landscape features (i.e., planters) within the station area; and/or ▪ The construction of an interpretive plaque commemorating the area’s heritage and/or property’s history. 10.2 Implementation and Monitoring Below, Table 10-2 outlines the recommended schedule and reporting structure for implementation and monitoring of conservation/mitigative/avoidance measures addressed to conserve the heritage attributes of the built heritage resource. The requirement for these heritage mitigation measures may be incorporated by the City of Pickering into Site Plan Approval as outlined below. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 67 Table 10-2: Short-term, medium-term and long-term actions for Option 3 CONSTRUCTION PHASE MITIGATION MEASURES DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CONDITIONS Pre-Construction Complete a Documentation & Salvage Report ✓ Construction Symbolic conservation ✓ Post-Construction n/a n/a Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 68 11 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of the historical research, field review, site analysis and evaluation of the subject property against the criteria for heritage designation under O. Reg. 9/06 of the OHA, 575 Highway 7 was confirmed to possess local CHVI for design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual reasons. The proposed development, consisting of the construction of six food manufacturing buildings within the property will pose major direct impacts to the identified heritage attributes of 575 Highway 7. Based on the review of the alternatives, mitigation and conservation options analysis, Option 1, Do Nothing, is the preferred option from a cultural heritage perspective. However, a Do Nothing approach is not feasible as the subject property is designated Prestige Employment and Seaton Natural Heritage System in the Pickering Official Plan. This approach would be a constraint on the proposed concept plan and future development. As such, Options 3 is the next preferred option, followed lastly by Option 2. The following conservation/mitigation strategies are recommended: 1) Prepare a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report for the Vardon House and barn on the subject property. 2) That options for symbolic conservation using salvaged materials be explored within the proposed development. 3) Should development plans change significantly in scope or design after approval of this HIA, additional cultural heritage investigations may be required. 4) Once finalized, a copy of this HIA should be distributed to the City of Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 69 BIBLIOGRAPHY Armstrong, F.H. (1985). Handbook of Upper Canadian Chronology. Hamilton: Dundurn Press, Ltd. Bond, S. and Worthing, D. (2016) Managing Built Heritage : The Role Of Cultural Values and Significance. Chichester, West Sussex : Wiley Blackwell. Canada Farmer, The. (1864) Volume 1, No. 2 (Feb. 1, 1864). Toronto : G. Brown. Volume 1, No. 22 (Nov. 15, 1864). Toronto : G. Brown. Canada’s Historic Places. (2010). Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Second Edition. Canada’s Historic Places, Ottawa. City of Pickering (2018) Pickering Official Plan, Edition 9. Available online: https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/resources/Official- Plan---Main-Page/Edition-9/OP9ACC.pdf. Last accessed May 3, 2023. City of Pickering (2022) Terms of Reference: Heritage Impact Assessments. Document on file at WSP. Connor & Coltson. (1869). The County of Ontario directory for 1869-70. Toronto: Hunter, Rose & Co. Conservation Studio, the (2004) Measuring change in conservation areas: A research report for English Heritage. The Conservation Studio, Cirencester, UK. Available online: https://goo.gl/MXTqaK. Curve Lake First Nation. (n.d.) History. Retrieved from: https://curvelakefirstnation.ca/history/ DurhamRegion.com. (2014). Historic Pickering farmhouse saved from demolition. Friday June 6, 2014. Retrieved from: www.durhamregion.com/news/historic-pickering-farmhouse-saved-from-demolition/article_d11824b0-1220- 53fd-bd9f-20d7ad4ccadf.html? Durham Region (2020) Durham Regional Official Plan. Available online: https://www.durham.ca/en/doing- business/resources/Documents/PlanningandDevelopment/Official-Plan/2020-Durham-Regional-Official-Plan- Consolidation---Revised-1.pdf. Last accessed May 3, 2023. Durham Region (2023) Indigenous Land Acknowledgement. Available online: https://www.durham.ca/en/regional-government/land- acknowledgements.aspx. Last accessed May 3, 2023. Ellis, C.J. and D.B. Deller. (1990). Paleo-Indians. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 37-74. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 70 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. English Heritage. (2008). Conservation Principles. English Heritage, London. Ennals, P.M. (1972). “Nineteenth-Century Barns in Southern Ontario.” In The Canadian Geographer, pp. 256-269. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. FamilySearch.org. 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 affair. Whitby, ON: Gazette-Chronicle Press. Fram, M. (1993). Well-Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundation’s Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation. Third edition. Boston Mills Press, Erin, Ontario. Government of Ontario 1990 Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13. Last amendment: April 6, 2023. Available online: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13. Last accessed May 3, 2023. 1990 Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments. 1990 Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter O.18. Last amendment: January 1, 2023. Electronic document: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18. Last accessed February 7, 2023. 2006 Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. Electronic document: file:///C:/Users/heidy.schopf.WOODPLC/Downloads/Heritage_Tool_Kit_Heritage_PPS_infoSheet%20(8).pd f. Last accessed October 30, 2019. 2014 Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties: Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process. MHSCTI, Toronto. 2017 Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Electronic document: http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/heritage_toolkit.shtml. Last accessed October 30, 2019. 2019 Preparing environmental assessments: How to prepare different types of environmental assessments in Ontario. Electronic document: https://www.ontario.ca/page/preparing-environmental-assessments#section- 1. Last accessed October 30, 2019. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 71 2020 Provincial Policy Statement. Electronic document: https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-provincial-policy-statement- 2020-accessible-final-en-2020-02-14.pdf. Last accessed December 15, 2020. 2021 Map of Ontario treaties and reserves. Available online: https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-ontario-treaties- and-reserves. Last accessed September 17, 2021. 2022 Ontario Regulation 569/22. Available online: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r22569. Last accessed February 7, 2023. Haudenosaunee Confederacy(2022) Land Acquisition. Available online: https://www.haudenosauneeconfederacy.com/land-aquisition/ Last accessed November 11, 2022. Historic England. (2016). Understanding Historic Buildings: A Guide to Good Recording Practice. English Heritage, Swindon, UK. Historic England International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). (2011). Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties. Retrieved from: www.icomos.org/world_heritage/HIA_20110201.pdf J.H. Beers & Co. (1877). Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario. Toronto: J. H. Beers & Co. Johnson, L.A. (1973). History of the County of Ontario, 1615-1875. Whitby, ON: The of the County of Ontario Kalman, H. (1979). The Evaluation of Historic Buildings. Parks Canada. Kalman, H. (2014). Heritage Planning: Principles and Process. Routledge, New York. Kalman, H. and M. Létourneau. (2020). Heritage Planning: Principles and Process. Routledge, New York. Kyles, S. (2016). Barns. Retrieved from: www.ontarioarchitecture.com/barn.htm Laurie Smith Heritage Consulting (LSHC). (2015). Cultural Heritage Property Evaluation Report: 940 Whitevale Road, Pickering, Ontario. Retrieved from: https://corporate.pickering.ca/weblink/1/doc/152701/Electronic.aspx Library and Archives Canada. (2021). Canadian Censuses. [accessed January 2023]. https://www.baclac.gc.ca/eng/census/Pages/census.aspx Mika, N. & H. Mika. (1981). Places in Ontario, Their Name Origins and History, Part II, F-M. Belleville, Ontario: Mika Publishing Company. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 72 Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM). (2019). List of Heritage Conservation Districts. Retrieved from: www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/ heritage_conserving_list.shtml Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM). (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 Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM). (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: www.ontario.ca/page/map-ontario-treaties-and- reserves Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). (2020). Provincial Policy Statement. Retrieved from: www.ontario.ca/page/provincial-policy-statement-2020 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation (2022) Treaty Lands & Territory. Available online: http://mncfn.ca/about-mncfn/treaty-lands-and-territory/. Last accessed September 9, 2022. New Zealand Transport Agency. (2015). Historic Heritage Impact Assessment Guide for State Highway Projects. New Zealand Government, Wellington. Ontario Council of University Libraries. (n.d.). Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project: Markham Sheets. [accessed January 2023]. https://ocul.on.ca/topomaps/collection/) Ontario Land Registry Access. (2023). Abstract Index Books, Land Registry Office 40 (Pickering). [accessed January 2023]. 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 Public Library. (1965) History of the Green River School. Retrieved from: file:///P:/Archaeology%20and%20Heritage/2)%20HERITAGE/2023/01.%20575%20Highway%207,%20Picker ing%20%20HIA/5%20Technical/1.%20Background/Green%20River%20School.pdf Randl, Chad. (2001) Temporary Protection No. 3: Protecting a Historic Structure during Adjacent Construction. U.S. Department of the Interior National Parks Service Cultural Resources Tech Notes. http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to- preserve/tech-notes/Tech-Notes-Protection03.pdf. Last Accessed: 20 November 2015. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 73 Sault, Margaret. (2021) A Story About the Toronto Purchase. In Indigenous Toronto. Denis Bolduc, Mnawaate Gordon-Corbiere, Rebeka Tabobondung, and Brian Wright-McLeod (Eds). Coach House Books, Toronto. Scheinman, Andre. (2004) Seaton Built Heritage Assessment. Prepared for the North Pickering Land Exchange Team, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Planning and Development Division. Six Nations of the Grand River. (2022) Key Issues, Lands and Resources. Available online: Land Rights - Six Nations of the Grand River. Last accessed November 28, 2022. 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. Toronto Regional Real Estate Board (TRREB). (2023). 2319 Wildwood Cres. Retrieved from: www.realtor.ca/real-estate/25390578/2319-wildwood-cres-pickering- brock-ridge Tremaine, G. (1860). Tremaine’s Map of the Ontario County, Canada West. George R. and George M. Tremaine, Toronto UK Highways Agency. (2007) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges: Volume 11, HA 208/07. The Stationary Office, London. US National Park Service. (n.d) Bulletin 8: How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property. Retrieved from: https://www.scahome.org/about_sca/NAPC_Sourcebook/165_pdfsam_Sourcebook%20SCA%2010.2005%2 0fifth%20edition.pdf Walton, G. (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. Whitevale. (n.d.) Whitevale History. Retrieved from: http://www.whitevale.ca/history.html#:~:text=The%20hamlet%20of%20Whitevale%20was,on%20the%205th %20Concession%20Line. Wood R. (1911). Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Community. William Briggs, Toronto, Ontario. Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 74 Signature Page WSP Canada Inc. Claire Forward, BA (Hons.), MA, MSc Heidy Schopf, MAES, CAHP Cultural Heritage Specialist Cultural Heritage Lead - Ontario CF/HS/ld https://wsponlinecan.sharepoint.com/sites/ca-onarchandch/shared documents/cultural heritage/01_working_files/01_projects/2024/ca-wsp-231-00193-00_575 highway 7 - hia, chrdr, cp/hia/ca-wsp-231-00193-00_r_reva_575 highway 7 hia_4oct2024.docx pp Corals Zheng Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 APPENDIX A FGF Food Manufacturing Campus – Phase 2 Draft Plan of Subdivision dated June 20, 2024 June 20, 2024 Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 APPENDIX B Built Heritage Assessment: 575 Highway 7 Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 APPENDIX C Assessor Qualifications Issued May 16, 2023; Revised October 16, 2024 CA-WSP-231-00193-00 Assessor Qualifications Heidy Schopf, MES, CAHP – Built and Landscape Heritage Team–Lead - Heidy Schopf the Built and Landscape Heritage Team Lead at WSP. She has over ten years’ experience in Cultural Resource Management. She is a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and is MTO RAQs certified in archaeology/heritage. She has worked on a wide variety of projects throughout Ontario, including cultural heritage resources assessments, heritage impact assessments, documentation reports, cultural heritage evaluations, strategic conservation plans, heritage conservation district studies and plans and archaeological assessments. Ms. Schopf has extensive experience applying local, Provincial, and Federal heritage guidelines and regulations to evaluate protected and potential cultural heritage properties. She is skilled at carrying out impact assessments and developing mitigation measures to conserve the heritage attributes of properties where changes are proposed. Emily Game, BA, CAHP – Cultural Heritage Specialist - Ms. Game has project experience in assessing heritage buildings, bridges, and cultural heritage landscapes in support of land use planning applications and environmental assessments. Her responsibilities have included conducting background research, field assessment and report production for various built heritage resources including buildings, bridges and cultural heritage landscapes. Ms. Game has worked on a wide variety of projects from small, individual assessments of built heritage resources to large, complex interdisciplinary studies taking in a range of residential, public, commercial and industrial properties. Project work includes the application of legislation, policy framework, and tools such as the Ontario Heritage Act, Provincial Policy Statement, the Ontario Heritage Toolkit, the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, and various other policies and processes outlined by the Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturism, individual municipalities, or public agencies. Claire Forward, MA, MSc, CAHP Intern – Cultural Heritage Specialist - Claire Forward is a Cultural Heritage Specialist at WSP and has over 10 years experience working on cultural heritage projects. Claire is an Intern Member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). Claire started her career in cultural resource management in 2013 and completed her Bachelor of Arts Honours (2013) at Western University, Master of Arts (2015) at Maastricht University, and Master of Science (2018) at the University of Edinburgh. After graduation, Claire undertook several roles at Historic Environment Scotland, the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland, Heritage Toronto as well as other architectural and cultural heritage management firms in Ontario. Claire has worked both locally and internationally on numerous cultural heritage projects with an emphasis on historic research and collaborative interpretation that informs effective environmental planning actions and resilient outcomes. wsp.com 1295 ORMONT DRIVE. TORONTO, ONTARIO M9L 2W6 January 6th, 2025 City Development City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Attention: Matthew Somerville, Senior Planner Heritage – Development Review and Urban Design RE: Demolition and Heritage Permit Application 575 Highway 7, Pickering Related City File No. SP 2023-03 TBG Project No. 22871 This letter is being issued to state that Caplink Limited (“Owner”) and the City have agreed to extend the consultation period beyond the 60-day period as required under Section 27(9) of the Ontario Heritage Act in order to accommodate the holiday break and provide the Pickering Heritage Committee with an opportunity to comment. Thank you, Martin Ng Caplink Limited , Attachment 5 to Report PLN 07-25