Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
November 22, 2023
Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda November 22, 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 November 8, 2023 1 4.Delegations 5.New Business 5.1 CapLink Limited 5 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-03 Zoning By-Law Amendment Application A 11/23 Presentation Mike Pettigrew, Senior Associate, The Biglieri Group Ltd. Claire Forward, Cultural Heritage Specialist, WSP 5.2 Proposed Part IV Designation of 301 Kingston Road 107 5.3 Proposed 2024 Meeting Schedule 6.Other Business 7.Next Meeting 8.Adjournment 230 Page 1 of 4 Minutes/Meeting Summary Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee November 8, 2023 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm Attendees: R. Anderson N. Brewster C. Doody-Hamilton L. Jeffrey S.Monaghan R. Smiles E. Game, Senior Planner, Heritage (Staff Liaison) A. MacGillivray, Committee Coordinator (Recording Secretary) Absent: A. Bhadra J. White Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 1. Review and Approval of Agenda E. Game noted that the applicant for Item 5.1, 301 Kingston Road – Proposed Demolition has withdrawn their demolition permit application and that the Item will be removed from the agenda. Moved by C. Doody-Hamilton Seconded by N. Brewster That the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda of November 8, 2023, be approved, as amended. Carried E. Game to provide a Memo with further information to the Committee regarding this matter. 2. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 3. Approval of Minutes Moved by L. Jeffrey Seconded by C. Doody-Hamilton That the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of September 27, 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 5.2 Heritage Property Tax Relief By-law E. Game, Senior Planner, Heritage, provided a background and overview of the proposed Heritage Property Tax Relief Program and By- law. Discussion ensued amongst the Committee regarding: • whether a list of the approximately 50 eligible properties exists; • what would happen in the event that a property owner withdrew from the program; • the anticipated slow uptake of the program; • whether there is a fee involved in enrolling in the program; • the anticipated cost of legal fees and registering the easement on the property title for participating property owners; and, • how a lot severance would be handled for an enrolled property program. Moved by C. Doody-Hamilton Seconded by R. Anderson That Heritage Pickering recommends that Council approve the draft Heritage property tax relief by-law. Carried 5.3 815 Highway 7 (The Percy House) - Emergency Roof Repairs E. Game provided an update regarding the emergency roof repairs on the Percy House located at 815 Highway 7. She highlighted the various concerns from a site visit conducted by - 2 - Page 3 of 4 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) WSP on the property and noted that the owner of the property applied to the City for a Heritage Permit to conduct emergency roof repairs to the roof. E. Game indicated that the permit was issued by the City on October 13, 2023, and the roof repairs to the Percy House were completed by November 1, 2023. E. Game indicated that the owner of the property will ensure that once the Percy House is moved to its new location, and the restoration and renovation is underway, that the owner will utilize material outlined in the Conservation Plan to make any repairs to the roof. Discussion ensued amongst the Committee regarding where the Percy House is planned to be relocated to on the site. 5.4 1740 Fifth Concession Road - Review of CHER and CHERR - Proposed Demolition E. Game provided an overview of the property, including the three evaluation reports conducted on the property that did not meet the requirements of designation under the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). 6. Other Business 6.1 Update regarding 301 Kingston Road E. Game provided an update to the Committee regarding what was happening with the property at 301 Kingston Road. She indicated that the applicant requested additional time to conduct a new structural assessment of the property, and that once the new structural assessment is reviewed by the City, next steps will be determined at that time. Discussion ensued amongst the Committee regarding: • the importance of having this additional information before decisions are made regarding the property; - 3 - Page 4 of 4 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) • whether the yellow siding was still on the house; • concerns regarding the damage that the house may experience due to continued neglect and the weather; • potential for reconstruction as an option for preserving the heritage elements of the property; • whether the City will be taking steps to ensure no further demolition occurs on the property in the meantime; • whether an owner can be penalized for acting in bad faith; and, • clarification that a property is not required to be designated in order for an owner to face penalties under the OHA. 7. Next Meeting The next meeting of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee is scheduled for November 22, 2023. 8. Adjournment Moved by N. Brewster Seconded by L. Jeffrey That the meeting be adjourned. Carried Meeting Adjourned: 7:47 pm - 4 - Memo To: Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee November 22, 2023 From: Nilesh Surti Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design Copy: Chief Planner Senior Planner, Heritage Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-03 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/23 CapLink Limited 575, 625, and 685 Highway 7 File: A-3300-098 Background CapLink Limited (FGF Brands) submitted applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a food manufacturing facility campus to be developed in phases. Phase 1 of the food manufacturing campus is located at the southwest corner of Highway 7 and Whites Road. Phase 1 is approved for 4 manufacturing buildings, having an overall gross floor area of approximately 94,889 square metres. As part of the Phase 1 development, the applicant will relocate a heritage resource, known as the Percy House (circa 1853), and restore and utilize the building for a learning centre/office use. On February 27, 2023, Council endorsed the draft plan and related conditions, and approved the implementing site-specific zoning by-law. Phase 1 was draft plan approved on May 16, 2023. CapLink Limited has submitted applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate an extension of an approved food manufacturing facility. The Phase 2 lands are approximately 36 hectares in size (see Figure 1 below), and located on the south side of Highway 7, east of North Road and north of Highway 407. The lands are municipally known as 575, 625, and 685 Highway 7 (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The western portion of the lands, 575 Highway 7, is occupied by a dwelling, known as Vardon House, and an associated bank barn. This property is listed under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. - 5 - November 22, 2023 Page 2 of 5 575, 625, and 685 Highway 7 Vardon House Vardon House is a one-and-a-half storey Ontario Gothic Cottage with Neoclassical influences. The house is set back from Highway 7 by approximately 30 metres and is oriented with its façade to Highway 7, slightly east of a straight, gravel driveway (see Photograph 1 below). Photograph 1: View of house and barn (WSP 2022) - 6 - November 22, 2023 Page 3 of 5 575, 625, and 685 Highway 7 Believe to have been constructed in 1853, the Vardon House was originally built to a rectangular plan, with one rear addition projecting from the south elevation. The main façade of the structure was likely modified at an unknown date to include elements of the Gothic Revival style including a gabled centre bay with a steeply pitched roof, board and batten siding, gingerbread scrollwork and finial and pendant in the gable. The foundation material consists of board-formed concrete, and the foundation appears to be raised. This concrete foundation is likely a replacement for the original stone foundation. The one-and-a-half storey rear addition has a gable roof and is sited concrete foundation. The west elevation is clad in board and batten, and the east and south elevations are clad in horizontal vinyl siding. Applicant’s Proposal CapLink Limited (FGF Brands) has submitted applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment (City Files SP-2023-03 and A 11/23) to facilitate an extension of an approved food manufacturing facility located on Phase 1 lands to the east. The Phase 2 manufacturing facility consists of six buildings, including four manufacturing plants, freezer storage, distribution centre and logistics. An overall gross floor area of approximately 134,810 square metres is proposed (see Submitted Draft Plan, Attachment #2). The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision contains six blocks for employment uses, one block for a stormwater management facility, one block for a future road widening and public roads. The Zoning By-law Amendment proposes to rezone the lands to an appropriate zone category to permit the proposed uses and establish appropriate development standards. The applicant plans to demolish the Vardon House and associated barn. A date for the proposed demolition has not yet been identified. A Statutory Public Meeting was held on November 6, 2023, to obtain public comments on the applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the food manufacturing facility on the subject lands. Supporting Documents In support of the proposed development, the applicant submitted a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), prepared by WSP (see HIA, dated May 16, 2023, Attachment #3). The HIA notes options for demolition and salvage of materials from the buildings on site and lists potential impacts on the heritage attributes as a result of the planned development. The HIA indicates that the Vardon House and associated buildings do not meet the criteria for designation as set out in Ontario Regulation 9/06 and is not a candidate for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The HIA considered three options to mitigate impacts to the cultural heritage attributes of the property: 1. “Do Nothing”: Preserve and maintain the Vardon House, associated barn and all landscape heritage attributes in situ with no further development of the property. - 7 - November 22, 2023 Page 4 of 5 575, 625, and 685 Highway 7 2. Relocate the Vardon House within the site to a more convenient location with an adaptive reuse, dismantle and salvage heritage attributes from the barn and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. 3. Remove the Vardon House and associated barn, salvaging heritage attributes from the structures and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. The HIA indicates that while Option 1 is the preferred approach from a cultural heritage perspective, this option is not feasible within the existing land-use planning framework, given that the lands are designated Prestige Employment in the Pickering Official Plan, and therefore advises proceeding with Option 3 with several mitigation strategies. The evaluation of potential negative impacts (direct and indirect) of Option 3 as per the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit guidance on land-use planning indicates that undertaking this option will have “major” impacts on the property related to: • destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes, or features; • a change in land use such as rezoning a field from open space to residential use; and • land disturbances related to the construction of the food manufacturing facility. The HIA proposes to mitigate the impacts of this option through the implementation of the following mitigation measures (see Section 10.1 of the HIA for a detailed summary of the impacts of this option): • complete a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report to document the house and barn, and identify materials for salvage; and • salvage identified materials. A peer review was undertaken by Heritage Studio The City retained Heritage Studio to peer review the cultural heritage material submitted as part of the applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment. Heritage Studio visited the site on October 17, 2023, and provided detailed comments in the Preliminary Peer Review Letter, dated November 1, 2023 (see Peer Review Letter, Attachment # 4). The peer review found that the submitted heritage report has been completed in keeping with best practices, and the report provides a responsible plan to mitigate impacts to the heritage attributes of the property. The HIA indicates that the original Vardon House and associated barn are to be dismantled and recommends that the salvaged elements from both structures be reused or materials donated. The Vardon House and associated barn are to be commemorated on-site, or as part of the future learning centre (located within the Percy House) on the phase 1 lands to the east. - 8 - November 22, 2023 Page 5 of 5 575, 625, and 685 Highway 7 Staff offer the following recommendations to the Committee: 1. That Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee does not object to the removal/dismantling of the Vardon House and associated barn located at 575 Highway 7 subject to the following conditions: a) That the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) be revised as per the recommendations in the Heritage Studio Peer Review Comment letter dated November 1, 2023, including addressing details regarding the heritage building descriptions and construction date; b) That a Commemoration Plan is developed for the site and/or as part of the strategy for the learning centre (located within the Percy House) within Phase 1; c) That the Owner will make best efforts to find an interested party for the potential relocation of the Vardon House; d) That the Owner will make best efforts to donate any salvable materials to a public body such as the City of Pickering, Pickering Museum Village, Black Creek Pioneer Village, etc., and deliver at the Owner’s cost, as deemed reasonably fit by the parties; e) That the applicant provides a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report including measured drawings, prior to the registration of the Draft Plan of Subdivision or the issuance of a demolition permit; and f) 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 and recommendations provided by the Heritage Committee will be included in staff’s final recommendation report to be considered by the Planning & Development Committee and subsequently by Council at a future date. EG:nr J:\Documents\Administration\A-3300\A3300-098\9. Heritage Committee Meeting\1. Memos\HPAC Memo - 575 Highway 7_15NOV23.docx Attachments #1. Location Map #2. Submitted Draft Plan #3. Heritage Impact Assessment #4. Peer Review Letter - 9 - North Roa d Highway 7 Highway 407 City Development Department Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: CapLink / FGF: 575 Highway 7 Date: Nov. 06, 2023 ¯ Martin Ng 575 Highway 7 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\A\2023\A 00-23 Applicant Pro\A00_23_LocationMap.mxd 1:7,500 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department ofNatural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. $WWDFKPHQW - 10 - DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department SP-2023-03, A 11/23 Caplink Limited 575, 625 and 685 Highway 7 N August 21, 2023 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\SP\2023 $WWDFKPHQW - 11 - CAPLINK LIMITED HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering, Ontario May 16, 2023 $WWDFKPHQW - 12 - HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 575 HIGHWAY 7, CITY OF PICKERING, ONTARIO CAPLINK LIMITED DRAFT ORIGINAL REPORT DATE: MAY 16, 2023 WSP 582 LANCASTER STREET WEST KITCHENER, ON N2K 1M3 T: +1 519 743 8777 WSP.COM WSP PROJECT NUMBER: 231-00193-00 - 13 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page iii S I G N A T U R E S PREPARED BY Draft Emily Game, BA. Cultural Heritage Specialist May 16, 2023 Date REVIEWED BY: Draft Heidy Schopf, MAES, CAHP Cultural Heritage Lead - Ontario May 16, 2023 Date APPROVED1 BY: Draft Michael Teal Archaeology Team Lead May 16, 2023 Date WSP Canada Inc. (“WSP”) prepared this report solely for the use of the intended recipient, CapLink Limited, in accordance with the professional services agreement between the parties. In the event a contract has not been executed, the parties agree that the WSP General Terms for Consultant shall govern their business relationship which was provided to you prior to the preparation of this report. The report is intended to be used in its entirety. No excerpts may be taken to be representative of the findings in the assessment. 1 Approval of this document is an administrative function indicating readiness for release and does not impart legal liability on to the Approver for any technical content contained herein. Technical accuracy and fit -for-purpose of this content is obtained through the review process. The Approver shall ensure the applicable review process has occurred prior to signing the document. - 14 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page iv L I M I T A T I O N S The conclusions presented in this report are based on work performed by trained, professional and technical staff, in accordance with their reasonable interpretation of current and accepted engineering and scientific practices at the time the work was performed. The content and opinions contained in the present report are based on the observations and/or information available to WSP at the time of preparation, using investigation techniques and engineering analysis methods consistent with those ordinarily exercised by WSP and other engineering/scientific practitioners working under similar conditions, and subject to the same time, financial and physical constraints applicable to this project. WSP disclaims any obligation to update this report if, after the date of this report, any conditions appear to differ significantly from those presented in this report; however, WSP reserves the right to amend or supplement this report based on additional information, documentation or evidence. WSP makes no other representations whatsoever concerning the legal significance of its findings. The intended recipient is solely responsible for the disclosure of any information contained in this report. If a third party makes use of, relies on, or makes decisions in accordance with this report, said third party is solely responsible for such use, reliance or decisions. WSP does not accept responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken by said third party based on this report. WSP has provided services to the intended recipient in accordance with the professional services agreement between the parties and in a manner consistent with that degree of care, skill and diligence normally provided by members of the same profession performing the same or comparable services in respect of projects of a similar nature in similar circumstances. It is understood and agreed by WSP and the recipient of this report that WSP provides no warranty, express or implied, of any kind. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it is agreed and understood by WSP and the recipient of this report that WSP makes no representation or warranty whatsoever as to the sufficiency of its scope of work for the purpose sought by the recipient of this report. In preparing this report, WSP has relied in good faith on information provided by others, as noted in the report. WSP has reasonably assumed that the information provided is correct and WSP is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of such information. The original of this digital file will be kept by WSP for a period of not less than 10 years. As the digital file transmitted to the intended recipient is no longer under the control of WSP, its integrity cannot be assured. As such, WSP does not guarantee any modifications made to this digital file subsequent to its transmission to the intended recipient. This limitations statement is considered an integral part of this report. - 15 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page v C O N T R I B U T O R S CLIENT CapLink Limited Martin Ng, P. Eng CapLink Limited 1295 Ormont Drive, Toronto, ON M9L 2W6 WSP Report Preparation Emily Game, B.A. Cultural Heritage Specialist Mapping/GIS Tanya Peterson, B.A. (Hons) Senior GIS Technician Report Review Heidy Schopf, MES, CAHP Cultural Heritage Team Lead Report Approval Mike Teal Archaeology Team Lead - 16 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page vi E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y WSP was retained by the Biglieri Group on behalf of CapLink Limited to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the property located at 575 Highway 7 in the City of Pickering, Ontario (the subject property). The subject property was historically located in Lot 30, Concession V, Township of Pickering and now includes a one-and-a- half storey side gabled Ontario Gothic Cottage (the Vardon House) that was constructed in 1853. The subject property also contains a Central Ontario bank barn and landscape features associated with the agricultural history of the property. The subject property is listed as a non-designated property on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register pursuant to Section 27 (1.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. CapLink intends to demolish the Vardon House, barn, and landscape elements to construct six industrial buildings as part of the proposed FGF Pickering Manufacturing Campus. The FGF Pickering Manufacturing Campus will be comprised of the 39.8 hectare development of two properties on Highway 7, including: 575 and 625 Highway 7 (the project location). Since 575 Highway 7 is a listed heritage property, this HIA is required by the City of Pickering to accompany Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment applications. This HIA evaluated the subject property against the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O. Reg. 9/06) (as amended by O. Reg. 569/22) and Ontario Regulation 10/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The heritage evaluation determined that the subject property possesses cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI) as a late nineteenth century Ontario Gothic Cottage that is associated with the early settlement of Pickering. Accordingly, a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and list of heritage attributes have been developed. WSP assessed the proposed development plan to identify potential direct and indirect impacts to the CHVI and heritage attributes of the subject property. The impact assessment determined that: • The proposed development will result in major direct impacts to 575 Highway 7 since the destruction of the Vardon House, barn, and associated landscape elements is proposed. The following alternatives, mitigation and conservation options were considered to avoid or reduce these adverse impacts to the heritage attributes of the property: 1. Do nothing: preserve and maintain the Vardon House, barn and all landscape heritage attributes in situ with no further development of the property. 2. Relocate the Vardon House within the site to a more convenient location with an adaptive reuse, dismantle and salvage heritage attributes from the barn and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. 3. Remove the Vardon House and barn salvaging heritage attributes from the structures and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. Based on a review of the alternatives, mitigation and conservation options analysis, Option 1, do nothing, is the preferred option from a cultural heritage perspective. However, a “do nothing” approach is not feasible as the subject property is designated Prestige Employment and Seaton Natural Heritage System in the Pickering Official Plan. Option 2 was also not considered to be feasible as relocating the subject residence from its existing context would remove its contextual and diminish its historical or associative CHVI. As such, Option 3 is the next preferred alternative. The following conservation/mitigation strategies are recommended for Option 3, and should be implemented through the development application process: 1. Prepare a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report for residence and barn on the subject property. 2. That options for symbolic conservation using salvaged materials be explored within the proposed development. 3. Should development plans change significantly in scope or design after approval of this HIA, additional cultural heritage investigations may be required. - 17 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page vii 4. Once finalized, a copy of this HIA should be distributed to the City of Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. - 18 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page viii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1 2 POLICY FRAMEWORK .................................. 5 2.1 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ............................................. 5 2.2 Regulatory Requirements ................................... 5 Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement ................................... 5 Ontario Heritage Act........................................................................ 6 2.2.2.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 ................................................................. 7 2.2.2.2 Ontario Regulation 10/06 ............................................................... 7 Region of Durham Official Plan ........................................................ 7 City of Pickering Official Plan ........................................................... 8 2.3 Guidance Documents ........................................ 10 3 PROJECT METHODOLOGY ........................ 11 4 HISTORICAL CONTEXT ............................... 12 4.1 Indigenous History ............................................ 12 4.2 Pre-Confederation Treaties ............................... 13 4.3 Township survey and Settlement ..................... 13 Pickering Township ....................................................................... 13 Community of Whitevale................................................................ 14 Community of Green River ............................................................ 14 4.4 Property History ................................................ 15 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................. 26 5.1 Residence .......................................................... 26 North Elevation (Front Façade) ...................................................... 26 East Elevation .............................................................................. 26 South Elevation ............................................................................ 27 West Elevation.............................................................................. 27 5.2 Barn .................................................................... 31 Barn Exterior ................................................................................ 31 - 19 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page ix Barn Interior.................................................................................. 33 5.3 Landscape Conditions ...................................... 35 5.4 Property Context ............................................... 36 5.5 Architectural Style ............................................. 37 Ontario Gothic Revival .................................................................. 37 5.5.1.1 Comparative Analysis .................................................................. 39 Central Ontario Barn ..................................................................... 43 5.5.2.1 Comparative Analysis – Bank Barn at 575 Highway 7 ................. 43 6 CONSULTATION .......................................... 46 6.1 City of Pickering ................................................ 46 6.2 Federal and Provincial Review ......................... 46 7 DISCUSSION OF INTEGRITY ...................... 47 8 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION ........ 50 8.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation .................. 50 8.2 Ontario Regulation 10/06 .................................. 51 Results of the Cultural Heritage Evaluation..................................... 53 8.3 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest ............................................................................ 53 Description of the property............................................................. 53 Statement of cultural Heritage value or interest............................... 53 Heritage Attributes ........................................................................ 54 9 PROPOSED UNDERTAKING AND IMPACTS ...................................................................... 55 9.1 Description of Proposed Undertaking.............. 55 9.2 Potential Impacts ............................................... 55 Impact Assessment summary ........................................................ 58 - 20 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page x 10 ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION OPTIONS......................... 59 10.1 Options Analysis ............................................... 62 Option 1 ....................................................................................... 62 Option 2 ....................................................................................... 62 Option 3 ....................................................................................... 62 10.2 Implementation and Monitoring........................ 63 11 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 64 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................... 65 - 21 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page xi TABLES TABLE 5-1: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HERITAGE PROPERTIES OF A SIMILAR AGE, STYLE AND/OR TYPOLOGY ............................. 41 TABLE 5-2: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF BARNS OF A SIMILAR AGE, STYLE AND/OR TYPOLOGY ........................................................ 45 TABLE 7-1: HERITAGE INTEGRITY ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPERTY ........................................ 48 TABLE 8-1: EVALUATION OF 575 HIGHWAY 7 AS PER O. REG. 9/06 ........................................ 50 TABLE 8-2: EVALUATION OF 575 HIGHWAY 7 AS PER O. REG. 10/06....................................... 52 TABLE 9-1: IMPACT GRADING.......................... 57 TABLE 9-2: EVALUATION OF IMPACTS TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AT 575 HIGHWAY 7 ...... 57 TABLE 10-1: ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION OPTIONS .............................. 60 TABLE 10-2: SHORT-TERM, MEDIUM-TERM AND LONG-TERM ACTIONS FOR OPTION 3 ............ 63 FIGURES FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION ........................ 2 FIGURE 2: LOCATION OF STUDY AREA IN THE CITY OF PICKERING, ONTARIO ......................... 3 FIGURE 3: MAP OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ..... 4 FIGURE 4: 1860 TREMAINE’S MAP OF THE COUNTY OF ONTARIO, CANADA WEST .......... 19 FIGURE 5: 1877 ILLUSTRATED HISTORICAL ATLAS OF THE COUNTY OF ONTARIO ............ 20 FIGURE 6: LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA ON 1914 NTS MAP ................................................... 21 FIGURE 7: LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA ON 1922 NTS MAP ................................................... 22 FIGURE 8: LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA ON 1943 NTS MAP ................................................... 23 FIGURE 9: LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA ON 1954 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH ............................ 24 FIGURE 10: LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA ON 2002 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH ...................... 25 - 22 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page xii APPENDICES APPENDIX A: CONCEPT SITE PLAN (MAY 2023) APPENDIX B: ASSESSOR QUALIFICATIONS - 23 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 1 1 INTRODUCTION WSP was retained by the Biglieri Group on behalf of CapLink Limited to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the property located at 575 Highway 7 in the City of Pickering, Ontario (the subject property) (Figure 1 to Figure 3). The subject property was historically located in Lot 30, Concession V, Township of Pickering and now includes a one-and-a-half storey side gabled frame house with Gothic Revival exterior treatment (the Vardon House), constructed c. 1853, as well as a Central Ontario bank barn. The subject property is listed as a non-designated property on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register pursuant to Section 27 (1.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). CapLink intends to demolish the Vardon House and barn to facilitate the construction of six industrial buildings as part of the proposed FGF Pickering Manufacturing Campus. The FGF Pickering Manufacturing Campus will be comprised of the 39.8 hectare development of two properties on Highway 7, including: 575 and 625 Highway 7 (the project location). Since 575 Highway 7 is a listed heritage property, this HIA is required by the City of Pickering to accompany Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment applications. In March, 2023, the subject property was transferred to: CapLink Limited 1295 Ormont Drive, Toronto, ON M9L 2W6 The subject property was previously owned by: Infrastructure Ontario Suite 2000, 1 Dundas Street West Toronto, ON, M5G 1Z3 This HIA has been structured to adhere to the City of Pickering’s Terms of Reference: Heritage Impact Assessments (City of Pickering 2022) and guidance provided in the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism(MCM) Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process (MCM 2006); the OHA; Section 2(d) of the Planning Act; and Section 2.6.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020). This document will provide: • A background on the project and introduction to the development site; • A description of the methodology used to investigate and evaluate the subject property; • A summary of background research and analysis related to the subject property; • An assessment of exterior existing conditions; • An evaluation of the subject property for Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) and a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and list of heritage attributes, if applicable; • A description of the proposed development and a summary of potentially adverse impacts; and, • An assessment of alternative options, mitigation measures and conservation methods to be considered to avoid or limit negative impacts to the CHVI of the subject property. - 24 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 2 Figure 1: Project Location - 25 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 3 Figure 2: Location of Study Area in the City of Pickering, Ontario - 26 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 4 Figure 3: Map of Existing Conditions - 27 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 5 2 POLICY FRAMEWORK 2.1 UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES On June 21st, 2021, the Canadian federal government enacted United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and confirmed that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Declaration - 2007) “must be implemented in Canada.” As a result, Indigenous peoples in Canada are recognized as having unique rights, including those that pertain to the conservation of Indigenous heritage. As per Articles 11 and 31 of the Declaration: 11. 1) Indigenous peoples have the right to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, s uch as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature. 31. 1) Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions. 2) In conjunction with Indigenous peoples, States shall take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these rights. These rights to historical sites, ceremonies, cultural traditions, etc. (collectively understood as Indigenous heritage) are pertinent to the land development process through Articles 25 and 26 of the Declaration, which state that: 25. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard. 26. 1) Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired. 2) Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired. 3) States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions, and land tenure systems of the Indigenous peoples concerned. 2.2 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS PLANNING ACT AND PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT The Planning Act (1990) and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) [Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), 2020] issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act, provide Ontario-wide policy direction on land use planning. All decisions affecting land use planning “shall be consistent with” the PPS, which identifies that properties and features demonstrating significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological, technical or scientific interest are of provincial interest and should be conserved. - 28 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 6 The importance of identifying, evaluating and conserving built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes is noted in two sections of the PPS 2020: • Section 1.7.1 – Long-term economic prosperity should be supported by: • e) encouraging a sense of place, by promoting well-designed built form and cultural planning, and by conserving features that help define character, including built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes • Section 2.6.1 – “Significant built heritage resources and significant heritage landscapes shall be conserved ;” and, • Section 2.6.3 – “Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved.” The following concepts, as defined in the PPS, are fundamental to an understanding of the conservation of cultural heritage resources in Ontario: Built Heritage Resources (BHR) are defined as “a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Indigenous community. Built heritage resources are located on property that may be designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or that may be included on local, provincial, federal and/or international registers.” Conserved is defined as “the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservati on plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has been approved, accepted or adopted by the relevant planning authority and/or decision-maker. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments.” Cultural Heritage Landscapes (CHL) “means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Indigenous community. The area may include features such as buildings, structures, spaces, views, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Cultural heritage landscapes may be properties that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act, or have been included on federal and/or international registers, and/or protected through official plan, zoning by -law, or other land use planning mechanisms.” Heritage attributes “means the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritage property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property’s built, constructed, or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (e.g. significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage property).” Significant means “in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act.” ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT The OHA gives municipalities and the provincial gove rnment powers to preserve the heritage of Ontario, with a primary focus on protecting heritage properties and archaeological sites. The OHA grants authority to municipalities and the province to identify and designate properties of heritage significance, p rovide standards and guidelines for the preservation of heritage properties and enhance protection of heritage conservation districts, marine heritage sites and archaeological resources. Properties can be designated individually (Part IV of the OHA) or as part of a larger group of properties, known as a Heritage Conservation District (Part V of the OHA). Designation offers protection for the properties under Sections 33 and 34 of the OHA, prohibiting the owner of a designated property from altering, demolishing or removing a building or structure on the property unless the owner applies to the council of the municipality and receives written consent to proceed with the alteration, demolition or removal. - 29 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 7 The Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, gives municipalities and the provincial government powers to protect heritage properties and archaeological sites (Government of Ontario 1990). The Ontario Heritage Act includes two regulations for determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI): O. Reg. 569/22 and O. Reg. 10/06. O. Reg. 569/22 provides criteria to determine the CHVI of a property at a local level while O. Reg. 10/06 provides criteria to determine if a property has CHVI of provincial significance. For this study, O. Reg. 569/22 is used to evaluate the Study Area at a local level. 2.2.2.1 ONTARIO REGULATION 9/06 The evaluation of cultural heritage resources is guided by Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O. Reg 9/06) (as amended by O. Reg. 569/22), which provides nine criteria for determining CHVI. The criteria set out in the regulation were developed to identify and evaluate properties for designation under the OHA. Best practices in evaluating properties that are not yet protected employ O. Reg. 9/06 to determine if they have CHVI. The criteria for determining CHVI under O. Reg. 9/06 are: 1 The property has design or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, 2 The property has design or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or 3 The property has design or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4 The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, 5 The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or 6 The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 7 The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, 8 The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionall y, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or 9 The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. 2.2.2.2 ONTARIO REGULATION 10/06 O. Reg. 10/06 provides the criteria to determine if a property has CHVI of provincial significance . This regulation was created in 2006 to be utilised to identify properties of provincial heritage significance under the Ontario Heritage Act. The criteria for determining CHVI of provincial significance under O. Reg. 10/06 include: 1 The property represents or demonstrates a theme or pattern in Ontario’s history. 2 The property yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of Ontario’s history. 3 The property demonstrates an uncommon, rare or unique aspect of Ontario’s cultural heritage. 4 The property is of aesthetic, visual or contextual importance to the province. 5 The property demonstrates a high degree of excellence or creative, technical or scientific achievement at a provincial level in a given period. 6 The property has a strong or special association with the entire province or with a community that is found in more than one part of the province. The association exists for historic, social, or cultural reasons or because of traditional use. 7 The property has a strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organization of importance to the province or with an event of importance to the province. 8 The property is located in unorganized territory and the Minister determines that there is a provin cial interest in the protection of the property. REGION OF DURHAM OFFICIAL PLAN The Durham Regional Official Plan (2020 - Office Consolidation) provides a series of policies for the conservation of cultural heritage resources. Section 2.3.49 of the document provides a policy for built and cultural heritage resources, - 30 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 8 which states that the Regional Council shall encourage councils of the area municipalities to utilize the Ontario Heritage Act to conserve, protect, and enhance the built and cultural heritage resources of the municipality. The plan is clear to be consistent with the policies and direction provided through the PPS and encourages local municipalities to address cultural heritage resources in greater detail within their local official plans. CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN The City of Pickering Official Plan (2018) provides cultural heritage conservation policies in Chapter 8. The following policies provide guidance for development proposals that may impact cultural heritage resources. 8.2 City Council shall: (a) identify important cultural heritage resources from all time periods, so that they can be appropriately conserved and integrated into the community fabric, including: (i) significant heritage structures, features and sites; (ii) buildings, sites, and artifacts of historical, archaeological and architectural significance including modern or recent architecture; (iii) significant landscape features and characteristics, including vistas and ridge lines; and (iv) other locally important cultural heritage resources; (b) foster public awareness and appreciation of the City’s cultural heritage; (c) prevent the demolition, destruction or inappropriate alteration of important cultural heritage resources to the extent possible; (d) where possible, restore, rehabilitate, maintain and enhance important cultural heritage resources owned by the City, and encourage the same for those owned by others; (e) where possible, ensure development, infrastructure, capital works and other private and pub lic projects conserve, protect and enhance important cultural heritage resources; and (f) involve the public, business-people, landowners, local heritage experts, heritage committees, relevant public agencies, and other interested groups and individuals in cultural heritage decisions affecting the City. Cooperation with Others 8.3 City Council shall: (a) assist in identifying, protecting and promoting cultural heritage resources in the municipality, in cooperation with Federal, Provincial and Regional levels of government, as well as private agencies and individuals; (b) consult with its local architectural conservation advisory committee and other heritage committees, and participate with these committees and others in protecting important heritage resource s, as necessary, through assembling, resale, public-private partnerships, acquisition or other forms of involvement; (c) ensure that plans, programs and strategies prepared by or for the City and its boards or commissions, shall respect the character and significance of the City’s heritage resources; and (d) use and encourage the use of available government and non-government funding and programs to assist in cultural heritage resource conservation. Ontario Heritage Act 8.4 City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, where warranted shall implement the provisions of the OHA, including the designation under the Act of heritage sites and heritage districts. Cultural Heritage Inventory 8.7 City Council, in association with its heritage committee, shall: - 31 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 9 (a) conduct an inventory of heritage resources owned by the City, its boards and commissions, and establish an overall program for the maintenance, use, reuse or, if warranted, disposal of these resources; (b) maintain an inventory of heritage resources designated or worthy of designation under the OHA; and (c) store and disseminate cultural heritage resource inventories and databases in convenient and publicly accessible locations and formats, and maintain an archive of heritage conservation inform ation. Cultural Heritage Alteration and Demolition 8.8 City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, shall: (a) allow alterations, additions or repairs to buildings designated under the OHA, provided the changes to the building do not detrimentally affect the heritage value; (b) allow new buildings, or alterations, additions or repairs to existing buildings within a Heritage Conservation District that are consistent with the District Conservation Guidelines; (c) discourage or prevent the demolition or inappropriate alteration of a heritage resource, but where demolition or inappropriate alteration is unavoidable: (i) consider the acquisition and conservation of the resource; and (ii) if acquisition is not possible, conduct a thorough review and documentation of the resource for archival purposes; and (d) ensure that designated cultural heritage buildings, and other important cultural heritage resources that are vacant for an extended period of time are inspected regularly to discourage vandalism and monitor conformity with the City’s Maintenance and Occupancy By-law. Guidelines for Use and Reuse 8.9 City Council shall consider the following guidelines on the use and reuse of heritage resources: (a) maintain, if possible, the original use of heritage structures and sites, and if possible, retain the original location and orientation of such structures; (b) where original uses cannot be maintained, support the adaptive reuse of heritage structures and sites to encourage resource conservation; and (c) where no other alternative exists for maintaining heritage structures in their original locations, allow the relocation of the structure to appropriate sites or areas. Documenting Former Built Heritage Resources 11.64 City Council requires that where preservation of a built heritage resource is not possible, new development shall document the historical context of the built heritage resource through one o r more of the following techniques: (a) the preservation and display of fragments of former buildings, structures and landscaping in their historic context; (b) marking the traces of former locations, shapes and circulation lines of buildings, structures, travel routes and spaces; (c) the display of graphic material describing the former structures and landscape complex; (d) recall the former architecture, plan and landscaping in the new development; and (e) the salvage of information through archaeological exploration and recording of buildings, structures and landscape through measured drawings and photogrammetry. - 32 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 10 2.3 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS The MCM’s Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process (2006) identifies HIAs as an important tool to evaluate built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes and to determine appropriate conservation options. The document identifies what an HIA should contain and any specific municipal requirements. To determine the effect that a proposed development or site alteration may have on a significant cultural heritage resource, this guidance document outlines seven potential direct or indirect impacts: • Direct Impacts — Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features; — Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; • Indirect Impacts — Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or cha nge the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden; — Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; — Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; — A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; — Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource. The MCM’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties (2007), provide guiding principles for the development of appropriate conservation or mitigation measures: 1 Respect for documentary evidence: Do not base restoration on conjecture. Conservation work should be based on historical documentation, such as historical photographs, drawings and physical evidence. 2 Respect for the original location: Do not move buildings unless there is no other means to save them. Site is an integral component of a building. Any change in site diminishes heritage value considerably. 3 Respect for historical material: Repair or conserve rather than replace building materials and finishes, except where absolutely necessary. Minimal intervention maintains the historical content of the resource. 4 Respect for original fabric: Repair with like materials, to return the resource to its prior condition without altering its integrity. 5 Respect for the building’s history: Do not restore to one period at the expense of another. Do not destroy later additions to a house solely to restore it to a single time period. 6 Reversibility: Alterations should be able to be returned to original conditions. This conserves earlier building design and technique. For instance, when a new door opening is put in a stone wall, the original stones are numbered, removed and stored, allowing for future restoration. 7 Legibility: New work should be distinguishable from old. Buildings should be recognized as products of their own time, and new additions should not blur the distinction between old and new. 8 Maintenance: With continuous care, future restoration will not be necessary. With regular upkeep, major conservation projects and their high costs can be avoided. - 33 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 11 3 PROJECT METHODOLOGY An HIA evaluates the proposed impact of development on the heritage attributes of a property of potential CHVI. This HIA is guided by the MCM Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process; the OHA; Section 2(d) of the Planning Act; Section 2.6.3 of the PPS, and the City of Pickering Terms of Reference: Heritage Impact Assessments (2022). To address the requirements of an HIA, this report provides the following information: • A summary of the history of the immediate context informed by a review of archival sources and historical maps; • Exterior and interior photographic documentation of the subject property, project location, and context; • A written description of the existing conditions and context of the subject property; • An evaluation of the subject property according to O. Reg. 9/06 and O. Reg. 10/06; • Preparation of a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and list of heritage attributes, if applicable; • A review of the proposed intervention; • Identification of impacts; • The identification and analysis of mitigation opportunities, as required; • The preferred strategy recommended to best protect and enhance the CHVI and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource; and • A summary statement and conservation recommendations. - 34 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 12 4 HISTORICAL CONTEXT 4.1 INDIGENOUS HISTORY The cultural history of southern Ontario began approximately 11,000 years ago when the glaciers had melted, and the land was re-exposed. The land was quickly settled by bands of hunters and gatherers who are thought to have been large game hunters. This period is referred to as the Paleo-Indian Period and it is thought to have lasted until approximately 9,000 years ago. After 9,500 years ago, there was a long period when the climate was variable and the bare lands left by the glaciers were becoming re-forested, resulting in patchier, more diverse ecozones. This period is referred to as the Archaic Period and it is thought to have lasted until 3,000 years ago as people were adapting to diverse environmental settings. The Archaic adaptation is generally thought to have centered on localized re sources, often forest resources, and groups of people are thought to have been less mobile, an adaptation that continued to develop until the arrival of Europeans. In southern Ontario, the Archaic Period is divided into the Early, Middle and Late Archaic. The Archaic Period is followed by the Woodland Period. The major technological change in the Early Woodland Period is the introduction of pottery. During this time, people are thought to have developed more community organization and the manufacture of clay pottery is thought to indicate less residential mobility. The Early Woodland Period transitioned into the Middle Woodland Period approximately 2,400 years ago. During the Middle Woodland Period in southern Ontario community and kin identity became more deeply entrenched, and more sedentary communities developed. By around 500 Common Era (CE), maize cultivation had been widely adopted in Ontario, marking the transition between the Middle Woodland and Late Woodland Periods. The Late Woodland Period saw the development of recognizable Iroquoian and Anishnaabe cultures in southern Ontario, as well as intensified cultivation of crops such as corn, beans, squash, sunflower and tobacco. Greater sedentism led to increasing settlement populations and greater compl exity of settlement organization. Village sites dating to this time are often found on terraces overlooking the floodplains of large rivers, though settlements were also located near smaller watercourses. Iroquoian villages tended to be small, palisaded compounds with longhouses occupied by families. As the Late Woodland Period progressed, more intercommunity communication and integration became necessary to maintain the sedentary agricultural way of life. Later Iroquoian villages were larger and more heavily palisaded, and longhouses were larger also. Algonquian settlements tended to be less populous and temporary. When French explorers, missionaries, and fur traders arrived in southern Ontario in the early 17th century, they met diverse communities across the Great Lakes region, such as the nations of the Iroquoian Wendat (Huron), Attawandaron (Neutral), Tionnontaté or Khionontateronon (Petun), and Haudenosaunee (Six Nations), and Anishnaabe Ojibwe, Odawa, Nipissing, and Algonquin. Contact with Europeans disrupted the traditional Indigenous political dynamics, allegiances, and ways of life at different times and to varying degrees throughout Ontario. By the mid-17th century, European disease and conflict had driven the Wendat, Attawandaron, Tionnontaté or K hionontateronon from their traditional territories and they were forces to relocate to other regions as way of survival for their Nations. Indigenous lifeways adapted in complex and varied ways as European colonization intensified from the 18th century onwards, and after the British colonial regime gained control of Canada in 1763, Treaties were established between the Crown and Indigenous Nations for lands across Ontario. It is now recognized that the British —and later Canadian governments— and Indigenous Nations had different understandings of these treaties, but they remain legally binding agreements that “form the basis of the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people” (Government of Ontario 2021). Presently, there are ongoing land claims between Indigenous Nations and the Government of Canada related to differing perspectives on treaty lands and traditional territory in Ontario (Sault 2021; Six Nations of the Grand River 2022; Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation 2022; and Haudenosau nee Confederacy 2022). Presently, Durham Region has developed the following land acknowledgement to recognize the traditional territory of Indigenous Nations who called, and still call, the land home before the arrival of settlers: "The Region of Durham exists on lands that the Michi Saagiig Anishinaabeg inhabited for thousands of years prior to European colonization. These lands are the traditional and treaty territories of the - 35 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 13 Nations covered under the Williams Treaties, including the Mississaugas of Scu gog Island First Nation, Alderville First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, and the Chippewa Nations of Georgina Island, Beausoleil and Rama. We honour, recognize, and respect Indigenous Peoples as rights holders and stewards of the lands and waters on which we have the privilege to live. In our efforts towards reconciliation, we continue to build and strengthen relationships with First Nations, as well as the large Métis communities and growing Inuit communities here in Durham. We commit to learning from Indigenous values and knowledge, building opportunities for collaboration, and recognizing that we are all connected ”. (Durham Region 2023) 4.2 PRE-CONFEDERATION TREATIES The subject property, located in the City of Pickering, is situated on the lands of the William Treaties and the Johnson- Butler Purchase. The Williams Treaties were signed in October and November of 1923 between the Crown and seven First Nations groups, including the Chippewa of Lake Simcoe (Beausoleil First Nation, Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, Chippewas of Rama First Nation) and the Mississauga of the north shore of Lake Ontario (Alderville First Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation, and Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation). The Williams Treaties were the last of the land cession treaties to be signed in Canada, which transferred over 20 ,000 square kilometers of land in south-central Ontario to the Crown. 4.3 TOWNSHIP SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT The District of Nassau, created in 1788, was one of four original districts dividing what is now the Province of Ontario. This district was later renamed the Home District, which stretched form the Trent River to Long Point and north to the Severn River. Over the following years these districts were divided until there were 20 districts in all. In 1853, Ontario County was separated from the United Counties of Ontario, York and Peel. In 1869, Ontario County was estimated at 360,000 acres with 210,000 acres of which were cleared and under cultivation (Conner and Coltson, 1869). By 1854, Ontario County included nine townships: Brock, Mara, Pickering, Rama, Reach, Scott, Thorah, Uxbridge, and Whitby. In the latter half of the nineteenth century the County was kn own for the quality of its grains and the principal manufactures were flour and lumber (Conner and Coltson, 1869). Ontario County was dissolved in 1974 and the Townships of Rama and Mara were added to Simcoe County. PICKERING TOWNSHIP Pickering Township was established in 1791 when Augustus Jones began to survey the area on behalf of the government of Upper Canada. The eastern part of the township was settled by Loyalists, disbanded soldiers, emigrants from the United Kingdom, and a large number of Quakers from both Ireland and the United States (US) (Farewell, 1907). Loyalists and their relatives held the vast majority of land grants in Pickering Township in the years following the revolution (Johnson, 1973). By 1793, Kingston Road was opened to serve as a horse path extending east from Simcoe’s Dundas Street, and in 1799, a rough roadway had been cut from Duffin’s Creek to Port Hope. While early roadworks made the Township more accessible to prospective settlers, actual settlement of Pickering Township proceeded very slowly. Although the first land patent was awarded to Major John Smith in 1792, the first legal settler in Pickering was William Peak in 1798 (Armstrong, 1985; Farewell, 1907). Difficulty clearing the forest led Peak and other early settlers to pursue non-agricultural means to augment income, including trading with local Indigenous Peoples (Johnson, 1973). Population growth and township development remained slow during the early nineteenth century. The War of 1812 halted much of the county and township’s development. After the conflict, increased road traffic provided a boost in business to local innkeepers while soldiers worked to improve existing road conditions. With improved roadways, and a substantial water course in Duffin’s Creek, Pickeri ng Township was soon able to establish saw and grist mills for the production of lumber and grain for export through Toronto. By 1817, the population was 330 (Johnson, 1973). - 36 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 14 Changes in land-granting policies in the early nineteenth century led to further sales of land in Pickering Township and by 1820 the population was 575 (Johnson, 1973), which grew to 830 by 1825 (Johnson, 1973). A post office was established in 1829 but the hamlet of Duffin's Creek developed slowly. That same year, the Crown wo rked with the New England Company, a missionary group, to encourage farming and education for the First Nations people. The community that is now known as Curve Lake First Nation was established (Curve Lake First Nation, n.d.). The construction of the Grand Trunk Railway in 1856 and growing agricultural prosperity stimulated the community's development as an important grist-milling and local commercial centre. However, Pickering Township was slow to develop. By 1861 growth had stalled and between 1861 and 1891 a decline in population occurred. Inflation and a depression between 1874-76 did little to help. The population of Pickering Township peaked at 8,002 in 1861 (Johnson, 1973) and by 1891 numbered 5,998 (Johnson, 1973). Through most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the township remained primarily agricultural. As many communities on the periphery of Toronto, development increased following the Second World War. Manufacturing companies also moved to the township following the construction of Highway 401 in the 1950s and in 1974 the township was divided into eastern and northern parts. In 1974, the villages of Brougham, Claremont, Green River, Greenwood and Whitevale amalgamated to become the Town of Pickering. In 2000, the Town became incorporated as a City. COMMUNITY OF WHITEVALE Situated 1.3 km to the southwest of the subject property, the community of Whitevale was founded in 1820 by John Major who built a sawmill along Duffin’s Creek. The community as first known as Majorville as John Major and multiple members of his family lived on the surrounding properties. In 1845, Ira White arrived in Majorville and took over the sawmill. In 1855, the sawmill was purchased by his son, Truman. P. White, who also constructed a grist mill and a cooperage. In the same year, the community also constructed its first general store (Wood, 1911). He later constructed a planning factory in 1866, a brick woollen mill in 1867, and a schoolhouse sometime later. Truman White became a central pillar of the community, and the small hamlet was named Whitevale after him. By 1874, Whitevale contained three general stores, three dressmakers, three gardeners, two shoemaker shops, two churches, two blacksmiths, two wagon shops, a stave and heading factory, a barrel factory, a wa gon and carriage factory, a cheese factory, a merchant and tailoring firm, a butcher shop, a tinsmith shop, a school house, an undertakers, a harness shop, a grist mill, a brush factory, a grindstone factory, a barber shop, a post office, and a hotel (Wood , 1911; Whitevale, n.d.). The continued prosperity of Whitevale did not last and during the last quarter of the nineteenth century the community was struck by separate fires at the cooperage, the carriage factory, the public hall, planning mill, grist mill , and the woollen mill. These problems were compounded when Whitevale was bypassed by the Ontario -Quebec railway line, built in 1884 (Whitevale, n.d.). Whitevale remains as an unincorporated community of the City of Pickering . COMMUNITY OF GREEN RIVER Situated approximately 3 kilometres west of the subject property, the community of Green River was first settled by Benjamin Doten. Doten arrived in 1849 and established a wagon and blacksmith shop known as Dotenville Carriage Works. The Osburn, Rice, Runnals, Vardon, Ferrier, Turner, MacIntyre, Poucher, and the Winter families were among the early families to settle in Green River. William Barnes built a sawmill in 1857 and by 1870, he added a factory to produce tubs, fork and brush handles, and baskets. Edward and John Smith were an integral part of the development of Green River, in the early 1870s, they purchased a sawmill and restored it to working order , the also erected a grist mill, a store, and a public hall in the village; t hey also aided in the establishment of a post office in 1870 (Mika & Mika, 1981). In 1974, Green River was incorporated into the newly created Town of Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham. - 37 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 15 4.4 PROPERTY HISTORY The Euro-Canadian land use history for 575 Highway 7, Pickering was produced using census returns, land registry records, city directories, historical mapping, and other primary and secondary sources, where available. The subject property is within Lot 30, Concession V, in the Geographic Township of Pickering, Ontario County. now the City of Pickering. The property history has been completed with land registry records, historical maps and census records. It should be noted that the absence of structures or other features shown on the historical maps does not preclude their presence on these properties. Illustrating all homesteads on the historical atlas maps would have been beyond the intended scope of the atlas and, often, homes were only illustrated for those landowners who purchased a subscription. The key information gathered from primary sources regarding the early history of the property includes: • May 17, 1802: All 200 acres granted to Isabella Hill. • November 28, 1816: All 200 acres were sold to James Tinline (Instrument No. 12947, Page 46). • 1837: No occupants are listed for Lot 30, Concession V in the 1837 City of Toronto and the Home District Commercial Directory and Register (Walton, 1837). • September 4, 1841: Angelica Givins and others sold 200 acres to William Turner for £600.00 (Instrument No. 18802, Page 46). • 1842: Robert and Thomas Vardon and their families arrived from New Brunswick in 1842 and settled on Lots 29 and 30, Concession V (Wood, 1911). • October - November, 1845: The north half of the lot was purchased by Thomas Vardon (Book 40, Instrument No. 25655, Page 46). Thomas went on to subdivide the north half of Lot 30, Concession V; the south half of the north half of the lot was sold to Robert Vardon on December 17, 1845 and the northwest corner of the lot was sold to the Municipal Council on November 5, 1844, no compensation is listed i n the abstract book (Book 40, Instrument No. 26248 and 28470, Page 46). • A school was located on the subject property, the exact date is unknown, however archival information suggested it was built between 1842 (Plate 1) and 1848. - 38 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 16 Plate 1: History of the Green River School, c. 1965 (Courtesy of the Pickering Public Library) The book Past Years in Pickering : Sketches of the History of the Community indicates: The first school in Section No. 11 (Green River) was built at Brunswick Hill in 1839 or the early thirties, the second about the year 1848 on Lot 30, Concession V. (Wood, p. 172) The Vardons, Turners and other New Brunswick families which settled in the neighborhood were loyal Baptists, and as soon as possible secured the services of such ministers as were available. The first services were held in the School house on the corner of the Vardon farm. One of the earliest who ministered to them was Rev. Thomas Gostick, who, commencing with the year 1843, - 39 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 17 seems to have been for a time their regular pastor. In 1847, Thomas L. Davidson, a student of the Canada Baptist College, Montreal, was called and soon after ordained. In that year also a chapel was erected on Brunswick Hill, and opened and dedicated on May 28th, 1848. The deacons at this time were William Winter, W. B. Clark and Robert Vardon. (Wood, p. 96) Roswell’s City of Toronto Directory and County of York for 1850-1851 (Armstrong, 1850) lists several occupants for Lot 30, Concession V, including Thomas Burton, Edward Evans, George Varden [sic] and Robert Varden [sic]. No information regarding the presence of structures is provided in the directory. The 1851 Agricultural Census lists Thomas Vardon as actively farming 50 acres of Lot 30, Concession V (Item No. 1413972, Page 277).Thomas Vardon and his wife Hannah aged 47 and 42 years respectively are enumerated in the 1851 Census. Thomas’s occupation is listed as a farmer, the census also notes that both Thomas and Hannah were born in New Brunswick and belong to the Baptist church. The Census also notes that the residence is noted as being outside of the village limits, no information regarding the house is provided in the Census (Item No. 1413988, Page 245). Original concession roads are illustrated on the 1860 Tremaine Map of Ontario County (Figure 4), including present- day Highway 7 and Whites Road, as are the settlements of Brunswick Hill and Brougham located north and east of the subject property, respectively. The lands surrounding the subject property constituted a rural landscape. The Tremaine map indicates that Lot 30 is divided into two 100 acre lots, with 575 Highway 7 located within the lot owned by T. Vardon. Two structures are illustrated within the subject property on the 1860 Tremaine Map, including the Vardon House and the schoolhouse, located at the northwest corner of the lot. The 1861 Census lists Thomas (56), Hannah (52) and their child, Thomas (19), as living in a one -and-a-half storey frame house. The census indicates that a single family was living in the house in 1861 (Item no. 1693980, Page 132). On December 11, 1866, 25 acres of the north half of the lot was sold by Thomas W. Vardon to Smith Vardon for $1,500. William H. Vardon purchased 25 acres (the north half of the north ha lf of the lot), from Thomas W. Vardon (Instrument No. 28572 and 426, Page 46). Twenty-five acres of the north half of the north half of the lot were purchased by Simon Beattie from William H. Vardon on November 3, 1870 (Instrument No. 774, Page 46) and the remaining 25 acres of the north half of the north half were purchased by Edwin J. Vardon from Smith Sydney Vardon on February 7, 1871 (Instrument No. 858, Page 46). The 1871 lists Simon Beattie, a 43-year-old widow, from Scotland as belonging to the Presbyterian church. His children, Mary (8), Robert (2) and William (28), and two servants, William Jane and Elizabeth Sommerville are also listed (Item No. 649365, Page, 35). Beattie is also enumerated in the 1871 Head of Household Census (Item No. 257476, Page, 35). On May 4, 1875, Simon Beattie went on to sell 25 acres of the lot to David Brown (Instrument No. 2163, Page 46). On February 24, 1879, Robert Milne purchased the north quarter of the north half of the lot from Janet Brown (Instrument No. 3508, Page 46). One structure is illustrated on the 1877 Pickering Township Map (Figure 5), with D. Brown shown as owning 25 acres within Lot 30, Concession V. The schoolhouse is not illustrated on the 1877 map. A brick structure is shown on the 1914 NTS map, in the approximate location of the subject property (Figure 6). This likely a transcription error as previous census information denotes a frame structure on the subject property. The 1881 Census lists Robert Milne, aged 40, his wife Euphemia, aged 38 and their children George S. (8), Walter B. (6), Christina L. (4), Robert (2) and Arthur (8 months) as well as Christina Brown, a 70 year old widow (Item No. 3433104, Page 51). No information regarding the structure on the subject property is provided. The transactions in the Abstract Book are illegible between 1879 and 1921, however, based on subsequent, legible transactions, the Milne family owned the subject property until 1957. On June 22, 1921 the north half of Lot 30, Concession V was willed from Robert Milne to Euphemia Milne (Book 40, Instrument No. 4366, Page 146143). One hundred acres of Lot 30, Concession V was willed from Walter B. Milne on August 16, 1957, no recipient of the will is recorded in the Abstract Book (Book 40, Instrument No. 111316, Page 146). - 40 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 18 The structure is also present on the 1933 (Figure 7) and 1943 NTS maps (Figure 8), the maps, however, do not indicate building material. These maps show no change in the lands surrounding the subject property, as they continued to be rural in nature. All of Lot 30, Concession V was expropriated by the Crown and granted to the Ministry of Housing, Province of Ontario, on February 1, 1974 (Book 40, Page 146B). The lot is granted from the Ontario Land Corporation to Her Majesty The Queen in right of the Province of Ontario represented by the Minister of Transportation and communications for the Province of Ontario on March 13, 1982 (Book 40, Page 146C, Instrument D136577). A 1954 aerial photograph (Figure 9) of the subject property was reviewed, and while the quality of the photograph is poor, the house and the bank are visible. Development within the subject property between 1954 and 2002 was relatively slow. The 2002 aerial photograph (Figure 10) clearly shows the house and barn on the subject property; Highway 407 is also present, south of the subject property. By 2002, an extension of North Road was constructed south of Highway 7, near the western edge of the property. By this time Highway 407 was also constructed south of the property line. The majority of the lands adjacent to 575 Highway 7 remain under active cultivation. - 41 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 19 Figure 4: 1860 Tremaine’s Map of the County of Ontario, Canada West - 42 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 20 Figure 5: 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario - 43 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 21 Figure 6: Location of the Study Area on 1914 NTS Map - 44 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 22 Figure 7: Location of the Study Area on 1922 NTS Map - 45 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 23 Figure 8: Location of the Study Area on 1943 NTS Map - 46 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 24 Figure 9: Location of the Study Area on 1954 Aerial Photograph - 47 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 25 Figure 10: Location of the Study Area on 2002 Aerial Photograph - 48 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 26 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject property at 575 Highway 7 is currently under active agricultural cultivation, on an approximately 16.4- hectare rectangular lot that includes a one-and-a-half storey frame building that has been modified to include Ontario Gothic detailing as well as one Central Ontario bank barn (Figure 3). The property is located on the south side of Highway 7, east of North Road and west of Whites Road in the City of Pickering. The property is bounded on the east and west by lands associated with the Seaton Natural Heritage System, by Highway 407 to the south, and agricultural land to the north. The residential building is oriented toward Highway 7 and the barn is located south of the residence. The following description of the subject property is based on the site visit conducted on April 6, 2023, by Emily Game, Cultural Heritage Specialist. Access to the project location was provided by the proponent, however, interior access to the residence was not granted, representing a limitation to the on-site investigation. 5.1 RESIDENCE The subject property includes a one-and-a-half storey Ontario Gothic Cottage with Neoclassical style influences, which is also known as the Vardon House. The house is set back from Highway 7 by approximately 30 metres and is oriented with its façade to Highway 7, slightly east of a straight, gravel driveway (Photograph 1 to Photograph 15). Constructed in 1853, the Vardon House was originally built to a rectangular plan, with one rear addition projecting from the south elevation. The main façade of the structure was likely modified at an unknown date to include elements of the Gothic Revival style including a gabled centre bay with a steeply pitched roof, board and batten siding, gingerbread scrollwork and finial and pendant in the gable. The foundation material consists of board-formed concrete, and the foundation appears to be raised. This concrete foundation is likely a replacement for the original stone foundation. The one-and-a-half storey rear addition has a gable roof and concrete foundation. The west elevation is clad in board and batten, and the east and south elevations are clad in horizontal vinyl siding. NORTH ELEVATION (FRONT FAÇADE) The symmetrical three-bay north elevation represents the building’s main façade (Photograph 1). The structure, finished in wood board and batten siding, is set at grade. The side gable roof is clad in asphalt shingles. The entrance to the house is located within a projecting bay with a steeply pitched roof. In keeping with the Ontario Gothic Cottage style, a round headed window is located in the central gable peak. The central gable peak features delicate gingerbread scroll work with a drooped shape and a simple finial. The entrance is highlighted by a door casing reflective of the Neoclassical style featuring flat wood pilasters with a simple block base, topped with a decorative entablature (Photograph 2). A panelled door is located within the surround that has two panels with rounded tops, mimicking the shape of the windows in the gable end (Photograph 3). The entrance is flanked by a pair of rectangular window openings with simple wood surrounds and plain wood sills. The original six-over-six double-hung sash windows have been replaced with new vinyl inserts. EAST ELEVATION The original portion of the residence’s east elevation is two-bays and organized asymmetrically (Photograph 5 and Photograph 6). The gable peak of the roof features delicate gingerbread scroll work with a simple finial. An interior brick chimney projects from the gable peak and a stainless steel stove pipe projects from an opening in the northside of the foundation and travels up the elevation beyond the roofline. The upper storey includes a pair of rectangular window openings with simple wood surrounds and plain wood sills with new vinyl inserts. One larger rectangular window is located on the south side of the lower level of the elevation and also features simple wood surrounds and a plain wood sill with new vinyl insert. One rectangular window is located in the south side of the board-formed concrete foundation. - 49 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 27 The east elevation of the rear one-and-a-half storey addition is one bay and includes a small rectangular window opening below the roofline. One larger, three-paned, rectangular window is located on the lower level of the elevation and features simple wood surrounds and a plain wood sill with a new vinyl insert (Photograph 7). SOUTH ELEVATION The original portion of the south elevation is largely obscured by the one-and-a-half storey addition projecting to the rear (Photograph 8 and Photograph 9). The original elevation (Photograph 10) includes one small square window opening with a plain wood sill below the roofline and one door opening at the main level (Photograph 11). Both the window and door include simple wood surrounds. The window is a replacement unit and a wood panel door with a large lite is located behind an aluminum storm door. The south elevation of the one-and-a-half storey addition features a gable roofline with one rectangular window opening and a door opening on the upper level. Both appear to be contemporary replacements and include simple wood surrounds. The lower half of the door is blocked by a utilitarian wood railing. The lower level of the elevation is composed of an enclosed wood frame porch with a slopped roof and large plate glass windows. The enclosed porch is accessed from the east via a wood panel door with four lites. WEST ELEVATION The original portion of the residence’s west elevation is two-bays and organized asymmetrically (Photograph 12 and Photograph 13). Like the east elevation, the gable peak of the roof features delicate gingerbread scroll work with a simple finial. The upper storey includes a pair of rectangular window openings with simple wood surround s and plain wood sills with new vinyl inserts (Photograph 14). One larger rectangular window is located on the north side of the lower level of the elevation that also features simple wood surrounds and a plain wood sill with a replacement unit (Photograph 15). The south side of the lower level includes a door opening with simple wood surrounds. Two rectangular windows are located in the board-formed concrete foundation. The west elevation of the rear one-and-a-half storey addition is also asymmetrically designed and includes two small rectangular window openings below the north side of the roofline and one larger rectangular window is located on the lower level of the elevation and features simple wood surrounds and a plain wood sill with a new vinyl insert. Photograph 1: Façade (north elevation) of the Vardon House - 50 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 28 Photograph 2: Detail of door surround Photograph 3: Detail of window on projecting bay Photograph 4: Three-quarter view of the north and east elevations Photograph 5: East elevation of house at 575 Highway 7 - 51 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 29 Photograph 6: East elevation of original portion of house Photograph 7: East elevation of addition Photograph 8: Three-quarter view of the east and south elevations Photograph 9: South elevation of the house - 52 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 30 Photograph 10: Detail of original portion of the south elevation Photograph 11: Detail of door opening in original portion of the south elevation Photograph 12: Three-quarter view of the south and west elevations Photograph 13: West elevation of the house - 53 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 31 Photograph 14: Detail of joining of original portion of house and rear addition on the west elevation Photograph 15: Detail of window opening in original portion of the west elevation 5.2 BARN BARN EXTERIOR The barn on the subject property is oriented east to west, it retains its original rectangular plan and was built into the natural topography of the lot, which slopes to the south. As such, entrances to the barn are provided on both the north (banked) and south eave-sides, with access to the upper level for crop and implement storage and working space provided on the north elevation, and access to the lower stable area provided via the south and west elevations. The foundation of the barn consists of fieldstone (Photograph 16). The barn is clad in vertical wood boards and features a gambrel roof clad in sheet metal. Four evenly spaced lightening rods are present on the ridgeline. The north elevation contains large sliding wood doors roughly in the centre of the elevation (Photograph 17). Two windows and one door are also extant on the lower level of the north elevation. The east elevation of the barn contains two windows in the lower level, a door which provides access to the threshing floor and one door on the west gable which provides access to the hay mow (Photograph 18). The window openings on the east façade and portions of the foundation have been reinforced with new concrete. The south elevation of the barn is partially obscured by a large frame addition. The upper level of the western half of the barn is clad in new plywood, while the remaining elevation is clad in vertical boards. It appears there was at least one opening on the upper level of the barn. The lower level of the barn contains two door openings and two window openings (Photograph 19 and Photograph 20). The lower level of the west façade contains one paneled door and three small windows. The door opening is reinforced with new concrete. With the exception of two windows in the lower level, there are no intentional openings on the upper levels on the east elevation (Photograph 21). - 54 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 32 Photograph 16: Detail of fieldstone foundation Photograph 17: North (banked) elevation of the barn Photograph 18: East elevation of the barn Photograph 19: South elevation of the barn Photograph 20: South façade of the barn Photograph 21: West elevation of the barn - 55 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 33 BARN INTERIOR The barn interior is divided into two levels; the lower stable level and the threshing floor.2 The lower level of the barn is accessed by doors on the south elevation, one on the north elevation as well as one door on the west elevation. The animal stalls that once divided the lower level have been removed and the lower level consists of two rooms. Large hand-hewn timbers and uncut logs support the upper storey (Photograph 22 to Photograph 24). The threshing floor of the barn is accessed via an earthen ramp on the north façade. The threshing floor is open except for a granary at the western end of the barn, which is divided into several rooms for storage (Photograph 25 to Photograph 28). The construction method is exposed inside the barn and demonstrates typical large timbers with evidence of hand-hewing, and mortise and tenon and tree nail construction. Photograph 22: Lower level of the barn Photograph 23: Lower level of the barn Photograph 24: Hand-hewn beams in lower level Photograph 25: Threshing floor of the barn 2 Photographs of the threshing floors of the barn were taken from window, door and wall openings. Portions of the lower levels of the structure were accessed only where it was deemed safe to do so. - 56 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 34 Photograph 26: Threshing floor of the barn Photograph 27: Granary in western end of the barn Photograph 28: Detail of treenails used in construction of framing - 57 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 35 5.3 LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS The subject property consists of a 16.4-hectare rectangular lot with a generally flat topography, while the surrounding lands are actively farmed. The built elements of the property include a one-and-a-half storey frame residence and one large bank barn (Photograph 29). The residence is setback from Highway 7 approximately 30 metres, and the barn has an approximately 68 metre set back. The property is accessed via a straight gravel drive that connects Highway 7 to the cluster of buildings (Photograph 30). Mature coniferous and deciduous trees are located on either side of the driveway. The house is surrounded by a manicured grass law, dotted with mature trees and has open views to the surrounding agricultural fields and to Highway 7 (Photograph 31). A number of mature trees are located around the cluster of buildings and line the boundary of the agricultural fields to the east, south, and west. The lands east, west, and south of the residence and barn are comprised of agricultural fields (Photograph 32). Photograph 29: View to property, including house, barn and mature trees Photograph 30: View down straight gravel drive that connects Highway 7 to cluster of buildings Photograph 31: Manicured lawn south of residence - 58 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 36 Photograph 32: View to surrounding agricultural fields 5.4 PROPERTY CONTEXT The subject property is located in an evolving portion of the City of Pickering that was historically characterized by nineteenth century agricultural farmsteads. Today the subject property is surrounded by agricultural fields proposed for development (Photograph 32). A nineteenth century farmstead with twentieth century modifications (745 Highway 7) (Photograph 33), is located 750 metres east of the subject property. The demolition of 745 Highway 7 is proposed as part of this development. While there are no other structures immediately adjacent to the subject property, the Green River Baptist Cemetery is located north east of the subject property. Highway 407 is located approximately 480 metres south of the residence (Photograph 34). There are no listed or designated heritage properties adjacent to the subject property. - 59 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 37 Photograph 33: Main façade of 745 Highway 7, west of the subject property Photograph 34: Green River Baptist Cemetery 5.5 ARCHITECTURAL STYLE ONTARIO GOTHIC REVIVAL The property at 575 Highway 7 is an example of a side gabled frame house built in Ontario Gothic Cottage style. The Ontario Gothic Cottage style is a subset of the Gothic Revival architectural style. Gothic Revival style reflected a renewed interest in the building forms and styles of the English Gothic period. Gothic Cottages in Ontario date from the early nineteenth century but accelerated in popularity when landscape designers such as J.C. Loudon and A.J. Downing and The Canada Farmer promoted the style in 1864. The February 1864 edition of The Canada Farmer offered two small one-storey cottage designs (Plate 2 and Plate 3). In November of the same year a larger one-and-a-half storey design was offered (Plate 4 to Plate 6). These were not new or revolutionary designs, but through The Canada Farmer they caught the attention of a wide audience. - 60 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 38 Plate 2: "A Small Gothic Cottage – Front Elevation" (The Canada Farmer, 1864, Vol. 1, No. 2, P. 21) Plate 3: "A Small Gothic Cottage, Ground Plan" (The Canada Farmer, 1864, Vol. 1, No. 2, P. 21) Plate 4: "A Cheap Farm House – Front Elevation" (The Canada Farmer, 1864, Vol. 1, No. 22, P. 340) Plate 5: "A Cheap Farm House – Section" (The Canada Farmer, 1864, Vol. 1, No. 22, P. 340) - 61 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 39 Plate 6: "A Cheap Farm House – Ground and Attic Plan" (The Canada Farmer, 1864, Vol. 1, No. 22, P. 341) 5.5.1.1 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS A comparative analysis was undertaken to establish a baseline unde rstanding of similar recognized rural heritage properties in the City of Pickering, to determine if the subject property “is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method” as described in O. Reg. 9/06. Comparative examples were drawn from Part IV designated and listed, non -designated properties within the City of Pickering. Residential dwellings were selected from this data set, with a focus on buildings of similar age, style, typology and material. Three comparable designated properties and one listed property was identified within the City (Table 5-1). Given that a large number of stylistically similar structures are not visible from the public right of way , this analysis does not represent all available properties, but the examples are intended to provide a representative sample of similar building typologies. Of these examples, the following architectural elements characteristic of the Gothic Revival Ontario Cottage style were observed: • Type: All four are residential examples of Ontario Gothic Cottages, with one example exhibiting Georgian influences. • Plan: All examples are built to a rectangular plan. • Height: Each example is one-and-a-half storeys. • Roof: All examples have side gable roofs with central gable peaks. One example has decorative gingerbread scrollwork in the central gable peak. • Construction Material: Three examples are stone and one is dichromatic brick. • Facade: Three of the examples are three-bays wide, one is five-bays wide, and all have symmetrical facades. • Chimneys: Three examples have twin brick chimneys and one example does not have a chimney. • Main Entrance: All examples have central front doors; two examples have both transoms and sidelights; two examples have just sidelights; and one example has a later addition of a covered porch obscuring the entrance details. - 62 - HIA for 575 Highway 7, City of Pickering CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 40 • Windows: All examples have rectangular window openings. Two examples have six-over-six wood windows and two examples have replacement windows. Three examples have a Gothic arch window in the central gable peak and one example has a Palladian window. • Decorative elements: One example includes decorative dichromatic brick detail and another example features intricately patterned, roughly squared stone work and detailing. • Alterations: Although it is difficult to confirm when viewed from the public ROW, it appears that all examples have received a rear addition. Once example is now vacant and some original windows have been removed, and the central entrance of one example has been enclosed. This comparative analysis suggests that the residence on the subject property at 575 Highway 7 demonstrates representative elements of the Ontario Gothic Cottage style including the: one-and-a-half storey height; rectangular plan and symmetrical three-bay façade; side gable roof; central gable peak with a window and decorative gingerbread scrollwork; and the central entrance. Constructed c. 1853, the structure appears to be a rare example of a board and batten clad Ontario Gothic Cottage in the City of Pickering, making the Vardon House one of the earliest structures in the area retaining its original exterior form. As such, when comparing the expression of the style at 575 Highway 7 to other local examples, it is unique in its board and batten cladding, Neoclassical -inspired wood door entablature, and fine gingerbread scrollwork detailing. It is acknowledged that the small number of examples reviewed means that this comparative analysis could be misleading. It was also challenging to fully assess the architectural details of each structure from the public ROW. As such, the cultural heritage evaluations included in Section 7 have not only considered the results of this comparative analysis, but typical architectural trends across Ontario. - 63 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 41 Table 5-1: Comparative analysis of heritage properties of a similar age, style and/or typology ADDRESS RECOGNITION PHOTOGRAPH AGE MATERIAL STYLE 2319 Wildwood Crescent (formerly 2101 Valley Farm Road; Palmer Voss House) Designated Part IV (By-law 5573/99) (TRREB, 2023) 1850-1870 Stone The stone house was built in two stages, the first part during the 1850s and the second part in approximately 1870. The house is a vernacular example of the Gothic Revival architectural style with a centre gable, pointed arch window and decorative gable finials, pendants and curvilinear vergeboard as well as twin brick chimneys. 2865 Sideline 16 (Walter Percy House) Designated Part IV (By-law 7346/14) (DurhamRegion.com, 2014) 1875-1885 Stone The Ontario Gothic Cottage is one-and-a-half storeys with a symmetrical three-bay façade constructed of intricately patterned, roughly squared stone work and detailing. It features a side gable roof with a central gable peak with a Gothic arched window with a stone voussoir and twin brick chimneys. The other window openings are segmentally arched and a centrally placed entrance includes a transom window. The residence includes a rear addition. 940 Whitevale Road (William Major House) Designated Part IV (By-law 7594/17) (LSHC, 2015) 1850-1860 Stone The William Major House is a stone Georgian style dwelling with Gothic Revival influences, reflecting the transition between the two styles in the mid-nineteenth century. It features a low- pitched gable roof with twin brick chimneys; a five-bay, symmetrical façade; a wide, central doorcase with transom and sidelights; a heavily molded door; Classical detailing such as the overhanging molded cornice, plain, wide frieze, and returned eaves; and a central, Palladian window. The residence includes a rear addition. - 64 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 42 ADDRESS RECOGNITION PHOTOGRAPH AGE MATERIAL STYLE 4585 Sideline 20 Listed (Google Street View©) 1860-1900 Brick The Ontario Gothic Cottage is one-and-a-half storeys with a symmetrical three-bay façade with dichromatic brick cladding and detailing. It features a side gable roof with a central gable peak with a Gothic arched window. The other window openings are segmentally arched and a centrally placed entrance is enclosed. The residence includes a rear addition. - 65 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 43 CENTRAL ONTARIO BARN The barn at 575 Highway 7 is a representative example of a Central Ontario style barn, a common design in southern Ontario dating to the last quarter of the nineteenth century (Ennals, 1972). The construction date of the barn is thought to date to roughly the same time period of the house, between 1861-1881, which is consistent with the building style and development history of the property. The Central Ontario barn is distinguished by its large size, usually 40-50 feet in width and 60-100 feet in length built to a rectangular plan, and is most often constructed of wood on a stone foundation with a gable or gambrel roof (Ennals, 1972). The two roof styles associated with the Central Onta rio barn are indicative of the period of construction. Gable roofs were used up to about 1880, after which gambrel roofs were introduced. The barn on the subject property features a gambrel roof, which supports its estimated construction date prior to 1881 (Ennals, 1972). The gambrel roof was a design element adopted from Dutch style barns for functional reasons as it significantly increased the storage capacity of the loft. This was an important development as farmers began to practice mixed farming after 1880 and needed to store more feed to maintain their growing herds of livestock. The Central Ontario barn style is two storeys with a lower stable area and an upper level for crop and implement storage and working space. Access to the ground floor is provi ded by doorways leading to the farmyard and entry to the upper level is by means of an earth ramp leading to a large door in the eave -side (long side) (Ennals, 1972). The large double door and height of the second floor allowed wagons and machinery to be brought in for unloading and repair. This type of barn is known as a bank barn in southern Ontario. As is the case with the subject property, the barn is often set into a slope so that the upper level can be entered directly from the top of the slope. Typical of the Central Ontario barn, the second level is often constructed of heavy timber frames or “bents” and includes a drive-floor, which would serve as a work space and tool and machine storage; a granary (a room or series of rooms facing onto a passageway set at right angles to the drive floor); and an area for hay, straw, grain and crop storage (Ennals, 1972). The lower level would serve as a stable arranged to accommodate stalls for horses and livestock and may include space for root crop storage. The animals and water supply on the ground floor were protected in the winter by the hay insulation on the second floor, which preserved the animal’s body heat. Silos began to appear on Ontario farms in the 1870s to provide better storage for the grains and corn needed to feed the livestock (Kyles, 2016). First these silos were constructed of concrete block, then poured concrete, and later metal, which provided a more efficient curing environment (Kyles, 2016). 5.5.2.1 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS – BANK BARN AT 575 HIGHWAY 7 A comparative analysis was undertaken to establish a baseline understanding of similar recognized mid-to-late nineteenth century Central Ontario style barns in the City of Pickering to determine if the barn at 575 Highway 7 “is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method” as described in O. Reg. 9/06. Upon a review of the City’s Heritage Properties Register, only one comparative example of a Part IV designated property containing a Central Ontario barn was identified in the municipality, making it challenging to compare contextually appropriate properties with recognized CHVI. Given the lack of Part IV designated barns within the City of Pickering, this O. Reg. 9/06 evaluation has also considered barn trends across Southern Ontario, rather than only locally within the City of Pickering (Table 5-2). Moreover, while some barns would inevitably be included on non-designated properties included on the Register, these were not readily identified, nor would a review of barns (which are often well set back) from the public right-of-way provide a reliable comparative analysis, making it challenging to compare contextually appropriate properties with recognized CHVI. This analysis does not represent all available properties, rather the examples are intended to provide a representative sample of similar building typologies. Of these three examples, all are expressions of Central Ontario barns built in the mid-to-late nineteenth century. The following architectural elements characteristic of Central Ontario barns in the City of Pickering were observed: • Style: All three examples are bank barns with two levels, each accessed from ground-level. Two of the barns appear characteristically large. • Plan: The original portion of each example appears to have been built to a rectangular plan. - 66 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 44 • Roof: Three examples have a gable roof, one has a gambrel roof. All feature roofs clad in sheet metal. • Cladding: All three examples are clad in wood barn board, and one appear to have been painted. • Fieldstone Foundations: Each example has a fieldstone foundation. • Silos: One example includes a silo on the property. • Landscape: All examples appear to be a component of an agricultural landscape. • Alterations: Although it is difficult to confirm when viewed from the public ROW, it appears that all examples have undergone alterations through large and small additions, likely reflective of the evolving use of the structures for agricultural purposes through the decades. This comparative analysis suggests that the barn at 575 Highway 7 is a representative expression of the Central Ontario barn style. In assessing the architectural elements of the subject property reflective of the style, those observed include: the banked access and two storey height; original rectangular plan; wood barn board cladding; the gambrel roof clad in sheet metal; granite and fieldstone foundations; and the silos. It is acknowledged that the small number of examples reviewed means that this comparative analysis could be misleading. It was also challenging to fully assess the architectural details of each comparative structure from the public ROW. As such, the cultural heritage evaluations included in Section 7 have not only considered the results of this comparative analysis, but typical architectural trends across Ontario. - 67 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 45 Table 5-2: Comparative analysis of barns of a similar age, style and/or typology ADDRESS RECOGNITION PHOTOGRAPH AGE MATERIAL STYLE 1860 Seventh Concession Road (Thistle Ha’ Farm) Designated Part IV of the OHA (By-Law 2140/86), National Historic Site, protected by a heritage conservation easement agreement with the OHT No photo available n/a Stone foundation, timber frame, clad in board and batten Mid-nineteenth century bank barn; rectangular plan; two storeys; gambrel roof; wood-frame construction with board; sheathing metal roof; fieldstone foundation; surviving evidence of a silo, component of an agricultural landscape. 13831, Leslie Street, Aurora, Ontario Part IV Designated (By-law 4729-05) c. 1840 Stone foundation, timber frame, clad in board and batten Mid-nineteenth century bank barn; rectangular plan; two storeys; gable roof; clad in board and batten; stone foundation. 748 Zeller Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Part IV Designated (By-law 98-177) c. 1870 Stone foundation, timber frame, clad in board and batten Late-nineteenth century bank barn; rectangular plan; two storeys; gable roof; clad in board and batten; stone foundation. 536 County Road 18, Fergus, Ontario National Historic Site of Canada No photo available 1877 Stone foundation, timber frame, clad in board and batten. Late-nineteenth century bank barn; rectangular plan; two storeys; gable roof; clad in board and batten; stone foundation; earthen ramp leading to sliding doors. - 68 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 46 6 CONSULTATION 6.1 CITY OF PICKERING The City of Pickering’s Senior Planner – Heritage was contacted via email on April 28, 2023, to inquire about heritage interests related to the subject property at 575 Highway 7 and to confirm the scope of this HIA. A response was received the same day confirming the following: • 575 Highway 7 is a listed, non-designated property on the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register. For information, the Senior Planner shared a link to the City’s Municipal Heritage Register and the Seaton Built Heritage Assessment: Prepared for the North Pickering Land Exch ange Team, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Planning and Development Division (Scheinman, 2004). The City of Pickering Official Plan was reviewed and it was confirmed that 575 Highway 7 is not located within an identified Cultural Heritage Landscape. 6.2 FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL REVIEW The MCM’s list of Heritage Conservation Districts was reviewed, and the study area was not found to be located within a designated district (MCM, 2019). The Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) plaque database was searched, as was the Federal Canadian Heritage Database. The subject property is not commemorated with an OHT pla que nor recognized with a federal heritage designation. It also does not appear that 575 Highway 7 is subject to an OHT conservation easement. - 69 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 47 7 DISCUSSION OF INTEGRITY In a heritage conservation context, the concept of integrity is linked not with structural condition, but rather to the literal definition of “wholeness” or “honesty” of a place. The MCM Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process (Government of Ontario 2014:13) and Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Property Evaluation (Government of Ontario 2006:26) both stress the importance of assessing the heritage integrity in conjunction with evaluation under O. Reg. 9/06 yet provide no guidelines for how this should be carried out beyond referencing the US National Park Service Bulletin 8: How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property (US NPS n.d.). In this latter document, integrity is defined as ‘the ability of a property to convey its significance’, so can only be judged once the significance of a place is known. Other guidance suggests that integrity instead be measured by understanding how much of the asset is “complete” or changed from its original or “valued subsequent configuration” (English Heritage 2008:45; Kalman 2014:203). Kalman’s Evaluation of Historic Buildings, for example, includes a category for “Integrity” with sub-elements of “Site”, “Alterations”, and “Condition” to be determined and weighted independently from other criteria such as historical value, rather than linking them to the known significance of a place. Kalman’s approach is selected here and combined with research commissioned by Historic England (The Conservation Studio, 2004), which proposed a method for determining levels of change in conservation areas that also has utility for evaluating the integrity of individual structures. The results for the property are presented in Table 7-1, and are considered when determining the CHVI of the property (see Section 8). - 70 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 48 Table 7-1: Heritage Integrity Analysis for the Subject Property ELEMENT ORIGINAL MATERIAL / TYPE ALTERATION SURVIVAL RATING COMMENT Setting Rural with two lane (one in each direction) roads and farmhouses, outbuilding complexes, and agricultural lands on larger lots Highway 407, constructed south of the residence, has bisected Lot 30, Concession V in an east to west direction. Several warehouse buildings have been Draft Plan of Subdivision approved. 80% Very good Despite the current development of warehouse facilities east of the subject property, the presence Highway 407 south of the subject property maintains the rural character of the surrounding area, including active agricultural fields and stands of mature trees. Site location Set back and facing the nearest road Farmhouse: no alterations Barn 1: no alterations 100% Very good No additional comments Footprint Farmhouse: rectangular Barn: rectangular Farmhouse: south addition Barn: no change 100% Very good The rear wing on the farmhouse appears to be original to the farmhouse. The south addition to the farmhouse does obscure part of the south façade but has not impacted the front façade. Wall Farmhouse: Frame construction Barn: timber frame construction Farmhouse: no change Barn: no change 100% Very good No additional comments Foundation Farmhouse: possibly fieldstone Barn: granite Farmhouse: Board-formed concrete Barn: repairs to the foundation using concrete and fieldstone 40% Good The original foundation of the house has been removed and replaced with a foundation constructed of board-formed concrete. The foundation also appears to be raised. Note that this rating refers to heritage integrity, not structural integrity Exterior doors Farmhouse: panelled wood Barn: vertical board Farmhouse: the panelled wood doors appear to be original to the house Barn: some vertical boards may have been replaced 95% Very good No additional comments - 71 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 49 ELEMENT ORIGINAL MATERIAL / TYPE ALTERATION SURVIVAL RATING COMMENT Windows Farmhouse: wood Barn: wood Farmhouse: Majority of the windows have been replaced with new vinyl sash, three round headed windows remaining Barn: retains all of the original wood windows, the glass however, is broken in some 30% Poor No additional comments Roof Farmhouse: possibly wood shingle Barn: possibly wood shingle Farmhouse: original replaced in asphalt shingle Barn: reclad in metal 0% Poor No additional comments Chimneys Farmhouse: two interior chimneys Barn: n/a Farmhouse: the double chimneys have been removed 0% Poor No additional comments Water systems Farmhouse: unknown, possibly copper Barn: unknown Farmhouse: all water systems replaced Barn: unknown 0% Poor No additional comments Exterior decoration Farmhouse: Board and batten siding, gingerbread scrollwork and finial and pendant in the gable. Barn: vertical board Farmhouse: no changes Barn: no changes 100% Very good No additional comments Exterior additions Farmhouse: Addition on south elevation Barn: no known additions Farmhouse: south addition Barn: addition in severe state of disrepair, but likely no original to the barn 70% Very good The rear wing on the farmhouse appears to be original to the farmhouse. Landscape features Domestic yard and farmyard features No significant alterations to domestic yard, or farmyard features and fields. 100% Very Good The property’s landscape features have not been significantly altered through the 21st century AVERAGE OF RATE OF CHANGE/HERITAGE INTEGRITY 63% Good Rating of Good is based on original element survival rate of between 51 to 75% - 72 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 50 8 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION 8.1 ONTARIO REGULATION 9/06 EVALUATION The principal built heritage resources on the subject property at 575 Highway 7 are a one-and-a-half storey side-gable Ontario Gothic Cottage house and a Central Ontario bank barn. The property is a listed, non-designated property on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register. O. Reg. 9/06 (as amended by O. Reg. 569/22) of the OHA provides criteria for determining whether a property has CHVI. If a property meets one or more of the criteria in O. Reg. 9/06, it is eligible for designation under the OHA. Table 8-1presents the evaluation of the subject property using O. Reg. 9/06. Table 8-1: Evaluation of 575 Highway 7 as per O. Reg. 9/06 O. REG. 9/06 CRITERIA OUTCOME JUSTIFICATION 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. Y As demonstrated in Section 5.5.1.1, the house at 575 Highway 7 displays the typical one-and-a-half storey height and the distinct massing which includes a central gable peak on the front facade as well as the symmetrical three-bay facade, round headed wood windows and sills. Constructed c. 1853, the structure appears to be a rare example of a board and batten clad Ontario Gothic Cottage in the City of Pickering, making the Vardon House one of the earliest structures in the area retaining its original exterior form. As such, when comparing the expression of the style at 575 Highway 7 to other local examples, it is unique in its board and batten cladding, Neoclassical-inspired wood door entablature, and fine gingerbread scrollwork detailing. As discussed in Section 5.5.2.1, the Central Ontario bank barn on the subject property is a representative expression of a Central Ontario barn and are now considered rare with only one Part IV designated barn in the City of Pickering. The barn appears to maintain its integrity through the retention of much of the original construction materials and application of historic building methods. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. N The property does not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit but rather reflects modest and vernacular construction techniques and materials. As noted in Section 7, many of the original building features and materials, such as the brick chimneys, wood window sash and original foundation have been removed and replaced with modern materials. The central Ontario barn displays mortise and tenon construction that is typical of the nineteenth century, but this is not considered to display a high degree of craftmanship or artistic merit. - 73 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 51 3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. N The property does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. The structures display construction techniques reflective of the era and style. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. Y As 575 Highway 7 has functioned as a farm for at least 169 years, it is directly associated with the agricultural development of the former Ontario Township and City of Pickering. This theme is significant as it contributed to the community’s early economy and continues to be practiced today. The property has a direct association with the Vardon Family, they were relatively early settlers who established a school on the subject property. The school was in existence until the mid- nineteenth century. 5. The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. N The results of research did not indicate that 575 Highway 7 yields information that could contribute to the understanding of a community or culture. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. N The house was likely constructed as a side gable dwelling which was later renovated to reflect elements of the Gothic Revival cottage as promoted by A.J. Dowling in the mid- nineteenth century. The architect and builder of the building at 575 Highway 7 is unknown. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. Y As the property retains 44.86 acres of the original 50-acre lot and continues to be actively used for agriculture, 575 Highway 7 is important in maintaining the historical agricultural character of the area. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. Y 575 Highway 7 is associated with the early settlement of the area and is important in maintaining and supporting the rural nineteenth century landscape along the Highway 7 Road corridor. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. N No significant views to the property distinguish the building as a notable or distinct property. It does not serve as a local landmark in the community. 8.2 ONTARIO REGULATION 10/06 Ontario Regulation 10/06 establishes the Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of Provincial Significance. This regulation was created in 2006 to be utilised to identify properties of provincial heritage significance under the OHA. All provincially owned properties with potential cultural heritage value or interest must be evaluated using O. Reg. 10/06 to determine provincial significance, if any. Table 8-2 presents the evaluation of the subject property using O. Reg. 9/06. Prior to March 2023, the subject property was provincially owned and, as a result, Ontario Regulation 10/06 was also used to evaluate the property. - 74 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 52 Table 8-2: Evaluation of 575 Highway 7 as per O. Reg. 10/06 O. REG. 10/06 CRITERIA OUTCOME JUSTIFICATION 1. The property represents or demonstrates a theme or pattern in Ontario’s history. N While the subject property is associated with the early settlement of the former Ontario County and specifically the area of Green River, it demonstrates this theme at the local / regional level rather than provincial. For this reason, the property does not meet this criterion. 2. The property yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of Ontario’s history. N While the subject property reflects the early settlement and agricultural development, other properties – most notably Thistle Ha’ Farm (1860 Seventh Concession Road, Pickering), which is a National Historic Site of Canada – better illustrates the role of agriculture in Ontario’s history. The property does not have the potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of Ontario’s history. 3. The property demonstrates an uncommon, rare or unique aspect of Ontario’s cultural heritage. N While the property is an early example of the application of the Ontario Gothic Cottage style, there are many of this type of house found throughout the province; it does not demonstrate an uncommon, rare, or unique aspect of Ontario’s cultural heritage. 4. The property is of aesthetic, visual or contextual importance to the province. N The property’s visual and contextual importance is of a local nature; the property’s associations and contextual significance relate to its connections and role within the settlement of the former Ontario Township, as opposed to within the province. For this reason, the property does not meet this criterion. 5. The property demonstrates a high degree of excellence or creative, technical or scientific achievement at a provincial level in a given period. N While the property holds physical value at a local level, it was not found to exhibit a high degree of excellence or creative, technical, or scientific achievement at a provincial level. 6. The property has a strong or special association with the entire province or with a community that is found in more than one part of the province. The association exists for historic, social, or cultural reasons or because of traditional use. N The residence and barn was built by Thomas Vardon c. 1853, a farmer from New Brunswick. The subject property does not demonstrate a strong or special association with the province as a whole, nor with a community that is significant within the Province of Ontario. Therefore, the property does not meet this criterion. 7. The property has a strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organization of importance to the province or with an event of importance to the province. N The residence and barn was built in c. 1853 by Thomas Vardon during the early settlement of Ontario County. The subject property does not have a strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organization of importance to the province or with an event of importance to the province. Therefore, the building does not meet this criterion. - 75 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 53 O. REG. 10/06 CRITERIA OUTCOME JUSTIFICATION 8. The property is located in unorganized territory and the Minister determines that there is a provincial interest in the protection of the property. O. Reg. 10/06, s. 1 (2). N The property is not located within an unorganized territory. Therefore, the subject property does not meet this criterion. RESULTS OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION Based on the evaluation of the property at 575 Highway 7, the following results related to the property’s CHVI were identified: • The evaluation using the criteria of O. Reg. 9/06 determined that the subject property does possess CHVI at a local level for physical/design, historical/associative, and contextual reasons; and • The evaluation using the criteria of O. Reg. 10/06 determined that the subject property does not have CHVI at a provincial level. 8.3 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST As the subject property at 575 Highway 7 was found to possess CHVI, the following statement of cultural heritage value or interest and list of heritage attributes was prepared. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY 575 Highway 7 is an 18.15-hectare irregular shaped agricultural property situated on the south side of Highway 7, east of North Road in the north portion of the City of Pickering. The property contains a one-and-a-half storey side gabled Ontario Gothic Cottage that was constructed in 1853. The property also contains a two-storey Central Ontario bank barn that dates to the nineteenth century. The property is listed on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register. STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST The subject property, 575 Highway 7, possesses design or physical value for the early and representative built heritage resources located on the property. Specifically, the Vardon House is a representative example of an Ontario Gothic Cottage. The Vardon House is a one-and-a-half storey house with a central gable peak on the front facade as well as the symmetrical three-bay facade, round headed wood windows and sills. Constructed in 1853, the house appears to be a rare example of a board and batten clad Ontario Gothic Cottage in the City of Pickering, making the Vardon House one of the earliest structures in the area retaining its original exterior form. As such, when comparing the expression of the style at 575 Highway 7 to other local examples, it is unique in its board and batten cladding, Neoclassi cal-inspired wood door entablature, and fine gingerbread scrollwork detailing. The barn is a representative example of a Central Ontario bank barn, a common design in Southern Ontario dating to the last quarter of the nineteenth century. The gambrel roof style is indicative of its period of construction, becoming commonly used by 1880 following a transition from gable roofs. The barn maintains its integrity through the retention of much of the original construction materials and application of historic building methods. The barn includes many of the features typical of the style, including the banked access and two storey height, original rectangular plan, wood barn board cladding, and the gambrel roof clad in sheet metal. - 76 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 54 Through its function as a farm since 1853, 575 Highway 7 it is directly associated with the agricultural development of the former Ontario Township and City of Pickering. This theme is significant as it historically contributed to the community’s early economic growth and continues to be practiced today. As the property retains 44.86 acres of the original 50-acre lot and continues to be actively used for agriculture, 575 Highway 7 is important in maintaining the historical agricultural character of the surrounding area. The property is functionally and historically linked to its surroundings as indicated by the presence and placement of the Vardon House, Central Ontario bank barn, the associated circulation patterns including the surrounding agricultural fields that continue to reflect the function of the historic nineteenth century farmstead. HERITAGE ATTRIBUTES The heritage attributes that contribute to the CHVI of 575 Highway 7 include: House Exterior • One-and-a-half storey massing built to a rectangular plan; • Symmetrical three-bay façade with project gable; • Extant round headed windows; • Decorative elements such a board and batten cladding, Neoclassical-inspired wood door entablature, and fine gingerbread scrollwork detailing; • Rectangular window openings wood frames; • One-and-half storey, gable roof addition built to a rectangular plan projecting from the south elevation; • Orientation toward Highway 7. Bank Barn • Two-storey massing built to a rectangular plan; • Heavy square timber post and beam framing; • North eave-side upper level entrance built into banked slope; • Vertical wood board cladding; • Gambrel roof clad in sheet metal with lightening rods; Landscape • Driveway connecting Highway 7 to the core of the farm complex; • Intact circulation routes and building arrangement setback from Highway 7. - 77 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 55 9 PROPOSED UNDERTAKING AND IMPACTS 9.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED UNDERTAKING The proposed development concept for the project location consists of six food manufacturing buildings on the lot. The lot is currently zoned Rural Agricultural, however, it is designated Prestige Employment and Seaton Natural Heritage System in the Pickering Official Plan. The total site area for the proposed development is 23.8 hectares with frontage on Highway 7 and bounded on the east and west sides by Natural Heritage Areas. The building footprints are approximately 21,111.89 (Building 6), 23,314.74 m2 (Building 7), 23,314.74m2 (Building 8), 23,314.74 m2 (Building 9), 21,140.07 m2 (Building 10), and 22,614.28 m2 (Building 11). The site would contain approximately 329 truck loading bays, 1,800 parking stalls and 212 spaces for trailer parking. Vehicular access is proposed via signalized access point from Highway 7 with proposed municipal roads providing access to the proposed development. A site plan of the proposed development concept is provided in Appendix Error! Reference source not found.. 9.2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS When determining the effects a development or site alteration may have on known or identified built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes, the MCM Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process advises that the following direct and indirect be considered: • Direct Impact: A permanent or irreversible negative affect on the CHVI of a property that results in the loss of a heritage attribute. Direct impacts include destruction or alteration. • Indirect Impact: An impact that is the result of an activity on or near a cultural heritage resource that may adversely affect the CHVI and/or heritage attributes of a property. Indirect impacts include shadows, isolation, direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas, a change in land use, or land disturbances. It should be noted that land disturbances, as defined in MCM InfoSheet #5, can be considered as a direct impact to archaeological resources. An archaeological assessment is beyond the scope of this study since recommendations regarding archaeological resources must be made by a professional archaeologist licensed by the MCM. Other potential impacts may also be considered such as encroachment or construction vibration (Plate 7). Historical structures, particularly those built in masonry, are susceptible to damage from vibration caused by pavement breakers, plate compactors, utility excavations, and increased heavy vehicle travel in the immediate vicinity. Like any structure, they are also threatened by collisions with heavy machinery, subsidence from utility line failures, or excessive dust (Randl 2001:3-6). - 78 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 56 Plate 7: Examples of negative impacts Although the MCM Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process identifies types of impact, it does not advise on how to describe its nature or extent. For this the MCM Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments (1990:8) provides criteria of: • Magnitude - amount of physical alteration or destruction that can be expected • Severity - the irreversibility or reversibility of an impact • Duration - the length of time an adverse impact persists • Frequency - the number of times an impact can be expected • Range - the spatial distribution, widespread or site specific, of an adverse impact • Diversity - the number of different kinds of activities to affect a heritage resource Since advice to describe magnitude is not included in the MCM Guideline or any other Canadian guidance, the ranking provided in the ICOMOS Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties (ICOMOS 2011: Appendix 3B) is adapted here. While developed specifically for World Heritage Sites, it is based on a general methodology for measuring the nature and extent of impact to cultural resources in urban and rural contexts developed for the UK Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges [DMRB]: Volume 11, HA 208/07 (2007: A6/11) (Bond & Worthing 2016:166-167) and aligns with approaches developed by other national agencies such as the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (reproduced in Kalman & Létourneau 2020:390) and New Zealand Transport Agency (2015). The grading of impact is based on the “Guide to Assessing Magnitude of Impact” summarized in Table 9-1 below. An assessment of potential impacts resulting from the proposed development on the property’s CHVI and heritage attributes is presented in Table 9-2. - 79 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 57 Table 9-1: Impact Grading IMPACT GRADING DESCRIPTION Major Change to heritage attributes that contribute to the CHVI such that the resource is totally altered. Comprehensive changes to the setting. Moderate Change to many heritage attributes, such that the resource is significantly modified. Changes to the setting of a heritage property, such that it is significantly modified. Minor Change to heritage attributes, such that the asset is slightly different. Change to the setting of a heritage property, such that it is noticeably changed. Negligible/Potential Slight changes to heritage attributes or the setting that hardly affects it. None No change to heritage attributes or setting. Table 9-2: Evaluation of Impacts to Subject Property at 575 Highway 7 CRITERIA EVALUATION Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features; Impact: Major Analysis: The proposed development concept involves the demolition of the house and barn which were identified as representative examples of their styles and would remove all the landscape heritage attributes. Mitigation measures are required. Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; Impact: None Rationale: The subject property will not be altered, rather it is proposed to be demolished, resulting in the full removal of its historic fabric and appearance. Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden; Impact: None/N/A Rationale: The subject residence is proposed to be demolished. As such, no new shadows will be created that alter the appearance of the heritage attributes as they will be removed. Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; Impact: None/N/A Rationale: Heritage attributes will not be isolated from their surrounding environment, context or significant relationship. The property is proposed to be demolished, resulting in the removal of all heritage attributes. Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or to built and natural features; Impact: None/N/A Rationale: No significant views were identified as heritage attributes of the subject property. Accordingly, no impacts related to views are anticipated. A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; Impact: Major Rationale: The change is land use to allow large scale warehouses will make it difficult to conserve this nineteenth century farm landscape. - 80 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 58 CRITERIA EVALUATION Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource. Impact: Potential Rationale: A Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment is currently being completed for the subject property. The results of the assessment were not available at the time this report was produced. IMPACT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY The preceding impact assessment determined that without conservation or mitigation measures, the proposed development will result in major direct and indirect impacts to the identified heritage attributes of the subject property. The anticipated impacts are related to: • Destruction of the Vardon House and associated barn as a result of the construction of the food manufacturing facility; • A change in land use from rural agricultural to employment lands, which threatens the continued viability of the farm complex in situ; and • Land disturbances related to the construction of the food manufacturing facility. Given that direct and impacts are anticipated, an options analysis of potential alternatives, mitigation and conservation options is provided in Section 10. - 81 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 59 10 ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION OPTIONS As the subject property was evaluated to have CHVI and will be impacted by the proposed development, WSP has identified four possible options to reduce or avoid the negative effects. These are informed by the objectives incl uded in the City of Pickering Official Plan and are: 1 “Do Nothing”: Preserve and maintain the Vardon House, associated barn and all landscape heritage attributes in situ with no further development of the property. 2 Relocate the Vardon House within the site to a more convenient location with an adaptive reuse, dismantle and salvage heritage attributes from barn and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. 3 Remove the Vardon House and associated barn, salvaging heritage attributes from the structures a nd develop the manufacturing campus on the property. The advantages and disadvantages of each option are presented in Table 10-1. It is only after an option is determined to not be feasible that the next preferred approach is considered. - 82 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 60 Table 10-1: Alternatives, Mitigation and Conservation Options OPTIONS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES MITIGATION/ CONSERVATION NOTES 1) “Do Nothing”: Preserve and maintain the Vardon House, associated barn and all landscape heritage attributes in situ with no further development of the property. This option would maintain the general heritage principle that prefers minimal intervention to a heritage resource. It would ensure that the subject property retains all identified heritage attributes. This option is consistent with the Official Plan policy Section 8.2 (c) that states: prevent the demolition, destruction or inappropriate alteration of important cultural heritage resources to the extent possible, and Section 8.2 (d) that states: where possible, restore, rehabilitate, maintain and enhance important cultural heritage resources owned by the City, and encourage the same for those owned by others. Additionally Section 8.9 (a) that encourages retention of cultural heritage resources in their original location. This option is also keeping with the MCM’s Eight Guiding Principles for the Conservation of Historic Places that identify a building should not be removed unless there is no other means to save it and that alterations to a cultural heritage resource should be reversible. Preservation is not a “do nothing” approach: to ensure the buildings do not suffer from rapid deterioration, repairs must be carried out and a systematic monitoring and repair program will be required for all exteriors and interiors. As identified in the MCM Eight Guiding Principles (2007), maintenance is required to avoid costly conservation projects in the future. None necessary. 2) Relocate the Vardon House within the site to a more convenient location with an adaptive reuse, dismantle and salvage heritage attributes from barn and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. Although this option would involve a major intervention to the agricultural character of the subject property, it would result in maintenance of some of the heritage attributes belonging to the Va rdon House. Given the difficulty in moving barn, it would likely have to be dismantled and elements could be salvaged and reused in the proposed development. Moving the Vardon House would allow for more convenient placement, allowing the land to be maximized for the proposed manufacturing facility. Section 8.9 (c) of the Official Plan requires consideration of relocation on-site prior to considering relocation of a resource off-site. While this option would retain the Vardon House, it would include removal of all the barn and landscape heritage attributes and alter the agricultural character of the historic landscape and surrounding area. This option is inconsistent the MCM’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historical Properties which encourages respect for original location. Additionally, the Pickering Official Plan states that development should not result in any demolition, construction, alteration, remodeling, or any other action that would adversely affect the heritage features of the property. Relocating the Vardon House would place the building at risk of accidental damage during the relocation operation, or total loss due to accident or unforeseen structural issues discovered during the relocation process. It is also in direct opposition to the MCM Guiding Principle for “original location” which states that buildings should not be moved “unless there is no other means to save them since any change in site diminishes heritage value considerably”. This would still result in removal of the heritage attributes that reflect the value of the property as an evolved farm cultural heritage landscape. To stabilize and conserve the Vardon House in its current location before construction of the surrounding development begins and during construction a Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) should be completed. There is often a lengthy period between the formal submission of a planning application and reoccupation of a heritage buildings. During this time, heritage buildings can be vulnerable to neglect, loss and accidental damage. A TPP should be completed by a qualified engineer or architect with demonstrated experience working with historical structures and should include the following: • Marking heritage attributes on the construction plans; • Temporary construction fencing between the Vardon House, barn and the proposed development; • Establish a regular inspection and monitoring schedule; • Communication protocols that identify who should be informed about the heritage attributes and who should be contacted if there is accidental damage; • A plan for potential physical impacts such as accidental damage from machinery; • A plan for appropriate repairs should damage occur to the building(s). • Regular inspection and monitoring protocol. A Mothballing Plan should be completed to examine the current condition of the Vardon House to suggest stabilization and maintenance measures necessary to temporarily mothball and secure the structure and its heritage attributes until a future use is determined. A Heritage Conservation Plan is a document that identifies how cultural heritage resources should be conserved. It should detail the conservation methods, required actions and trades for the conservation methods and an implementation schedule to conserve the landscape’s heritage attributes in the short-, medium-, and long-term. Heritage Conservation Plans are typically completed by structural engineers or architects with experience rehabilitating historic structures. In accordance with the MCM’s Heritage Resources in Land Use Planning Process design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting and materials is a mitigation measure to reduce impacts to cultural heritage resources. The design of the building immediately surrounding the historic structure should be sensitively designed to reflect a similar massing, height, and materials. A vegetative buffer between the proposed buildings and adjacent Vardon House would assist is reducing the visual impact of the new food production facility against the nineteenth century house. A landscape plan should incorporate a vegetative screen between the new buildings and the Vardon House. Prior to demolition of the Central Ontario barn, determine what materials can be salvaged and document those elements into a standardized salvage inventory. The results of this inventory should be included a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report (CHRDR). - 83 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 61 OPTIONS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES MITIGATION/ CONSERVATION NOTES A reputable contractor with expertise in salvage should be contracted to salvage the identified building materials. The contractor should prepare an approach for the labelling, storage and reassembly of material salvaged from the property, as appropriate, in accordance with guidance taken from the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, Section 4: Guidelines for Materials; • The ultimate destination of salvaged materials should be determined prior to the initiation of any salvage process; • Materials should only be salvaged if they are suitable for re-use in other buildings or projects, i.e., the material must not be irreparably damaged or infested; • The material must be extracted in a manner that ensures that it is not irreparably damaged; • Should any of the material be damaged during removal, donation to a teaching institution or museum (i.e. Pickering Museum Village, Algonquin College) should be considered to allow the material to provide an educational opportunity. Design the project to integrate new physical elements to the Vardon House to be sympathetic and compatible with the residence. The Parks Canada’s Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2010) should be considered. Construction activities often result in fugitive dust emission which can be detrimental to the long term protection of heritage resources. A fugitive dust emissions plan should follow practices outlined in the Ontario Standards Development Branch Technical Bulletin: Management Approaches for Industrial Fugitive Dust Sources (2017). Given the proximity of the adjacent heritage properties to the proposed development, a comprehensive pre-construction survey should be completed and a Zone of Influence Construction Vibration Study to monitor and mitigate vibration impacts during construction. Where possible prevent heavy equipment traffic from being routed in the vicinity of the Vardon House to minimize potential effects from vibration. 3) Remove the Vardon House and associated barn, salvaging heritage attributes from the structures and develop the manufacturing campus on the property. Some of the Vardon House and barn’s heritage attributes could be salvaged and reused in the proposed development. This option would provide a record of the residence and recommendations for items to be salvaged, if appropriate. These elements could be potentially integrated into the proposed development. Historical materials could also be donated for reuse in other historical structures or to teaching institutions. The salvage and reuse of material is consistent with Pickering Official Plan policy 11.64 a, c and e. This would result in the complete and irreversible loss of all the identified heritage attributes. This option is inconsistent with the Town of Pickering’s heritage policies in the Official Plan, the MCM’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historical Properties and general heritage conservation best practices. Prior to demolition of the Vardon House and Central Ontario barn, determine what materials can be salvaged and document those elements into a standardized salvage inventory. The results of this inventory should be included a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report (CHRDR). A reputable contractor with expertise in salvage should be contracted to salvage the identified building materials. The contractor should prepare an approach for the labelling, storage and reassembly of material salvaged from the property, as appropriate, in accordance with guidance taken from the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, Section 4: Guidelines for Materials; • The ultimate destination of salvaged materials should be determined prior to the initiation of any salvage process; • Materials should only be salvaged if they are suitable for re-use in other buildings or projects, i.e., the material must not be irreparably damaged or infested; • The material must be extracted in a manner that ensures that it is not irreparably damaged; • Should any of the material be damaged during removal, donation to a teaching institution or museum (i.e. Pickering Museum Village or Algonquin College) should be considered to allow the material to provide an educational opportunity. - 84 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 62 10.1 OPTIONS ANALYSIS Based on the review of the alternatives, mitigation and conservation options analysis presented in Table 10-1, Option 1, preserve and maintain the residence in situ with no further development of the property, is the preferred option from a cultural heritage perspective, followed by Option 3 and lastly Option 2. OPTION 1 Option 1 is the preferred alternative from a cultural heritage perspective as it would maintain the general heritage principle that prefers minimal intervention to a heritage resource. However, as described in Section 9, the subject property is designated Prestige Employment, which in the Pickering Official Plan is intended to be more focused on offices and lighter industrial uses. The intent is to direct Prestige Employment uses, such as offices and light manufacturing uses without outdoor storage, to the Highway 407 corridor and locate population-serving uses, such as personal services, retailers, education, health care and government land uses closer to residential areas. The intent is to create an economically and fiscally sustainable community in the lo ng term through a balance of residential and employment growth in the Seaton Urban Area. As such, a “do nothing” approach would not address the City of Pickering’s objectives for significant job growth within these areas. OPTION 2 Option 2 is the least preferred alternative, and best practices dictate that this option is to be considered as a last resort prior to demolition. Although relocation of the subject residence is consistent with the principle of preservation of material to its highest integrity and would maintain some heritage attributes, removal from its existing context in the Highway 7 corridor would remove its contextual and diminish its historical or associative CHVI. The CHVI of 575 Highway 7 is derived from the contribution it makes to defining and maintaining the nineteenth century agricultural character of Highway 7; relocation of the house would significantly reduce its historical authenticity and constitute an adverse effect on the CHVI. Given the functional site requirements of the proposed development, including the overall size and placement of the buildings, the location of the truck loading bays and transportation routes, the relocation of the Vardon House to a prominent Highway 7 facing location is not available. As such, relocation is not a recommended conservation option. OPTION 3 Option 3, demolition, represents the recommended alternative and would result in the removal of the residence and all its heritage attributes. This alternative has only been selected as relocation has not proven to be a feasible option. This option preserves a record of the property’s heritage attributes in a manner scaled to their level of cultural heritage significance. Prior to demolition of the Vardon House and Central Ontario barn, determine what materials can be salvaged and document those elements into a standardized salvage inventory. The results of this inventory should be included a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report (CHRDR). A reputable contractor with expertise in salvage should be contracted to salvage the identified building materials. The contractor should prepare an approach for the labelling, storage and reassembly of material salvaged from the property, as appropriate, in accordance with guidance taken from the Sta ndards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, Section 4: Guidelines for Materials; • The ultimate destination of salvaged materials should be determined prior to the initiation of any salvage process; - 85 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 63 • Materials should only be salvaged if they are suitable for re-use in other buildings or projects, i.e., the material must not be irreparably damaged or infested; • The material must be extracted in a manner that ensures that it is not irreparably damaged; • Should any of the material be damaged during removal, donation to a teaching institution or museum (i.e. Pickering Museum Village or Algonquin College) should be considered to allow the material to provide an educational opportunity. While documentation and salvage can never truly mitigate the loss of a heritage resource, documentation creates a public record the structure and provides researchers and the public with a land use history, construction details and photographic record of the resource. The documentation and photographs contained wit hin this report may serve as a sufficient record of the house and the outbuildings and this determination should be made by City staff. The purpose of salvaging heritage building material is to preserve portions of features of buildings or structures that have historical, architectural or cultural value and divert them from becoming land fill material. Sourcing materials for repair and replacement can be challenging, especially if the materials are from a historical source that no longer exists, such as a quarry, or a manufacturing facility that has closed (Parks Canada, 2010). As such, the careful salvage of these materials from one historic structure can represent an opportunity for the in -kind replacement of quality historical material on another. Some of these materials can also be incorporated into the new design if appropriate. If any materials are incorporated into the manufacturing campus, there should be an interpretive display to convey that these materials were reused from the previous structures o n the site. If any salvaged items are used for a commemorative display, they should be appropriately catalogued and stored until they can be reused on-site. This should also be clearly communicator to the contractor. Symbolic conservation allows for the recovery of heritage components of a property and reuses them to construct a visible record of the resource. This approach, along with the reuse of portions of a property, is often the recommended mitigation strategy when retention or relocation of a struct ure is determined not to be feasible. Preliminary options for symbolic conservation onsite include: • Incorporation of salvaged materials, such as field stones, bricks, timber beams, wood planks, floor boards, etc. into entry gates, retaining walls, fences, benches or landscape features (i.e., planters) within the station area; and/or • The construction of an interpretive plaque commemorating the area’s heritage and/or property’s history. 10.2 IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING Below, Table 10-2 outlines the recommended schedule and reporting structure for implementation and monitoring of conservation/mitigative/avoidance measures addressed to conserve the heritage attributes of the built heritage resource. The requirement for these heritage mitigation measures may be incorporated by the City of Pickering into Site Plan Approval as outlined below. Table 10-2: Short-term, medium-term and long-term actions for Option 3 CONSTRUCTION PHASE MITIGATION MEASURES DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CONDITIONS Pre-Construction Complete a Documentation & Salvage Report ✓ Construction Symbolic conservation ✓ Post-Construction n/a n/a - 86 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 64 11 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of the historical research, field review, site analysis and evaluation of the subject property against the criteria for heritage designation under O. Reg. 9/06 of the OHA, 575 Highway 7 was confirmed to possess local CHVI for design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual reasons. The proposed development, consisting of the construction of six food manufacturing buildings within the property will pose major direct impacts to the identified heritage attributes of 575 Highway 7. Based on the review of the alternatives, mitigation and conservation options analysis, Option 1, Do Nothing, is the preferred option from a cultural heritage perspective. However, a Do Nothing approach is not feasible as the subject property is designated Prestige Employment and Seaton Natural Heritage System in the Pickering Official Plan. This approach would be a constraint on the proposed concept plan and future development. As such, Options 3 is the next preferred option, followed lastly by Option 2. The following conservation/mitigation strategies are recommended: 1. Prepare a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report for the Vardon House and barn on the subject property. 2. That options for symbolic conservation using salvaged materials be explored within the proposed development. 3. Should development plans change significantly in scope or design after approval of this HIA, additional cultural heritage investigations may be required. 4. Once finalized, a copy of this HIA should be distributed to the City of Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive. - 87 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 65 BIBLIOGRAPHY Armstrong, F.H. (1985). Handbook of Upper Canadian Chronology. Hamilton: Dundurn Press, Ltd. Bond, S. and Worthing, D. (2016) Managing Built Heritage : The Role Of Cultural Values and Significance. Chichester, West Sussex : Wiley Blackwell. Canada Farmer, The. (1864) Volume 1, No. 2 (Feb. 1, 1864). Toronto : G. Brown. Volume 1, No. 22 (Nov. 15, 1864). Toronto : G. Brown. Canada’s Historic Places. (2010). Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Second Edition. Canada’s Historic Places, Ottawa. City of Pickering (2018) Pickering Official Plan, Edition 9. Available online: https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/resources/Official- Plan---Main-Page/Edition-9/OP9ACC.pdf. Last accessed May 3, 2023. City of Pickering (2022) Terms of Reference: Heritage Impact Assessments. Document on file at WSP. Connor & Coltson. (1869). The County of Ontario directory for 1869-70. Toronto: Hunter, Rose & Co. Conservation Studio, the (2004) Measuring change in conservation areas: A research report for English Heritage. The Conservation Studio, Cirencester, UK. Available online: https://goo.gl/MXTqaK. Curve Lake First Nation. (n.d.) History. Retrieved from: https://curvelakefirstnation.ca/history/ DurhamRegion.com. (2014). Historic Pickering farmhouse saved from demolition. Friday June 6, 2014. Retrieved from: www.durhamregion.com/news/historic-pickering-farmhouse-saved-from-demolition/article_d11824b0-1220- 53fd-bd9f-20d7ad4ccadf.html? Durham Region (2020) Durham Regional Official Plan. Available online: https://www.durham.ca/en/doing- business/resources/Documents/PlanningandDevelopment/Official-Plan/2020-Durham-Regional-Official-Plan- Consolidation---Revised-1.pdf. Last accessed May 3, 2023. Durham Region (2023) Indigenous Land Acknowledgement. Available online: https://www.durham.ca/en/regional-government/land- acknowledgements.aspx. Last accessed May 3, 2023. Ellis, C.J. and D.B. Deller. (1990). Paleo-Indians. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 37-74. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. - 88 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 66 Ellis, C.J., I.T. Kenyon, and M.W. Spence. (1990). The Archaic. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 65-124. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. English Heritage. (2008). Conservation Principles. English Heritage, London. Ennals, P.M. (1972). “Nineteenth-Century Barns in Southern Ontario.” In The Canadian Geographer, pp. 256-269. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. FamilySearch.org. Abstract index books, ca. 1800-1958. Retrieved from: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M- CSLG-L3V4-C?cat=486525 Farewell, J.E. (1907). County of Ontario: short notes as to the early settlement and progress of the county and brief references to the pioneers and some Ontario County men who have taken a prominent part in provincial and dominion affair. Whitby, ON: Gazette-Chronicle Press. Fram, M. (1993). Well-Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundation’s Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation. Third edition. Boston Mills Press, Erin, Ontario. Government of Ontario 1990 Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13. Last amendment: April 6, 2023. Available online: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13. Last accessed May 3, 2023. 1990 Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments. 1990 Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter O.18. Last amendment: January 1, 2023. Electronic document: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18. Last accessed February 7, 2023. 2006 Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. Electronic document: file:///C:/Users/heidy.schopf.WOODPLC/Downloads/Heritage_Tool_Kit_Heritage_PPS_infoSheet%20(8).pdf. Last accessed October 30, 2019. 2014 Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties: Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process. MHSCTI, Toronto. 2017 Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Electronic document: http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/heritage_toolkit.shtml. Last accessed October 30, 2019. 2019 Preparing environmental assessments: How to prepare different types of environmental assessments in Ontario. Electronic document: https://www.ontario.ca/page/preparing-environmental-assessments#section-1. Last accessed October 30, 2019. 2020 Provincial Policy Statement. Electronic document: https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-provincial-policy-statement- 2020-accessible-final-en-2020-02-14.pdf. Last accessed December 15, 2020. 2021 Map of Ontario treaties and reserves. Available online: https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-ontario-treaties-and- reserves. Last accessed September 17, 2021. 2022 Ontario Regulation 569/22. Available online: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r22569. Last accessed February 7, 2023. Haudenosaunee Confederacy(2022) Land Acquisition. Available online: https://www.haudenosauneeconfederacy.com/land-aquisition/ Last accessed November 11, 2022. Historic England. (2016). - 89 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 67 Understanding Historic Buildings: A Guide to Good Recording Practice . English Heritage, Swindon, UK. Historic England International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). (2011). Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties. Retrieved from: www.icomos.org/world_heritage/HIA_20110201.pdf J.H. Beers & Co. (1877). Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario. Toronto: J. H. Beers & Co. Johnson, L.A. (1973). History of the County of Ontario, 1615-1875. Whitby, ON: The of the County of Ontario Kalman, H. (1979). The Evaluation of Historic Buildings. Parks Canada. Kalman, H. (2014). Heritage Planning: Principles and Process. Routledge, New York. Kalman, H. and M. Létourneau. (2020). Heritage Planning: Principles and Process. Routledge, New York. Kyles, S. (2016). Barns. Retrieved from: www.ontarioarchitecture.com/barn.htm Laurie Smith Heritage Consulting (LSHC). (2015). Cultural Heritage Property Evaluation Report: 940 Whitevale Road, Pickering, Ontario. Retrieved from: https://corporate.pickering.ca/weblink/1/doc/152701/Electronic.aspx Library and Archives Canada. (2021). Canadian Censuses. [accessed January 2023]. https://www.baclac.gc.ca/eng/census/Pages/census.aspx Mika, N. & H. Mika. (1981). Places in Ontario, Their Name Origins and History, Part II, F-M. Belleville, Ontario: Mika Publishing Company. Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM). (2019). List of Heritage Conservation Districts. Retrieved from: www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/ heritage_conserving_list.shtml Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM). (2007). Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties. Retrieved from: www.heritagetrust.on.ca/en/pages/tools/tools-for-conservation/eight-guiding-principles Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM). (2006). Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process. Retrieved from: www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage_Tool_Kit_Heritage_PPS_infoSheet.pdf Ministry of Indigenous Affairs. (2020). Map of Ontario Treaties and Reserves. Retrieved from: www.ontario.ca/page/map-ontario-treaties-and- reserves Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). (2020). Provincial Policy Statement. Retrieved from: www.ontario.ca/page/provincial-policy-statement-2020 - 90 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 68 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation (2022) Treaty Lands & Territory. Available online: http://mncfn.ca/about-mncfn/treaty-lands-and-territory/. Last accessed September 9, 2022. New Zealand Transport Agency. (2015). Historic Heritage Impact Assessment Guide for State Highway Projects. New Zealand Government, Wellington. Ontario Council of University Libraries. (n.d.). Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project: Markham Sheets. [accessed January 2023]. https://ocul.on.ca/topomaps/collection/) Ontario Land Registry Access. (2023). Abstract Index Books, Land Registry Office 40 (Pickering). [accessed January 2023]. https://www.onland.ca/ui/40/books/60706/viewer/838941323?page=1 Parks Canada. (2010). The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada 2nd Edition. Retrieved from: www.historicplaces.ca/media/18072/81468-parks-s+g-eng-web2.pdf Pickering Public Library. (1965) History of the Green River School. Retrieved from: file:///P:/Archaeology%20and%20Heritage/2)%20HERITAGE/2023/01.%20575%20Highway%207,%20Picke ring%20%20HIA/5%20Technical/1.%20Background/Green%20River%20School.pdf Randl, Chad. (2001) Temporary Protection No. 3: Protecting a Historic Structure during Adjace nt Construction. U.S. Department of the Interior National Parks Service Cultural Resources Tech Notes. http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to- preserve/tech-notes/Tech-Notes-Protection03.pdf. Last Accessed: 20 November 2015. Sault, Margaret. (2021) A Story About the Toronto Purchase. In Indigenous Toronto. Denis Bolduc, Mnawaate Gordon-Corbiere, Rebeka Tabobondung, and Brian Wright-McLeod (Eds). Coach House Books, Toronto. Scheinman, Andre. (2004) Seaton Built Heritage Assessment. Prepared for the North Pickering Land Exchange Team, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Planning and Development Division. Six Nations of the Grand River. (2022) Key Issues, Lands and Resources. Available online: Land Rights - Six Nations of the Grand River. Last accessed November 28, 2022. Spence, M.W., R.H. Pihl, and C. Murphy. (1990). Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 125-170. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society. Toronto Regional Real Estate Board (TRREB). (2023). 2319 Wildwood Cres. Retrieved from: www.realtor.ca/real-estate/25390578/2319-wildwood-cres-pickering- brock-ridge Tremaine, G. (1860). - 91 - 575 Highway 7, Pickering HIA CapLink Limited WSP May 2023 Page 69 Tremaine’s Map of the Ontario County, Canada West. George R. and George M. Tremaine, Toronto UK Highways Agency. (2007) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges: Volume 11, HA 208/07. The Stationary Office, London. US National Park Service. (n.d) Bulletin 8: How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property. Retrieved from: https://www.scahome.org/about_sca/NAPC_Sourcebook/165_pdfsam_Sourcebook%20SCA%2010.2005%20fi fth%20edition.pdf Walton, G. (1837). The City of Toronto and the Home District Commercial Directory and Register with Alm anack and Calendar for 1837. Toronto, Upper Canada, Dalton and W.J. Coates. Warrick, G. (2000). The Precontact Iroquoian Occupation of Southern Ontario. Journal of World Prehistory 14(4):415-456. Whitevale. (n.d.) Whitevale History. Retrieved from: http://www.whitevale.ca/history.html#:~:text=The%20hamlet%20of%20Whitevale%20was,on%20the%205th %20Concession%20Line. Wood R. (1911). Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Community. William Briggs, Toronto, Ontario. - 92 - Appendix A: Concept Site Plan (May 2023) - 93 - Placeholder for updated plan - 94 - APPENDIX B: ASSESSOR QUALIFICATIONS - 95 - Assessor Qualifications Heidy Schopf, MES, CAHP – Built and Landscape Heritage Team–Lead - Heidy Schopf the Built and Landscape Heritage Team Lead at WSP. She has over ten years’ experience in Cultural Resource Management. She is a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and is MTO RAQs certified in archaeology/heritage. She has worked on a wide variety of projects throughout Ontario, including: cultural heritage resources assessments, heritage impact assessments, documentation reports, cultural heritage evaluations, strategic conservation plans, heritage conservation district studies and plans and archaeological assessments. Ms. Schopf has extensive experience applying local, Provincial, and Federal heritage guidelines and regulations to evaluate protected and potential cultural heritage properties. She is skilled at carrying out impact assessments and developing mitigation measures to conserve the heritage attributes of properties where changes are proposed. Emily Game, BA, CAHP – Cultural Heritage Specialist - Ms. Game has project experience in assessing heritage buildings, bridges, and cultural heritage landscapes in support of land use planning applications and environmental assessments. Her responsibilities have included conducting background research, field assessment and report production for various built heritage resources including buildings, bridges and cultural heritage landscapes. Ms. Game has worked on a wide variety of projects from small, individual assessments of built heritage resources to large, complex interdisciplinary studies taking in a range of residential, public, commercial and industrial properties. Project work includes the application of legislation, policy framework, and tools such as the Ontario Heritage Act, Provincial Policy Statement, the Ontario Heritage Toolkit, the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, and various other policies and processes outlined by the Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturism, individual municipalities, or public agencies. Mike Teal, MA - Director of Archaeology and Heritage - Michael Teal is Director of Archaeology and Heritage within WSP’s Environmental Planning division in Ontario. He is located in London, Ontario and has been with the company for 9 years. Michael is a licensed professional Ontario archaeologist (P364) with over 23 years of experience in cultural resource management, including 10 years with the federal government at Parks Canada and 13 years in non-federal and private sectors. His work experience has given him a strong understanding of regulatory requirements for archaeology in Ontario and on Canadian federal lands. In addition, Michael has supported the growth and development of Golder’s relationships with many Indigenous communities in Ontario by: establishing Master Service Agreement for archaeological field technician services; creating sub-consultant agreements with Indigenous owned businesses; providing archaeological services for Indigenous-led projects and businesses; participating in Golder-led Indigenous consultation and engagement awareness events; and, helping to create mentor work placement agreements to provide work experience for Indigenous youth. - 96 - Peer Review Letter | 575 Highway 7 Page 1 of 10 Alex Rowse-Thompson MCIP RPP CAHP 149 Ordnance St. Kingston, ON, K7K 1G9 alex@heritagestudio.ca November 1, 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 575 HIGHWAY 7, PICKERING, ONTARIO (HERITAGE STUDIO PROJECT 23-001- 0 5 ) ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for the development of a food manufacturing facility at 575 Highway 7 in Pickering, Ontario. The following documents were reviewed as part of this process: Application Materials •Heritage Impact Assessment (WSP, May 16, 2023) •Draft Plan of Subdivision •Planning Rationale Report (Biglieri Group, June 2023) •Urban Design Brief (Biglieri Group, June 2023) 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 •Durham Regional Official Plan $WWDFKPHQW - 97 - Peer Review Letter | 575 Highway 7 Page 2 of 10 • Pickering Official Plan Additional Reference Materials • Ontario Heritage Act • Ontario Regulation 9/06 • Ontario Heritage Tool Kit • Provincial Policy Statement (2020) • Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada It is important to note that the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment included in the application’s supporting documents relates to Phase 1 of this project at 745 and 815 Highway 7 and not to this property. 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND This peer review of the HIA by WSP 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, known municipally as 575 Highway 7, is located on the south side of Highway 7, east of North Road and west of Sideline 28. The property is approximately 18.15 hectares and contains an agricultural landscape including a mid-19th century one-and-a-half storey frame house fronting Highway 7 and barn located to the southwest of the house. The subject property is listed on the City of Pickering’s Heritage Register under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Previously owned by Infrastructure Ontario following expropriation of the lands by the federal government in the early 1970s for a future international airport, the subject property was transferred to CapLink in March 2023. CapLink also owns the adjacent property to the east, which constitutes Phase 1 of the food manufacturing campus. The proposed industrial development of the subject property includes: • Six industrial buildings • New public roads • Stormwater management pond Alex Rowse-Thompson of Heritage Studio completed a site visit on October 17, 2023. The site review included walking the surroundings, property, and an internal tour of the house. The barn was only viewable from the exterior and the interior through an opening due to safety concerns from the tenants regarding its structural integrity. - 98 - Peer Review Letter | 575 Highway 7 Page 3 of 10 2.0 REVIEW OF HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT The HIA report largely meets the City’s recently adopted (April 2022) Terms of Reference for Heritage Impact Assessments. The HIA report includes the required background information (i.e., mapping, photographs, site plan, current heritage status of the property, owner’s contact information), historic research, cultural heritage evaluation using Ontario Regulation 9/06 and Ontario Regulation 10/06, a draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest for the property, an assessment of existing conditions, a description of the proposed development, an assessment of the impacts of the development on the heritage resource, considered alternatives, and lastly recommended conservation/mitigation strategies. The HIA does not include existing heritage descriptions, which in this case includes the Heritage Register listing for the property and the listing in the 2004 Seaton Built Heritage Assessment, nor does it include plans illustrating the development proposal, both of which are required by the City’s Terms of Reference for an HIA. The report correctly determines that the property, including the frame house, barn and surrounding landscape have cultural heritage value; however, there is some inconsistency as to the analysis and description of the house’s physical evolution, which affects the cultural heritage values and attributes identified in the Ontario Regulation 9/06 evaluation and subsequent draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. 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 Background Research and Analysis The HIA provides a sufficient overview of the historic context and ownership of the subject property and surrounding area. The report provides a construction date of 1853 for the frame house but does not explain how this date was identified. Communications with Alisha Mohamed, Cultural Heritage Specialist/Archaeologist at WSP confirmed that this date is identified in the City’s Heritage Register listing for the property and in the 2004 Seaton Built Heritage Assessment by André Scheinman. This explanation should be provided in the HIA as well as any other research that supports this construction date. For example, the HIA references Robert and Thomas Vardon and their families arriving from New Brunswick and settling on Lots 29 and 30, Concession V in 1842. It further describes the subdivision of the lot, including the construction of a school on the property between 1842 and 1848. Furthermore, the 1851 Agricultural Census notes a residence on the property as being outside the village limits. The Vardon families would have needed accommodation prior to 1853 and it is possible that the families initially constructed log houses and then abandoned them in favour of newly constructed houses. Or it is possible that the frame house is older. Regardless, it is not clear why 1853 has been selected as the construction date beyond its previous citation in the Heritage Register and Scheinman’s report. It is unfortunate that the author could not gain - 99 - Peer Review Letter | 575 Highway 7 Page 4 of 10 access to the interior to further analyze other potential clues for the building’s construction date and evolution. The HIA describes the house as follows: “Constructed in 1853, the Vardon House was originally built to a rectangular plan, with one rear addition projecting from the south elevation. The main façade of the structure was likely modified at an unknown date to include elements of the Gothic Revival style including a gabled centre bay with a steeply pitched roof, board and batten siding, gingerbread scrollwork and finial and pendant in the gable. The foundation material consists of board-formed concrete, and the foundation appears to be raised. This concrete foundation is likely a replacement for the original stone foundation.” It is also not evident why the HIA describes the Gothic Revival style elements as being added later following the 1853 construction. Is there physical evidence that supports this assertion? Having reviewed the 2004 Seaton Built Heritage Assessment, it appears that Scheinman raised this theory, noting that the Gothic Revival cottage style is “likely the result of a renovation to the original house c. 1865”. Scheinman does not provide any supporting evidence for this assertion. The HIA notes the potential influence of A.J. Downing, J.C. Loudon, and The Canada Farmer in popularizing the Gothic Revival cottage, particularly the 1864 issue of The Canada Farmer, which included elevations and floor plans for two examples. It is not explicit, but the HIA may be implying that the house received an exterior renovation following the edition of the February 1864 edition of The Canada Farmer. Regardless, further analysis of the historical research would have been beneficial and if applicable, an acknowledgement that perhaps a precise date is not possible, but rather a range. I did not observe any physical reason to confirm the theory of an original rectangular massing with later Gothic Revival style added (including central projecting gable) on the site visit, however, with access to the attic, it should be possible to confirm whether the central project gable was constructed concurrently with the rectangular massing or whether it was a later addition. There was however sufficient physical evidence to support the archival research of a mid-19th century construction date. I also agree with the description of its architectural style as Ontario Gothic Cottage; the Gothic Revival style being expressed through the central steeply gabled projection, board and batten cladding, and decorative woodwork on the gables. The style of the board and batten with beveled edges on the battens and the presence of the frieze board under the eaves, could be the original cladding. I do not believe that the “neoclassical” door case on the façade is original, but rather a later replacement that was - 100 - Peer Review Letter | 575 Highway 7 Page 5 of 10 inspired by the neoclassical tradition. When you compare the patina 1 of the wood with the original windows and trim on the sides of the projecting gable, the door case looks a more recent intervention. The rectangular plan portion of the house is approximately 28 ½’ long by 18 ½’ wide as measured from the inside of the foundation walls. The HIA correctly identifies the foundation as a board-formed concrete foundation, which represents the replacement of an original stone foundation. The rear (south) wing also has replacement concrete foundation. It has not been fully determined if the rear wing is original or added later, but the size and style of beams, joists and subflooring appear to be consistent with the original house or older. It is also possible that the materials on the addition were repurposed from another building site. The proportion of windows and roof form suggests that the second storey of the rear wing is likely a 20th century addition. The HIA report describes the rear wing as original, but then subsequently notes that the “south addition to the farmhouse does obscure part of the south façade but has not impacted the front façade.” I imagine that this explanation in the report refers to the added second floor on the rear wing. The original interior layout has been modified, but there is evidence of a centre plan layout with a small (2’ 6” wide) staircase in an “L” shape beginning at the end (south) of the centre hall, and opposite what appears to be an original built-in cupboard (possibly with new doors). The first run of newel post and balustrade appears original, while the rest is a relatively modern replacement. The interior trim (windows, doors, baseboards) is a combination of what appears to be original and later well-executed (not replica) replacements. All the interior doors have been replaced. The comparative analysis sections on the Gothic Revival houses and Central Ontario style barns in Section 5.5.1.1 are a useful contribution to the HIA, despite the limitations noted by the author. While I do not disagree with the general resulting conclusions, there is discrepancy in how the frame house is described in Section 5.1 (Existing Conditions – Residence) and how it is presented in this section. Essentially, two narratives are presented, one in which the house was constructed circa 1853 and later modified to include the Gothic Revival Style detailing and one in which, the house is described as a rare example of a board and batten clad Ontario Gothic Cottage in Pickering, making it one of the earliest structures to retain its original exterior form given its 1853 construction date. In my professional opinion, given that there is no tangible evidence of the Gothic Revival Style modifications being added later, or a firm construction date, I am most comfortable with describing it as a rare surviving example of a 1 A patina is a finish over a surface that develops over a period of time due to weather, stress and/or age. - 101 - Peer Review Letter | 575 Highway 7 Page 6 of 10 frame Ontario Gothic Cottage in Pickering, Ontario. The HIA provides a detailed description of the barn on the property, dating the structure to between 1861 and 1881. The comparative analysis section notes that gable roofs were used up to about 1880, after which gambrel roofs were introduced, emphasizing that its gambrel helps to confirm a pre-1880 construction date. I think this may be an error as it conflicts with the previous explanation provided. The discussion of integrity in Section7 is an important component of the HIA given the many modifications to the frame house, both externally and internally. While I am not always comfortable with use of metrics for this exercise, I agree with the outcome of 63% survival rate, which equates to “Good” in the system used. The integrity section does not mention that the eaves have been flashed in aluminum and the wood soffits have been replaced with aluminum vents. Additionally, some of the window openings have been modified, for example the paired windows on the ground floor of the east elevation do not appear to be original. In summary, the report presents a range of sound archival research for the property and surrounding area but would have benefited from additional analysis of the research findings. 2.3 Cultural Heritage Evaluation The cultural heritage evaluation section employs both Ontario Regulation 9/06 and Ontario Regulation 10/06, concluding that the subject property meets four of the nine criteria listed in Reg 9/06 and meets no criteria listed in Reg 10/06. The HIA identifies the following values: • Design value as a “rare example of a board and batten clad Ontario Gothic Cottage in the City of Pickering” and the barn as a “representative expression of a Central Ontario barn…now considered rare with only one Part IV designated barn in the City of Pickering”. • Historical/associative value for its association with “the agricultural development of the former Ontario Township and City of Pickering” and for association with “the Vardon Family…relatively early settlers who established a school on the subject property”. • Contextual value for “maintaining the historical agricultural character of the area” and for “maintaining and supporting the rural nineteenth century landscape along the Highway 7 corridor”. I agree with the Ontario Regulation 10/06 evaluation (that the property meets none of the criteria for Provincial Significance) and generally agree with the Ontario Regulation 9/06 evaluation. However, as noted previously in Section 2.2 (Background Research and Analysis), the Neoclassical-inspired doorcase appears to be a more recent alteration based on its patina in relation to other exterior wood features and should not be included in the description of design value or as a heritage attribute in the draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value. The draft statement both describes the house as a representative example of an Ontario Gothic - 102 - Peer Review Letter | 575 Highway 7 Page 7 of 10 Cottage and as a rare example of a board and batten clad Ontario Gothic Cottage. As previously discussed, I am most comfortable with describing the house as a rare surviving example of a frame Ontario Gothic Cottage in Pickering, Ontario. I generally agree with the assessment of the contextual values, however, the explanations of the values more readily align with Criteria 7 (i.e., important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of the area), and it is less clear how they align with Criteria 8 (i.e., functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings). 2.4 Impact Assessment & Considered Alternatives The HIA provides a detailed explanation of the types of impacts, and how to describe the extent of an impact. An assessment of the impacts using the list of potential negative impacts in the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit follows. I agree with the HIA’s assessment that the anticipated impacts to the house and barn are major as they involve their demolition and a change in the land use of the property from its historic agricultural use to large scale warehouses. The HIA provides an “Options Analysis”. The HIA’s preferred alternative from a cultural heritage perspective is “Do Nothing” as the proposed development will create major direct impacts to the identified heritage attributes of the subject property through demolition. However, the HIA then states that this is not in keeping with the Official Plan designation of “Prestige Employment” for the area and related objectives for Seaton Urban Area for the property. The second option is to relocate and adaptively reuse the house in a more convenient location on the site and to dismantle and salvage the barn, which is identified as the least preferred alternative due to the diminished contextual and historical/associative value and the risks associated with moving buildings. The third option is to demolish the house and barn and represents the recommended alternative as relocation was proven unfeasible and the option “preserves a record of the property’s heritage attributes in a manner scaled to their level of cultural heritage significance.” While I do not disagree with the options presented and the basic arguments set forth, they would benefit from additional explanation and detail. For example, the “Prestige Employment” land use designation undoubtedly creates inherent obstacles for the preservation of rural farmsteads in this area and as noted in the HIA, the type of development inherently diminishes the contextual value and associative/historical values associated with the agricultural history and character of the landscape. However, it does not entirely remove the possibility of adaptively reusing the house for office use within the site. Option 2 in the Options Analysis explains that the functional site requirements of the proposed development make the relocation of the Vardon House to a prominent Highway 7 facing location not possible. This explanation should be supported by additional detail, specifically the proposed site plan with an overlay of the house, which illustrates the functional site requirements and demonstrates the conflict(s) with the current location of the house and relocation along Highway 7. - 103 - Peer Review Letter | 575 Highway 7 Page 8 of 10 If all alternative relocation options have been explored and conflicts with the site’s functional layout cannot be resolved, a more holistic approach or discussion of both development phases would be beneficial. For example, the Percy House at 815 Highway 7 is also owned by CapLink, and forms Phase 1 of the food manufacturing campus. Following an HIA by WSP, Percy House is being relocated on that site to be used as offices and with a new learning centre addition. Decisions about the functional requirements for both phases were likely developed concurrently and so it would be helpful to understand the rationale or decision-making related to the comparative cultural heritage significance of the two difference houses and whether this informed overall site planning of both phases. Does Percy House have more cultural heritage significance? More architectural integrity, etc.? Given the proximity of the properties, the shared ownership and WSP’s role as the heritage consultant for both properties, a discussion relating to both sites would be beneficial. Lastly, Table 10-1 provides a commentary on advantages, disadvantages, and mitigation/conservation notes. Overall, it makes some valid and useful arguments, but I disagree with the following points: • Option 1 Disadvantages – preservation is not a “do nothing” approach, and it should be expected that a large property owner and business such as CapLink would at minimum keep the house in a good state of repair. I am not persuaded that this is a “disadvantage”. • Option 2 Disadvantages – I disagree that “relocating the Vardon House places it at risk of accidental damage or total loss during the building’s move” is a significant disadvantage given the lightweight nature of the frame construction. 2.6 Conservation Approach & Mitigation Strategies From a mitigation perspective, I generally agree with the recommended strategies, which align with the City’s Official Plan policy 11.60, which states “record and salvage all built heritage resources and/or archaeological resources that cannot be conserved in place and document all displaced cultural heritage landscapes.” The strategies include the development of a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report (CHRD) for the house and barn, cataloguing and identifying features for salvage and reuse, as well as “symbolic conservation.” Symbolic conservation is described as the incorporation of salvaged materials into entry gates, retaining walls, fences, benches or landscape features within the station area and the construction of an interpretive plaque commemorating the area’s heritage or property’s history. I am unsure what is meant by the “station area”? Regarding the CHRD report, I recommend that measured drawings be completed of the exterior and interior of the house, as well as of the barn. The proposed salvaging and reuse of material is consistent with the City’s Official Plan policy 11.64 a, c and e, though I think that it will be challenging to design and locate an accessible and meaningful commemoration - 104 - Peer Review Letter | 575 Highway 7 Page 9 of 10 plaque, given the large, non-pedestrian scale of the development. Again, it may be worthwhile exploring the possibility of incorporating the commemoration of the Vardon House as part of the interpretation plaque being created for the interior of the new learning centre in Percy House, i.e., reflecting on both properties, and the history of this section of Highway 7. However, I think that there may be small opportunities to incorporate the history of the site. For example, could “Stone Fire Drive”, be alternatively named “Vardon” in recognition of this relatively early family in the area. There was no discussion of whether landscaping or the protection of mature trees lining Highway 7 should be considered to soften the dramatic transformation of the landscape and provide some transition from the north side of Highway, which is designated “Prime Agricultural Area” in the Official Plan. A preliminary review of the Tree Protection Plan identifies several trees in the landscaped area along Highway 7 that could theoretically be preserved. There is no supporting information on their age, condition, etc., but based on the site visit, I recall that there were some mature trees to the front of Vardon House, which greatly contribute to the landscape character along this corridor. Another option, which is not identified as a mitigation strategy is the relocation of the house off-site to a new private owner or institution. Acknowledging that relocation should be considered as a last resort, this option would conserve some of its cultural heritage value and attributes. A frame house is relatively light and given that the sill plate, beams, and joists all appeared to be in dry and sound condition, this house appears to be a good candidate for relocation. 3.0 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS In my professional opinion, the HIA report completed by WSP demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the property’s history and its cultural heritage value. The report adequately describes the negative impacts to the cultural heritage resource and provides mitigation strategies that are consistent with City’s Official Plan policies (e.g., Section 11.64 Documenting Former Built Heritage Resources). Based on the research provided and the October 17, 2023, site visit, I find the general conservation approach commensurate with the integrity and significance of the property. The house’s original form and massing is legible, and it retains some original detailing (e.g., board and batten cladding, exterior window trim, front door); however, it has experienced many modifications, compromising its overall integrity. The HIA acknowledges how the City’s Official Plan designation of “Prestige Employment” and its related uses do not readily incorporate meaningful conservation of 19th century agricultural farmsteads. I agree and, in this case, thorough documentation, appropriate salvage and further investigation into other options for - 105 - Peer Review Letter | 575 Highway 7 Page 10 of 10 relocation for the house and barn are a satisfactory approach, and consistent with federal, provincial, and municipal heritage planning frameworks. Recommended next steps: 1. Update the HIA report to: a. Include all existing heritage descriptions (e.g., Heritage Register listing and 2004 Seaton Building Assessment). b. Clarify the origin of the 1853 construction date and what historical research or physical evidence, supports the date. Alternatively, a date range may be more appropriate. Additionally, confirm whether archival or physical evidence exist that support the assertion that the Gothic Revival massing and detailing was added later, and if not, clarify that this is a theory and provide rationale. c. Remove “Neoclassical-inspired wood door entablature” from the draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. 2. A Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report is completed that includes: a. Measured drawings of the house, including interior layout, and the barn, in accordance with HABS (Historic American Buildings Survey) Guidelines for Recording Historic Structures and Sites with Measured Drawings b. Photographic documentation c. Identification of items for salvage, and for what purpose (i.e., commemoration, education, general reuse elsewhere) and how and where they will be stored. 3. A Commemoration Plan is developed for the site and/or as part of the strategy for the learning centre in Phase 1. 4. Require that the Owner actively seeks out interested parties (public or private) who may be interested in relocating the house off-site. 5. If removal of the building is unavoidable, the frame house (and barn) should be deconstructed, not demolished, and all sound materials, particularly, the lumber, should be reused and recycled (e.g., Ouroboros Deconstruction) to support the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Goal 12. 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 - 106 - Memo To: Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee November 22, 2023 From: Emily Game Senior Planner, Heritage Copy: Chief Planner Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design Subject: Proposed Designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act – 301 Kingston Road Background This memo is intended to provide background information on activity surrounding the above-noted heritage listed property, including its current status and next steps. On March 1, 2021, Council endorsed the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee to list 301 Kingston Road on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act (Council Resolution #536/21). Staff’s efforts to expedite the addition of 301 Kingston Road to the Municipal Heritage Register were in response to staff being made aware of the property owner’s intentions to demolish the existing two-storey building (see Attachment #1, Location Map). On April 23, 2021, City Development staff observed evidence of construction activity at 301 Kingston Road. A thorough site visit was conducted by Building Inspection staff on April 27, 2021, which revealed that the owner had significantly altered the interior and exterior of the building without obtaining a building permit or demolition permit. Both the exterior cladding and the interior have been removed and left exposed. An Order to Comply was issued on April 28, 2021, which directed the owner to cease all work and to apply for, and obtain, a building permit or demolition permit. After the City issued an Order to Comply, the owner submitted a demolition permit application to the City on May 3, 2021. Upon further discussion with the City Development staff, the owner advised of their future intentions for the property, which included potential commercial/recreational school, and other community or educational uses. To facilitate his pursuit to re-develop the site, the owner requested the suspension of the demolition permit on May 19, 2021, thereby ‘stopping the clock’ on the 60-day timeline in which Council is required to make a decision whether or not to designate the property. In June 2021, a planning consultant on behalf of the owner spoke with heritage staff to understand the property. It was the City of Pickering’s understanding the planning consultant was assisting the owner in developing a comprehensive plan. City staff advised the planning consultant to book a pre- consultation meeting to review the next steps for development and implement the recommendations of the Documentation Report. At this time, staff advised the importance of the two-storey building as one of the last remaining connections to the development surrounding the Rouge River and encouraged the owner to incorporate the building in any future redevelopment plans. - 107 - Page 2 of 4 November 22, 2023 Proposed Designation – 301 Kingston Road Despite City staff following up, no meaningful communication was received from the property owner until September 19, 2023, when a request to reinstate the demolition permit application was made to the City. The property owner also made inquiries regarding the requirements and timelines associated with the demolition of the building. The request to reinstate the demolition permit application was not granted as there have been several building code changes since the initial submission in 2021, further to this, a site plan had not been provided as required in the Building By-law and the 2021 application was deemed incomplete. A demolition permit application was formally resubmitted by the property owner on October 18, 2023. On November 6, 2023, the property owner submitted a request to pause the demolition permit application. Subsequently, a phone call took place on the same day between the property owner and City staff, during which the owner was informed that pausing the application does not halt the 60-day timeline for designation as mandated by the Ontario Heritage Act. In response to this, the property owner's legal representative submitted a letter to City staff on November 8, 2023, requesting an extension of time to complete necessary engineering reports and heritage assessments. City staff reiterated the importance of adhering to the 60-day timeline for designation as mandated by the Ontario Heritage Act. It was communicated that the property owner has the option to fully withdraw the demolition permit application for the building. The demolition permit application was withdrawn the same day, and the matter was not discussed at the November 8, 2023 Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee meeting. The City previously determined that 301 Kingston Road has Cultural Heritage Value In 2020, City Development hired Branch Architecture to undertake a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for four properties located within the Kingston Road Intensification Corridor (See Attachment #2, CHER). The CHER evaluated the subject property against the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06 and determined that it possesses cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI). The report determined the building at 301 Kingston Road was an altered, but rare example of a Georgian house in Pickering, likely dating to the mid-1800s. The property was found to be historically linked to its surroundings for its associations with the Community of Rouge Hill and is likely one of the few remaining buildings from the early settlement of the community. Lastly, given the building’s prominent location at the intersection of Kingston Road and Altona Road, it is considered a landmark structure. A Structural Report was provided by the Owner to the City Tacoma Engineers was retained by the property owner to provide a preliminary structural assessment of the building at 301 Kingston Road (See Attachment #3, Structural Assessment). Tacoma Engineers found the building to be in a partial state of demolition. The building was in generally poor condition, the report also indicated that additional structural work may be required to ensure the long-term viability of the building. To the best of our knowledge, the owner has not completed all the recommendations as outlined by Tacoma Engineers; additional photos or a site visit may be required to determine the extent of repairs. - 108 - Page 3 of 4 November 22, 2023 Proposed Designation – 301 Kingston Road A Documentation and Commemoration Report has been submitted by the Owner LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. (LHC), was retained by the property owner to complete a Documentation and Commemoration Report for the property (See Attachment #4: Documentation and Commemoration Report). The report recommended the following, should the approval for demolition be approved: •salvaged materials should be either incorporated into any new design or for reuse elsewhere; •a reputable contractor(s) with experience working with cultural heritage resource removal should be retained to salvage the identified features; •before salvaging materials for reuse in other buildings or projects, their end location should be determined; •any materials not deemed salvageable, should be recycled, and diverted from landfill; and •a plaque commemorating the Property and Rouge Hill is recommended to be installed in a location visible from the public realm. The report included an evaluation of the property using Ontario Regulation 9/06 to determine if it retained Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Despite the extensive alterations to the building, the evaluation found the subject property met two of the nine criteria, and therefore retained heritage value. The property was found to have connections to the mid-nineteenth century development of Rouge Hill and was found to be a landmark building. The report also noted the following remaining heritage attributes: •the form, scale, and massing of the residence and its medium-pitched side-gable roof with returns; and •its location, orientation, and setback. Based on the recommendations outlined in the Documentation and Commemoration Report prepared by LHC, the property owner contacted two sign companies to inquire about plaques and an associated website for commemoration. The final design or location of the plaque is to be determined. Enforcement Options The existing Order to Comply is still open and remains outstanding. Fines under the Ontario Building Code Act were not pursued in 2021 as the owner was demonstrating good faith towards coming up with development alternatives. Further enforcement measures respecting Building Code violations are not recommended at this time until the heritage matters surrounding the building structure are fully resolved. Alterations to a listed heritage property do not require City approval or a Heritage Permit, however, the property owner may be charged under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act, should it be determined that the alterations to the building constitute demolition. - 109 - Page 4 of 4 November 22, 2023 Proposed Designation – 301 Kingston Road Staff Recommendations to Heritage Pickering As outlined in the Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report and the Documentation and Commemoration Plan, 301 Kingston Road meets two of the nine criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06. The structure located at 301 Kingston Road is a modified yet rare example of a Georgian house in Pickering, likely originating from the mid-1800s. Its historical significance extends to its connection with the Community of Rouge Hill, making it a noteworthy relic from the early settlement of the area. Positioned prominently at the intersection of Kingston Road and Altona Road, the building is acknowledged as a landmark structure. The identification and protection of heritage resources in the community through designation promotes arts, culture, and heritage within the municipality. Designation provides long-term protection and management for key heritage resources in the municipality and recognizes their importance to the community. The building at 301 Kingston Road is therefore a candidate for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Staff offer the following recommendations to the Committee: •That Heritage Pickering refuse the “Request for Demolition” of the house at 301 Kingston Road on the basis of its cultural heritage value or interest; •That the property at 301 Kingston Road be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; •That the applicant provides a Conservation Plan which shall include a detailed description of the conservation (restoration and rehabilitation) scope of work for 301 Kingston Road supported by architectural drawings; and •That the comments and discussion of Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee be included by staff in a future recommendation report to the Planning & Development Committee. Next Steps Heritage Pickering recommendations will be included in the City Development Staff Recommendation Report to Planning & Development Committee, and the potential Part IV designation under the Ontario Heritage Act of 301 Kingston Road will be presented to Council. If you have any questions, please contact me at 905.420.4660, extension 1147. EG:nr J:\Documents\Administration\A-3300\A-3300-084\HPAC Meeting - 22NOV23\Heritage Committee Memo_22NOV23.docx Attachments #1: Location Map #2: Kingston Road Study: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report #3: Preliminary Structural Assessment #4: Documentation and Commemoration Report - 110 - Ro ugemount Drive Fawndale Road Valley Gate Al t o n a R o a d Le k a n i C o u r t Toynevale Road Wi n e t t e R o a d P in e R id g e R o a d Rouge Hill Court D a l e w o o d D r i v e K i n g s t o n R o a d Brookridge Gate Highway 4 0 1 Ly t t o n C o u r t R i v e r v i e w C r e s c e n t 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Location MapFile:Property Description:A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯ E Pt Lot 32, B.F.C. Range 3 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\301KingstonRd_LocationMap.mxd (301 Kingston Road) City of Toronto $WWDFKPHQW - 111 - CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT KINGSTON ROAD STUDY Pickering, Ontario November 1, 2020 $WWDFKPHQW - 112 - Cover Image: 301 Kingston Road, 2019. (Branch Architecture, BA) PREPARED FOR: Elizabeth Martelluzzi, Planner II, Heritage City Development Department City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 E: emartelluzzi@pickering.ca PREPARED BY: Branch Architecture 2335 County Road 10 Picton, ON K0K 2T0 T: (613) 827-5806 Issued: 2020.06.16 DRAF T 2020.11.01 R1 - 113 - i Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 CONTENTS 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Project Framework & Background 1.2 Property Addresses and Lot Descriptions 2 Land Grants 2 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Historical Maps 3 1 Evelyn Avenue 7 3.1 Property Description 3.2 Background Research 3.3 Building Description & Site Photos 3.4 Evaluation 4 301 Kingston Road 16 4.1 Property Description 4.2 Background Research 4.3 Building Description & Site Photos 4.4 Evaluation 5 401 Kingston Road 26 5.1 Property Description 5.2 Background Research 5.3 Building Description 5.4 Evaluation 6 882 & 886 Kingston Road 37 6.1 Property Description 6.2 Background Research 6.3 Building Description & Site Photos 6.4 Evaluation 7 Discussion 59 Appendix 1: Sources Appendix 2: Summary of Land Records - 114 - ii KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 1.Approximate location of subject properties. (Bing maps annotated by BA) 1 Evelyn Avenue 882 Kingston Road 401 Kingston Road 301 Kingston Road PROJECTNORTH - 115 - 1 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 1 Introduction 1.1 Project Framework & Background Branch Architecture was retained by the City of Pickering as a heritage consultant to assess the potential cultural heritage value of four properties of heritage significance identified in the Kingston Road Corridor and Speciality Retailing Node Draft Intensification Plan. These properties are: 1 Evelyn Avenue; 301 Kingston Road; 401 Kingston Road; and, 882 Kingston Road. The scope of this cultural heritage evaluation includes the following: 1.Undertake a site visit to each property, including a walk around the subject building. 2.Conduct preliminary background research on the history of the properties and their immediate setting. 3.Undertake general photographic documentation of the property and surroundings. 4.Prepare a Preliminary Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report including the following for each property: •A written description of the property and building(s); •General photographs of each property and buildings; and, •Preliminary heritage evaluation based on Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Branch Architecture undertook on site visits to 401 and 882 Kingston Road on March 2, 2020, and to 301 Kingston Road on October 19, 2020. The visits consisted of walking around each property and the immediate context, and completing a visual review of the building exterior and interior (where access was permitted). All the properties were reviewed from the street in December of 2019. Branch Architecture prepared this Cultural Heritage Evaluation in accordance with Ontario Regulation 9/06 - Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, the Ontario Heritage Act, the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada as well as other charters and guidelines that exemplify heritage best practice. 1.2 Property Addresses and Lot Descriptions •1 Evelyn Avenue - PLAN 230 PT LOT 10 NOW RP 40R12418 PART 1 •301 Kingston Road - CON BF RANGE 3 PT LOT 32 •401 Kingston Road - PLAN 230 PT LOT 19 NOW RP 40R16160 PART 1 •882 & 886 Kingston Road - CON BF RANGE 3 PT LOT 27 AND RP 40R2628 PART 1 TO 4 AND RP 40R15853 PART 1,2,3 - 116 - 2 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 2 Land Grants 2.1 Introduction The Constitutional Act of 1791, known as the Canada Act, divided the Province of Quebec into Upper Canada to the west and Lower Canada to the east. As part of this Act, land grants in the newly surveyed townships were issued under the newly estab- lished provincial governments. In 1792, the responsibility of granting lands was del- egated to Lt. Governor Col. John Graves Simcoe. Simcoe followed British land granting tradition and, in effect, made members of his legislative council landed gentry. By the end of his term of office in 1796, he had placed one seventh of the surveyed townships in the hands of the Church of England (known as the Clergy Reserves) and provided well for his council and his civil servants. In the Pickering Township alone, of the 74,660 acres which the township contains, 18,800 were in the hands of five people; one of them the newly appointed Surveyor-General, two others, members of his family.1 Much of the Pickering Township was either granted to members of the military or allo- cated as additional land grants to absentee landholders. As such, there was little land left for new settlers purchasing land to establish a homestead here.2 Large areas of land, in particular the most desirable lands along the shoreline, remained wild well into the 1800s when the original landowners and the Church began selling off parcels to new settlers. The subject properties are located within Broken Front Concession 3 as shown on the 1877 County Atlas (opposite): •Con. 3 B.F., Lot 27 - 862 Kingston Road; •Con. 3 B.F., Lot 31 - 1 Evelyn Avenue and 401 Kingston Road; and, •Con. 3 B.F., Lot 32 - 301 Kingston Road. All these lots are bisected by Kingston Road. Kingston Road was a military road, dating from 1800, that served as the primary route for pioneers travelling between York (Toronto) and the Bay of Quinte (Kingston). In 1796, an American engineer named Asa Danforth was awarded with the contract for the road - a road two rods wide and far enough from the shore to avoid enemy forces from observing troop movements. 1 The Pickering Story, p. 21. 2 The Crown provided Loyalists with 200 acres and military grants of up to 5,000 acres for free. Settlers paid the Crown for 200 acre parcels. - 117 - 3 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 2.The Ontario County Atlas, 1877. (The County Atlas Project, McGill University) Lo t 3 2 Lo t 3 1 Broken Front Con. 3 Broken Front Con. 2 Con. 1 Lo t 3 3 Lo t 2 9 Lo t 2 8 Lo t 3 0 Lo t 2 6 Lo t 2 5 Lo t 2 7 Lo t 2 3 Lo t 2 4 1 Evelyn Avenue 882 Kingston Road 401 Kingston Road 301 Kingston Road PROJECTNORTH Kingston Rd Kingston Rd 2.2 Historical Maps - 118 - 4 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 3.Township of Pickering, County of Ontario Crown Lands Map No. 28, by Thomas Ridout, 1823 with later revisions. The clergy reserve lands are identified in blue. (Ontario Archives, OA) Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F. 4.Tremaine’s Map of the County of Ontario, Upper Canada by John Shier Esq. P.L.A. & County Engineer and published by Geo. C. Tremaine, 1860. (University of Toronto Map & Data Library) Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F.Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. - 119 - 5 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 5.The Ontario County Atlas, 1877. (The County Atlas Project, McGill University) 6.Map of the Township of Pickering by Chas E. Goad, 1895. (Pickering Archives, PA) Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F.Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F.Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. - 120 - 6 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 7.Gidual Landowners’ Map of Pickering, c. 1917. (PA) 8.Map of Pickering Township, Centennial Souvenir, 1967. (PA) Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F.Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. Lots 31&32, Con. 3 B.F.Lot 27, Con. 3 B.F. - 121 - 7 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 3 1 Evelyn Avenue 9.1 Evelyn Avenue, west elevation. (Google streetview) Rougemoun t D r i v e H i g h w a y 4 0 1 Ev e l y n A v e n u e Toynevale Road Dalewood Drive K i n g s t o n R o a d Ch a n t i l l y R o a d Ro s e b a n k R o a d Frontier Court Granite Court Rouge Hill Court Old Forest Road East Woodlands Park South PetticoatRavine 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Location Map File: Property Description: A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯ E Pt Lot 10, Plan 230, Now Pt, 1 40R-12418 Subject Lands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\1EvelynAve_LocationMap.mxd (1 Evelyn Avenue) 10.1 Evelyn Avenue, location map. (City of Pickering) - 122 - 8 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 3.1 Property Description One Evelyn Avenue falls within the south half of Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 31. The parcel was created as part of the Morgan & Dixon’s Plan (Plan No. 230) dated July 6, 1922. 3.2 Background Research Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 31 Concession 3 Broken Front Lot 31 originally formed part of the Clergy Reserves land allocation in Pickering.1 Seneca Palmer (1787-1873) received the patent for Lot 31 of the third broken front concession in Pickering in 1846.2 The Palmer family immigrated to Upper Canada from the United States around 1976 and settled in Scarborough in and around 1800. Seneca and his younger brothers John and Sherwood moved to the Township of Pickering to purchase land and establish their own farms. Seneca’s land petition of March 1819 describes him as follows: That your Petitioner was born in the United States of America, has resided in this province 23 years, is 27 years of age, is a son of James Palmer Senior an old settler in Scarborough, is married, and has never received any land from the Crown.3 Local historian John Sabean’s research of the Palmer Family suggests that Seneca Palmer farmed the land prior to gaining a land patent for Lot 31 in 1846. In a petition to purchase the property from the Crown, dated 21 February 1837, Palmer is described as ‘of the Township of Pickering’ and states that he has already cleared about 30 acres of the lot.4 1 The Crown Lands map (figure 3) notes Zephaniah Jones on this lot. According to Sabean’s article on the Palmer family, Jones leased this land from the Clergy Reserve from as early as 1823. Jones appears on Pickering Town Records as early as 1820. 2 Brown’s Toronto City and Home District Directory, 1846-1847, also lists Seneca Palmer on Lot 31, p. 62. 3 Upper Canada Land Petitions quoted in Sabean article. 4 The Palmer Family, p. 2. The Palmer Family “The early history of the Palmer fam- ily is sketchy and so far has been pieced together from what little documentation is available. The earliest references to the family date to 1802. Asa Danforth, reporting in that year on the condition of the Danforth Road, states that a settler named Palmer was located on the 10th mile post beyond York, which was probably Lot 23, Concession D in Scarborough. There is also a reference to a ‘Palmer’ family on a list of residents in the Township of Scarborough in 1802. The head of the family was James Palmer, Sr., who appears in the records of Scarborough on several occasions to about 1815. In 1803, he was appointed pound keeper and in 1804 overseer of highways. In 1815, a James Palmer, Sr. was noted in a York Militia List as being exempt from military draft. His family, as well as can be determined, consisted of his wife (name unknown), two daughters (one perhaps named Clara), and five sons (Seneca, John, and Sherwood who later moved to Pickering Town- ship, and James and Charles who remained in Scarborough).” - The Palmer Family: Settling in South Pickering by John W. Sabean - 123 - 9 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 By 1851, Seneca had established a 198 acre farm. There were 50 acres under cultivation including, 23 acres under crop (wheat, peas, oats, corn, potatoes, turnips and hay) and 15 acres under pasture. There was also an orchard or garden and livestock including cattle, horses, sheep, pigs. The remainder of the lot was wooded or ‘wild’.5 The 1851 census records show the Palmer family included Seneca, his wife Jane Jacques (1796-1875) and two chil- dren - George (age 19) and William (age 7). At that time the family was living in a one-storey brick house.6 7 Sabean’s article on the Palmer family describes the family residence as follows: ... one-and-a-half storey brick structure, is a fine example of the vernacular Regency-style cottage... As befitting the Regency style, the house is set in a picturesque landscape on a height of land over- looking the Petticoat.”8 9 George Palmer (1833-1891) remained on the family farm with his parents, while the other children left to start their own homesteads. Of note, two siblings had houses on adja- cent properties.10 11 After Seneca died of pneumonia on October 15, 1873, the properties in Pickering and Scarborough were willed to his wife Jane.12 Following her death in 1875, Lot 31 was divided between two of the sons: George received the north part of 120 acres, and James the south part of 80 acres. John and William acquired the Scarborough lands. 5 Year: 1851; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario County, Canada West (Ontario); Schedule: B; Roll: C_11742; Page: 275; Line: 9. 6 Year: 1851; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario County, Canada West (Ontario); Schedule: A; Roll: C_11742; Page: 171; Line: 42. 7 The 1851 census also notes Seneca’s older sons and their families under his listing: John, his wife Sarah, and daughter Mary; and, James, his wife Ellen as well as their children Jane and Seneen. Both families were living in 1 1/2 storey frame houses. 8 The Palmer Family, p. 2. 9 According to local papers, in 1998 the house was slated to be removed to allow for the construction of a new library. 10 Library and Archives Canada; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Census Returns For 1861; Roll: C-1057. 11 Year: 1871; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario South, Ontario; Roll: C-9973; Page: 69; Family No: 243. 12 Death certificate, Archives of Ontario; Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Collection: MS935; Reel: 5. 11.Seneca Palmer house, sketch (above) and in 1998 (be- low). (Pathways, Vol 2., No. 4) - 124 - 10 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER In 1882, George Kinlock purchased a 27 acre parcel along Kingston Road from George and Mary Palmer. Kinlock, a farmer, lived here with his mother (also named Mary).13 He died on July 19, 1915.14 The Pickering News remembered him under the Rosebank neighbourhood news column: Geo. Kinlock, an old resident, died at his resi- dence just north of here on Monday morning. The deceased, who was 68 years of age, was a bachelor and lived alone since the death of his mother some years ago. His funeral took place on Tuesday to St. Margaret’s cemetery, Scarboro.15 The executors of Kinlock’s will put the land up for sale the following August. Griffith B. Clarke purchased the 27 acre lot on June 26, 1919. The farm changed hands several times before Plan 230 - Morgan & Dixon’s Plan - was registered on March 13, 1922. It was named for the land owners Edwin Morgan and Mildred Dixon. The properties at 1 Evelyn Avenue and 401 Kingston Road fall within this subdivision. Lot 10 - 1 Evelyn Avenue The property at 1 Evelyn Avenue was granted to Silas R. Dixon, Mildred’s spouse, in 1930. The property remained in the Dixon family ownership until 1943. In 1921 Mildred and Silas Dixon lived in Pickering with their children Evelyn, Alexander, Leonard, Ruby and Russel, though it is not confirmed if they resided here.16 The next property owners were John Horace and Dorothea Daniell-Jenkins. Heinz and Ilse Wolf bought the lot in 1980. In 1998 it was sold to Mike Lindo, and the following year it was transferred to a company named 1000683 Ontario Ltd. The building currently houses a law office. 13 Year: 1891; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario West, Ontario, Canada; Roll: T-6358; Family No: 134. 14 Archives of Ontario; Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Collection: MS935; Reel: 211. 15 The Pickering News, Friday, July 23, 1915, Vol. XXXIV, p. 1. (PA). 16 Reference Number: RG 31; Folder Number: 75; Census Place: Pickering (Township), Ontario South, Ontario; Page Number: 1. 12.Property sale advert. (The Pickering News, August 27, 1915) - 125 - 11 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 3.3 Building Description & Site Photos Branch Architecture completed a visual review of this prop- erty from the street in December of 2019. It was a prelim- inary review focused on gaining a visual understanding of the site and building for the purposes of evaluating its potential cultural heritage value. The residential form buildings (house and outbuilding) at 1 Evelyn Avenue are examples of early 20th century bungalow style architecture in Pickering. The bungalow style house gained popularity in American in the early 20th century. It was popularized in California where American designers drew inspiration from the British version of India’s banglas style of home (Bengali style). In Ontario, the bungalow style is almost exclusively residential as it was commonly found in house pattern catalogues. The typical bungalow is a one or one-and-a-half storey dwelling with a front porch or verandah and displaying rustic materials such as textured brick, fieldstone and/or stucco. The roof is either a broad, low-pitched roof with a wide front dormer or a medium pitch front gable style. The following description of the property is limited as views from the street are obscured by mature trees: •The house is a two-storey building with a masonry - a mix of brick and stone - cladding. The building has a rectilinear plan with a projecting bay at the north-east corner of the building. The second floor of the main house and the connection to the one-storey outbuilding to the south appear to be additions. •The front (west-facing) elevation displays an asymmet- rical organization. The front entrance door is located between window openings and beneath flat roof canopy resting on square masonry piers. 13.American bungalow style home, 1921. (Sears Roebuck) 14.Canadian bungalow style home, 1922. (The Halliday Co.) - 126 - 12 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER • The exterior walls are clad in a mix of brick and multi-colour fieldstone. The main body of the wall is fieldstone with brick quoins and a brick quoin treatment at the window and door jambs. The extruded red brick is laid in a running bond (suggesting a wood frame construction). • The window openings are rectangular with a concrete sill and an arched brick lintel. The windows are wood with a mix of fixed and single hung sash types. On the ground floor there several types: paired single-hung windows with shorter upper sash (with most divided vertically into three panes); and, single-hung windows (with a shorter upper sash divided vertically into three panes). At the second floor addition, the windows are aluminium or vinyl fixed windows. • The roof has a hipped profile set at a low pitch. The roof is covered in asphalt shingle and the rain gear is painted metal. There is a tall brick chimney at the north wall and a second at the addition. • The one-story outbuilding south of the house displays a similar construction. It is one- storey structure set into the hillside so as to display a two-storey elevation to the east. It is mixed masonry (to match the house) with a hipped roof. The symmetrical front facade facing Evelyn Avenue displays two doors flanking a pair of small sash windows. 15. 1 Evelyn Avenue property, aerial view looking west, Aug. 2020. (Google streetview) - 127 - 13 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 16. 1 Evelyn Avenue property as seen from the corner of Kingston Road and Evelyn Avenue, Aug. 2019. (Google streetview) 17. 1 Evelyn Avenue house (left) and outbuilding (right), west (front) elevation, Aug. 2019. (Google streetview) - 128 - 14 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 18. 1 Evelyn Avenue house, west (front) elevation, 2020. (City staff) - 129 - 15 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 3.4 Evaluation The following evaluates 1 Evelyn Avenue in relation to Ontario Regulation 9/06. Criteria Description Assessment Design or Physical Value i. is a rare, unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method; The building is a represent- ative example of an early 20th century bungalow in Pickering. The unique fieldstone treatment on the exterior walls is also found at 401 Kingston Road which was also contained within the Morgan and Dixon Plan. ii. displays a high degree of crafts- manship or artistic merit, or; None found. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. None found. Historical or Associative Value i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organi- zation, or institution that is significant to a community; None found. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or; None found. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community. None found. Contextual Value i. is important in defining, maintain- ing, or supporting the character of an area; No. ii. is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings, or; Reflects the pattern of early 20th century residential de- velopment along Kingston Road in Pickering. iii. is a landmark.No. - 130 - 16 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 4 301 Kingston Road 19. 301 Kingston Road, north elevation, Dec. 2019. (BA) Ro ugemount Drive Fawndale Road Valley Gate Al t o n a R o a d Le k a n i C o u r t Toynevale Road Wi n e t t e R o a d P in e R id g e R o a d Rouge Hill Court D a l e w o o d D r i v e K i n g s t o n R o a d Brookridge Gate Highway 4 0 1 Ly t t o n C o u r t Ri v e r v i e w C r e s c e n t 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Location Map File: Property Description: A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯ E Pt Lot 32, B.F.C. Range 3 Subject Lands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\301KingstonRd_LocationMap.mxd (301 Kingston Road) City of Toronto 20. 301 Kingston Road, loca- tion map. (City of Pickering) - 131 - 17 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 4.1 Property Description The subject property falls within the south half of Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 32. The parcel was likely created when the concession lot was subdivided in 1944. 4.2 Background Research Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 32 The patent for Lot 32 of the third broken front concession was granted to William Holmes in 1798. Holmes owned multiple parcels in the Township of Pickering; the lots were located between French Man’s Bay and the Rouge River, and found within Concession 1 and along the lake, lots 26 through 33. William Holmes received a patent for Lot 32 on May 22, 1798. William Holmes (1766- 1834) was a doctor and military surgeon in Upper Canada. From 1790 to 1791 he was stationed in Newark near Niagara-on-the-Lake. In 1792, with plans to settle in Upper Canada, he accepted a grant for 1,200 acres in Pickering Township and purchased addi- tional land. However, in 1796 his regiment was relocated to Lower Canada, and Holmes’ family re-settled in Quebec where he worked as a senior medial officer. He also established himself as in private medical practice working at both Hotel-Dieu and Hospital General. By the early 1800s, he and his family were living in Upper Town Quebec City. After the death of his first wife Mary Ann in 1803, he remarried Margaret Macnaider in 1807. He main- tained an active medical career including the following positions: President of the Quebec examiners (1813); member of the Vaccine Board (1817); Justice of the Peace (1821); and, Commissioner for the relief of the insane and foundlings (1816). In the 1820s, Holmes retired from practice, delegating his responsibilities to younger doctors and staff. 1 John Wesley purchased the 195 acre parcel at Con. 3 BF, Lot 32 from William Holmes on June 26, 1843.2 The 1861 census indicates that John Charles Wesley (1838-1920) was a farmer that was born in Toronto. According to the 1861 census, John was married to Elmira Wesley (1841-1884) and they were living in a two storey frame house. The other extended family members living in the house included Jane (18) and Fanny (17) Wesley.3 Wesley owned the property for several decades and registered multiple mortgages on the south part of the lot in the 1860s. Between 1868 and 1871 there was several instruments listed on the south part of the lot, though these records are largely illegible. 1 Dictionary of Canadian Biography, William Holmes. 2 “Sarah Wesley” is listed as the resident of this lot in Brown’s Toronto City and Home District Direc- tory, 1846-1847, p. 65. Her relationship to John is not known. 3 Library and Archives Canada; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Census Returns For 1861; Roll: C-1057. - 132 - 18 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER In 1874, the part of the lot south of Kingston Road was purchased by Richard Rodd (1837- 1900); Rodd is also recorded on the 1877 Atlas Map. Richard, his wife Susan (1834-1899) and their eight children lived in Pickering in 1881.4 Richard was a farmer and the family immigrated from England. They lived in Whitby before buying the farm in Pickering.5 Robert and Naomi Moody purchased the lot in either 1881 or 1891.6 They sold the prop- erty south of Kingston Road to George Edward Toyne (1886-1943) on March 18, 1902 for $8,000. After George’s death in 1943, George’s wife Helen sold the one acre lot on the south side of Kingston Road to John and Alcone Alderice. The lot was sold to Manfred Pfeiffer and Delmar Page in 1968, and then granted to Ruth Smith (trustee) on Jan. 4, 1971. Ernest A.J. Salmon purchased the lot on January 16, 1971. Rouge Hill This intersection is identified in historical maps as ‘Rouge Hill’. While little is written about this community along the Grand Trunk Railway line, the 1892-93 Ontario Directory includes the following snapshot in time: A P O on the rive Rouge (which furnishes power), in Pickering tp, Ontario Co, 11 miles s-w of Whitby, the co seat, and 3 n of Pt Union, on the GTR, its nearest bank at Pickering. It contains a flour mill, Bible Christian church and public school. Residents listed - Wm. Maxwell, flour mill; John Pearce mason and contractor; Roger Pearce, mason and contractor; William Pearce, Mason and contractor; and Luke Wallace, carpenter.7 According to the Pickering Tweedsmere scrapbook, this area was also known as East Rouge Hill. 4.3 Building Description & Site Photos Branch Architecture completed a visual review of this property from the street in December of 2019, followed by a visit with the owner on October 19, 2020. There were preliminary reviews focused on gaining a visual understanding of the site and building for the purposes of evaluating its potential cultural heritage value, and did not include access to the interior. The building at 301 Kingston Road is an example of a mid 19th century Georgian house in Pickering, likely dating to the mid-1800s. This style dates to 1750-1850. Based on the English Palladian and Georgian styles, this style arrived in Upper Canada first with the 4 Year: 1881; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario South, Ontario; Roll: C_13244; Page: 84; Family No: 412 5 Year: 1871; Census Place: Whitby, Ontario South, Ontario; Roll: C-9974; Page: 67; Family No: 256 6 This date is difficult to read. 7 Ontario Gazetteer and Directory for 1892-93, p. 1029. - 133 - 19 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 United Empire Loyalists and later with British immigrants. Georgian buildings were known for balanced façades, restrained ornamentation, and minimal detailing. It was employed by Upper Canadian settlers desiring, “a sturdy house that reflected his simple dignity”.8 Common features of this building style include: a box-like massing up to 3 storeys in height; symmetrical elevations and classical proportions often displaying a balanced arrangement of windows and doors with flat or splayed window arches; simple designs with limited clas- sical detailing; medium to high pitch gable roofs with half floors in attics and windows on gable ends; chimneys flanking gable end walls; either timber construction with clapboard siding or solid plain brick buildings; vertical sash windows with wood or stone sills; and, a central entrance door with a transom light and side lights. The following is a description of the building with observations: • The house is a two-storey building with a gable roof. It is located on the south side of Kingston Road and overlooks Kingston Road from a small rise. At the rear of the resi- dence are several one-storey additions. • The front (north-facing) facade displays a balanced (though not symmetrical) arrange- ment of openings. On the ground floor there is a centrally placed front door flanked by window openings. On the second floor are three evenly placed window openings; they do not align with the openings below. • The side (east and west) elevations display a symmetrical arrangement of window openings. On the east elevation there is a vertical strip between the windows; this is likely an alteration related to the chimney. • The building has a stone foundation laid in a random pattern. In 2020, a pre-painted aluminum skirt flashing was installed over the foundation visible above grade. • The exterior walls are clad in horozontal pre-painted aluminum siding with a edge board detail at the base of the wall, corners and eaves. Given the depth of wall extending out from the stone foundation, it appeared that the original siding may be concealed under the existing, however, the owner advised that under the existing siding are plain wood planks laid horizontally (not a finished painted clapboard or masonry). This suggests that the original cladding has been removed. • The front entrance opening is framed by a pedimented lintel and side panels. These elements have been covered in painted metal. In front of the entrance is a poured concrete step with a modern wood railing at the east side. 8 Ontario Architecture, www.ontarioarchitecture.com. - 134 - 20 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER • In 2019, the front entrance doorway was composed of a six-panel wood door flanked by wood columns, inset sidelights (2 lights over a base panel) and an inset four-light transom. The framing elements (door frame and stiles) and the base panels at the side- lights were overclad in painted metal. By October of 2020, the doors and windows had been replaced and the pediment concealed under new metal. • The window openings are rectangular with a thin sill and wide frames at the top, sides and mullions. In 2019, the windows appear to be constructed of wood and were made up of a sash windows with exterior storm windows. There was a mix of window arrangements and patterns. On the ground floor there is: a grouping of three windows consisting of a 6-over-12 sash flanked by 4-over-6 sash windows; pairs of 4-over-6 sash windows; and, pairs of 4-over-1 sash windows. At the second floor there are 4-over-1 sash windows in pairs and threes and, at the rear elevation, 6-over-1 sash windows. By October of 2020, the windows had been replaced with single pane windows. The wood sill have also been overclad in pre-painted metal. • The roof has a medium pitch gable roof profile. The roof is covered in asphalt shingle and the rain gear is painted metal. The eaves appear to have been altered with a perfo- rated metal soffit and painted metal overcladding at the fascia, bedmold, frieze and gable-end returns. There is a single red brick chimney at the east wall. 21. Aerial view looking north-east, 2020. (Google streetview) - 135 - 21 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 22. North (front) elevation, 2019. (BA) 23. North (front) elevation, 2020. (BA) - 136 - 22 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 24. Front entrance, 2019. (BA)25. Front entrance, 2020. (BA) 26. Stone foundation, 2019. (BA)27. Metal skirt at foundation, 2020. (BA) - 137 - 23 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 28. East (left) and north (right) elevations, 2019. (BA) 29. East (left) and north (right) elevations, 2020. (BA) - 138 - 24 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 30. West (left) and south (right) elevations, 2019. (BA) 31. West (left) and south (right) elevations, 2020. (BA) - 139 - 25 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 4.4 Evaluation The following evaluates 301 Kingston Road in relation to Ontario Regulation 9/06. Criteria Description Assessment Design or Physical Value i. is a rare, unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method; The building is a rare (and altered) example of an early to mid-19th century Georgian residence in Pickering. ii. displays a high degree of crafts- manship or artistic merit, or; Further investigation required. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. None known. Historical or Associative Value i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organi- zation, or institution that is significant to a community; The property has associations with early Pickering landowner and military doctor William Holmes. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or; No. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community. None known. Contextual Value i. is important in defining, maintain- ing, or supporting the character of an area; No. ii. is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings, or; The property is associ- ated with the Rouge Hill community, and is perhaps one of a few remaining buildings from this time. iii. is a landmark.The building is promi- nently located at the intersection of Alton and Kingston roads, and marks the west edge of Kingston Road. - 140 - 26 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 5 401 Kingston Road 32. 401 Kingston Road, north elevation. (BA) Rougemount Drive Toynevale Road Ev e l y n A v e n u e Ch a n t i l l y R o a d Dah l i a C r e s c e n t Oa k w o o d D r i v e Frontier Court Lytton Court D a l e w o o d D r i v e O l d F o r e s t R o a d Highway 4 0 1 Rouge Hill Court Kingston Road East WoodlandsParkSouth PetticoatRavine 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Location Map File: Property Description: A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯ E Pt Lt 19, Plan 230, Now Pt 1, 40R-16160 Subject Lands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\401KingstonRd_LocationMap.mxd (401 Kingston Road)33. 401 Kingston Road, loca- tion map. (City of Pickering) - 141 - 27 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 5.1 Property Description The subject property falls within the south half of Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 31. The parcel was created as part of the Morgan & Dixon’s Plan (Plan No. 230) dated July 6, 1922. 5.2 Background Research Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 31 See 1 Evelyn Avenue for early settlement history. Lot 19 - 401 Kingston Road The property at 1 Evelyn Avenue was granted to Annie and Horace Branson in 1923. Based on the land records, it appears this transaction was not fulfilled as in 1936 the estate of Peter S. Gates registered a quit claim on the property, likely in relation to a 1922 mort- gage. In 1939, the property was granted to Silas Dixon. In 1944, the property was granted to Silas’ son Alexander. Two years later, the property was sold to Louis E. Staley. Kathleen and John Quigg owned the property between 1951 and 1967. From 1967 the property changed hands several times - John and Margaret Belcourt (1967); Jack Knowles (1970); Victor and Felicia Mastrogicomos (1973); Brian and Christine Binns, (1975); Walter Francis (1987) - before being purchased by a pair of management / hold- ings companies. It was transferred to 1138224 Ontario Ltd. in 1995. A Montessori daycare is currently operating out of the building. 5.3 Building Description For the purposes of this CHER, Branch Architecture visited the property on March 2, 2020. The inspection included walking around the building and through each floor, and completing a visual review and photographic documentation. The review focused on gaining a visual understanding of the site and building for the purposes of evaluating its potential cultural heritage value. The building at 401 Kingston Road is an example of an early 20th century bungalow in Pickering. The Bungalow style house was an American import to Canada in the early 20th century. It was popularized in California; the Americans were inspired by the British version of India’s banglas style of home (Bengali style). In Ontario, the Bungalow style is almost exclusively residential as it was commonly found in house pattern catalogues. The Bungalow is generally a one or one-and-a-half storey dwelling with a front porch or verandah and displaying rustic materials such as textured brick, fieldstone and/ or stucco. The roof is either a broad, low-pitched roof with a wide front dormer or a medium pitch front gable style. - 142 - 28 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER The following is a description of the building with observations: • The house is a one-and-a-half storey wood frame building with a brick veneer and topped with a gable roof. • The front (north-facing) facade displays a symmetrical organization. There is a centrally placed front porch (with an entrance door within) framed by windows on either side. Above is a roof dormer of a similar configuration to the porch. • The building has a poured concrete foundation with large field stones mixed in. On the exterior, the foundation wall displays fieldstone laid in a random pattern and artic- ulated with a pronounced beaded mortar joint. • The exterior walls display a mix of masonry. The fieldstone extends up from the foun- dation to the top of the window sill. The remainder of the exterior walls are clad in an extruded red brick laid in a running bond. The quoins and porch piers are also red brick. • The enclosed front porch has a front gable appearance. The porch is entered from the east side via a wood step. The porch is framed with brick piers at the corners; the piers have a concrete cap and support squared wood columns. The base of the wall is fieldstone with a concrete cap. The upper wall areas are infilled with fixed wood windows following a symmetrical layout. The triangular pediment of the roof gable is infilled with painted wood shingle. • The front door is wood. The upper panel is glazed and is composed of 6 divided lights (3 panes wide). The lower panels is made up of three vertical wood panels. The door opening is framed in brick with an arched brick linel. • The window openings are rectangular with a concrete sill and an arched brick lintel. The windows are wood with a mix of fixed and single hung sash types. On the ground floor there four types: three single-hung windows with shorter upper sash (most divided vertically into three panes); single-hung windows (with shorter upper sash divided verti- cally into three panes); small fixed windows; and, at the front proch, fixed windows with three panes across the top. At the second floor there are single-hung windows (with shorter upper sash divided vertically into three panes). • The roof has a gable roof profile set at a medium pitch and with a gable roof dormer on the front (north) elevation. The roof is covered in asphalt shingle, the eaves are painted wood and display simple detailing including hipped eaves returns on the side gables. The rain gear is painted metal. There is a single chimney at the west wall. It is red brick with a metal cap. • The interior layout is largely intact; its displays a traditional three bedroom house. Further, many of the original elements remain, including wood trim, baseboards, window and door casings, doors, windows, wood flooring on the ground floor, stairs, and a fireplace mantle. - 143 - 29 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 34. North (front) elevation. (BA) 35. North (front) elevation, as viewed from the east. (BA) - 144 - 30 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 36. Porch, west elevation with entry door. (BA)37. Porch, west wall. (BA) 38. North elevation, quoin treatment. (BA)39. Porch, upper post and eaves. (BA) - 145 - 31 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 40. Porch, interior. (BA)41. Front door with quoins at door. (BA) 42. West elevation. (BA) - 146 - 32 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 43. West elevation, eaves return. (BA)44. West elevation, chimney and eaves. (BA) 45. West elevation, base of chimney. (BA)46. West elevation, three part window. (BA) - 147 - 33 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 47. South and west elevations. (BA) 48. South elevation, rear door. (BA)49. South elevation, single window. (BA) - 148 - 34 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 50. South and east elevation. (BA) 51. Foundation, interior. (BA)52. Wall treatments, brick and fieldstone (BA) - 149 - 35 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 53. Interior, second floor window. (BA)54. Interior, kitchen. (BA) 55. Interior, three part window on ground floor. (BA) - 150 - 36 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 5.4 Evaluation The following evaluates 401 Kingston Road in relation to Ontario Regulation 9/06. Criteria Description Assessment Design or Physical Value i. is a rare, unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method; The building is a represent- ative example of an early 20th century bungalow in Pickering. Of note, is the unique fieldstone treatment on the exterior walls. This is also found at 1 Evelyn Avenue which was also con- tained within the Morgan and Dixon Plan. ii. displays a high degree of crafts- manship or artistic merit, or; None found. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. None found. Historical or Associative Value i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organi- zation, or institution that is significant to a community; None found. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or; None found. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community. None found. Contextual Value i. is important in defining, maintain- ing, or supporting the character of an area; No. ii. is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings, or; Reflects the pattern of early 20th century residential de- velopment along Kingston Road in Pickering. iii. is a landmark.No. - 151 - 37 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 6 882 & 886 Kingston Road 56. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill as viewed from east parking lot. (BA) W e s t S h o r e B oulevard Kingston Road S h adybrookDriveEd g e w o o d R o a d G o l d e n r i dge Road Fa i r p o r t R o a d DunbartonRoad Kates Lane SpruceHill Road Sheppard Avenue Rushton Road Merr i t t o n Ro a d Ad a C o urt Bayly Stre e t H ig h w a y 4 0 1 Vistula Ravine 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Location Map File: Property Description: A-3300-076 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 20, 2019 ¯ E Pt Lot 27, B.F.C. Range 3 and Pt 1-4, 40R-2628 Subject Lands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\Heritage\882-886KingstonRd_LocationMap.mxd and Pt 1-3, 40R-15853 (882-886 Kingston Road)57. 882 Kingston Road, loca- tion map. (City of Pickering) - 152 - 38 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 6.1 Property Description The legal description for 882 and 886 Kingston Road falls within the north half Concession 3 B.F., Lot 27 and is located directly west of the Village of Dunbarton. The existing lot was created on October 30, 1975. On June 1, 1976 the owners - Harry A. Newman and his wife - granted the subject property to “The Incumbent and Churchwardens of St. Paul’s on the Hill Dunbarton”. 6.2 Background Research Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 27 The following describes the early ownership of Concession 3 B.F., Lot 27 and the crea- tion of the subject property at 882 and 886 Kingston Road. William Holmes received the patent for this lot on May 28, 1796. See section 4.2 for background on Mr. Holmes. In 1832, Holmes sold the 200 acre lot to John Galbraith. In 1838, Henry Cowan purchased 111 acres on the north part of the lot. The Cowan family had immigrated to Canada in 1832 and settled at the mouth of the Rouge River on Lot 32 B.F. In 1840, Cowan sold the northern 100 acres to Thomas Courtice (1801-1860). Courtice acquired the remaining 11 acres in 1849. Thomas Courtice and his first wife Mary immi- grated from outside Devonshire, England in 1831. They settled in Darlington, Ontario before Mary died a few years after their arrival in Upper Canada. Thomas then married Mary Annis (1811-1899) of Pickering and, in 1841, the family relocated to Lot 27.1 2 The family farmed the lands and by 1851 the land was largely cleared with 57 acres of wheat, peas, oats, potatoes, turnips and hay as well as 15 acres of pasture.3 According to Past Years in Pickering, “He was a member of the Bible Christian Church and filled the office of the class leader and local preacher very acceptably from early manhood til the close of his life.”4 On Aug. 29, 1856, Courtice severed off several parcels; two were sold to The Grand Trunk Railway Company, and one small parcel was sold to the Trustees of School Sec. No. 3. The Dunbarton public school was built here and it operated until 1924.5 The remainder of the land was willed to Andrew James Courtice and later, in turn, to Levi Anni. 1 The Annis family arrived from Massachusetts in 1793. They settled Lot 6 B.F. of Pickering, 2 Brown’s Toronto City and Home District Directory, 1846-1847, p. 62. 3 Year: 1851; Census Place: Pickering, Ontario County, Canada West (Ontario); Schedule: B; Roll: C_11742; Page: 275; Line: 3. 4 Past Years in Pickering, p. 230. 5 In the land abstract it appears that the lot was enlarged c. 1880 with the purchase of more acreage north of Kingston Road by school trustees. This area of the ledger is larger illegible. - 153 - 39 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 According to the property records, on January 1, 1924 Harry A. Newman and his wife exchanged a parcel of their land and $1,200 with the school trustees for the property with the old school house. The intent of this trade was to convert the school into a church for the local Anglican congregation. The Village of Dunbarton The Village of Dunbarton is named for William Dunbar (1786-1869). Dunbar arrived in Lower Canada (Quebec) from Scotland in 1831. He continued on to the Town of York and, in 1840, purchased lands in Pickering Township.6 It was here that he laid out a predom- inantly Scottish settlement on Kingston Road. Dunbar worked as a blacksmith and was actively involved in the community; he was an elder in the Presbyterian church, a Justice of the Peace, and a school commissioner. He also contributed to the founding of the Pickering Harbour Company where he was employed as a the superintendent. His son William Dunbar Jr. inherited the property and spent his life working as a blacksmith in Dunbarton.7 His son, William T. Dunbar, owned and operated a general store in Duffins Creek (now Pickering Village) from 1880 to 1905, and constructed the Dunbar House on the north side of Dunbarton Road. The Village of Dunbarton was located along Kingston Road and had access to Frenchman’s Bay via an adjoining harbour. The April 3, 1896 edition of The Pickering News presents the following summary of the history of the village: The Village of Dunbarton derived its name as well as its origin from its first proprietor and projector, the late William Dunbar, Esq. Half a century ago he, with his household, settled on the lot of land he had bought, and on which he lived till the day of his death, in 1869. Then, the now well cleared and cultured farms were but large woods and little clearings. . . Somewhere about thirty years ago, the villages and the adjoining harbour both had their inception, and in both Mr. Dunbar ever took an active interest, being in the latter not only a large shareholder but superintendent of the work. . . The village plots when laid out, was rapidly bought up and built upon. . . Three stores now, and for a long time past, have readily and reasonably supplied the wants of the community. In one of them is the Post Office, with its mails twice each day. On the establishment of the Post Office the inhabitants agreed to call it Dunbarton, in honour of its originator, the name first got and ever retained. 6 William Dunbar’s deed to the west 1/2 of Lot 25, Concession 1, Pickering, Upper Canada is dated October 19, 1840. The Pickering Story conjectures that the time spent securing the property purchase can be linked to the families membership in the Reform Party as they were apprehended and kept under guard during the Rebellion of 1837. 7 Past Years in Pickering, pg.235. - 154 - 40 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER Prominent as it ever ought to be, stands the church, a commodious and substan- tial brick building, belonging to the Presbyterians, while the outskirts is the goodly brick school house. Thus the spiritual and the intellectual are wisely cared for. For a considerable time a tannery did good service in the village, but the removal of the railway station did much to injure the village and incommode the surrounding community. . . The situation is pleasant, having the beautiful bay with its harbour, in front, and the wide stretching lake beyond. The locality is while its inhabitants alike in enterprise and intelligence will favourably compare with those of any other community. The Dunbarton School, Section No. 3 The Dunbarton school house was built in 1857. According to Past Years in Pickering, “the brick for it and for the brick house on the farm opposite being made in the hollow south of the Kingston Road on the farm.”8 The Anglican Church in Pickering In the early 1800s, settlers were focused on clearing lands with an aim to establish a home- stead. Communities like Pickering were often served by a travelling missionary. According to Shumovich, by 1828 John Strachan (rector of St. James and Archdeacon of York): ... was most concerned about the ‘spiritual destitution’ of the families pioneering around York and the wilderness of Upper Canada, and the large numbers of Anglicans who has immigrated to the area from the British Isles. Rev. Adam Elliott was appointed as the visiting missionary, and in November of 1832 the Township of Pickering was added to his circuit. Initially, he held services in, “log school houses, taverns, barns and crowded houses all the way from Lake Ontario to Georgian Bay.”9 The first service in the Village of Pickering was held in the home of Mr. Francis Sey. The St. George’s Anglican Church was built circa 1856. It served residents of the Pickering Village as well as its membership in Dunbarton. St. Paul’s On-the-Hill The subject property has served Dunbarton’s Anglican community since 1925. In the early 1920s, the Dunbarton Anglican community began to distance itself from the Village of Pickering congregation. With an aim to establish a new church, church member and Toronto lawyer Harry A. Newman acquired this property in 1924. The property held the former Dunbarton School S.S. No. 3 (c. 1857). This exchange provided the school board with vacant land to construct a new two room school upon, and the former school was 8 Past Years in Pickering, p. 170. 9 St. Paul’s On-The-Hill, p. 2. - 155 - 41 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 renovated to serve as a place of worship for the ‘Mission of St. George’s’ or ‘The Dunbarton Mission’. The first service was held by Rev. Douglas Langford on November 8, 1925. Over the coming years, the parish continued to distinguish itself from the St. George’s Church. In 1933 it was renamed “St. Paul’s in-the-Hill, Dunbarton”. All the while, the two congregations continued to share the Rev. E.G. Robinson. He served as Rector from 1929-1953. In 1934, under the leadership of Harry Newman, the parish set about building a church. Newman built the church on this land (still owned my him) and leased it to the congre- gation for $1 /year until 1976. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill was designed by Architect Leo Hunt Stanford (1898-1970), son of Toronto architect Joseph Hunt Stanford. The family had immigrated from England to Canada in 1902. Leo was educated in Toronto and trained under his father. In 1922, Leo he became a partner in the firm. After his father died in 1935, Leo took over the practice that operated into the 1960s. Their portfolio was largely made up of residences, apartments and commer- cial buildings; of note is the Canadian National Institute for the Blind in Toronto. 10 The St. Paul’s On-The-Hill church is sited atop of a gently sloped hill with a south overlook across Kingston Road and on to Lake Ontario.11 The original church had a recta- linear plan (running east-west) with a tower at its south-east corner. The main entrance was located at the south-facing side of the tower and the chancel was found at its west end. The building was masonry construction displaying brick with stone accent details, and defined by tall stepped buttresses, arched wood windows, and saddleback roof of slate shingle. 10 Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950, www. dictionaryofarchitectsincanada.org. 11 It was located west of the existing church and former school house. Before its demolition in 1991, this building served as the parish hall. 59. Church of the Ascension, Toronto. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill ) 60. Pews from Buttonville church. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill ) 58. Mr. and Mrs. Harry A. Newman. (St. Paul’s On-The- Hill ) 61. Front elevation drawing by Leo Hunt Stanford Architect. (on display at St. Paul’s On- The-Hill) - 156 - 42 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 62. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill, Nov. 1934. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill ) 63. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill, Nov. 1984. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill ) 64. Floor plans, St. Paul’s On- the-Hill. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill ) - 157 - 43 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 The St. Paul’s On-The-Hill publication described the entry procession of the new church as follows: The interior of St. Paul’s is in keeping with the traditional design of small churches in rural Ontario. The floor plan shows the structure is made up of three rectan- gular box shapes. A small porch with six straight stairs lead to a set of Gothic lancet arched double wooden doors. These doors, centred on the south facade of the square tower, lead into a small entrance and stairs. The entrance leads to a nave without side aisles and the stairs lead down to the basement and up to the balcony which was added in 1983. The nave moves forward to the chancel... 12 According to St. Paul’s on-the-Hill, a unique aspect of the church is that it was constructed with materials reclaimed from other Ontario churches demolished: • Brick and windows were salvaged from the former Anglican Church of Ascension in Toronto; and, • Curved pews came from the former Buttonville Methodist Church (c. 1774).13 The church was formally opened on November 16, 1934 by Rev. D.T. Owen, Archbishop of Toronto. Rev. E.G. Robinson continued to lead the St. Paul’s On-The-Hill congregation as well as that of St. George’s. In 1939 his responsibilities expanded to include the growing Town of Ajax. With the outbreak of World War II and the subsequent establishment of the muni- tions plant (Defense Industries Ltd. or D.I.L.) in the Township of Pickering, Ajax quickly expanded into a community of 4,000. By 1943, the community had erected a church shared by four co-operating communions - Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian and United Church. Rev. Robinson lead the Anglican congregation. On May 1, 1959, St. Paul’s began worship as an independent parish under Rev. C.E. Olive as rector. He lived at the new two-storey rectory located directly south-west of the church. The site now contained three structures - the church, the parish hall in the old Durbanton school house, and the rectory.14 12 St. Paul’s On-The-Hill, p. 8. 13 The pews have since been replaced. 14 St. Paul’s On-The-Hill, p. 7. Rectors 1924-1930: Rev. Douglas B. Langford 1930-1953: Rev. E.G. Robinson 1953-1956: Rev. Jack Crouch 1956-1959: Rev. Dr. H.S. Shepherd 1959-1962: Rev. C.E. Olive 1962-1967: Rev. Ben P. Symth 1967-1969: Rev. Charles Dymond65. Rectory. (St. Paul’s On-The- Hill ) 1970-1972: Rev. Wm. J. Rhodes 1973-1978: Rev. S.G. West 1978-1981: Rev. Gregory W. Physick 1982-2002/3: Rev. Brian H. McVitty 2004-2019: Rev. Canon Kimberly Beard Incumbent - 158 - 44 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER The arrival of 1976 brought the end of the lease agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Newman. At this time the Newman’s transferred the property deed to the rector and churchwardens. On March 21, 1976, St. Paul’s On-The-Hill was consecrated by Archbishop Lewis Garnsworthy. In 1983, the church interior was renovated. The work included a new balcony that added 55 seats while preserving the aesthetic of the church. 66. View to chancel after the renovation, Octo- ber 1985. (St. Paul’s On-The-Hill ) 67. Balcony, October 1985. (St. Paul’s On-The- Hill ) 68. Site Plan drawing of church addition and renovation, 1991. Footprint of the original church shown in blue. (DLIA) Rectory Church addition Original church Parish Hall - 159 - 45 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 In 1989, Davidson-Langley Incorporated Architect (DLIA) was engaged to complete the renovation of and an addition to the church. The architectural firm was founded in 1985 by Elizabeth Jane Davidson and operated until 2013. Davidson came from a family of estab- lished Ontario architects.15 DLIA designed worked on many ecclesiastical buildings as well as commercial, residential, recreational and institutional buildings. Religous projects by the firm included the Church of St. Clements (Toronto), Metropolitan United Church (Toronto) and St. George’s Anglican Church (Pickering). Their work at St. Paul’s On-The- Hill won the Town of Pickering’s Economic Development Award in 1991. This expansion project included for the renovation of the existing 3,000 square foot church as well as a 9,000 square foot addition to the west. Within the addition is a new entry with offices, an additional congregation space, an underground gymnasium, a day care centre, and meeting rooms. As with the original building, the new building incorporated salvaged materials including reclaimed brick.16 6.3 Building Description & Site Photos For the purposes of this CHER, Branch Architecture visited the property on March 2, 2020. The inspection included walking around the building and through the main floor, and completing a visual review and photographic documentation. The review focused on gaining a visual understanding of the site and building for the purposes of evaluating its potential cultural heritage value. This review did not include the rectory building. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill is a 20th century church likely influenced by the traditional rural Ontario church with elements of Gothic and Gothic Revival architecture. According to the Ontario Heritage Trust website: Gothic Revival is an architectural movement that sought to revive the Gothic style, which flourished in Europe in the medieval period. The Gothic Revival movement began in the 1740s in England; interest in reviving the style soon spread to North America. With regard to religious architecture, the Gothic Revival was intertwined with the “High Church” movement and the Anglo-Catholic concern with the growth of religious non-conformism.17 In the second half of the 19th century, Gothic Revival architecture emerged as a popular residential building style in Ontario (with the Gothic Revival Cottage popularized by the Canada Farmer) and a common style for religious buildings in the mid- to late 19th century. As such, a number of Gothic Revival subcategories developed with buildings 15 Davidson’s great grandfather was an esteemed Toronto architect Henry Langley. Langley was the founding partner of the architectural firm Langley & Langley which later became Langley, Langley & Burke. The other partners were Henry’s son Charles Langley and Charle’s cousin Edmund Burke. The firm was responsible for many ecclesiastical buildings across Ontario. Their portfolio included several notable structures in Toronto such as the Necropolis, the spire of St. James Cathedral, and the Horticultural Pavillion at Allan Gardens 16 At the site tour, staff recalled the brick had been salvaged from a building in Oakville. 17 Ontario Heritage Trust, Architectural styles. www.heritagetrust.on.ca - 160 - 46 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER often displaying a mix. The following features are found in Gothic Revival architecture: pointed arch windows; rib vaulted ceilings; buttresses; steeply pitched roofs; and, an overall emphasis on height. The following is a description of St. Paul’s on-the-Hill with observations: • The church is located on the top of a gently sloped hill and with a view south over Kingston Road and the 401 to Lake Ontario. The site also includes the rectory building west of the church, three parking areas, a large cross and a cell tower. See figure 63 for site plan and figure 64 for an aerial view. • The church is a one-storey building with a lower level set into the hillside, and a square tower at its south-east corner. • The original St. Paul’s on-the-Hill was a one-story building with a basement. • The building is constructed with buff coloured brick laid in a common bond pattern and with stone detailing at the windows, doors, buttresses and tower roof parapet. • The 1934 floor plan was composed of three rectangular elements - the tower / entry, the nave, and the alter. • The two-storey brick tower is located at the south-west corner of the building. The corners are defined by tall brick buttresses with stone caps where the buttress steps out. The tower has a flat roof and the parapet displays a crenellated treat- ment finished with capstones.18 The primary entry to the church was located at the doorway on the south-facing elevation; this remains as the ceremonial entrance. It is a double door opening with a pointed arch. Typical to all openings, the arch has a stone keystone and rectangular stones at its base. The original door has been replaced with a set of wood panelled doors and panelled infill above. • The nave was divided into four equal bays. Each is defined by the brick buttresses and has a tall pointed arch window at its centre and, at the north elevation, a small basement window with a brick arch below. The stone window sills have angled stooling. The east elevation displays a grouping of three windows with a larger circle window above. The existing windows are repalacements. • The alter was removed as part of the 1990 addition. • The 1990 addition extended the congregation space west and introduced a new wing running south from the west end of the building. • The original building was maintained as the congregation space with the addition of a three-sided or hexagonal apse at the west end. The 1990 wing houses the main entrance, offices, meeting spaces on the second floor, and a daycare with a dedicated entrance on the lower level. 18 Staff noted that the brick parapet had been rebuilt to match existing. - 161 - 47 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 • Similar to the original building, the masonry exterior is buff coloured brick with stone details and follows with rhythm of the bays. The wing generally follows the architectural detailing of the original building, with variation limited to the new entrances. • The new doorways have a half circle or Palladian style transom and flanking side- lights (with the exception of the west entrance does not have sidelights). The main entrance also has a peaked canopy with exposed cross-bracing similar to the congregation space. • The roof has a gable roof profile set at a medium pitch. The roof is covered in asphalt shingle, the eaves and rain gear are painted metal. - 162 - 48 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 69. Aerial view looking north, 2020. (Google streetview) 70. Cross. (BA)71. Cell tower. (BA) - 163 - 49 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 72. North elevation as viewed from Sheppard Avenue. (Google streetview) 73. North elevation, original bays at left and addition at right. (BA) - 164 - 50 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 74. Addition, west elevation. (BA) 75. Addition, exterior at apse. (BA)76. Addition, west entrance. (BA) - 165 - 51 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 77. Addition, south elevation. (BA)78. Addition, south entrance. (BA) 79. Addition, circular window and brick cross at top of south wall. (BA) 80. Addition, south windows. (BA) - 166 - 52 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 81. St. Paul’s on-the-Hill as viewed from the base of the stairs at the south parking lot. (BA) 82. Addition, east elevation with main entrance. (BA) - 167 - 53 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 83. Original building, south elevation. (BA) 84. Addition, main entrance with 1990 date stone at left. (BA) 85. Original building, west entrance with 1934 date stone at left. (BA) 86. Original building, south elevation. (BA) - 168 - 54 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 87. Addition, typical bay. (BA)88. Original building, typical bay. (BA) 89. Original building, typical window at tower. (BA) 90. Original building, base of buttress with salvaged capstone. (BA) - 169 - 55 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 91. Original tower, west and south elevations. (BA) 92. Original tower, east and north elevations. (BA) 93. Original tower, plaque at interior. (BA) - 170 - 56 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 94. Nave looking to balcony. (BA)95. Nave looking to altar. (BA) 96. View from balcony. (BA) - 171 - 57 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 97. Samples of stained glass works throughout the church. (BA) - 172 - 58 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 6.4 Evaluation The following evaluates 882 and 886 Kingston Road in relation to Ontario Regulation 9/06. Criteria Description Assessment Design or Physical Value i. is a rare, unique, representative, or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method; The church is a representa- tive example of a masonry Gothic-style church in Ontario. The use of masonry salvaged from the former Church of Ascension in Toronto is a unique aspect of its construction. ii. displays a high degree of crafts- manship or artistic merit, or; No. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. No. Historical or Associative Value i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organi- zation, or institution that is significant to a community; The property is historically linked to Pickering’s Anglican community. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or; No. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community. The original church is associ- ated with Toronto architect Leo Hunt Stanford. Contextual Value i. is important in defining, maintain- ing, or supporting the character of an area; No. ii. is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings, or; The church is historically linked to the development of Dunbarton. iii. is a landmark.St. Paul’s on-the-Hill’s setting atop the hill at Kingston and Fairport roads make is a visual landmark along Kingston Road. - 173 - 59 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 7 Discussion This assessment finds that all the properties included in this assessment have cultural heri- tage value to the City of Pickering. They were all found to satisfy one or more criteria set out in O. Reg 9/06. Based on the findings of this evaluation, I recommend that the City include these prop- erties on its Municipal Heritage Register s: • List 1 Evelyn Avenue, 301 Kingston Road and 401 Kingston Road; and, • Designate 882 & 886 Kingston Road, St. Paul’s On-the-Hill under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. - 174 - 60 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER Appendix 1: Sources 1. Commonwealth Resource Management Ltd. Manual of Guidelines. Prepared for the Management Board Secretariat Government of Ontario, June 1994. 2. Fram, Mark. Well-Preserved. Toronto: The Boston Mills Press, 1998. 3. J.H. Beers & Co. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario. Toronto: J.H.Beers & Co., 1877. 4. McKay, William A. The Pickering Story. Pickering: The Township of Pickering Historical Society, 1961. 5. Wood, William. Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Commmunity. Toronto: William Briggs, 1911. 6. MacRae, Marion and Anthony Adamson. Hallowed Walls: Church Architecture in Upper Canada. Toronto: Clarke, Irwin & Co., 1975. 7. McIlwraith, Thomas F. Looking For Old Ontario: Two Centuries of Landscape Change. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997. 8. Mikel, Robert. Ontario House Styles. Toronto: James Lorimer & Co. Ltd., 2004. 9. Sabean, John W. The Palmer Family: Settling in South Pickering. Pickering Township Historical Society Pathmaster, Summer Edition Vol. 2 no. 4, 1999. 10. Sabean, John W. Time Present and Time Past: A Pictorial History of Pickering. Pickering: Altona Editions, 2000. 11. Sears, Roebuck and Co. Honor Bilt Modern Homes. Chicago - Philadelphia. 1921. 12. Shumovich, Elizabeth. St. Paul’s On-The-Hill: 1925-1985. Anglican Church of Canada. 13. ---. The Village of Pickering 1880-1970. Pickering: The Corporation of the Village of Pickering, 1970. Websites • Ancentry. www.ancestry.ca • Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950, www.dictionaryofarchitectsin- canada.org. • Davidson-Langley Incorporated Architects. www.dlia.ca. • Library and Archives of Canada. www.bac-lac.gc.ca • Ontario Architecture, www.ontarioarchitecture.com. • Ontario Archives. www.archives.gov.on.ca • Ontario Land Registry Access. www.onland.ca • Pickering Archives. www.coporate.pickering.ca • St. Paul’s on-the-Hill Anglican Church. www.stpaulonthehill.com - 175 - 61 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 Appendix 2: Summary of Land Records Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 27 / 882-886 Kingston Road Instrument Date1 Grantor Grantee Notes Patent May 28, 1796 Holmes, William B&S Jan. 27, 1832 Holmes, William Galbraith, John All B&S Mar. 17, 1838 Galbraith, John Cowan, Henry 111a N pt. B&S “Cowan, Henry Galbraith, Nancy 11 acres B&S Sept. 19, 1840 Cowan, Henry Courtis, Thomas 100 acres B&S Jan. 2, 1849 Richards, Thos. M W Courtis, Thomas 11 acres B&S Oct. 22, 1874 Courtice, Thomas Courtice Andrew, James N111 acres B&S -----Annis, Levi Pt of N lot, N. 111 ac. ex. 3 3.4 ac. +7.00 B&S Aug. 29, 1856 Courtice, Thomas Trustee of School No. 3 1/4 acre B&S ---2 ---Trustee of School No. 3 N. of Kingston Rd Grant Jan. 1, 1924 Newman, Harry A & Wife Public School Board of School No. 3 2 acres, $1200 plus exchange Grant Jan 1, 1924 Trustees of Public School Board of School No. 3 Newman, Mary A part N. of Kingston Rd. Grant Dec. 10, 1975 Newman, Harry A + wife The Incumbent and Church wardens of St. Paul’s on the Hill, Dunbarton Part of sketch attached. 1 This is the date of the instrument, not the “date of registry”. 2 Likely in the 1880s, definitely between 1877 and 1893. - 176 - 62 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 31 Transaction Date Grantor Grantee Notes Patent Oct. 20, 1846 Crown Palmer, Seneca 200 acres Will May 16, 1866 Palmer, Seneca Mort Jan 27, 1877 Palmer, George S + wife The Freehold L&S Co. 120 acres, $1500 B&S Mar. 15, 1882 Palmer, Mary J and G.S. Kinlock, George 27 acres - land covered by Plan 230 Will --- ------27 acres Grant June 26, 1919 --- 1 Clarke, Griffith B 27 acres Grant Oct. 5, 1920 Clarke, Griffith B +wife Rowe, Elmore J part, $5600 Grant Dec. 1, 1921 Rowe, Elmore Morgan, Edwin 27 acres Grant Feb. 24, 1922 Morgan, Edwin+wife Dixon, Mildred $2,200,note about plan Plan 230 Mar. 13, 1922 Morgan & Dixon’s Plan part 1 Notes where writing on land abstract is illegible. This likely relates to the executors of the will. - 177 - 63 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 1 Evelyn Avenue - Plan 230, Lot 10 Instrument Date of Sale / Grant1 Grantor Grantee Notes Grant Mar. 7, 1930 Dixon, Mildred M.Dixon, Silas R.All, $1 Hwy. Plan 18 Sept. 1927 Province Hwy. Plan 45 Dec. 1938 Province Grant Nov. 19, 1943 Dixon, Silas Russell Daniell-Jenkins John H + Dorothea All except hwy. $1 Grant Mar. 21, 1946 Daniell-Jenkins John H + Dorothea The Director, The Veterans Land Act All except hwy. $5050 By-law May 9, 1955 By-law No. 2091 - City of Pickering Designating Areas of Subdivision Control ALL Grant May 7, 1959 The Director, The Veterans Land Act Daniell-Jenkins John H + Dorothea All except hwy. $1 Plan 40-R-535 June 3, 1971 Grant July 29, 1980 Daniell-Jenkins, Dorothea Wolf, Heinz W + Ilse M All except hwy. $2 Notice 31 05 89 Wolf, Heinz W + Ilse M Lindo, Mike - in trust $790,000 Plan 40R-12418 Part 1 26 07 89 Transfer 15 08 89 Wolf, Heinz W + Ilse M Lindo, Mike $790,000 Transfer 92 12 99 Federal Business Development Bank 1000683 Ontario Ltd. $360,000 1 This is the date of the instrument, not the “date of registry”. - 178 - 64 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER 401 Kingston Road - Plan 230, Lot 19 Instrument Date1 Grantor Grantee Notes Mort.July 6, 1922 Dixon, Millicent M.Gates, Peter S.All, $2500 Grant May 1, 1923 Dixon, Mildred M.Branson, Annie & Horace All, $4,500 Mort.May 1, 1923 Branson, Annie & Horace Dixon, Mildred M.$1,000 not recorded in full QC Sept. 3, 1936 Dixon, Mildred M.Colletta, Hazel Mae (Estate of Peter S Gates, deceased) All, $1 Grant Sept. 14, 1939 Estate of Peter S. Gates Dixon, Silas All, $1,600 Grant Mar 14, 1944 Dixon, Silas (and others) Dixon, Alexander part, $1 Grant Aug 15, 1946 Dixon, Alexander + wife Staley, Louis E. Grant Nov. 1951 Staley, Louis E.Quigg, Kathleen C + John P $3,200 By-law May 19, 1955 By-law No. 2091 - City of Pickering Designating Areas of Subdivision Control All Grant June 15, 1967 Quigg, Kathleen C + John P Belcourt, John A + Margaret L All - except Hwy. Grant June 22, 1970 Belcourt, John A + Margaret L Knowles, Jack (trustee) All - except Hwy. Grant June 26, 1973 Knowles, Jack (trustee) Mastrogicomos, Victor + Felicia All - except Hwy. Grant Aug 22, 1975 Mastrogicomos, Victor + Felicia Binns, Brian D & Christine A. All - except Hwy. Grant 16 02 87 Binns, Brian D & Christine A. Francis, Walter All? 1 This is the date of the instrument, not the “date of registry”. - 179 - 65 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 Instrument Date1 Grantor Grantee Notes Grant 20 05 87 Francis, Walter N. Bigioni Management Services Ltd. Hollow Holdings Ltd. All - except Hwy. Transfer 22 08 89 N. Bigioni Management Services Ltd. (25% int) Hollow Holdings Ltd. (50% int) Cesaroni Holdings Ltd. (75% int) $525,000 Plan 40R-16060 95 03 28 Parts 1,2&3 Transfer 95 10 05 Cesaroni Holdings Ltd. (75% int), N. Bigioni Management Services Ltd. (25% int) 1138224 Ontario Ltd. $975,000 Part 1 on 40R-16060 - 180 - 66 KINGSTON ROAD STUDY - CHER Concession 3 Broken Front, Lot 32 / 301 Kingston Road No.Transaction Date Grantor Grantee Notes Patent May 22, 1798 Crown Holmes, William BS June 26, 1843 Holmes, William Wesley, John 195 acres, 150 pounds Will May 11, 1868? --June --, 1874 Cochrane, Samuel?? Rodd, Richard 5572 B&S Dec. 1, 1881 or 1891 Rodd, Richard Moody, ------ 10046 B&S Mar. 18, 1902 Moody, Naomi + Robert Toyne, George S. of Kingston Rd. $8,000 as in No. 5572 21217 Grant Mar. 31,1934 Toyne, George + wife Toyne, George Edward 21050 Grant Nov. 21, 1936 Toyne, George Edward Toyne, Helen Davidson part, as in No. 20217 all restriction 24411 Grant Sept. 1, 1944 Toyne, Helen Davidson Alderice, John Alfred; Alderice, Alcona 1 ac. on S. side Kingston Rd. $1,000 + mort. No. 21050 31434 Mortgage May 25, 1951 Alderice, John Alfred; Alderice, Alcona Toyne, Helen Davidson S. side of Kingston Rd. $5,500 as No 24411 175120 Grant July 23, 1968 Alderdice, Alcona Pfeiffer, Manfred; Page, Delmar F (partner- ship property) part S. of Kingston Rd. As des. in No 31434 - 181 - 67 Issued/Revised: 1 November 2020 No.Transaction Date Grantor Grantee Notes 205389 Grant Jan. 4, 1971 Pfeiffer, Manfred; Page, Delmar F (partner- ship property) Smith, Ruth C (trustee) part S. of Kingston Rd.; part of land in No. 175120 ex. hwy - lying N of lot 7 in Plan 350 (see hwy plan 785) (0.80ac)+- 205500 Grant Jan. 16, 1971 Smith, Ruth C (trustee) Salmon, Ernest A.J. pt. S of Kingston Rd (0.80 ac+-) as des. in No. 205389 - 182 - STRUCTURAL REPORT – REV. 1 Preliminary Structural Assessment Date: December 20, 2021 No. of Pages: 5 + Encl. Project: 301 Kingston Road Assessment Project No.: TE-38433-21 Address: 301 Kingston Road, Pickering Permit No.: n/a Client: Ed Saki Distribution: Ed Saki ed@gsaki.com 176 Speedvale Ave. West Guelph, Ontario Canada N1H 1C3 T: 519-763-2000 x242 F: 519-824-2000 gerryz@tacomaengineers.com Background Tacoma Engineers has been retained by Ed Saki (the Owner) to provide a preliminary structural assessment of an existing building located at 301 Kingston Road, Pickering. A site visit of the existing conditions was completed on June 3rd, 2021 by the undersigned, accompanied by Ed Saki. The intent of the site visit was to determine the current conditions and to carry out a preliminary structural assessment. Note that this report is being prepared as a brief summary of the existing structural conditions only and is not intended as an evaluation of the heritage value of the property or the feasibility of salvage or redevelopment of the structure. Further detail and comment can be provided as needed should more information be required to inform decisions made by the Owner. Construction The building is a two-storey wood framed structure with a gabled roof. At the time of the review, the exterior cladding and finishes had been removed, along with the majority of the interior finishes on the second and ground floors. The ground and second floor interiors were accessible for review at the time of the site visit. Access to the basement was not available. The construction is a mixture of heavy timber frames and light wood stud infill walls, regularly spaced ceiling and floor joists, and regularly spaced roof rafters. It is reported that the foundations are constructed with a combination of rubblestone masonry and ungrouted concrete block. Conditions The building is in a state of partial demolition. The majority of the finishes have been removed on the second and ground floors, and much of the demolition waste was on the ground floor at the time of the review. The exterior was covered with loosely fastened Typar housewrap on the upper storey and at the ground floor with overlapping sheets of plywood. $WWDFKPHQW - 183 - 301 Kingston Road Assessment TE-38433-21 December 20, 2021 Page 2 of 5 Structural Report – Rev. 1 Preliminary Structural Assessment The removal of finishes allowed a partial review of the underlying structure. Several of the primary columns have been previously cut to facilitate the installation of window openings. Most of the beams on the upper and ground floor are notched at locations not associated with current openings or braces, typically an indication that the heavy timber was originally part of another structure, likely a barn or other large building. The majority of the short diagonal braces at the heavy columns are loosely fit into the notches and are not provided with a positive connection. The roof and floor framing appear to be largely intact, with limited damage to the joists and rafters, with the exception of some mechanical ductwork penetrations and plumbing drain alterations. Extensive rot of primary building columns was noted where access was provided behind the plywood barriers. The deterioration was found to extend up as far as 6’-0” above grade and is likely the result of ongoing water ingress. Furthermore, it appears that concrete fill was used along several lengths of exterior wall to stabilize the connection of the upper framing to the foundation, resulting in accelerated deterioration of the nearby wood framing. The extent of this condition could not be confirmed at the time of the review. While it was not possible to review the conditions of the foundations at the time of the site visit, it has been reported that an attempt was made to reconstruct parts of the rubblestone foundation with a new concrete block wall. The details of this construction have not been provided to the undersigned, but settlement of the building and significant water ingress are reported to have resulted. - 184 - 301 Kingston Road Assessment TE-38433-21 December 20, 2021 Page 3 of 5 Structural Report – Rev. 1 Preliminary Structural Assessment Recommendations The building is generally in poor condition and will require significant remedial work in order to restore the structure. Note the following general repair recommendations to aid in future planning and budgeting: 1. Remove products of demolition from the house. The stored material will both trap moisture and load the ground floor above the anticipated capacity of the framing. 2. Reinstate exterior sheathing. Panel sheathing and/or diagonal board decking serves both as a substrate for exterior finishes and, more importantly, as the primary lateral bracing system for the building. Diagonal bracing has been provided as a temporary measure, but this should not be expected to perform satisfactorily past the onset of the winter season. 3. Provide a temporary weather barrier to the exterior of the building. The protection of the structure from water ingress is critical to the short-term survival of the structure. 4. Investigate the existing foundation conditions and carry out repairs or replacements as may be required. Extensive shoring will likely be required to facilitate this work. 5. During the foundation repair work it is recommended that drainage of the site be addressed to mitigate the risk of ongoing water ingress. 6. Repair any damaged heavy timber columns and beams. Many of the columns will require partial replacement near grade, and it is expected that lengths of sill plate around the perimeter of the floor framing will require replacement. Discontinuous beams will require reinforcing across joints by way of sistering or complete replacement. 7. Remove and replace all discontinuous framing of walls, ceilings, and floors, as applicable. New framing should be installed in conformance with current design standards and building codes. It should be noted that additional structural repair work may be required in order to ensure the long-term viability of the building. Once the interior has been cleared of debris and access to all of the building areas is made available a more comprehensive plan for repair can be prepared as needed. - 185 - 301 Kingston Road Assessment TE-38433-21 December 20, 2021 Page 4 of 5 Structural Report – Rev. 1 Preliminary Structural Assessment Report Revisions and Updates (December 20th, 2021) The following sections of this report have been prepared to address specific items raised by the City of Pickering in an email dated October 7th, 2021. They include the following: 1. additional reporting from Tacoma to more completely describe the repair recommendations; 2. additional reporting from Tacoma to include order-of-magnitude cost estimates for recommended repair work; 3. additional reporting from Tacoma to confirm whether previously recommended stabilization and temporary works have been completed; and 4. retention of a heritage planner or architect who can provide additional building documentation and a commemoration plan. The following numbered list corresponds to the items listed above. 1. The repair recommendations are described in the previously issued report (included above), numbered 1-7. Further detailing of these repair recommendations is not possible without the completion of a more detailed site assessment can be completed. 2. The following cost estimates are intended to be received as a general guideline and order-of-magnitude only; a more detailed cost assessment is recommended once a complete set of repair recommendations and details can be provided. 1. Additional demolition: $15 000.00 2. Reinstate exterior sheathing (including additional framing to support sheathing where required: $45 000.00 3. Provide and maintain temporary weather barriers: $10 000.00 4. Foundation investigations and repairs: $75 000.00 5. Site drainage: $15 000.00 6. Repair damaged timber framing and sill plates: $75 000.00 7. Repair discontinuous framing to match current code: $100 000.00 ESTIMATED TOTAL, EXCLUDING FINISHES: $335 000.00 It is important to note that the above cost estimate includes only those items listed in the Recommendations of the previously issued report, and it does not include the installation of mechanical, electrical, insulation, and interior and exterior finishes. It is likely that the total cost to carry out a complete scope of work following which the building is suitable for occupancy will exceed $1.25m. This extrapolation is based on a typical construction budget whereby the structural items represent approximately 25% of the total construction cost. 3. A follow up site visit to the building has not been completed. Photographs have been provided by the owner including an improved exterior weather barrier, the removal of demolition products, and the installation of diagonal bracing as a temporary measure. The Owner is advised to continue monitoring the conditions and to carry out temporary - 186 - 301 Kingston Road Assessment TE-38433-21 December 20, 2021 Page 5 of 5 Structural Report – Rev. 1 Preliminary Structural Assessment repairs and additional bracing as needed until such time as a complete plan for the property is underway. The site should be secured against entry by all personnel not directly related to the building maintenance and repair. 4. The Owner has retained a heritage planner to aid in the preparation of building documentation and commemoration planning as a separate scope of work. Please contact the undersigned for additional information as required to carry out the review of the work. Per ____________________________ Gerry Zegerius, P.Eng., CAHP Structural Engineer, Senior Associate Tacoma Engineers Encl. none December 20, 2021 TE-38433-21 - 187 - FINAL REPORT : Documentation and Commemoration Report 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario April 2022 Project # LHC0292 LHC | Heritage Planning and Archaeology 837 Princess Street, Suite 400 Kingston, ON K7L 1G8 Phone: 613-507-7817 Toll Free: 1-833-210-7817 E-mail: info@lhcheritage.com $WWDFKPHQW - 188 - Project #LHC0292 ii This page has been left blank deliberately - 189 - Project #LHC0292 iii Report prepared for: Ed Saki Energy Centre Inc. 420-3583 Sheppard Avenue East Scarborough, ON M1T 3K8 Report prepared by: Colin Yu, M.A Reviewed by: Christienne Uchiyama, M.A, CAHP - 190 - Project #LHC0292 iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LHC was retained by Ed Saki of Energy Centre Inc. to prepare a Documentation and Commemoration Report for the Property at 301 Kingston Road (the Property) in Pickering, Ontario. The Property is listed as a non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the municipality’s Heritage Register under Section 27, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). The purpose of this Documentation and Commemoration Plan is to provide a visual and textual documentary record of the Property, its architectural elements, and its surrounding context. A site visit was conducted by Colin Yu on 10 February 2022 and access to the Property was provided by the owner. Based on this Documentation and Commemoration Report, the following is recommended: • Salvaged materials should be either incorporate into any new design, or for reuse elsewhere. • A reputable contractor(s) with experience working with cultural heritage resource removal should be retained to salvage the identified features. • Prior to salvaging materials for reuse in other buildings or projects, their end location should be determined. • Any materials not deemed salvageable, should be recycled and diverted from landfill. • A plaque commemorating the Property and Rouge Hill is recommended to be installed in a location visible from the public realm. The following text is recommended for the plaque; however, the text could be strengthened through consultation with the municipal heritage committee: The Crown Patents for Lot 32, Concession 3 Broken Front was granted to prominent military surgeon William Holmes in 1798. Although Holmes never settled here, he was granted –and purchased –more than 1200 acres of land in Pickering Township. It was here that the community of Rouge Hill developed along Kingston Road, overlooking the Rouge River Valley. In this location once stood the two-storey, wood frame Georgian residence of farmer John Charles Wesley; who farmed a 195-acre parcel of land stretching as far north as Sheppard Avenue. The house was constructed in the mid-19th century and sat in this prominent location at the corner of Kingston Road and Altona Road. - 191 - Project #LHC0292 v Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 The Property ........................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Site Visit ............................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Previous Reports .................................................................................................. 1 1.4 Heritage Recognition ............................................................................................ 2 2 PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION ............................................................................... 5 3 HISTORIC CONTEXT.......................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Rouge Hill ............................................................................................................ 7 3.2 Property History and Analysis .............................................................................. 8 4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY ................................................................................ 13 4.1 Surrounding Context .......................................................................................... 13 Exterior ............................................................................................................... 19 Interior ................................................................................................................ 22 5 EVALUATION ................................................................................................................... 27 5.1 Summary of Evaluation ...................................................................................... 28 6 ARTIFACT CURATION AND REUSE ............................................................................... 29 6.1 Designated Substances ..................................................................................... 29 6.2 Salvage Companies ........................................................................................... 29 7 COMMEMMORATION PLAN ............................................................................................ 31 8 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 32 9 SIGNATURE ..................................................................................................................... 33 10 QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................................................ 34 11 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 36 Tables Table 1: Photo log .......................................................................................................................5 Table 2: O.Reg.9/06 Evaluation for 301 Kingston Road ............................................................ 27 Table 3: List of Potential Salvage Companies ........................................................................... 30 - 192 - Project #LHC0292 vi Figures Figure 1: Location of the Property. ..............................................................................................3 Figure 2: Current Conditions of the Property. ..............................................................................4 Figure 3: Historic Maps Showing the Property........................................................................... 10 Figure 4: Topographic Maps Showing the Property ................................................................... 11 Figure 5: Historic Aerial Photographs of the Property ................................................................ 12 Figure 6: View south of north elevation (Branch Architecture 2020) .......................................... 18 Figure 7: View southwest of northeast elevation of structure (Branch Architecture 2020) .......... 18 Figure 8: View northeast of southwest elevation of structure (Branch Architecture 2020) .......... 19 Images Image 1: View east on Kingston Road ...................................................................................... 14 Image 2: View west at Altona Road and Kingston Road intersection towards Rouge River ....... 14 Image 3: View north of Altona Road and Kingston Road intersection ........................................ 15 Image 4: View north of residential properties ............................................................................ 15 Image 5: View southwest of residential properties south of Kingston Road ............................... 16 Image 6: View south of north elevation ..................................................................................... 20 Image 7: View west of east elevation ........................................................................................ 20 Image 8: View southwest of northeast elevation ........................................................................ 21 Image 9: View northeast of southwest elevation ........................................................................ 21 Image 10: View north of main entrance ..................................................................................... 22 Image 11: View northeast of ground floor .................................................................................. 23 Image 12: View of milled wood ceiling ....................................................................................... 24 Image 13: View of plaster and lath interior ................................................................................ 24 Image 14: View of typical vinyl window ..................................................................................... 25 Image 15: View of wooden beam above windows ..................................................................... 25 Image 16: View of upper floor ................................................................................................... 26 Image 17: View of rafters and roof of structure .......................................................................... 26 - 193 - Project #LHC0292 1 1 INTRODUCTION LHC was retained by Ed Saki of Energy Centre Inc. to prepare a Documentation and Commemoration Report for the Property at 301 Kingston Road (the Property) in Pickering, Ontario. The Property is listed as a non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the municipality’s Heritage Register under Section 27, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). The purpose of this Documentation and Commemoration Report is to provide a visual and textual documentary record of the Property, its architectural elements, and its surrounding context This Documentation and Commemoration Report includes the following elements: • An overview of the Property and its current conditions; • Photographs of the Property, the two-storey structure, and its architectural elements; • A log of all relevant images, including perspective photographs, elevation photographs, and architectural elements; • A recommendation of materials and fixtures that may be salvaged or reused; and, • A recommended summary of the history of the Property to be applied to any future commemorative feature. 1.1 The Property The Property is located at 301 Kingston Road in the City of Pickering, Ontario (Figure 1 and Figure 2). It is located at the southeast corner of Altona and Kingston Roads. It is accessed off of Kingston Road along an asphalt driveway. The Property is surrounded on all sides, except the north, by mature deciduous and coniferous trees; the majority of which are coniferous. A two-storey structure is located on an elevated area that slopes downward towards the west. The structure is currently vacant and wrapped in tarp, held in place by wooden stakes. A wooden fence is located towards the rear of the Property. The rear portion of the Property is currently used as storage and consists of treed undeveloped lands. 1.2 Site Visit A site visit was conducted on 10 February 2022 by Colin Yu. The purpose of this site visit was to document the current conditions of the Property, its structure, and its surrounding context. 1.3 Previous Reports The Property was previously included in a 2020 study undertaken by Branch Architecture, Kingston Road Study: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report. The study reviewed four properties of potential cultural heritage value or interest which had been identified in the 2019 Kingston Road Corridor and Speciality Retailing Node Draft Intensification Plan. The 2020 study determined that the Property met criteria: • 1(i) as a rare –but altered –example of an early to mid-19th century Georgian; - 194 - Project #LHC0292 2 • 2(i) for its associations with William Holmes; • 3(ii) as perhaps one of a few remaining buildings associated with the Rouge Hill community; and, • 3(iii) as a prominently located structure (landmark). 1.4 Heritage Recognition The Property is listed as a non-designated property under Section 27, Part IV of the OHA. The Register provides the following description: Built in mid-19th century, a 2 storey Georgian style house. Associated with military doctor William Holmes. Associated with the Rouge Hill community and prominently located at the south west corner of Altona Road and Kingston Road.1 1 City of Pickering, Municipal Heritage Register, Official list of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of the City of Pickering, (Pickering: City of Pickering, 2021), 5 - 195 - ¯ REFERENCE(S) 1. Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. CLIENT PROJECT Documentation and Commemoration Plan 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario CONSULTANT DESIGNED LHCPREPARED JG YYYY-MM-DD 2022-03-30 FIGURE # TITLELocation of the Property PROJECT NO. LHC0292 1 1. All locations are approximate. NOTE(S) Legend Property 0 400 800200 Meters ¯ Energy Centre Inc. 1:2,000,000SCALE KEY MAP Lake Ontario - 196 - REFERENCE(S) 1. Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. CLIENT PROJECT Documentation and Commemoration Plan 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario CONSULTANT DESIGNED LHCPREPARED JG YYYY-MM-DD 2022-03-30 FIGURE # TITLECurrent Conditions of the Property PROJECT NO. LHC0292 2 1. All locations are approximate. NOTE(S) Legend Property 0 10 205 Meters ¯ Energy Centre Inc. - 197 - Project #LHC0292 5 2 PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION Table 1: Photo log Image Number Notes Original Photo Number Surrounding Context Image 1 View east on Kingston Road PXL_20220210_170248033 Image 2 View west at Altona Road and Kingston Road intersection towards Rouge River PXL_20220210_170205651 Image 3 View north of Altona Road and Kingston Road intersection PXL_20220210_170149508 Image 4 View north of residential properties PXL_20220210_170252920 Image 5 View southwest of residential properties south of Kingston Road PXL_20220210_170141412 Exterior Image 6 View south of north elevation PXL_20220210_170111772 Image 7 View west of east elevation PXL_20220210_165918713 Image 8 View southwest of northeast elevation PXL_20220210_170054843 Image 9 View northeast of southwest elevation PXL_20220210_170420579 Interior Image 10 View north of main entrance PXL_20220210_163057650 Image 11 View northeast of ground floor PXL_20220210_163008367 Image 12 View of milled wood ceiling PXL_20220210_162934438 Image 13 View of plaster and lath interior PXL_20220210_163034828 Image 14 View of typical vinyl window PXL_20220210_162950539 Image 15 View of wooden beam above windows PXL_20220210_164505053 Image 16 View of upper floor PXL_20220210_163356581 Image 17 View of rafters and roof of structure PXL_20220210_164830297 - 198 - Project #LHC0292 6 3 HISTORIC CONTEXT The City of Pickering retained Branch Architecture in 2020 to assess the potential cultural heritage value or interest of four properties –including 301 Kingston Road –previously identified in the 2019 Kingston Road Corridor and Speciality Retailing Node Draft Intensification Plan. The report has provided the following with respect to its land use history. The patent for Lot 32 of the third broken front concession was granted to William Holmes in 1798. Holmes owned multiple parcels in the Township of Pickering; the lots were located between French Man’s Bay and the Rouge River, and found within Concession 1 and along the lake, lots 26 through 33. William Holmes received a patent for Lot 32 on May 22, 1798. William Holmes (1766- 1834) was a doctor and military surgeon in Upper Canada. From 1790 to 1791 he was stationed in Newark near Niagara-on-the-Lake. In 1792, with plans to settle in Upper Canada, he accepted a grant for 1,200 acres in Pickering Township and purchased additional land. However, in 1796 his regiment was relocated to Lower Canada, and Holmes’ family re-settled in Quebec where he worked as a senior medial officer. He also established himself as in private medical practice working at both Hotel-Dieu and Hospital General. By the early 1800s, he and his family were living in Upper Town Quebec City. After the death of his first wife Mary Ann in 1803, he remarried Margaret Macnaider in 1807. He maintained an active medical career including the following positions: President of the Quebec examiners (1813); member of the Vaccine Board (1817); Justice of the Peace (1821); and, Commissioner for the relief of the insane and foundlings (1816). In the 1820s, Holmes retired from practice, delegating his responsibilities to younger doctors and staff. John Wesley purchased the 195 acre parcel at Con. 3 BF, Lot 32 from William Holmes on June 26, 1843 [sic]. The 1861 census indicates that John Charles Wesley (1838- 1920) was a farmer that was born in Toronto. According to the 1861 census, John was married to Elmira Wesley (1841-1884), and they were living in a two storey frame house. The other extended family members living in the house included Jane (18) and Fanny (17) Wesley. Wesley owned the property for several decades and registered multiple mortgages on the south part of the lot in the 1860s. Between 1868 and 1871 there was several instruments listed on the south part of the lot, though these records are largely illegible. In 1874, the part of the lot south of Kingston Road was purchased by Richard Rodd (1837- 1900); Rodd is also recorded on the 1877 Atlas Map. Richard, his wife Susan (1834-1899) and their eight children lived in Pickering in 1881. Richard was a farmer and the family immigrated from England. They lived in Whitby before buying the farm in Pickering. Robert and Naomi Moody purchased the lot in either 1881 or 1891. They sold the property south of Kingston Road to George Edward Toyne (1886-1943) on March 18, 1902 for $8,000. After George’s death in 1943, George’s wife Helen sold the one acre lot on the south side of Kingston Road to John and Alcone Alderice. The lot was sold to - 199 - Project #LHC0292 7 Manfred Pfeiffer and Delmar Page in 1968, and then granted to Ruth Smith (trustee) on Jan. 4, 1971. Ernest A.J. Salmon purchased the lot on January 16, 1971.2 Salmon eventually paid off the mortgage on the Property on 13 April 1984 and would go on to take out another mortgage on 15 July 1994. 3 Another mortgage (charge) was taken out on 15 July 1994 for $258,277.13.4 According to the current owner, Ed Saki, the Property was purchased in 2015 from the previous owners. 3.1 Rouge Hill The Property is located in the historic Rouge Hill area in the City of Pickering. The earliest mention of Rouge Hill is provided in an 1860 atlas by George Tremaine (Figure 3). The atlas also shows four structures along the intersection of Kingston Road between Lots 32 and 33, Concession 3. Conner & Coltson’s Directory of the County of Ontario for 1869-70 describes Rouge Hill as “a village in the township of Pickering, 11 miles west of Whitby. Population about 150.”5 Hugh Graham is listed as the Postmaster. The post office is identified on the J.H. Beers atlas of Ontario County (Figure 3). Rouge Hill remained relatively undeveloped into the 20th century and topographic maps from 1914 shows four structures in the area (Figure 4). Three structures were made of wood, and one was made of stone/brick. The area would remain largely unchanged until 1936 when major development in the area occurred (Figure 4). Altona Road was extended further south, south of Kingston Road and new structures were built, fronting Altona Road. To the north of Kingston Road, two branching roads were constructed, and new structures were built. Between 1943 and 1974, Rouge Hill’s development waned slightly, however, development in the area continued and new structures were built in the surrounding area. Historic aerial photographs were also consulted and show a similar development of the area (Figure 5). The Branch Architecture report provides the following description of Rouge Hill: This intersection is identified in historical maps as ‘Rouge Hill’. While little is written about this community along the Grand Trunk Railway line, the 1892-93 Ontario Directory includes the following snapshot in time: A P O [post office] on the rive[r] Rouge (which furnishes power), in Pickering tp [township], Ontario Co, 11 miles s-w of Whitby, the co seat, and 3 n of Pt Union, on the GTR, its nearest bank at Pickering. It contains a flour mill, Bible Christian church and public school. Residents listed - Wm. Maxwell, flour mill; John Pearce mason and contractor; Roger Pearce, mason and 2 Branch Architecture, “Kingston Road Study Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report,” (Pickering: Brach Architecture, 2020), 17-18 3 LRO 40, Instrument No. D175437 4 Land Registry Office [LRO40], “Abstract/Parcel Register Book, Durham (40), Pickering, Book 201, Concession 3; Broken Front, Lot 27 to 35,” Instrument No. D436527 5 Conner & Coltson’s Directory of the County of Ontario for 1869-70. Accessed online at http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wjmartin/genealogy/ontario.htm#ROUGE%20HILL - 200 - Project #LHC0292 8 contractor; William Pearce, Mason and contractor; and Luke Wallace, carpenter.6 According to the Pickering Tweedsmere scrapbook, this area was also known as East Rouge Hill.7 3.2 Property History and Analysis In 1792, William Holmes, with plans to settle in Upper Canada was granted 1,200 acres in Pickering Township in 1798, which included Lot 32, Concession 3 Broken Front.8 9 He purchased additional land in Lots 26 to 33, Concession 2 Broken Front, Concession 3 Broken Front, and Concession 1 and 2 (Figure 3).10 Holmes’ plans were changed when he was transferred to Quebec (Lower Canada) in 1796, where his regiment was stationed.11 It is unlikely that Holmes, who owned the Property along with his numerous acres of land, built or commissioned any structures in Pickering Township. In 1838, John Wesley purchased Lot 32, Concession 3 Broken Front from Debrah Thomas for £200.12 A subsequent transaction in 1842 appears to record the transfer of the 195 acres from William Holmes’ estate to John W(?) Wesley. A mortgage that same year suggest the structure may have been constructed around that time. In 1860 the 195-acre property appears to have transferred to Sarah Wesley. That same year and throughout the 1860s, a series of transactions take place, including multiple mortgage agreements between John Charles Wesley and James Black. A transaction related to the west half of the property between James Black and John Cawthra suggest that the extant structure may be associated with James Black, an inn keeper 13 listed in the 1851 census living in a three- storey house with a tavern. As such, it is difficult to determine for which family the extant house was constructed and when. Little information on John Charles Wesley was encountered during background research. An 1861 census indicates a John C. Wesley –a farmer –was living with his wife Elmira and two other members of the Wesley family, Jane and Fanny (likely John’s sisters) in a two-storey frame house.14 The agricultural census from that year indicates that approximately 125 of the Wesleys’ 195 acres were under cultivation. Interestingly, Jane and Fanny are both listed in the 1851 census, living in a two-storey frame house with Mary Black (44) and presumably her four 6 Ontario Gazetteer and Directory for 1892-93, p. 1029 as cited in Branch Architecture, “Kingston Road Study Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report,” 18. 7 Branch Architecture, “Kingston Road Study Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report,” 18 Words in square brackets have been added by LHC. 8 LRO 40, Instrument No. Patent 9 Barbara, Tunis, “Holmes, William (d.1834),” in Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 6., University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003, accessed 31 March 2022 http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/holmes_william_1834_6E.html 10 Branch Architecture, “Kingston Road Study Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report,” 27 11 Barbara, Tunis, “Holmes, William (d.1834),” 12 LRO 40, Instrument No. (illegible). It is unclear when Debrah Thomas came into possession of the property. 13 Library and Archives Canada; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Census Returns For 1851; Roll: C-1057; Schedule: A; Roll: C-11742; Page: 183; Line: 1 14 Library and Archives Canada; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Census Returns For 1861; Roll: C-1057 - 201 - Project #LHC0292 9 children.15 It is possible that the extant residence is the frame structure listed in the 1851 Census, indicating a pre-1851 date of construction. The earliest representation of a structure located on the Property is from an 1860 historic atlas, which also identifies the area as Rouge Hill (Figure 3). The 1860 atlas indicates that John C. Wesley owned the entire lot 32 and shows this structure along with two others along Kingston Road in this lot, one immediately east and one on the opposite side of the road. Historic topographic maps between 1914 and 1974 also show a structure on the Property (Figure 4). Additionally, the maps from 1914 and 1922 identify the building material as wood. Subsequent maps do not distinguish building material. Aerial photographs were consulted and show a structure surrounded by trees around the Property (Figure 5). The two-storey frame house is influenced by Georgian architecture. Georgian architecture is defined by its large rectangular shaped floor plan, two-storeys in height or greater, centralized entrance flanked by side lites and transom, large windows placed symmetrically and consists of at least six-over-six sashes, and interior side chimneys.16 Georgian architecture’s height of production was between 1750-1850, during an influx of Loyalists who fled the United States after the war and supported the Crown. The extant structure once exhibited many of these features include the rectangular shaped floor plan, large windows, centralized entrance, and chimney. Unique to this structure was the offset placement of the windows and the general contemporary window architecture. It is unclear exactly when the extant two-storey structure was built; however, it does seem likely that the structure existed at the time of the 1851 census and that was likely constructed by John Wesley Senior. 15 Library and Archives Canada; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Census Returns For 1851; Roll: C-1057; Schedule: A; Roll: C-11742; Page: 183; Line: 27 16 Ontarioarchitecutre.com, “Georgian (1750-1850),” accessed 31 March 2022 http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/georgian.htm - 202 - REFERENCE(S) 1. Archives of Ontario, "Pickering Township", (http://ao.minisisinc.com/SCRIPTS/MWIMAIN.DLL/218039428 /1/3/43697?RECORD&DATABASE=IMAGES_WEB: accessed April 01, 2022), digitized map, scale unkown, 1837. 2. Shier, J., "Tremaine's Map of the Couty of Ontario, Upper Canada, (https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8cc6be34f6b54992b27da17467492d2f: accessed March 31, 2022), digitized map, scale 1:39,600, Toronto: Geo. C. Tremaine, 1860 3. J.H. Beers & Co., "Map of Pickeroing Township", In: J.H. Beers & Co., "Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario Ont.", (https://digital.library.mcgill.ca/countyatlas/searchmapframes.php: accessed March 31, 2022), digitized map, Toronto: J.H. Beers & Co., 1877. Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. CLIENT PROJECT Documentation and Commemoration Plan 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario CONSULTANT DESIGNED LHCPREPARED JG YYYY-MM-DD 2022-03-30 FIGURE # TITLEHistoric Maps Showing the Property PROJECT NO. LHC0292 3 1. All locations are approximate. NOTE(S) Legend Property Energy Centre Inc. 1837 1860 1877 ¯¯ ¯ 0 10.5 Kilometers 0 10.5 Kilometers 0 10.5 Kilometers - 203 - REFERENCE(S) 1. Department of Militia and Defence, Survey Division, "Ontaio, Markham Sheet", (http://geo1.scholarsportal.info/#r/details/_uri@=564032357&_add:true: accessed March 30, 2022), digitized map, sheet 30M/14, scale 1:63,360, 1914. 2. Department of Militia and Defence, "Quebec, Markham Sheet", (http://geo1.scholarsportal.info/#r/details/_uri@=564032357&_add:true: accessed March 30, 2022), digitized map, sheet 30M/14, scale 1:63,360, 1922. 3. Department of National Defence, Geographical Section, General Staff, "Markham, Ontario", (http://geo1.scholarsportal.info/#r/details/_uri@=564032357&_add:true: accessed March 30, 2022), digitized map, sheet 30M/14, scale 1:63,360, Ottawa: Department of the Interior, 1936. 4. Department of National Defence, Geographical Section, General Staff, "Markham, Ontario", (http://geo1.scholarsportal.info/#r/details/_uri@=564032357&_add:true: accessed March 30, 2022), digitized map, sheet 30M/14, scale 1:63,360, Ottawa: Department of Mines and Resources, 1936. 5. Army Survey Establishment, R.C.E., "Highland Creek, Ontario", (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/#r/details/_uri@=847590539&_add:true: accessed March 30, 2022), digitized map, sheet 30M/14b, edition 2, scale 1:25,000, Ottawa: Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, 1962. 6. Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, Surveys and Mapping Branch, "Highland Creek, Ontario", (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/#r/details/_uri@=847590539&_add:true: accessed March 30, 2022), digitized map, sheet 30M/14b, edition 3, scale 1:25,000, Ottawa: Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, 1974 Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. CLIENT PROJECT Documentation and Commemoration Plan 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario CONSULTANT DESIGNED LHCPREPARED JG YYYY-MM-DD 2022-03-30 FIGURE # TITLETopographic Maps Showing the Property PROJECT NO. LHC0292 4 1. All locations are approximate. NOTE(S) Legend Property Energy Centre Inc. 1914 1922 1936 1943 1962 1974 ¯¯¯ ¯¯¯ 0 300 600150 Meters 0 300 600150 Meters 0 300 600150 Meters 0 300 600150 Meters 0 300 600150 Meters 0 300 600150 Meters- 204 - REFERENCE(S) 1. University of Toronto, "1954 Air Photos of Southern Ontario", (https://mdl.library.utoronto.ca/collections/air-photos/1954-air-photos-southern-ontario/index: accessed April 1, 2022), 1954. 2. National Air Photo Library, "A20263-098", (https://madgic.trentu.ca/airphoto/: accessed March 31, 2022), Scanned and georeferenced by the Maps, Data and Government Information Centre at Trent University. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada 1969. scale 1:25,000, A20263 27E photo 9,. Ottawa, Ontario: Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, 1969. Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. CLIENT PROJECT Documentation and Commemoration Plan 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario CONSULTANT DESIGNED LHCPREPARED JG YYYY-MM-DD 2022-04-01 FIGURE # TITLEHistoric Aerial Photographs of the Property PROJECT NO. LHC0292 5 1. All locations are approximate. NOTE(S) Legend Property 0 100 20050 Meters ¯ Energy Centre Inc. 1954 1969 0 100 20050 Meters ¯ - 205 - Project #LHC0292 13 4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY 4.1 Surrounding Context The surrounding area can generally be characterised as urban with a mixture of commercial and residential properties (Image 1 and Image 2). Commercial properties are clustered around the Altona and Kingston Road intersection and to the east; all of which front Kingston Road. Commercial properties are generally one-to-two-storeys in height with a flat roof (Image 3). Commercial structures generally have large floor to ceiling windows, metal doors with large glass lites, and clad in brick. Other types of cladding include plaster, vinyl, and some older structures exhibit board and batten siding. Residential structures tend to be located to the north or south in subdivisions. Residences within the subdivisions are generally homogenous in design and share similar architectural elements. These elements include vinyl windows, attached front facing garage, hipped roof, and brick siding (Image 4). Some exceptions exist such as gable roof, and wooden, vinyl, or stone siding (Image 5). The topography of the area is gently rolling and slopes westerly towards the Rouge River valley from the Property (Image 2). The most prominent natural feature is the Rouge River and is located to the west of the Property. The Rouge River travels in an east-west direction and is a tributary to Lake Ontario. The Rouge National Urban Park is also located to west and encompasses a large area that makes up Toronto’s only campground, the Toronto Zoo, the Greater Toronto Area’s last remaining working farms, and Carolinian ecosystems.17 17 Parks Canada, “Rouge National Urban Park,” 2021, accessed 28 March 2022 https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/on/rouge - 206 - Project #LHC0292 14 Image 1: View east on Kingston Road Image 2: View west at Altona Road and Kingston Road intersection towards Rouge River - 207 - Project #LHC0292 15 Image 3: View north of Altona Road and Kingston Road intersection Image 4: View north of residential properties - 208 - Project #LHC0292 16 Image 5: View southwest of residential properties south of Kingston Road The Property was previously evaluated in 2020 by Branch Architecture. The two-storey structure was described as follows: • The house is a two-storey building with a gable roof. It is located on the south side of Kingston Road and overlooks Kingston Road from a small rise. At the rear of the residence are several one-storey additions. • The front (north-facing) facade displays a balanced (though not symmetrical) arrangement of openings. On the ground floor there is a centrally placed front door flanked by window openings. On the second floor are three evenly placed window openings; they do not align with the openings below. • The side (east and west) elevations display a symmetrical arrangement of window openings. On the east elevation there is a vertical strip between the windows; this is likely an alteration related to the chimney. • The building has a stone foundation laid in a random pattern. In 2020, a pre-painted aluminum skirt flashing was installed over the foundation visible above grade. • The exterior walls are clad in horizontal pre-painted aluminum siding with an edge board detail at the base of the wall, corners, and eaves. Given the depth of wall extending out from the stone foundation, it appeared that the original siding may be concealed under the existing, however, the owner advised that under the existing siding are plain wood - 209 - Project #LHC0292 17 planks laid horizontally (not a finished painted clapboard or masonry). This suggests that the original cladding has been removed.18 • The front entrance opening is framed by a pedimented lintel and side panels. These elements have been covered in painted metal. In front of the entrance is a poured concrete step with a modern wood railing at the east side. • In 2019, the front entrance doorway was composed of a six-panel wood door flanked by wood columns, inset sidelights (2 lights over a base panel) and an inset four-light transom. The framing elements (door frame and stiles) and the base panels at the sidelights were overclad in painted metal. By October of 2020, the doors and windows had been replaced and the pediment concealed under new metal. • The window openings are rectangular with a thin sill and wide frames at the top, sides and mullions. In 2019, the windows appear to be constructed of wood and were made up of sash windows with exterior storm windows. There was a mix of window arrangements and patterns. On the ground floor there is: a grouping of three windows consisting of a 6- over-12 sash flanked by 4-over-6 sash windows; pairs of 4-over-6 sash windows; and pairs of 4-over-1 sash windows. At the second floor there are 4-over-1 sash windows in pairs and threes and, at the rear elevation, 6-over-1 sash windows. By October of 2020, the windows had been replaced with single pane windows. The wood sill have also been overclad in pre-painted metal. • The roof has a medium pitch gable roof profile. The roof is covered in asphalt shingle and the rain gear is painted metal. The eaves appear to have been altered with a perforated metal soffit and painted metal overcladding at the fascia, bedmold, frieze and gable-end returns. There is a single red brick chimney at the east wall.19 (Figure 6 through Figure 8) 18 When the aluminum siding was removed, it was confirmed that there was no original siding remaining. 19 Branch Architecture, “Kingston Road Study Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report,” 19-20 - 210 - Project #LHC0292 18 Figure 6: View south of north elevation (Branch Architecture 2020) Figure 7: View southwest of northeast elevation of structure (Branch Architecture 2020) - 211 - Project #LHC0292 19 Figure 8: View northeast of southwest elevation of structure (Branch Architecture 2020) Exterior The following is a description of the two-storey structure from a site visit conducted by LHC on 10 February 2022. The Property has a two-storey rectangular shaped structure (Image 6 through Image 8). The structure is located on an elevated platform and is covered in tarp. The structure has a front facing gable roof with return eaves, vinyl soffits, vinyl facia, and asphalt shingles. From the exterior, window configurations and architectural elements could not be observed. The entrance is located on the north elevation. The entrance consists of a contemporary wooden door with four embosses panels with two side lites, central lite, and a rectangular transom. The rear addition that was present in 2020 is no longer extant (Image 9). - 212 - Project #LHC0292 20 Image 6: View south of north elevation Image 7: View west of east elevation - 213 - Project #LHC0292 21 Image 8: View southwest of northeast elevation Image 9: View northeast of southwest elevation - 214 - Project #LHC0292 22 Interior The interior of the structure is accessed via the north elevation. The entrance’s architectural elements such as the side lites, transom, and door casing are more visible from the interior (Image 10). The interior is divided into several larger rooms with a central foyer. The interior has been significantly altered and the majority of interior elements have been removed (Image 11). The floor has been recently refurbished and shows signs of relatively new laminate flooring. The ceiling consists of the similar flooring material (Image 12). The windows have vinyl casings and newer glazing, with a horizontal placement. The wooden frame of the structure reveals a plaster and lath construction that divided the structure’s rooms (Image 13). Large structural wooden beams have been repurposed into the structure and are located above the windows (Image 14). The wooden beams have hand hewn markings and mortise and tenon joinery (Image 15). Access to the upper floor is from the foyer, however, the stairwell is no longer present, and a makeshift aluminum ladder substitutes the original. The upper floor is composed of similar materials and architectural elements of the ground floor (Image 16). The rafters and roof are built using milled wooden planks (Image 17). Image 10: View north of main entrance - 215 - Project #LHC0292 23 Image 11: View northeast of ground floor - 216 - Project #LHC0292 24 Image 12: View of milled wood ceiling Image 13: View of plaster and lath interior - 217 - Project #LHC0292 25 Image 14: View of typical vinyl window Image 15: View of wooden beam above windows - 218 - Project #LHC0292 26 Image 16: View of upper floor Image 17: View of rafters and roof of structure - 219 - Project #LHC0292 27 5 EVALUATION Based on the supplemental property-specific research and updated existing conditions, the Property was evaluation using the criteria outlined in Ontario Regulation 9/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest in order to clearly articulate a description of the Property’s cultural heritage value or interest as well as any specific heritage attributes. The results of the evaluation are presented below in Table 2. Table 2: O.Reg.9/06 Evaluation for 301 Kingston Road O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria Meets (Yes/No) Justification 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, N The building has been altered and no longer retains sufficient characteristic features of the Georgian style for it to be a representative example. In particular, the placement of openings lacks the symmetry that best characterises the style. The scale, massing and roof pitch remain evocative of the style. Visible elements on the interior indicates that this is not an early example of the style. ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or N The structure on the Property does not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. The structure was built using commonly available materials and design methods. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. N The structure on the Property does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. The structure was built using commonly available materials and design methods. 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it: i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to a community, Y The Property does not have any direct associations with a theme, event, belief, or person that is significant to the community. The house may have been constructed for John Wesley Sr., or possibly John C. Wesley sometime prior to 1850. However, the extensive mortgages in the 1860s and the visible construction elements indicate that the extant home may have been constructed during this time to replace an earlier structure. Although the Property was owned by William - 220 - Project #LHC0292 28 O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria Meets (Yes/No) Justification Holmes, no direct associations were identified with respect to 301 Kingston Road. There is no evidence to suggest he constructed the extant residence. The Property is directly associated with the development of Rouge Hill in the mid-19th century. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or N The Property does not appear to yield or have potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community. N The structure does not demonstrate or reflect the work or idea of a builder who is significant to the community. No specific individual was identified with respect to the design or construction of the house, which follows a fairly standard vernacular plan with Georgian influences. 3. The property has contextual value because it: i. is important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of an area, N The Property is not important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of the area. ii. is physical, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings, or N The Property is not physically, functionally, or historically linked to its surroundings. iii. is a landmark. Y Given its prominent location at the intersection of Alton and Kingston Roads, the Property could be considered a landmark. 5.1 Summary of Evaluation Based on a review of the 2020 CHER, supplemental research and analysis, and the existing conditions of the Property, LHC is of the opinion that the property meets criterion 1i for its historical association with the Rouge Hill community and criterion 3iii as a prominent landmark. A formal Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest has not been prepared; however, a summary statement to inform commemoration is presented in Section 7. The heritage attributes that exhibit the cultural heritage value or interest of the Property are limited to: • The form, scale, and massing of the residence and its medium-pitched side-gable roof with returns; and, • Its locations, orientation and setback. - 221 - Project #LHC0292 29 6 ARTIFACT CURATION AND REUSE The salvage and reuse of materials from any existing structure is preferable to demolition and landfill. This report has identified architectural and structural elements of potential cultural heritage value of the structure located at 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, Ontario. One such characteristic are the large wooden beams located above the interior windows. The large beams were likely integrated into the structure after the initial construction; however, they are relatively unaltered and display historic woodworking techniques such as the hand hewn and mortise and tenon characteristics. The beams would benefit from reuse as decorative elements incorporated into a new design or interpretive element. A second feature is the main entrance wooden casing. The large entryway was typical of Georgian style architecture and may be adapted into the new design or salvaged for reuse. In addition to these features, the Property contains building materials throughout that might be salvaged for reuse. Where reuse is not possible, recycling is preferred to landfill. Based on the results of this Documentation and Commemoration Report, construction materials and fixtures throughout the building that can be salvaged for reuse, sale, or recycling. This may include but not limited to: • Doors • Windows • Wooden elements such as laminate floors, roof (rafters), and wall frames. 6.1 Designated Substances A designated substances and hazardous materials report has been prepared, but has not been provided to LHC at the time of writing. Salvage and reuse of any materials must be informed by the Designated Substances Survey. 6.2 Salvage Companies Table 2 provides a short list of potential salvage companies in the larger surrounding area. The North Waterloo Region Chapter of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario also maintains a directory of House Moving, Dismantling and Salvage companies or individuals who claim to have experience with heritage properties at: https://aconwr.ca/listing.php?cat_id=11. - 222 - Project #LHC0292 30 Table 3: List of Potential Salvage Companies Name Location Contact and Additional Notes Habitat for Humanity Greater Toronto Area York Region Office 2180 Steeles Avenue West, Unit 10 Concord, ON L4K 2Y7 Email: info@habitatgta.ca Telephone: 416-755-7353 Website: https://habitatgta.ca/restore/donate-stuff-to-restore/ Donations to the ReStore may be eligible for a tax receipt. Historic Lumber 12478 Sixth Line, Nassagaweya Acton, ON L7J 2L7 Email: allan@historiclumber.ca Telephone: 519-853-0008 Website: http://www.historiclumber.ca/ Graham & Brooks Salvage Co. 371 Sherman Ave. N. Hamilton, ON L8L 6N2 Telephone: 905-928-1001 Website: https://gbsalvageco.com/ Smash Salvage 956 King Street E. Hamilton, ON L8M 1C3 Email: info@smashsalvage.com Telephone: 416-809-8730 Website: http://smashsalvage.com/ Artefact Salvage and Design Box 513 46 Isabella Street St. Jacobs, ON N0B 2N0 Email: chris@artefacts.ca Telephone: 519-664-3760 Website: www.artefacts.ca The Timeless Material Co. 305 Northfield Dr. E. Waterloo, ON N2V 2N4 Waterloo Head Office / Showroom Email: info@timelessmaterials.com Telephone: 519-883-8683 or 1-800-609-9633 Website: www.timelessmaterials.com West Lincoln Barn Board and Beams 8328 Regional Rd 20 RR #1 Smithville, ON L0R 2A0 Email: info@antiquewoods.com Telephone: 1-800-719-9051 Website: www.artefacts.ca - 223 - Project #LHC0292 31 7 COMMEMMORATION PLAN Given the prominent location of the Property, a commemorative plaque is recommended. Given the lack of direct associations with specific individuals, it is recommended that the plaque commemorate the community of Rouge Hill rather than the Property itself. A draft statement is provided below; however, the municipal heritage committee may have additional information or suggestions that would further strengthen the text. The Crown Patents for Lot 32, Concession 3 Broken Front was granted to prominent military surgeon William Holmes in 1798. Although Holmes never settled here, he was granted –and purchased –more than 1200 acres of land in Pickering Township. It was here that the community of Rouge Hill developed along Kingston Road, overlooking the Rouge River Valley. In this location once stood the two-storey, wood frame Georgian residence of farmer John Charles Wesley; who farmed a 195-acre parcel of land stretching as far north as Sheppard Avenue. The house was constructed in the mid-19th century and sat in this prominent location at the corner of Kingston Road and Altona Road. - 224 - Project #LHC0292 32 8 RECOMMENDATIONS This Documentation and Commemoration Report was prepared by LHC in order to provide a record of the Property, prior to demolition. The structure located at 301 Kingston Road comprises of a two-storey frame structure. The exterior and interior of the extant structure has been severely impacted by renovations and removal. A site visit conducted on 10 February 2022 documents these changes and its current condition at the time. Based on this Documentation and Commemoration Report, the following is recommended: • Salvaged materials should be either incorporate into any new design, or for reuse elsewhere. • A reputable contractor(s) with experience working with cultural heritage resource removal should be retained to salvage the identified features. • Prior to salvaging materials for reuse in other buildings or projects, their end location should be determined. • Any materials not deemed salvageable, should be recycled and diverted from landfill. • A plaque commemorating the Property and Rouge Hill is recommended to be installed in a location visible from the public realm. - 225 - Project #LHC0292 33 9 SIGNATURE Please contact the undersigned should you require any clarification or if additional information is identified that might have an influence on the findings of this report. Christienne Uchiyama, MA CAHP Principal | Manager, Heritage Consulting Services - 226 - Project #LHC0292 34 10 QUALIFICATIONS Christienne Uchiyama, MA, CAHP – Principal, LHC Christienne Uchiyama MA CAHP is Principal and Manager - Heritage Consulting Services with LHC. She is a Heritage Consultant and Professional Archaeologist (P376) with more than a decade of experience working on heritage aspects of planning and development projects. She is President of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals and received her MA in Heritage Conservation from Carleton University School of Canadian Studies. Her thesis examined the identification and assessment of impacts on cultural heritage resources in the context of Environmental Assessment. Since 2003 Chris has provided archaeological and heritage conservation advice, support and expertise as a member of numerous multi-disciplinary project teams for projects across Ontario and New Brunswick, including such major projects as: all phases of archaeological assessment at the Canadian War Museum site at LeBreton Flats, Ottawa; renewable energy projects; natural gas pipeline routes; railway lines; hydro powerline corridors; and highway/road realignments. She has completed more than 100 cultural heritage technical reports for development proposals at all levels of government, including cultural heritage evaluation reports, heritage impact assessments, and archaeological licence reports. Her specialties include the development of Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, under both O. Reg. 9/06 and 10/06, and Heritage Impact Assessments. Colin Yu, MA – Cultural Heritage Specialist and Archaeologist Colin Yu is a Cultural Heritage Specialist and Archaeologist with LHC. He holds a BSc with a specialist in Anthropology from the University of Toronto and a M.A. in Heritage and Archaeology from the University of Leicester. He has a special interest in identifying socioeconomic factors of 19th century Euro-Canadian settlers through quantitative and qualitative ceramic analysis. Colin has worked in the heritage industry for over eight years, starting out as an archaeological field technician in 2013. He currently holds an active research license (R1104) with the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries (MHSTCI). In 2020, he was accepted as an intern member at the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). He is currently working with Marcus Létourneau and Christienne Uchiyama in developing a stronger understanding of the heritage industry. At LHC, Colin has worked on numerous projects dealing with all aspects of Ontario’s cultural heritage. He has completed over thirty cultural heritage technical reports for development proposals and include Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, Heritage Impact Statements, Environmental Assessments, and Archaeological Assessments. Colin has worked on a wide range of cultural heritage resources including; cultural landscapes, institutions, commercial and residential sites as well as infrastructure such as bridges, dams, and highways. Jordan Greene, BA – Mapping Technician Jordan Greene is a mapping technician with LHC. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Geography with a Certificate in Geographic Information Science and a Certificate in Urban Planning Studies - 227 - Project #LHC0292 35 from Queen’s University. The experience gained through the completion of the Certificate in Geographic Information Science allowed Jordan to volunteer as a research assistant contributing to the study of the extent of the suburban population in America with Dr. David Gordon. Prior to her work at LHC, Jordan spent the final two years of her undergraduate degree working in managerial positions at the student-run Printing and Copy Centre as an Assistant and Head Manager. Jordan has had an interest in heritage throughout her life and is excited to build on her existing professional and GIS experience as a part of the LHC team. - 228 - Project #LHC0292 36 11 REFERENCES Branch Architecture, “Kingston Road Study Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report,” (Pickering: Brach Architecture, 2020) City of Pickering, Municipal Heritage Register, Official list of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of the City of Pickering Conner & Coltson, Directory of the County of Ontario for 1869-70. Accessed online at http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wjmartin/genealogy/ontario.htm#ROUGE%20HILL Land Registry Office [LRO40], “Abstract/Parcel Register Book, Durham (40), Pickering, Book 201, Concession 3; Broken Front, Lot 27 to 35” Library and Archives Canada; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Census Returns For 1861; Roll: C-1057; Schedule A Census Returns For 1861; Roll: C-1057; Schedule B Census Returns For 1851; Roll: C-1057; Schedule: A; Roll: C-11742; Page: 183 Ontarioarchitecutre.com, “Georgian (1750-1850),” accessed 31 March 2022 http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/georgian.htm Tunis, Barbara, “Holmes, William (d.1834),” in Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 6., University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003, accessed 31 March 2022 http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/holmes_william_1834_6E.html Parks Canada, “Rouge National Urban Park,” 2021, accessed 28 March 2022 https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/on/rouge - 229 - Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Draft 2024 Meeting Schedule January 24, 2023 – 7:00 pm February 28, 2023 – 7:00 pm March 27, 2023 – 7:00 pm April 24, 2023 – 7:00 pm May 22, 2023 – 7:00 pm June 26, 2023 – 7:00 pm September 25, 2023 – 7:00 pm October 23, 2023 – 7:00 pm November 27, 2023 – 7:00 pm - 230 -