HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 28, 2021For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
T: 905.420.4611
Email: clerks@pickering.ca
Agenda
Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee
Wednesday, April 28, 2021
7:00 pm
Electronic Meeting
Due to COVID-19 and the Premier’s Emergency Orders to limit gatherings and
maintain physical distancing, the City of Pickering continues to hold electronic
Council and Committee Meetings.
Members of the public may observe the meeting proceedings by accessing the
livestream.
1.Welcome & Introductions Page
2.Review and Approval of Agenda
3.Disclosure of Interest
4.Approval of Minutes from March 24, 2021 1
5.Presentations/Delegations
6.Business Arising from Minutes
6.1 Official Plan Amendment OPA 20 008/P, Zoning By-law Amendment
Application A 13/20 – 1970 Brock Road Post Manor
Attachments:
1.Notice of Complete application
2.Heritage Impact Assessment
3.Peer Review for the City provided by Branch Architecture
6
7.New Business
8.Correspondence
8.1 Summary of heritage permits issued in Spring 2021
9.Other Business
9.1 Response to question from March meeting
Agenda April 28, 2021
Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Page 2 of 2
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
T: 905.420.4611
Email: clerks@pickering.ca
10. Next meeting: Wednesday, May 26, 2021
11. Adjournment
Minutes/Meeting Summary
Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee
March 24, 2021
7:00 pm
Electronic Meeting
Attendees: S. Croteau
J. Dempsey
D. Felin
W. Jamadar
R. Smiles
E. Martelluzzi, Planner II Heritage
R. Perera, Recording Secretary
Guests: B. McLean, 560 Park Crescent
H. McWilliam, Environmental Planner, IBI Group
Absent: J. Irwin
E. John
A. Khan
C. Sopher
Item/ Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items/Status
Ref # (summary of discussion) (include deadline as
appropriate)
1. Welcome & Introductions
E. Martelluzzi welcomed everyone to the meeting.
2. Disclosure of Interest
No disclosures of interest were noted.
3. Review and Approval of Agenda
Moved by S. Croteau
E. Martelluzzi reviewed the agenda. Agenda
approved with addition of agenda Item 8.1, 1690
Whitevale Road.
Carried
4. Approval of Minutes
-November 25, 2020
Moved by W. Jamadar
Page 1 of 5
- 1 -
Item/ Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items/Status
Ref # (summary of discussion) (include deadline as
appropriate)
That the minutes of the January 27, 2021 meeting of
the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee be
approved.
Carried
5. Presentations/Delegations
5.1 Hailey McWilliam, Environmental Planner, IBI Group
Re: Durham-Scarborough Bus Rapid Transit
Project
H. McWilliam joined the electronic meeting via audio
connection to provide information on the Durham
Scarborough Bus Rapid Transit project, and to
present the preferred design in the City of Pickering
and the c ultural heritage components of the project.
Through the aid of a PDF presentation, Ms.
McWilliam discussed the project benefits, the project
schedule, public input to date, and the preliminary
designs of the project. She further noted that a
Cultural Heritage Report was prepared by ASI which
found 17 sites consisting of potential Built Heritage
Resources (BHR) and Cultural Heritage Landscapes
( CHL). Ms. McWilliam discussed the potential
impacts and mitigation measures pertaining to the 17
subject locations of heritage interest. Ms. McWilliam
concluded her delegation by outlining the next steps
of the project.
A question and answer period ensued between
Members of the Committee and Hailey McWilliam
regarding:
• whether there was a potential to extend the
project route to Bowmanville;
• the locations of the Post Cemetery;
• whether an island would be built in the middle
of the roadway to separate the east and west
bound traffic;
• the impact of the center median on the
surrounding businesses and the impact to
emergency services;
• whether the fleets would be powered by fossil
fuel or electric powered devices;
Page 2 of 5
- 2 -
Item/ Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items/Status
Ref # (summary of discussion) (include deadline as
appropriate)
• whether there had been consideration for a
subway line for the corridor;
• whether the project would negate the use and
the need for local transit such as Durham
Transit and Pulse;
• whether the project reviewed similar models
from other countries and regions;
• the location of the VIVA project;
• center medians and its impact on snow
clearing services;
• whether crosswalks to the platforms would be
provided;
• impact to traffic near the Pickering Town
Centre with respect to the center medians;
and,
• whether the roads would be widened and the
impact to the Liverpool House.
6. Business Arising f rom Minutes
There was no business arising from the minutes.
7. New Business
7.1 Heritage Permit HP 05-21, 560 Park Crescent
E. Martelluzzi referred to a Memorandum dated, March 19, 2021, that was circulated to Committee
Members prior to the meeting. She noted that the permit was before the Committee as the applicant
had submitted a Heritage Permit application for
multiple alterations to the property. She advised
that the Heritage Permit application included five
primary items which include:
• the restoration of the toppled stone pillar
and resetting it on a new concrete footing.
The post is to be relocated to a new spot
near the house where it would serve as a
corner fence post;
• construction of a new white picket fence to
enclose the lands adjacent to the house
(maximum height of 1.3 metres);
• replacing the existing vinyl siding with
painted rough pine board and batten siding
at the rear addition/wing;
Page 3 of 5
- 3 -
Item/ Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items/Status
Ref # (summary of discussion) (include deadline as
appropriate)
• construction of a garden shed at the rear
of the property( 31.2 square metres); and,
• restoration/repairing of the north stone wall
of the f ront porch.
Brandon McLean joined the electronic meeting via
audio connection and noted that he was available
for questions from the Committee.
A brief discussion and questions and answer
period ensued between Members of the Committee
and Brandon McLean regarding:
• support for the heritage permit;
• whether the stone wall proceeding to the
northern neighboring property was still in
place; and,
• whether there was stonework at the rear of
the property.
Moved by S. Croteau
Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee
recommends that the proposed relocation and
restoration of the stone pillar, the new wood fence,
the rear garden shed and restoration of the north
stone porch wall be approved as per the submitted
and revised drawings.
Carried
Discussion ensued regarding the placement of a
plaque near the property.
7. Correspondence
E. Martelluzzi advised that Clarington was holding an
online training s ession on title searches and
requested that committee members contact her
should they wish to attend the session.
8. Other Business
Page 4 of 5
- 4 -
Item/ Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items/Status
Ref # (summary of discussion) (include deadline as
appropriate)
8.1 1690 Whitevale Road E. Martelluzzi to explore the
addition of a detailed report J. Dempsey noted that the heritage components of component for demolitions. the property had been demolished by the Province
after they had requested the City remove the
designation of the property. She further suggested
that property owners of heritage properties should be
required to produce a detailed report on the property
prior to demolition.
9. Next Meeting April 28, 2021
Adjournment
Meeting Adjourned: 8:25 pm
Page 5 of 5
- 5 -
Notice of Complete Application
Under the Planning Act
Dated January 6, 2021
Applications (City File OPA-20-008/P, A 13/20) for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law
Amendment have been submitted by Brock and Kingston Holdings Inc. for the lands located on the
northwest corner of Kingston Road and Brock Road, municipally known at 1970 Brock Road and
shown on the location map below.
The applicant is proposing a high-density mixed-use development containing 860 residential units
and 1,430 square metres of commercial floor space. Multiple buildings are proposed including a
mixed-use building containing two towers (34 and 31 storeys in height) connected by a 6-storey
podium structure with commercial space on the ground floor. A 12-storey mid-rise residential building
and 25, 3-storey townhouses are proposed north of the towers. The property includes a stone
building designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (Post Manor), which is proposed to be
moved to the northerly portion of the site fronting Brock Road. Vehicular access to the development is
proposed via two right-in/right-out driveways from Brock Road and Kingston Road. A copy of the
proposed site plan and conceptual renderings are attached to the back of this notice.
In accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act, the purpose of this notice is to confirm that
these applications are complete.
A Statutory Public Meeting for the
applications will be held at a later date, and a
further notice of that meeting will be provided
pursuant to the statutory requirements of the
Planning Act.
Information and material submitted in
support of these applications will be available
for public viewing on the City’s website at
pickering.ca/devapp. Alternatively, materials
are available at the City Development
Department, Pickering Civic Complex,
One The Esplanade, Pickering, ON L1V 6K7,
between the hours of 8:30 am and 4:30 pm
during the regular business week.
Your comments and/or questions
regarding these applications can be
forwarded to Elizabeth Martelluzzi at
905.420.4660, extension 2169,
emartelluzzi@pickering.ca, City Development
Department, Pickering Civic Complex,
One The Esplanade, Pickering, ON L1V 6K7.
Personal information collected in response
to this planning notice will be used to assist
City staff and Council to process these
applications and will be made public.
Attachment #1 to Agenda Item 6.1
- 6 -
Submitted Concept Plan
Submitted Renderings
A view looking northwest
from Kingston Road and
Brock Road
A view looking southwest
A view looking east along Kingston Road
- 7 -
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD, PICKERING
November 24, 2020
Attachment #2 to Agenda Item 6.1
- 8 -
ii HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
1970-1980 BROCK
RD, 1670-1680
KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
PREPARED FOR:
Marc Eichorn
Brock and Kingston Holdings Inc.
59 Alexandra Wood
Toronto, ON M5N 2S6
PREPARED BY:
ERA Architects Inc.
#600-625 Church St
Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1
416-963-4497
Project #20-124-01
Prepared by PE / JQ / EA / ZC / SC
- 9 -
iiiISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IV
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Report Scope 1
1.2 Site Description and Context 2
1.3 Site & Context Photos 4
1.4 Heritage Status 15
2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 16
2.1 Chain of Ownership 16
2.2 Site History 17
2.3 Building Evolution 37
3 CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE ASSESSMENT 41
3.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Assessment 41
3.2 Draft Statement of Significance 44
4 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 47
4.1 1970 Brock Road 47
4.2 1980 Brock Road 50
4.3 1670 Kingston Road 50
4.4 1680 Kingston Road 50
5 HERITAGE POLICY FRAMEWORK 51
6 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 58
7 CONSERVATION APPROACH 60
7.1 Conservation Scope 60
8 IMPACT ASSESSMENT & MITIGATION 61
8.1 Impact Summary 61
8.2 Discussion of Impacts 62
8.3 Impact Mitigation 63
9 CONCLUSION 69
10 PROJECT PERSONNEL 70
11 REFERENCES 71
12 APPENDICES 74
- 10 -
iv HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
Ex Ecutiv E Summary
Background
This Heritage Impact Assessment has been
prepared for 1670-1680 Kingston Road and 1970-
1980 Brock Road (“the Site”). It assesses the impact
of the proposed redevelopment on the heritage
resource, Post Manor, at 1970 Brock Road. The Site
is designated under Part Iv of the Ontario Heritage
Act.
Historical Context
Post Manor was built as a farmhouse in 1842-
1843 for Jordan and Matilda Post. It served as
a residence until 1985, when the house and
surrounding Site were redeveloped as a low-
rise commercial plaza. Through incremental
development and road widening beginning in
the mid-20th century, the context along Kingston
Road has become suburban and now more urban,
with policy driving density and urbanization.
Cultural Heritage Value
An analysis undertaken by ERA as a part of this
Report finds that the Site carries cultural heritage
values for its representation of a mid-19th-century
farmhouse, its high craftsmanship, its association
with settlers Jordan and Matilda Post, and its
connection with the cemetery across the road,
both representative of an historic rural crossroads
community.
Proposed Development
The development proposal contemplates the
Site’s urbanization through a 34-storey tower on
the northwest corner of Brock and Kingston Roads,
and a 31-storey tower to its west, connected by a
six-storey podium along Kingston Road.
A 12-storey building is proposed in the Site’s
centre, with 29 three-storey townhouses in an
L-shape configuration along the Site’s nor thwest
cor ner.
Conservation Strategy
Post Manor is proposed to be retained and
relocated northeastward, with its basement
reconstructed to conserve its heritage attributes.
It is proposed to be rehabilitated for a public-
facing commercial use such as a restaurant or
cafe, representing a reinvestment in the building,
to introduce users to experience the building’s
interior craftsmanship.
Impact Assessment
The proposed development is anticipated to
present an impact on the Site’s cultural heritage
value through the building’s relocation from the
intersection of Brock and Kingston Roads, the
loss of a portion of its front-yard setback, and the
change in context due to the high-density new
construction and underground parking access
built in close proximity to the heritage resource.
Impact Mitigation
A two-fold mitigation strategy has been designed
to conserve the Site’s cultural heritage value:
A multi-media interpretation plan is proposed to
help users engage with Site’s history as a place of
agricultural production, and its role within a broader
rural crossroads community. As the legibility of the
crossroads community has been reduced through
suburban development and road widening, this
history is proposed to be communicated through
interpretive media on Site instead.
Within the proposed interpretation strategy,
ERA has worked closely with the proponent and
project architect to develop a mitigative landscape
concept that interprets and “contemporizes” the
historic farmstead typology. The landscape plan
is designed to create framed rural snapshot views
of Post Manor from Brock and Kingston Roads,
while using farmstead motifs on the Site’s interior
to sensitively transition between the Post Manor
lands and contemporary urban community.
- 11 -
1ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
1 iNtrODuctiON
1.1 Report Scope
ERA Architects Inc. (“ERA”) was retained to prepare a Heritage Impact
Assessment (HIA) to accompany an Official Plan and Zoning By-Law
Amendment application for a proposed redevelopment at 1670-1680
Kingston Road and 1970-1980 Brock Road (“the Site”).
The HIA assesses the impact of the proposed redevelopment on the
built heritage resource at 1970 Brock Road, an 1842-1843 farmhouse
known locally as Post Manor.
This Report has been prepared following the Terms of Reference
provided on Info Sheet #5 in the Province of Ontario’s Heritage Toolkit.
According to the Ontario Heritage Toolkit, the purpose of an HIA is to:
... determine if any cultural heritage resources (including
those previously identified and those found as part of the site
assessment) or in any areas of archaeological potential, are
impacted by a specific proposed development or site alteration.
It can also demonstrate how the cultural heritage resource will
be conserved in the context of redevelopment or site alteration.
Mitigative or avoidance measures or alternative development
or site alteration approaches may be recommended.
This Report assesses the proposed development on the Site, the full
details of which are included in the Architectural Drawings by CMv
Architects, appended to this Report (Appendix B).
- 12 -
2 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
1842-1843 farmhouse at 1970 Brock Road, principal (east) elevation. (ERA 2020)
1.2 Site Description and Context
The Site is located at the northwest corner of Brock Road and Kingston
Road, in the City of Pickering. The Site includes four buildings:
• a 11/2-storey stone house-form building, constructed in 1842-
1843, which is oriented to Brock Road, and located within green
space in a small parking lot;
• Three single-storey strip-mall-style brick commercial buildings,
one north of the house (1980 Brock Road), and two west of the
house (1670 and 1680 Kingston Road).
1670 Kingston Road, the southwestern-most brick commercial building on Site, south and east elevations (ERA
2020).
- 13 -
3ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
Map of the City of Pickering, with
the Site outlined in blue. The
1842-1843 house-form building
is highlighted in blue, and the
commercial buildings highlighted
in pink (Region of Durham 2020,
annotated by ERA).
Aerial view of the Site (outlined in blue) and surrounding context (Google, 2020). KINGSTON ROADBROCK ROAD
- 14 -
4 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
1.3 Site & Context Photos
1.3.1 Site Photos
Westward view of the Site’s eastern edge along Brock Road (ERA 2020).
Northwestward view of the Site from the the corner of Brock and Kingston Roads (ERA 2020).
- 15 -
5ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
1970 Brock Road south (side) elevation and east (front) elevation within a landscaped area with trees (ERA 2020).
1970 Brock Road East (front) elevation set within a landscaped area with trees (ERA 2020).
- 16 -
6 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
1970 Brock Road south (side) elevation (ERA 2020).
1970 Brock Road north (side) elevation (ERA 2020).
- 17 -
7ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
1970 Brock Road west (rear) elevation, showing rear commercial tenant entry at the rear wing (ERA 2020).
1970 Brock Road west (rear) elevation, showing enclosed patio, with rear wing and cellar entry (ERA 2020).
- 18 -
8 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
Interior photographs inside the principal (11/2-storey) building (ERA 2020).
- 19 -
9ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
Principal staircase (left) and ‘servant’ staircase (right) (ERA 2020).
Rear wing, interior (ERA 2020).Basement, interior (ERA 2020).
- 20 -
10 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
East elevations of 1680 Kingston Road (left) and 1670 Kingston Road (right) (ERA 2020).
1980 Kingston Road, the southwestern-most brick commercial building on Site, south and east elevations (ERA
2020).
1680 Kingston Road east elevation (left) and 1670 Kingston Road south elevation (right) (ERA 2020).
1980 Brock Road south (main) elevation of commercial building north of the farmhouse (ERA 2020).
- 21 -
11ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
Northwestern view of the northeast edge of the Site, and adjacent townhouse buildings to the north (ERA 2020).
1.3.2 Context Photos
Easward view along Kingston Road, with the Site on the right and Post Cemetery on the left (ERA 2020).
- 22 -
12 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
Raised boulevard space around cemetery south of the Site, view south along Brock Road from the north west
corner of the intersection of Brock and Kingston Roads (ERA 2020).
view of headstones in the cemetery south of the Site. view north towards the Site, with Post Manor visible in the
background (ERA 2020).
- 23 -
13ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
Granite obelisks within the cemetery south of the Site, view north towards the Site across Kingston Road (ERA
2020).
The Durham Regional Policy station, east of the Site on the northeast corner of the intersection of Brock and
Kingston Roads (ERA 2020).
- 24 -
14 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
Gas bar at the southeast corner of the intersection of Brock and Kingston Roads (ERA 2020).
Entrance to the Smart Centre shopping mall south of the Site on the east side of Brock Road (ERA 2020).
- 25 -
15ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
1.4 Heritage Status
1970 Brock Road is Designated under Part Iv of the Ontario Heritage
Act (By-Law 2570/87), passed September 21, 1987. The by-law’s
“Reason for Designation” is included below:
The stone farmhouse commonly known as Post Manor
which is located at Brock Road and Kingston Road, a major
intersection in the Town of Pickering was built in 1841. At that
time the house was in a rural setting surrounded by farmland
and dusty concession roads.
Jordan Post, from Toronto, moved to Pickering with his wife
Matilda in 1838 and proceeded to construct the home. With
a stone foundation and cut fieldstone exterior, the house
is stylish and sturdy. There are shake and metal roofs, an
exceptional verandah trimmed with gingerbread and
detailed chimneys for the two interior marble fireplaces. The
main door hints at a Greek Revival Style popular at the time.
Only the best timber was used from the family mill for interior
trim and floors. Unique hardware, mortar brackets, shutters
and windows compliment this comfortable century building.
There is an unusual arched entrance to the basement.
There are no adjacent properties designated under the Ontario
Heritage Act, nor listed on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage
Register.
- 26 -
16 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
Date of Registry Grantor Grantee Quantity of Land
July 16, 1799 --Hon. David W. Smith (patent) 200 ac.
April 12, 1834 Hon. David W. Smith John Tool 200 ac.
May 13, 1842 John Tool Jordan Post 33 ac. +
November 27, 1851 Jordan Post John Knowles 33 ac. +
October 3, 1855 John Knowles Jordan Post 33 ac. +
1870 Matthew Post Daniel K. Decker 34 ac.
October 17, 1870 Daniel K. Decker Matilda Post 34 ac.
December 17, 1886 Robert Post Robert Deverell 33 ac. +
1908 Robert Deverell & Wife Frederick Hurst 34 ac.
November 29, 1926 Elizabeth Hurst Marshall MacGregor, Bertha &
Charles Hettger 33 ac.+
June 4, 1948 Mary MacGregor, Bertha & Charles
Hettger
Kenneth Harry & Margaret Elizabeth
Clarke ~15 ac.
December 24, 1953 Kenneth Harry & Margaret
Elizabeth Clarke
The Corporation of the Township of
Pickering
(Estimated road
allowance)
March 1, 1961 (appears
to have been finalized
in 1971)
Kenneth Harry Clarke & Wife The Corporation of the Township of
Pickering
Road allowance
along Brock
(between Lot 18
and 19).
October 14, 1986 Kenneth Harry John Clarke Paralax Brock Ltd.
3 ac. Part 1- Reg-
istered Plan 40R-
8663
January 1, 1989 Paralax Brock Ltd
Cara Operations Ltd (Agent for
lease, Parent company of Swiss
Chalet)
3 ac. Part 1- Reg-
istered Plan 40R-
8663
April 16, 1992 Paralax Brock Ltd.Gilfred Investments Ltd.
3 ac. Part 1-
Registered Plan
40R-8663
2 HiS tOrica L b ackgr OuND
2.1 Chain of Ownership
The following chart transcribes the relevant entries from a handwritten chain of ownership for the Site,
retrieved from ONLand, which covers the Site’s ownership from its patent in 1799 to its sale in 1992
Transcription taken from ONLand historical property register
books (LRO40, Pickering, Concession 1, Book 203).
- 27 -
17ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
2.2 Site History
Pre-Contact History
Pickering and the wider Durham Region is the traditional territory of
the Mississaugas of Scugog Island, the Anishinabewaki, the Huron-
Wendat and the Haudenosaunee First Nations.
Well-documented archaeological and archival evidence shows that in
until the 1600s, the Seneca (Haudenosaunee) village of Ganatsetiagon
(one of several transliterated spellings) sat approximately seven
kilometres west of the Site, at the intersection of the Rouge River
and today’s Kingston Road.
Ganatsetiagon was established just northwest of the mouth of the
Rouge River, and served as a southern base for one of the several
Toronto Carrying Place trails from Lake Ontario to Lake Simcoe. The
village appears on multiple French exploration maps dating to the
1670s and 1680s. In the winter of 1669, French Sulpician missionary
Francois de Salignac de la Mothe-Fenelon travelled to Ganatsetiagon
and is said to have attempted to establish a school for the Seneca
1688 Map of Lake Ontario and surrounding settlements, with the approximate
location of the Site identified east of the Ganestikiagon village in blue (University
of Toronto Maps and Data Library, annotated by ERA).
- 28 -
18 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
children; it is widely reported that Frenchman’s Bay is named for
Fenelon and his travel companions.
Following the late-17th-century Haudenosaunee departure from
the north shores of Lake Ontario and the arrival of the Anishinaabe
Mississaugas of the Credit in the 18th century, the site of Ganatsekiagon
was no longer occupied. Today, the Bead Hill National Historic Site
at Kingston Road and the Rouge River is recognized as the possible
Ganatsekiagon village site, due to the discovery of significant numbers
of archaeological materials there.
British Colonial Context
Following French Missionaries such as Fenelon, early British settlement
in Pickering began in the 1770s. The Constitutional Act of 1791
established the new colony of upper Canada (today’s Ontario), and
set in place a British colonial administration. Early on, the colonial
administration commissioned Augustus Jones to complete the survey
of counties, townships and 200-acre lots separated by concession lines
and sideroads. The Site was located within York County, in Pickering
Township. (In 1852, the east portion of York County, including the
Township of Pickering, would be separated off as the newly-formed
Ontario County). Settlement was gradual, and by the 1813 census,
the Township of Pickering had 180 residents.
In 1796, the colonial administration set out to build a road from the
head of Lake Ontario (Hamilton) to Kingston. The Kingston Road was
completed by 1815. Soon after ward, set tlements began to emerge at
the junctures of the Kingston Road road and the intersecting sideroads,
often marked by a post office, a church or school, and sometimes a
highway hotel or tavern. The more successful settlements grew to
become villages, with the establishment of additional commerce
and local institutions.
In 1795, upper Canada’s Surveyor General Honorable D. W. Smith
was granted Lot 19, in both the First and Second Concession, as well
as Lot 20 in the Second Concession, among other lots throughout
Pickering. The Site is located on a portion of these lands, on Lot 19
in the First Concession.
- 29 -
19ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
1791 Survey Plan of Pick-
ering by Augustus Jones,
with approximate location
of the Site identified in blue
(Pickering Digital Archive,
annotated by ERA).
1801 Chewett Plan of Pick-
ering, with Lot 19, Conces-
sion 1, containing the Site
identified in blue. Lands
owned by D.W. Smith are
shaded a pale green (City
of Toronto Archives, anno-
tated by ERA).
- 30 -
20 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
1826 Map of the Province of upper Canada, with the road to Kingston highlighted in blue, and an arrow indicating the ap-
proximate Site location (university of Toronto Maps Library, annotated by ERA).
Enlarged excerpt of the 1801 Chewett Plan of Pickering, with Lot 19, Concession 1, containing the Site identified in blue.
Lands owned by D.W. Smith are shaded a pale green. Kingston Road, then called Dundas Street, is drawn in orange (City of
Toronto Archives, annotated by ERA).
- 31 -
21ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
1815-1855: Early Villages along the Kingston Road
The earliest settlement along the Kingston Road in the Township of
Pickering was the Village of Duff in’s Creek, which eventually became
Pickering village. The village was incorporated as a township in 1811,
and by 1817, its first general store had been established. Pickering
village was located at the juncture of Kingston Road and the 2nd
Concession Road (today’s Finch Avenue), just northeast of the Site.
Along with the saw and grist mills established in these communities
to serve the surrounding areas’ agricultural needs, forestry soon
became an important industry in Pickering Township. Frenchman’s
Bay was ideally suited to imports and exports, being large enough for
ships to enter, and as early as 1843, the bay was dredged to increase
its capacity to admit even larger ships. Time Present and Time Past:
A Pictorial History of Pickering notes that “[p]ine logs for ship’s masts,
squared timber, and cordwood were exported through Frenchman’s
Bay”.
An 1833 map, with later annotations, indicates Lot 19, Con I’s ownership by D. W.
Smith, in blue (Pickering Digital Archives, annotated by ERA).
- 32 -
22 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
1878 Map of Ontario County. Kingston Road in pink, the villages of Dunbarton and Duffins Creek (later Pickering Village) in
blue, and standalone farmhouses and taverns in orange. (Canadian County Atlas Digital Project, annotated by ERA).
1975 aerial of a widened Kingston Road (in pink) between Dunbarton and Pickering village, with suburban developments
and large scale commercial sites, including drive-in theatres, along its length (City of Toronto Archives, annotated by ERA).
2020 aerial of Kingston Road (in pink) between the former villages of Dunbarton and Pickering, with its span fully developed
with auto-oriented neighbourhoods, commerce and services (Google Maps annotated by ERA).
Kingston Road was established as an early inter-community highway between
1796-1815. In the decades that followed, colonial settlers established villages,
farmhouses, hotel taverns and institutions along its length. During the post-WWII
rise of the automobile and suburbanization, the street began to see increased
residential and commercial development, and a resulting increase in vehicle
traffic. Kingston Road’s earlier rural and agricultural character was eroded as
the street transitioned to a suburban corridor.
Today, contemporary planning efforts are seeking to reshape Kingston Road
into a more urban street, with transit-oriented development, and public
realm improvements such as bike lanes. As this thoroughfare transitions once
again, opportunities exist to establish a clear vision for the conservation and
commemoration of remnant agricultural heritage resources along Kingston
Road. Compatible built form, landscape and public realm design can serve to
transition retained heritage resources into the urbanizing Kingston Road, and
increase their prominence for passersby using all modes of transportation.
Kingston Road in Evolution
- 33 -
23ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
The Post Family: Colonial Settlers in Upper Canada
The historical roots of Post Manor at 1970 Brock Road begin with the
Post Family, early settlers of Toronto, Scarborough, Ajax and Pickering.
Circa 1780, Jordan Post I and his wife Abigail Loomis left Hebron,
Connecticut to settle in York with their family of eight children.
One son, Jordan Post II, would become York’s first clockmaker and a
town officer, serving as a pathmaster in 1810 and 1819. He and his wife,
Melinda Woodruff, owned land near King and Yonge Streets (where the
nearby Jordan and Melinda Streets still bear their name). They later
traded this land for 500 acres in Scarborough.
Another son, George Washington Post, settled in Pickering circa 1813.
G. W. Post served as an elected assessor, and later held various offices.
He and his wife, Elizabeth Knowles Post, established a two-storey brick
stagecoach inn along Kingston Road, one mile west of the Whitby
border. The building still stands today near present-day Salem Road.
In Pickering, George Washington and Elizabeth Post raised seven children.
In April of 1842, their son Jordan Post purchased just over 33 acres in
Lot 19, Concession I from John Toole, containing the Site. Jordan and
his wife Matilda are pictured below.
Jordan Post III, son of George
Washington Post, c. 1840 (Pickering
Digital Archives).
Matilda Post c. 1880s (Pickering Digital
Archives).
1952 photograph of Old Post Inn at
Kingston Road near Salem Road in
present day Ajax (City of Ajax).
- 34 -
24 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
The earliest available archival image of the Post farmhouse, principal (east) elevation, taken c. 1880 from Brock Road
(Pickering Digital Archives).
Post Occupancy (1842-1843 to 1886)
Historical accounts indicate that in 1841, Jordan Post III erected a saw
mill on Lot 19, Con II, along Duffin’s Creek, where it crossed Brock Road.
Secondary sources indicate he became a successful businessman,
exporting milled lumber to Oswego, New York, via Frenchman’s Bay.
Jordan and Matilda Post commissioned the extant house on Site in
1842-1843 fronting the sideroad, Brock Road, just north of Kingston
Road. The written historical record indicates that the house was built
by Scottish stonemasons, with millwork by ships’ cabinet-makers
based out of the nearby Frenchman’s Bay. The Posts called their
estate Flora villa.
The 11/2- storey cut fieldstone house with a 1-storey rear wing, typical
of mid-19th century Ontario farmhouses, was designed in a Georgian
vernacular style with an ornate Regency-style porch. The fine finishes,
such as the interior and exterior wood trim, reflected the Posts’ relative
wealth and prominence in early Pickering.
- 35 -
25ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
Left: 1860 Map of Ontario County. The
Site sit s just west of Duffin’s Creek,
later Pickering village. Post property
in blue, with the extant Post Manor in
yellow at the bottom right corner of
the lot. Remnant cemetery in orange
across Kingston Road.
Crossroads community features
that have since been lost include
the Church of Christ’s Disciples (in
green), the Post Sawmill (in pink),
and neighbouring farmhouses (in
purple).
(university of Toronto Maps, annotated
by ERA).
The Posts were early supporters of the evangelical Church of Christ’s Disciples, which first met in a nearby
schoolhouse and grew to 250 members at its peak. To accommodate the growing congregation, a church
was erected in the 1840s, directly south of Post Manor, on the southwest corner of Brock and Kingston
Roads. The church was later demolished around the turn of the 20th century.
In the congregation’s early years, Jordan Post purchased land at the southwest corner of Brock and
Kingston Roads to establish a cemetery adjacent to the church, known through the turn of the century
as the Disciples’ Burying Ground. The combination of the Posts’ farmhouse, the church, the cemetery, the
saw mill and the homes of fellow farmsteaders and congregants formed a small crossroads community
at the corner of Brock and Kingston Roads.
In 1860, Jordan became the first person to be buried in Post Cemetery. His wife, Matilda, would later be
buried there in 1886. The Post headstones remain there today alongside many of their neighbours and
fellow congregants, including William Forrester, George Leng, Abraham Knowles, George Barclay and
Charles Palmer.
Above: Commemorative obelisk at the
Post Cemetery, across Kingston Road
from the Site (ERA 2020).
- 36 -
26 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
Post Manor at the Brock and Kingston Crossroads, in 1927 (left) and 1945 (right). The photos look nor thward, and Post
Manor is shaded in blue. The cemetery is fenced, and a commemorative granite obelisk can be seen in the left photo. (Picker-
ing Digital Archive, annotated by ERA)
2020 view from the cemetery toward
Post Manor, in blue.
Today, the cemetery is bermed up
above grade. From the adjacent
sidewalk, the cemetery is barely
visible, and is separated today from
Post Manor by eight lanes of traffic on
Kingston Road.
(ERA 2020)
- 37 -
27ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
At Matilda Post’s death in 1886, the Post lands were put up for auction.
On August 6th, 1886, the Pickering News advertised the Post lands. The
134 acres on Lots 19, Cons. I and II were split into two parcels. The Post
Manor farmstead, located in Parcel II, was described in some detail:
VALUABLE FARM AND VILLAGE PROPERTY FOR SALE
Scaled tenders addressed to the undersigned will be received up
to the 15th day of August, 1886, for the purchase of the following
parcels of valuable farm and village property belonging to the
estate of the late JORDAN POST.
Parcel I: The south half of Lot No. 19, in the 2nd Concession of
the Township of Pickering, containing 100 acres, more or less,
of which about 10 acres is bush. On this property is erected a
dwelling house and stable. This property affords an excellent and
rare opportunity to mill-owners as the west branch of Duffin’s
Creek runs across the south east corner of said property, thus
offering one of the finest water privileges in Ontario.
Parcel II: Adjoining parcel 1, consisting of the north part of Lot
No. 19 in the 1st Concession of Pickering, containing 34 acres,
more or less, on which is erected a good stone dwelling house,
stone kitchen, woodshed, stable, driving shed, and barns. Parcels
1 and 2 have formerly been used as one farm, and have ample
buildings, stone stables, and root house under the barn; good
orchard. Together is a splendid grazing and grain growing farm
of 134 acres. The present tenant has to leave 28 acres ploughed
and 4 acres in fall wheat. Possession this fall in time to plow.
This property is beautifully located about half a mile west of
Pickering Village, and twenty miles from Toronto.
Parcel III: The north half of the south half of Lot No. 21, in the
Broken Front of Pickering, containing 50 acres, more or less,
on which is erected a good dwelling house and barn; situated
about half a mile from Liverpool Harbor.
Parcel IV - A house and lot containing about quarter of an acre,
situated in the Village of Pickering.
According to an October 15th, 1886 Pickering News article, Parcels I
and II were “knocked down” by a Wesley Walton, however secondary
sources note that the Post Manor farmstead was ultimately acquired
by Robert Deverell.Pickering News, Oct 15 1886, pg. 8
(Pickering Public Library)
Pickering News, Oct 6 1886, pg. 5
(Pickering Public Library)
- 38 -
28 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
Deverell Occupancy (1886 - 1908)
Prior to their purchase of the Post Manor farmstead, the
Deverells were farmers near Cherrywood, a hamlet located
near today’s Rosebank Road and the 3rd Concession line.
They continued farming on Site, but newspaper records also
indicate that the Deverells frequently hosted gatherings for
the local Ladies’ Aid Societies. The Pickering News carried
several notices of “oyster suppers” at the residence of Robert
Deverell, Esq. and strawberry festivals and other socials were
held on “the beautiful and spacious lawn of Robt. Deverell’s”
(Pickering News, May 23, 1902).
In the 1870s or 1880s, alterations to the farmhouse are estimated
to have been undertaken to expand the rear of the principal
11/2-storey building with a great room, and to install marble
fireplace mantels (see Sections 2.2 and 4.0 for fur ther detail).
It is possible that these alterations were undertaken by the
Deverells upon their acquisition of the residence.
Left: 1900 photograph of Robert Deverell, Right:
1900 photograph of Robert’s wife Margaret
Hesleys Ferguson Deverell (Pickering Public
Library)
In July 1905, a Ladies’ Aid Society garden party at “Mr. Deverell’s beautiful grounds” was
marred by a major fire at the Deverell barns, west of the house. Guests were engaged
to save the horses and cattle, while only half a dozen of seventy fowl were saved. The
damage was estimated to be greater than $2,000.
In September 1908, Robert Deverell sold the property to Frederick Hurst, of Toronto,
for $5,300. The sale agreement describes 48 acres: 34 acres on Lot 19, Con I on the
northwest corner of Brock and Kingston Roads, and 14 acres on Lot 18, Con I on the
northeast corner of Brock and Kingston Roads. These 14 acres were not Post family
holdings, and were likely acquired separately by the Deverells.
The sale agreement further listed the chattel sold with the two properties. The list is
indicative of the type of agricultural work undertaken on the lot:
• 1 team of horses; 1 colt; 4 cows; 4 cattle; 1 yearling calf; 4 calfs;
• Turnip slicer; 2 ladders; 2 wagons; hayrack; 1 buggy, 1 Democrat. wagon; 2 sets of
harness (heavy); 1 set of light; 1 mowing machine; bobsleighs; 1 cutter; turnip drill;
grindstone; cultivator; cart;
• 16 young pigs; 4 large pigs; 25 hens;
• Drill; hay teder; binder; hay rake; sulky plow; roller; fanning mill; harrows.
- 39 -
29ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
In November 1926, Elizabeth Hurst sold the property to the Hettger-MacGregor siblings.
Hettger-MacGregor Occupancy (1926 - 1943)
Born in the late 1800s to German immigrants in Lindsay, Mary, Bertha and Carl Hettger acquired the Post
Manor farmstead in 1926, with Mary’s husband Marshall MacGregor. until then, the siblings had been
living at the MacGregor residence in Parkdale, Toronto.
Marshall MacGregor died soon after ward, in 1930 at age 68, and was buried with his first wife in Toronto.
The three siblings, aged 50 (Mary), 46 (Bertha) and 40 (Carl), continued to reside and farm on site for the
following 15 years.
Hurst Occupancy (1908 - 1926)
Frederick Hurst purchased the 34-acre Post Manor
farmstead in 1908, in his mid 50s, following a 28-year
career as a butcher in Toronto. upon his death in
July 1924, the Pickering News noted:
The deceased, who was in his 72nd year,
conducted a provision business in Toronto for
a number of years, but about 16 years ago
he came to Pickering, locating on the farm
he purchased from the late Robt. Deverell, a
mile west of the village, where he engaged
in farming and gardening.
Photographs dated 1928 (but likely taken earlier) of Mar y Hettger MacGregor (left), Ber tha Hettger (centre) and Carl Hettger
(right), donated to the Pickering Public Library by Kenneth H. J. Clarke (Pickering Public Library).
Post Manor looking northwestward from Kingston Road,
circa 1920 during the Hurst tenure (Pickering Public Library).
- 40 -
30 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
The property remained agricultural throughout
the Hettgers’ tenure on Site. Archival evidence
(photographs, newspaper articles) indicates that
the Hettgers cultivated the agricultural lands on
Site, and kept livestock like chickens.Advertisement for chickens placed by Carl Hettger in the
Pickering News, February 19, 1937 (Pickering Public Library).
1940 Front door of the Hettger home (Pickering Public Library).
1927 Carl Hettger and dog on south lawn. Captioned by the
Hettgers: “A glimpse of the wilderness when we arrived”.
(Pickering Public Library).
1927 Outbuildings on the Hettger farmstead (Pickering Public
Library).
1940 Hettger-MacGregor gathering on the south lawn, with a
more highly groomed garden than when the Hettgers arrived
in 1927 (Pickering Public Library).
1930 Carl Hettger and chickens, rear of house in background
(Pickering Public Library).
1930 Outbuildings on the Hettger farmstead, captioned by
the Hettgers: “As we found it before the trees were planted”
(Pickering Public Library).
- 41 -
31ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
The Hettger-MacGregors’ tenure on Site transitioned the property in
the WWII era, and the advent of suburbanization. In the 1940s, the
Hettger siblings sold to Kenneth H. J. Clarke and Peggy Winter Clarke,
a young couple out of Toronto.
The Hettgers placed value in their historic home, selecting the Clarkes’
offer after learning that the competing buyers were planning extensive
alterations on site. The sale appears to have been an amicable transfer;
a series of archival records were left to the Clarkes, with a por trait of
Mary Hettger MacGregor signed “Please do not forget us”. For their part,
the Clarkes annotated the photos left by the Hettger-MacGregors; a
photograph of Carl is re-captioned “Dear old Carl who was responsible
for what the place is.”
Clarke Occupancy (c. 1948 - 1985)
Kenneth and Peggy Clarke’s tenure on Site coincides with the shift along
Kingston Road from agricultural production to suburban development.
The Clarkes themselves, married in 1940, and employed and engaged
in social circles in Toronto, may be considered early participants in
the region’s suburbanization.
views of the Post Manor from Kingston Road during the Hettger-MacGregor tenure, 1927 (Pickering Public Library).
- 42 -
32 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
1947 Peggy Clarke with Kenneth Clarke Jr. standing in front of the house’s front
porch. The photo was dated 1947 by K.H.J. Clarke, but may be dated later, given
that their purchase of the property was registered Spring 1948 (Pickering Digital
Archives)
1947 The Clarkes’ dog, on the house’s
front porch (Pickering Digital Archives).
The Clarkes’ early years on Site were characterized by the birth of
their son, Kenneth Clarke Jr.
Some years later, in 1956, a day time fire started in the rear kitchen
wing, resulting in the death of the Clarkes’ maid, Mary Armstrong. A
March 17, 1956 Globe and Mail article provides a brief account:
Mrs. Clarke and the maid were alone in the house when fire
broke out in the kitchen, swept up a stairway to two bedrooms
and part of the roof on the century-old house. Unable to get
through the smoke and flames to the telephone, Mrs. Clarke
drove half a mile to the village to turn in the alarm.
The Pickering News similarly covered the fire:
A maid, Mary Armstrong, was dusting in a bedroom above the
burning kitchen. The blaze swept up the back stairway and up
into the rafters.
The Clarkes appear to have engaged in documentation and restoration
works in the years following the fire. In 1959, they commissioned
measured drawings of the house by architect H. Okun. Today, the
Okun drawings help establish the evolution of the interior floor plan
in recent years (see Section 2.2).
In 1962, a Telegram article reported a commendation for the Clarkes’
restoration work by the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario.
The Globe and Mail, March 17, 1956, pg.
4 (Toronto Public Library).
- 43 -
33ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
1959 Measured Drawings by H. Okun, Architect depicting the house as it was during the Clarke family’s tenure. The lower
south elevation drawing appears to be mislabeled as the north elevation, (Pickering Public Library).
- 44 -
34 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
As the context around their property evolved with suburban
development over the 1950s-70s, the Clarkes responded by insulating
their property from the street. The house’s rear yard evolved from
agricultural to suburban leisure uses, with the installation of a swimming
pool.
view from Brock Road in 1956 (left) and view from above in 1959 (right). Substantial plantings sheltered the Clarkes’ house
from the increasingly suburban Brock and Kingston Roads (Pickering Public Library).
Two 1964 photos shown a manicured lawn, sheltered from the traffic along Brock Road (Pickering Public Library).
The formerly-agricultural outbuildings, pic tured at left in 1964, became the backdrop for a swimming pool (pictured at right
in 1967) (Pickering Public Library).
- 45 -
35ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
1959 aerial of the Clarke property, with
a subdivision to the west, and a remnant
farm property kitty-corner at Brock and
Kingston Roads. Extant house in blue.
(City of Toronto Archives, annotated by
ERA).
1966 aerial, with the extant house in blue,
the Town of Pickering facility in yellow,
and the Clarkes’ swimming pool in pink.
A realignment of Brock Road increased
the Site’s area to the east, shown in green.
(City of Toronto Archives, annotated by
ERA).
1975 aerial, with the extant house in blue,
the new commercial site at the southeast
corner in red, and the expanded Brock
and Kingston Roads in purple (City of
Toronto Archives, annotated by ERA).
E vOLvING CONTEXT AND ROAD REALIGNMENT
- 46 -
36 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
In 1966, concurrent with a realignment of Brock Road
and added lands at the Site’s east (front) property
line, Kenneth Clarke sold the vacant land at the
northeast corner of Brock and Kingston Roads for
the construction of a City of Pickering facility, now
a Durham Regional Police facility.
In 1972, both Brock and Kingston Roads were
widened. Shor tly thereafter, the intersection’s
southeast corner was adapted for commercial use.
Commercial Plaza (1985 - 2020)
In 1986, the Clarke family sold the Post farmhouse
and surrounding 12.3 acres of land per Registered
Plan No. 40R-8663 (March 18, 1985) (refer to Plan,
right):
• Par t 1 of the Plan: measuring approximately
three acres and almost identical to the
Site boundaries today, contains the Post
farmhouse. It was was sold on October 14,
1986 to Paralax Brock Ltd. Paralax Brock
Ltd. developed the Site as a commercial
plaza. The Post farmhouse was restored and
retained in place during this redevelopment.
In the time since, the house has operated
with two boutique commercial units, one
in the main house, and the other in the rear
wing.
• Par t 2 of the Plan: measuring 2.5 acres was
also sold by the Clarkes on October 14, 1986.
The purchaser, Royal Road Holdings Inc..
developed the land as a commercial plaza
in the late 1980s.
• Part 3 of the Plan: measuring 6.872 acres was
sold to Ontario 652195 Inc. on June 27, 1986,
and was later developed as townhouses
(refer to Zoning By-law Amendment 4081-
92).
Excerpt of Registered Plan 40R-8663, showing the division
of three parcels to be sold by the Clarkes. The Plan sites
three parcels, with a combined acreage of 12.373 acres.
This Plan was registered by Kenneth Clark by March 18,
1985, months before the Clarkes completed the sale of the
three parcels (ONLand Instrument Search Tool).
- 47 -
37ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
2.3 Building Evolution
Based on a review of the earliest available archival drawings
(Okun, 1956) and a prelimary interior and exterior site review,
Post Manor appears to be largely intact to its original design.
Estimated Alterations
The farmhouse has evolved over time to accommodate a
series of residential requirements, and subsequent conversion
to two boutique commercial units.
The following estimated alterations were observed:
a) Interior alterations to the original centre-plan on the
first floor, including:
• The likely removal of a wall division in the northwest
corner of the house, as evidenced by differing levels
of wood trim detailing on the windows; and
• The addition of an office in the southwest por tion
of the house, as evidenced by new wood trim and
drywall.
b) Interior alterations to the floor plan on the second floor:
• The addition of a room division at the northeast
corner of the house; and
• The possible removal of a hallway division at the top
of the staircase.
c) Addition of a door opening (c. 1960s) on the south eleva-
tion of the rear wing, converted from a window opening.
d) Alteration to the rear door on the rear wing to accomo-
date a standard-sized door and side lights. The timber-
framed opening shows evidence of earlier, larger double
doors here. The function of these former doors is uncer-
tain, but in the early 20th century, this doorway opened
into a wood clapboard extension, likely non-original.
The extension appears to have been removed by 1940.
(C) Door Opening on South Elevation: The
1959 south elevation drawing (above) and 2020
photograph (below) show the conversion of a
window opening into a entrance (Okun, 1959;
ERA, 2020; annotated by ERA).
(D) Rear Door on Rear Wing: The rear door
shown above, with close-ups showing the lo-
cation of former hinges for larger double doors
(ERA, 2020).
- 48 -
38 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
(A + B) Interior Floor Plan Alterations: ERA annotations of probable
alterations on the earliest available archival drawings, by H. Okun,
1959 (Pickering Public Library, Annotated by ERA).Wall removal
Wall addition
- 49 -
39ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
1930s, looking
southwest
toward the
outbuilding
extension from
behind the cellar
door. Stone
rear wing in
blue. (Pickering
Public Library,
annotated by
ERA).
1927, looking
east toward
the house, past
the outbuilding
extension. Stone
rear wing in
blue. (Pickering
Public Library,
annotated by
ERA).
1940, outbuilding
extension has
been removed
(Pickering Public
Library).
(D) Former Outbuilding Extension on Rear Wing: The two top photos show evidence of a former wood
clapboard extension built onto the single-storey stone rear wing. The outbuilding appears to have been
removed prior to 1940.
- 50 -
40 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
Further Review
Potential areas for further study include:
• Potential former opening or chimney on the south elevation:
The pattern of fieldstones on the south elevation may indicate
that an opening or exterior chimney could have been located
between the windows at one point in time. The earliest
available clear photographs of the south elevation from 1930
do not indicate such a feature in this location.
• Origins of the carved marble fireplaces: The varied motifs,
locations and installation of the three car ved marble fireplaces
indicates that they are likely not original to the house.
Additional research would be required to confirm. The style of
the northeast and northwest mantels indicates that they date
to c. 1870-80.
2020 site photo indicating signs of a potential former opening or chimney
on the south elevation of the farmhouse. These markings (within the rough
area dashed in blue) are more pronounced on the first floor (ERA, 2020).
Northeast Fireplace: Does not sit flush
against the wall (ERA, 2020).
Northwest Fireplace: unusual condi-
tion in front of a window opening (ERA,
2020).
Rear Wing Fireplace: Mantel cut into
wood door trim (ERA, 2020).
- 51 -
41ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
3 cuLturaL HEritagE vaLuE a SSESSmENt
3.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Assessment
Value (quoted from O. Reg. 9/06)Assessment: Post Manor (1970 Brock Road)
1. The property has design value or physical
value because it,
i. is a rare, unique, representative or early
example of a style, type, expression,
material or construction method,
ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or
artistic merit, or
iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical
or scientific achievement.
Post Manor is a representative example of a 19th century Ontario farm-
house, and displays a high degree of craftsmanship, both in its interior
and exterior features.
2. The property has historical value or associa-
tive value because it,
i. has direct associations with a theme,
event, belief, person, activity, organization
or institution that is significant to a com-
munity,
ii. yields, or has the potential to yield,
information that contributes to an under-
standing of a community or culture, or
iii. demonstrates or reflects the work
or ideas of an architect, artist, builder,
designer or theorist who is significant to a
community.
Post Manor is associated with Jordan & Matilda Post, early settlers of
Pickering and wealthy sawmill operators, who built Post Manor in 1842-
1843.
While Post Manor has some potential, with the cemetery across the
street, to yield the information that Kingston and Brock Roads was an
historic crossroads community, the integrity of this community has
been eroded by demolitions, suburban development, and notably the
widening of both Kingston and Brock Roads, to the extent that this
intersection can no longer be considered legible to the general public
as an historic crossroads. In particular, the non-original berm that
elevates the cemetery above the intersection inhibits its ability to be
read in conjunction with Post Manor.
There is no evidence to suggest that Post Manor represents the work
of an architect, ar tist, builder, designer or theorist significant to the
community. Its typical Georgian vernacular suggests that it was likely
derived from a pattern book.
3. The property has contextual value because
it,
i. is important in defining, maintaining or
supporting the character of an area,
ii. is physically, functionally, visually or
historically linked to its surroundings, or
iii. is a landmark.
Post Manor exists within an evolved context, and does not currently
define, maintain nor support the character of the area.
Post Manor is historically linked to the Post Cemetery at the southwest
corner of Brock and Kingston Roads. Both exist as remnant evidence of
a mid-1800s rural crossroads community. Post Cemetery was estab-
lished by the Post family, and Jordan Post III (builder of Post Manor)
became the cemetery’s first burial in 1860.
Post Manor does not currently occupy such a position of visibility or
prominence that it would be considered a local landmark. Community
engagement would be required to understand whether Post Manor is
valued as a landmark by local community members.
- 52 -
42 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
Value (quoted from O. Reg. 9/06)Assessment: 1980 Brock
Road
1. The property has design value or physical value because it,
i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression,
material or construction method,
ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or ar tistic merit, or
iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.
n/a
2. The property has historical value or associative value because it,
i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or
institution that is significant to a community,
ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understand-
ing of a community or culture, or
iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, ar tist, builder, designer
or theorist who is significant to a community.
n/a
3. The property has contextual value because it,
i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area,
ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or
iii. is a landmark.
n/a
Value (quoted from O. Reg. 9/06)Assessment: 1670
Kingston Road
1. The property has design value or physical value because it,
i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression,
material or construction method,
ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or ar tistic merit, or
iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.
n/a
2. The property has historical value or associative value because it,
i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or
institution that is significant to a community,
ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understand-
ing of a community or culture, or
iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, ar tist, builder, designer
or theorist who is significant to a community.
n/a
3. The property has contextual value because it,
i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area,
ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or
iii. is a landmark.
n/a
- 53 -
43ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
Value (quoted from O. Reg. 9/06)Assessment: 1680
Kingston Road
1. The property has design value or physical value because it,
i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression,
material or construction method,
ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or ar tistic merit, or
iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.
n/a
2. The property has historical value or associative value because it,
i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or
institution that is significant to a community,
ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understand-
ing of a community or culture, or
iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, ar tist, builder, designer
or theorist who is significant to a community.
n/a
3. The property has contextual value because it,
i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area,
ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or
iii. is a landmark.
n/a
- 54 -
44 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
3.2 Draft Statement of Significance
1970 Brock Road’s existing designation by-law (#2570-87), appended
to this Report, includes a designation description that alludes to
the Site’s cultural heritage value (see Section 1.4). The designation
by-law is proposed to be updated to contemporary standards in
conjunction with this submission.
ERA has prepared a draft Statement of Significance for the City of
Pickering’s review.
Statement of Significance: Post Manor (1970 Brock Road)
Description of the Historic Place
Post Manor is a 11/2-storey stone house with a 1-storey rear
wing and 1-storey cellar entrance. It was built in 1842-1843 for
Jordan and Matilda Post, and their eight children. Originally
situated on a 130-acre farm, its property was subdivided over
the 20th century, and converted in the 1980s for commercial
use within a low-rise commercial plaza.
Statement of Cultural Heritage Value
Post Manor exhibits design value as a representative example
of a mid-19th-century Ontario farmhouse. Post Manor reflects
the farmhouse building type through its form (11/2-storey
rectangular mass, with a 1-storey rear wing), full-width front
porch, mirrored chimney stacks, and five-bay symmetry on
its principal elevation.
Post Manor exhibits further design value for the high level
of craftsmanship throughout its exterior and interior design,
including a rare remaining Regency-style porch.
The site is associated with prominent early settlers, Jordan
and Matilda Post, wealthy sawmill owners and lumber
merchants, who built Post Manor in 1842-1843. The Posts
were instrumental in establishing a crossroads community
at Brock and Kingston Roads, at one point known as Post’s
Corners. They were active members of the Church of Christ’s
Disciples, and helped to establish the church and cemetery at
the intersection’s southwest corner.
- 55 -
45ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
Post Manor is historically linked to the cemetery at the
southwest corner. Both Jordan and Matilda Post were buried
at the cemetery, across the road from their home. Although
the two corners are historically linked as remnant evidence
of a crossroads community, their contextual relationship has
been altered by the widening of Kingston Road as an eight-
lane thoroughfare. The remnant mature vegetation on each
site conveys a rural character that differentiates them from
other properties in the area along Brock and Kingston Roads.
Heritage Attributes
Attributes that convey the mid-19th-century Ontario
farmhouse building type include:
• Orientation to Brock Road;
• Setback from Brock Road;
• 11/2-storey massing, with a 1-storey rear wing;
• Symmetrical 5-bay plan;
• Ground floor centre plan;
• Full-width front porch;
• Mirrored chimney stacks;
• Stone cold-cellars built into the basement for food
preservation; and
• Georgian vernacular features, including entrance
transom and sidelights, and six-over-six sash windows,
indicating a mid-19th-century construction date.
Attributes that convey high craftsmanship, and association
with wealthy property owners Jordan and Matilda Post,
include:
• Stone foundation;
• Cut fieldstone walls;
• Wood features and detailing on the building exterior,
including windows, eave trim and eave returns;
• Wood entrance door with transom and sidelights;
• Regency-style porch, with a bell-curved roof, decora-
tive trellis detailing, and an open porch deck with no
balustrade;
- 56 -
46 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
• Shake roofing on the porch roof and 11/2 storey portion
of the house;
• Pressed tin roofing on the rear 1-storey wing;
• Front staircase, including walnut bannister and mould-
ing along risers and foyer doorway;
• Rear ‘servant’ stair, with simple railing and cylindrical
newel post;
• Interior wooden moulding, including base boards,
doors, and door and window casings;
• Door and window hardware, including original box
locks and window latches;
• Marble mantels in the principal building; and
• Exposed structural elements in basement, including
3 inch planed floor joists, fieldstone foundation and
honed fieldstone at corners of room divisions.
Attributes that convey Post Manor’s historic relationship to
the Post Cemetery include:
• Proximity to the intersection at Brock and Kingston
Roads;
• Mature landscape character.
- 57 -
47ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
4 cONDitiON aSSESSmENt
On September 24th, 2020, ERA carried out a preliminary condition
assessment of the buildings located on the Site, including 1970 Brock
Road, 1980 Brock Road, 1670 Kingston Road, and 1680 Kingston Road.
The visual assessment was carried out from grade on the exteriors of
all buildings and accessible areas, and on the interior of 1970 Brock
Road. No destructive testing was undertaken during this review.
This preliminary assessment is intended to provide an understanding
of the general condition of the buildings on the Site, and the integrity
of the historic fabric.
4.1 1970 Brock Road
The 1842-1843 farmhouse consists of a 11/2-storey main building with a
full-width covered porch along the front (east) elevation, and a single-
storey rear kitchen wing. The building is constructed of split fieldstone
masonry under a gabled wood shingle roof on the front portion, and
a pressed metal roof on the kitchen wing. The predominantly granite
fieldstone walls have been par tially squared to provide a tightly-
jointed even finish, with random coursing on all elevations. Stones
have been dressed and shaped to provide quoins at the front corners,
and jack arches with keystones above the openings.
The building components were graded
using the following assessment terms:
Excellent: Superior aging perfor-
mance. Functioning as intended; no
deterioration observed.
Good: Normal Result. Functioning
as intended; normal deterioration
observed.
Fair: Functioning as intended; Nor-
mal deterioration and minor distress
observed.
Poor: Not functioning as intended;
significant deterioration and distress
observed.
Defective: Not functioning as intend-
ed; significant deterioration and major
distress observed, possible damage to
support structure; may present a risk.
Partially squared fieldstones provide a tightly-jointed even
finish (ERA, 2020).
Jack-arched window (ERA, 2020).
- 58 -
48 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
The house maintains the decorative wood elements
associated with a well-appointed dwelling from this
period, including eave trim and eave returns, wood
sash windows with shutters, entrance, and porch
with decorative trim. The six-over-six pattern wood
sash windows and wide six-paneled entrance door
with square transom and sidelights appear to be
original, with sympathetic repairs. The house has
been rehabilitated, and is currently in use as a spa
and medical office.
The farmhouse was found to be in generally good
condition, with some areas requiring maintenance
and/or repair as identified below.
Some areas of the exterior envelope require
maintenance, as evidenced by the following
observed conditions:
• Select areas on all elevations requiring
repointing;
• Peeling paint on exterior wood trim, windows
and doors; and
• A gap noted between the masonry wall and
the roof at the northern edge of the porch. ERA
recommends further investigation in this area.
The wood shingle roof is nearing the end of its useful
life. It was found to be in fair-to-poor condition, as
evidenced by the cupping and cracking of shingles
over the surface of the roof.
The interior at 1970 Brock Road was found to be
in good condition, and largely intact. Original
decorative wood elements including the main and
rear stairs and associated trim, door and window
casings, wood floors, and baseboards were found
on the first and second floors, and are consistent
among the main house and rear wing, indicating a
consistent build date for the entire structure.
Six-paneled entrance door with square transom and side-
lights (ERA, 2020).
Paint peeling on decorative porch trim (ERA, 2020).
Roof shingles cupping and cracking, evidence that the roof
is nearing the end of its useful life (ERA, 2020).
- 59 -
49ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
The centre hall plan has been maintained in the
primary spaces of the building, but infill walls have
been added in the southern portion of the ground
floor to subdivide one of the primary rooms for it s
current use. The large ground floor room at the
northwest corner of the building is atypical for the
age and style of the building, and is likely the result
of an early alteration to accommodate a specific,
currently unknown use. The two marble mantels,
circa 1870-1880 in style, were likely added as part
of this alteration.
The building has a full height basement in the front
portion of the house, with an exterior access stair.
The stone basement includes two original stone-
walled cold cellars, bead board doors and exposed
3-inch floor joists 12” on centre.
The following interior areas of deterioration were
observed:
• Select areas of water damage on window casings
at the east portion of the house;
• Select areas of water damage above the doorway
to the basement; and
• Cracking was noted on one door where one
of the hinges appears to be failing, resulting in
added stress and cracking near the lower hinge.
Atypically large room at rear (northwest corner) of principal
building. The door marked as an exit leads into the enclosed
rear patio, see below (ERA, 2020).
At left, exterior access door into the basement (ERA, 2020).
Original stone-walled cold cellar with bead board door
(ERA, 2020).
Failing lower hinge resulting in door cracking (ERA, 2020).
- 60 -
50 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
4.2 1980 Brock Road
The building at 1980 Brock Road is a single-storey brick commercial
building, built in the 1980s, with a rear wooden board-and-batten
wing, and a hipped roof. There is an east and south-facing covered
arcade/porch. The building is currently in use as a small grocery
store and cafe.
Overall, the property at 1980 Brock Road appears to be in good
condition, with some areas requiring maintenance:
• Area along the building base with mortar loss, in need of repointing;
• Water damage on portions of the rear board-and-batten wing; and
• Weather damage to some of the wooden beams supporting the
porch.
4.3 1670 Kingston Road
The building at 1670 Kingston Road is a single-storey brick commercial
building, built in the 1980s, with a gabled roof and an east-facing
covered arcade/porch. The building has been divided into several
units, serving as office and commercial/retail spaces.
Overall, the property at 1670 Kingston Road appears to be in good
condition. Areas in need of maintenance were observed:
• Area along the building base with some mortar loss, in need of
repointing; and
• Weather damage to some of the wooden beams supporting the
porch.
4.4 1680 Kingston Road
The building at 1680 Kingston Road is a single-storey brick restaurant
building, constructed in the 1980s, with a partially-hipped, partially
flat roof, and a wrap-around covered arcade/porch. A board-and-
batten signage band is located at the southeast portion of the building.
Overall, the building appears to be in good condition. Minimal areas
in need of maintenance were observed:
• Area along the building base with some mortar loss, in need of
repointing; and
• Weather damage to some of the wooden beams supporting the
porch.
- 61 -
51ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
The following policy documents were reviewed in the preparation
of this report:
• Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation
of Historic Places in Canada (Second Edition);
• The Ontario Heritage Tool Kit;
• Provincial Policy Statement (2020);
• A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe (2019);
• Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O. 1990);
• Durham Regional Official Plan (2017);
• City of Pickering Official Plan (2008);
• Kingston Road Intensification Plan (2019); and
• Kingston Road Corridor urban Design Guidelines (2019).
Provincial Policy Statement (2020)
The PPS guides the creation and implementation of planning policy
across Ontario municipalities, and provides a framework for the
conservation of heritage resources, including the following relevant
policies:
2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant
cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved*.
2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development
and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage
property except where the proposed development and site
alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated
that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage
property will be conserved*.
5 HEritagE POLicy FramEWOrk
Conserved: the identification, protection,
management and use of built heritage
resources, cultural heritage landscapes
and archaeological resources in a man-
ner that ensures their cultural heritage
value or interest is retained. This may be
achieved by the implementation of rec-
ommendations set out in a conservation
plan, archaeological assessment, and/
or heritage impact assessment that has
been approved, accepted or adopted by
the relevant planning authority and/or
decision- maker. Mitigative measures and/
or alternative development approaches
can be included in these plans and as-
sessments (PPS, 2020).
Adjacent lands: d) for the purposes of
policy 2.6.3, those lands contiguous to
a protected heritage property or as oth-
erwise defined in the municipal official
plan (PPS, 2020)
Built heritage resource: a building,
structure, monument, installation or
any manufactured or constructed part
or remnant that contributes to a prop-
erty’s cultural heritage value or interest
as identified by a community, including
an Indigenous community. Built heritage
resources are located on property desig-
nated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario
Heritage Act, or that may be included on
local, provincial, federal and/or interna-
tional registers (PPS, 2020).
Significant: e) in regard to cultural herit-
age 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 Herit-
age Act (PPS, 2020)
- 62 -
52 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
(2019)
The Growth Plan, 2019 is the Province of Ontario’s initiative to plan for
growth and development in a way that supports economic prosperity,
protects the environment, and helps communities achieve a high
quality of life.
With the objective of “protecting what is valuable”, Section 4.2.7 of
the Growth Plan, 2019 states:
1. Cultural heritage resources will be conserved in order to
foster a sense of place and benefit communities, particularly
in strategic growth areas.
Durham Regional Official Plan (2017)
The Site is designated within a Regional Corridor, just outside of the
designated Regional Centre and an urban Growth Centre, according
to Schedule A: Regional Structure. Section 1 of the Durham Regional
Plan identifies a series of bases, goals and directions.
Section 2 relates to the environment and provides the goal “to preserve
and foster the attributes of communities and the historic and cultural
heritage of the Region.” Cultural heritage policies include:
2.2.11 The conservation, protection and/or enhancement
of Durham’s built and cultural heritage resources is
encouraged.
2.3.49 Regional Council shall encourage Councils of the
area municipalities to utilize the Ontario Heritage Act to
conserve, protect, and enhance the built and cultural
heritage resources of the municipality, to establish Municipal
Heritage Committees to consult regarding matters relating
to built and cultural heritage resources planning, and the
designation of heritage conservation district and properties
provided for n the Ontario Heritage Act.
Cultural Heritage Resources: Built herit-
age resources, cultural heritage land-
scapes and archaeological resources that
have been determined to have cultural
heritage value or interest for the important
contribution they make to our understand-
ing of the history of a place, an event, or
a people. While some cultural heritage
resources may already be identified and
inventoried by official sources, the signifi-
cance of others can only be determined
after evaluation. (Growth Plan, 2019)
- 63 -
53ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
City of Pickering Official Plan (2018)
The Cit y of Pickering Official Plan designates the por tion of the Site
fronting Brock Road and Kingston Road as Mixed Corridors, according
to Schedule I. The Site is located within Neighbourhood 9: East village,
according to Chapter 12: urban Neighbourhoods, Map 19.
Addressing objectives for the conservation of the City’s cultural heritage
resource, the Official Plan requires that “City Council shall respect its
cultural heritage, and conserve and integrate important cultural heritage
resources from all time periods into the community.”
The following heritage policies are relevant to the Site:
8.8 City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, shall:
(a) allow alterations, additions or repairs to buildings designated
under the Ontario Heritage Act, provided the changes to the
building do not detrimentally affect the heritage value;
(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;
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.
City of Pickering Official Plan (2018)
Definition of Cultural Heritage:
Cultural heritage includes archaeological
sites and resources; buildings and struc-
tural remains of historical, architectural,
natural and contextual value; shipwreck
sites; traditional use areas; rural districts
and settlements; urban neighbourhoods;
cultural landscapes of historic interest;
and significant views, vistas and ridge
lines. More broadly, cultural heritage
comprises everything produced and
left by the people of a given time and geo-
graphic area, the sum of which represents
their cultural identity. This includes their
folklore, rituals, art, handicrafts, equip-
ment, tools, communications, transporta-
tion, buildings, furnishings and dwellings.
- 64 -
54 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
Kingston Road Intensification Plan (November 2019, Endorsed in
Principle by City Council, December 2019)
The Kingston Road Intensification Plan was developed by the Cit y of
Pickering to direct high-quality mixed use growth and development
along Kingston Road. The Plan was endorsed in principle by City
Council in December 2019.
The Site is located within the Brock Precinct of the Intensification
Plan Area within a Mixed Use A area. Post Manor is identified as a
“property with heritage significance”.
A Gateway Plaza and Privately-Owned Public Space are planned for
the Site. The Plan describes these features as follows:
Section 3.4.7: Gateway Plazas
Gateway Plazas highlight important entry points for vehicles and
are located at intersections where there is either existing public
land that can be used to provide additional amenity spaces for
pedestrians or private land that can be developed as POPS (see
3.4.8) or a combination of both. The Gateway Plazas should include
amenity for pedestrians such as seating areas, cycling rings, planters
and include larger public features such as art work, fountains or
feature benches.
Section 3.4.8: Privately Owned Publicly-Accessible Spaces (POPS)
Beyond publicly-owned parks, green spaces, plazas and lookouts,
privately owned publicly-accessible spaces (POPS) form a key part
of the public realm network, providing valuable amenity space
through development. POPS are owned and maintained by private
landowners, but open to the general public to enjoy.
The Intensification Plan identifies privately-owned features which
may include Parks, Linear Parks and Urban Squares. These are
part of an overall hierarchy of connected open spaces throughout
each precinct. POPS are meant to be fully publicly accessible with
easy identification and navigation for all user groups.
The following sections of the Plan related to heritage are relevant
to the Site:
Section 3.3.8: Heritage Buildings
Intensification Plan Land use Plan, with the
Site outlined in orange (City of Pickering, an-
notated by ERA).
Site (annotation added by ERA)
- 65 -
55ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
There is one heritage designated building and four buildings of
heritage interest within the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty
Retailing Node.
The Post Manor located at the north west corner of Brock Road
and Kingston Road is a designated historical site which was built
by mill owner and lumber merchant Jordan Post in 1841. Sites of
heritage interest include 301 Kingston Road, 401 Kingston Road,
1 Evelyn Avenue and 882 Kingston Road. 882 Kingston Road is
St. Paul’s on-the-Hill Anglican Church, a brick church structure;
the other three are historical residences currently used by local
businesses.
Heritage buildings are significant for their role in preserving local
character, celebrating collective history, building community
identity and having educational and cultural value.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
a. The identified Properties of Heritage Significance as identified on
Fig. 7 should be studied for heritage merit and potential designation
or listing as appropriate.
b. Buildings of heritage significance should be preserved, through
methods that are appropriate to the specific building and
surrounding context.
c. Preservation may include keeping buildings in their existing
location, moving buildings to a more appropriate location on
the same site to incorporate with new development, or replacing
buildings with an urban landscaped feature speaking to its
significance and history (i.e. landscaped area with historical
signage or plaque).
d. A Heritage Impact Assessment is required for development
activity on or adjacent to heritage properties, as governed by the
Ontario Heritage Act.
e. Any redevelopment on or adjacent to heritage properties should
be completed in accordance with the Urban Design Guidelines.
Section 4.5 of the Plan: Brock, discusses land use, place making and
connectivity considerations specific to the Brock Precinct, including:
- 66 -
56 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
Post Manor, the only designated heritage building in the corridor
and node, is located in the Brock Precinct. Redevelopment of
the lands on the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Brock
Road shall seek the preservation of and incorporation of the Post
Manor, a designated heritage building governed by the Ontario
Heritage Act.
Kingston Road Corridor Urban Design Guidelines (November 2019,
Endorsed in Principle by City Council, December 2019)
The Kingston Road Corridor urban Design Guidelines were developed
to accompany the Kingston Road Intensification Plan. The Guidelines
are currently in Draft form and were endorsed in principle by Cit y
Council in December 2019. The document includes guidance relevant
to the identified heritage resource on the Site:
Guideline 10.1: Heritage buildings
Design Guidelines
(i) Heritage buildings and historic elements should be integrated
into the wider public realm, and connected to the surrounding public
open space network when possible.
(ii) Built heritage features on focal sites should be accentuated to
create a sense of place and enhance cultural identity.
(iii) Through the review of development proposals, the historical
significance of designated heritage buildings and buildings with
heritage merits shall be assessed to determine how the building
or elements can be protected, enhanced or integrated into new
development.
(iv) Distinct historical eras in the history of Kingston Road in the City
of Pickering should be celebrated through public realm treatments
on lands with specific ties to those activities, and incorporated into
the landscape, lighting, signage, interpretation and art.
(v) New development should recognize heritage buildings and historic
elements by facilitating opportunities for building and site design
to reflect the scale, building materials, architectural style and other
attributes of adjacent cultural heritage resources (Fig. 60)
- 67 -
57ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
The Kingston Road Corridor urban Design Guidelines also contain
guidelines regarding the design of gateway plazas:
Guideline 3.6: Gateway Plazas
Design Guidelines
(i) Gateway Plazas shall function as central gathering spaces
which can be programmed for public or community events, and as
pedestrian gateways and connections which complement the existing
streetscape. The dimension, design and furnishing of these spaces
should offer comfort and allow for a range of activities accommodating
diverse user groups.
(II) Gateway Plazas shall be physically and visually connected to the
public street and well-designed to relate to surrounding buildings
and create the impression of a cohesive public realm.
(iii) Gateway Plazas should be framed by adjacent streets, landscape
and buildings which are designed to the highest architectural
standard. They should respond to the form and function of the site
and surrounding uses.
(iv) Commercial and mixed-use buildings adjacent to plazas should
provide active frontages with direct views and access. Patios are
encouraged to be located adjacent to these locations.
(v) Gateway Plazas should contribute to a cohesive streetscape
through the consistent use of colour, texture and building materials
to the surrounding built form.
(vi) To create an enjoyable pedestrian environment, Gateway Plazas
should incorporate appropriate lighting, signage, water features,
and public art, where appropriate (Fig. 56). High quality paving
treatments, in combination with landscaped elements including
coordinated plantings and street furniture, should also be used.
- 68 -
58 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
“” “ ”
“”
“
”
9.00m 6.00m13.65m3.71m
4.92m
7.97m
6.76m
25.00m
8.40m
8.06m
5
.05m8.01m5.01m29.79m28.29m13.50m 13.48m28.93m
2.2
6
m
5.2
6
m11
.64m14
.89m
14.78m
10.23m14.98m15.00m
31 STOREYHIGH-RISEPROPOSEDBUILDING
34 STOREYHIGH-RISEPROPOSEDBUILDING
PROPOSEDLOCATIONOFEXISTINGHERITAGEHOUSE
6STOREYPROPOSEDBUILDINGPODIUM
3 STOREY
2 STOREY
3 STOREY2 STOREY10 STOREY
10 STOREY
12 STOREYMID-RISEPROPOSEDBUILDING
9.93m12.39m
4.04m
3.0
2
m
6.0
8
m1.49m17.92m
19.00m
13.07m
14.30m4.63mCOMME
R
CIAL
PARKIN
G
SPACE
S
AT
GRADE
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
PA
R
K
I
N
G
SP
A
C
E
S
A
T
GR
A
D
E
Seal:
ISO A0
Checked By:
Nov 23, 2020 - 12:15pm
Drawing No.:
Date Plotted:
Drawn By:
Drawing Title:
Project:
Revision No.:
Scale:
Date Checked: Project No.
DateNo.
REVISIONS AND DISTRIBUTION LOG
Note
247 Spadina Avenue, 4th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 3A8
www.cmvarch.com
T 416.506.1600 F 416.506.0956
A101 1
AS NOTED
PROPOSED MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
BROCK AND KINGSTON HOLDINGS INC.
1970 BROCK ROAD
PICKERING ONTARIO
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
PC CMV 20A109
1 2020.NOV.20 ISSUED FOR REZONING
STATISTICS
Site area 12,137.5 m2 GFA 69,201.3 m2 FSI 5.70
Townhouses 25 (based on 1250 s.f./unit gross) Suites 835 (based on 850 s.f./unit gross) Total units 860
Resident parking 688 spaces (@0.80 spaces/unit)Visitor/commercial parking 129 spaces (@0.15 spaces/unit)Total parking 817 spaces
Parking per level below grade +/- 275 spacesParking levels required 3 below grade
Townhouses 2,903.1 m2 (25 units)12 storey mid-rise 10,660.3 m2 (135 units)6 storey podium 13,935.0 m2 (190 units) 31 storey tower 18,951.6 m2 (240 units)34 storey tower 21,320.6 m2 (270 unitsTotal residential uses 67,770.6 m2
Existing historic house 362.3 m2Commercial uses at grade 1,068.4 m2Total non-residential uses 1,430.7 m2
UNITS
For the midrise, podium and towers, we are assuming the following:
1 bedroom 1 bath 500 s.f. 25% 1 bedroom + den 1 bath 600 s.f. 25% 2 bedroom 2 bath 800 s.f. 25% 2 bedroom + den 2 bath 900 s.f. 25%
6 DEScriPtiON OF PrOPOSED DE vELOPmENt
The proposed development anticipates the construction of a series of new
buildings with a mix of uses:
• A six-storey podium along Kingston Road, with a 31-storey tower to the
west, and a 34-storey tower to the east at the corner of Brock and Kingston
Roads;
• A 12-storey mid-rise building at the Site’s centre; and
• 29 three-storey townhouses in an L-shape along the Site’s northwest
corner.
The proposed development would retain and relocate the Post Manor
building to the northeast on Site, maintaining its orientation to Brock Road.
The farmhouse is proposed to be set within a green gateway plaza, a privately-
owned publicly-accessible space (POPS), and the house is proposed to be
maintained for commercial uses (e.g. a restaurant or cafe).
Primary access to the proposed development will be provided off of Kingston
Road, at the southwest portion of the Site. A secondary parking ramp is
proposed from Brock Road, north of the relocated heritage farmhouse. Three
levels of underground parking would accommodate resident, visitor and
commercial parking spaces (including parking for the commercial use at Post
Manor).
The full architectural drawing set by CMv Architects is appended to this Report
(Appendix B).
Site Plan indicating the
proposed relocation of
Post Manor, shaded in
solid blue, and existing
location shaded in lighter
blue (CMv Architects,
2020, Annotated by ERA).
- 69 -
59ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
Seal:
ISO A0
Checked By:
Nov 23, 2020 - 12:15pm
Drawing No.:
Date Plotted:
Drawn By:
Drawing Title:
Project:
Revision No.:
Scale:
Date Checked: Project No.
DateNo.
REVISIONS AND DISTRIBUTION LOG
Note
247 Spadina Avenue, 4th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 3A8
www.cmvarch.com
T 416.506.1600 F 416.506.0956
A103 1
AS NOTED
PROPOSED MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
BROCK AND KINGSTON HOLDINGS INC.
1970 BROCK ROAD
PICKERING ONTARIO
3D VIEWS
PC CMV 20A109
1 2020.NOV.20 ISSUED FOR REZONING
Modeled view from the intersection of the northwest corner
of Brock and Kingston Roads (CMv Architects, 2020).
Seal:
ISO A0
Checked By:
Nov 23, 2020 - 12:15pm
Drawing No.:
Date Plotted:
Drawn By:
Drawing Title:
Project:
Revision No.:
Scale:
Date Checked: Project No.
DateNo.
REVISIONS AND DISTRIBUTION LOG
Note
247 Spadina Avenue, 4th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 3A8
www.cmvarch.com
T 416.506.1600 F 416.506.0956
A103 1
AS NOTED
PROPOSED MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
BROCK AND KINGSTON HOLDINGS INC.
1970 BROCK ROAD
PICKERING ONTARIO
3D VIEWS
PC CMV 20A109
1 2020.NOV.20 ISSUED FOR REZONING
Modeled aerial view looking eastward at the Site along King-
ston Road (CMv Architects, 2020).
Modeled aerial view looking southward at the Site along Brock Road (CMv Architects, 2020).
Seal:
ISO A0
Checked By:
Nov 23, 2020 - 12:15pm
Drawing No.:
Date Plotted:
Drawn By:
Drawing Title:
Project:
Revision No.:
Scale:
Date Checked: Project No.
DateNo.
REVISIONS AND DISTRIBUTION LOG
Note
247 Spadina Avenue, 4th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 3A8
www.cmvarch.com
T 416.506.1600 F 416.506.0956
A103 1
AS NOTED
PROPOSED MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
BROCK AND KINGSTON HOLDINGS INC.
1970 BROCK ROAD
PICKERING ONTARIO
3D VIEWS
PC CMV 20A109
1 2020.NOV.20 ISSUED FOR REZONING
- 70 -
60 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
7 cONSErvatiON a PPr OacH
The proposed conservation approach for Post Manor includes
rehabilitation and restoration.
Post Manor is proposed to be fully relocated northeastward on Site,
and adapted for a new commercial use (e.g. a restaurant or cafe).
The building’s interior and exterior heritage attributes are proposed
to be conserved, and enhanced through restoration as needed.
The heritage attributes located in the building’s basement (original
stone-walled cold cellars) are proposed to be relocated and
reconstructed with the building, and acccess provided through an
interpretation strategy, allowing the resource to continue conveying
information about the typical operation of a mid-19th-century
farmhouse.
7.1 Conservation Scope
The following preliminary conservation scope is proposed:
• Stabilize the structure in preparation for the relocation;
• Re-grade the Site, and install underground parking at a depth
to provide for mature tree growth and a new 2-metre base -
ment below the relocated building;
• Relocate basement attributes to a new basement beneath the
building’s planned location;
• Relocate the structure northeast within a privately owned
public space, with a proposed 13-metre setback from Brock
Road;
• Conserve the front porch’s existing relationship to grade,
whereby no railings are required;
• Install a sensitively-designed access ramp along the building’s
south elevation to provide porch access while retaining an
unimpeded view of the Regency-style porch;
• Restore the farmhouse exterior through such works as gener-
al masonry cleaning and mortar repairs, repainting wood
elements, replacing the roof and repairing the porch, as neces-
sary; and
• Rehabilitate the farmhouse for new commercial use.
Restoration and rehabilitation works will be detailed in a forthcoming
Conservation Plan, as required by the City of Pickering.
Definitions from the Standards & Guide-
lines for the Conservation of Historic
Places in Canada (2010):
Preservation involves protecting, main-
taining and stabilizing the exis ing form,
material and integrity of an historic place
or individual component, while protecting
its heritage value.
Restoration involves accurately reveal-
ing, recovering or representing the state of
an historic place or individual component
as it appeared at a particular period in its
history, while protecting its heritage value.
Rehabilitation involves the sensitive ad-
aptation of an historic place or individual
component for a continuing or compatible
contemporary use, while protecting its
heritage value.
- 71 -
61ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
8 imPact aSSESSmENt & mitigatiON
8.1 Impact Summary
The proposed development is anticipated to have impact on the
Site’s cultural heritage value in the following ways:
• Post Manor is proposed to be relocated from the northwest
corner of Brock and Kingston Roads, changing its original
relationship to the intersection;
• High-density new construction is proposed to be built in
close proximity to Post Manor; notably, a 34-storey tower
stepped back by three metres from a six-storey podium will
be constructed within 11 metres of Post Manor’s south eleva-
tion. A parking ramp is proposed to be constructed 4.5 metres
north of Post Manor.
These impacts are reviewed in Section 8.2
- 72 -
62 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
8.2 Discussion of Impacts
Relocation from the Northwest Corner of Brock and Kingston Roads
The proposed development anticipates that Post Manor will be relocated
from the northwest corner of Brock and Kingston Roads to accommodate
two high-rise buildings along Kingston Road, with a shared six-storey podium.
Post Manor’s proximity to the intersection of Brock and Kingston Roads has
been identified as a heritage attribute, for its ability to convey a relationship
to the cemetery across the street. Together, these two resources speak to
the intersection’s history as a rural crossroads community.
The evolution of Kingston Road as a suburban thoroughfare in the post-WWII
era has diminished the integrity of the corner as a legible rural crossroads
community, however the relocation of the farmhouse may represent a
further impact to its integrity.
The relocation will also represent a loss of 15.4 metres of front setback
between the house and Brock Road, much of which is currently characterized
by paved parking. The new 13-metre setback from Brock Road will consist
entirely of soft landscaping and mature trees.
Density and Proximity of New Construction
The proposed development consists of two 30+ storey towers with a six-storey
podium, a 12-storey mid-rise building, and an L-shaped row of townhouses.
The 34-storey tower will be located within 11 metres of Post Manor’s south
elevation, with a podium height of six storeys, and a three-metre stepback
to the point tower. A parking ramp is proposed to be located immediately
north of Post Manor.
The height and proximity of the new building south of the farmhouse, and
the proximity and mass of the parking ramp north of the farmhouse, both
represent an impact on Post Manor’s setting and ability convey its value. As
farmhouses are rural building types, their setting and landscape is considered
critical in their ability to convey value and legibility as heritage resources.
- 73 -
63ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
8.3.1 Interpretation Strategy
Much of Post Manor’s value lies in the opportunity to understand rural
agricultural heritage in Pickering. With Pickering’s ongoing evolution,
these values will not be communicated on this Site and others solely
through the conservation of built heritage resources.
An interpretation strategy is proposed to be designed for the new
urban neighbourhood on Site to engage residents and visitors in the
history of the Site and its context.
The interpretation strategy is recommended to include media such as:
• Photographs, panels, archival maps or other visual cues to
communicate the area’s history as a rural crossroads commu-
nity, and the site’s relationship to the adjacent cemetery;
• The display of artefacts, e.g. early box locks;
• Programming established in the basement space to provide
agricultural heritage learning opportunities using the original
stone-walled cold cellars; access through the exterior base -
ment stair;
• A large-scale landscape concept that interprets and ‘contem-
porizes’ the typological features of the historic farmstead (see
Section 8.3.2).
Multi-media interpretative installations are proposed to be explored
in furthur detail in a Heritage Interpretation Plan.
8.3 Impact Mitigation
An impact mitigation strategy has been designed by ERA Architects, in close collaboration with the
proponent and the project architect.
The strategy was designed with the objective of conserving the cultural heritage value of Post Manor,
a rural agricultural resource, while acknowledging the evolution of its context, and its prospective role
on a higher-density urban site as directed by City of Pickering policy.
Recognizing that the intersection’s history as a rural crossroads community has been eradicated through
suburban development and major road widenings, an Interpretation Strategy is proposed to revive and
communicate the stories of Post’s Corners.
The strategy’s central component is an Interpretive Landscape Plan (see Section 8.3.2), which envisions
a contemporary adaptation of the historic Ontario farmstead typology.
The 1860 Ontario County map pro-
vides a jumping-off point to interpret
early settlement history, through the
positioning of sawmills, rural churches
and cemeteries, farmsteads and vil-
lages (university of Toronto).
Cellar door, labeled for potatoes (ERA
2020).
- 74 -
64 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
8.3.2 Interpretive Landscape Plan
The impact mitigation strategy centres on a landscape concept designed to interpret and ‘contemporize’
Post Manor’s rural agricultural heritage, at a time when its Site is slated for urban development.
Through a study of the historic Ontario farmstead, ERA has developed a strategy to both conserve Post
Manor’s setting, and transition to a more urban character for the public areas within the Site’s interior.
FARMSTEAD MOTIFS FOR RECOvERY & INTERPRETATION
MATERIAL - BARN BOARD
ORCHARD / TREE ARRAYKTREE LINED PATHSEMATuRE TREE SCREENINGFJ
MATERIAL - FIELD STONE
- 75 -
65ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
A
B
E
E
C
FG
J
1961 AERIAL
Farmhouse
Barn
Outbuildings
Entrance Driveway
Framed by Vegetation
Front-Yard Mature
Trees
Rear Fields
Windrows Along
Property Edge
A
B
C
E
F
G
J
A
F
Above: 1961 aerial (City of Toronto Archives, annotated by ERA) / Below: 2020 aerial (Google Maps, annotated by ERA).
2020 AERIAL
Farmhouse
Front-Yard Mature
Trees
Rural landscape lost
to road widening/
realignment
A
F
- 76 -
66 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
Farmhouse
Interpretation of Entrance
Driveway Framed by
Vegetation
Front-Yard Mature Trees
Windrows Along Property
Edge
Planned View
Conceptual landscape
plan developed to inter-
pret the historic farm-
stead typology (ERA
2020).
A
2
3
3
4
5
F
E
J
1
Courtyard Garden
Tree-Lined Path
Lush Planting
Garage Green Roof
Board-formed concrete
motif on new walls
1
2
3
5
A
F
J
4
E
F
INTERPRETIvE LANDSCAPE PLAN
- 77 -
67ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
The Interpretive Landscape Plan envisions the interpretation of rural
agricultural themes within a highly urban setting.
Landscape materials have been curated to create a picturesque rural
farmhouse snapshot along Brock Road, framed by the new building
podium and the parking ramp. The impact of the new construction
is mitigated through large-scale mature trees, which have been given
the depth required to thrive as the parking below grade has not been
extended to Brock Road at this location.
The lush landscaping and “rural” character is intended to complement
the principal elevation view of Post Manor, which is characterized so
prominently by its Regency-style bell-roofed porch. The “beautiful
lawns” referenced in turn-of-the-century news articles are conserved.
The primary function of the Brock Road-facing landscape is to support
a planned “rural snapshot” view, for viewers moving through the
public realm westward along Kingston Rd, or north and south along
Brock Rd. The planned parking ramp currently interjects into the
“rural snapshot view”, although a green roof is proposed to provide
some mitigation for its contemporary concrete form.
The pedestrian experience of Post Manor is most likely to occur on the
Site’s interior. Residents and visitors will approach Post Manor from
the rear, either emerging from their homes on Site, or from within the
underground parking. The Site’s interior is thus designed to interpret
farmstead motifs in much more contemporary ways, e.g. through
an “urban orchard”. As the pedestrian approaches, rural character
elements become clearer, through “wagon track” courtyard paving,
gates and fencing, trees not constrained to urban planters, and the
use of board-formed concrete on the parking ramp wall to reference
agricultural outbuildings.
Landscape inspiration photos, from top: Lush plant-
ing for the front yard and rear courtyard (Simon Mar-
shall, 2008); “urban orchard” character (Landezine,
2013); Rear courtyard garden, planned as a patio for
Post Manor’s commercial use (Museum of the Order
of St. John); “Wagon track” courtyard paving (ar-
chilovers.com, 2014); Board-formed concrete walls
to interpret farm outbuildings (ERA, 2019).
A linear tree-lined “pedestrian driveway”,
paved with abstracted fieldstone, runs south
of Post Manor, connecting pedestrians from
inside the Site to the Brock Road public realm.
- 78 -
68 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
The Site’s landscape plan incorporates the Interpretive Landscape Concept for the area around
Post Manor-, and interprets farmstead motifs elsewhere on Site through linear “orchards” and “wind
rows”. (CMv, 2020)
Rendered “rural snapshot” view driving westward on Kingston Road, between the new building and parking
ramp (ERA 2020).
Seal:
ISO A0
Checked By:
Nov 23, 2020 - 12:15pm
Drawing No.:
Date Plotted:
Drawn By:
Drawing Title:
Project:
Revision No.:
Scale:
Date Checked: Project No.
DateNo.
REVISIONS AND DISTRIBUTION LOG
Note
247 Spadina Avenue, 4th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 3A8
www.cmvarch.com
T 416.506.1600 F 416.506.0956
A104 1
AS NOTED
PROPOSED MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
BROCK AND KINGSTON HOLDINGS INC.
1970 BROCK ROADPICKERING ONTARIO
CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN
PC CMV 20A109
1 2020.NOV.20 ISSUED FOR REZONING
- 79 -
69ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
9 cONcLuSiON
The property at 1970 Brock Road features an 1842-1843 farmhouse
known as Post Manor, currently conserved on a green island in the
centre of a parking lot for a 1980s commercial plaza.
The Site has been designated under Part Iv of the Ontario Heritage
Act. An analysis for cultural heritage value undetaken by ERA as a
part of this Report finds that the Site exhibits high craftsmanship, and
values associated with the mid-19th-century farmhouse type, early
settlers Jordan and Matilda Post, and a rural crossroads community
represented through historical links to the cemetery across the road.
The Site is the subject of a high-density mixed-use development
proposal, in response to planning policy directing the urbanization
of sites along Kingston Road.
The proposal contemplates a six-storey podium along Kingston
Road, with a 31-storey tower at the Site’s southwest corner, and a
34-storey tower at the northwest corner of Brock and Kingston Roads.
A 12-storey building is proposed in the Site’s centre, with 29 three-
storey townhouses in an L-shape along the Site’s northwest corner.
Post Manor is proposed to be retained and relocated northeastward
on Site, into a green gateway plaza, with its basement reconstructed
to conserve its heritage attributes. The building is proposed to be
rehabilitated for a public-facing commercial use such as a restaurant
or cafe. The proposal represents a reinvestment in the building, with
the intent of introducing users to experience the building’s interior
craftsmanship.
The impacts of relocation and high-density new construction are
proposed to be addressed through a two-fold mitigation strategy: a
comprehensive interpretation plan that communicates the Site’s rural
agricultural heritage, and an interpretive landscape plan intended to
sensitively transition between the Post Manor lands and contemporary
urban community.
- 80 -
70 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
10 PrOjEct PEr SONNEL
Philip Evans
Philip Evans is a registered architect with the OAA, principal of ERA
Architects and the founder of small. In the course of his career, he has
led a range of conservation, adaptive reuse, design, and feasibility
planning projects. Philip is a professional member of CAHP and RAIC.
Janice Quieta
Janice Quieta, OAA, is an Associate with ERA Architects. She received
her Master of Architecture degree from Dalhousie University after
completing a Bachelor of Architectural Science degree at Ryerson
university.
Emma Abramowicz
Emma Abramowicz is a Project Manager at ERA Architects. She holds
a Master of Planning in urban Development from Ryerson university,
as well as a Bachelor of Arts from Queen’s university.
Stuart Chan
Stuart Chan is a landscape designer at ERA and holds a Master of
Landscape Architecture from the university of Guelph. Prior to working
at ERA, Stuart worked as a landscape project manager at Belt Collins
International (Hong Kong), designed residential spaces in Guelph and
Toronto, and was the Sustainability Coordinator for the university of
Toronto St. George Campus.
Zoe Chapin
Zoe Chapin is a planner with the heritage planning team at ERA
Architects. She has a Master of urban Planning from McGill university,
where she also completed a Bachelor of Arts in urban Systems.
- 81 -
71ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
(1886, October 6). Valuable Farm and Village Property for Sale. Pickering News, Page 5.
Retrieved from Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive.
(1886, October 15). The Post Estate. Pickering News, Page 8. Retrieved from Pickering
Local History Collection Digital Archive.
(1887, December 30). Dunbarton. Pickering News, Page 1. Retrieved from Pickering
Local History Collection Digital Archive.
(1902, May 23). Localisms. Pickering News, Page 8. Retrieved from Pickering Local
History Collection Digital Archive.
(1905, July 7). Localisms. Pickering News, Page 8. Retrieved from Pickering Local History
Collection Digital Archive.
(1913, August 1). Localisms. Pickering News, Page 8. Retrieved from Pickering Local
History Collection Digital Archive.
(1919, October 31). Localisms. Pickering News, Page 8. Retrieved from Pickering Local
History Collection Digital Archive.
(1930, May 30). Deaths. The Globe and Mail, Page 14. Retrieved from Toronto Public
Library.
(1924, July 11). Localisms. Pickering News, Page 8. Retrieved from Pickering Local
History Collection Digital Archive.
(1937, February 19). Pullets for Sale. Pickering News, Page 8. Retrieved from Pickering
Local History Collection Digital Archive.
(1940, April 20). Moulton Chapel is Setting for Clarke-Winter Nuptials. Toronto Daily Star,
Page23. Retrieved from Toronto Public Library.
(1956, March 17). Pickering Fire Fatal to Woman; Probe Under Way. The Globe and Mail,
Page 4. Retrieved from Toronto Public Library.
Broadus, E. (2011) Nineteenth Century Ontario Disciples History: The Oshawa District and
the George Barclay Family. Retrieved from Canadian Churches of Christ Historical
Society: http://www.ccchs.ca/Papers/Oshawa%20and%20Barclay%20Paper.pdf
City of Pickering. (2018) Official Plan No. 8 & Schedules. Retrieved from: https://www.
pickering.ca/en/city-hall/officialplan.aspx#
City of Pickering. (2019) Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node - Draft
urban Design Guidelines. Retrieved from: https://www.kingstonroadstudy.com/
11 rEFErENcES
- 82 -
72 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1970-1980 BROCK RD, 1670-1680 KINGSTON RD,
PICKERING
City of Toronto. (1961-1973). Aerial Photographs. Retrieved from the City of Toronto
Archives: https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/accountability-operations-
customer-service/access-city-information-or-records/city-of-toronto-archives/
whats-online/maps/aerial-photographs/.
Clarke, K. (1971). Post Manor. Retrieved from Pickering Local History Collection Digital
Archive.
Fuller, R.(1997) Barclays of Pickering. Retrieved from Pickering Local History Collection
Digital Archive.
Gawman, H. W. (1994, March 2) Post Manor Endures Years. News Advertiser. Retrieved
from Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive.
Google Maps. Retrieved online from: https://www.google.ca/maps/.
Government of Canada. (1860). Census of Canada for Pickering Township. Retrieved
from the Ancestry.ca website: https://www.ancestry.ca/ search/categories/35/.
Josey, S. (1985). Tour Visits Pickering Homes. Toronto Star. Retrieved from Pickering
Local History Colelction Digital Archive.
Map of Pickering, 1909, 1963. Retrieved from Ontario Council of university Libraries
(OCuL): https://ocul.on.ca/topomaps/collection/
Macdonald, A. (1995). A Town Called Ajax.
McCauly, P. (2004). The Knowles Family. Retrieved from Pickering Local History Collection
Digital Archive.
McCauly, P. (1998). The Posts of Pickering and Ajax. Pathmaster, volume 1, No. 1. Retrieved
from Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive.
McBurney, M. (1979) Homestead: Early Buildings and Families from Kingston to Toronto.
Mckay, W. A. (1961). The Pickering Story.
Murray, P. (1962, June 9). Modern Living Tours Old Toronto Home : Suburbia Greek to Them.
The Telegram. Retrieved from Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive.
On Land, Parcel Register Book, Durham L.R.O 40, Pickering, Book 203: Concession 1,
Lot 18-20. Retrieved from: https://www.onland.ca/ui/lro/books/search
OnLand, Parcel Register Book, Durham L.R.O. 40, Pickering, Book 204: Concession 1.
Retrieved from: https://www.onland.ca/ui/lro/books/search
Pickering Women’s Institute (1960) Tweedsmuir History. Retrieved from Pickering Local
History Collection Digital Archive.
- 83 -
73ISSuED: NOvEMBER 24, 2020
Sabean, J. (2000). Time Present and Time Past: A Pictorial History of Pickering.
Taylor, B.(1993, March 5) Clerk’s Department Memorandum: Post Cemetery at Corner
of Brock and Kingston Roads. Retrieved from Pickering Local History Collection
Digital Archive.
Tremaine’s Map of the County of York, Canada West (1860). Retrieved from
university of Toronto: https://mdl.library.utoronto.ca/collections/scanned-maps
tremaines-map-county-york-canada-west.
various archival photos (1840-1970). Retrieved from Pickering Local History Collection
Digital Archive.
Wood, W. R. (1911). Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Community.
- 84 -
12 aPPENDicES
Appendix A: Designation By-Law #2570-1987
- 85 -
- 86 -
- 87 -
Appendix B: Architectural Drawing Set (CMV Architects)
Seal:
ISO A0
Checked By:
Nov 20, 2020 - 6:00pm
Drawing No.:
Date Plotted:
Drawn By:
Drawing Title:
Project:
Revision No.:
Scale:
Date Checked: Project No.
DateNo.
REVISIONS AND DISTRIBUTION LOG
Note
247 Spadina Avenue, 4th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 3A8
www.cmvarch.com
T 416.506.1600 F 416.506.0956
A000 1
AS NOTED
PROPOSED MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
BROCK AND KINGSTON HOLDINGS INC.
1970 BROCK ROAD
PICKERING ONTARIO
COVER SHEET
PC CMV 20A109
1 2020.NOV.20 ISSUED FOR REZONING
PROPOSED MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
PICKERING, ON
BROCK AND KINGSTON
HOLDINGS INC.
- 88 -
Seal:
ISO A0
Checked By:
Nov 24, 2020 - 11:30am
Drawing No.:
Date Plotted:
Drawn By:
Drawing Title:
Project:
Revision No.:
Scale:
Date Checked: Project No.
DateNo.
REVISIONS AND DISTRIBUTION LOG
Note
247 Spadina Avenue, 4th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 3A8
www.cmvarch.com
T 416.506.1600 F 416.506.0956
A101a 1
AS NOTED
PROPOSED MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
BROCK AND KINGSTON HOLDINGS INC.
1970 BROCK ROAD
PICKERING ONTARIO
EXISTING SITE
PC CMV 20A109
1 2020.NOV.20 ISSUED FOR REZONING
- 89 -
“” “”
“”
“
”
9.00m 6.00m13.65m3.71m
4.92m
7.97m
6.76m
25.00m
8.40m
8.06m5.05m8.01m5.01m29.79m28.29m13.50m 13.48m28.93m
2.2
6
m
5.2
6
m11.64m14.89m
14.78
m
10.23m14.98m15.00m
31 STOREY
HIGH-RISE
PROPOSED
BUILDING
34 STOREY
HIGH-RISE
PROPOSED
BUILDING
PROPOSED
LOCATION
OF
EXISTING
HERITAGE
HOUSE
6
STOREY
PROPOSED
BUILDING
PODIUM
3 STOREY
2 STOREY
3 STOREY2 STOREY10 STOREY
10 STOREY
12 STOREY
MID-RISE
PROPOSED
BUILDING
9.93m12.39m
4.04m
3.0
2
m
6.0
8
m1.49m17.92m
19.00m
13.07m
14.30m4.63mCOM
ME
RCIAL
PARKING
SPACES ATGRADE
C
O
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
S
A
T
G
R
A
D
E
Seal:
ISO A0
Checked By:
Nov 23, 2020 - 12:15pm
Drawing No.:
Date Plotted:
Drawn By:
Drawing Title:
Project:
Revision No.:
Scale:
Date Checked: Project No.
DateNo.
REVISIONS AND DISTRIBUTION LOG
Note
247 Spadina Avenue, 4th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 3A8
www.cmvarch.com
T 416.506.1600 F 416.506.0956
A101 1
AS NOTED
PROPOSED MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
BROCK AND KINGSTON HOLDINGS INC.
1970 BROCK ROAD
PICKERING ONTARIO
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
PC CMV 20A109
1 2020.NOV.20 ISSUED FOR REZONING
STATISTICS
Site area 12,137.5 m2 GFA 69,201.3 m2 FSI 5.70
Townhouses 25 (based on 1250 s.f./unit gross) Suites 835 (based on 850 s.f./unit gross) Total units 860
Resident parking 688 spaces (@0.80 spaces/unit)Visitor/commercial parking 129 spaces (@0.15 spaces/unit)Total parking 817 spaces
Parking per level below grade +/- 275 spacesParking levels required 3 below grade
Townhouses 2,903.1 m2 (25 units)12 storey mid-rise 10,660.3 m2 (135 units)6 storey podium 13,935.0 m2 (190 units) 31 storey tower 18,951.6 m2 (240 units)34 storey tower 21,320.6 m2 (270 unitsTotal residential uses 67,770.6 m2
Existing historic house 362.3 m2Commercial uses at grade 1,068.4 m2Total non-residential uses 1,430.7 m2
UNITS
For the midrise, podium and towers, we are assuming the following:
1 bedroom 1 bath 500 s.f. 25% 1 bedroom + den 1 bath 600 s.f. 25% 2 bedroom 2 bath 800 s.f. 25%
2 bedroom + den 2 bath 900 s.f. 25%
- 90 -
Seal:
ISO A0
Checked By:
Nov 23, 2020 - 12:15pm
Drawing No.:
Date Plotted:
Drawn By:
Drawing Title:
Project:
Revision No.:
Scale:
Date Checked: Project No.
DateNo.
REVISIONS AND DISTRIBUTION LOG
Note
247 Spadina Avenue, 4th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 3A8
www.cmvarch.com
T 416.506.1600 F 416.506.0956
A102 1
AS NOTED
PROPOSED MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
BROCK AND KINGSTON HOLDINGS INC.
1970 BROCK ROAD
PICKERING ONTARIO
SHADOW STUDY
PC CMV 20A109
1 2020.NOV.20 ISSUED FOR REZONING
- 91 -
Seal:
ISO A0
Checked By:
Nov 23, 2020 - 12:15pm
Drawing No.:
Date Plotted:
Drawn By:
Drawing Title:
Project:
Revision No.:
Scale:
Date Checked: Project No.
DateNo.
REVISIONS AND DISTRIBUTION LOG
Note
247 Spadina Avenue, 4th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 3A8
www.cmvarch.com
T 416.506.1600 F 416.506.0956
A103 1
AS NOTED
PROPOSED MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
BROCK AND KINGSTON HOLDINGS INC.
1970 BROCK ROAD
PICKERING ONTARIO
3D VIEWS
PC CMV 20A109
1 2020.NOV.20 ISSUED FOR REZONING
- 92 -
Seal:
ISO A0
Checked By:
Nov 23, 2020 - 12:15pm
Drawing No.:
Date Plotted:
Drawn By:
Drawing Title:
Project:
Revision No.:
Scale:
Date Checked: Project No.
DateNo.
REVISIONS AND DISTRIBUTION LOG
Note
247 Spadina Avenue, 4th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 3A8
www.cmvarch.com
T 416.506.1600 F 416.506.0956
A104 1
AS NOTED
PROPOSED MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
BROCK AND KINGSTON HOLDINGS INC.
1970 BROCK ROAD
PICKERING ONTARIO
CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN
PC CMV 20A109
1 2020.NOV.20 ISSUED FOR REZONING
- 93 -
9.00m 6.00mSTAIRSTAIR STAIRSTAIR
Seal:
ISO A0
Checked By:
Nov 23, 2020 - 12:15pm
Drawing No.:
Date Plotted:
Drawn By:
Drawing Title:
Project:
Revision No.:
Scale:
Date Checked: Project No.
DateNo.
REVISIONS AND DISTRIBUTION LOG
Note
247 Spadina Avenue, 4th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 3A8
www.cmvarch.com
T 416.506.1600 F 416.506.0956
A200 1
AS NOTED
PROPOSED MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
BROCK AND KINGSTON HOLDINGS INC.
1970 BROCK ROAD
PICKERING ONTARIO
PARKING PLAN
P1 LEVEL
PC CMV 20A109
1 2020.NOV.20 ISSUED FOR REZONING
- 94 -
9.00m 6.00mSTAIRSTAIR STAIRSTAIR
Seal:
ISO A0
Checked By:
Nov 23, 2020 - 12:15pm
Drawing No.:
Date Plotted:
Drawn By:
Drawing Title:
Project:
Revision No.:
Scale:
Date Checked: Project No.
DateNo.
REVISIONS AND DISTRIBUTION LOG
Note
247 Spadina Avenue, 4th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 3A8
www.cmvarch.com
T 416.506.1600 F 416.506.0956
A200a 1
AS NOTED
PROPOSED MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
BROCK AND KINGSTON HOLDINGS INC.
1970 BROCK ROAD
PICKERING ONTARIO
PARKING PLAN
P2 LEVEL
PC CMV 20A109
1 2020.NOV.20 ISSUED FOR REZONING
- 95 -
28.50m 6.00mSTAIRSTAIR STAIRSTAIR
Seal:
ISO A0
Checked By:
Nov 23, 2020 - 12:15pm
Drawing No.:
Date Plotted:
Drawn By:
Drawing Title:
Project:
Revision No.:
Scale:
Date Checked: Project No.
DateNo.
REVISIONS AND DISTRIBUTION LOG
Note
247 Spadina Avenue, 4th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 3A8
www.cmvarch.com
T 416.506.1600 F 416.506.0956
A200b 1
AS NOTED
PROPOSED MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
BROCK AND KINGSTON HOLDINGS INC.
1970 BROCK ROAD
PICKERING ONTARIO
PARKING PLAN
P3 LEVEL
PC CMV 20A109
1 2020.NOV.20 ISSUED FOR REZONING
- 96 -
9.00m 6.00mLOADING
LOADING
STAIR STAIRSTAIRSTAIR
STAIR
STAIRSTAIR
STAIR STAIRSTAIR
RESIDENTIALENTRANCESECONDARY/SERVICEENTRANCE
RESIDENTIALENTRANCE
RETAILENTRANCE
RETAILENTRANCE
RETAILENTRANCE RETAILENTRANCESECONDARY/SERVICEENTRANCE
RETAILENTRANCE
RESIDENTIALENTRANCE
14.78
m
14.98m15.00m
17.51m14.82mSOFTLANDSCAPE
SOFT
LANDSCAPE
HARDLANDSCAPE
SOFTLANDSCAPE
HARDLANDSCAPE
HARD
LANDSCAPE
HARDLANDSCAPE
SOFT
LANDSCAPE
HARDLANDSCAPE
F.F.E.87.60
F.F.E.88.45
F.F.E.87.40
F.F.E.87.30
6.44m
5.23m
6.50m
3.7
2
m
16.48m
4.5
4
mCOMME
R
CIAL
PARKIN
G
SPACES AT
GRADE
C
O
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
S
A
T
G
R
A
D
E
Seal:
ISO A0
Checked By:
Nov 23, 2020 - 12:16pm
Drawing No.:
Date Plotted:
Drawn By:
Drawing Title:
Project:
Revision No.:
Scale:
Date Checked: Project No.
DateNo.
REVISIONS AND DISTRIBUTION LOG
Note
247 Spadina Avenue, 4th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 3A8
www.cmvarch.com
T 416.506.1600 F 416.506.0956
A201 1
AS NOTED
PROPOSED MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
BROCK AND KINGSTON HOLDINGS INC.
1970 BROCK ROAD
PICKERING ONTARIO
FLOOR PLAN
PC CMV 20A109
1 2020.NOV.20 ISSUED FOR REZONING
- 97 -
STAIR STAIRSTAIRSTAIR
STAIR
STAIR
3.71m
5.05m5.01m
2.2
6
m11.64m31.23m
13.50m 10.23m13.48m14.78
m
29.74m9.00m 6.00m4.92m
Seal:
ISO A0
Checked By:
Nov 23, 2020 - 12:16pm
Drawing No.:
Date Plotted:
Drawn By:
Drawing Title:
Project:
Revision No.:
Scale:
Date Checked: Project No.
DateNo.
REVISIONS AND DISTRIBUTION LOG
Note
247 Spadina Avenue, 4th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 3A8
www.cmvarch.com
T 416.506.1600 F 416.506.0956
A202 1
AS NOTED
PROPOSED MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
BROCK AND KINGSTON HOLDINGS INC.
1970 BROCK ROAD
PICKERING ONTARIO
TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN
LEVELS 2-6
PC CMV 20A109
1 2020.NOV.20 ISSUED FOR REZONING
- 98 -
STAIR STAIRSTAIRSTAIR
STAIR
STAIR
15.00m 13.32m13.48m14.78
m
29.79m14.90m
25.00m
8.05m8.05m
9.00m 6.00m8.55m11.95m
PROPOSED
LOCATION
OF
EXISTING
HERITAGE
HOUSE
6
STOREY
PROPOSED
BUILDING
PODIUM
3 STOREY
2 STOREY
3 STOREY2 STOREY10 STOREY
10 STOREY
3.01m1.24m3.00m3.08m3.03m
TOWER
FLOOR
PLATE
TOWER
FLOOR
PLATE
Seal:
ISO A0
Checked By:
Nov 23, 2020 - 12:16pm
Drawing No.:
Date Plotted:
Drawn By:
Drawing Title:
Project:
Revision No.:
Scale:
Date Checked: Project No.
DateNo.
REVISIONS AND DISTRIBUTION LOG
Note
247 Spadina Avenue, 4th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 3A8
www.cmvarch.com
T 416.506.1600 F 416.506.0956
A203 1
AS NOTED
PROPOSED MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
BROCK AND KINGSTON HOLDINGS INC.
1970 BROCK ROAD
PICKERING ONTARIO
TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN
LEVELS 7-34
PC CMV 20A109
1 2020.NOV.20 ISSUED FOR REZONING
- 99 -
Seal:
ISO A0
Checked By:
Nov 19, 2020 - 11:07am
Drawing No.:
Date Plotted:
Drawn By:
Drawing Title:
Project:
Revision No.:
Scale:
Date Checked: Project No.
DateNo.
REVISIONS AND DISTRIBUTION LOG
Note
247 Spadina Avenue, 4th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 3A8
www.cmvarch.com
T 416.506.1600 F 416.506.0956
A301 1
AS NOTED
PROPOSED MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
BROCK AND KINGSTON HOLDINGS INC.
1970 BROCK ROAD
PICKERING ONTARIO
ELEVATIONS - BUILDING C
TOWNHOUSES
PC CMV 20A109
1 2020.NOV.20 ISSUED FOR REZONING
- 100 -
- 101 -
Seal:
ISO A0
Checked By:
Nov 19, 2020 - 11:07am
Drawing No.:
Date Plotted:
Drawn By:
Drawing Title:
Project:
Revision No.:
Scale:
Date Checked: Project No.
DateNo.
REVISIONS AND DISTRIBUTION LOG
Note
247 Spadina Avenue, 4th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 3A8
www.cmvarch.com
T 416.506.1600 F 416.506.0956
A302 1
AS NOTED
PROPOSED MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
BROCK AND KINGSTON HOLDINGS INC.
1970 BROCK ROAD
PICKERING ONTARIO
ELEVATIONS - BUILDING C
MID-RISE BLOCK
PC CMV 20A109
1 2020.NOV.20 ISSUED FOR REZONING
- 102 -
Seal:
ISO A0
Checked By:
Nov 19, 2020 - 10:49am
Drawing No.:
Date Plotted:
Drawn By:
Drawing Title:
Project:
Revision No.:
Scale:
Date Checked: Project No.
DateNo.
REVISIONS AND DISTRIBUTION LOG
Note
247 Spadina Avenue, 4th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 3A8
www.cmvarch.com
T 416.506.1600 F 416.506.0956
A401 1
AS NOTED
PROPOSED MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
BROCK AND KINGSTON HOLDINGS INC.
1970 BROCK ROAD
PICKERING ONTARIO
SITE SECTION
PC CMV 20A109
1 2020.NOV.20 ISSUED FOR REZONING
- 103 -
Seal:
ISO A0
Checked By:
Nov 19, 2020 - 10:49am
Drawing No.:
Date Plotted:
Drawn By:
Drawing Title:
Project:
Revision No.:
Scale:
Date Checked: Project No.
DateNo.
REVISIONS AND DISTRIBUTION LOG
Note
247 Spadina Avenue, 4th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 3A8
www.cmvarch.com
T 416.506.1600 F 416.506.0956
A402 1
AS NOTED
PROPOSED MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
BROCK AND KINGSTON HOLDINGS INC.
1970 BROCK ROAD
PICKERING ONTARIO
SITE SECTION
PC CMV 20A109
1 2020.NOV.20 ISSUED FOR REZONING
- 104 -
Appendix C: Landscape Conservation Strategy (ERA Architects, November 2020)
1970 BROCK: CONSERVATION STRATEGY
interpreting and contemporizing the rural agricultural landscape
October 6, 2020
- 105 -
1970 Brock Road, Pickering | Landscape Concept | Oct 6, 2020 PAGE 1
Farmhouse
Barn
Outbuildings
Silo
Entrance Driveway
Framed by Vegetation
Front-Yard Mature Trees
Rear Fields
Drive Lanes
Rear Woodlot
Windrows Along
Property Edge
Orchard
Rural landscape lost
to road widening/
realignment
A
B
C
E
F
G
J
K
1970 Brock is an historic farmstead site, evolved as a low-scale commercial plaza. Today, the site centres
the retained farmhouse on an island in the plaza parking lot, landscaped with sparse mature tree plantings.
A
B
E
E
C
FG
G
J
J
K
A
F
2020
1970 BROCK CONSERVATION STRATEGY
interpreting and contemporizing the rural agricultural landscape
1961
D
H
I
- 106 -
1970 Brock Road, Pickering | Landscape Concept | Oct 6, 2020 PAGE 2
The future of 1970 Brock acknowledges the ongoing evolution of this site, from agricultural to suburban to
urban. The site’s conservation strategy envisions the interpretation of rural agricultural themes within a
highly urban setting.
1970 BROCK CONSERVATION STRATEGY
interpreting and contemporizing the rural agricultural landscape
FARMSTEAD MOTIFS FOR RECOVERY & INTERPRETATION
MATERIAL - BARN BOARD
ORCHARD / TREE ARRAYKTREE LINED PATHSEMATURE TREE SCREENINGFJ
MATERIAL - FIELD STONE
- 107 -
1970 Brock Road, Pickering | Landscape Concept | Oct 6, 2020 PAGE 3
1970 BROCK CONSERVATION STRATEGY
interpreting and contemporizing the rural agricultural landscape
Curated landscape materials transition the visitor from a
picturesque rural farmhouse snapshot along Brock Road
to an interpretive urban landscape character on the site’s
interior.
Farmstead motifs are adapted to support new urban
functions: outdoor public spaces, contemporary structures,
pedestrian path networks.
- 108 -
1970 Brock Road, Pickering | Landscape Concept | Oct 6, 2020 PAGE 4
A
K
E
F
E
J
J
J
1970 BROCK CONSERVATION STRATEGY
interpreting and contemporizing the rural agricultural landscape
FUTURE
Mature trees and rural garden beds frame views to the farmhouse from Brock Road, its historic frontage.
Pavers move pedestrians from the house’s rear patio to the site’s urban interior, where landscape motifs
like drive lanes and orchards may be interpreted.
Farmhouse
Barn
Outbuilding
Silo
Entrance Driveway
Framed by Vegetation
Front-Yard Mature Trees
Rear Fields
Drive Lanes
Rear Woodlot
Windrows Along
Property Edge
Orchard
A
B
D
G
I
E
F
J
K
H
*Note: Concept Landscape Plan
will build out and integrate this
high-level strategic approach.
C
- 109 -
1970 Brock Road, Pickering | Landscape Concept | Oct 6, 2020 PAGE 5
1970 BROCK CONSERVATION STRATEGY
interpreting and contemporizing the rural agricultural landscape
A
2
3
3
4
5
F
E
J
1
Courtyard Garden
Tree-Lined Path
Lush Planting
Garage Green Roof
Board-formed concrete
motif on new walls
Farmhouse
Interpretation of
Entrance Driveway
Framed by Vegetation
Front-Yard Mature Trees
Windrows Along
Property Edge
Planned View
1
2
3
5
A
F
J
4
E
- 110 -
1970 Brock Road, Pickering | Landscape Concept | Oct 6, 2020 PAGE 6
1970 BROCK CONSERVATION STRATEGY
interpreting and contemporizing the rural agricultural landscape
Courtyard Garden
Courtyard Paving
Tree-Lined Path
Abstracted Fieldstone
Paving
Lush Planting
Garage Green Roof
Board-formed concrete
motif on new walls
Front fence
1
2
3
5
4
3
2D21
4
5
1D
1D
2D
6
6
- 111 -
1970 Brock Road, Pickering | Landscape Concept | Oct 6, 2020 PAGE 7
1970 BROCK CONSERVATION STRATEGY
interpreting and contemporizing the rural agricultural landscape
Modeled view, proposed development
(CMV Architects).
Rendered view with landscaping
- 112 -
- 113 -
Page 1
April 6, 2021
Elizabeth Martelluzzi
Planner II, Heritage | City Development Department
City of Pickering
One The Esplanade
Pickering, ON L1V 6K7
T: 905.420.4660 ext.2169
E: emartelluzzi@pickering.ca
RE: PEER REVIEW - HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
1970-1980 BROCK ROAD AND 1670-1680 KINGSTON ROAD
Dear Ms. Martelluzzi,
The purpose of this letter is to provide the City of Pickering (‘City’) with an objective and professional
review of the Heritage Impact Assessment (‘HIA’) submitted as part of the Official Plan Amendment
and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for the proposed high-density mixed-use develop-
ment at 1970-1980 Brock Road and 1670-1680 Kingston Road in Pickering.
The following documents were reviewed as part of this process:
Applicant Materials
•Applicant Letter by The Biglieri Group Ltd., December 2, 2020.
•1970-1980 Brock Rd, 1670-1680 Kingston Rd, Pickering, Heritage Impact Assessment by
E.R.A. Architects Inc., November 24, 2020.
•Planning Rationale Report, 1970 Brock Road by The Biglieru Group Ltd., November 2020.
•Architectural drawing set issued for rezoning by CMV Group Architects, November 20, 2020.
Project Background Materials
•By-law Number 2570/87 - Being a by-law to designate the property owned by Parallax
Land Corporation in the Town of Pickering as being of architectural and historical value or
interest (Post Manor).
•Durham Regional Official Plan (2017).
•Pickering Official Plan, Edition 8 (2018).
•A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019).
•Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan (2019).
•Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Urban Design Guidelines (2019).
Attachment #3 to Agenda Item 6.1
- 114 -
Page 2
Additional Reference Materials
• Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O. 1990).
• Ontario Regulation 9/06 - Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest.
• Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (2006).
• Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2010).
• Provincial Policy Statement (2020).
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
This review of the Heritage Impact Assessment by E.R.A. Architects Inc. (‘ERA’) assesses the report
findings and provides an opinion on whether it is consistent with the heritage policy framework as
well as provincial and national cultural heritage guidelines and best practice. As the City does not
have a terms of reference for a Heritage Impact Assessment report, this review was guided by the
content described in the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, InfoSheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessment and
Conservation Plans as directed in the City’s pre-application comments.
The property at 1970 Brock Road is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act as
described in By-law no. 2570/87. The property contains a residence referred to as “Post Manor”- a
c.1841 building constructed for Jordan and Matilda Post.
The Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment application proposes a high-density
mixed-use development described in the Planning Rationale Report as:
• Two 3-storey townhouse blocks;
• One 12-storey mid-rise building;
• Two 31 and 34-storey towers connected by a 6-storey podium; and,
• One stand-alone commercial building, being a designated cultural heritage resource, the
Post Manor.
In the City of Pickering Official Plan, the property is designated Mixed Corridors and is located
within Neighbourhood 9: Village East. Of note, Post Manor is the only designated heritage
building found within the boundaries of the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node
Intensification Plan.
The application requests a Site Specific Official Plan amendment to allow for a density of 5.7
FSI, as well as Zoning-By-law amendments pertaining to building requirements (building location
and setbacks, permitted uses, minimum building separation, maximum building height, maximum
floor space Index, amenity space) and parking requirements.
Branch Architecture completed a site visit on February 1, 2021. The site review included walking
the surroundings, the property, and each floor of the building (except the northeast room in the
basement and the rear courtyard).
2.0 REVIEW OF HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
As directed in the Pre-consultation Comments Memo, the HIA was generally completed with
respect to the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process,
InfoSheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans. The HIA provides: a written
- 115 -
Page 3
history of the property, the building, and the locale supported by historical maps, photos and
other visuals; an assessment of the four properties within the application lands in relation to
Ontario Regulation 9/06 - Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest; a building
condition assessment for Post Manor; a summary of applicable heritage policy; a description of the
proposed development and site alterations; a description of the conservation approach; an impact
assessment with mitigation strategies; and a conclusion.
I found the research and property assessment components of the report to be generally complete
with select items requiring further review and consideration. With respect to the conservation
approach, the proposal to set the heritage building within a new ‘contemporized’ landscaped
setting and provide on site interpretation would serve to conserve the cultural heritage value and
understanding of the property, however, the HIA does not provide a rationale for the proposed
building relocation nor a full assessment of the negative impacts of the proposed development
application. The HIA needs to provide further investigation, assessment, discussion and information
on the negative impacts of the proposed development, specifically:
• Provide the assessment that determined that the building could not be retained in place as
part of the site’s redevelopment.
• Provide information on the proposed building relocation so as to demonstrate the feasibility of
the move and the compatibility of the new location.
• Further assess and consider the negative impacts of the proposed development and site
alterations on the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the property with respect
to the heritage policy framework.
• Further develop the conservation strategy based on the comments provided in this letter.
I recommend that ERA revise the HIA and advise on how the design of the development can be
revised to limit or, preferably, eliminate the negative impacts on the Post Manor heritage property.
In the following subsections I provide additional research and comments to inform revisions to the
HIA.
2.1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The following comments follow the themes/topics set out in the report.
Chain of Ownership
The report includes an abridged version of the property ownership as set out in the property’s land
abstract / parcel registry. It includes the date of registry, the grantor, grantee and quantity of land
considered in the transaction.
When reviewing a property’s land abstract, it is helpful to identify each legally registered transaction
(named instruments) as well as the value of the transaction as they may relate to new construction.
Common transaction types include: ‘Bargain and Sales’ (BS or B&S); grants; mortgages and
release of mortgages; and agreement for lease transactions. The summary chart should identify
the transaction type in order to provide a clear path of ownership.
- 116 -
Page 4
Another informative piece of a land abstract is the “Consideration or Amount of Mortgage”. The
value of the transaction can be helpful in determining if the parcel was vacant or not at the time of
sale as large increases in value from one sale/grant to the next often indicate the construction of a
building. Further, the timing of mortgages may help date an addition or building on the property.
Other pieces of information included on the land abstract are: the ‘Number of Instrument’ (this
is helpful when doing detailed tracking of transactions); ‘Its Date’ (date of application); and,
‘Remarks’ (here one may find other details related to the property location and limits, mortgage
discharges, survey numbers, new plans of subdivision records, etc.)
The following chart for the subject property within Lot 19, Concession 1 provides addition
information on the Instrument and Consideration so as to confirm the site’s ownership and identify
changes in property value. Additions I have made to the following ownership chart found in the
HIA are shown in red text, and where the handwriting on original document is only partly legible
the text is in italics.
Instrument Date of
Registry
Grantor Grantee Quantity of
Land
Consideration
or Amount of
Mortgage
Patent July 16, 1799 Hon. David W. Smith 200 ac.
BS April 12, 1834 Hon. David W.
Smith
John Tool 200 ac.£ 150
BS May 13, 1842 John Tool Jordan Post 33 a 3r 11
poles1
£ 300
Mort November 27,
1851
Jordan Post John Knowles 33 a 3r 11
poles
£ 400
Dis. of
Mort
October 3,
1855
John Knowles Jordan Post 33 a 3r 11
poles
Mort June 15, 1974 Walter Scott Post2 Daniel M. Decker N 34 ac.$ 565
Dis. of
Mort.
October 17,
1874
Walter Scott Post Matilda Post N 34 ac.
Dis. of
Mort.
Mar. 13, 1875 Daniel M. Decker Matilda Post N 34 ac.
B&S December 17,
1886
Robert G Post 3 Robert Deverell 33 a 3r 11
poles
(no value
shown)
B&S 1908 Robert Deverell &
Wife
Frederick Hurst 33 ac. 3 roads
+ 11 poles +/-
$ 5,300
Grant November 29,
1926
Elizabeth Hurst Marshall MacGregor,
Bertha & Charles
Hettger
33 a 3r 11
poles
$12,000
1 33 acres, 3 roads and 11 poles.
2 Jordan and Matilda’s son (1851-1900).
3 Jordan and Matilda’s son (1841-1894).
- 117 -
Page 5
Instrument Date of
Registry
Grantor Grantee Quantity of
Land
Consideration
or Amount of
Mortgage
Grant June 4, 1948 Mary MacGregor,
Bertha & Charles
Hettger
Kenneth Harry &
Margaret Elizabeth
Clarke
part4 $5,000
Grant December 24,
1953
Kenneth Harry &
Margaret Elizabeth
Clarke
The Corporation
of the Township of
Pickering
part
(Estimated
road
allowance)
$2.00
Grant March 1, 1961
(appears to
have been
finalized in
1971)
Kenneth Harry
Clarke & Wife
The Corporation
of the Township of
Pickering
Road
allowance
along Brock
(between Lot
18 and 19).
$20,001
Grant October 14,
1986
Kenneth Harry John
Clarke
Parallax Brock Ltd.3 ac. Part
1- Registered
Plan 40R-8663
(no value
shown)
Notice of
Lease
July 15, 1987 Parallax Brock Ltd.Cara Operations
Ltd (Agent for lease,
Parent company of
Swiss Chalet)
3 ac. Part
1- Registered
Plan 40R-8663
(no value
shown)
Transfer April 16, 1992 Parallax Brock Ltd. Gilfred Investments
Ltd.
3 ac. Part
1- Registered
Plan
40R-86635
$4,480,000.00
British Colonial Context
Due to the government’s land grant practice, Pickering was settled later than and in a pattern
that was in contrast to other parts of the province. In The Historical Complexities of Pickering,
Markham, Scarborough and Uxbridge, the author Michelle Greenwald explains:
Europeans moved into Pickering slowly, and contrary to what one would expect, far
from the lakeshore. The reason was that former army officers and government officials
were given large grants of land in blocks in the southern part of Pickering, not scat-
tered throughout the township as was the common practice. Major Smith, his son David
William Acting Surveyor-General, John Beverley Robinson, Elmsley and others were not
going to break up their holdings in the early days just to sell a lot here and a lot there
to farmers... Therefore, with the exception of leases on Reserves hardly any one owned
4 Approximately 15 acres remained at the south parcel following the severance of the north part (18
acres) in 1928.
5 Full description: part- Part 1 on 440R-8663 ex. Part 3 on 40R9878. Tog. with ROW over Part 1 on
4CR-9878. Subj. to ROW over Part 2 on 40R-9878.
- 118 -
Page 6
individual lots south of the Fifth Concession until after the War of 1812. Those who did
settle were mostly American, it was not until after 1816 that the wave of British immi-
grants started; so that it was in the 1820s and 1830s that Pickering filled up.6
As noted in the HIA, the Pickering Township was surveyed by Deputy Provincial Land Surveyor
Augustus Jones following the Constitutional Act (or Canada Act) of 1791. A key aim of the Canada
Act was to establish a system for an individual to own property outright and levy taxes. In 1792,
the responsibility of granting lands was delegated to Lt. Governor Col. John Graves Simcoe who
followed the British tradition and, in effect, made members of his legislative council into landed
gentry. It is estimated that by the end of his term of office in 1796, he had placed one seventh of
the surveyed townships in the hands of the Church of England and provided well for his council
and his civil servants.
In the Pickering Township alone, of the 74,660 acres which the township contains,
18,800 were in the hands of five people; one of them the newly appointed Surveyor-
General, two others, members of his family.7
Much of the Pickering Township was taken up by military and additional grants allocated to largely
absentee landholders.8 As a result, there was little land left for new settlers to purchase. Large
areas of the township, in particular desirable lands along the shoreline, remained wild well into the
1800’s.
Lot 19, Concession 1 formed part of the lands granted to the Honorable David W. Smith. Smith was
the province’s first Surveyor-General and one of the largest landowners in the Pickering Township.
As indicated in the 1801 Chewett Plan of the Smith family land ownership in the Township of
Pickering, David W. Smith owned 6,600 acres including the 4,800 acres he inherited from his father
Lt. Col. John Smith (shown in pink) and 1,200 acres belonging to his daughter Anne Smith (shown
in yellow).9 10 This resulted in a significant land block that extended north from the lake and that
was largely uninterrupted as shown on the 1801 Chewett Plan of Pickering and the 1833 Township
of Pickering map.11
Further information on the subject property’s first owner, David W. Smith, and his role in Upper
Canada’s land-granting system can be found in the article in Ontario History (Volume CXII, No. 1,
Spring 2020) entitled David William Smith: Surveyor as State-Builder by Christopher Alexander.
Kingston Road Evolution
It would be helpful if the subject property was identified in these maps to clarify the property’s
placement along this primary corridor.
6 The Historical Complexities of Pickering, Markham, Scarborough and Uxbridge by Michelle Green-
wald, September 1973, pg. 25-26.
7 The Pickering Story, pg. 21.
8 The Crown provided Loyalists with 200 acres and military grants of up to 5,000 acres.
9 According to The Founding of Pickering Village, Major Smith was “an officer in the 5th Regiment
during the Revolutionary War and later a commanding officer at Detroit (1790-92) and Niagara (1792-95)”.
10 Records indicate that the Upper Canada land regulations paired with Smith’s position as Survey-
or-General enabled him and his family to acquire more than 20,000 acres, including 7,800 acres in Pickering.
11 Of note, the Ontario Archives holds a similar (and less annotated) version of the Crown Lands Map of
the County of Ontario that identifies the checkered pattern of the Clergy Lands (attached).
- 119 -
Page 7
Post Occupancy (1842-43 to 1886)
The following research may inform the HIA or future site interpretation:
• In 1848, on the nights of August 18th and 20th, the Post property was subject to arson; fires
were set at the dwelling and barn. 12
• The 1851 Personal Census shows the Post family (Jordan, Matilda, Elizabeth, Robert, Charles,
Ardelia and John) as well as three labourers and servants (William Bell, Leonard Gray and Jane
Linton) living together in a one-and-a-half storey stone house. The census record also identifies
other buildings on the property including a vacant house and “1 Saw Mill Cost £ 300 Power to
drive 2 Saws Produces about 400 (?) feet per annum)” that employed two persons.
• The 1851 Agricultural Census for Jordan Post of Concession 1,2, Lot 19 describes the farm as
133 acres with 83 acres under cultivation, 20 acres under crops, 60 acres under pasture, 3 acres
gardens or orchards and 50 acres under wood or wild. The cultivated lands included 1 acre
of barley, 4 acres of Indian corn, 1/2 acre of potatoes. It produced 50 bundles of hay and 50
pounds of wool. The livestock was made up of 2 steers, 4 cows, 2 calves, 8 horses, 20 sheep,
and 11 pigs. From these 200 pounds of butter, 5 barrels of pork and 1 quality of cured fish were
produced that year.
• The 1851 census offers a snapshot of residential typologies of the time. In Looking for Old
Ontario, McIllwraith states that, “fewer than 3 percent of Ontario house in 1851 were stone”.13
A review of the Pickering’s 1851 census found that of the 1022 residences, 37 buildings or
3.6% were classified as a ‘stone house’. 14 This speaks to the rarity of pre-1850 stone houses in
Pickering and across Ontario.
• The 1861 Agricultural Census for Matilda Post at Concession 1, Lot 1 describes the property
as a 34 acre farm with 34 acres under cultivation, 2 acres under orchards or garden. The cash
value of farm was $2,000 and the cash value of farming implements or machinery was $400.
The cultivated land was made up of 7 acres of fall wheat (70 bushels), 2 acres of turnips (1000
bushels), 1 acre of mangel wurtzel (field beet) (800 bushels), and 400 bushels of carrots. The
value of the amount of hay produced is illegible. As the property was not divided until later, it is
possible that after Jordan’s death the remainder of the farm was leased out as there are others
listed at Concession 1, Lot 1 including George Leng, Joseph Gordon and Charles Swallow.
Deverall Occupancy (1886-1908)
To supplement this summary of the Deverall’s time here, I have attached a detail of the property
as shown on the Map of the Township of Pickering by Charles E. Goad in 1895.
12 “Important Resolutions!” meeting record for August 24, 1848. (Pickering Archives)
13 Looking for Old Ontario by Thomas F. McIlwraith, pg. 83.
14 The census data for Pickering records 926 houses and 96 shanties. From the most common to the
least, the houses were constructed of: log (48%); frame (43%); stone (4%); brick (2%); mud brick (1%); mud
(1%); plank (1%), and log and frame (1%). The shanties were wood construction, either frame, log or board.
- 120 -
Page 8
1. Photo of Post Manor residence, July 1925. It is titled, “Hamilton Farm House, erected c. 1850 on highway
near, Pickering, Ontario. July, 1925”. (C.P. Meredith fonds, Library and Archives Canada)
Hurst Occupancy (1908 - 1926)
The above photograph shows the front elevation of the house in 1925. Noted differences from
the existing include: the simple vertical board treatment at the base of the verandah; the very
fine eaves profile; the rainwater collector in front of the fascia (at the corner); and the landscaped
setting. Also attached is the Gidual Landowners’ Map (c. 1917).
Hettget-MacGregor Occupancy (1926-1943)
The subject property was included in the buildings Eric Arthur documented across Ontario in the
1920’s and 1930’s. He and architecture students at the University of Toronto documented many
examples of the architecture of the early years of Upper Canada’s settlement. The focus was on
buildings erected during the ‘pioneer period’, up to around 1840.
The subject property is listed in Arthur’s 1938 publication The Early Buildings of Ontario as one
of the approximately 200 buildings “inspected, photographed or measured”. It is one of two in
Pickering and is named “House, stone McGregor, corner of Brock Rd.”15 The residence reflects the
“Characteristic Features of the Early Ontario House” described by Arthur:
These may be listed as follows: Simple rectangular plan with or without flaking wings; a
symmetrical arrangement of windows about a central doorway; a low-pitched roof which
is usually gabled but may be hipped or “cottage-roofed” (as they are sometimes called
in Ontario); the use of double-hung divided windows; a central or flanking chimneys;
eaves of a slight projection; use of stone, brick, frame or mud brick construction.16
15 The Early Buildings of Ontario by Eric Arthur, pg. 23.
16 Ibid., pg. 11.
- 121 -
Page 9
I have undertaken preliminary inquiries with the Ontario Archive’s archivist and confirmed that
this house forms part of their Eric Arthur Collection. My review of the preliminary inventory of the
collection indicates that there are glass plate negatives listed under MacGregor (2 items) dated
August 21, 1929 (creator 41-C-3/1-2, container A-1142). I have submitted a further inquiry with
respect to the architectural measured drawing collection. Access to the archives is limited due to
the current extenuating circumstances.
I strongly suggest that ERA pursue locating this documentation of the building. Photos, notes
and/or record drawings may shed light on alterations undertaken to the building since then and in
particular in the late 20th century following the fire that “...broke out in the kitchen, swept up the
stairway to two bedrooms and part of the roof.”17
Building Evolution
As described in the HIA, the residence and larger property has undergone a number of additions
and alterations that relate to its evolution from a 19th and 20th century farm to a commercial
building within a strip mall. For clarity I have provided diagrams showing the changes to the
house’s footprint and exterior (with reference to archival photos) and the existing building. Further,
I agree with the items identified in the HIA for further study including the possible former chimney
at the south wall and the origins of the marble fireplaces. I also encourage further inspection with
respect to the original layout of the house.
Show below is a floor plan for a typical Ontario farm house as depicted in an article entitled
Rural Architecture: A Cheap Farm House published in The Canada Farmer in 1864. While these
drawings were published several decades after the construction of Post Manor, they show the
17 The Globe and Mail, March 17, 1956, pg.4. HIA, pg.32.
2. Floor plans for a farm house showing a typical layout. (The Canada Farmer: Vol. 1, no. 22, (Nov. 15, 1864), pg. 341)
- 122 -
Page 10
typical arrangement of rooms in a center hall plan as applied to a one-and-a-half storey Ontario
farmhouse. As shown the ground floor consists of a parlour and bedroom to the right side of the
hall, a large dining room to the left, and a kitchen wing at the rear. Of note, as suggested by the
author and as is the case here, the construction of the rear kitchen wing was often completed later
to reduce the initial cost of the house construction. The second floor allowed for four bedrooms as
well as a linen closet at one end of the hall.
Post Manor had a similar room layout. For instance on the ground floor, the south half of the
building may have been a dining room with a centrally placed fireplace at the south wall. This
seems possible given the location of the south chimney (currently not linked to a fireplace and
required to heat a mid-19th century house adequately) and the modern uses found at the rear of
this space (modern washrooms, storage and a small stair).
To inform this aspect of the building design, I suggest completing select core holes at the interior
walls to determine approximate age the walls. For example, work completed as part of the 1960’s
renovations will likely be modern drywall on nominal size studs whereas 1840’s era walls will be
made of traditional lath and plaster (either accordion or early sawn lath style) on true size lumber.
This investigation should be paired with a closer visual review of the existing detailing of the
woodwork and stairs. For instance, a visual comparison of the front stair versus the rear stair shows
differences in the design and construction that reflect the differing construction methods and
materials of the respective eras. Further, I would expect that a set of original (180 year old) servant
stairs would display heavily worn treads.
3. Detail of front stair showing a round nosing, a fine cove
trim below and filler at large nails, 2021. (BA)
4. Detail at rear stair showing a different nosing profile, a
different trim profile, finishing nail heads and lightly worn
treads, 2021. (BA)
- 123 -
Page 11
5. 1959 plan drawings by H. Okun annotated by BA to
identify exterior alterations predating the 1960s renovation.
(Pickering Archives)
6. Former clapboard extension as viewed from the west,
1927. (Pickering Archives)
7. South elevation of rear (west) wing showing window
configuration, c. 1930. (Pickering Archives)
8. South elevation of rear (west) wing showing window and
door configuration, 1940. (Pickering Archives)ORIGINAL HOUSEREAR (WEST) WINGFORMER CLAPBOARD EXTENSION (as shown in the 1920’s)9. Detail of ‘gingerbread’ woodwork extending above the
eaves line, c.1880. (Pickering Archives)
10. Carl Hettger, Mary Hettger, Marshall MacGregor, Jessie
MacGregor and Bingo at rear of house. Handwritten note
on the back of the photo reads “Note the wooden steps
before the stone walk was laid.” 1930. (Pickering Archives)
EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS (PRE-1960s)
- 124 -
Page 12
FPFP
FPFP
FPFP
DOORDOOR
11. 1959 plan drawings by H. Okun annotated to reflect the existing building configuration. The solid blue line indicates
an existing wall, the red dashed line indicates where a wall does not exist, and ‘FP’ indicates the location of a marble
fireplace. (Pickering Archives, annotated by BA)
INTERIOR ALTERATIONS (1959 DRAWINGS VS. TODAY)
2.1 CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE ASSESSMENT
The HIA includes an assessment of all four existing properties found within the subject application
with respect to the criteria set out in Ontario Regulation 9/06 - Criteria for Determining Cultural
Heritage Value or Interest. I agree with the finding that 1970 Brock Road satisfies these criteria and
that the remaining properties at 1980 Brock Road, 1670 Kingston Road and 1680 Kingston Road
do not.
With respect to the value assessments for 1970 Brock Road, I have the following comments:
• Post Manor is a fine example an early Ontario house or ‘cottage’ in Pickering. At its simplest,
the Ontario cottage is a symmetrical, one or one-and-a-half storey building with a gable or
hipped roof. This style is known for its symmetry and regular proportions. The front door
is placed in the central bay with windows arranged on either side within 3 or 5 bays. The
exterior symmetry is often mirrored in a central hall floor plan, with rooms on either side of
the hall. The building type is thought to have been introduced by early British military and
British settlers influenced by 18th century Georgian traditions.
• The house displays many characteristics of the Regency style of architecture. The Regency
style arrived in Canada in 1815 following the American Revolution and the Napoleonic
Wars, and remained a popular style into the 1840s. The Regency cottage is the five bay
- 125 -
Page 13
12. A Classification of Dwellings diagram comparing changing trends in house styles in rural and urban Ontario up to the
20th century. Annotated by BA to show how the age of Post Manor relates to dominant trends in high-art and vernacular
Ontario. (Looking for Old Ontario by Thomas F. McIlwraith. pg. 106)
13. Ontario cottage diagrams showing the three and five bays configurations. (“The Ontario Cottage: The Globalization of
a British Form in the Nineteenth Century” by Distefano, Lynne E. TDSR, Vol. 12, no. 2, 2001. pg. 34)
- 126 -
Page 14
configuration of the Ontario cottage. Characteristics of this style include: symmetrical
plans and elevations; single or one-a-half storey structures typically with hipped or gabled
roofs with broad eaves; deep verandahs on one or two fronts; classical based mouldings,
windows and entrances; large windows often with low sills or french doors opening onto
the verandah; and, verandah roofs with a bell-cast profile and exposed rafters.
• The date of the building varies in records from 1841 (designation by-law) to 1842-3 (HIA).
Review of the tax assessment records at the Pickering Archives or Ontario Archives may
determine the year the house was built and may also shed light on the date of the rear wing
as taxes would have been adjusted accordingly.
• There remains a visual link between Post Manor and the Post Cemetery. The intimacy of
this visual connection has been diluted by the widening of Kingston Road, but the view is
currently unobscured.
• With respect to if the building is a landmark, I agree that the community should be consulted.
The building is a long-standing fixture at the primary intersection, has an unobstructed view
to those traveling west along Kingston Road, and is visually distinct from the surrounding
streetscape.
With respect to the heritage attributes listed in Draft Statement of Significance, I have the following
comments / clarifications within the noted sections:
Attributes that convey the mid-19th-century Ontario farmhouse building type
• Symmetrical 5-bay arrangement of the front (east) elevation
• Centre hall plan
• Elements of the Regency style residence
14. Front elevation showing attributes of a Regency cottage: a symmetrical 5 bay configuration; a verandah with bell-cast
roof; large ground floor windows with low sills; a gabled roof with flanking chimneys; and classical detailing, 2021. (BA)
- 127 -
Page 15
15. Rear basement entry, 1930. (Pickering Archives)
Attributes that convey high craftsmanship, and association with wealthy property owners
Jordan and Matilda Post
• Exterior granite fieldstone walls with large squared quoins
• Window shutters and brackets
• Confirm vintage of the rear ‘servant’ stair
• Add the interior window casings that extend to the floor (found within the front rooms on
the ground floor)
• Marble mantels within the original house and rear wing (three in total)
• Consider the ‘arched entrance to the basement’ noted in the existing Reasons for
Designation
Attributes that convey Post Manor’s historic relationship to the Post Cemetery (see photos on
the following page)
• The visual connection to the Post Cemetery across Kingston Road
• The view of the front (east) elevation as understood traveling along Kingston Road
16. Front window with a deep wood casing that extends to
the floor, 2021. (BA)
- 128 -
Page 16
17. Looking north from Post Cemetery to Post Manor,
1927. (Pickering Archives)
18. Looking west along Kingston Road with Post Manor to
the right, 1930. (Pickering Archives)
19. Looking north from Post Cemetery to Post Manor,
2021. (BA)
20. Looking west along Kingston Road with Post Manor to
the right, 2021. (BA)
21. Looking north along Brock Road with the Post
Cemetery on a rise and Post Manor hidden from view,
2021. (BA)
22. Looking west to Post Manor from the northeast corner
of the Kingston and Brock intersection, 2021. (BA)
VIEWS AND VISUAL CONNECTIONS
POST CEMETERY KINGSTON ROAD
- 129 -
Page 17
2.3 HERITAGE POLICY FRAMEWORK
The heritage policy framework the following should also consider the following as part of the HIA
and its assessment of the proposed development:
• Provincial Policy Statement (2020)
1.7 Long-Term Economic Prosperity
1.7.1 Long-term economic prosperity should be supported by:
e) encouraging a sense of place, by promoting well-designed built form and cultural planning,
and by conserving features that help define character, including built heritage resources and
cultural heritage landscapes;
• A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019)
1.2.1 Guiding principles
• Conserve and promote cultural heritage resources to support the social, economic, and
cultural well-being of all communities, including First Nations and Métis communities.
2.4 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, CONSERVATION APPROACH AND IMPACT
ASSESSMENT & MITIGATION
The development application proposes that the Post Manor building is retained on site and
relocated to the northeast. The conservation strategy shows the Post Manor building positioned
within a landscaped setting adjacent to Brock Road and the building is identified to be rehabilitated
for commercial uses.
The HIA describes the conservation approach for Post Manor to include for the building’s
rehabilitation and restoration. The report provides a preliminary list of the conservation scope of
work and suggests that further detail will be provided in a future Conservation Plan.
The HIA identifies the following anticipated impacts of the proposed development on the cultural
heritage value of the property as follows:
• Relocation from the northwest corner of Brock and Kingston Roads; and,
• Density and proximity of new construction.
To mitigate the impact of these proposed alterations, the HIA proposes:
• An interpretation strategy be undertaken provide a multi-media interpretative installations
exploring the history of the site and its context; and,
• An interpretative landscape plan design to interpret and ‘contemporize’ Post Manor’s rural
agricultural heritage.
- 130 -
Page 18
Building Relocation
It is my opinion that the HIA does not provide a convincing rationale for the relocation of Post
Manor. Considering the negative impacts of the proposed development on the heritage attributes
of Post Manor, the building would be best served in its current location and within a landscaped
setting at the corner of the Kingston and Brock Roads.
In general, building relocation is considered a last resort to conserve a built heritage resource. This
is articulated in the Official Plan’s cultural heritage policy (highlighted):
City Policy
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.
And in the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines:
Standard 1: Conserve the heritage value of an historic place. Do not remove, replace or
substantially alter its intact or repairable character-defining elements. Do not move a part
of an historic place if its current location is a character-defining element.
And in the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit’s Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties:
Respect for Original Location
Do not move buildings unless there is no other means to save them.
The Kingston Road and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan, Section 3.3.8: Heritage
Buildings, heritage building policy recommendations state that buildings of heritage significance
should be preserved and identifies several examples of preservation approaches (listed in order of
increasing impact) including, “...keeping the buildings in their existing location, moving buildings
to a more appropriate location on the same site to incorporate with new development, or replacing
buildings with an urban landscaped feature speaking to its significance and history...” And, with
respect to Post Manor, Section 4.5 of the Plan: Brock states that, “Redevelopment of the lands
on the northwest corner of the Kingston Road and Brock Road shall seek the preservation of and
incorporation of the Post Manor”. In short, given the significance of Post Manor, it is to be either
retained in place or retained on site.
- 131 -
Page 19
When considering building relocation I recommend that the following are satisfied:
1. Develop and assess strategies to maintain the building in situ.
2. The new building placement conserves the property’s cultural heritage value and heritage
attributes.
3. The conservation strategy provides for the conservation of the building in an equal or
enhanced setting.
4. An experienced heritage building mover has determined that the building can be moved
safely.
With respect to the above I have the following corresponding comments and questions:
1. Retain building in original location:
The HIA does not indicate that, prior to considering building relocation, ERA first assessed
retaining the building in place. As the above noted heritage guidelines and policy
identify building relocation as a last resort, the HIA should include analysis and discussion
demonstrating why ERA recommends that the building is not retained in place.
2. Building placement:
The proposed location of the Post Manor is to the northeast of its existing location. The
HIA states that the building will move 15.4m to the east and (as scaled off the architectural
drawings) approximately 20m north. Incorporating the proposed road widening, Post
Manor will have a 13.07m setback off Brock Road. In addition, new structures are to be
provided to the north, south and east of Post Manor.
This proposed placement maintains the building’s east-facing orientation and it’s direct
relationship with Brock Road. However, it does remove Post Manor from it’s original
corner placement at Kingston and Brock Roads, alters it’s proximity to the intersection at
Brock and Kingston Roads, reduces the front yard setback from Brock Road, and (with the
introduction of a new building to the south) removes the building from its long-standing
visual connection to the Post Cemetery at the southwest corner of the intersection.
In evaluating the impact of the proposed building placement, it is important to determine
if Post Manor is a local landmark. ERA’s cultural heritage value assessment states that Post
Manor does not hold the visibility or prominence for it to be considered a local landmark,
but suggests that community engagement is required to understand if it is valued as a local
landmark. I agree and suggest proceeding with appropriate consultation and, if found to
be a landmark, that the aspects that mark it as a landmark are recorded and considered in
ERA’s assessment of the proposed development.
3. Building setting:
The setting of the building has changed significantly over its life as reflection of the area’s
evolution from farmland to an element in an urban setting. The original farm property
was subdivided several times before it was redeveloped as a commercial strip mall. The
building’s setting has also changed from a dwelling on a large farm (with the house largely
visible from the adjacent roads) to a smaller farm (with many mature trees and hedges) to
- 132 -
Page 20
the most recent setting of the building within a strip mall and with the landscape largely
removed for surface parking. Further, over time the building’s setbacks have been altered
in response to road widening and the realignment of Brock Road.
The conservation strategy’s Interpretive Landscape Plan is intended “to interpret and
‘contemporize’ Post Manor’s rural agricultural heritage.” In essence, Post Manor is to
be relocated within a designed picturesque landscape at its new location. The intent of
this approach is restore the building as part of a landscaped setting and engage in an
opportunity to interpret rural heritage themes on site.
I support the conservation approach to restore the building within a landscaped setting
and to use this as an opportunity to provide interpretation.
With respect to the Interpretive Landscape Plan, I encourage ERA to incorporate historically
based design elements to strengthen the building’s pedestrian relationship to Brock Road
and define the historic view. To this end I suggest reviewing the following historic photos
which show:
• A decorative fence defining the dwelling’s front yard facing Brock Road; and
• A central gate suggesting a front path from the sidewalk to the front stair / door which
would be in keeping with the symmetry of the architecture.
I also recommend reviewing the proposed location of the mature trees with a landscape
architect to verify that the below grade conditions can accommodate them. An overlay of
the landscape plan on the P1 Level Parking Plan suggests conflicts.
4. Feasibility of relocation:
The HIA does not include an assessment by a heritage building mover that confirms
that Post Manor is a good candidate for relocation. Questions I have about the building
relocation include:
• Given the fact that the building has three parts - original house, rear wing and rear
basement entry - will it be moved as one element or in parts?
• How much of the building will be dismantled and rebuilt at the new location?
• What is the anticipated sequencing given that the building will likely need to be moved
in stages? Steps may include: securing the building for the move; lifting and shifting the
building in full or parts on site; documenting and/or cataloguing building elements to
dismantled and rebuilt; dismantling and rebuilding the basement at the new location;
and setting the building on the rebuilt foundation.
• Given that the full site will be fully excavated to constructed the parking levels below,
how will the building relocation fit into a site staging plan? Will Post Manor need to be
moved multiple times?
• How will the heritage building (with its basement retained in full) sit and be supported
in relation to the directly adjacent underground parking structure? A section drawing
would be useful to demonstrate that there are no conflicts.
- 133 -
Page 21
1970 Brock Road, Pickering | Landscape Concept | Oct 6, 2020 PAGE 5
1970 BROCK CONSERVATION STRATEGY
interpreting and contemporizing the rural agricultural landscape
A
2
3
3
4
5
F
E
J
1
Courtyard Garden
Tree-Lined Path
Lush Planting
Garage Green Roof
Board-formed concrete
motif on new walls
Farmhouse
Interpretation of
Entrance Driveway
Framed by Vegetation
Front-Yard Mature Trees
Windrows Along
Property Edge
Planned View
1
2
3
5
A
F
J
4
E
9.00m6.00mSTAIRSTAIRSTAIR STAIR
Seal:
ISO A0
Checked By:
Nov 23, 2020 - 12:15pm
Drawing No.:
Date Plotted:
Drawn By:
Drawing Title:
Project:
Revision No.:
Scale:
Date Checked: Project No.
DateNo.
REVISIONS AND DISTRIBUTION LOG
Note
247 Spadina Avenue, 4th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 3A8
www.cmvarch.com
T 416.506.1600 F 416.506.0956
A200 1
AS NOTED
PROPOSED MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
BROCK AND KINGSTON HOLDINGS INC.
1970 BROCK ROAD
PICKERING ONTARIO
PARKING PLAN
P1 LEVEL
PC CMV 20A109
1 2020.NOV.20 ISSUED FOR REZONING
23. Post Manor’s decorative fence, 1900. (Pickering
Archives)
24. Post Manor’s fence with a central entrance
to the front yard, 1930. (Pickering Archives)
25. Overlay of P1 Level Parking Plan on proposed Landscape Strategy. For the purposes of this evaluating this approach,
the line of the front face of Post Manor has been used as the anchor point for the two drawings. (ERA and CMV Group)
- 134 -
Page 22
Impacts of the New Construction
It is my opinion that the HIA does not identify all the negative impacts of the proposed development.
I recommend that ERA revisit the Heritage Policy Framework and provide additional information
and discussion with respect to negative impacts. I have identified the following negative impacts in
addition to those identified in the HIA:
• Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a
natural feature or plantings, such as a garden (Ontario Heritage Tool Kit)
Based on a review of the shadow study, I am concerned that the shadows cast by the proposed
new buildings (and most significantly by the new tower along Kingston Road) will have a negative
impact on the heritage attributes of the building and the proposed interpretive landscape.
The proposed new buildings to the south and west will result in Post Manor and the proposed
landscape being in shadow for a significant proportion of the year.
An attribute of Post Manor is the wood shingle roof at the original house and verandah. Wood
shingle roofs require adequate ventilation and sunlight to remain dry and avoid deterioration.
Damp or saturated shingles are susceptible to distortion (cupping), decay (rot) and organic
growth. I am concerned that, given the amount of time the roof will spend in the shade, the
wood shingles will deteriorate at an accelerated rate.
Also, the interpretive landscape plan includes for a range of plantings to create a ‘lush’
landscaping including but limited to: front-yard mature trees; a tree-lined pedestrian driveway;
and an orchard. I am concerned that the restricted access to direct sunlight and shadows cast by
the proposed buildings will negatively impact the viability of the landscape plan. I recommend
that a landscape architect review and comment on the viability of this landscape given amount
and timing of shadow shown in the shadow study as I am not confident the trees and plantings
will receive the conditions it needs to thrive.
• Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance
(Ontario Heritage Tool Kit)
While the HIA acknowledges the density and proximity of the of the proposed development, it
does not state that the proposal is sympathetic or compatible with Post Manor. The HIA states
the opposite:
The height and proximity of the new building south of the farmhouse, and the
proximity and mass of the parking ramp north of the farmhouse, both represent an
impact on Post Manor’s setting and ability convey its value. As farmhouses are rural
building types, their setting and landscape is considered critical in their ability to
convey value and legibility as heritage resources.
I agree with ERA’s assessment that the height, proximity and massing of the new construction
will impact Post Manor, and in a negative way. I recommend that ERA work with the design
team to develop alternative options that reconsider the placement of Post Manor and where
the massing, height and proximity of the new buildings are sympathetic to and compatible with
Post Manor. Alternatives should consider: retaining Post Manor at its original corner location;
limiting shadow impacts of new construction; preserving visual connections and views; providing
- 135 -
Page 23
adequate ‘breathing room’ around Post Manor (in the form of greater separation distances); and,
the general compatibility of the new development with Post Manor.
• Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant
relationship (Ontario Heritage Tool Kit)
While Post Manor was removed from it’s farm-like setting when the site was transformed to a
strip mall, the house maintains a proximate and visual relationship with the Post Cemetery on the
south side of Kingston Road. The relocation of the building and the insertion of a new building
between it and Kingston Road will remove this visual connection and reduce the proximity of the
historically linked sites. Further, the proposed relocation removes Post Manor as a visual marker
and possible landmark along Kingston Road.
• New development should recognize heritage buildings and historic elements by facilitating
opportunities for building and site design to reflect the scale, building materials, architectural
style and other attributes of adjacent cultural heritage resources. (Kingston Road Corridor and
Specialty Retailing Node Urban Design Guidelines)
The HIA does not address this significant ‘test’ of the compatibility of the proposed development
set out in the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Urban Design Guidelines.
The proposed high-density development does not reflect the scale or architectural style of the
one-and-a-half storey Regency cottage / house, and the submission material does not provide
information of the building materials of the proposed buildings.
It is my opinion that the design of the proposed development requires further examination and
revision to ensure that the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of Post Manor are
conserved. The development should seek to retain and integrate Post Manor elegantly and
sympathetically into the overall site plan in such a way that reinforces the building’s significance
as a long-standing historical element along Kingston Road. The design of the new buildings -
placement, massing, height, scale, style and materials - should complement and enhance Post
Manor and its setting within a new interpretive landscape.
SUMMARY COMMENTS
In my professional opinion that the HIA completed by ERA demonstrates a good understanding
the property history, condition and value, however, the impact assessment does not: provide a
convincing rationale for the proposed building relocation; identify or address several significant
negative impacts on the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of Post Manor; or demonstrate
that the new construction associated with the proposed development is compatible with Post Manor.
With respect to the HIA, I recommend that it is revised in response to the information, comments
and opinions provided in this letter with special attention to negative impacts.
I recommend that, as part of the ongoing approvals process, the heritage consultant/architect
prepare and submit a Conservation Plan to City Heritage Staff for their review and approval, and
that the owner enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City.
- 136 -
Page 24
With respect to the Conservation Plan, I recommend that the report include the following:
• A full written description of the conservation - rehabilitation and restoration - scope of work;
• A Heritage Interpretation Plan detailing the multi-media interpretation strategy;
• A Landscape Plan;
• Heritage drawings of the building relocation, restoration and rehabilitation work (including
building code and accessibility upgrades);
• A description of site and/or building lighting (as applies);
• A description of site and/or building signage (as applies);
• Long-term building conservation and maintenance plan guidelines.
I trust that the comments provided are to your satisfaction. Please contact me should you require
any further details or wish to discuss the contents of this letter.
Sincerely,
Lindsay Reid OAA CAHP LEED
Principal, Branch Architecture
- 137 -
Page 25
Full copy of 1801 Chewett Plan with the written description of the Hon. D.W. Smith lands. (City of Toronto Archives)
SUPPLEMENTAL MAPS
- 138 -
Page 26
Crown Lands Map for the Township of Pickering showing checkered pattern of the Clergy Reserves. While this plan notes
the County of Ontario Act of 1851, these patent plans were created as early as the 1780’s. (Ontario Archives)
- 139 -
Page 27
Part of Map of the Township of Pickering by Chas E. Goad, 1895. (Pickering Archives)
Part of Gidual Landowners’ Map of Pickering, c. 1917. (Pickering Archives)
- 140 -