Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 28, 2023Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Agenda June 28, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 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 June 14, 2023 Meeting Minutes 1 4.Delegations 5.New Business 5.1 Official Plan and Rezoning Application -1066 Dunbarton Road Applicant: Kindred Works on behalf of the United Church of Canada Files: OPA 22-004/P & A 11/22 Presentation Carly Forrester, Kindred Works Kevin Opoku, Kindred Works Andrew Hannaford, MHBC Sharon Hong, ERA 5 6.Other Business 7.Next Meeting 8.Adjournment Page 1 of 4 Minutes/Meeting Summary Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee June 14, 2023 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm Attendees: N.Brewster L. Jeffrey S. Monaghan R. Smiles C. Doody-Hamilton J. White J. Crosbie, Timmins-Martell Heritage Consultants (TMHC) D. Nesbitt, Colliers Project Leaders A. Couturier, Englobe R. Perera, Deputy Clerk J. Currie, Legislative Coordinator B. Weiler, Principal Planner, Policy (Staff Liaison) A. MacGillivray, Committee Coordinator (Recording Secretary) Absent: R. Anderson A. Bhadra Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 1. Review and Approval of Agenda Moved by C. Doody-Hamilton Seconded by R. Smiles That the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda of June 14, 2023 be approved. Carried 2. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 3. Approval of Minutes Moved by L. Jeffrey Seconded by S. Monoghan That the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of April 26, 2023 be approved. - 1 - Page 2 of 4 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) Carried 4. Delegations There were no delegations. 5. New Business 5.1 Review of Policy ADM 040 Updates & Lobbyist Registry A. MacGillivray and R. Perera provided an overview of the City’s Lobbyist Registry and recent changes to the Committees and Taskforces of Council Policy ADM 040. Discussion ensued with Committee Members regarding: • interactions with the public that Committee Members may face that could be considered lobbying activity; • the importance of Committee Members informing lobbyists they interact with about the City’s Lobbyist Registry; • concerns that the definition of lobbying is vague; • clarification that penalties associated with the Lobbyist Registry are not being enforced until November 1, 2023; • the Education and Training Session regarding the Lobbyist Registry taking place on June 26, 2023 at 5:00 pm; and, • whether “off the record” conversations could be considered lobbying activity. 5.2 Heritage Permit Application – 860 Whitevale Road D. Nesbitt provided an overview of the Heritage Permit Application at 860 Whitevale Road, highlighting the property’s location with the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District and that the property is not identified as a heritage property. A. Couturier provided an outline of the various aspects of the project including the Class Environmental Assessment, the Species at Risk Assessment, the Phase 1 & 2 ESA’s, the Cultural - 2 - Page 3 of 4 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) Heritage Evaluation, the Stage 1 & 2 Archaeological Assessment, and the Designated Substance and Hazardous Materials Survey. J. Crosbie provided an overview of the Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report prepared for the property and noted its conclusion that the property does not meet criteria under the Ontario Heritage Act O. Reg 9/06 (as amended) and O. Reg 10/06. J. Crosbie concluded her remarks speaking to the condition of the buildings on the property. Discussion ensued with the Committee discussing: • the thorough investigation of the site despite not appearing significant; • clarification as to why demolition is being sought given there is no development proposed for the site; and, • clarification regarding the past ownership of the property and whether or not the property was expropriated from the past owners. A. Couturier provided further information to the Committee regarding the demolition plans and removal of hazardous materials from the property. Further discussion ensued with Members regarding: • the requirement for the contractor to prepare a tree protection plan and the minimal impact to trees on the site; • clarification regarding how hazardous materials found on the site will be removed or recovered; • whether there are opportunities to salvage any historically significant items that may be discovered during the demolition process; and, • clarification as to why the driveways will be left in place on the site. Moved by N. Brewster Seconded by C. Doody-Hamilton 1. That the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee support the Heritage Permit Application for the demolition of the existing structures including the detached dwelling and accessory buildings as requested; - 3 - Page 4 of 4 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 2. That a copy of the final CHERR and inventory sheets be filed with the Pickering Library & Archives as a record of the property’s history and documentation of changes; and, 3. That if there is the opportunity to salvage the timbers for adaptive reuse or donation, should their condition allow it, the applicant shall work with staff to achieve that outcome. Carried 6. Other Business B. Weiler informed the Committee that there will likely be business to consider at the upcoming June 28, 2023 Meeting. 7. Next Meeting The next meeting of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee is scheduled for June 28, 2023. 8. Adjournment Moved by L. Jeffrey Seconded by N. Brewster That the meeting be adjourned. Carried Meeting Adjourned: 8:15 pm - 4 - Memo To: Heritage Pickering June 21, 2023 From: Cody Morrison Principal Planner, Development Review Copy: Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design Principal Planner, Policy Subject: Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications Kindred Works on behalf of the United Church of Canada 1066 Dunbarton Road File: OPA 22-004/P & A 11/22 Site Location In December of 2022, the City received applications for Official Plan Amendment (OPA 22-004/P) and Zoning By-law Amendment (A 11/22) for the lands north-westerly corner of Dunbarton Road within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood. The subject property has an area of approximately 0.78 of a hectare, with approximately 135.0 metres of frontage along Dunbarton Road (see Location Map, Attachment #1). Site Context The subject lands are currently occupied by a two-storey building, known as the Dunbarton-Fairport United Church (the “Church”), that is used as a place of worship and a daycare facility. The Church is a gabled brick building dating to 1877 and is constructed in a vernacular interpretation of the Gothic Revival style. Following a fire in 1973, the Church was repaired in the post-modern style by architect George Baird, which preserved the remaining fabric, rehabilitated the peaks of the north and south façades with vertical glazing, and restored the gabled roof. Figures 1 and 2 below, indicate this portion of the Church prior to the fire, and in its current form in 2022. The architectural firm of George Baird also designed an addition in 1974 located immediately to the north of the original building, which provided additional administrative space to the Church (see Figure 3 below). This space was later extended further north, and terminated in an octagonal chapel, through a subsequent addition in 1984 (see Figure 4 below). Figure 5 below indicates the approximate extent of each section of the existing building and the associated year of construction. - 5 - June 21, 2023 Page 2 of 6 Kindred Works (United Church of Canada) Figure 1: Pre-fire, c. 1920, Schillaci. Figure 2: Post-fire, c. 2022, ERA Architects Figure 3: Southwest view of 1974 addition, Figure 4: Northeast view of 1985 addition, c. 2022, ERA Architects c. 2022, ERA Architects - 6 - June 21, 2023 Page 3 of 6 Kindred Works (United Church of Canada) Figure 5: Air Photo, c. 2022, ERA Architects Currently, the building is not listed or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. However, it is identified on the City’s Inventory of Heritage Resources. The Inventory notes that the subject lands are considered to be important in establishing the character of the historic Village of Dunbarton, while also exhibiting dominant landmark value due to its notable visibility due to the higher elevation of the east end of Dunbarton Road. Applicant’s Proposal The applicant is proposing a residential development consisting of 41 dwelling units. The original 1877 Church building (approximately 391 square metres) is proposed to be retained in its current location at the site’s southeast corner, and used as a place of worship and daycare facility (see Submitted Conceptual Site Plan, Attachment #2). The later 1974 and 1985 additions, and surface parking area, are proposed to be demolished to accommodate the residential development. The conceptual site plan illustrates a total of 4 blocks, containing 33 stacked townhouse units and 8 street townhouses. Block 1 will front Dunbarton Road, while Blocks 2, 3 and 4 will front the internal private road. The tenure of all units is proposed to be rental, with ownership being retained by the United Church of Canada. All blocks are proposed to be 3 storeys in height, approximately 10.3 metres measured from established grade to the mid-point of the peaked roof (see Submitted Conceptual Renderings, Attachment #3). The conceptual site plan illustrates an interior landscaped courtyard, consisting of pedestrian walkway connections, passive landscaping, and a total of 174 square metres of outdoor amenity area, comprising two play areas, and a community seating area. - 7 - June 21, 2023 Page 4 of 6 Kindred Works (United Church of Canada) Applicant’s Heritage Impact Assessment In support of the proposal, Kindred Works has submitted a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated October 14, 2022 (refer to Dunbarton-Fairport Church Heritage Impact Assessment, Attachment #3). The HIA provides an assessment of the cultural heritage significance of the existing building, determines if any cultural heritage resources may be adversely impacted by the proposed development or site alteration, and provides recommendations to conserve the resource. The HIA outlines that the portion of the original Church, constructed in 1877, is a representative example of a mid to late 19th century church built in the Gothic Revival Style and is physically, functionally, visually, and historically linked to the historic thoroughfare of Kingston Road. The HIA further outlines that the later 1974 and 1985 additions are considered to be of minimal significance architecturally or to the community. To minimize the impact of residential development on the identified cultural heritage attributes of the subject lands, the HIA recommends several conservation and mitigation strategies, which include, but are not limited to: • retention of the original 1877 Church in situ and conservation of the 19th century exterior façade; • retention of the existing grade that situates the Church above the proposed development and existing neighbourhood; • retention of the existing driveway access; • retention of the landscaped lawn along Dunbarton Road; • removal of the current concrete retaining wall at the south entrance of the church building, to be replaced with terraced landscaping that reinstates the historic relationship between the Church and Dunbarton Road; • placement of the proposed new dwelling units along the north and east perimeter of the subject site which will retain the visual prominence of the original chapel along Dunbarton Road; and • the design of the proposed townhouses, including the proposed height, use of brick, and mix of flat and gabled roofs, to ensure that they are subordinate to, and compatible with, the original 1877 Church (see Figure 6 below). Figure 6: Conceptual views of the Church and proposed residential units to the east from Dunbarton Road - 8 - June 21, 2023 Page 5 of 6 Kindred Works (United Church of Canada) The HIA concludes that the proposal appropriately balances the planning and heritage conservation objectives for the site. The potential impacts of the proposed development can be mitigated through design measures that will conserve the Site’s cultural heritage value, allowing it to continue to communicate its role as both a historic record of the Village of Dunbarton and a hub for community programming. Peer Review of the Submitted Heritage Impact Assessment Heritage Studio was retained by the City of Pickering to conduct a Peer Review of the submitted HIA (refer to Peer Review, Attachment #4). The following is a summary of comments provided by Heritage Studio: • The submitted Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) completed by ERA Architects provides a thorough and comprehensive history of the subject property and its context. The description of the property’s cultural heritage value has been completed appropriately. • The retained Church, constructed in approximately 1877, meets seven of the nine criteria listed in Ontario Regulation 9/06. The property clearly meets the prescribed criteria and should be designated under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. • The proposed site plan and massing/height of the new townhouses aligns with Standard 11 of Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, which states “Conserve the heritage value and character-defining elements when creating any new additions to a historic place or any related new construction. Make the work physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to, and distinguishable, from the historic place.” • An addendum to the HIA should be required prior to site plan approval, which includes: o A review of the finalized townhouse design, noting any changes that have been or should be made to their scale, form, massing, materials to ensure their compatibility with the 1877 chapel. o Recommendations for the repair and renovation of the north elevation of the 1877 chapel following the removal of the later additions (including the design parameters for a small addition, if required). Staff Analysis Staff concur with Heritage Studio’s analysis. Staff offer the following recommendations to the Committee: 1. That Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee support the proposal to retain and conserve the portion of the Church, constructed in 1877, as illustrated in the Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated October 14, 2022; 2. That the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee supports the designation of the 1877 Church and that the committee be consulted at a later date regarding the draft by-law and lands to be designated under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; - 9 - June 21, 2023 Page 6 of 6 Kindred Works (United Church of Canada) 3. That Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee be consulted on the restoration plans for the retained Church, the design of any proposed addition to the Church, and the proposed site and building design of residential units, prior to the issuance of Site Plan Approval; 4. That, as a part of the Site Plan Application submission, the applicant shall submit a Conservation Plan, that is consistent with the conservation strategy set out in the Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by ERA Architect Inc. dated October 14, 2022, which includes, but is not limited to: a) Review of the finalized townhouse design, noting any changes that have been or should be made to their scale, form, massing, and materials to ensure their compatibility with the 1877 Church; b) Recommendations for the repair and renovation of the north elevation of the 1877 Church, following the removal of the later additions (including the design parameters for a small addition, if required); 5. That, prior to the execution of a site plan agreement, the applicant provide a Letter of Credit to secure all works included in the approved Conservation Plan, to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development & CBO; 6. That, prior to Site Plan Approval, a reference plan be provided to the City of Pickering to identify the location of the retained Church and any new addition; 7. That, after a designation by-law has been registered on title, a heritage plaque be placed on the building or subject lands at the owner’s expense; and 8. 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 lands 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 design of proposed dwellings, conservation plan and details regarding the restoration of the Church and the landscaping surrounding the building. CM:jc \\Fs\planning\Documents\Development\D-3100 Official Plan Amendments\2022\OPA 22-004P & A 11-22\Memos\Heritage Pickering - June '23\Memo to Heritage Pickering 06.19.23.docx Attachments #1: Location Map #2: Submitted Conceptual Plan #3: Dunbarton-Fairport United Church Heritage Impact Assessment #4: Peer Review - 10 - Fa l c o n c r e s t D r i v e King s t o n R o a d D i x ie Road K elvinway Lane D u n c h u r c h S t r e e t Dunba r t o n R o a d Rambl e b e r r y A v e n u e Cloudb e r r y C o u r t MeadowridgeCrescent Dalewood Ravine © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: OPA 22-004/P & A 11/22 Date: Jan. 04, 2023 ¯ Kindred Works 1066 Dunbarton Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\OPA\2022\OPA 22-004P & A 11-22 Kindred Works\OPA 22-004P_LocationMap.mxd 1:2,500 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Attachment #1 - 11 - Submitted Conceptual Site Plan City Development Department May 8, 2023FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. OPA 22-004/P & A 11/22 Kindred WorksApplicant: Municipal Address: DATE: File No: 1066 Dunbarton Road L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2021 Block 4 Block 2 Block 1 Block 3 Play Areas Community Sitting Area Retained Portion of Existing Church Stacked Townhouse Unit Townhouse Unit N Resident Parking Resident Parking Full-Moves Access Full-Moves Access Attachment #2 - 12 - ISSUED: October 6, 2022 HERITAgE ImpAc T A ssEssmEnT 1066 Dunbarton RoadDunbarton-Fairport Church Pickering, Ontario Attachment #3 - 13 - PREPARED FOR: TTim Blair, CEO Kindred Works 49 Bogert Ave Toronto, ON, M2N 1K6 426-618-2097 PREPARED BY: ii HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 416-963-4497 Project #21-249-01 Prepared by GS / SH / NA / CB - 14 - iiiISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IV-V 1 REPORT SCOPE 1 2 INTRODUCTION TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY 2-21 3 BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS 22-46 4 EVALUATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST 47-49 5 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 50-55 6 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 56-60 7 IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT AND MITIGATION STRATEGY 61 8 CONSERVATION STRATEGY 62 9 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 63 10 SUMMARY OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS 64 11 REFERENCES 65-7 12 APPENDICES 68 - 15 - iv HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD ExEcutivE Summary ExEcutivE Summary Background This Heritage Impact Assessment (“HIA”) has been prepared by ERA Architects Inc. (“ERA”) for the property at 1066 Dunbarton Road, Pickering, Ontario (the “Site”). The Site is currently occupied by a built heritage resource (“BHR”), known as the “Dunbarton Fairport Church”, c.1877. Following a fire in 1973, George Baird and Associates preserved the remaining fabric, rehabilitated the peaks of the north and south facades with vertical glazing, and restored the gabled roof. Baird added the first extension to the church’s northern end in 1974; a subsequent extension with an octagonal chapel was added in 1985. A playgound and parking area surrounds the church building. The building is currently used for religious and community programming. Heritage Status The Site is neither listed nor designated. The Site is not considered adjacent to any properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, or listed on the Municipal Heritage Register. In 2001, the BHR was added to the City of Pickering’s “Inventory of Heritage Resources.” 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 church in Pickering, and for its Post-Modern rehabilitation in 1974. It has associative value for the work of architect George Baird, and contextual value for its situation on historic Kingston/Dunbarton Road. It has historical value for its role in establishing the character of the Village of Dunbarton. 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 rezoned to allow for the creation of 19 residential lots. The 19th century church would be retained in situ, with the later 20th century additions removed. The existing driveway (that enters from Dunbarton road to the southwest of the church and exits to the east) will be retained and utilized for private driveway access. The landscaped lawn along Dunbarton Road will be retained. - 16 - vISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 Impact of Proposed Development and Mitigation Measures The proposed development will impact the Site’s cultural heritage value through the following: • Retention of the original 1877 church in situ; • Retention of the existing grade that situates the BHR above the proposed development and existing neighbourhood; • Retention of the existing driveway access; • Retention of the landscaped lawn along Dunbarton Road; • Removal of parking space to accommodate the proposed dwell- ings; and • Removal of the 1974 and 1985 additions. 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 originally 1877 portion of Dunbarton-Fairport Church will be retained in situ. Its 19th-century exterior and interior features will be conserved. Further studies will determine the servicing and conservation strategies for the Site. Conclusion The proposal appropriately balances the planning and heritage conservation objectives for the Site. The potential impacts of the proposed development will be mitigated by design measures that will conserve the Site’s cultural heritage value, allowing it to continue to communicate its role as both a historic record of the Village of Dunbarton and a hub for community programming. - 17 - 1ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 1 rEport S copE ERA has been retained by Kindred Works to provide an HIA for the proposed redevelopment of 1066 Dunbarton Road (“the Site”). This report considers the impact of the proposed development on the built heritage resource (“BHR”), known as Dunbarton Fairport Church, on the Site. The purpose of an HIA, as per the 2022 draft Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference for the City of Pickering (Appendix A), 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, 2022). 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); • A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for Greater Golden Horseshoe (updated May 2022), • 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 (April 2022). Unless otherwise noted, all photographs were taken by ERA in 2022. 1. Dunbarton Fairport Church, South Elevation facing Dunbarton Road. - 18 - 2 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD 2 introduction to thE SubjEct propErt y 2.1 Site Description Located at 1066 Dunbarton Road, the Site contains a gabled brick building known as the Dunbarton Fairport Church, dating to 1877, constructed in a vernacular interpretation of the Gothic Revival style. Following a fire in 1973, the church was rehabilitated in the Post- Modern style by architect George Baird. His firm also built the “1974 Addition,” which provided additional administrative space to the church. This space was later extended, and terminated in an octagonal sanctuary, known overall as the “1985 Addition.” These additions used dichromatic brickwork to remain visually compatible with the 19th century fabric. The Site is located at the northwest corner of Dunbarton Road (previously Kingston Road) and Cloudberry Court, north Highway 401 in the City of Pickering. 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. Situated at the juncture of a major transportation route (Kingston Road), an important natural heritage feature (Dunbarton Creek and Ravine), and a historic maritime community (the Village of Fairport at Frenchman’s Bay), Dunbarton Fairport Church is a significant landmark that represents the unique identity of the past, present, and future of the building within the City of Pickering. With its damage by fire in 1973, and subsequent restoration that successfully integrated the old with the new, Dunbarton Fairport Church visually demonstrates its adaptability and ongoing transformation to suit the needs of its community. 1066 Dunbarton Road (“the Site”). 2. Aerial Map of 1066 Dunbar- ton Road (Bing, 2022, annotated by ERA) Estimated boundaries of the historic village of Dunbarton, which in- cludes the Site at 1066 Dunbarton Road. - 19 - 3ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 1877 fabric 1974 fabric 1985 fabric 3. Aerial map of Dunbar- ton Fairport Church (bing 2022, annotated by ERA). 4. Map showing the nearby listed propety on the City of Pickering’s Her- itage Register at 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road (Bing 2022, annotated by ERA). 1066 Dunbarton Road 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road - 20 - 4 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD 2.2 Site Context The Site’s surrounding context is broadly characterized by residential buildings, a ravine and other natural areas, and commercial development. It is situated north of Frenchman’s Bay, an inlet of Lake Ontario. The Site is located on a corner lot, having a total area of 0.78 hectares. The area surrounding the Site consists of predominantly low-rise residential uses, including single detached and townhouse dwellings, transitioning to low-rise commercial uses along Kingston Road to the south. A number of parks and open spaces are provided within the surrounding neighbourhood, and the Site is located within walking distance of a number of community facilities, places of worship, and shopping centres. North: Low-density residential uses, consisting of two-storey single detached and townhouse dwellings. East: Low-density residential uses are located along the east side of Dunbarton Road and along Cloudberry Court. Further east Kingston Road intersects with Dixie Road, and is predominantly comprised of commercial land uses, including the Brookdale Centre, and various retail and commercial uses. South: Low-density residential uses are located along the south side of Dunbarton Road, with Kingston Road and commercial/light industrial uses located immediately north of Highway 401. West: Low-density residential uses are located to the west along Dunbarton Road, including 2- and 3-storey single detached homes, along with small scale commercial uses. Low-density residential uses are the primary land use further to the west of the Site.1 1 MHBC, Planning Justification Report (May 2022 - Draft). 5. Topographic Map of the Site. Of note is the ravine to its west, and Frenchman’s Bay to its south (Bing 2022, an- notaetd by ERA). - 21 - 5ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 2.3 Dunbarton Neighbourhood The Site, while located within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood, are not subject to the Council adopted “Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development Guidelines.” The former Village of Dunbarton comprises the lands to the south and west of the Subject Lands, with several properties constructed in the mid-1800’s. The residential lands to the west of the Site were developed predominantly between 1900 and 1940, with the subdivision lands to the north and east of the Site developed in the 1980’s. The lands to the east of Dixie Road consist of a mix of single-detached, semi-detached, townhouse forms on varying lot sizes.2 2 MHBC, Planning Justification Report (May 2022 - Draft). 6. Dunbarton Neighbourhood Boundaries, with applicable development area guidelines indicated in the hashed section of the map. Note that the Site, highlighted in blue, is not within the City of Pickering’s Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development Guidelines (City of Picker- ing, 1996, annotated by ERA). 7. Detail, Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development Guidelines Area. Note that the Site, highlighted in blue, is beyond its peri- metre to the east. (City of Pickering, 1996, annotated by ERA). - 22 - 6 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD 8. Dunbarton Neighbourhood Precinct as defined in August 2020. Note that the Site, highlighted in blue, is excluded from the Neighbourhood. (City of Pickering, Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, Auugut 2020, annotated by ERA). - 23 - 7ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 2.4 Building History The Property (the “Site”) located at 1066 Dunbarton Road (Lot 25, Concession 1, City of Pickering) is the site of the Dunbarton-Fairport United Church (the “Church”), primarily constructed in three phases over the late 19th- to mid-late 20th centuries. Dunbarton Fairport Church is situated on a modest hill just northeast of historic Dunbarton Village’s main intersection at Dunbarton Road and Dunchurch Street. Retaining its original function as a religious institution, the Church currently serves its community as a daycare and community centre. As noted in the City of Pickering’s “Inventory of Heritage Resources,” the Site is considered to be important both in establishing the character of the historic Village of Dunbarton, while also exhibiting dominant landmark value due to its notable visibility due to the higher elevation of the east end of Dunbarton Road.3 The elevated presence of the church building emphasizes its primary sightlines within both historic and contemporary contexts. Situated at the juncture of a major transportation route, a significant natural heritage feature, and a historic maritime community, Dunbarton Fairport Church is a significant landmark that represents the unique identity of as a landmark of the Village of Dunbarton within the City of Pickering. With its damage by fire in 1973, and subsequent Post-Modern restoration by George Baird & Associates (1994) that successfully integrated the old with the new, Dunbarton-Fairport Church visually demonstrates its adaptability and ongoing transformation to suit the needs of its community. 3 J. Simonton and R. Unterman, “Dunbarton Fairport Church, 1066 Dunbarton Road – Field Sur- vey Form: Built Heritage Features,” City of Pickering – Inventory of Heritage Resources, 22 November 2001. 9. Dunbarton Fairport Church, South Elevation. Note the increasing slope of Dunbarton Road to the east, as well as the retaining wall from the regrading of the street in the 1960s. This image helps to visualize the original prominent situation of the church over Dunbarton Village. 10. Eastward view up Dunbarton Road from the intersetion of Dunbarton and Dunchurch Roads, which historically denoted the western perimetre of Dunbarton Village. The church building is situated on the peak of the upward slope of the historic thoroughfare. - 24 - 8 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD A church building has occupied the Site since 1854, and its initial construction comfortably blended a classical-inspired pediment-style gabled roofline with rather large-scale pointed arched lancet windows. Its central portal, featuring double- wooden doors, was also pointed, and appears to have been set back in the depth of the wall, allowing for a full pointed archway to enclose the entrance. It was symmetrical in its composition, creating tripartite divisions to the façade and side walls.4 The current 19th century section fronting Dunbarton Road dates to 1877. Its striking appearance can be partially attributed to the use of dichromatic brickwork to enhance its decorative details. Beyond this, the church is a straightforward timber frame construction on a stone foundation. The 19th century portion is characterized by a steep gabled roof, creating a distinctive peak to its southern and northern facades. The roof material has been updated to asphalt shingles. Initially constructed in the Gothic Revival style, notable features include the use of pointed arches for the main southern portal with its wooden double-doors, as well as the narrower lancet windows placed along the flanks of the northern and southern elevations.5 The bar tracery of the stained glass in the tympanum of the entrance portal features a large, central quatrefoil flanked by two trefoils fitted to the lunette shape. This is the only remaining stained glass dating to the 1886-1887 construction period.6 The decorative details of the church are further enhanced through the use of dichromatic brickwork, with red brick for the main façade material, and buff brick used to add alternating permanent polychrome voussoirs to the arches, all of which are capped by a buff-brick hoodmould. A double-banded buff brick stringcourse also connects the window arches and cut stone sills. This horizontal detailing serves to balance 4 Description generated from observation of the plate of the “Old Church” illustrated in William R. Wood, Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Com- munity, Toronto: William Briggs, 1911, between pages 46 and 47. 5 Simonton and Unterman, “Dunbarton Fairport Church.” 6 Diane Schillaci, The Memories Make History Don’t They…: the Story of Dunbarton Fairport Church and Erskine Presbyterian Church, 1986, 107. 11. Primary (south) facade, shown from a southwest angle to reveal the blend of 1877 masonry and 1974 glass. 12. South Porch, West View, revealing lost stained glass during the fire of 1973. Also note the decorative dichromatic brickwork. 13. Interior of Primary (south) facade porch, revealing original remaining glass encased in contemporary walls. - 25 - 9ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 the dominant verticality of the building as a whole. The bays are delineated by stepped pilaster buttresses, featuring cut stone caps. A rusticated cut-stone foundation enhances the dominant character of the building. The foundation was later pierced by segmental-arched windows, though care was taken to replicate the alternation of buff- and red-brick decorative detailing of the lancets. Following a fire in 1973, the foundation and remaining fabric were used to restore the church. In the following year, the insertion of glazing on the north and south elevations injected a Post-Modern aesthetic to the historic fabric. The vertical panels of glass reveal rather than conceal the devastating impact of the 1973 conflagration, yet also render an effective solution that, symbolically, highlights the strength of the building and the perseverance of its congregation. Designed by George Baird and Associates, the “1974 Restoration” retained the red brick, rectilinear footprint, and a gable roof of the 19th century fabric. Integrating old with new, Baird’s choice to feature a continuous glazing along the gabled roofline of the principal façades makes legible both the defining historical moment of the conflagration as well as his conscious restoration program. In doing so, Baird found a unique solution that served to enhance not only the church building’s historic presence, resilience, and adaptability, but also added to its legacy as a landmark. Baird’s work at Dunbarton Fairport United Church is considered to be the “first thoroughly postmodern project in Canada.” In seeking an innovating solution to the major damage that the fire caused to the 19th century fabric, “Baird and his team generated a solution that symbolically incorporated the memory of the fire through a dense layering of old and new elements.” With this restoration, Baird looked to the modernist principles outlined by Robert Venturi in his 1966 treatise, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. Venturi called for ‘inflection,’ a stance arguing that “visual phenomena – and by extension, buildings – are meaningfully only in the context of their surroundings.”7 7 Martino Stierli, “‘Complexity and Contradiction changed how we look at, think, and talk about architecture,” The Architec- tural Review, 22 December 2016, https://www.architectural-review. com/essays/books/complexity-and-contradiction-changed-how- we-look-at-think-and-talk-about-architecture, accessed 6 August 2022. 14. View from base of Primary (south) facade stairs, showing the relationship between the historical fabric and Baird’s glass. 15. Rear (north) facade, showing Baird’s inter- vention, albeit to a lesser extent, alongside the “1974 Addition.” 16. Interior to South, revealing Baird’s Post-Mod- ernist interventions that retain fire damaged wood and replacd masonry with glazing. - 26 - 10 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD In 1974, George Baird and Associates also designed a series of rectilinear spaces joining the eastern end of the elevation at a much lower profile. This “1974 Addition” provided clerical and administrative spaces to the church complex; however, they remained secondary to the original church building in scale and form, and were not visible from Dunbarton Road. While “the rebuilt sanctuary paid homage to Venturi’s call for complexity and contradiction, [the] concrete block annex – in Baird’s words –[was] “a rather deadpan addition” [that] reflected Baird’s notion that a “thoughtful ordinary” attitude is often appropriate.”8 As a result, the reconstruction of Dunbarton Fairport Church was “one of a family of modest but inventive Post-Modern projects that Baird completed in the early 1970s, displaying contextual specificity and multivalence.”9 8 Kenneth Frampton, Canadian Modern Architecture: A Fifty Year Retrospective, ed. Elsa Lam and Graham Livesey, Princeton Architectural Press: 2019, 188. 9 Frampton, Canadian Modern Architecture, 188. 17. Axonometric drawing of the 1974 rehabilitation and reconstruction by George Baird and Associates (Canadian Architectural Archives, University of Calgary). - 27 - 11ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 Evolving and adapting to its needs, in the 1980s, further additions with diminutive profiles expanded northeastward from Baird’s extensions to add much needed administrative, community, and sacred spaces, eventually connecting the rectilinear functional addition to a new hexagonal sanctuary. As with the 1974 buildings, the “1985 Addition” was made visually congruent with predominantly red brick exteriors along with buff brick detailing. As designed by Brown, Beck and Ross, the “1985 Addition” wraps around the property to the east, and is visible across a grassed area from Dunbarton road. As the building evolved beyond its original footprint, additions and alterations remained compatible in style, scale, and character. 18. Rear (North) facade, showing part of Baird’s “1974 Addition.”19. Charred timber left in situ during Baird’s Post-Modernist rehabilitation. 20. Southeast view across the lawn, revealing the “1985 Addition” of rectilinear spaces matching the scale and character of the “1974 Addition,” along with the more prominent octago- nal sanctuary space. - 28 - 12 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD A parking area extends around the west, north, and east façades of the “1985 Addition.” There are three access points from Dunbarton Road to the parking area: one to the west of the principal façade, and two others along the eastern face of the “1985 Addition.” The Site also includes a landscaped lawn, most prominently to its east, that is further characterized by an outdoor play area that accommodates the on-site daycare facility. This grassy area also features a sculpture (2009) created by Pickering artist and resident Dorsey James, stretching to a height of 32-feet high and width of 11-feet. Though massive in scale, the relief carving on the crucifix is minimal. Affording space to highlight the presence of the commissioning congregation, there are several additional carvings of names and messages. This reflects the ongoing relationship between the community and the Site, signaling an openness to continued growth and transformation. James’ sculpture will be reinstated on the Site within the proposed development. 22. North view of the 1877 church building, showing the extent of the parking area to the north and east of the buildings. 23. Landscaping to the east of the church buildings, including Dorsey James’ crucifix sculp - ture from 2009 24. Dorsey James Crucifix (2009) installed on the east lawn of Dunbarton Fairport Church. - 29 - 13ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 2.5 Site and Context Photographs 25. Primary (South) facade seen from a southeast angle. 26. South facade porch, east side fully in tact. 27. South facade porch, west side reveal- ing loss of glass during 1973 fire. - 30 - 14 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD 28. East facade of the 1877 church building, with contemporary daycare playground equipment on its east grounds to accommodate the community functionality of the space. 29. Southeast edge of the Site at the intersection of Dunbarton Road and Cloudberry Court. - 31 - 15ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 30. East view of the 1877 Church from street grade. Note the increased slope of the original situation of the historic church on an incline above the historic village of Dunbarton. 31. Southwest view of the 1877 Church. Note the existing driveway access to its west, and the concrete retaining wall that now disconnects the building from the historic thoroughfare. - 32 - 16 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD 32. Northwest view of the 1877 Church and part of the “1974 Addition.” 33. North entrance to the “1977 Addition.” Note its basic rectilinear forms and low profiles in com- parison to the original church building. - 33 - 17ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 34. Octagonal sanctuary of the “1985 Addition.” 35. Entrance to the “1985 Addition.” - 34 - 18 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD 2.6 Heritage Status On-Site Heritage Resources The Site is neither listed nor designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. It is recognized as a built heritage resource (“BHR”) on the City of Pickering’s Inventory of Heritage Resources (2001). It categorizes the building’s function as institutional and notes its continued functionality as a religious building. The Inventory dates the two-storey church building broadly to 1860-1900, and situates it within both the Gothic Revival and Neo-Classical styles. The church is described as gable fronted, with a dichromatic brick construction using a common bond. The roof has asphalt shingles. The Inventory also includes the following description of notable features: “cut stone foundation; entry porch on front/south elevation with quatrefoil-stained glass window and double wood doors; buff brick voussoirs and banding; four lancet windows and buttresses with stone caps along each side.” As a result of the fire, the building is considered to be much altered with the “Restoration” impacting the roof and main elevations. The Inventory describes the “integrity of the associated landscape” as altered, however, it ranks in the top category for ‘Group Value,’ indicating that the Church is important in establishing the character of the historic Village of Dunbarton. Similarly, it has ‘Dominant’ landmark value due to its high visibility on the eastern end of Dunbarton Road.1 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. 2.7 Owner’s Contact Information Kindred Works 8 King St. E, Unit 1802 Toronto, ON M5C 1B5 T: 416-618-2097 1 Simonton and Unterman, “Dunbarton Fairport Church.” Adjacent: for the purposes of policy 2.6.3, those lands continguous to a protected heritage property or otherwise defined in 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. - 35 - 19ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 2.8 Heritage Policy Framework 2.8.1 Planning Act 2 (d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest. 2.8.2 Provincial Policy Statement The PPS guides the creation and implementation of planning policy across Ontario municipalities, and provides a framework for the conservation of heritage resources, including the following relevant policies: 1.7.1 Long-term economic prosperity should be supported by: e) encouraging a sense of place, by promoting welldesigned built form and cultural planning, and by conserving features that help define character, including built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes; 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved*. 2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved*. 2.8.3 A Place to Grow: Groth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe The Growth Plan, 2019 is the Province of Ontario’s initiative to plan for growth and development in a way that supports economic prosperity, protects the environment, and helps communities achieve a high quality of life. Section 1.2.1 of Guiding Principles includes: Conserve and promote cultural heritage resources to support the social, economic, and cultural well-being of all communities, including First Nations and Métis communities. With the objective of “protecting what is valuable”, Section 4.2.7 of the Growth Plan, 2019 states: 1. Cultural heritage resources will be conserved in order to foster a sense of place and benefit communities, particularly in strategic growth areas. Conserved: the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommen- dations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/ or heritage impact assessment that has been approved, accepted or adopted by the relevant planning authority and/or decision- maker. Mitigative measures and/ or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments (PPS, 2020). Adjacent lands: d) for the purposes of policy 2.6.3, those lands contiguous to a protected heritage property or as otherwise defined in the municipal official plan (PPS, 2020) Built heritage resource: a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Indigenous community. Built heritage resources are located on property designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or that may be included on local, provincial, federal and/or international registers (PPS, 2020). Significant: e) in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act (PPS, 2020) - 36 - 20 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD 2.8.4 Durham Region Official Plan Section 2 relates to the environment and provides the goal “to preserve and foster the attributes of communities and the historic and cultural heritage of the Region.” Cultural heritage policies include: 2.2.11 The conservation, protection and/or enhancement of Durham’s built and cultural heritage resources is encouraged. 2.3.49 Regional Council shall encourage Councils of the area municipalities to utilize the Ontario Heritage Act to conserve, protect, and enhance the built and cultural heritage resources of the municipality, to establish Municipal Heritage Committees to consult regarding matters relating to built and cultural heritage resources planning, and the designation of heritage conservation district and properties provided for n the Ontario Heritage Act. 2.8.5 City of Pickering Official Plan Chapter 8 - Cultural Heritage As Pickering evolves over the next twenty years, it is important that people maintain a sense of continuity with the past. 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. Cultural heritage is much more than features or attributes from the distant past (such as the City’s many natural features resulting from glaciation) or more recent past (such as archaeological resources, century-old heritage homes and the Civic Complex). Each period in time is important for its contribution to cultural heritage. As well, the features and resources of today will be Pickering’s cultural heritage of the future. Cultural heritage should be viewed, therefore, as a continuum; with a past, a present and a future. Like a community, cultural heritage evolves slowly over time. The cultural heritage strategy for Pickering acknowledges this “living heritage.” Cultural Heritage Goal 8.1 City Council shall respect its cultural heritage, and conserve and integrate important cultural heritage resources from all time periods into the community. Cultural heritage includes: archaeological sites and resources; buildings and structural remains of historical, architectural, natural and contextual value; shipwreck sites; traditional use areas; rural districts and settlements; urban neighbourhoods; cultural landscapes of historic interest; and signifi- cant views, vistas and ridge lines. More broadly, cultural heritage comprises every- thing produced and left by the people of a given time and geographic area, the sum of which represents their cultural identity. This includes their folklore, rituals, art, handicrafts, equipment, tools, communications, transportation, buildings, furnishings and dwellings.(City of Pickering Official Plan, Edition 9, Chapter 8). - 37 - 21ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 Cultural Heritage Objectives 8.2 City Council shall: (a) identify important cultural heritage resources from all time periods, so that they can be appropriate conserved and integrated into the community fabric, including: i. significant heritage structures, features and sites; ii. buildings, sites, and artifacts of historical, archaeological and architectural significance including modern or recent architecture; iii. significant landscape features and characteristics, including vistas and ridge lines; and iv. other locally important cultural heritage resources; (b) foster public awareness and appreciation of the City’s cultural heritage; (c) prevent the demolition, destruction or inappropriate alteration of important cultural heritage resources to the extent possible; (d) where possible, restore, rehabilitate, maintain and enhance important cultural heritage resources owned by the City, and encourage the same for those owned by others; (e) where possible, ensure development, infrastructure, capital works and other private and public projects conserve, protect and enhance important cultural heritage resources; and (f) involve the public, business-people, landowners, local heritage experts, heritage committees, relevant public agencies, and other interested groups and individuals in cultural heritage decisions affecting the City.” Guidelines for Use and Reuse 8.9 City Council shall consider the following guidelines on the use and reuse of heritage resources: (a) maintain, if possible, the original use of heritage structures and sites, and if possible, retain the original location and orientation of such structures; (b) where original uses cannot be maintained, support the adaptive reuse of heritage structures and sites to encourage resource conservation. - 38 - 22 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD 3 bacKGround rESE arch and anaLySiS 3.1 Historical Context The Site is located on Lot 25, Concession 1, in the City of Pickering,1 Ontario. Its current municipal address is 1066 Dunbarton Road. 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 Indigenous trade, trave,l 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 was located near 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 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.2 Over 20,000 years ago, a massive glacier called the Laurentide Ice Sheet covered most of Canada. As it began to melt and retreat, eventually, huge basins and waterways gouged by the ice helped to create the distinctive geography of the area now known as the Great Lakes region. More specifically, the area now known as Pickering has a history that extends back over thousands of years to the creation of Lake Iroquois. While the Lake’s shoreline found some definition, both drainage and isostatic rebound impacted the development of the dramatic land features that still remain distinct in southern Ontario. Bounded by Lake Iroquois to the south, and the Oak Ridges Moraine to the north, the area that became Pickering has a rich glacial, geological, and ecological heritage.3 1 For a detailed history of the founding of Pickering, see William McKay, The Pickering Story, 1961, 77 - Laserfiche WebLink (pickering.ca), accessed 7 August 2021. 2 Samantha Irvine and Phillip Evans, “1970-1980 Brock Road. 1670-1680 Kingston Road, Pickering,” ERA Architects Inc., Heritage Impact Assessment, Issued November 24, 2020, Revised 3 Daniel Sellers, Prehistoric Toronto: Glacial Lake Iroquois, 28 March 2022, https://torontoist.com/2012/03/prehistoric-toron- to-glacial-lake-iroquois/#:~:text=Lake%20Iroquois%20formed%20 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 re- gion. It should also be emphasized that the relationship of Indigenous Peoples to this land is not solely based in the past, and the area encompassed by Pickering, Ontario within Turtle Island is still home to many Indigenous Peoples. 36. Map of Archaeological Sites in the Site’s Proximity (Pickering Library, n.d; annotated by ERA). - 39 - 23ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 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. Such was the case for the eventual establishment of Dunbarton and Fairport Villages in proximity to Frenchman’s Bay. Initial Colonial Settlement Subject to colonial settlement, the French made initial contact with the Seneca peoples in the 17th century. Ganatsetiagon 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.4 The Arrival of the Mississauga of Scugog Island First Nation, c.1700 5 Around the year 1700, the Mississauga of Scugog Island First Nation moved into southern Ontario from their former homeland north of Lake Huron. A branch of the greater Ojibwa Nation, one of the largest native groups in Canada, the Mississauga people in%20the,Lawrence%20River%20had%20disappeared, ac- cessed 6 August 2022. 4 Sabean, “A capsule history.” The Indigenous peoples also introduced the concept of agriculture to the area, growing the ‘Three Sisters’ – corn, beans, and squash. This was con- firmed via archaeological excavation at the Miller Site during the 1950s, and the evidence found dated back to c.1125. See John W. Sabean, Time Past and Present: A Pictorial History of Pickering, Pickering: Altona Editions, 2000, 14. 5 This section is excerpted from the “Origin and History” section of the Mississauga of Scugog Island First Nation’s web- site, see www.scugogfirstnation.com, ND, accessed 6 August 2022. 37. Physiography of the South Central Portion of south- ern Ontario (Ontario 1984) 38. 1673 Rouge Trail Map, Louis Jolliet (University of Toronto). 39. Detail, Map of Ontario, J.H. Beers and Co., 1877. Note the relationship between Dunbarton Village (blue) and Frenchman’s Bay (yellow), as well as the bisecting line of the Grand Trunk Railway (York University). - 40 - 24 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD secured all their needs from the surrounding environment (“Mother Earth”); hunting, fishing ,and harvesting plant materials for food and medicines. The Mississauga flourished in this paradise for nearly a century until the British arrived, having just lost the American War of Independence, flooding north into Upper Canada seeking new land. The Williams Treaties Although it remains a home for many Indigenous Peoples, the City of Pickering is part of the lands associated with the “Williams Treaties.”6 Signed in 1923 by the Governments of Ontario and First Nations, this agreement was extremely disadvantageous to the Seven First Nations of the Chippewa of Lake Simcoe (Beausoleil, Georgina Island, and Rama); and the Mississauga of the North Shore of Lake Ontario (Alderville, Curve Lake, Hiawatha, and Scugog Island). The area encompassed by the Williams Treaties was known to contain land that was bountiful in resources: it featured unspoiled wetlands, forests with game and fur animals, abundant waterfowl and fish, and wild rice that grew in the shallow waters. Transferring approximately 20,000km² of land, this was the last historic land cession to the Crown in South Central Ontario. In exchange, Indigenous signatories received nominal one-time cash payments. Dunbarton Fairport United Church is situated on colonial ‘Lot 23,’ as surveyed by Augustus Jones, within the lands encompassed by the Williams Treaties. It was constructed to serve the settling Presbyterian community, and found value in its situation on the traditional Indigenous route of Kingston Road and overseeing Frenchman’s Bay, rooted in Indigenous settlement patterns and exploiting its natural resources. Early Development of Villages in 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 6 For a transcript and archival image record of the Williams Treaties, as signed on 31 October and 15 November 1923 by seven An- ishinaabe First Nations and Representatives of the Crown, see https:// shared.ontariotechu.ca/shared/department/student-life/indigenous/ treaties-recognition-week-2020/history-of-williams-treaties.pdf, 24 April 2018, updated 13 January 2022, accessed 7 August 2022. - 41 - 25ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 lines and sideroads. The earliest settlement along the Kingston Road in the Township of Pickering was the Village of Duffin’s Creek, c.1800, which eventually became Pickering Village. By 1808, the population of Pickering had increased to 180.7 Within another two years, a “considerable influx of settlers to Pickering Township occurred when Timothy Rogers, a native of Vermont, brought a number of Quaker families from New York State; all Loyalists who accepted the Crown’s offer for land in Upper Canada following the American Revolutionary War.8 The first north-south thoroughfare, Brock Road, opened in 1808, and along with it, communities such as Altona, Whitevale, and Cherrywood began to be settled.9 The village was incorporated as a township in 1811, and by 1817, its first general store had been established. Pickering Village was located at the juncture of Kingston Road and the 2nd Concession Road (today’s 7 W. Briggs, Ten Years of Upper Canada, 1890, 28. 8 Sabean, “A capsule history.” 9 Parslow Heritage Consultancy Inc., “Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report – 450 Finch Avenue, Part Lot 31, Concession 2, Geographical Township of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham,” Pro- ject Number PHC-2019-1056, 26 May 2020, https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/resources/devapp/ A1020/Cultural-Heritage-Evaluation-Report.pdf, accessed 6 August 2022. 40. Map of Williams Treaties that encompass the lands currently known as Pickering. (https://williamstreatiesfirstna- tions.ca/) - 42 - 26 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD Finch Avenue). Surveyor Thomas Ridout drew a rough map in 1823 to indicate which lands in Pickering Township had been allocated.10 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. Along with the saw and grist mills established in these communities to serve the surrounding areas’ agricultural needs, forestry soon became an important industry in Pickering Township. Frenchman’s Bay was ideally suited to imports and exports, being large enough for ships to enter, and as early as 1843, the bay was dredged to increase its capacity to admit even larger ships.11 The Historic Village of Dunbarton In 1831, William Dunbar (1786-1869) arrived in Canada from Scotland, and in 1840, he purchased lands along Kingston Road, west of Dixie Road in Pickering Township.12 It was Dunbar’s settlement that gave the Village of Dunbarton its name. The Village was located along Kingston Road (now called Dunbarton Road in this area), and had access to the adjoining harbour and Frenchman’s Bay. Dunbar was also a key contributor to the “Pickering Harbour Company,” establishing an early connection that linked Dunbarton with the community growing at Frenchman’s Bay.13 The intention was for the Pickering Harbour Company to making Frenchman’s Bay a suitable rival to Whitby Harbour.14 He was considered to have taken a “practical interest in everything concerning the welfare of the community.” Subsequent members of the Dunbar family remained in the Village of Dunbarton, achieving success as in blacksmithing and business.15 10 Sabean, Time Present and Time Past, 15. 11 Irvine and Evans, “1970-1980 Brock Road.” 12 Ontario Land Records. 13 Wood, Past Years in Pickering, 235. 14 McKay, The Pickering Story, 110-111. 15 Wood, Past Years in Pickering, 235. 41. Pickering, County of Ontario, 1950 (Depart- ment of Lans and Forests, Ontario Archives). - 43 - 27ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 The former historic Village of Dunbarton is located at the southeastern point of the Dunbarton Neighbourhood, just east of Dunbarton Creek. The former village was bound by the Creek’s vegetation, the ravine, and the natural bend in Dunbarton Road to its west, while Dunbarton-Fairport United Church delineated its the eastern perimeter. The village was established around 1840, and quickly grew to have three general stores, a saddler, two carpenters, a tailor, a leather dealer, a hotel keeper, and a teacher. The Grand Trunk Railway developed along the north shoreline of the lakeshore, snaking its way across Pickering in 1855-1856. When its first passenger train travelled from Toronto to Oshawa, each station celebrated its arrival, which signalled a “new era of prosperity for the township” of Pickering.”16 Weaving its way from Lake Ontario to the west of Dunbarton-Fairport Church, Dunbarton Creek marks a significant feature of Pickering’s Natural Heritage System. In their “Dunbarton Neighbourhood Profile,” the City of Pickering notes that the Creek provides “a 16 McKay, The Pickering Story, 111. 42. Township of Pickering, Ontario County Atlas, 1877 (https://digital.library.mcgill.ca/countyatlas/searchmapframes. php). The Village of Dunbarton is highlighted in blue. - 44 - 28 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD 43. Ontario County Map, Detail, (https://maps.library.utoronto.ca/hgis/ countymaps/ontario/index.html.bak). The Village of Dunbarton is highlighted in blue. Note the relationship between Dunbarton Village and Frenchman’s Bay, as well as the bisecting line of the Grand Trunk Railway (York University). 44. Historic Photograph of the Grand Trunk Station servicing Dunbarton, n.d. (PIckering Librar). - 45 - 29ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 habitat for flora and fauna, [and that] parts of the ravine are densely forested, providing a scenic setting to the adjacent residential dwellings.”17 Though sparse, a few buildings remain extant and help to establish the mid- to late-19th century context of the historic Village of Dunbarton. Situated at the northeast corner of Dunbarton and Dunchurch Roads, the property located 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road, is listed on the City of Pickering’s Heritage Register, and represents is a definitive remnant of the past commercial centre of the Village. Since painted, the original combined storefront and residence made use of similar dichromatic brickwork and stone detailing for its major structural and decorative features. Dating to c.1886, 18the domestic portion is a vernacular Victorian style, while the storefront has a façade that is both classical and Italianate in character due to the emphasis on the corbel table and simple architrave. As seen on a postcard dated to 30 December 1914, this building was previously the home and shop of George Falconer Sadler. 17 City of Pickering, “Dunbarton Neighbourhood.” 18 City of Pickering, Municipal Heritage Register, June 2021, https://www.pickering.ca/en/city- hall/resources/Municipal-Heritage-Register-June-2021-ACC.pdf, accessed 7 August 2022. 45. Remnants of the historic Village of Dunbarton, residential row of houses on the south side of Dunbarton Road to the west of Dunbarton Fairport Church. - 46 - 30 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD 46. Former home and shop of George Falconer Sad- ler, a key shop servicing the historic Village of Dunbarton, c.1910 (Pickering Library) 47. Former home and shop of George Falconer Sadler, 2001 (George Dunbar, c/o Pickering Library). 48. Southwest view towards the inter- section of Dunbarton and Dunchurch Roads, showing the former home/shop of Sadler, and the former Lynde & Son shop. - 47 - 31ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 49. Former shop on the southwest corner of Dunbarton and Dunchurch Roads, marking the key intersection of the historic Village of Dunbarton. 50. 20th century image of Lynde & Son Shop (Time Past and Present). 51. View of the ravine that marks the western edge of the historic Village of Dunbarton. - 48 - 32 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD Another commercial building dominates the southwest corner of Dunbarton and Dunchurch Road. Known in the mid-20th century as Lynde’s Store, Pickering historian John Sabean indicates that a previous store, known as Morrish’s, sat on the site until it was lost to a fire around 1943.19 The modest residence at 1035 Dunbarton Road displays a plaque indicating a construction date c.1860. It appears to be built in a vernacular Georgian style, with a simple geometric transom over the central door, flanked by two nine- over nine- windows. It is clad in horizontal siding, painted yellow, with a dormer jutting prominently on the left-hand side of the cross- gabled roof. Based on this visual analysis, it is possible that the residence at 1039 Dunbarton Road, immediately adjacent to 1035 Dunbarton, was constructed at the same time. Though painted, its brickwork showcases some affronted detailing over the central portal and large 16-panelled windows. Its dormer is a bit more centralized. Rounding out the domestic and congregational context of the historic Village of Dunbarton is 1051 Dunbarton Road, mirroring its style more on the listed residence just down the road. It has a sharp central gable with two one- over one-windows that appear to have had arched detailing at one time. Now completely covered in stucco, the façade reveals four historic windows. A historic photograph published in Sabean’s photographic history of Pickering illustrates the eastern view up Dunbarton Road, connecting the mixed residential and commercial core of the historic Village of Dunbarton to the Church, which is just visible on the left-hand side of the image. This photograph also details the gradual slope of Dunbarton Road as it increases in elevation westward, and, in turn, highlights the elevated situation of the Church over its congregation. In 1896, the Pickering News featured a column on the Village of Dunbarton, and noted that “the situation is pleasant, having the beautiful bay with its harbour in front, and the wide stretching lake beyond. The locality is healthy, the surrounding country fertile, while its inhabitants alike in enterprise and intelligence will favourably compare with those of any community.”20 19 Sabean, Time Present and Time Past, 22 20 “Dunbarton,” The Pickering News, vol. XV no. 24. 52. 1035 & 1039 Dunbarton Road. 53. 1051 Dunbarton Road (Google Maps, 2022). - 49 - 33ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 The Major Thoroughfare of Kingston Road Looking west from its corner perch, Dunbarton-Fairport United Church once marked the sacred centre of Dunbarton Village along the route of Kingston Road,21 which now runs parallel to the south of Dunbarton Road. Kingston Road was established as an early inter- community highway between 1796-1815.22 It is still possible to visualize this stop on the key thoroughfare that connected Toronto eastward through agricultural settlements to other major cities such as Kingston and Montreal. This route has prehistoric and Indigenous foundations as a natural pathway that formed at the end of the Ice Ages along the Lake Iroquois shoreline (now known as the ‘Escarpment’). As the ice sheets receded to form creeks and rivers, it is believed that the prehistoric animals first established the route, followed by humans hunting game with access to the water. 22 Irvine and Evans, “1970-1980 Brock Road.” 54. Kingston Road looking west, 1910. Note Dunbarton Fairport Church on the hill to the left. (Picker- ing Library). - 50 - 34 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD This route was used for at least 10,000 years of Indigenous history, followed by 200 years during the French Regime, and most heavily utilized during the British Regime. Kingston road is considered to be the “oldest known [Indigenous] trail, as well as the oldest road with its own history,”23 thus elevating its importance to the region. This situates Dunbarton-Fairport Church as a prominent landmark signifying the continued use of the historic topographical route. In the decades that followed, colonial settlers established villages, farmhouses, hotel taverns and institutions along its length. During the post-WWII rise of the automobile and suburbanization, the street began to see increased residential and commercial development, and a resulting increase in vehicle traffic. Kingston Road’s earlier rural and agricultural character was eroded as the street transitioned to a suburban corridor.24 23 Toronto Historical Association, “Dundas/Davenport/Kingston Road,” Storied Toronto, 2018- 2020, http://www.torontohistory.net/dundas-davenport-kingston-road/, accessed 2 August 2022. 24 Irvine and Evans, “1970-1980 Brock Road.” 55. Map of Kingston Road within Upper Canada, 1818 (Toronto Public Library). - 51 - 35ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 56. Village of Dunbarton Looking East on Kingston (Dunbarton) Road, early 1920s. Note the presence of Dunbarton Fairport Church on the northern hill. (Dun- barton Fairport Facebook). 57. East view up Main Street (Kingston/Dunbarton Road), n.d. Note the relationship between Dunbarton Fairport Church, visible on the left, and how it oversaw the historic Village of Dunbarton. (Time Past and Present, 35). 58. Old Kingston Road looking east, c.1930 (Pickering Library). - 52 - 36 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD Dunbarton Presbyterian Church In 1831, William Dunbar, a native of St. Andrews, Scotland, purchased 100 acres of thickly wooded land from the Crown, and laid the foundations of the Village of Dunbarton. Experiencing a phenomenal period of growth, with an influx of colonial settlers arriving from both the United Kingdom as well as Loyalists fleeing America, the Village of Dunbarton needed a spiritual centre. Whether fleeing America, or putting their hopes and dreams into a new beginning in Upper Canada, the pioneering colonialists saw potential and positivity in their new home. According to Diane Schillaci, in her text “The Memories Make History, Don’t They…: The Story of Dunbarton-Fairport United Church and Erskine Presbyterian Church,” the Church in the Village of Dunbarton was formed not only as a “place of prise and exhortation to their God to guide them in their daily lives, it formed a framework for their social lives and provided a place at which they could congregate to visit and gossip with neighbours seldom seen during the busy week.”25 Immediately, it becomes apparent that the Church, as established in c.1835, represented both a beacon and an anchor to a newly developing community. This argument is reinforced by an excerpt from The Pickering News (3 April 1896). Seeing fit to honour William Dunbar (Esq.), 50 years after his founding of the Village of Dunbarton, the News recounts how Dunbar made his home in Pickering despite the often treacherous and challenging travel routes of Kingston Road and the Rouge River.26 Initially, Presbyterian church services for this community were held at a small schoolhouse known as ‘Squire’s Ley,’ owned by ‘Squire’ Francis Ley, just east of historic Pickering Village. In 1851-2, the Congregation decided to build a church, however, its already divisive nature resulted in a permanent split lasting roughly 30 years before they once again reunited. Some members supported the construction of a church on land acquired by Alexander Ferguson at the southwest angle of Lot 26 on the Second Concession. This became Erskine Presbyterian Church. 25 Diane Schillaci, “The Memories Make History Don’t They…: The Story of Dunbarton-Fairport United Church and Erskine Presbyterian Church,” 1986, https:// corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/ElectronicFile. aspx?docid=171420&dbid=0, accessed 7 August 2022, 1. 26 “Dunbarton,” The Pickering News, vol. XV no. 24. 59. Cyclists’ Roadmap of the County of York, including Portions of Peel and Simcoe. This map also shows the rail and road connections by the end of the 19th century between York/ Toronto and PIckering, 1898. (York University). - 53 - 37ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 Other members opposed the decision to locate the building on the 2nd concession, in 1853, and continued with their plans to build their church on Kingston Road. William Dunbar offered one quarter of an acre of his apple orchard that would allow for the building to be situated on a hill. The building was designed to accommodate 250 people with a footprint of approximately 45 by 35 feet. The church was to be constructed using local contractors: Murdoch McKenzie, carpentry; Andrew Hubbar, lumber supply; A. Archibald, masonry; and John McKeggie, who agreed to supply 75,000 bricks manufactured at Mr. Boswick’s brickyard. Further splintering the Dunbarton Congregation from the group at Erskine, an official disjunction to separate the two was granted in 1854. This allowed for members from Canton, located westward in Pickering Village, to unite with those at Kingston Road. Consequently, in January of 1854, the church in Village of Dunbarton became Dunbarton and Canton Presbyterian Church. On 2 May 1854, the church building was fully completed, and officially opened on 21 May 1854 by Rev. Dr. Taylor and Rev. Wm. Ormiston. Retaining his close relationship to the church building on his land, William Dunbar Sr. agreed to provide lumber in 1861 to support the motion to lower the crows’ nest pulpit and to erect a platform in front of it. Increasing the strength of their denomination, in 1874 the union between the Canadian Presbyterian Church and the Church of Scotland was accepted. IIn 1886, the Village of Dunbarton experienced growth – a two-room school was erected along with a post office, and several merchants opened commercial operations. As a result, the church building was no longer adequate, and “the building of a new church was considered to be of the utmost importance.” This moment in the history of the Site once again emphasizes the bonded relationship between the historic Village of Dunbarton its Church. The building needed to physically contain the membership, while also acting as a legible landmark anchoring their growing community. Intended to seat between 270 and 280 people, the new church building in the Village of Dunbarton had a rectilinear footprint of 52 by 36 feet. Again, its construction was rooted in community cooperation: the men of Dunbarton tore down the old building, 60. Erskine Church, c. 1850s (Wood, Past Years in Pickering). 61. Dunbarton Church, c.1860s (Wood, Past Years in Pickering). - 54 - 38 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD and, in 1887, the new Gothic Revival style Church was opened.27 The final years of the 1800s were prosperous for Dunbarton Presbyterian, with a Youth’s Association forming to host community meetings for both business and entertainment purposes. On 3 April 1896, The Pickering News provided a short description of Dunbarton Presbyterian Church: Prominent as it every ought to be, stands the church, a commodious and substantial brick building, belonging to the Presbyterians, while the outskirts is the goodly brick school house. The spiritual and the intellectual are wisely cared for. The locality is while its inhabitants alike in enterprise and intelligence will favourably compare with those of any other community.28 With Canada at war in 1915, the congregation numbers had grown but monetary contributions declined. Despite this, it was possible to make improvements to the building and manse. By the end of the war, the Church’s congregation had grown to its greatest number to date with 128 members.29 From Dunbarton Presbyterian to Dunbarton United Along with other churches across the country, in 1925, Dunbarton joined the ‘United Church,’ which represented the Union of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the Methodist Church in Canada, and the Congregational Church in Canada. Thus, on 10 June 1925, Dunbarton Presbyterian Church officially became Dunbarton United Church. The manse building was sold to fundraise for a new brick manse. 27 Schillaci, “The Memories Make History, Don’t They,” 15-31. 28 “Dunbarton,” The Pickering News, vol. XV no. 24. 29 Schillaci, “The Memories Make History, Don’t They,” 32-39. 62. Dunbarton Church, c. 1920s (Schillaci, The Memories Make History, Don’t They). - 55 - 39ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 In 1928, William Dunbar offered to sell the Church 30 feet of land to its north, and the full length of the lot from the west to east. The Site expanded its footprint, while allowing Dunbar to retain his driveway. With the increase in automobile ownership, many drivesheds were removed at this time. In 1930, William Dunbar, the third generation of his family to support Dunbarton Church, died, and membership seemed to decrease in turn.30 By 1945, however, membership was up again, as many city dwellers sought out rural life in the Township of Pickering. This resulted in more building on the Site and improvements to the existing church. An annex to the rear of the building was considered to add a back access to the basement, with plans also to include a cistern for tap water and an interior and exterior facelift with paint. In 1950, with booming congregational growth across the United Church, Dunbarton became a single charge. Honouring its Centennial in 1954, membership of Dunbarton United Church grew to 190, and included several active groups and societies that were committed to fundraising for its support. This allowed not only for the back entrance annex to be built, but also for a kitchen to be added with a new gas furnace for the building.31 Once again, the community rallied in support of the Church, recognizing its long history as a beacon for the Village of Dunbarton. Although the Grand Trunk Railway weaved its way across the northern shore of Lake Ontario in the mid-late 19th century,32 in 1959, the community in the Village of Dunbarton received letters from the Canadian National Railroad (CNR). The CNR intended to expropriate several properties along their proposed 30 Schillaci, “The Memories Make History, Don’t They,” 40-41. 31 Fundraising groups included: W.A., On-We-Go, Young Peoples’ Association, Sunday School, Women’s Missionary Society, Mission Band, Baby Band, Boy Scouts, Cubs, Girl Guides, see Schillaci, “The Memories Make History, Don’t They,” 42-43 32 For a detailed history of the Grand Trunk Railway, see, Adam Peltenburg, “Grand Trunk Railway,” Toronto His- torical Association, https://www.trha/history/railways/grand- trunk-railway/, 2021, accessed 7 August 2022. 63. Marjorie Stroud in front of the old manse for Dunbarton United Church, c.1944 (Sabean, Time Past and Present). - 56 - 40 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD new line. In 1960, the Congregation agreed, and the CNR began clearing its path. They set fire to several buildings, including the manse, and several other residences and buildings. With the destruction of so many homes in the Village of Dunbarton, the Church became isolated on its plot of land.33 Members of Dunbarton United Church’s congregation were forced to relocate, some moving far enough away to sever their ties completely with the Church. At the same time, a new community known as ‘Bay Ridges’ was in development just south of Highway 401. Offering low down payments for its modest brick bungalows, young couples jumped at the opportunity to own their first homes. At the beginning of the 1960s, the construction of the new CNR line, related road detours, building demolitions, and the abandonment of homes posed a challenge for Dunbarton United. In the mid-1960s, however, membership was on the rise and the Site once again grew with the acquisition of an additional parcel of land, 88 feet in depth, from John and W.B. Dunbar to accommodate a parking area. In 1968, the Church was updated to receive running water, bathroom facilities, and a new water heater. At the same time, the central aisle was adjusted, and new pews were installed. In 1969, a portable building that was previously used as a one-room schoolhouse on Bayly Street was relocated to the Site to resolve overcrowding issues in the Sunday School. It was opened for use in 1971. A major turning point in the history of the Site and its ecclesiastical buildings occurred in January of 1973, when the 86-year-old Church was gutted by fire. Firefighters arrived at the scene to find fire hoses frozen on the church. Ultimately, faulty wiring in an outdated electrical system was determined to be the cause of the fire.34 Uniting Dunbarton & Fairport The connection between the historic villages of Dunbarton and Fairport, with the latter situated on Frenchman’s bay, have their 33 Schillaci, “The Memories Make History, Don’t They,” 44. 34 Schillaci, “The Memories Make History, Don’t They,” 45-53. 64. Guidal Map, c.1977 (Sabean, Time Past and Present). Note the major disconnect caused between Dunbarton and Fairport Villages due to the CNR constuction. - 57 - 41ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 root in Indigenous land uses and routes. The establishment of the Village of Dunbarton and the Harbour at Frenchman’s Bay were connected through the efforts of village founder William Dunbar.35 With its elevation on a modest hill on Kingston Road, the Village of Dunbarton’s Church would have had a visual connection with the harbour community to its south. As early as 1920, it considered annexing the church in Fairport, and into the 1960s, they Dunbarton and Fairport United Churches shared a minister. The Fairport portable church built at Douglas Avenue became an extended space for community use by Dunbarton’s congregation. Presbyterian Historian and Minister (Claremont) William R. Wood, provides an evocative description that enhances our understanding of the relationship of the Church in the Village of Dunbarton to its historic geographical context: Crossing the Grand Trunk southwards, on the Liverpool Sideroad you reach the crest of the hill in a few moments, and if at all you have eyes to see, you are compelled to look. Behind you, on the right, half hidden in its leafy maples, lies the Village of Dunbarton, with its little arch-towered brick church on the hill. On the left, a little farther removed is Pickering Village, anciently known as Duffin’s Creek – with the world-famous college on its fine site adjacent, while beyond the view extends thirty miles north-eastwards to the Uxbridge hills. Southward on the right lies the triangular expanse of the Bay, glassy smooth, reflecting the clouds above and the varied green of the opposite shore. On the left, rich green field succeed one another to where beyond the Point the lake shore bends away to the eastward. In front of Lake Ontario gleams shoreless to the horizon.36 35 “Dunbarton,” The Pickering News, vol. XV no. 24. 36 Wood, Past Years in Pickering, 12-13. 65. Bay Ridges, 1960. (Pickering Library). Note Frenchman’s Bay and its extremely flat topog- raphy. Before the introdution of the CNR and Highway 401, the relationship between Fairport and Dunbarton would have been readily visible. - 58 - 42 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD 66. Frenchman’s Bay from Kingston Road, n.d. (Pickering Library). 67. Detail, J.H Beers & Co. Map of Ontario, 1877 (University of To - ronto). Although the Grand Trunk Railway seems prominent, it would not have been a major barrier between Dunbarton and Frenchman’s Bay. It connected rather than displaced the communities as with the later ad- ditions of the CNR and HWY 401. 68. On the Beach, Frenchman’s Bay, Ont, n.d. (Picker- ing Library). Note the embedded caption indicating that Dunbarton Village is visible on the horizon. 69. Frenchman’s Bay, 1890 (Pickering Library. - 59 - 43ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 This perspective from 1911 allows us to see the relationship between historic villages, streetscapes, and landmarks prior to the boom of suburban development in the mid-20th century. Significantly, Wood’s description reinforces the connection between the Village of Dunbarton to the south towards Fairport and Frenchman’s Bay, and westward to sightlines in Pickering Village. Dunbarton Creek and Ravine historically bounded the eastern edge of the Village of Dunbarton, rather than having a prominent central disposition in contemporary Dunbarton Neighbourhood. After the fire at Dunbarton United, in 1973, Rev. Bayliss issued a proposal to the members of the Fairport Congregation, asking them to consider a permanent union, to which they agreed. As such, Dunbarton United became Dunbarton-Fairport United Church at this time.37 A New Era for Dunbarton Fairport Church: 1973-Present 38 Following the fire, architectural firm George Baird and Associates were chosen to restore Dunbarton-Fairport United Church. Engineers confirmed that the remaining walls were structurally sound, allowing for their incorporation into Baird’s design. The community fundraised to support the restoration program, and by late summer of 1974, the construction had sufficiently progressed to allow for services to recommence. Baird’s team also designed two linked rectilinear structures to connect to the sanctuary, providing additional administrative and community spaces for the church. 37 Schillaci, “The Memories Make History, Don’t They,” 62 38 This section has been adapted from chillaci, “The Memories Make History, Don’t They,” 65-76, 107-109. 70. January 7, 1973, Fire at Dunbarton Church (Schillaci, They Make Memories, Don’t They). - 60 - 44 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD Having analyzed the history of the church building in detail, Schillaci emphasizes that “when the reconstructed church officially opened, it was no longer the rural, country church of 135 years ago, but a new beginning with a new minister, and the melding of an old congregation with a new one.” In 1975, Dunbarton-Fairport Church was re-dedicated. In spite of this transformation, according to Schillaci, Baird’s restoration was imbued with religious symbolism. The roof, originally hidden from view by a ceiling, was now opened to its peak, visually uplifting the space and the believer. She emphasized that there was an increase in seating, yet the rising of the rear sanctuary still felt intimate. Baird’s Post-Modern vertical glass panels, following the existing gabled profile of the north and south walls, now allowed for “a glorious light that symbolizes, in such a true fashion, the presence of God, the Light of the World.” Into the later 1970s, development continued in Pickering, particularly in the southern areas of town. Schillaci explains that, at this time, “the Toronto United Church Council asked if Dunbarton-Fairport Church was willing to accept the role of the United Church in South Pickering.” The congregation agreed, formed a Range Planning Committee to oversee necessary expansions to accommodate their new role. In the early 1980s, efforts to acquire adjacent property for future expansion was slow, but it was recognized that this was necessary to serve “spiritual, educational, and community-related requirements.” A building committee formed to oversee the connection of the restored church building, the “1974 Addition” and new construction. Beginning in 1983, the congregation had a new vision to create a sanctuary capable of housing upwards of 350 people, increasing room for the Church School, adding meeting rooms, and also creating accessible spaces. This was accomplished with the financial support of the United Church of Canada. In 1984, the architectural firm of Brown, Beck, and Ross designed what became the “1985 Addition.” The church needed more land for the building expansion, and consequently, the congregation purchased two parcels of land: first to the south of the existing Site (from John G. and June Laura Dunbar, marking a final contribution of land from the ancestors of the Village’s founder); and seven building lots to the east (from Runnymede Development Corporation.” 71. Dunbarton Fairport Church, illuminated at dusk, c.2000 (Canadian Modern Architecture). This photo illustrates the ways in which Baird’s Post-Modern interventions literally illuminate the damaged 1877 fabric. - 61 - 45ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 As the new addition was prominent, visible emerging from the north façade and winding to the east, Brown (et. al.) scoured Toronto brickyards to find matching materials to the 19th century building’s buff and red brick. Located behind the date stone, as resituated in the western wall, is a time capsule representing life at the end of the 20th century. Schillaci recounts that the final service in the 1887 building was “a moving tribute to the 151st Anniversary of the Congregation on 2 February 1986. The following week, worship was conducted for the first time in the beautiful new sanctuary.” Schillaci outlines the old and new fabric in Appendix A to her text, giving an interior description that is useful for highlighting the distinction between the two as well as Baird’s design choices: Upon entering the door, encased in plexiglass on the floor of the narthex, is the datestone of the 1886 building, originally located high in the arch of the church. During the fire, the front wall remained standing and it was hoped that this part of the building could be saved; but the wall came crashing down – somehow the datestone did not shatter completely – there was a time capsule behind this stone but it was never found. Before the fire, the round window above the altar had been a type of stained glass known as a “rose window.” During the rebuild, a decision was made to replace it with a new design (the work of Dr. Bill McKay). A reminder of the fire [remains in the interior]: blackened wood stumps, braces which supported the arches of the original roof can be seen by looking at the upper portion of the east and west walls of the old sanctuary. Schillaci emphasizes that the “earlier building, which has been incorporated into the new one, will stand as a testimony to the courage, perseverance, and love of the generations.” This sentiment reinforces the value of the historic fabric and its post-modern restoration over the newer construction. Although the architects of the “1985 Addition” made an effort to match the historic fabric in 72. East lawn of Dunbarton Fairport Church. - 62 - 46 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD materials and design, it does not have the heightened design nor contextual value of the original structure. Although centrally-planned sanctuaries have, in the history of Christianity, a refined iconography, both the “1974 Addition” and the “1985 Addition” represent extensions that longer serve their basic functional use. As Schillaci emphasized in her detailed history of the Site, after 1985, “Dunbarton-Fairport Church is not a new suburban church, but one whose deep roots have linked the community with the church as its focal point for 150 years.”39 This emphasis on the relationship between the Church and, in particular, the historic Village of Dunbarton that reinforces the proposed development to recontextualize the built fabric into its own community, one situated within the historic Village of Dunbarton, rather than the adjacent Dunbarton Neighbourhood to its west. 39 Schillaci, “The Memories Make History, Don’t They,” 63. 73. Interior of Dunbarton Fairport Church, view to the south, showing charred remains of corbels and beams. 74. Interior of Dunbarton Fairport Church, view to the north, showing the intentional distinc- tion between old and new. - 63 - 47ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 4 E vaLuation of cuLturaL hEritaGE vaLuE or intErESt Value (quoted from O. Reg. 9/06)Assessment: Dunbarton Fairport Church (1066 Dunbarton Road) 1. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. i. The property features a representative example of a mid-late 19th century church built in the Gothic Revival Style in Pickering, Ontario. The George Baird rehabilitation of the church building in 1974 is considered to be an early representative example of Post-Modern architecture in Canada. ii. The property does not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. iii. The 1974 rehabilitation displays a high degree of technical achievement. 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institu- tion that is significant to a community, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, informa- tion that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. i. The property is associated with William Dunbar, an early colonial settler, and founder of the Village of Dunbarton; the Dunbar family later gifted more land for the church’s expansion; ii. The property does not have potential to yield information that con- tributes to an understanding of a community or culture. iii. The architect or builder of the 1877 church is unknown, and its architect or builder is not anticipated to be a designer or developer of significance. The architect of the 1974 rehabilitation is George Baird and Associates. Although Baird also designed the 1974 addition, he considered it to be a “deadpan addition” of minimal significance. The subsequent designer of the 1985 addition is Brown, Beck, and Ross, however it is not considered to be significant to the 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. The property is important in defining and maintaining the character of the historic Village of Dunbarton. ii. The building is physically, functionally, visually, and historically linked to the historic thoroughfare of Kingston Road. iii. The property is considered to be a landmark. 4.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation - 64 - 48 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD 4.2 Draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value Description of the Property Built in 1877, Dunbarton Fairport Church is an example of Gothic Revival Style as applied in a vernacular manner to a small rural church. Following a fire in 1973, architect George Baird and Associates rehabilitated the church building, and added administrative offices as a north extension known as the “1974 Addition.” A further expansion, the “1985 Addition,” extended the office space and was terminated in a large octagonal sanctuary. Dunbarton Fairport Church is located just west of the intersection of Dunbarton Road and Cloudberry Court. Its main facade faces south. Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest The property features a representative example of a mid-late 19th century church built in the Gothic Revival Style in Pickering, Ontario. This is notable in the pointed arch openings for the main facade entrance and lancet windows, as well as the use of bar tracery to create a quatrefoil design in the stained glass tympanum over the south portal. For its use of vertical panels of glass that revealed and commemorated the 1973 fire, the 1974 rehabilitation of the 1877 church by George Baird and Associates is considered to be a rare and early example of postmodern architecture in Canada. The property exhibits historical and associative value for its connection to William Dunbar, an early Scottish colonial settler that established the historic Village of Dunbarton in Pickering Township. The Dunbar family subsequently gifted additional land to the church for its expansion. The architectural work of 1974 at Dunbarton Fairport Church is associated with postmodern architect George Baird. The property is important in defining and maintaining the presence of the historic Village of Dunbarton. It is physically, functionally, and visually linked to the historic thoroughfare of Kingston Road. With its siting on a hill above the Village of Dunbarton to its west, and Fairport to its south on Frenchman’s Bay, Dunbarton Fairport Church is considered to be a landmark. - 65 - 49ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 Heritage Attributes Attributes that convey the property’s representation of a mid-19th- century church in Pickering include: • gabled roof form; • use of pointed arches for its central entrance on the south facade, and lancet windows; • use of stained glass, particularly the bar tracery and quatrefoil design of the tympanum over the entrance portal; • dichromatic brickwork with buff brick used to create a deco- rative stringcourse at the level of the window sills around the building; • limestone caps to define the pilaster buttresses; • orientation south towards Kingston Road; • elevated siting above both the Village of Dunbarton to the west and the Village of Fairport to the south. Attributes that convey the property’s representation of postmodern architectural design include: • vertical panels of glass inserted where masonry was destroyed due to fire in 1973; • layering of old and new elements; and • consideration of the modernist principles of inflection, complexity, and contradiction. - 66 - 5 condition a SSESSmEnt This visual building condition assessment was carried out on May 27, 2022. The review was conducted from grade. A review of the interior is not included in this assessment. The operability of doors and windows was not checked. The weather was overcast with a temperature of 20°C . The building is composed of a traditional chapel building (1825) to the south, a later addition defined by a double height hexagonal sanctuary to the north, and single-storey addition with a flat roof which connects the two taller volumes. The original chapel was significantly modified in 1974 after it was substantially damaged by a fire. The later addition was constructed in two phases between 1974-1985. Original Chapel Building The original chapel building is primarily clad in red brick, with buff brick accents at arched lintels and horizontal banding, limestone buttress caps and windows sills, and a cut stone base with an ashlar pattern. A portion of the rubble stone foundation wall is visible at the west elevation due to regrading of the surrounding landscape which has occurred since the Church was originally constructed. As part of the 1974 reconstruction due to fire damage, the top portion of the south gable and portions of the north gable is composed of a glazed curtain wall assembly. The brick is generally in fair condition. A few instances of stepped cracks are noted, which have been repointed with cementitious mortar. There is a significant number of spalled, erroded and chipped bricks at the lower half of each elevation, particularly at the buttresses. Several instances of previous plastic repairs are noted. Environmental staining is consistently present below the windows sills and included a chalky white residue (likely efluoresence) on the east and west elevation. The brick shelf below the pointed window on the north facade is heavily stained. Concentrated staining (likely from a bituminous material) is observed at the north gable below the triangular stained glass window. As well, two thin linear incisions are observed of the brickwork at the north elevation, above the flat roof of the addition. The geometry suggests that they responded to a previous gabled addition. Limestone buttress caps and remaining limestone sills generally appear to be in good physical condition with ferrous staining on east and west elevation caps and environmental staining on intermediate caps. Several stone sills throughout appear to have been removed and reinstalled with a poor fit. Significant deterioration of mortar joints DEFINITION OF TERMS The building components were graded using the following assessment system: Good: Normal result. Functioning as intended; normal deterioration observed; no maintenance anticipated within the next five years. Fair: Functioning as intended; Normal deterioration and minor distress ob- served; maintenance will be required within the next three to five years to maintain functionality. Poor: Not functioning as intended; significant deterioration and distress observed, maintenance and some repair required within the next year to restore functionality. Defective: Not functioning as in- tended; significant deterioration and major distress observed. 75. South elevation of the chapel building. 76. North elevation of the chapel building. - 67 - 51ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 at the stone base of the west elevation is evidenced by widespread repairs with cementitious mortar. The full extent of damage at stone is unknown. Localized paint and graffiti is found at the east elevation, adjacent to the playground. Some incomplete portions of a previous ribbon pointing treatment are also present. The concrete retaining wall along the southwest corner of the property is in generally fair condition but with structural damage apparent at the termination of the retaining wall near the southwest corner of the building. The concrete stairs and steel railings appear to be in generally fair condition, however the open joint along the seam between stairs and porch suggests differential settlement between the 2 elements. Later addition sills at north and south elevation are concrete and the sill at the main entrance door is spalled with minor surface cracks. The wood double entrance door appears to be in fair condition, with deteriorated painted finish noted at the door frame and decorative transom. The wood windows are not original and are generally in fair condition. Windows at lower level adjacent to the daycare playground have been modfied with metal security screens. The stained-glass rose windows at the north elevation and south entrance door transom appear to be in good condition. Some windows have been modified with fixed opaque wood panels. At the south elevation, the two slender lower windows have metal frames which are consistent with the curtain wall assembly above. The metal windows appear to be in generally good condition and perimeter sealants appear to be relatively recent. The glazed curtain walls at the south and north gables appear to be in generally good condition with only minor staining noted. Iron vents on east and west elevation are corroded but otherwise in fair condition and` the cavity behind 1 is filled with concrete. Generally, the asphalt shingles at the main gabled roof and lower roof at the entrance volume appear to be in generally good condition with a limited number of shingles at the south side of the east gable that appear to be lifting slightly. The wood eaves, fascia, and brackets along the main roof and the south entrance volume appear to be in 77. South elevation of entrance vestibule, chapel building. 78. West elevation of entrance vestibule, chapel building. 79. East elevation of entrance vestibule, chapel building. - 68 - 52 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD 80. Northwest corner of chapel building. 81. West elevation of chapel building. 82. East elevation of chapel building. 83. Typical condition of cut stone base. 84. Evidence of later patches at cut stone base. 85. Damaged retaining wall at southwest corner, and exposed rubble stone foundation wall. - 69 - 53ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 86. Chipped edge at concrete sill of entrance door, south elevation of chapel building. 87. Later concrete sills at replacement windows, and later repointing with cementitious mortar. 88. Spalled bricks, and seperation of concrete steps at stone base, south elevation of chapel building. 89. Curtain wall assembly at south elevation, chapel building. 90. Curtain wall assembly and metal casement window at south elevation, chapel building. 91. Curtain wall assembly at north elevation, chapel building. - 70 - 54 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD generally fair condition, with some deterioration of the painted finish. The 2 chimneys could not be properly assessed from grade however the visible portions appeared to be in fair condition with pointing intact and and limited bricks with erroded faces. The east chimney appears to have been partially disassembled. The wood soffit at north and south gable is in fair condition with some displaced boards, however the fascia is starting to rot. 1974-1985 Addition Although the addition was constructed in two phases, the materials and architectural language are similar across the hexagonal sanctuary and the one-storey portion. The walls are clad in red brick with buff brick accents which mimic the horizontal banding on the original chapel building. The wall construction is a contemporary brick veneer wall with weep holes for drainage. The condition of the hexagonal sanctuary appears to be in better condition than the one-storey portion. The brick cladding is generally in good condition, aside from widespread efflorescence at all elevations of the one-storey portion. Selective instances of spalled bricks at the buff brick accents as well as significant cracks through mortar joints springing from the upper corners of some windows are noted at the east elevation of the one-storey portion. Minor graffiti (chalk markings) is visible at the east elevation adjacent to the daycare playground. The concrete steps and ramp at the west entrance appear to be in poor condition with rust staining and cracked parging at the heavily-deteriorated lower step. Metal handrails at the stair portion appear to be recently replaced, but railings at the ramp are rusted. The concrete foundation along the west elevation appears to be recently parged and a drainage board membrane is exposed at the garden bed near the north entrance of the one-storey portion. The metal windows appear to be in fair to good condition, except for the lower-level windows which have rusted metal security screens. The glazed doors 92. Overall building, as viewed from NE. 93. East elevation of 1974-1985 addition. 94. East entrance to 1974-1985 addition. 95. Bay window at east elevation of 1974-1985 addition. - 71 - 55ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 and storefront/curtain wall assemblies appear to be in generally fair condition. Some localized instances of rusting and deteriorated sealants are noted. Four double height curtain wall assemblies with a stained- glass upper panel and an opaque lower spandrel are found at the hexagonal sanctuary, which are generally in good condition. Storm frames over stained glass widows are lightly worn and perimeter sealants appear to be relatively recent. The glazed metal cupola and spire at the center of the roof appears to be in good condition. The metal parapet flashing at the one-storey portion appears to be in generally good condition, as is the metal flashing at the top of the pilasters flanking the east entrance. The metal low slope canopy at the east entrance appears to be in fair condition. The sloped asphalt shingle roof, the metal gutters and the downspouts at the hexagonal sanctuary appear to be in generally good condition. Exposed heavy timber structural elements at the hexagonal sanctuary (below the roof eave at locations of windows) appear to be in good condition. The condition of the flat roof at the one-storey portion was not assessed due to limited visibility. The roofing at the cupola was not assessed due to limited visibility, however, the soffit is in good condition and the condition of the asphalt shingles is likely similar to the adjacent roof. 96. Typical elevation hexagonal santuary. 97. West entrance to 1974-1985 addition. 98. New garden bed south of the west entrance to 1974- 1985 addition. 99. North entrance to 1974-1985 addition. 100. Southwest portion of 1974-1985 addition, adjacent to north elevation of chapel building. - 72 - 56 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD 6 dEScription of thE propoSEd dE vELopmEnt The development is the construction of a mix of three-storey townhouses and walk-up apartments, consisting of a total of 41 residential dwelling units. The original 19th century portion of Dunbarton-Fairport Church will remain in situ, and its historic situ- ation on a higher grade than its surroundings will be maintained. The proposed redevelopment provides for the introduction of a mix of three-storey townhouses and three-storey walkup apartments onto the Subject Lands, primarily placed along the perimeter, and fronting onto both Dunbarton Road and an internal drive aisle. The proposed drive aisle will provide access to the retained church, church and visitor parking, as well as several of the proposed residential units. Recognizing the importance of the surrounding streetscape, the proposed development will bring back street-facing residential units to Dunbarton Road, with a high quality of landscaping to improve the pedestrian experience. The proposal has been designed to introduce modest intensification and density onto the site, while also respecting the built form and character of the surrounding neighbourhood.1 The remaining space will be used for landscaping, a courtyard, and a children’s playground. The most recent site plan as submitted for the zoning by-law application, dating to October 14, 2022, can be viewed below, and while it will retain the aforementioned features, the layout and design may change prior to application for site plan approval. 1 MHBC, Planning Justification Report (May 2022 - Draft). 101. Draft Site Plan (KPMB 2022). - 73 - 57ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 102. Draft Site Plan with Lot Divisions (KPMB, 2022). - 74 - 58 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD 103. Renders of the Proposed Devel- opment (KPMB, 2022). - 75 - 59ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 104. South and West Elevations (KPMB, 2022). - 76 - 60 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD 105. North and East Elevations (KPMB, 2022). - 77 - 61ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 7 impact of dE vELopmEnt & mitiGation StratEGy The proposed development anticipates the following impacts as they relate to the built heritage resource: • Removal of the two 20th century additions, which have minimal design value, are secondary to the 1877 chapel of Dunbarton Fairport Church, and will no longer carry their functional purpose; • Removal of the current concrete retaining wall at the south entrance of the church building, to be replaced with terraced landscaping that reinstates the relationship between the church facade and Dunbarton Road; • While the proposal introduces new townhomes, their placement along the north and east perimeter of the subject site retains the prominence of the original chapel along Dunbarton Road; • The design of the proposed townhouses, including the proposed height, use of brick, and mix of flat and gabled roofs are subordinate to and compatible with the original chapel. Further recommended mitigation measures include the relocation of the sculpture, and the salvage of the stained-glass windows in the 1985 sanctuary. 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). 106. Dunbarton Road elevation showing the relationship between the retained Church building and the proposed development to its east. The distance and landscaping make prominent the historic Church as it relates closely to the community it will serve. - 78 - 62 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD 8 conSErvation StratEGy The conservation strategy for the Site is: • Retention of the original 1877 church in situ; • Retention of the existing grade that situates the BHR above the proposed development and existing neighbourhood; • Retention of the existing driveway access; • Removal of parking space to accommodate the proposed dwellings; and • Removal of the 1974 and 1985 additions. The proposed conservation approach is rehabilitation, which introduces 19 new residential lots with 41 dwellings to Site while continuing the community programming at Dunbarton Fairport Church. Retaining the 1877 chapel at its current elevated grade on the Site continues the relationship between the built heritage resource within the surrounding natural environment, the historic Village, and the current neighbourhood of Dunbarton. Retention of this context will continue to highlight the historic and ongoing significance of Dunbarton Fairport Church in the landscape. Further details regarding the conservation and rehabilitation of the Site will be developed through the site plan application process. 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). 107. Render of the retained 1877 Church (as rehabilitated in 1974). Note the proposed development’s intention to reassess the retaining wall to allow the Church building to communicate openly, once again, with Dunbarton Road. (KPMB, 2022). - 79 - 63ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 9 concLuSion and rEcommEndationS The proposed Plan of Subdivision application will create 19 new residential lots, while retaining the most significant part of Dunbarton Faiport Church, its combined 1877 and 1974 fabric, in situ. In removing its rear additions, while retaining its grade, the church remains a landmark within the historic Village of Dunbarton. 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. Subsequent measures relating to design, conservation, and mitigation will be updated once the site plan is finalized and submitted for municipal approval. In its current iteration, the proposed development 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. - 80 - 64 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD 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). The project team for this report includes the following personnel: Graeme Stewart FRAIC, OAA, AIBC, AAA, RPP, MCIP, CAHP is a registered architect and planner and is a principal at ERA. He has been involved in numerous urban design, cultural planning, conservation and architecture projects with particular focus on neighbourhood design and regional sustainability. Graeme was a key initiator of the Tower Renewal Partnership, an initiative in low-carbon retrofit and community reinvestment examining the future of Canada’s moderntower neighbourhoods. Sharon Hong MScPl, RPP, MCIP is an associate with the heritage planning team at ERA. She holds a Master of Science in Planning from the University of Toronto and has over 10 years of experience working in both the public and private sectors in heritage, urban design, and community planning. Nathaniel Addison is a registered Architect and Project Manager with ERA, whose diverse portfolio of work includes office towers, healthcare, transportation, with a special interest in heritage conservation and planning. He holds a Master of Architecture from the University of Toronto and a Bachelor of Architectural Science from Ryerson University. Candice Bogdanski BA, MA, PhD (ABD), FSA Scot is a heritage planner at ERA. She holds a Master of Arts in Art History from the University of Toronto and a Doctorate of Philosophy (ABD) in Art History and Visual Culture, with a specialization in architectural history, from York University. After more than a decade as an undergraduate educator, she has transitioned to a career as a heritage professional with experience at the federal and municipal levels. She is an intern member of CAHP. 10 Summary of profESSionaL QuaLificationS - 81 - 65ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 11 rEfErEncES 11.1 Figure References (Sequentially Ordered) Fig. 38 1673 Rouge Trail Map, Louis Jolliet (University of Toronto). Fig. 39 Detail, Map of Ontario, J.H. Beers and Co., 1877. (York University). Fig. 40 Pickering, County of Ontario, 1950 (Department of Lans and Forests, Ontario Archives). Fig. 42 Township of Pickering, Ontario County Atlas, 1877 (https://digital.library.mcgill. ca/countyatlas/searchmapframes.php) Fig. 43 Ontario County Map, Detail, (https://maps.library.utoronto.ca/hgis/countymaps/ ontario/index.html.bak) Fig . 44 Historic Photograph of the Grand Trunk Station servicing Dunbarton, n.d. (PIckering Library). Fig. 46 Former home and shop of George Falconer Sadler, c.1910 (Pickering Library). Fig. 47 Former home and shop of George Falconer Sadler, 2001 (George Dunbar, c/o Pickering Library). Fig. 50 20th century image of Lynde & Son Shop (Time Past and Present). Fig. 55 Map of Kingston Road, 1818 (Toronto Public Library Fig. 56 Village of Dunbarton Looking East on Kingston (Dunbarton) Road, early 1920s. (Dunbarton Fairport Facebook). Fig. 57 East view up Main Street (Kingston/Dunbarton Road), n.d. Time Past and Present, 35). Fig. 58 Old Kingston Road looking east, c.1930 (Pickering Library). Fig. 59 C yclists’ Roadmap of the County of York, including Portions of Peel and Simcoe, 1898. (York University). Fig. 60 Erskine Church, c. 1850s (Wood, Past Years in Pickering). Fig. 61 Dunbarton Church, c.1860s (Wood, Past Years in Pickering). Fig. 62 Dunbarton Church, c. 1920s (Schillaci, The Memories Make History, Don’t They). Fig. 63 Marjorie Stroud in front of the old manse for Dunbarton United Church, c.1944 (Sabean, Time Past and Present). - 82 - 66 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD Fig. 64 Guidal Map, c.19717 (Sabean, Time Past and Present). Fig. 65 Bay Ridges, 1960. (Pickering Library). Fig. 66 Frenchman’s Bay from Kingston Road, n.d. (Pickering Library). Fig. 67 Detail, J.H Beers & Co. Map of Ontario, 1877 (University of Toronto). Fig. 68 On the Beach, Frenchman’s Bay, Ont, n.d. (Pickering Library). Fig. 69 Frenchman’s Bay, 1890 (Pickering Library. Fig. 70 January 7, 1973, Fire at Dunbarton Church (Schillaci, They Make Memories, Don’t They). Fig. 71 Dunbarton Fairport Church, illuminated at dusk, c.2000 (Canadian Modern Architecture). 11.2 Bibliography City of Pickering, Municipal Heritage Register, June 2021, https://www.pickering.ca/en/ city-hall/resources/Municipal-Heritage-Register-June-2021-ACC.pdf, accessed 7 August 2022. “Dunbarton,” The Pickering News, vol. XV no. 24. Hall, Anthony J. “Royal Proclamation of 1763,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, 7 February 2006, updated 30 August 2019, Royal Proclamation of 1763 | The Canadian Encyclopedia, accessed 7 August 2022. Irvine, Samantha, and Evans, Phillip. “1970-1980 Brock Road. 1670-1680 Kingston Road, Pickering,” ERA Architects Inc., Heritage Impact Assessment, Issued November 24, 2020, Revised. McKay, William. The Pickering Story, 1961, 77 - Laserfiche WebLink (pickering.ca). Accessed 7 August 2021. Mississauga of Scugog Island First Nation, “Origin and History.” www.scugogfirstnation.com, ND, accessed 6 August 2022. Parslow Heritage Consultancy Inc., “Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report – 450 Finch Avenue, Part Lot 31, Concession 2, Geographical Township of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham,” Project Number PHC-2019-1056, 26 May 2020, https:// www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/resources/devapp/A1020/Cultural-Heritage- Evaluation-Report.pdf, accessed 6 August 2022. - 83 - 67ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 Schillaci, Diane. The Memories Make History Don’t They…: the Story of Dunbarton Fairport Church and Erskine Presbyterian Church, 1986. Sellers, Daniel. Prehistoric Toronto: Glacial Lake Iroquois, 28 March 2022, https://torontoist.com/2012/03/prehistoric-toronto-glacial-lake- iroquois/#:~:text=Lake%20Iroquois%20formed%20in%20the,Lawrence%20 River%20had%20disappeared, accessed 6 August 2022. Simonton, J. and Unterman, R. “Dunbarton Fairport Church, 1066 Dunbarton Road – Field Survey Form: Built Heritage Features,” City of Pickering – Inventory of Heritage Resources, 22 November 2001. Stierli, Martino. “‘Complexity and Contradiction changed how we look at, think, and talk about architecture,” The Architectural Review, 22 December 2016, https:// www.architectural-review.com/essays/books/complexity-and-contradiction- changed-how-we-look-at-think-and-talk-about-architecture, accessed 6 August 2022. “Transcript: Williams Treaties.” November 1923 by seven Anishinaabe First Nations and Representatives of the Crown, see https://shared.ontariotechu.ca/shared/d epartment/student-life/indigenous/treaties-recognition-week-2020/history-of- williams-treaties.pdf, 24 April 2018, updated 13 January 2022, accessed 7 August 2022. Wood, William R. Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Community. Toronto: William Briggs. - 84 - 68 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD 12 appEndicES APPENDIX A: HIA TERMS OF REFERENCE (CITY OF PICKERING, 2021) - 85 - pickering.ca Terms of Reference Heritage Impact Assessments April 2022 - 86 - Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference, April 2022 Page 1 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. 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 on text 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; ● identified on the City of Pickering Inventory of Heritage Resources by Unterman McPhail Associates; - 87 - Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference, April 2022 Page 2 ● 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 PartIV (individual) or Part V (Heritage Conservation District) of the Ontario Heritage Act, of 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. - 88 - Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference, April 2022 Page 3 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 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. - 89 - Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference, April 2022 Page 4 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). ● 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: o views of the area surrounding the property to show it in context with adjacent properties and the immediate streetscape; o overall views of the property including all significant landscape features; o exterior views of each elevation of each building; o interior views of heritage attributes or features, and a representative selection of rooms; o 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. - 90 - Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference, April 2022 Page 5 ● Positive impacts may include, but are not limited to: o Restoration of a building, including replacement of missing attributes; o Enhancement of an historic streetscape; o Rehabilitation of a cultural heritage resource to ensure long-term viability. ● Negative impacts may include, but are not limited to: o The destruction of any significant heritage attribute or part thereof; o Alteration that is not sympathetic to the heritage attribute; o Shadows created by new development that alter the appearance of, or change the viability of a heritage attribute; o Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context, or significant spatial relationship; o Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas; o A change in land use which negates the property’s cultural heritage value; o 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: o Alternative development approaches; o Isolating development and site alteration from significant built and natural features and vistas; o Design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting, and materials; o Limiting height and density; o Compatible infill and additions; o Reversible alterations; o Relocation of a heritage resource, to be employed only as a last resort, if conservation cannot be achieved by any other means. - 91 - Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference, April 2022 Page 6 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: o An explanation of how the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the heritage resources informed and influenced the proposed development or site alteration; o A mitigation strategy including the proposed methods; o A conservation scope of work including the proposed methods; o An implementation and monitoring plan, as applies; o Referenced heritage policy, conservation principles and guidelines, and precedents; o 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 The study will be submitted in hard copy (two 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. - 92 - Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference, April 2022 Page 7 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 - 93 - 69ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 APPENDIX B: DUNBARTON FAIRPORT CHURCH, CITY OF PICKERING’S INVENTORY OF HERITAGE RESOURCES - 94 - - 95 - - 96 - 70 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD APPENDIX C: DUNBARTON FAIRPORT CHURCH, RECORD OF ALTERATIONS - 97 - 71ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 - 98 - 72 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD - 99 - 73ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 - 100 - 74 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD - 101 - 75ISSUED: OCTOBER 14, 2022 APPENDIX D: DUNBARTON FAIRPORT CHURCH, FIRE PLANS - 102 - 76 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD - 103 - - 104 - Peer Review Letter | 1066 Dunbarton Road Page 1 of 8 HERITAGE | Studio Alex Rowse-Thompson MCIP RPP CAHP 149 Ordnance St. Kingston, ON, K7K 1G9 613-305-4877 alex@heritagestudio.ca April 12, 2023. Nilesh Surti, Manager, Development Review & Urban Design City Development Department City of Pickering One the Esplanade Pickering, ON, L1V 6K7 905-420-4660 ext. 2035 nsurti@pickering.ca RE: PEER REVIEW - HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1066 DUNBARTON ROAD, PICKERING (HERITAGE STUDIO PROJECT 23-001- 0 3 ) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Dear Mr. Surti, The purpose of this letter is to provide the City of Pickering (City) with an objective and professional review of the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) submitted as part of the Zoning By-Law and Official Plan Amendment applications for the proposed residential redevelopment of the property at 1066 Dunbarton Road, Pickering. The following documents were reviewed as part of this process: Applicant Materials •Heritage Impact Assessment, ERA Architects Inc., October 14, 2022 •Planning Justification Report, MHBC, December 2022 •Urban Design Brief, MHBC, November 2022 •Conceptual Architectural Plans, KPMB Architects Inc., October 14, 2022 Project Background Materials •City of Pickering Terms of Reference for a Heritage Impact Assessment •A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Attachment #4 - 105 - Peer Review Letter | 1066 Dunbarton Road Page 2 of 8 •Durham Regional Official Plan •Pickering Official Plan Additional Reference Materials •Ontario Heritage Act •Ontario Regulation 9/06 •Ontario Heritage Tool Kit •Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada •Provincial Policy Statement (2020) 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND This peer review of the Heritage Impact Assessment by ERA Architects Inc. (ERA) assesses the report findings and provides an opinion on whether it is consistent with the existing heritage policy framework (municipal, provincial, and federal). The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Dunbarton Road and Cloudberry Court and is approximately 0.78 hectares in size. The property contains the Dunbarton- Fairport United Church, which comprises the original 1877 structure with two later additions, parking and landscaping. The property has no heritage status, nor is it considered to be adjacent to a designated heritage resource. It is, however, included on the City of Pickering’s “Inventory of Heritage Resources”. The proposed residential redevelopment includes: •41 residential units in a combination of three-storey walk-up apartments and three- storey townhouses; •An internal drive aisle; •Landscaping, a courtyard and playground; and •The retention of the 1877 original church structure. Heritage Studio completed a site visit on February 7, 2023. The site review included walking the surroundings, property, and an internal tour of the existing Church complex, including the original structure and later additions. The tour was led by several members of the congregation including two trustees and the minister. 2.0 REVIEW OF HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT The HIA report largely meets the City’s Terms of Reference for Heritage Impact Assessments (April 2022). The HIA report contains the required background information (except for a current site plan), a written and visual description of the property, historic research, a cultural heritage evaluation using Ontario Regulation 9/06, a draft Statement of Cultural Heritage - 106 - Peer Review Letter | 1066 Dunbarton Road Page 3 of 8 Value for the property, a condition assessment, and a description of the proposed development. The report includes Section 7 entitled “Impact Assessment and Mitigation Strategies”, and while I do not disagree with the content contained in this section, the analysis is light, and it is not clear which are impacts and which are mitigation strategies. The HIA finishes with a Conservation Strategy and a Conclusion. Importantly, the HIA report provides a comprehensive and in-depth historical overview, which provides valuable background for the cultural heritage evaluation and resulting draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value. The cultural heritage evaluation and draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value rightly conclude that the property, specifically the original Church structure with 1974 restoration, has cultural heritage value, while the later additions do not. The following sections provide specific commentary on the HIA’s content and Section 3.0 provides a summary of comments and recommended next steps. 2.1 Introduction to the Subject Property This section of the report generally includes all the required information, except for a current site plan. The section provides useful context, including aerial photographs, descriptions of adjacent neighbourhood character, topographical maps, and an explanation of the adjacent municipally adopted Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. The section also provides an in-depth overview of the history of church buildings on the site. The church’s history at this location spans almost 170 years. The original church building was constructed in 1854 and the existing church was constructed in 1877, but substantially restored following a fire in 1973. The inclusion of the 1860s photo of the original church building (on page 37) would have been a helpful augmentation to the written description pf the site’s chronology. Moreover, there are a few points of clarification for this section: •Figure 12 notes missing stained glass due to the 1973 fire, but one of the trustees on the tour noted that the window opening is boarded over as the stained glass is currently off-site being repaired. •The stained glass in the tympanum is noted as being the only remaining stained glass from the 1886-1887 construction period. I believe this is intended to read 1876-1877 construction period. •The description of the church on page 8 notes that the building “is a straightforward timber frame construction on a stone foundation.” The presence of brick buttresses on the exterior would typically indicate a masonry wall construction. This section also provides a well-researched and insightful explanation of the 1974 Restoration by George Baird and Associates, which contributes to the cultural heritage value of the property. - 107 - Peer Review Letter | 1066 Dunbarton Road Page 4 of 8 2.2 Background Research & Analysis The HIA report provides a comprehensive historical overview of the site and area, including an overview of indigenous settlement, the Williams Treaties, colonial settlement, the origins of the Village of Dunbarton, significance of Kingston Road as a thoroughfare, a history of the two churches to have occupied the subject property, the joining of Fairport and Dunbarton congregations, the fire of 1973 and subsequent restoration. The historical overview is clearly well-researched, and there are no obvious errors or omissions. Ultimately, this section provides the historical background necessary to carry out a well-informed cultural heritage evaluation. One small typo is noted on page 32, where the report provides an incorrect direction and reads “…gradual slope of Dunbarton Road as it increases in elevation westward…” The slope increases in elevation eastwards. 2.3 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest This section of the report provides an evaluation of the cultural heritage value of the property using Ontario Regulation 9/06. The evaluation demonstrates that the property meets seven of the nine criteria, which includes criteria from all three subsections (i.e., design/physical value, historical/associative value and contextual value). I agree with this assessment, which informs the subsequent Draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value. In relation to the draft statement, I recommend adding the following heritage attributes: Attributes that convey the property’s representation of a mid-19th century church in Pickering: •Stone foundation •Original (1877) window openings Attributes that convey the property’s representation of postmodern architectural design include: •Retention of fire damaged timber ends on the interior One of the heritage attributes is identified as “pilaster buttresses”. I am unsure what is meant by this term as typically pilasters are architectural elements intended to give the appearance of a structural support such as a buttress. I believe that the church’s brick buttresses, are structural and intended to transfer the weight of the roof to the ground. Lastly, the identification of George Baird as the architect of the 1974 restoration is important and his significance as a Canadian architect could be more clearly stated in the draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value. - 108 - Peer Review Letter | 1066 Dunbarton Road Page 5 of 8 2.4 Condition Assessment The Condition Assessment demonstrates that the original chapel building is in fair condition, but that re-pointing of stone and brickwork is required in the medium-term, including the removal of cementitious mortar and its replacement with an appropriate lime-based mortar. It is beneficial to understand the condition of the existing buildings, most importantly, the 1877 chapel, which is proposed to for continuing community use. Regrettably, there do not appear to be any plans or recommendations for the chapel’s repair as part of the redevelopment of the site. For clarity, the typo on page 50 relating to the age of the chapel should be corrected as it states, “the building is composed of a traditional chapel building (1825).” This should read 1877. 2.5 Description of the Proposed Development This section provides a helpful overview with accompanying drawings and 3D renderings. There is, however, no explanation or description for the treatment of the rear (north) elevation of the 1877 church structure following the removal of the 1974 additions. The trustees who provided the interior tour highlighted that the mechanical system, venting, heating, etc. is currently housed in and on the flat roof of the 1974 addition. Therefore, the continued community use of the 1877 chapel structure will require renovations and/or a small addition to house these systems. North elevation of the 1877 chapel obscured by 1974 additions. 2.5 Impact of Development & Mitigation Strategy This section provides a description of the anticipated impacts to the built heritage resource. The first paragraph on page 61 states “the proposed development anticipates the following impacts”. I believe that the authors intended to say, “it is anticipated that the proposed - 109 - Peer Review Letter | 1066 Dunbarton Road Page 6 of 8 development will have the following impacts on the Site”. It is not entirely clear what the potential negative (or positive) impacts of the development are or what the mitigation strategies to address the negative impacts are. For example, is the removal of the two 20th century additions a negative impact? Based on a review of the draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value, this would not be considered a negative impact, but an inappropriately designed restoration of this elevation or a new addition could be a negative impact. Or is the removal of the current concrete retaining wall and its replacement with terraced landscaping, a positive impact? The executive summary at the beginning of the report lists the impacts and notes that “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.” The execution of this statement is not clear within the body of the report. This section would benefit from a direct assessment of the proposal against the potential negative impacts described in the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Typically, impact assessments and mitigation strategies are presented separately or in such a way that clearly presents the impacts and what mitigations strategies are required to address them. The Conclusion and Recommendations section raises the potential impact of new construction, noting that any potential impacts will be mitigated by design measures related to scale, form and massing, but again Section 7 does not clearly identify any potential impacts resulting from the new construction. While I agree that the placement and general massing of the townhouses does not appear to adversely impact any of the identified heritage attributes, I would have expected to see a fuller description of their design and some recommendations to ensure their compatibility. Moreover, it does not appear that the new townhouses will obscure any important views of the church, but again, a succinct analysis and opinion relating to viewscapes should have been included. Lastly, the proposed relocation of the sculpture and salvage of the stained- glass windows in the 1985 sanctuary are commendable recommendations, but while they are described as mitigation strategies, it is not clear what impacts they are mitigating. Conservation Strategy The HIA’s recommended conservation approach is rehabilitation, “which introduces 19 new residential lots with 41 dwellings to the Site while continuing the community programming at Dunbarton Fairport Church.” The continued use of this building as a community space will allow public access and appreciation of the heritage resource, while minimizing inappropriate alterations to heritage attributes, which can be challenging to avoid with, for example, a residential use. With the demolition of the later additions and the plans for its use as a day nursery and place of worship, I would have expected to see some commentary or recommendations for its - 110 - Peer Review Letter | 1066 Dunbarton Road Page 7 of 8 repair (e.g., short, medium, and longer term) and its renovation. As previously mentioned, the 1974 addition currently houses mechanical equipment, heating systems and venting that is connected to the 1877 chapel. Additionally, how best to repair/restore the rear elevation following the removal of the later additions should be addressed, at least in broad terms. I agree that the retention of the 1877 chapel building at its existing grade with new terraced entrance, conserves, and possibly enhances, the heritage attributes identified in the draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value. I will note that the terraced entrance seems oversized in relation to the relatively small church. Finally, the statement “further details regarding the conservation and rehabilitation of the Site will be developed through the site plan application process” would have benefitted from further explanation or examples. 3.0 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS In my professional opinion, the HIA report completed by ERA provides a thorough and comprehensive history of the subject property and its context and the description of the property’s cultural heritage value is excellent. I have considered recommending that the impact assessment be updated to directly address the potential negative impacts listed in the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, but upon careful reflection and my own assessment of potential impacts, I do not believe that this exercise would add value. Despite the fact that there should be a more thorough impact assessment and clear description of mitigation strategies (as needed), I agree with ERA’s overall conclusions. However, I do recommend that at the Site Plan Application stage, an addendum to the HIA be provided that includes: •A review of the finalized townhouse design, noting any changes that have been or should be made to their scale, form, massing, materials to ensure their compatibility with the 1877 chapel. •Recommendations for the repair and renovation of the north elevation of the 1877 chapel following the removal of the later additions (including the design parameters for a small addition, if required). Notably, the 1877 chapel building meets seven of the nine criteria listed in Ontario Regulation 9/06, which means that the property clearly meets the prescribed criteria and should be designated under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Moving forward, the City should request that a reference plan showing the boundaries of the 1877 chapel, be provided by the Owner/Applicant for the purpose of the Part IV designation process. In summary, the retention of the 1877 chapel for community use, including as a place of worship, supports the City’s Official Plan policy 8.9 (a), which states “maintain, if possible, the original use of heritage structures and sites, and if possible, retain the original location and orientation of such structures.” The HIA report correctly identifies the 1877 chapel as a significant built heritage resource and demonstrates that it will be conserved, which complies - 111 - Peer Review Letter | 1066 Dunbarton Road Page 8 of 8 with Policy 2.6.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement. Lastly, the proposed site plan and massing/height of the new townhouses aligns with Standard 11 of Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, which states “Conserve the heritage value and character-defining elements when creating any new additions to an historic place or any related new construction. Make the work physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place.” I trust that the comments provided are to your satisfaction. Please contact me should you require any further details or wish to discuss the contents of this letter. Sincerely, Alex Rowse-Thompson MCIP RPP CAHP Principal | HERITAGE STUDIO - 112 -