Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
September 28, 2022
Agenda Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee September 28, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Members of the public may observe the meeting proceedings by viewing the livestream. Page 1.Review and Approval of Agenda 2.Disclosure of Interest 3.Approval of Minutes 3.1 September 7, 2022, Special Meeting 1 4.New Business 4.1 Draft Plan of Subdivision & Zoning By-law Amendment Applications 8 Pickering Forest Inc. 450 Finch Avenue SP-2020-02 & A 10/20 5.Other Business 6.Next Meeting 7.Adjournment For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Minutes/Meeting Summary Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Special Meeting September 7, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Attendees: J. Dempsey E. John A. Khan C. Sopher S. Croteau E. Game, Cultural Heritage Specialist, WSP M. Kolcak, Planner, The Biglieri Group M. Pettigrew, Senior Planner, The Biglieri Group N. Surti, Manager, Development Review & Urban Design (Acting Staff Liaison) A. MacGillivray, Committee Coordinator (Recording Secretary) Absent: J. Irwin D. Fellin R. Smiles Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 1. Review and Approval of Agenda N. Surti reviewed the agenda 2. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1 June 22, 2022 Moved by S. Croteau Seconded by A. Khan That the Minutes of the June 22, 2022 Meeting of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee be approved. Carried - 1 - Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 4. New Business 4.1 Caplink Limited Proposed Applications for a Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2022-02 Zoning By-law Amendment A 04/22 M. Pettigrew, Senior Planner, The Biglieri Group provided an overview of the development application including where the subject properties are located, surrounding land uses, the location of heritage resources on the property, proposed renderings, the phasing of the development, and the Natural Heritage buffer enhancements. E. Game, Cultural Heritage Specialist, WSP provided an overview of the Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for 745 Highway 7, and its conclusion that this specific property does not possess heritage value or interest. Ms. Game spoke to the Heritage Impact Assessment undertaken for the 815 Highway 7 property (Percy House) and its recommendation of Option #3: • relocate the Percy House within the site with an adaptive reuse; • to dismantle and salvage heritage attributes from Barns and Silos; and, • to develop the manufacturing campus on the property. Ms. Game outlined the additional recommendations to be implemented in the development process, and provided an overview of the Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report, Temporary Protection Plan, and the Mothball Plan for 815 Highway 7. Discussion ensued with Members discussing: • when the Temporary Protection Plan will be implemented; - 2 - Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) •concerns regarding heavy excavation equipment that is removing trees around the house and barns; •the provisions in the Temporary Protection Plan regarding remove trees to facilitate the installation of a fence; •the Committees request that the applicant or contractors install temporary fencing or engage other protection measures during the tree removal process; •concerns around vibration monitoring and its expected implementation after the tree removal; •the number of similar barn structures still remaining in Pickering; •concerns around the demolition of the barn and silo structures; •whether the demolition would impact barn swallow habitats; •opportunities to commemorate the silo structures; •the planned demolition of the addition at the back of the Percy House due to structural concerns; and, •the salvaging of material from the demolition process for donation or reuse. Moved by S. Croteau Seconded by E. John 1.That Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee supports the applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By- law Amendment (Files SP-2022-02 and A 04/22), which retains and relocates the Percy House within the development, and that before the issuance of Site Plan Approval, Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee be consulted on the final siting of the Percy House, the addition and proposed landscaping; - 3 - Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 2. That the Heritage Impact Assessment be revised as per the recommendations of Branch Architecture in their comment letter dated August 28, 2022, and the concerns be addressed with respect to the details regarding the conservation, restoration and reuse of the Percy House; 3. That the applicant provide a Conservation Plan, prior to the issuance of Site Plan Approval, and the Conservation Plan shall include: • a conservation strategy/design rationale addressing the overall site plan and discussing the compatibility of the new construction with the retained heritage buildings and attributes; • a detailed description of the conservation (restoration and rehabilitation) scope of work for Percy House is supported by architectural and landscape drawings; • a commemoration plan; and, • a long-term building conservation and maintenance plan. 4. That the property at 815 Highway 7, be designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and that a heritage designation by-law be enacted by Council following the final siting of the Percy House; 5. That the City enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the Owner to ensure the ongoing maintenance, protection and repair of the Percy House in keeping with the heritage designation by- law and the Ontario Heritage Act; and, - 4 - Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 6. That the comments and discussion of Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee be included by staff in a future recommendation report to the Planning & Development Committee. Carried 4.2 Caplink Limited 815 Highway 7 Demolition Application (2022 009639 DP) M. Pettigrew provided a brief overview of the proposed demolition, including timelines for demolitions of various elements. Committee members raised questions regarding the whether the concerns raised can be adequately considered with demolition expected to commence in September. N. Surti provided clarification of the timelines and the future opportunities for engaging the Committee on this matter. Committee members engaged in further discussion regarding comments by Branch Architecture in the Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report, and whether they will be addressed. Moved by S. Croteau Seconded by E. John 1. That Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee does not object to the submitted Demolition Application (file number 2022 009639 DP) to demolish/dismantle two barns (Barn 1 and Barn 2) and two silos (Silo 1 and Silo 2); 2. That the Municipal Heritage Register be updated to record the demolition of the two barns and two silos; - 5 - Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 3. That the materials from Barns 1 and 2 and Silo 1 will be salvaged and reused, as outlined in Table 7-1 of Cultural Heritage Resources Documentation Report (815 Highway 7), dated August 22, 2022, prepared by WSP; 4. That salvaged materials be stored in a covered and secured location, and that salvaged elements are incorporated into the proposed development with interpretation; and, 5. That if the salvaged materials cannot be incorporated into the proposed development, the Owner will make efforts to donate to a public body such as the City of Pickering, Pickering Museum Village, Black Creek Pioneer Village, etc.; and deliver at the Owner’s cost, as deemed reasonably fit by the parties. Carried 5. Other Business 5.1 Documentation Requirements C. Sopher expressed concern with the minimal amount of information required in heritage documentation and suggested that the Committee and/or the City consider documentation requirements and whether or not they are adequate. N. Surti received the comment for further consideration. 6. Next Meeting – September 28, 2022 7. Adjournment Moved by S. Croteau Seconded by A. Khan - 6 - Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) That the meeting be adjourned Carried The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 pm - 7 - Memo To: Heritage Pickering September 22, 2022 From: Isabel Lima Planner II Copy: Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Subject: Resubmission of Draft Plan of Subdivision & Zoning By-law Amendment Applications Pickering Forest Inc. 450 Finch Avenue File: SP-2020-02 & A 10/20 Site Location In July of 2020, the City received applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision (SP-2020-02) and Zoning By-law Amendment (A 10/20) for the lands located on the north side of Finch Avenue, west of Rosebank Road and south of the Canadian Pacific Railway, municipally known as 450 Finch Avenue (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The lands are approximately 2.03 hectares in size and are located within the Rouge Park Neighbourhood (see Figure 1 below). Figure 1: Air Photo Map Site Context The site contains a 1 ½ storey stone dwelling (known as the “Dixon Farmhouse”) and a barn, located at the southeast corner of the property. A shed that existed on the property burned down in 2021. The remaining lands are vacant with clusters of trees scattered throughout. - 8 - The stone dwelling was designed in a Georgian vernacular style with a gable roof (see Figure 2 below). The applicant’s Heritage Consultant concluded that the house was likely built in 1858. The original home had a single-storey wood-frame rear wing and a front porch (later addition), which spanned the width of the façade. At some point, the rear wing and front porch were removed. Around the mid-1950s, a salvaged portico was added to the rear of the dwelling (see Figure 3 on the next page). The portico (built sometime in the 1870s) had originated from another two-storey building formerly located at the northeast corner of Liverpool Road and Kingston Road. The portico continues to exist at the rear of the dwelling today. Figure 2: Front façade of dwelling located at 450 Finch Avenue (November 2020) The Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines – Tertiary Plan identifies the Dixon Farmhouse as a potentially significant heritage resource, and the property is noted on the City’s Inventory of Historic Places. At the time the applications were submitted, the property was not listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Register and was therefore not protected from demolition or alteration. - 9 - Figure 3: Rear portico addition (November 2020) Applicant’s Original Proposal The applicant’s initial proposal was for a residential development consisting of 31 lots for detached dwellings fronting onto the proposed extensions of Rougewalk Drive and Mahogany Court (see Original Draft Plan of Subdivision, Attachment #2). The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision contained 31 lots for detached dwellings, 3-part blocks to be consolidated with adjacent lands to form lots for detached dwellings, 1 block for environmental lands to be conveyed into public ownership, 1 block for a road widening fronting Finch Avenue, and 2 public roads for the extensions of Rougewalk Drive and Mahogany Court. To facilitate the proposed development, the applicant initially proposed to demolish the existing dwelling, shed and barn. - 10 - Heritage Pickering Consultation At the November 25, 2020 meeting, Heritage Pickering received a presentation from City staff regarding the applicant’s proposal. Staff noted that in support of the proposal, the applicant submitted a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, prepared by Heritage Consultancy Inc., and that staff retained Branch Architecture to peer review the submitted report. Staff outlined the various recommendations of Branch Architecture, including revising the report to be a Heritage Impact Assessment, which is more widely used in practice, and that the applicant retains a heritage architect who is a member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals to prepare the new report. Heritage Pickering had various comments and questions for staff, including enquiries about listing the property on the heritage register, concerns regarding the owner demolishing the dwelling, and submitting an updated Heritage Impact Assessment with the statement of character and rationale for designating the property. During the meeting, Heritage Pickering provided the following recommendations: a) That 450 Finch Avenue be listed on the Municipal Register; b) That the report be revised as per Branch Architecture’s recommendation; and c) That the Heritage Impact Assessment be presented to Heritage Pickering to consider future designation and conservation of the property. Council’s Decision to List the Property on the Heritage Register At the February 22, 2021 Council Meeting, City Council endorsed the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee and directed staff to list 450 Finch Avenue on the Municipal Heritage Register. This means that any owner shall give Council 60 days’ notice in writing prior to demolition or removal of the building. Applicant’s Revised Proposal In response to comments received from City departments, external agencies, City Council, Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee and Branch Architecture, the applicant revised their proposal (see Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision, Attachment #3). The revised proposal includes 31 lots for detached dwellings, retention of the Dixon Farmhouse on-site, and a park block located at the northeast corner of the development. The applicant has made the following changes to the proposal in relation to the Dixon Farmhouse: • retention and relocation of the dwelling to Lot 28, which is 8.8 metres south and 7 metres east of the original location (see Figure 4 on the next page); • full restoration of the dwelling and a proposed two-storey rear addition; and • removal and salvage of the non-original portico located at the rear of the dwelling, to accommodate the addition. - 11 - 22.1 m Figure 4: Proposed preliminary siting plan for the Dixon Farmhouse Applicant’s Heritage Impact Assessment In support of the revised proposal, Pickering Forest Inc. has submitted a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated April 8, 2022 (see 450 Finch Avenue Heritage Impact Assessment, Attachment #4). To minimize the impact of development on the heritage attributes of the Dixon Farmhouse, the HIA recommends several mitigation strategies related to scale, form, massing and materiality. The recommended mitigation measures include, but are not limited to: • an interpretive rural landscape strategy to screen views of development on adjacent lots, with plant selection along the north and west property lines designed to obscure contemporary housing and conserve the rural character of the site; • built form of adjacent dwellings to be compatible with and sympathetic to the Dixon Farmhouse, and should include simple contemporary materials that do not replicate or compete with the existing building’s stone (ex. wood cladding); - 12 - • the relocation conserves a substantial setback from Finch Avenue, which is characteristic of a farmstead lot, and identified as a heritage attribute (the front yard setback is proposed to be reduced from the existing setback of 28.7 metres to the proposed setback of 22.6 metres); • the rear addition to be designed to be compatible with and subordinate to the existing heritage resource (see Figure 5 below), through strategies including, but not limited to: o a roofline that is no higher than the Dixon Farmhouse’s existing roofline; o location, orientation and roof pitch to reference the typical form and massing of rear wings on historic Ontario farmhouses; o location of an integrated garage so that it is served by a linear driveway past the farmhouse, a typical condition on historic farmsteads, and consistent with the historic condition on-site; and o design of contemporary windows to be proportionate to the windows on the heritage resource. Figure 5: Conceptual views of the Dixon Farmhouse and proposed addition Peer Review of the Submitted Heritage Impact Assessment Branch Architecture was retained by the City of Pickering to conduct a Peer Review of the HIA (see Peer Review, Attachment #5). The following is a summary of comments provided by Branch Architecture: • The Dixon Farmhouse property merits designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. • The HIA satisfies the City’s Heritage Impact Assessment requirements, and the current proposal provides for the conservation of the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the property at 450 Finch Avenue. The HIA responds to comments provided to date on the cultural heritage interests of the site, provides for the conservation of the heritage attributes of the property, and recommends design measures to mitigate potential impacts of proposed residential development. - 13 - • The proposed relocation of the Dixon Farmhouse is acceptable given that: the building will maintain its south-facing orientation on a rise, have a deep front yard setback, and be visible from Finch Avenue; the new landscape design will reflect the site’s historic rural character; and a heritage building mover has determined that the building is a good candidate for relocation. • The proposed restoration scope of work is appropriate and reflects the current condition of the building, and the strategy to construct a compatible contemporary rear addition is sound. The HIA thoroughly and thoughtfully discusses how each potential impact has been mitigated and the proposed design measures that will mitigate these potential impacts. • The rear portico should be made available for salvage and reuse, but it is not integral to this site. • Before the issuance of a Heritage Permit, a Conservation Plan should be submitted to City Planning Staff and include: • a written description of the conservation scope of work supported by drawings describing the landscape design, and building restoration and rehabilitation; • an explanation of how the adjacent subdivision residences have been designed to be compatible with and sympathetic to the Dixon Farmhouse; and • long-term building conservation and maintenance plan guidelines. Staff Analysis Staff concur with Branch Architecture’s analysis. A Heritage Impact Assessment has been submitted to respond to the Peer Review comments from the first submission, with further changes made to the proposal to ensure retention and conservation of the Dixon Farmhouse. Should Council decide to approve the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment applications, the implementing zoning by-law will establish a Holding “H” Symbol. A condition of removal of the holding will require the owner to obtain Site Plan Approval for the proposed relocation, restoration and addition to the dwelling. Staff offer the following recommendations to the Committee: • That Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee supports the applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision (SP-2020-02) and Zoning By-law Amendment (A 10/20) to retain and relocate the Dixon Farmhouse building on-site, as illustrated in the Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated April 8, 2022; • That the implementing zoning by-law amendment include an Holding “H” Symbol and as a condition of removal of the hold the Owner shall obtain Site Plan Approval for the proposed relocation, restoration and addition to the Dixon Farmhouse; • That Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee be consulted on the final siting of the Dixon Farmhouse, the addition and restoration plan prior to the issuance of Site Plan Approval; - 14 - • That, as part of the Site Plan application, the applicant submits a Conservation Plan and Costing Estimate, and that the materials be forwarded to the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee for comment prior to the issuance of Site Plan Approval; • That, after the Dixon Farmhouse has been moved to its new location, a reference plan be provided to the City of Pickering to identify the new location of the Dixon Farmhouse and that Council designates Lot 28 under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; • That, after a designation by-law has been registered on title, a heritage plaque be placed on the building or on the site at the owner’s expense; • That the City enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the owner to ensure the ongoing maintenance, protection and repair of the Dixon Farmhouse is in keeping with the Heritage Designation By-law and the Ontario Heritage Act; and • That the comments and discussion of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee be included by staff in a future recommendation report to the Planning & Development Committee. Next Steps The comments received from Heritage Pickering will be included in a staff report to the Planning & Development Committee. Development of the Dixon Farmhouse will be subject to Site Plan Approval. Through the Site Plan review process, Heritage Pickering will have an opportunity to review and comment on the conservation plan, and details regarding the restoration of the dwelling and the landscaping surrounding the building. IL:nr J:\Documents\Development\D-3200\2020\SP-2020-02, A 10-20 Pickering Forest Inc\14. Memo to Heritage Pickering Attachment Location Map Original Draft Plan of Subdivision Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision 450 Finch Avenue Heritage Impact Assessment Peer Review - 15 - Finch Avenue Sa u g e e n D r i v e Amberlea Road Ros e b a n k R o a d Wi l d f l o w e r D r i v e Se g u i n S q u a r e SequinPark 1:5,000SCALE:© The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: SP-2020-02 & A 10/20 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Sep. 14, 2022 ¯ E Pickering Forest Inc.450 Finch Avenue SubjectLands PLANNING\01-MapFiles\SP\2020\SP-2020-02_A 10-20 Medallion Homes\SP-2020-20_A 10-20_LocationMap_v2.mxd - 16 - L:\ Existing Location of Heritage Home NFinch Avenue City Development Department Original Draft Plan of Subdivision File No: SP-2020-02 & A 10/20 Applicant: Pickering Forest Inc. Municipal Address: 450 Finch Avenue FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Sept. 14, 2022 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\SP\2020 - 17 - Existing Location of Heritage Home Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision File No: SP-2020-02 & A 10/20 Applicant: Pickering Forest Inc. Municipal Address: 450 Finch Avenue FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Sept. 13, 2022 - 18 - 450 FINCH AVENUE Pickering, Ontario HERITAgE ImpAcT AssEssmEnT April 8, 2022 - 19 - Project # 21-061-01 Prepared by PE / SI / EA / CH PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY: ii HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 416-963-4497 Beachview Homes #21-7611 Pine Valley Drive Woodbridge ON, L4L 0A2 905-851-6441 - 20 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IV REPORT SCOPE 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY 2 BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS 10 EVALUATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST 26 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITION 28 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 31 IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON HERITAGE ATTRIBUTES 35 CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES 36 RECOMMENDED CONSERVATION STRATEGY 41 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 42 SUMMARY OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS 43 REFERENCES 44 APPENDICES 46 iii APRIL 8, 2022 - 21 - HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE ExEcutivE Summary ExEcutivE Summary Background This Heritage Impact Assessment (“HIA”) has been prepared by ERA Architects Inc. (“ERA”) for the property at 450 Finch Avenue, Pickering, Ontario (the “Site”). The Site is currently occupied by a 1½ storey stone farmhouse (built c.1858), known as the “Dixon Farmhouse”, an accessory structure, and unintended fields. The buildings are currently vacant. Heritage Status The Site is listed on the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register, under Part IV, Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Site is not considered adjacent to any properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, or listed on the Municipal Heritage Register. ERA has completed an evaluation of the property in accordance with Ontario Regulation 9/06 (“O. Reg. 9/06”) and has concluded that the Site carries design value as a representative mid-19th-century farmhouse in Pickering, and for its association with the Dixons, early settlers in the area. The analysis and a draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value are included in Section 4 of this Report. Summary of Proposed Development The Site is proposed to be redeveloped under a Draft Plan of Subdivision, which would create 31 residential lots. The Dixon Farmhouse would be retained on Lot 28, and relocated 8.8 metres south and 7 metres east. Impact of Proposed Development and Mitigation Measures The proposed development will impact the Site’s cultural heritage value through the following: • Reduction of the “farmstead lot” size from 5 acres to 0.18 acres, with adjacent infill devel- opment; • Construction of a two-storey rear addition to the Dixon Farmhouse; • Relocation of the Dixon Farmhouse 8.8 metres south and 7 metres east from its original location, altering its existing front yard setback; • Alteration of the Site’s rural landscape char- acter and topography; • Removal and salvage of the rear portico; and • Full restoration of the Dixon Farmhouse. Some of these impacts can be considered adverse, some are positive, and some are neutral. Adverse impacts are mitigated appropriately through the proposed conservation strategy for the Site. Conservation Strategy The Dixon Farmhouse is proposed to be retained and relocated southeastward from its original location. The primary conservation treatment is rehabilitation: the building is proposed to be restored as a residence, and adapted to accommodate additional floor area, with a compatible rear addition. The Dixon Farmhouse is proposed to maintain its orientation and a substantial front-yard setback from Finch Avenue. Its rural character is proposed to be interpreted through landscape design, relying on an understanding of the Historic Ontario Farmstead typology for interpretive guidance. The impact of new construction is proposed to be mitigated through design measures related to scale, form, massing, and materiality, as outlined in Section 8 of this Report. - 22 - iv Conclusion The proposal appropriately balances the planning and heritage conservation objectives for the Site. The potential impacts of the relocation of the Dixon Farmhouse, subdivision of the property and construction of a new addition to the Dixon Farmhouse, will be mitigated by design measures that will conserve the Site’s cultural heritage value and communicate its rural heritage. In this way, the proposal meets the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), and the regional and municipal heritage planning framework. v APRIL 8, 2022 - 23 - 1 rEport ScopE ERA has been retained by Beachview Homes to provide a HIA for the proposed redevelopment of the Site. This report considers the impact of the proposed development on the listed heritage resource on the Site. The purpose of a HIA, as per the 2021 draft Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference for the City of Pickering, is to “determine if any cultural heritage resources may be adversely impacted by a specific proposed development or site alteration, and to recommend an overall approach to conserve the resource(s)” (City of Pickering, 2021). This report was prepared with reference to the following: • Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2010); • Provincial Policy Statement (2020); • O. Reg. 9/06; • Ontario Heritage Tool kit; • Durham Regional Official Plan (consolidated 2020); • City of Pickering Official Plan - Edition 8 (consolidated 2018); and • City of Pickering draft Heritage Impact Assessment - Terms of Reference (2021). 1 APRIL 8, 2022 - 24 - 2 introduction to thE SubjEct propErty 2.1 Site Description The Site is located northwest of Finch Avenue and Rosebank Road in Pickering, Ontario, south of the historic settlement of Cherrywood. The Site contains a 1½ storey stone farmhouse, known as the “Dixon Farmhouse”, a 1-storey accessory structure, and unintended fields. The buildings are currently vacant. The Site is located on the traditional territory of the Anishinabewaki, the Huron-Wendat, and the Haudenosaunee First Nations. The City of Pickering is subject to the Williams Treaties (Clause 2), signed in 1923 between the Missisaugas of Scugog Island First Nations and the Crown. 2.2 Site Context The Site’s surrounding context is broadly characterized by residential buildings, agricultural lands, and natural areas, including: • To the north: CP Railway. Agricultural lands and residential buildings are located further north; • To the east: Residential subdivision containing single and semi-detached dwellings; • To the south: Hydro Corridor and the Altona Forest; and • To the west: A parcel currently under construction for resi- dential development abuts the Site. Further west are single- detached dwellings. FINCH AV E N U E FINCH AV E N U E R O S E B A N K R O A D R O S E B A N K R O A D CP RA I L W A Y CP RA I L W A Y 450 Location Plan Site (Google Earth, 2021; annotated by ERA) 2 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE - 25 - Survey Topographic Survey Site The Dixon Farmhouse Detached Garage Drive Shed (demolished) (J.D. Barnes, 2020; annotated by ERA) 3 APRIL 8, 2022 - 26 - 2.3 Site and Context Photographs Looking east along Finch Avenue toward the Site’s driveway (ERA, 2021). Looking north into the Site from Finch Avenue (ERA, 2021). 4 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE - 27 - 5 APRIL 8, 2022 The principal (south) elevation of the Dixon Farmhouse (ERA, 2021). The west elevation of the Dixon Farmhouse (ERA, 2021). The east elevation of the Dixon Farmhouse (ERA, 2021). - 28 - The rear (north) and west elevations of the Dixon Farmhouse (ERA, 2021). Detached garage in the Site’s rear yard (ERA, 2021). Remnants of the drive shed, subject to a 2021 fire (ERA, 2021). 6 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE - 29 - Looking northeast past the Site (ERA, 2021). Looking north toward the Site from Finch Avenue (ERA, 2021). 7 APRIL 8, 2022 - 30 - Looking northwest along Finch Avenue, west of the Site (ERA, 2021). Looking southwest along Finch Avenue, west of the Site (ERA, 2021). 8 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE - 31 - 9 APRIL 8, 2022 2.4 Heritage Status On-Site Heritage Resources The Site is listed on the Municipal Heritage Register, under Part IV, Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act: “Built c. 1850 for William Dixon. 1½ storey stone building on the north side of Finch Avenue. Associated with early settlement of Cherrywood; Date Added: February 22, 2021.” (City of Pickering, 2021) Adjacent Heritage Resources The Site is not considered adjacent to any properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, or listed on the Municipal Heritage Register. 2.5 Owner’s Contact Information Roberto Montemarano Beachview Homes 7611 Pine Valley Drive, Suite 21 Vaughan, ON L4L 0A2 905-851-6441 robert@beachviewhomes.ca Adjacent: for the purposes of policy 2.6.3, those lands continguous to a protected heritage property or otherwise defined bin the municipal official plan (Provincial Policy Statement, 2020). Note: the PPS definition above is used in absence of an alternative definition from the City of Pickering Official Plan. - 32 - 3 bacKGround rESEarch and anaLySiS 3.1 Historical Context Indigenous Territory Pickering and the wider Durham Region is the traditional territory of the Anishinabewaki, the Huron-Wendat and the Haudenosaunee First Nations. The Site is located on lands situated within a broader trade, travel and settlement network that included the Rouge River, Frenchman’s Bay, Duffin’s Creek and other natural resources. Well-documented archaeological and archival evidence shows that the Site sat between the locations of two ancestral villages. A Huron- Wendat village, now known as the Miller Site, was located northeast of the Site at the intersection of the Third Concession and Brock Road (7.3km away) in the 12th century. The Seneca (Haudenosaunee) village of Ganatsetiagon (one of several transliterated spellings), was established later in the 17th century and sat southwest of the Site, at the intersection of the Rouge River and today’s Kingston Road (4.5 km away). As Lake Iroquois receded, the area north of present-day Lake Ontario provided ideal conditions for larger and more permanent settlements. The geological formations of sandy ridges overlooked streams, which offered strategic height and positioning for the establishment of secure villages, with locations near waterways for convenient fishing and travel. A 1958 archaeological excavation of the Miller Site found that the village was comprised of six longhouses, enclosed by a wooden palisade. The excavation revealed that the Huron-Wendat selected this location to limit contact with increasing conflict near the shore, although the isolated location, palisade, and an analysis of gravesites suggests that the village was still subject to hostility during this time. Ganatsetiagon was established at 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 children; it is widely reported that Frenchman’s Bay is named for Fenelon and his travel companions. This site history was prepared from a non- Indigenous perspective based on written and archaeological records. It does not reflect or represent the full rich history of Indigenous peoples in this region. Map of Archaeological Sites in the Site’s Proximity Site Nearby First Nations Settlements (Pickering Library, n.d; annotated by ERA) 10 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE - 33 - 1861 Map of the Rouge, Duffin, Highland and Petticoat Watersheds Site Nearby wateshed (McKay, 1961; annotated by ERA) 11 APRIL 8, 2022 - 34 - 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 Ganatsetiagon was no longer occupied. Today, the Bead Hill National Historic Site at Kingston Road and the Rouge River is recognized as the possible Ganatsetiagon village site. Initial Colonial Settlement 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. In 1763, the Crown had issued a royal proclamation which established guidelines for the colonization of Indigenous territories in North America. The proclamation stated that Indigenous peoples held title to their territory until it was ceded by a treaty. In 1787-88, the British colonial administration entered into the Gunshot Treaty with the Mississaugas at the Bay of Quinte, for the lands between the Bay of Quinte and the eastern boundary of the 1787 “Toronto Purchase” at the Don River. The deed was later found blank, and the Crown deemed the treaty invalid. As a result, the Williams Treaties were signed in 1923 between a number of First Nations groups, including the Mississaugas of Scugog Island, and the Crown, to legally resolve the invalidity of the previous treaty. The Site is located within the Williams Treaties land, which span approximately 20,000 km² of land in southern Ontario. 12 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE Map of Treaties in Ontario Site Williams Treaties (Ministry of Indigenous Affairs, n.d.; an- notated by ERA) - 35 - 13 APRIL 8, 2022 Early Development of Pickering Township Colonial settlement in Pickering began in the 1770s. In 1791, the new colonial administration commissioned Augustus Jones to complete a survey of counties, townships and 200-acre lots separated by concession lines and sideroads. Settlement was gradual, and by the 1813 census, the Township of Pickering had 180 residents. Soon after the survey of concessions and sideroads, and the completion of Kingston Road in 1815, settlements began to emerge at the junctures of these new roads. They were 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. lots 1801 Chewett Plan of Pickering show- ing the completed survey of 200-acre Site (Old Toronto Maps; annotated by ERA) - 36 - The Village of Cherrywood The Site was situated within rural lands south of the historic village of Cherrywood, which was established in 1834 at the intersection of the Third Concession and Rosebank Road. At its heyday, the small village featured a general store, blacksmith shop, brickyard, school, and a church. In 1912, the Canadian Pacific (“CP”) Railway constructed the Cherrywood Station as part of its Lakeshore Line, a route which provided access to communities along the north edge of Lake Ontario. The line was abandoned in 1923 when CP services shifted to freight service, and subsequently, Cherrywood Station was demolished in 1964. In 1972, Cherrywood was located within the North Pickering Project, a provincial initiative to develop a new community featuring a federal airport. The original plan was intended to expropriate 43,000 acres of land north of Finch Avenue to the Uxbridge-Pickering Line, including the Site. For residents, the expropriation resulted in eviction and the option to rent back homes in the area. The project encountered significant public opposition, and was ultimately stalled due in part to a lack of servicing potential for the proposed community. To this day, the Cherrywood area remains largely rural in character. 1900 image of the T.P. Robbins General Store and Post Office in Cherrywood (Pickering Library). 1861 Tremaine’s Map Site Cherrywood Village (University of Toronto Maps Library; annotated by ERA) 1900 image of the Cherrywood Brick Kiln, operated by the Petty family (Pickering Library) 1850 image of the Cherrywood School (Pickering Library). 14 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE - 37 - 15 APRIL 8, 2022 Map of the North Pickering Project Site (Globe and Mail, 1975. p.1; annotated by ERA) - 38 - 3.2 Site History The Site is located on the 200 acres which formed Lot 31, Concession 2 within Pickering Township, in York County. In 1833, the 200-acre lot was granted to Elizabeth Darry. While she owned the property, there is no evidence to suggest that Darry lived on the Site, or that the property was cleared or developed during her tenure. Dixon Family (1847-1945) The Site remained vacant until 1847, when Benjamin Dixon purchased 50 acres of Lot 31, fronting Concession 2. The 1851 census notes that Benjamin Dixon farmed the Site while residing in a 1-storey log house with his wife, Elizabeth, and daughter, also named Elizabeth. Typical of the early 19th century, the first farmhouses in Upper Canada (later Ontario) consisted of log construction in vernacular styles, with materials acquired through clearance of wood lots. By 1854, the Dixons had also acquired 50 acres located directly south of the Site, across Concession 2 (Lot 31, Concession 1). The property formed part of the Altona Forest, an area characterized by poor draining soil and topological constraints. It is unlikely that the Dixons farmed the property due to these conditions. According to the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register, the Dixon Farmhouse was built circa 1850, which conflicts with the later, 1851 census records, which had noted a log house on the Site within the year. ERA has reviewed archival documents to confirm the date of construction, including historical census records, land abstracts, and tax assessment rolls between the period of 1851 to 1861 (see Appendix B). The data suggests that the Dixon Farmhouse was constructed in 1858, when the property’s assessed value increased from its average amount of £250 to the amount of £300. The Dixon farmhouse was designed in a Georgian vernacular style, with a side-gabled roof, a 1-storey wood-frame rear wing, and a front porch (later addition) which spanned the width of the facade, typical of mid-19th-century Ontario farmhouses. The rear wing and front porch have since been removed. As indicated on the Ontario County Atlas, by 1878 the Dixons’ landholdings included 62 acres north of Concession 2 (today’s Finch Avenue), and 50 acres south of Concession 2, for a total of 112 acres. The site history documented in this sec- tion consolidates sources including Land Registry Office records, tax assessment rolls, censuses, voter lists, archival maps and newspaper articles, supplemented by “oral histories” provided by former occupants, neighbours and descendants of the Dixon and Barber families on the Vintage Pickering Facebook page. 1878 Map of the Pickering Township Dixon Farmhouse Dixon Properties (Archives of Ontario; annotated by ERA). 16 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE - 39 - Undated drawing of the Dixon Farmhouse. The rear wing and front porch has since been removed and are highlighted in blue (Drawing courtesy of Dixon descendant Melody Shea; annotated by ERA). 1931 image of the Dixon Farmhouse showing the front porch, since demolished. The front porch is highlighted in blue (Im- age courtesy of Dixon descendant Melody Shea; annotated by ERA). 17 APRIL 8, 2022 - 40 - 18 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE Upon Benjamin and Elizabeth’s passing in 1895 and 1902 respectively, William Dixon inherited the farmstead, which had been reduced again to 62 acres with the sale of the bush and pastureland across the road in 1895. In 1911, the Dixon family was recorded in the book: ‘Past Years in Pickering: Sketches in the History of the Community ’ as follows: “Mr. and Mrs. Dixon married and came to Pickering in 1849, settling in Lot 31, Con. 2. Mr Dixon died March 1895, and Mrs. Dixon October, 1902. Of their family eight are still living, namely: Mrs. Stockdale, in western Canada; Mrs. Anderson, in Toronto; Mrs. Sinclair, of Toronto; Mrs. William Lotton on Lot 33, Con. 1; Mrs. David Mainland, of Stouffville; William, on the old homestead; Tena, in Hamilton, and Mary, at Cherrywood.” (Wood, 1911. p.235). Similar to other settlers, the Dixons had contributed to the construction and maintenance of the roads within the Township. Council minutes and invoices from the Pickering Township Road System credit William and his sons with tasks such as stone crushing, erecting of bridges, and culvert repairs. In 1915, William Dixon completed the construction of a garage, an additional farmstead outbuilding that would complement the existing stone house, barn and silo on Site. Newspaper records indicate that the farmstead was expanded within the same year with Dixon’s purchase of 50 acres of adjacent land owned by the Hollinger family. 200 acres of farmland on Lot 31, Con. 2 was posted for rent in the Pickering News in October 1917, after William Dixon had relocated to a new residence in Whitevale. The Site was rented by newlyweds Sam and Mary Baker in November 1917, and by William and Edgar Mitchell in May 1918. Upon Dixon’s death in 1925, his four children inherited the 62-acre property. Land Registry records are unclear as to the sale of the other 138 acres. William, Robert, and Clara Dixon transferred their inheritance to their brother Reginald J. Dixon, who returned from Toronto to live on Site with his young family. 1918 Guidal Landowners Map of the Township of Pickering shows the Dixon Farmstead, expanded from 62 to ~200 acres Site (Pickering Library; annotated by ERA). Rental advertisement for the Dixon prop- erty on Lot 31, Concession 2 (Pickering News, 1917. p.4). Pickering Township Road System In- voice payable to Reginald J. Dixon for road repair tasks dated November 1922 (Pickering Library). - 41 - Mid 20th-Century Ownership (1945-1959) Although Land Registry records for the Site are illegible between 1932- 1951, local “oral histories” provided on the Vintage Pickering Facebook page have been corroborated with primary sources, including voter lists, to determine that the Dixons sold their ~62 acre property to Evelyn and Joe Thompson in 1945. The Thompsons lived in the Dixon Farmhouse, and subdivided the 62 acres, carving off ~five acres at the southwest corner of the lot in the late 1940s for three residential properties, which would become the addresses at 402, 410 and 422 Finch Avenue. In combination with aerial photographs, voter lists indicate that the Thompsons further subdivided the land in the immediate vicinity of the Dixon Farmhouse and its outbuildings, creating two additional residential lots: a house at 456 Finch Avenue, on the east side of the Dixon Farmhouse’s driveway, and a house fronting onto Rosebank Road. It was likely at that time that the Dixon Farmhouse property was carved into the ~five acres that comprise the Site today. The historic farmstead’s barn was split from the property, and became part of the Rosebank Road-fronting lot, which the Thompsons sold to the Holmes family in 1966. Circa 1950, the Thompsons sold the ~five-acre Dixon Farmhouse lot to Louis J. Lahay and family. Louis Lahay was the patriarch of a family of prospectors, training his children (Wilfred, Joseph, and Pauline Leary) as mining industry pioneers in Northern Ontario in the 1930s. Louis Lahay and his adult children remained on Site until Lahay’s death in 1959. 19 APRIL 8, 2022 1966 aerial of the Site (outlined in white) and 1940s subdivision properties (col- oured) (City of Toronto; annotated by ERA). 450 456402 410 422 FINCH AVENUEFINCH AVENUE RO S E B A N K R O A D RO S E B A N K R O A D R. R . # 2 , P i c k e r i n g - 42 - Barber Family (1959-2016) By 1959, the Dixon farmstead has been subdivided to its present-day lot configuration. The 5-acre parcel, known as the Site, was purchased from the Lahay children by George and Jocelyn Barber, who took occupancy of the Dixon Farmhouse with their children. The Site was located within the bounds of the North Pickering Project and expropriated by the Crown in 1974. A 1997 article in the News Advertiser suggests that the Barbers rented the Site from the Crown until 1985, when the family regained ownership of the 5-acre parcel from the Province of Ontario. During their tenure, the Barbers completed additions to the Dixon Farmhouse which included an ornamental Classic Revival door surround applied to the exterior stone around the main entrance, and a salvaged porch added onto the rear elevation. Based on an analysis of a mid-1950s photograph of the McClellan House in nearby Liverpool Market (built c.1870s), the porch had originated from the 2-storey white-frame building formerly located at the northeast corner of Liverpool and Kingston Road. The McClellan House was built for Joseph Harris McClellan, president of Pickering Harbour Company, and had also served as a bank for travellers along Kingston Road. Descendants of the Barber family suggests that the Barbers resided on the Site until 2016, and the Site has remained vacant since then. 1967 map of Century Farms in Pickering Township Site (Pickering Library; annotated by ERA). Mid-1950s photograph of the front porch on the McClellan House (c.1870s), formerly located on the northeast corner of Liverpool and Kingston Road (Mary Nicholson Willard, 2022; annotated by ERA). Rear porch at the Dixon Farmhouse (Parslow Heritage Con- sultancy Inc., 2020; annotated by ERA) 20 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE - 43 - Aerial Photographs 1956 aerial: A dormer addition was first visible on the principal (south) elevation within this year. Site Dixon Farmhouse Farm structures historically associated with the Dixon farmstead (City of Toronto; annotated by ERA). 1959 aerial: Tarquin Barber, a descend- ant of the Barber family, noted that by this year, the farm structures to the east of the Dixon Farmhouse have been ac- quired by J.Holmes. Holmes owned the 10-acre parcel to the east of the Site, addressed as R.R #2, Pickering. Site Dixon Farmhouse R.R #2, Pickering (City of Toronto; annotated by ERA) 21 APRIL 8, 2022 1964 aerial: The rear wing of the Dixon Farmhouse has since been removed. A windrow has been established along the east side lot line. Site Dixon Farmhouse Windrow (City of Toronto; annotated by ERA). - 44 - 1969 aerial: By 1969, a drive shed and detached garage was constructed to the rear of the Dixon Farmhouse. A sec- ondary entrance to Finch Avenue has been established to the west of Dixon Farmhouse. Site Dixon Farmhouse Accessory Structures (City of Toronto; annotated by ERA). 2021: The drive shed has burned down. The agricultural field is no longer active. Site Dixon Farmhouse Accessory Structure (Google Earth; annotated by ERA). 22 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE - 45 - 3.3 Building Evolution Based on a review of the earliest available archival drawings and photographs, the original design of the Dixon Farmhouse appears to be largely intact. Estimated Alterations The farmhouse has sustained the following alterations: a) Removal of the front porch addition spanning the width of the principal (south) elevation after 1931; b) Removal of the wood-frame rear wing addition by 1964; c) Addition of dormer to the principal (south elevation) by 1956; d) Addition of an ornamental Classical Revival door surround applied to the exterior stone around the main entrance to the principal (south) elevation between 1931 to 1974. The door frame was removed before 2012; e) Addition of Italianate-style style rear porch after 1964; and f) Construction of drive shed and detached garage between 1968 to 1969. The drive shed burned down in 2021. 23 APRIL 8, 2022 - 46 - 1974 photograph of the principal elevation and front yard of 1974 photograph of the ornamental Classical Revival door the Dixon Farmhouse. The front porch and rear addition has surround applied to the exterior stone around the main en- been removed (Pickering Library). trance on the principal elevation (Pickering Library). 2012 photograph of the Dixon Farmhouse (Pickering Library). 24 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE - 47 - 25 APRIL 8, 2022 2019 photograph of the drive shed (Parslow Heritage Consultancy Inc., 2020). 2021 photograph of the drive shed remnants (ERA, 2021). - 48 - 4 EvaLuation of cuLturaL hEritaGE vaLuE or intErESt 4.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation Value (quoted from O. Reg. 9/06) Assessment: Dixon Farmhouse (450 Finch Avenue) 1. The property has design value or physical i. The property features a representative example of a mid-19th century value because it, farmhouse built in Pickering, Ontario. i. is a rare, unique, representative or early ii. The property does not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic example of a style, type, expression, material merit. or construction method, iii. The property does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship scientific achievement. or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 2. The property has historical value or associative i. The property is associated with the Dixon family, who owned the property value because it, between the 1847 to 1945. Benjamin Dixon was regarded as an early i. has direct associations with a theme, event, pioneer of Pickering Township. Like other early settlers, the Dixon family belief, person, activity, organization or institu-contributed to the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges tion that is significant to a community, within the Township into the 20th century. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, informa-ii. The property does not have potential to yield information that con- tion that contributes to an understanding of tributes to an understanding of a community or culture. a community or culture, or iii. The architect or builder is unknown. Given the property’s rural location iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas and agricultural history, the architect or builder is not anticipated to be a of an architect, artist, builder, designer or designer or developer of significance. theorist who is significant to a community. 3. The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. i. As the property is situated within an evolving context that does not exhibit a defined character, the property is not important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of the area. ii. Like all properties, the property is physically, functionally, visually and historically linked to its surroundings. The property does not exhibit such significant relationships to its surroundings to merit con- servation under the Ontario Heritage Act. iii. The property is not considered a landmark. 26 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE - 49 - 4.2 Draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value Description of the Property The Dixon Farmhouse is a 1½ storey stone farmhouse built circa 1858, located at 450 Finch Avenue in Pickering, Ontario. The property is located north of Finch Avenue, and west of Rosebank Road. Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest The property exhibits design value as a representative example of a mid-19th century farmhouse built in Pickering, Ontario. Built in 1858 in rural Pickering Township, the building reflects the typological features of a mid-19th century farmhouse through its 1½-storey side-gabled form, its Georgian stylistic elements, its stone construction, and its location and orientation in relation to Finch Avenue. The property is associated with the Dixon family, early settlers of Pickering Township. Benjamin Dixon acquired the south portion of the 200-acre lot in 1847, and the Dixon family retained tenure on the property for almost a century, until 1945. Like other early settlers, the Dixons were involved in the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges within the Township. Heritage Attributes Attributes that convey the property’s representation of a mid-19th- century farmhouse in Pickering include: • 1½ storey form; • Symmetrical arrangement of the principal elevation, with a central doorway and windows on each side; • Side-gabled roof with mirrored chimney stacks; • Vernacular stone construction; • Architectural elements of the Georgian style, including: • A central entrance with transom and sidelights; and • Six-over-six windows. • Orientation to Finch Avenue; • Substantial setback from Finch Avenue; • Linear driveway with access to Finch Avenue; and • Mature trees and rural landscape character within the prop - erty’s front setback. 27 APRIL 8, 2022 - 50 - 5 aSSESSmEnt of ExiStinG condition A condition review of the exterior building elements of the Dixon Farmhouse was carried out in December of 2021. Architectural features such as the exterior load-bearing stone walls, wood details around the building, wood windows and doors, visible roof areas and associated flashings and rainwater management systems (gutters and downspouts) were reviewed for each elevation. The building is currently unoccupied. Many of the windows and doors around the building are either missing or uncovered, which allows for the interior to remain largely dry due to substantial air circulation throughout the building, but presents a hazard due to animal entry and vandalism. All openings around the building should be covered on the outside with exterior-grade plywood tightly secured to the window and door openings with louvered, insect-resistant metal grilles added to the coverings to continue to allow air circulation to the building interior. This will secure the building interior and discourage mold growth on the interior surfaces through constant drying action. All observations were made from grade as scaffolding or mechanical lift access was not available for close-up inspection of areas above the first storey. The interior spaces were not included in the review, and the condition assessment did not include structural, mechanical, electrical or plumbing systems or elements. DEFINITION OF TERMS The building components were graded using the following assessment system: Excellent: Superior aging performance. Functioning as intended; no deterioration observed. Good: Normal Result. Functioning as in- tended; normal deterioration observed; no maintenance anticipated within the next five years. Fair: Functioning as intended. Normal de- terioration and minor distress observed; maintenance will be required within the next three to five years to maintain func- tionality. Poor: Not functioning as intended; signifi- cant deterioration and distress observed; maintenance and some repair required within the next year to restore functionality. Defective: Not functioning as intended; sig- nificant deterioration and major distress observed, possible damage to support structure; may present a risk; must be dealt with immediately. 28 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE - 51 - General Condition Observations Overall, the primary exterior building elements for the Dixon Farmhouse appeared to be in poor condition in most locations, with certain building features such as the wood details and the wood windows and doors approaching a defective state of condition in some locations. • The exterior walls on the 1½ storey former residential building are composed of granite and other field stones laid in a random rubble pattern, with a more refined coursed rubble pattern used on the primary front elevation. The load-bearing stone walls are generally in fair condition, although there is evidence of some movement or shifting in the masonry. • There is visual outward bowing, deflection and deterioration of the masonry walls in selective locations. Open mortar joints are present in many locations due to shifting of the masonry and general deterioration and deferred maintenance of the walls over time. Previously, some areas have been unsympathetically repointed using a strong, cement-based mortar. These mortar joints should be cut out and all open or deteriorated joints repointed using a heritage lime-based mortar to closely match the original mortar on the building. Selective dismantling and partial rebuilding of some areas of the masonry will be required to make the walls straight and plumb again. • Some original windows and doors remain in the building, although many have been heavily damaged or are currently missing. A few of the ground floor windows have been covered with metal storm windows on the exterior, which are also frequently damaged. Some of the windows and doors are covered with protective plywood, but many are not and there is currently damage to the building interior from unwanted entry and vandalism. All windows and doors should be securely covered as described above to protect the building interior. • The non-original Italianate portico is also currently in poor condition, although the fine woodworking details present in the addition are salvageable and repairable. Other wood windows and doors around the building are also repairable in many locations or can be reproduced. The majority of the wood lug-sills for the windows in the building appear to be in fair to good condition and can be reused. Granite and fieldstones laid in a random rubble pattern on the rear (north) eleva- tion (ERA, 2021). Damaged storm windows on the princi- pal (south) elevation (ERA, 2021). The exterior of the main entrance on the principal (south) elevation is covered with protective plywood (ERA, 2021). 29 APRIL 8, 2022 - 52 - • Other wood details around the building on the eave lines and a dormer window at the front of the building are in poor condition, with many areas of wood rot present or damage from animals. Some locations have been covered with metal mesh to try to discourage animal entry; these areas should be properly repaired to make the wood sound and whole again. • The gable roof is currently covered with asphalt shingles with perimeter metal flashings which appear to be in poor condition overall; the shingles have reached the end of their serviceable lifespan. • The two brick chimneys on the residence are beginning to show prominent signs of deterioration and should be dismantled to below the roofline and rebuilt. • The pre-painted metal gutters and downspouts on the north and south sides of the building are in poor or defective condition and require replacement. The existing gutters and downspouts are damaged, discontinuous, or full or organic material. All new raingear installed to direct water away from the building is required for each elevation. Eaves and gutters on the west elevation (ERA, 2021). Brick chimney (ERA, 2021). 30 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE - 53 - 6 dEScription of thE propoSEd dEvELopmEnt The proposed development anticipates retention and relocation of the Dixon Farmhouse within a Draft Plan of Subdivision. The proposal will infill the Site with 31 new residential lots and a park. The existing road network to the east, being Rougewalk Drive and Mahogany Court, will be connected to and extended through the Site. The Dixon Farmhouse is proposed to be relocated 8.8 metres south and 7 metres east from its original location to the proposed Lot 28, an approximately 0.18 acre-lot (742 m2), with a frontage of 22.1 metres and a depth of 41.1 metres. The rear porch addition is proposed to be removed and salvaged, and a two-storey contemporary addition with an integrated garage is proposed to be built off the rear. ERA has prepared conceptual drawings showing the Dixon Farmhouse’s proposed rear addition and landscape strategy. The drawings are included in the following pages. The design of the proposed addition and the site’s landscape strategy is conceptual for the purposes of this Draft Plan of Subdivision Application, but will be refined and confirmed only at Site Plan Approval stage. Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision Existing location of the Dixon Farmhouse Proposed location of the Dixon Farmhouse, with its non-original rear porch removed Proposed contemporary rear addition (GHD, 2022; annotated by ERA) 31 APRIL 8, 2022 - 54 - Site and Landscape Strategy 5.2 m 22.1 m 3.6 m 41.1 m 2 m 5.6 m 22.6 m Preliminary site and landscape strategy (ERA, 2022). 32 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE - 55 - Conceptual Views View of the Dixon Farmhouse, including proposed concepts for rear addition and site landscape strategy (ERA, 2022). Axonometric southwestward view of the Dixon Farmhouse Axonometric southeastward view of the Dixon Farmhouse and the proposed rear addition (ERA, 2022). and the proposed rear addition (ERA, 2022). 33 APRIL 8, 2022 - 56 - Adjacent Subdivision Development Subdivision lots are proposed to the north and west of the new farmstead lot. The adjacent residential lots (Lots 26-27 and 29-31) are proposed to have rear-yard setbacks of either 7.5 metres or 8 metres, providing substantial buffer space and capacity for natural landscaping between the new houses and the Dixon Farmhouse Preliminary Siting Plan for Adjacent Subdivision Development Existing location of the Dixon Farmhouse Proposed location of the Dixon Farmhouse, with its non-original rear porch removed Proposed contemporary rear addition Adjacent proposed houses (GHD, 2022; annotated by ERA) 34 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE - 57 - 7 impact of dEvELopmEnt on hEritaGE attributES The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and treatment of the existing Dixon Farmhouse anticipates the following impacts: • Reduced “farmstead lot” size from 5 acres to 0.18 acres (742 m2), and the construction of a contemporary subdivision development adjacent (including subdivision housing and fencing); • Construction of a contemporary two-storey addition on the rear of the farmhouse; • Relocation of the farmhouse 8.8 metres south and 7 metres east from its original location, which will alter the existing setback from Finch Avenue, identified as a heritage attribute; • Alteration of the Site’s existing rural landscape character and topography. The existing informal rural landscaping will largely be removed, including the plantings that currently screen the house from the public realm. There are positive and adverse impacts anticipated, including the re-establishment of views to the Dixon Farmhouse from Finch Avenue, and alteration of the Site’s rural character with new plantings that will require time to grow to maturity; • Removal and salvage of the rear portico, which was installed on the farmhouse’s rear elevation in the mid to late-20th century; and • Full restoration of the Dixon Farmhouse. The impact of new construction is proposed to be mitigated with design measures outlined in Section 8 of this report. Negative impact on a cultural heritage resource include, but are not limited to: Destruction of any, or part of any, sig- nificant heritage attributes or features; Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; Shadows created that alter the appear- ance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden; Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; Direct or indirect obstruction of signifi- cant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site al- teration to fill in the formerly open spaces; Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeo- logical resource. (Ontario Heritage Tool kit). 35 APRIL 8, 2022 - 58 - 8 conSidErEd aLtErnativES and mitiGation StratEGiES The potential impact of the proposal on the Dixon Farmhouse will be mitigated with design measures related to scale, form, massing, and materiality. The design measures proposed have been developed with reference to the Historic Ontario Farmstead typology. The following impact mitigation measures are recommended to be incorporated as the design of Lot 28 is refined and confirmed at the Site Plan Approval stage. Impact: Reduction of “farmstead lot” to 0.18 acres, and integration into contemporary subdivision. An interpretive rural landscape strategy is recommended to screen the contemporary development, with plant selection along the north and west property lines designed to obscure contemporary housing and conserve the rural character of the Site. In addition to front-yard fencing as shown to the right, non-traditional subdivision fencing for the Farmhouse’s lot boundaries will be selected and specified at the Site Plan Approval stage. The proposed fence Remnant of cedar fencing along the front design will convey the Site’s rural heritage , when compared to typical lot line on the Site (Google Earth, 2009) subdivision fencing. The fence design will comply with the City of Pickering’s Fence By-law (No. 6943/09). A new subdivision development is proposed to the north and west of the new farmstead lot. The new built form on adjacent properties (Lots 26-27 and 29-31) will feature rear-yard setbacks of either 7.5 metres or 8 metres, providing substantial green buffer space and capacity for natural landscaping between the new houses and the Precedent image: split rail fence (Coun- Dixon Farmhouse. try Living Magazine, n.d). Construction of adjacent subdivision residences will be required to be compatible with and sympathetic to the Dixon Farmhouse. Design recommendations could include simple contemporary materials that do not replicate or compete with the existing building’s stone. Wood cladding is recommended as an interpretive reference. 36 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE - 59 - 37 APRIL 8, 2022 Impact: Construction of a contemporary two-storey rear addition on the Dixon Farmhouse. The rear addition will be designed to be compatible with and subordinate to the existing heritage resource, through strategies including: • Location, orientation and roof pitch to reference the typical form and massing of rear wings on historic Ontario farmhouses; • Location of the integrated garage so that it is served by a linear driveway past the farmhouse, a typical condition on historic farmsteads, and consistent with the historic condition on Site; • A roofline that is no higher than the Dixon Farmhouse’s existing roofline; • Contemporary board-and-batten materials, with a standing- seam metal roof, selected so as (a) not to compete with the complex stone on the original building; and (b) to reference typical farmstead outbuilding materials, including the kitchen wing on Site that has since been lost; and • Design of contemporary windows to be proportionate to the windows on the heritage resource. The rear addition will also retain and make use of the existing rear door on the Dixon Farmhouse’s north elevation, and will retain as much heritage fabric as possible on the upper level while still providing access to the contemporary addition’s second storey. Precedent image: grey standing seam roof (Johnson & Associates Architects, n.d.). Precedent image: Grey-beige wood clad- ding (Martha Stewart Blog, 2013). Precedent image: shed dormer (DC Texas Custom Homes, n.d). Precedent image: Farmstead-style Ga- rage Doors (Visbeen Architects, n.d). Conceptual drawing of the rear elevation (ERA, 2022). - 60 - Impact: Relocation of the farmhouse 8.8 metres south and 7 metres east from its original location, which will have impact on the existing setback from Finch Avenue, identified as a heritage attribute. The Dixon Farmhouse is proposed to be relocated southeastward on the Site in order to retain it as a viable residential property within the proposed subdivision. Its location has been selected to ensure that there is adequate space provided for a rear addition, and rear and side-yard setbacks, that all meet contemporary living standards. The relocation conserves a substantial setback from Finch Avenue, which is characteristic of a farmstead lot, and identified as a heritage attribute. The front yard setback is proposed to be reduced from the existing setback of 28.7 metres to the proposed setback of 22.6 metres. In conjunction with the relocation, landscape alterations (described in the following section) are proposed to remove the dense foliage along the front lot line, which is not a key typological feature of the Historic Ontario Farmstead, and which currently obscures views to the Dixon Farmhouse. The relocation is complemented by the re-opening of views to the Dixon Farmhouse across the landscape from Finch Avenue. The relocation and removal of foliage improves the visibility of the Dixon Farmhouse and the landscape from the public realm, which constitutes a positive heritage impact. Impact:AlterationtotheSite’sexistingrurallandscape character and topography. An interpretive landscape strategy is recommended to conserve and rehabilitate the rural landscape character on the Site. As landscapes are dynamic and not static, the proposal would not require the retention of all existing landscape features (most will need to be removed during the subdivision’s construction), but new landscaping will be planted throughout the Site. New plantings are proposed be provided with the conditions to grow to maturity (sun and soil depth/space), and a series of diverse native plant species are proposed to convey a rural farmstead landscape character. Although the proposed landscape strategy will be confirmed at the Site Plan Approval stage, proposed locations for mature tree plantings and windrow-style elements include the front yard, along the west side lot line, and on the edge of the Dixon Farmhouse’s reinstated driveway location. 38 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE - 61 - The landscape strategy described on the previous page proposes to interpret elements of the Historic Ontario Farmstead typology, including tree-lined driveways, windrows along property edge and front-yard mature trees. The Historic Ontario Farmstead Typology (ERA, 2019). 39 APRIL 8, 2022 - 62 - Impact: Removal and salvage of the rear portico, which was installed on the farmhouse’s rear elevation in the mid to late- 20th century. The non-original rear portico is proposed to be removed to accommodate the proposed new addition. Although not a heritage attribute, the portico is the product of a salvage tradition in Pickering to retain and conserve historic built fabric. In order to mitigate for the impact of its removal, the proposal anticipates the salvage of the portico for possible re-use. The Site’s capacity to accommodate the portico as a salvaged relic is to be confirmed at the Site Plan Approval stage. If the portico’s salvage on Site cannot be achieved, it is our recommendation that its off-site salvage be arranged in partnership with companies or organizations active in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area for the salvage of historic fabric and architectural materials. Impact: Full Restoration of the Dixon Farmhouse The Dixon Farmhouse will be restored as part of the redevelopment. The conservation scope of work for the farmhouse is detailed in Section 9.1 of this Report. 40 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE - 63 - 9 rEcommEndEd conSErvation StratEGy The proposed conservation approach is rehabilitation, which introduces 31 new residential lots to Site while reinstating the Dixon Farmhouse’s residential use. The conservation approach is informed by interpretation of the Historic Ontario Farmstead typology, and communicates the Site’s rural heritage. The proposal is consistent with the relevant provincial and municipal heritage policies, and meets the recognized professional standards and best practices in the field of heritage conservation in Canada. 9.1 Conservation Scope of Work The following preliminary conservation scope is anticipated: • Stabilize the structure in preparation for the relocation southeastward from its original location; • Relocate the structure; • Remove and salvage of the rear portico; • Restore the farmhouse exterior through works such as general masonry cleaning and mortar repairs, repair of wood details at the eave lines and dormer window, replacement of roof materials, dismantle and reconstruction of the two brick chimneys, as necessary; and • Investigate the feasibility of repairing/replacing original windows, based on condition and performance. Although early in the process, the Dixon Farmhouse’s feasibility for relocation has been confirmed by building relocation specialists at McCulloch Movers. A Feasibility Assessment prepared by McCulloch Movers, dated March 29, 2022 is included in Appendix C. Rehabilitation works will be further detailed in a Heritage Impact Assessment to be submitted at the Site Plan Approval stage, which will detail the confirmed design approach for the new lot and addition, and a subsequent Conservation Plan, as required by the City of Pickering. Rehabilitation: the action or process of making possible a continuing or compatible contemporary use of an historic place, or an individual component, while protecting its heritage value. Restoration: the action or process of accurately revealing, recovering or representing the state of an historic place, or of an individual component, as it appeared at a particular period in its history, while protecting its heritage value. Preservation: the action or process of protecting, maintaining, and/or stabilizing the existing materials, form, and integrity of a historic place or of an individual component, while protecting its heritage value. (Standards and Guidelines for the Conser- vation of Historic Places in Canada, 2003). 41 APRIL 8, 2022 - 64 - 10 concLuSion and rEcommEndationS The proposed Plan of Subdivision application will create 31 new residential lots, while retaining and relocating the Dixon Farmhouse 8.8 metres south and 7 metres east. The Dixon Farmhouse will be expanded with a contemporary rear addition, designed to be compatible with and subordinate to the heritage resource. The proposed development intensifies the Site while conserving its the cultural heritage value. Any potential impact of new construction will be mitigated by design measures related to scale, form, massing, and materiality. The design measures proposed have been developed with reference to the Historic Ontario Farmstead typology. The design of the proposed addition and the site’s landscape strategy is conceptual for the purposes of this Draft Plan of Subdivision Application, but will be refined and confirmed only at Site Plan Approval stage. The proposal appropriately balances the planning and heritage conservation objectives for the Site, is consistent with the relevant provincial and municipal heritage policies, and meets the recognized professional standards in the field of heritage conservation in Canada. 42 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE - 65 - 11 Summary of profESSionaL QuaLificationS ERA Architects Inc. (ERA) specializes in heritage conservation, architecture, planning and landscape as they relate to historical places. This work is driven by our core interest in connecting heritage issues to wider considerations of urban design and city building, and to a broader set of cultural values that provide perspective to our work at different scales. In our 30 years of work, we have provided the highest level of professional services to our clients in both the public and private sector out of offices in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa. We have a staff of more than 100, and our Principals and Associates are members of associations that include: the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA), the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC). Philip Evans OAA, MRAIC, ICOMOS, CAHP is a Principal at ERA and the founder of Culture of Outports and small. Over the course of 17 years working in the field of heritage conservation, he has led a wide range of conservation, adaptive reuse, design, and feasibility planning projects. Samantha Irvine JD, ICOMOS, CAHP is a Senior Associate with the heritage planning team at ERA, where she has overseen projects that impact culturally significant buildings, neighbourhoods and landscapes since 2015. She holds a BA in History and Sociology from McGill University (Great Distinction); MA degrees in Historical & Sustainable Architecture (NYU) and Sustainable Urbanism (Wales); and a JD from Queen’s University. She is a member of the Ontario Bar Association and a former Fellow of Sustainable Urbanism with the Prince’s Foundation in London, England. Emma Abramowicz CAHP is a planner and Senior Project Manager at ERA Architects. She holds a Master of Planning in Urban Development from Ryerson University, and a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) from Queen’s University. Catherine Huynh BURPI is a Planner with ERA Architects. She holds a Bachelor of Urban and Regional Planning from Ryerson University. 43 APRIL 8, 2022 - 66 - 12 rEfErEncES Ancestry. (n.d.) Canada, Voters Lists, 1835-1980. https://www.ancestry.ca/search/collections/2983/ Archives of Ontario. (n.d.). Township of Pickering fonds (1811-1960). Calis, K (2020). Pickering adopts Indigenous land acknowledgement settlement. https://www.toronto.com/ news-story/10240890-pickering-adopts-indigenous-land-acknowledgement-statement/ Chippewas and Mississaugas Williams Treaties First Nations (n.d.). Pre-Confederation Treaties. https:// williamstreatiesfirstnations.ca/pre-confederation-treaties/ City of Pickering. (2018). City of Pickering Official Plan - Edition 8. https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/ officialplan.aspx City of Pickering. (n.d.) Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. https://corporate.pickering.ca/ PLHCWebLink/Welcome.aspx?cr=1 City of Toronto. (n.d.) Aerial Photographs [1947-1992]. https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/accountability- operations-customer-service/access-city-information-or-records/city-of-toronto-archives/whats-online/ maps/aerial-photographs/ Durham Region. (2020). 2020- Durham Region Official Plan - Office Consolidation. https://www.durham. ca/en/doing-business/resources/Documents/PlanningandDevelopment/Official-Plan/2020-Durham- Regional-Official-Plan-Consolidation---Revised-1.pdf Facebook. (n.d.). Vintage Pickering Public Group. https://www.facebook.com/groups/vintagepickering / about/ Gauslin, L (1974). From Paths to Planes – A Story of the Claremont Area. https://corporate.pickering.ca/ PLHCWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=171275&page=9&searchid=be0f77d4-79ec-4608-be90-e9bbe1ca3cc9 Kenyon, W (1958). The Miller Site. https://archive.org/details/millersite00keny Kenyon, W (1959). The Miller Site - 1959. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/DocView.aspx?id= 171235&page=3&searchid=eb7bd478-e168-4906-901c-392b2c085ac9 Library and Archives Canada (n.d.). Census Databse (1825 to 1926). https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/census/ Pages/census.aspx#b Ministry of Indigenous Affairs (n.d.) Map of Ontario treaties and reserves. https://www.ontario.ca/page/ map-ontario-treaties-and-reserves Ministry of Municipal Affairs (2020). Provincial Policy Statement. https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-provincial- policy-statement-2020-accessible-final-en-2020-02-14.pdf Parks Canada (2010). Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. https:// www.pc.gc.ca/en/culture/rclp-crhp/standards 44 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE - 67 - Parslow Heritage Consultancy Inc. (2020). Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report -450 Finch Avenue, Part 31, Concession 2, Geographical Township of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario. Province of Ontario (n.d.). Discover Indigenous culture and history along the Trans Canada Trail. https:// www.ontario.ca/page/indigenous-culture-and-history-along-transcanada-trail#section-1 Province of Ontario (n.d.). O. Reg. 9/06: CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060009 Wood, W (1911). Past Years in Pickering: sketches of the history of the community. https://archive.org/details/ pastyearsinpicke00wooduoft/page/n9/mode/2up Sabean, J (2000). Time Present and Time Past: A Pictorial History of Pickering. https://corporate.pickering. ca/PLHCWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=171422&page=2&searchid=1ed40f0c-0386-4bdc-8742-45f45437b0f5 Service Ontario (n.d.) Search land property records.https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-land-property-records Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (n.d.). Current Archaeological Projects. https://trca.ca/ conservation/archaeology/current-archaeological-projects/ Toronto Public Library. (n.d.). Digital Newspaper. https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/books-video-music/ downloads-ebooks/digital-newspapers.jsp Veilleux, A (2011). K nowing Landscape: Living, Discussing, and Imagining the Toronto Carrying Place 45 APRIL 8, 2022 - 68 - 13 appEndicES APPENDIX A: DRAFT HIA TERMS OF REFERENCE (CITY OF PICKERING, 2021) 46 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE - 69 - DRAFT Heritage Impact Assessment -Terms of Reference The City of Pickering recognizes the importance of maintaining a meaningful and active connection to its past through the conservation of its rich and varied cultural heritage: People, in making decisions and undertaking actions, should recognize, respect and nurture Pickering’s cultural heritage. This celebration of local heritage will contribute to the enrichment of the City’s urban, rural and ecological systems. Pickering’s resulting patterns of diversity and character, integrating old with new, and natural with built, will give the City a unique identity.1 The Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference supports the vision and the policies set out in the Pickering Official Plan, with a specific interest in ensuring that private and public developments and projects serve to conserve, protect and enhance the City’s cultural heritage resources. This terms of reference also follows the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) which states that “Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved” and that “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.” What is the purpose of this assessment? The purpose of a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) is to determine if any cultural heritage resources may be adversely impacted by a specific proposed development or site alteration, and to recommend an overall approach to conserve the resource(s). The study will be based on a comprehensive understanding of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource(s). It will serve to identify any impact(s) the proposed development or site alteration will have on the resource(s), consider mitigation options, and recommend a conservation strategy that best conserves the cultural heritage resource(s) within the context of the proposed development. The conservation strategy shall apply heritage conservation principles, clearly describe the conservation work and recommend methods to avoid or mitigate the negative impacts to the cultural heritage resource(s). In keeping with best practice, minimal intervention should be the guiding principle for all work. It is important to recognize the need for the HIA in the earliest possible stage of the project as it will need to address both existing and potential heritage properties including those: ● listed or designated on the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register; 1 Pickering Official Plan, Edition 8 - 70 - ● Identified on the City of Pickering Inventory of Heritage Resources by Unterman McPhail Associates; ● identified as having cultural heritage value or interest through a preliminary site assessment or planning study; or, ● identified by the community, Municipal staff or local councillor. When is an HIA required? Where the development site contains one of more heritage properties, an HIA is a requirement of a complete application for the following planning application types: ● Official Plan Amendment ● Zoning By-law Amendment ● Plans of Subdivision/Condominium ● Site Plan Control An HIA may be required for the following additional application types: ● Consent and/or Minor Variance applications for any property on the Municipal Heritage Register. ● Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Plans of Subdivision, Site Plan Control and/or Consent and/or Minor Variance applications adjacent to a property on the Municipal Heritage Register. For the purpose of an HIA, adjacent means lands that are contiguous to a heritage property or which are near to a heritage property and separated by a road, trail, right of way, walkway, greenspace, or park. ● Heritage Permit applications (including demolitions) for any property designated under Part IV (individual) or Part V (Heritage Conservation District) of the Ontario Heritage Act, or properties subject to a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City of Pickering or Ontario Heritage Trust. Why is an HIA required? The HIA is required in order to: ● determine compliance with relevant cultural heritage policies; and ● assist staff with their analysis and report preparation. The rationale for the requirement to provide an HIA arises from: ● The Ontario Heritage Act; ● The Planning Act, Section 2(d); ● The Provincial Policy Statement, Section 2.6 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology; ● A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Section 4.2.7 Cultural Heritage Resources; ● Durham Regional Official Plan; ● City of Pickering Official Plan. Who is qualified to prepare an HIA? All HIAs must be prepared by a qualified heritage professional such as a heritage planner, heritage architect and/or heritage landscape architect with demonstrated knowledge in the - 71 - conservation and stewardship of cultural heritage. The heritage professional must be a member in good standing of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP), and be independent from the planning, consulting or engineering firm making the development application or working on behalf of the applicant. Consideration will be given on a case-by-case basis to non-CAHP members who have specialization in applicable areas, depending on the types of heritage resources being assessed. What are the required contents of the HIA? The HIA will contain, but is not limited to, the following information. Introduction to the Subject Property ● A location plan (map and aerial photo) indicating the property/properties. ● A current site plan. ● A concise written and visual description of the property and its surroundings, identifying significant features, buildings, landscapes and views/vistas including any yet unidentified potential cultural heritage resources. ● A summary of the heritage status of the property and including existing heritage descriptions (as available) as well as applicable heritage policies and guidelines. ● Present owner’s contact information. Background Research and Analysis ● A comprehensive history of the property as documented in pictorial and textual records and as observed in as-found evidence related to all potential cultural heritage value or interest of the site (both identified and unidentified) including: physical or design, historical or associative, and contextual values. ● A chronological description of the site’s development from its Indigenous and pre- settlement condition through to its current lot configuration, and itemizing the structures and landscapes, noting additions, alterations, removals, conversions, etc. ● Reproductions of pictorial research materials including (but not limited to) maps, atlases, drawings, photographs, permit records, land title records, tax assessment rolls, directories, census records, etc. Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest ● An assessment of the property with respect to Ontario Regulation 9/06 -Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, describing the cultural heritage value or interest of the property as a whole and identifying all significant heritage attributes. Present the findings in a table organized according to each criterion with an explanation for each conclusion. Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest ● A statement of cultural heritage value or interest identifying the cultural heritage value(s) and describing the heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource(s). - 72 - ● This statement will be informed by current research and analysis of the site as well as pre-existing heritage descriptions. ● This statement will be written in a way that does not respond to or anticipate any current or proposed interventions to the site. Assessment of Existing Condition ● A comprehensive written description of the existing physical condition of the structures on the site, including their exterior and interior. ● Professional quality record photographs of the property in its present state, including: ● views of the area surrounding the property to show it in context with adjacent properties and the immediate streetscape; ● overall views of the property including all significant landscape features; ● exterior views of each elevation of each building; ● interior views of heritage attributes or features, and a representative selection of rooms; ● close-up views of all interior and exterior heritage attributes. Description of the Proposed Development or Site Alteration ● A written and visual description of the proposed development or site alteration, including a proposed site plan, landscape plan, building elevations, and floor plans, where applicable. Submission material should clearly indicate the location of the on-site and adjacent cultural heritage resource(s) and the relationship of the proposed development to it. Impact of Development on Heritage Attributes ● An assessment of the potential impacts (direct and indirect, physical and aesthetic) the proposed development or site alteration may have on the cultural heritage resource(s) and heritage attributes of the site and/or adjacent lands using established heritage conservation principles, standards and guidelines. Supplement the written description with visual diagrams, drawings and/or renderings as needed. ● Positive impacts may include, but are not limited to: ● Restoration of a building, including replacement of missing attributes; ● Enhancement of an historic streetscape; ● Rehabilitation of a cultural heritage resource to ensure long-term viability. ● Negative impacts may include, but are not limited to: ● The destruction of any significant heritage attribute or part thereof; ● Alteration that is not sympathetic to the heritage attribute; ● Shadows created by new development that alter the appearance of, or change the viability of a heritage attribute; ● Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context, or significant spatial relationship; ● Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas; ● A change in land use which negates the property’s cultural heritage value; - 73 - ● Land disturbances such as a grade change that alters soils and drainage patterns that adversely affect a cultural heritage resource. Considered Alternatives and Mitigation Strategies ● An assessment of the mitigation measures, conservation methods, and/or alternative development options that avoid or limit the adverse impacts to the cultural heritage resource. ● Mitigation options may include, but are not limited to: ● Alternative development approaches; ● Isolating development and site alteration from significant built and natural features and vistas; ● Design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting, and materials; ● Limiting height and density; ● Compatible infill and additions; ● Reversible alterations; ● Relocation of a heritage resource, to be employed only as a last resort, if conservation cannot be achieved by any other means. Recommended Conservation Strategy ● The preferred strategy recommended to best protect and enhance the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the on site and adjacent cultural heritage resource(s) including, but not limited to: ● An explanation of how the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the heritage resources informed and influenced the proposed development or site alteration; ● A mitigation strategy including the proposed methods; ● A conservation scope of work including the proposed methods; ● An implementation and monitoring plan, as applies; ● Referenced heritage policy, conservation principles and guidelines, and precedents; ● If removal of the cultural heritage resource was recommended, the HIA will provide site-specific guidelines to address commemoration/interpretation, salvaging, and/or documentation prior to demolition. Conclusion and Recommendations ● A concise summary of the findings of the report and clear recommendations regarding the most appropriate course of action for the property and its cultural heritage resources. Additional studies/plans may include: conservation; site specific design guidelines; interpretation / commemoration; lighting; landscaping; signage; structural/engineering analysis; site/building record and documentation; salvage; long-term maintenance; etc. Appendices ● A bibliography listing source materials and institutions ● A summary of the author’s qualifications - 74 - The study will be submitted in hard copy (2 copies) and in PDF format. What else should the applicant know? As each proposal and property is different, contact the heritage planner prior to the commencement of the project to review the City’s cultural heritage interests, study expectations and review process. For complex applications, pre-consultation with the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee may also be requested. All HIAs will be reviewed by staff to ensure they are complete and that they meet the standards for heritage conservation best practices. Reports which are found to be lacking in this regard may be refused or require revisions. The City of Pickering reserves the right to request an independent peer review of an HIA at the applicant’s cost. Heritage and Planning staff will facilitate peer reviews if deemed necessary by the Manager, Development Review and Urban Design. What resources are available? ● Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) ● City of Pickering: Heritage Planning Information; Municipal Heritage Register and Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive ● Ontario Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries: Ontario Heritage Tool Kit and Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties ● Parks Canada: Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada ● Other heritage charters and guidelines: Well-Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundation’s Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation; Burra Charter; Appleton Charter; and Venice Charter. Questions? Elizabeth Martelluzzi Senior Planner, Development Review & Heritage City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 emartelluzzi@pickering.ca T. 905.420.4660 ext. 2169 Toll Free: 1.866.683.2760 F. 905.420.7648 - 75 - APPENDIX B: TAX ASSESSMENT ROLLS (LOT 31, CON 2) Year Number of Acres Value of Real Property (Benjamin Dixon; Lot 31, Con. 2) 1852 50 £ 250 1853 50 £ 275 1854 50 £ 250 1855 50 £ 250 1856 50 £ 250 1857 50 £ 250 1858 50 £ 300 1859 50 $ 1200 * 1860 50 $ 1200 1861 50 $ 1200 1862 50 $ 1200 1863 50 $ 1200 1864 50 $ 1200 * Note: The increase in value is due to the Province of Canada’s accounts being required to be kept in dollars instead of pounds. 47 APRIL 8, 2022 - 76 - APPENDIX C: FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT (MCCULLOCH MOVERS, 2022) 48 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 450 FINCH AVENUE - 77 - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 Emma Abramowicz (she/her) | Project Manager M.Pl. CAHP ERA Architects Inc. T 416.963.4497 x272 F 416.963.8761 E EmmaA@eraarch.ca Re: Proposed Heritage relocation at 450 Finch Avenue, Pickering, Ontario We are writing to provide our support of the proposed relocation of the heritage building at 450 Finch Avenue, Pickering Ontario. The historic stone building is in solid structural condition and is a good candidate for relocation on site. We have reviewed the proposed project and propose the following relocation strategy like previous successful projects that satisfies the site-specific requirements: • The building be loaded in one piece after some repointing work in the corners and areas of water penetration • The building will be relocated to a location directly over top of the footings at its final location • A full height basement will be built - 78 - We have successfully relocated several such large scale heritage buildings on projects such as 100 Yorkville, 56 Blue Jays Way, Gooderham Mansion, James Cooper Mansion, 76 Howard Street. Each project has been slightly different, and each unique site circumstance has been accommodated Our Engineer, David Seberras has worked with us all these projects and we are looking forward to having him work with us on this project Yours Truly Greg Mcculloch Greg McCulloch Laurie McCulloch Building Moving - 79 - Stone Building in air. Foundation built between beams - 80 - - 81 - Page 1 450 Finch Avenue HIA Peer Review, Second Submission July 17, 2022 Elizabeth Martelluzzi Senior Planner, 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 RESUBMISSION FOR CITY FILE: SP-2020-02 & A10/20 450 FINCH AVE Dear Ms. Martelluzzi, The purpose of this letter is to provide the City of Pickering (‘City’) with an objective and profes- sional review of the Heritage Impact Assessment (‘HIA’) resubmitted as part of the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment application for the proposed residential develop- ment at 450 Finch Avenue (‘Site’) in Pickering. The following new or revised documents were reviewed in the preparation of this letter: Applicant Materials • Cover Letter by GHD dated April 29, 2022; • Comment Response Matrix by GHD dated March 2022; • Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by GHD dated March 2022; and • 450 Finch Avenue, Pickering, Ontario, Heritage Impact Assessment by ERA Architects Inc. dated April 8, 2022. PROJECT BACKGROUND The purpose of this peer review of the HIA by ERA Architects Inc. is to provide a professional opinion on whether the report and its recommendations are consistent with applicable heritage policies as well as the provincial and national cultural heritage framework and best practice. The building at 450 Finch Avenue is identified on the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines (Section N1.10.1 Heritage Structures) as one of four significant dwellings within the area. This status requires the applicant to assess the significance of the structure and explore strategies to retain the structure on site. The property was added to the Municipal Heritage Register on February 22, 2021. - 82 - Page 2 450 Finch Avenue HIA Peer Review, Second Submission In 2020, Branch Architecture reviewed the Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report - 450 Finch Avenue, Part Lot 31, Concession 2, Geographical Township of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario by Parslow Heritage Consultancy Inc. dated May 26, 2020. This HIA advised that the preferred option was to document and demolish the Dixon farmhouse as part of the site development. Branch Architecture advised that the HIA be revised and that a professional heritage architect be engaged to advise on site plan options that would allow for the conservation of the property’s cultural heritage value and heritage attributes as part of the proposed residential development. In 2021, Branch Architecture reviewed schematic drawings for the Dixon Farmhouse at 450 Finch Avenue prepared by Architectural Design Inc. In these plans, the Dixon farmhouse was shown at a new location adjacent to Finch Avenue (directly west of the new entrance road to the proposed subdivision) and with a side addition. Branch Architecture advised that this proposal be revised as it negatively impacted the building’s landscaped setting, views and relationship to the street. Further, the proposed addition was found to be incompatible with the heritage building. The applicant was asked to reconsider the size of the parcel, the placement of the addition, the height and profile of the addition’s roof, and the proportions, openings, patterning and scale of the addition. The applicant was encouraged to engage a professional heritage architect to advise on the site planning, compatibility of the addition and building conservation scope of work. Branch Architecture met with City Planning Staff, the applicant and their consultants on November 19, 2021 and January 5, 2022 to review a new approach to retaining the Dixon Farmhouse within the development. At the first meeting, ERA Architects Inc. presented Conservation Design Parameters and a site plan option that showed the house relocated a short distance, retained on a flag shaped lot and with a rear addition. On January 5, 2022, a revised site plan showed the Dixon Farmhouse on a rectangular lot on Finch Avenue. At these meetings, Branch Architecture provided the opinion that this approach was acceptable as it retained the south- facing orientation and deep front yard setback of Dixon Farmhouse, allowed for views to the house from Finch Avenue, set the house within a ‘rural’ inspired landscaped setting, and included for the conservation of the stone dwelling. The applicant was encouraged to pursue maintaining the existing road access off Finch Avenue (owned by the Region) and explore alternative massing approaches for the rear addition. The resubmission of the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment application proposes a residential development with 31 lots including Lot 28 with the Dixon Farmhouse. The application includes site specific provisions for Lot 28 to allow for a single detached dwelling and atypical zone requirements that reflect the proposed placement of the Dixon Farmhouse on the newly created lot. Branch Architecture completed a site visit on July 11, 2022. The site review included walking the property and around the building. The interior was not reviewed as the plywood protection had been removed at the rear door openings and the interior had been vandalized. - 83 - Page 3 450 Finch Avenue HIA Peer Review, Second Submission REVIEW OF HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT BY ERA It is my professional opinion that the HIA satisfies the City’s Heritage Impact Assessment requirements and that the current proposal provides for the conservation of the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the property at 450 Finch Avenue. The HIA responds to comments provided to date on the cultural heritage interests of the site, provides for the conservation of the heritage attributes of the property, and recommends design measures to mitigate potential impacts of proposed residential development. These comments are intended to inform the subsequent submissions as the project is future developed. Background Research and Analysis This report presents a very complete written and visual description of the historical context of the area, the history of the site from concession lot to today, and changes to the lot and its building. If there is further interest in the Cherrywood community, there is a modest publication called “History of Cherrywood” by George Cober at the Pickering Library. Also, it is likely this concession lot was granted to Elizabeth Davy or Davey (as the name reads on the Crown Lots map at the Archives of Ontario). The adjacent lot, Lot 32 of the Second Concession, was granted to her husband Michael Davy in 1802 following his petition four years earlier. Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest I agree with the assessment that the property satisfies two criteria set out in Ontario Regulation 9/06. The property features a representative example of a mid-19th century farmhouse in Pickering, and has associations with the Dixon family who owned the farm for almost one hundred years. With respect to the Draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, I have two minor suggestions regarding the attributes: • the vernacular stone construction features large stone quoins and stone jack arches; and, • the wood eaves (soffit, fascia and returns) are another element of the Georgian Style. Assessment of Existing Condition I found the description of the existing condition of the building exterior to be accurate. And, I strongly support ERA’s recommendation to make sure the building is properly mothballed to ensure it is secure and adequately ventilated. Description of the Proposed Development, Impact of Development on Heritage Attributes, Considered Alternatives and Mitigation Strategies, and Recommended Conservation Strategy The written and visual description (drawings) of the proposed development show that the Dixon Farmhouse will be relocated on Lot 28, restored, and receive a contemporary rear addition. It is my opinion that the relocation is acceptable given that: the building will maintain its south- facing orientation on a rise, have a deep front yard setback, and be visible from Finch Avenue; the - 84 - Page 4 450 Finch Avenue HIA Peer Review, Second Submission new landscape design will reflect the site’s historic rural character; and, a heritage building mover has determined that the building is a good candidate for relocation. The proposed restoration scope of work is appropriate and reflects the current condition of the building, and the strategy to construct a compatible contemporary rear addition is sound. The HIA thoroughly and thoughtfully discusses how each potential impact has been mitigated and I am satisfied that the proposed design measures will mitigate these potential impacts. As an aside, it is my opinion that the rear portico should be made available for salvage and reuse, but that it is not integral to this site. SUMMARY COMMENTS In my professional opinion that the HIA provides for the conservation of the heritage property at 450 Finch Avenue within the context of the proposed residential development. As part of the ongoing planning process, I recommend that: • The property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and, • Prior to the issuance of a Heritage Permit, a Conservation Plan is submitted to City Planning Staff and that it include: 1. A written description of the conservation scope of work supported by drawings describing the landscape design, and building restoration and rehabilitation. 2. An explanation of how the adjacent subdivision residences have been designed to be compatible with and sympathetic to the Dixon Farmhouse. 3. Long-term building conservation and maintenance plan guidelines. Please contact me should you require any further details or clarifications. Sincerely, Lindsay Reid OAA CAHP LEED Principal, Branch Architecture - 85 -