Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 28, 2024 Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda February 28, 2024 - 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 22, 2023 1 4. Delegations 5. New Business 5.1 CapLink Limited 815 Highway 7 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2022-02, Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/22 8 5.2 Claremont Development Corporation (Geranium Homes) 5113 Old Brock Road 31 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/90(R), Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 17/90(R), Draft Plan of Subdivision Application 18T-90016(R) 6. Other Business 7. Next Meeting 8. Adjournment Page 1 of 7 Minutes/Meeting Summary Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee November 22, 2023 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm Attendees: R. Anderson N. Brewster L. Jeffrey S. Monaghan R. Smiles C. Doody-Hamilton J. White M. Pettigrew, Senior Associate, The Biglieri Group Ltd. C. Forward, Cultural Heritage Specialist, WSP C. Celebre, Principal Planner, Strategic Initiatives E. Game, Senior Planner, Heritage (Staff Liaison) A. MacGillivray, Committee Coordinator (Recording Secretary) Absent: A. Bhadra Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 1. Review and Approval of Agenda Moved by C. Doody-Hamilton Seconded by N. Brewster That the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda of November 22, 2023 be approved. Carried 2. Disclosure of Interest E. Game did disclose that she was previously involved in writing the Heritage Impact Assessment for the CapLink Limited Project (Item 5.1) when employed as a consultant with WSP. 3. Approval of Minutes Moved by N. Brewster Seconded by C. Doody-Hamilton That the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2023 be approved. Page 2 of 7 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) Carried 4. Delegations There were no delegations. 5. New Business 5.1 CapLink Limited Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-03, Zoning By-Law Amendment Application A 11/23 E. Game provided introductory remarks on the item and introduced C. Celebre, Principal Planner, Strategic Initiatives and M. Pettigrew Senior Associate, The Biglieri Group Ltd. M. Pettigrew provided a brief overview of the Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-03 and Zoning By-Law Amendment Application A 11/23. He spoke to the subject lands, the phasing of the project, the proposed development blocks. C. Forward, Cultural Heritage Specialist, WSP provided an overview of the various Heritage Reports and Plans that had been conducted to date. She spoke to the identified Cultural Heritage attributes for 575 Highway 7 and the anticipated impacts of the development on the property. Ms. Forward spoke to the recommendation to remove the Vardon House and Barn from the property and salvaging heritage attributes where possible. She concluded her remarks stating the next steps in the process including updating the Heritage Impact Assessment, creating a Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report, completing a Commemoration Plan, and removal of the building from the site if unavoidable. Discussion ensued with Committee Members discussing: • clarification as to why the Vardon House or Barn cannot be maintained on the existing lot; Page 3 of 7 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) • the potential for the building to lose cultural heritage value if moved; • the road network being determined by the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and that the Vardon House would impede one of the development blocks; • clarification that the Percy House will be relocated and repurposed as part of Phase 1 of the development; • whether there was an opportunity to relocate the Vardon House and Barn alongside the Percy House; • whether the City has a policy to relocate heritage buildings to other locations such as Pickering Museum Village; • whether there was an opportunity to commemorate the Vardon House and Barn through street naming; • the Commemoration Plan being developed for the Vardon House and Barn; • whether there was an opportunity to relocate the Vardon House and Barn to the corner of North Road and Highway 7 on the site; • clarification that the area on site at North Road and Highway 7 was designated as a stormwater buffer area; • whether there was an opportunity to reduce the size of one of the proposed buildings to accommodate the Vardon House and Barn in place; • whether there was opportunity to incorporate the house inside one of the proposed blocks and retrofitted as office space; • clarification regarding the measurements of the Barn; • whether there is an opportunity to commemorate the heritage elements in a way that is innovative and visible to the public from the street; • clarification that movement of the Vardon House and Barn from its present location can negatively impact its heritage attributes; and, Page 4 of 7 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) • clarification regarding the commemoration plan process. C. Celebre indicated that City staff can take into consideration the Committee’s feedback for more innovative ways to commemorate the Vardon House and Barn. Moved by N. Brewster Seconded by S. Monaghan 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 Page 5 of 7 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 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. Carried 5.2 Proposed Part IV Designation of 301 Kingston Road E. Game provided an overview of the key events that have unfolded leading up to the proposed Part IV designation of 301 Kingston Road, the understanding that the owner is undertaking additional assessments of the property, and City staff’s recommendation. She concluded her remarks explaining the opportunity for parties to object the designation as part of the public process. Discussion amongst the Committee Members ensued regarding: • whether the applicant can participate or object as part of the public process; • whether there will be any penalties pursued for the property owner for the unauthorized work done to the property to date; • whether it was possible for the City to take measures to prevent situations like this in the future; • whether the was an opportunity to place signage on heritage properties to inform those in proximity that unauthorized work and demolition is prohibited; and, • whether the property will be monitored. Moved by C. Doody-Hamilton Seconded by N. Brewster 1. 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; Page 6 of 7 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 2. That the property at 301 Kingston Road be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; 3. 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, 4. That the comments and discussion of Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee be included by staff in a future recommendation report to the Planning & Development Committee. Carried 5.3 Proposed 2024 Meeting Schedule Moved L. Jeffery Seconded R. Smiles That the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee approve the following 2024 Meeting dates: • 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 Carried The Committee raised questions as to whether the use of WebEx was required for Electronic Meetings. A. MacGillivray explained that the City’s Legislative Services Department had determined WebEx to be the platform for City Committee and Council Meetings. He recognized the concerns with WebEx, given the major software update, Page 7 of 7 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) and indicated that he would bring back the Committee’s feedback to Legislative Services and IT Services. 6. Other Business There was no other business. 7. Next Meeting The next meeting of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee is scheduled for January 24, 2024. 8. Adjournment Moved by R. Smiles Seconded by J. White That the meeting be adjourned. Carried Meeting Adjourned: 8:24 pm Memo To: Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee February 28, 2024 From: Emily Game Senior Planner, Heritage Copy: Chief Planner Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2022-02 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/22 CapLink Limited 815 Highway 7 File: A-3300-93 Purpose The purpose of this memo is to obtain endorsement from the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee of the final landscape plan, building siting, and Reference Plan (R-Plan) for the Percy House, known municipally as 815 Highway 7. Background CapLink Limited (FGF Brands) submitted applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment (City Files SP-2022-02 and A 04/22) to facilitate a food manufacturing facility consisting of five buildings, including four manufacturing plants and one distribution centre. These applications were approved by Council on February 6, 2023, and the Director, City Development & CBO issued draft plan approval on May 16, 2023. The Draft Plan of Subdivision contains four blocks for employment uses, one block for a stormwater management facility, one block for a natural heritage feature, one block for a future road widening and a new public street (see Submitted Draft Plan, Attachment 1). The Zoning By-law Amendment rezoned the lands to an appropriate zone category to permit the proposed uses and establish appropriate development standards. The Percy House, at 815 Highway 7, will be relocated to the southeast corner of Highway 7 and a new municipal road (FGF Way). The applicant is proposing to demolish the rear addition to the farmhouse and construct a 185 square metre modern addition. The building will be situated within a landscaped area and will be used for a learning centre/office (see Revised Site Plan, Attachment 2). On August 25, 2022, CapLink Limited applied for a Demolition Application to demolish/dismantle two barns and two silos on the subject lands. The application was approved on September 7, 2022, by the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee and subsequently by Council on September 20, 2022. Currently, the applicant has not submitted a Demolition Application to remove the rear addition of the Percy House. February 28, 2024 Page 2 of 4 815 Highway 7 The Percy House The dwelling located at 815 Highway 7 is known as the Percy House (see Location Map, Attachment 3), which is described as a one-and-a-half-storey brick Ontario Cottage with Neo Classical and Georgian influences (see Photograph 1 below). It was constructed in 1853 with a side gable roof and rectangular plan, it also has a one-storey rear addition projecting from the south elevation. The main façade was constructed using a fine example of a Flemish bond, while the other elevations were constructed using a Common Bond. The dwelling is sited on a fieldstone foundation. Photograph 1: 815 Highway 7 (WSP 2022) The 1861 census lists John Percy, his wife Elizabeth, and their eight children as living in the house. The Percy family retained ownership until the late nineteenth century. All of Lot 27, Concession 4 was expropriated by the Province of Ontario in 1974. A Reference Plan was prepared for the proposed location of the Percy House CapLink submitted a Draft Reference (see Draft R-Plan, Attachment 4), for the proposed location of the Percy House, which encompasses the heritage building footprint. Once the R-Plan is deposited with the LRO, the house will be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and the City of Pickering will pass a by-law and enter into a Heritage Conservation Easement with the property owner. The Heritage Conservation Easement will remain on title in perpetuity and will set out the requirements for maintaining the property or a specific heritage feature. Once relocated within the proposed development, the house will lose its contextual value, including its relationship to the barns, silos, circulation routes and siting on the property. It is staff’s opinion the Draft R-Plan, Heritage Conservation Easement and Part IV designation are sufficient to protect the Percy House and the remaining heritage attributes identified in the Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by WSP in 2022. Further to this, the Site Plan Agreement will include a February 28, 2024 Page 3 of 4 815 Highway 7 clause, which states any alterations or site development on or adjacent to the Draft R-Plan will not be permitted except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated through a Heritage Impact Assessment and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. A Landscape Plan was prepared for the property and Peer Reviewed by Heritage Studio As recommended in the Heritage Conservation Plan ([HCP] WSP, 2023), a Landscape Plan was created for the proposed development, including the area around the relocated Percy House. The Heritage Conservation Plan indicated that as the Percy House will be reconstituted in an industrial context, new plantings do not need to precisely replicate what was present historically, although should include native tree and bush species. Flower beds with native species selected from contemporary or historic sources can be established, as can wood fencing in a heritage or heritage compatible design. The HCP noted new plantings must be situated where they will not impact the building in the future, either through excessive shading that prevents the stone walls from adequately drying, or through chemical and physical weathering, such as that caused by clinging ivy. Additionally, new plantings should also not obscure clear views of the house and the landscaping elevations should ensure all water is drained away from the foundation. The first iteration of the landscape plan was found to not be in keeping with the recommendations of the HCP (see Block 4 Landscape Plan, Attachment 5). The Peer Review noted concern with the potential isolation of the Percy House within the proposed new development. The applicant was encouraged to consider other design measures to contextualize the building in its new setting. These recommended design measures included enlarging the landscaped area around the building, incorporating landscape and/or urban design features that speak to the agricultural heritage, and ensuring that the design of the adjacent new building is visually compatible with Percy House. As suggested in the Preliminary Salvage Plan, this may also include commemoration using salvaged materials in the landscape / urban design. Commemoration may also include the incorporation of built heritage features as ‘artifacts’ in the landscape and traditional plaques exploring relevant themes (see Peer Review Letter, Site Plan Application Block 4, 815 Highway 7, Pickering Peer Review Letter, Attachment 6). Based on the Peer Review (see Peer Review Letter, Site Plan Application 2nd Submission, Block 4, 815 Highway 7, Pickering, Peer Review Letter, Attachment 7), the Landscape Plan (see Phase 1 Block 4 - Heritage House Landscape Plan, Attachment 8) was revised to include a larger landscaped area, this was achieved by removing parking spaces and adding trees around the house. The plan proposed a combination of deciduous trees, shrubs and perennials, native meadow seeds, and unit paving around the house. Heritage Studio completed a Peer Review for the Site Plan Application, 2nd Submission, including the updated Landscape Plan, and provided the following comments: • The proposed future setting of Percy House is an improvement upon the first submission and given the challenges of relocating a historic house within a twenty-first century food manufacturing campus, the proposed landscape plan provides sufficient breathing space for the house and more rural landscaping in the immediate vicinity. February 28, 2024 Page 4 of 4 815 Highway 7 • The removal of the parking along the northeast corner of the house and a couple of tree plantings in the site plan has enhanced the setting of the house, and importantly improved views from Highway 7 towards the house. • The proposed landscape plan has been amended to include perennials and grasses with a softer and less rigid character, which should give the immediate setting of Percy House a more rural/agricultural character (as opposed to urban). • Similarly, the bollards around Percy House have been removed from the landscape plan, which would have been overly urban in character. Staff offer the following recommendations to the Committee: 1. That Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee support the final siting of the Percy House, known municipally as 815 Highway 7, based on the following condition: a) That the Site Plan Agreement include a clause indicating any alterations or side development on or adjacent to the Draft R-Plan will not be permitted except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated through a Heritage Impact Assessment and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. 2. That Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee supports the implementation of the Landscape Plan around the Percy House, prepared by Landscape Planning: Landscape Architects, dated September 2023. Next Steps Site Plan Approval is delegated to the Director, City Development & CBO. Comments and recommendations provided by the Heritage Committee will be taken into consideration by the Director before issuing final site plan approval. EG:nr J:\Documents\Administration\A-3300\A3300-098\9. Heritage Committee Meeting\1. Memos\HPAC Memo - 575 Highway 7_15NOV23.docx Attachments 1. Submitted Draft Plan 2. Site Plan 3. Location Map 4. Draft R-Plan 5. Block 4 Landscape Plan, prepared by Landscape Planning: Landscape Architects, dated May 2022 6. Peer Review Letter, Site Plan Application Block 4, 815 Highway 7, Pickering, prepared by Heritage Studio, dated March 31, 2023 7. Peer Review Letter, Site Plan Application 2nd Submission, Block 4, 815 Highway 7, Pickering prepared by Heritage Studio, dated November 6, 2023 8. Phase 1 Block 4 - Heritage House Landscape Plan, prepared by Landscape Planning: Landscape Architects, dated September 2023 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\SP\2022 Dec. 7, 2022DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Revised 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-2022-02 & A 04/22 Caplink Limited 745 Highway 7 and 815 Highway 7 N Attachment #1      Attachment #2 \ I ~ ~ j IQ)I 1Q): l§ ~ ~! fC, i:n' ti?' - I - 17 -7 I HighwaY. 7 ~ V l, -✓;~ I i/ v' ~- J , ....... X "' .· 11 Subject N~~ Lands ~ ~ ·~ X I Highway J O? Way- h ( J ----~ ~ ~ 2 ::s ;=.: co <Jl ~ C?' -----~\ ~ -~ ~~ I)) C).. ~ ( r \ -\ (: J y rr l ~ ~( af:j of Location Map File: A-3300-093 PlCKERlNG Municipal Address:815 Highway 7 City Development @ The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: Date: Feb. 14, 2024 @ Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.,@ Her Majesty the Queen in Department Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.:@ Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its SCALE: 1:10,00011 suppliers. All rights reserved.,@ Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. THIS ISNOTAPLANa= SURVEY. L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\01-City Development\A-3300 Historical Heritage Conservation\A-3300--093 745 and 815 Highway 7 (Caplink)\A-3300-093 745 and 815 Highway 7 (Caplink).aprx Attachment #3 SCHEDULE PART LOT PLAN PIN PART OF BLOCK 4 REGISTERED PLAN 40M-XXXX PART OF PIN 26386-xxxx 7 THE KING'S HIGHWAY No. (ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN CONCESSIONS 5 HIGHWAY PLAN AND 6)~ 307 \ FN~i1s~ gN -5~i---LO-T--2-7,-------coN--cE-ss10N-s7- ~~--~RT 2, ____ P_LAN ________ 40_R_-5_65_3_ / _ BLOCK 6 (STREET WIDENING) , w > 0:::: 0 0:::: w 0 z 0 s ;----, .;-' .;-' / ' I ' I \ I / , ~ \ I O,t--te>I \ I .f'I DO DO~ I I ~ci ci:ot I ~, ~ ~I 1~ , w > 0:::: 0 0:::: w 0 z 0 s I ' ~ N71i8'40"E N71i8'40"E N71i8'40"E O ~ ',,"'6'>, ~o 0.50 -1.so-0.50 ~~ ' 6',3-6'• :,t ~ !.J I.! ~ ix> I '"f~~,i ~~~ 1 1 ~ z ', '-N71i8'40"E -DECK -N71i8'40"E '-~ 4.20 ➔ -l-4.20 -ii 4•70 LFACE OF BUILDING J r \ ' --- I I I i I 1---; I N 11'-: I~ 1~ I I I I ------------ I / SEE DETAIL "A" ~ u 0 (() z ~ <( (() _J C\J Q_ _J ~ rn o:: PLAN OF SURVEY OF PART OF BLOCK 4 REGISTERED PLAN 40M-XXXX CITY OF PICKERING REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM SCALE 1 400 10 0 10 20 30 metres tt:1·-2-s.-~~-s;~...1~~~~·~~~~· ~~~~1 ...,____ I I I THE INTENDED PLOT SIZE OF THIS PLAN IS 457mm IN WIDTH BY 609mm IN HEIGHT WHEN PLOTTED AT A SCALE OF 1 : 400 J.D. BARNES LIMITED METRIC DISTANCES AND/OR COORDINATES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE IN METRES AND CAN BE CONVERTED TO FEET BY DIVIDING BY 0.3048. NOTES BEARINGS ARE UTM GRID, DERIVED FROM OBSERVED REFERENCE POINTS A AND B, BY REAL TIME NETWORK (RTN) OBSERVATIONS, UTM ZONE 17, NAD83 (CSRS) (2010.0). DISTANCES ARE GROUND AND CAN BE CONVERTED TO GRID BY MULTIPLYING BY THE COMBINED SCALE FACTOR OF 0.999841. INTEGRATION DATA OBSERVED REFERENCE POINTS (ORPs): UTM ZONE 17, NAD83 (CSRS) (2010.0). COORDINATES TO URBAN ACCURACY PER SECTION 14 (2) OF O.REG 216/10. POINT ID ORP@ ORP@ EASTING 648 511.98 648 559.23 NORTHING 4 863 363.05 4 863 223.41 COORDINATES CANNOT, IN THEMSELVES, BE USED TO RE-ESTABLISH CORNERS OR BOUNDARIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. LEGEND ■ DENOTES D DENOTES SIB DENOTES 18 DENOTES MEAS DENOTES JDB DENOTES SURVEY MONUMENT FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT SET STANDARD IRON BAR IRON BAR MEASURED J.D. BARNES LIMITED P1 DENOTES REGISTERED PLAN 40M-XXXX (REF. No. 22-25-048-04) SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I CERTIFY THAT: 1. THIS SURVEY AND PLAN ARE CORRECT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SURVEYS ACT, THE SURVEYORS ACT AND THE LAND TITILES ACT AND THE REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THEM. 2. THE SURVEY WAS COMPLETED ON DATE 2024. GABRIEL LAFRAMBOISE ONTARIO LAND SURVEYOR THIS PLAN OF SURVEY RELATES TO AOLS PLAN SUBMISSION FORM NUMBER V-XXXXX. ✓ ----:::.. J/■•\ 1 \ •• I \. ~ J. D. BARNES LIMITED LAND INFORMATION SPECIALISTS 110 SCOTIA COURT, UNIT 38, WHITBY, ON LIN 8Y7 T: (905) 723-1212 F: (905) 723-4234 www.jdbarnes.com REFERENCE NO.: SURVEYING MAPPING GI S DRAWN BY: !CHECKED BY: R.B. G.C.L. 22-25-048-12 FILE: G: \22-25-048\ 12\22-25-048-12.dqn DATED: FEBRUARY 20, 2024 PLOITTD: 2/20/2024 SCHEDULE PART LOT PLAN PIN PART OF BLOCK 4 REGISTERED PLAN 40M-XXXX PART OF PIN 26386-xxxx 7 THE KING'S HIGHWAY No. (ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN CONCESSIONS 5 HIGHWAY PLAN AND 6)~ 307 \ FN~i1s~ gN -5~i---LO-T--2-7,-------coN--cE-ss10N-s7- ~~--~RT 2, ____ P_LAN ________ 40_R_-5_65_3_ / _ BLOCK 6 (STREET WIDENING) , w > 0:::: 0 0:::: w 0 z 0 s ;----, .;-' .;-' / ' I ' I \ I / , ~ \ I O,t--te>I \ I .f'I DO DO~ I I ~ci ci:ot I ~, ~ ~I 1~ , w > 0:::: 0 0:::: w 0 z 0 s I ' ~ N71i8'40"E N71i8'40"E N71i8'40"E O ~ ',,"'6'>, ~o 0.50 -1.so-0.50 ~~ ' 6',3-6'• :,t ~ !.J I.! ~ ix> I '"f~~,i ~~~ 1 1 ~ z ', '-N71i8'40"E -DECK -N71i8'40"E '-~ 4.20 ➔ -l-4.20 -ii 4•70 LFACE OF BUILDING J r \ ' --- I I I i I 1---; I N 11'-: I~ 1~ I I I I ------------ I / SEE DETAIL "A" ~ u 0 (() z ~ <( (() _J C\J Q_ _J ~ rn o:: PLAN OF SURVEY OF PART OF BLOCK 4 REGISTERED PLAN 40M-XXXX CITY OF PICKERING REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM SCALE 1 400 10 0 10 20 30 metres tt:1·-2-s.-~~-s;~...1~~~~·~~~~· ~~~~1 ...,____ I I I THE INTENDED PLOT SIZE OF THIS PLAN IS 457mm IN WIDTH BY 609mm IN HEIGHT WHEN PLOTTED AT A SCALE OF 1 : 400 J.D. BARNES LIMITED METRIC DISTANCES AND/OR COORDINATES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE IN METRES AND CAN BE CONVERTED TO FEET BY DIVIDING BY 0.3048. NOTES BEARINGS ARE UTM GRID, DERIVED FROM OBSERVED REFERENCE POINTS A AND B, BY REAL TIME NETWORK (RTN) OBSERVATIONS, UTM ZONE 17, NAD83 (CSRS) (2010.0). DISTANCES ARE GROUND AND CAN BE CONVERTED TO GRID BY MULTIPLYING BY THE COMBINED SCALE FACTOR OF 0.999841. INTEGRATION DATA OBSERVED REFERENCE POINTS (ORPs): UTM ZONE 17, NAD83 (CSRS) (2010.0). COORDINATES TO URBAN ACCURACY PER SECTION 14 (2) OF O.REG 216/10. POINT ID ORP@ ORP@ EASTING 648 511.98 648 559.23 NORTHING 4 863 363.05 4 863 223.41 COORDINATES CANNOT, IN THEMSELVES, BE USED TO RE-ESTABLISH CORNERS OR BOUNDARIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. LEGEND ■ DENOTES D DENOTES SIB DENOTES 18 DENOTES MEAS DENOTES JDB DENOTES SURVEY MONUMENT FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT SET STANDARD IRON BAR IRON BAR MEASURED J.D. BARNES LIMITED P1 DENOTES REGISTERED PLAN 40M-XXXX (REF. No. 22-25-048-04) SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I CERTIFY THAT: 1. THIS SURVEY AND PLAN ARE CORRECT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SURVEYS ACT, THE SURVEYORS ACT AND THE LAND TITILES ACT AND THE REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THEM. 2. THE SURVEY WAS COMPLETED ON DATE 2024. GABRIEL LAFRAMBOISE ONTARIO LAND SURVEYOR THIS PLAN OF SURVEY RELATES TO AOLS PLAN SUBMISSION FORM NUMBER V-XXXXX. ✓ ----:::.. J/■•\ 1 \ •• I \. ~ J. D. BARNES LIMITED LAND INFORMATION SPECIALISTS 110 SCOTIA COURT, UNIT 38, WHITBY, ON LIN 8Y7 T: (905) 723-1212 F: (905) 723-4234 www.jdbarnes.com REFERENCE NO.: SURVEYING MAPPING GI S DRAWN BY: !CHECKED BY: R.B. G.C.L. 22-25-048-12 FILE: G: \22-25-048\ 12\22-25-048-12.dqn DATED: FEBRUARY 20, 2024 PLOITTD: 2/20/2024    Attachment #4 Attachment #5 Heritage Review | 815 Hwy. 7 – Block 4 Site Plan Application Page 1 of 5 Attachment #6 HERITAGE | Studio Alex Rowse-Thompson MCIP RPP CAHP 149 Ordnance St. Kingston, ON, K7K 1G9 alex@heritagestudio.ca March 31, 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:HERITAGE REVIEW – SITE PLAN APPLICATION BLOCK 4, 815 HWY. 7, PICKERING _____________________________________________________________________________________ Dear Mr. Surti, The purpose of this letter is to provide a professional heritage review of the site plan application for Block 4 of 815 Highway 7 in Pickering (Application S03/23), which includes a relocated heritage building (i.e., the Percy House). The Draft Plan of Subdivision approval included six conditions (listed below) relating to the relocation and rehabilitation of the Percy House. The comments and recommendations contained within this letter are intended to ensure the implementation of these conditions before the issuance of Site Plan approval. 1.That prior to final approval, the Owner shall provide a detailed Conservation Plan prepared by a qualified heritage consultant, that is consistent with the conservation strategy set out in the Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by WSP, dated December 12, 2022, to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development. 2.The Owner and City acknowledge and agree, that prior to final Site Plan approval, the Owner shall provide final site plan drawings substantially in accordance with the approved Conservation Plan, to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development. 3.The Owner and City acknowledge and agree, that prior to final Site Plan approval, the Owner shall provide a Letter of Credit, to secure all works included in the approved Conservation Plan, to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development. 4.The Owner and City acknowledge and agree, that prior to final Site Plan approval, the Owner prepare a reference plan, illustrating the boundaries of the heritage property. 5.The Owner agrees to permit the designation of the lands, as illustrated on an approved reference plan, under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development. Heritage Review | 815 Hwy. 7 – Block 4 Site Plan Application Page 2 of 5 6. That the Owner enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City to ensure the ongoing maintenance, protection and repair of the Percy House is in keeping with the heritage designation by-law and the Ontario Heritage Act. Proposed Location & Setting of Percy House • The new location for Percy House as identified in the site plan drawings is at the northeastern corner of Highway 7 and the new “FGF Way”. • Most of the original house is set forward of the adjacent building (Building “4”), which will help to preserve the visual prominence of the house in relation to the surrounding substantially larger manufacturing buildings. • The proposed location and proximity of parking spaces to the house is improved from earlier versions. There is no parking immediately adjacent to the east elevation of the historic house; however, it would be preferable to relocate three to four of the spaces (and associated tree plantings) located to the northeast to improve views of the house from Highway 7. See image below, which identifies the parking spaces with a red dashed circle. One option may be to remove the small, landscaped area to the east which appears to be approximately the same size as two parking spaces, and shift the remaining spaces eastwards. • Otherwise, the amount of landscaped open space or ‘breathing’ space surrounding the house appears adequate. • It is not clear how the proposed landscape plan meets the recommended conservation strategy in Section 7.3 Post-Relocation of the Conservation Plan, which speaks to the Heritage Review | 815 Hwy. 7 – Block 4 Site Plan Application Page 3 of 5 impact of the “relationship of the traditional farmstead to its surrounding agricultural tradition” and provides recommendations relating to the types of plantings as well as their location to avoid excessive shading and allow appropriate drainage. • The landscape and setting of Percy House should, as far as possible, have an agricultural heritage character to root the house in its new location. • There are no locations identified for the interpretive plaque or commemorative installation as outlined in the Commemoration Plan. • The Conservation Plan mentions that a landscape plan may recommend locations for the reinstallation of wrought iron fencing removed during construction. This is not shown on the landscape plans. • The Conservation Plan notes that a City of Pickering heritage property plaque should be installed in a location that will be visible from public rights of way. A location for this plaque should be identified on the landscape plan. • The lighting plan shows a number of illuminated bollards sited adjacent to the Percy House façade and east elevation. Further details of their height and appearance are required to evaluate their impact on the setting of the house. An initial assessment is that they will convey an overly urban character, which contrasts with the goal of an agricultural heritage character. • The draft options for the interpretive plaque are provided in Appendix B of the Commemoration Plan. Given that the wood crib silo, which was a unique and rare example of early wood silos in Ontario was not salvageable for interpretation in the landscaping, an explanation of its significance should be included in the interpretative plaque. • Prior to the finalization and production of the plaque, Heritage staff should review the draft design and content of the commemorative installation and interpretive plaque. (There are several design options provided in the Commemoration Plan). Recommendation: • To address Condition 2 of the Draft Subdivision of Subdivision approval, an annotated landscape plan (with additional images/descriptions as needed) for Percy House clearly demonstrating that the Conservation Plan recommendations have been incorporated and noting the locations of the future interpretation plaque, commemorative installation, and City of Pickering heritage property plaque as per the Commemoration Plan, should be provided for review by Heritage staff. New Addition on Percy House • Generally, the proposed addition conserves the cultural heritage values and attributes of Percy House. • Its location to the rear of the house and set back from both the southeast and southwest corners, ensures that the original footprint/form of the house is legible. • It is a significantly sized addition (approximately three times larger in its footprint than the house). • The height of the new addition is just below the south eave but increases as the addition extends southward. Given the distance from Percy House at which the addition’s height increases, it will not visually overpower Percy House. • The flat roof section of the addition, which is largely comprised of spandrel glazing panels provides a good transition between the historic house and the larger mono pitch roof portion of the house. The west elevation would be improved by removing Heritage Review | 815 Hwy. 7 – Block 4 Site Plan Application Page 4 of 5 the first wall panel (with aluminum longboard cladding) and instead echoing the glazing pattern on the east elevation. • Moreover, the Conservation Plan recommends a prefinished wood product such as “Maibec” for the exterior cladding, whereas the architectural drawings identify a combination of composite aluminum panels, brick veneer and aluminum siding. • Given the setback of the conference/meeting room section (mono pitch roof) portion of the addition and the contemporary style, the proposed palette of materials provides an acceptable contrast, both in texture and colour, with the historic house. However, given the decisively modern character of the mono pitch portion, the flat roof section should provide a lighter transition, and the use of the aluminum panelling and brick veneer is heavy. Again, the use of glazing as on the east addition is preferred. The heaviness of the dark brick veneer is also noted looking south where the addition extends west beyond the west elevation of Percy House. • Finally, the detail of how the new addition abuts the south elevation of Percy House is not clear, e.g., does it sit below the rear eave or conceal the eave? Recommendation: To address Condition 2 of the Draft Subdivision of Subdivision approval, the architectural drawings should be updated to reflect these comments and be provided to Heritage Staff for review prior to the issuance of Site Plan approval. Repair & Restoration of Percy House • The Conservation Plan provides many recommendations relating to the repair and restoration of Percy House in Section 7.3, but they are not all clearly addressed in the architectural drawings. • The Conservation Plan mentions that the new foundation for Percy House will be concrete with a ledge of at least 4-inces to accommodate an outer wythe of granite and fieldstone (acting as a veneer). The architectural drawings show an ashlar stone foundation, which does not reflect the existing rubble foundation. • There is no mention of whether or how the stucco will be removed on the east elevation. • There is no information provided for the repair and restoration of the wooden eaves including eave returns and moulded cornice. The eave returns (in place on the west elevation) and moulded cornice are noted as heritage attributes in the draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value. The eave (fascia, soffit, cornice) is constructed in wood and should be repaired. The eaves should not be flashed in aluminum, nor should the eave returns be ‘boxed in’. • The wooden window sills are noted as heritage attributes. They should be repaired and repainted or replaced in like-for-like material and dimensions if required. • A detailed design for the front door entrance is required. • There are no design details provided for the proposed new front porch/stairs. • If the existing/original brickmoulds (i.e., the wood detailing that frames the windows) are repairable, they should be repaired with new wooden windows installed that match the glazing pattern, dimensions of muntin bars, etc., as closely as possible the existing. • The Conservation Plan notes that the existing windows should be repaired if possible. It is not clear whether the feasibility of this has been established. • No interior uses/functions are identified on the architectural floor plans for the existing house, nor are there floor plans included for the second floor. Ideally, there are uses Heritage Review | 815 Hwy. 7 – Block 4 Site Plan Application Page 5 of 5 planned for the original building so that its qualities and history can be appreciated and ultimately, buildings are best maintained when they are in active use. • In summary, the drawings of Percy House in the architectural drawing package are not accurate (e.g., brick detailing of quoins and foundation is erroneous) and the level of detail is not sufficient to determine that the repairs and restoration will conserve the heritage attributes described in Section 6.2 of the Conservation Plan. Recommendation: To address Condition 2 of the Draft Plan of Subdivision approval, detailed/annotated plans for the repair and restoration of Percy House should be provided to the City for review by Heritage staff and by the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee prior to the issuance of Site Plan approval. Relocation of Percy House • Has an experienced heritage building mover determined that Percy House can be safely moved? • A cost estimate should be provided to the City for the purpose of determining the letter of credit. • The qualifications/CV of the building mover should be provided to the City. • Additionally, a cost estimate for the repairs and restoration of the house (following the relocation) should be provided to the City for the purpose of determining the letter of credit. • A reference plan, illustrating the boundaries of the heritage property has not yet been provided for the purpose of designation and/or Heritage Easement Agreement under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Recommendation: To address Condition 3 of the Draft Plan of Subdivision approval, the owner should provide cost estimates for the relocation and rehabilitation of Percy House to ensure an adequate dollar amount for the Letter of Credit. In summary, the submitted site plan application materials are not, in my opinion, “substantially in accordance with the approved Conservation Plan” (December 12, 2022), and additional information is required to fulfil the remaining heritage conditions of the Draft Plan of Subdivision approval. Most of the updates and information required relates to the restoration/rehabilitation of Percy House and should be undertaken by an architect/designer with relevant heritage experience. 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 Heritage Review | 815 Hwy. 7 – Block 4 Site Plan Application (2nd Submission) Page 1 of 4 Attachment #7 Alex Rowse-Thompson MCIP RPP CAHP 149 Ordnance St. Kingston, ON, K7K 1G9 alex@heritagestudio.ca November 6, 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:HERITAGE REVIEW – SITE PLAN APPLICATION 2 ND SUBMISSION, BLOCK 4, 815 HWY. 7, PICKERING _____________________________________________________________________________________ Dear Mr. Surti, The purpose of this letter is to provide a professional heritage review of the 2nd submission of the materials for site plan application S03/23 for Block 4 of 815 Highway 7 in Pickering. The application includes a relocated heritage building (i.e., the Percy House), and accordingly, the Draft Plan of Subdivision approval included six conditions (listed below) relating to the relocation and rehabilitation of the Percy House. The comments and recommendations contained within this letter are intended to ensure the implementation of these conditions before the issuance of Site Plan approval. 1.That prior to final approval, the Owner shall provide a detailed Conservation Plan prepared by a qualified heritage consultant, that is consistent with the conservation strategy set out in the Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by WSP, dated December 12, 2022, to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development. 2.The Owner and City acknowledge and agree, that prior to final Site Plan approval, the Owner shall provide final site plan drawings substantially in accordance with the approved Conservation Plan, to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development. 3.The Owner and City acknowledge and agree, that prior to final Site Plan approval, the Owner shall provide a Letter of Credit, to secure all works included in the approved Conservation Plan, to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development. 4.The Owner and City acknowledge and agree, that prior to final Site Plan approval, the Owner prepare a reference plan, illustrating the boundaries of the heritage property. Heritage Review | 815 Hwy. 7 – Block 4 Site Plan Application (2nd Submission) Page 2 of 4 5. The Owner agrees to permit the designation of the lands, as illustrated on an approved reference plan, under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development. 6. That the Owner enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City to ensure the ongoing maintenance, protection and repair of the Percy House is in keeping with the heritage designation by-law and the Ontario Heritage Act. I reviewed the first site plan application submission and provided comments to the City in March 2023. Subsequently, I met with the applicant and the City to discuss these comments. I have reviewed the updated materials, including the Comments Response Matrix and can confirm that the applicant has addressed many of the comments. However, there continues to be a lack of design detail relating to the repair, restoration, and rehabilitation of the house, which conflicts with Condition #2. For consistency, I have organized my comments under the previously used subject headings, which also correspond to the Comments Response Matrix. Proposed Location & Setting of Percy House • The proposed future setting of Percy House is an improvement upon the first submission and given the challenges of relocating an historic house within a 21st century food manufacturing campus, the proposed landscape plan provides sufficient breathing space for the house and a more rural landscaping in the immediate vicinity. • The removal of the parking along the northeast corner of the house and a couple of tree plantings in the site plan has enhanced the setting of the house, and importantly improved views from Highway 7 towards the house. • The proposed landscape plan has been amended to include perennials and grasses with a softer and less rigid character, which should give the immediate setting of Percy House a more rural/agricultural character (as opposed to urban). • Similarly, the bollards around Percy House have been removed from the landscape plan, which would have been overly urban in character. • Appendix C of the Commemoration Plan identifies an appropriate location for the City of Pickering heritage property plaque. • The interior location for the interpretative plaque in the new addition does not appear to have been identified in Appendix C of the Commemoration Plan as noted in the Comments Response Matrix. I recall conversations that suggested the lobby as a potential location. I agree that this would be a reasonably accessible space and physically, the plaque would have more longevity being inside. • I noted the inclusion of the commentary on the wood crib silo as part of the draft interpretation plaque, which is excellent. • Prior to the finalization and production of the plaque, Heritage staff should review the draft design and content of the commemorative installation and interpretive plaque. (There are several design options provided in the Commemoration Plan). New Addition on Percy House • The Comments Response Matrix has deferred the heritage review comments relating to the new addition to subsequent building permit submissions. • The heritage review comments were mostly for consideration as the design of the new addition is finalized; however, the primary recommendation, which was agreed verbally in a meeting is to ensure that the new addition attaches below the rear (south) eave of Percy House. This should be reflected in updated drawings. Heritage Review | 815 Hwy. 7 – Block 4 Site Plan Application (2nd Submission) Page 3 of 4 Recommendation: To address Condition 2 of the Draft Plan of Subdivision approval, the architectural drawings should be updated to show the new addition positioned below the existing rear eave of Percy House, prior to the issuance of Site Plan approval. Repair & Restoration of Percy House • The comments provided in the first submission have not been addressed with the Comments Response Matrix deferring them to subsequent building permit submissions. Building permit submissions address Ontario Building Code requirements and not the detailed design and conservation work involved in repairing and restoring Percy House. • Given that the Conservation Plan provides guidance, but not detailed design or technical details for Percy House’s repair and restoration/rehabilitation, these conservation and design details need to be further developed and presented to staff and the Heritage Advisory Committee. • The Comments Response Matrix references updates to the architectural drawings, but these are not readily apparent. The foundation continues to be shown as ashlar stone or concrete block. The Comments Response Matrix notes that the new foundation will be concrete, while the Conservation Plan notes that the new concrete foundation will have a ledge of at least 4-inches to accommodate an outer wythe of granite and fieldstone (a veneer). This veneer is intended to reinstate the appearance and character of the original and existing foundation. • The removal of the stucco on the east elevation will be an enhancement to the building’s architectural integrity. The reuse of bricks from the dismantled rear addition is a commendable idea, but it should be confirmed that these bricks are the same dimension and close enough in colour to the bricks on the main house. • The proposal to replace the existing wood sills with sandstone sills does not follow best practice and does not conserve the house’s heritage attributes (e.g., Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines and the Ministry’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties advise that where character-defining elements are too severely deteriorated to repair to replace them with new elements that match the form, materials and detailing of the existing and to repair with like materials). • In summary, the drawings of Percy House in the architectural drawing package continue to appear inaccurate and the level of detail provided is not sufficient to determine that the repairs and restoration will conserve the heritage attributes described in Section 6.2 of the Conservation Plan. • The repair, restoration and rehabilitation of Percy House should be undertaken in accordance with Conservation Plan and Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines referenced therein. Recommendation: To address Condition 2 of the Draft Plan of Subdivision approval, detailed/annotated plans for the repair and restoration of Percy House should be provided to the City for review by Heritage staff and by the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee prior to the issuance of Site Plan approval. Heritage Review | 815 Hwy. 7 – Block 4 Site Plan Application (2nd Submission) Page 4 of 4 Relocation of Percy House • The applicant has contracted a reputable house mover and undertaken a structural assessment which confirmed the house can be safely moved, and a cost estimate is forthcoming. • The forthcoming Reference Plan boundaries are in discussion between the applicant and the City of Pickering. From a heritage perspective, it is critical that the R-Plan capture a sufficient setting around Percy House to allow for long-term management of change and maintenance (e.g., drawing the boundary around the building only makes repair and maintenance impossible if ownership of parcels changes). We cannot assume that the current ownership is fixed. • For the letter of credit, cost estimates for the repair, restoration and rehabilitation of Percy House are required; however, at present details of this work have not been provided. Recommendation: To address Condition 3 of the Draft Plan of Subdivision approval, the owner should provide cost estimates for the relocation and rehabilitation of Percy House to ensure an adequate dollar amount for the Letter of Credit. In summary, the submitted site plan application materials are not, in my opinion, “substantially in accordance with the approved Conservation Plan” (September 15, 2023), and additional information is required to fulfil the remaining heritage conditions of the Draft Plan of Subdivision approval. The key information required relates to the restoration/rehabilitation of Percy House and should not be deferred to building permit submissions. 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 Attachment #8 Memo To: Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee February 28, 2024 From: Emily Game Senior Planner, Heritage Copy: Chief Planner Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/90(R), Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 17/90(R), Draft Plan of Subdivision Application 18T-90016(R) Claremont Development Corporation (Geranium Homes) 5113 Old Brock Road File: A-3300-089 Purpose The purpose of this memo is to obtain support from the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee to proceed with designating 5113 Old Brock Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Background In August 2022, the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) approved a Zoning By-Law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Subdivision to develop 5113 Old Brock Road for a residential subdivision (see Location Map, Attachment 1). The Draft Plan of Subdivision is subject to the conditions of draft approval contained within the Minutes of Settlement. The OLT approved Zoning By-law Amendment rezoned the lands to Oak Ridges Moraine – Hamlet Residential Six (ORM-R6) to facilitate a residential subdivision. The proposed development includes the retention of the existing farmhouse in situ within a newly created lot, identified as Lot 71 on the plan of subdivision (see Draft Plan of Subdivision, Attachment 2). As part of the proposed development, new public roads, a new public park, open space buffers, and two stormwater management facilities will also be constructed. Franklin Street will be extended north to Lane Street through the subject property. A new street (Samarillo Place) is proposed to the north of the farmhouse, providing vehicular and pedestrian access to the subdivision from Old Brock Road. A centrally located public park will be accessible from Franklin and Lane Streets along Samarillo Place. The park will feature a sports court, playground, soccer field, and a network of paths. To accommodate the development, the existing barn and silos have been demolished with select building materials salvaged for use on or off-site. The farmhouse, located on Lot 71, will be surrounded by green space. The proposed lot size is 0.51 of a hectare. Minimal regrading along the north lot line and the installation of a replacement septic bed to the south are planned. The existing 37-metre setback from Old Brock Road, along with the semi-circular driveway, mature trees, and retaining wall, will be maintained. February 28, 2024 Page 2 of 6 5113 Old Brock Road A new driveway entrance from Samarillo Place will connect to the existing driveway north of the farmhouse, with the removal of the existing north entrance from Old Brock Road. The existing south entrance from Old Brock Road will be retained. A new detached garage is proposed at the northeast corner of the lot. As per the sale agreement, Lot 71 will remain under the ownership of the property’s previous landowner. The property has no heritage status, however, the OLT Minutes of Settlement for the property (OLT Case Number OLT-22-002250) outlined four requirements to be met for cultural heritage. Condition 18 required that a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) be provided as a condition of Draft Plan Approval. To satisfy this condition, an HIA was prepared by ERA Architects Inc. (ERA, 2022); further details are provided below. Subject property 5113 Old Brock Road is not listed on the City of Pickering’s Heritage Register, or designated under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The subject property has a total area of approximately 36.6 hectares, which was historically comprised of the G.M. Forsyth House, a barn, silos and surrounding agricultural fields. The G.M. Forsyth House is a two-storey American Foursquare Farmhouse. The house is set back from Old Brock Road by approximately 37 metres and is oriented with its façade to Old Brock Road. The property is accessed by a semi-circular driveway (see Photograph 1 below). Photograph 1: View of G.M. Forsyth house (ERA, 2022) Based on historical research, it is estimated that the farmhouse was built in 1916 by G.M. Forsyth, a prominent municipal leader and farmer in Claremont. The property is located at the northeastern edge of Claremont, in Pickering. The principal frontage extends along Old Brock Road north of Lane Street and has a large frontage on Old Brock Road extending between Central Street and the railway corridor. February 28, 2024 Page 3 of 6 5113 Old Brock Road ERA submitted a Heritage Impact Assessment To satisfy the condition of draft plan approval, the applicant has submitted an HIA, prepared by ERA, dated December 9, 2022 (see Attachment 3, Heritage Impact Assessment). The HIA identified many of the potential negative impacts of the proposed development but failed to address all potential negative impacts described in the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Additionally, no alternatives were considered in the Heritage Impact Assessment. The HIA recommended the retention of the G.M. Forsyth house in situ, with a green buffer zone around the house, and proposed the rehabilitation of the structure. The HIA determined the proposed setbacks will conserve the farmhouse’s historical relationship to Old Brock Road, to mitigate the impact of reducing the farmstead lot size. Additionally, the report determined the G.M. Forsyth House met the criteria for designation as set out in Ontario Regulation 9/06 and is a candidate for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Acknowledging the impact of the proposed development on the barn and silos within the subject property, the HIA recommended that the barn’s wood materials be salvaged for future reuse, either as part of an on-site installation or as an off-site contribution to other local historic barn structures, to be determined as the design/development process advances. Heritage Studio undertook a peer review The City retained Heritage Studio to peer review the cultural heritage materials. Heritage Studio visited the site on February 7, 2023, and provided detailed comments in the Preliminary Peer Review Letter, dated March 3, 2023 (see Attachment 4, HIA Peer Review Letter). The peer review found that the submitted heritage report was completed largely in keeping with best practices and provided a sufficient overview of the historical context of the property and surrounding area. However, the peer review found that the HIA did not provide a description of considered alternatives and recommended an addendum to include: • The identification of negative impacts to views/vistas in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit; and • A discussion of considered alternatives as explained in the Peer Review Letter and/or an acknowledgement of why considered alternatives were not included or dismissed. The peer review also recommended that as part of the ongoing development approvals process, the heritage consultant prepare and submit a scoped Conservation Plan that further develops and details: • The interpretive rural landscape strategy (including on-site installation and interpretation of the salvaged barn, trees and plantings, fencing, street naming, etc.); • ERA’s recommended architectural guidelines for houses constructed on lots adjacent to the historic farmhouse; and • The required repair and restoration work to the farmhouse. February 28, 2024 Page 4 of 6 5113 Old Brock Road An HIA Addendum was submitted by ERA and peer reviewed by Heritage Studio The HIA addendum provided the necessary information to meet the City’s Terms of Reference for Heritage Impact Assessments (April 2022) and was found to be consistent with the existing heritage policy framework. ERA’s HIA addendum provided well-considered responses to the issues raised by the original peer review (see Attachment 5, HIA Addendum and Attachment 6, HIA Addendum Peer Review Letter). It was acknowledged the HIA process was not typical in terms of its timing given the previous appeal history, and the ability of the HIA report to inform the layout and design of the development was limited. The HIA report did not acknowledge this limitation; however, the HIA addendum successfully does so. The HIA addendum explained alternative development options and why they were dismissed, as well as a more fulsome description of potential negative impacts resulting from the residential subdivision. The HIA addendum explained the negative impact on views, which is listed as a possible negative impact in the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit and was missing in the original HIA. Heritage Studio recommended the following actions/next steps to ensure that the recommended mitigation strategies are effectively implemented: • A scoped Conservation Plan that addresses the technical scope of the repair and restoration of the farmhouse is provided to the City for review and approval. • Finalized details of the recommended heritage interpretation strategies are provided to the City for review and approval. • The Architectural Control Guidelines and the Landscape Plans should be reviewed by ERA or another heritage consultant to ensure that the ERA addendum recommendations are appropriately incorporated into the finalized development documents and plans. Draft Statement of Significance Description of Property – 5113 Old Brock Road 5113 Old Brock Road is a farmstead property located on the east side of Old Brock Road in the village of Claremont, Pickering. The property contains a two-storey brick farmhouse, a frame barn with a concrete foundation, and four silos. Statement of Cultural Heritage Value 5113 Old Brock Road has design value as a representative example of a historic Ontario farmstead, evidenced by its farmhouse, barn, and silos, which are set against an agricultural landscape of open fields. Built in 1916, the farmhouse is valued as a fine representative example of an early-twentieth century American Foursquare farmhouse. This is expressed through its square plan, two-storey scale, hipped roof, and varied design details, including the wrap-around verandah with its two-storey frontispiece. February 28, 2024 Page 5 of 6 5113 Old Brock Road 5113 Old Brock Road has historical/associative value for its direct association with G.M. Forsyth, a historically significant municipal leader and farmer in Claremont. Forsyth held many major offices in Pickering Township and the Village of Claremont throughout his political career, culminating in his appointment as Warden of Ontario County in 1923. During his term as Reeve of Pickering Township, he was instrumental in bringing hydro-electric power to Claremont. This association is expressed through the grandeur of the farmhouse and its estate-style landscape treatment. 5113 Old Brock Road has contextual value for defining, maintaining, and supporting a rural character along Old Brock Road in Claremont. Sited on the northern edge of the village, the property’s agricultural landscape forms the backdrop to the late-nineteenth century village fabric. Description of Heritage Attributes Key attributes that express the value of the farmhouse as a fine representative example of an early-twentieth century American Foursquare farmhouse, with eclectic architectural and landscape features are: • Scale, form and massing of the two-storey house, with its square plan and flat-topped hipped roof; Wrap-around verandah, including the two-storey frontispiece, pedimented roof, and Tuscan columns; • Five-sided single-storey bay window, covered by the verandah; • Varied segmental-arch window openings; • Dormer windows and chimneys protruding from the attic; • Brick materials, laid in a stretcher bond pattern; • Semi-circular front driveway lined with mature trees; and • Raised cut-stone foundation. Key attributes that express the property’s associative value are: • Its direct association with G.M. Forsyth, a prominent municipal leader and farmer who is historically significant to the community of Claremont. Key attributes that express the property’s value in defining, maintaining, and supporting the rural character of Old Brock Road in Claremont are: • Its location on the east side of Old Brock Road, just north of the village of Claremont; • Farmhouse, set back from and oriented towards Old Brock Road, with front-yard mature trees; • Siting of the farmhouse atop a landscaped pedestal, marked by a retaining wall and split staircase; and • Scrub along the Old Brock Road frontage. February 28, 2024 Page 6 of 6 5113 Old Brock Road Staff Recommendations to Heritage Pickering This memo provides recommendations to the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee regarding the Part IV designation of 5113 Old Brock Road. As outlined in the HIA and HIA Addendum and associated Peer Reviews, City staff recommends the subject property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06. The property retains Cultural Heritage Value or Interest for its design or physical value, associative value, and contextual value. The HIA and HIA Addendum includes a draft Statement of Significance for the property which outlines the list of exterior heritage attributes. It is the practice of the City not to include the interior features of a privately owned building in the designation by-law. Staff offer the following recommendations to the Committee: • That Heritage Pickering supports the Part IV designation of 5113 Old Brock Road under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Next Steps Heritage Pickering recommendations will be included in the City Development Staff Recommendation Report to the Planning & Development Committee, and the property recommended for Part IV designation under the Ontario Heritage Act will be presented to Council. 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. Draft Plan of Subdivision 3. Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by ERA Architects, dated December 9, 2022 4. Peer Review Letter: Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by Heritage Studio, dated March 3, 2023 5. Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum, prepared by ERA Architects, dated June 14, 2023 6. Peer Review Letter: Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum, prepared by Heritage Studio, September 11, 2023 Attachment #1 L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\01-City Development\A-3300 Historical Heritage Conservation\A-3300-089 5113 Brock Road Geranium Homes\5113BrockRd_LocationMap.mxd City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Municipal Address:18T-90016(R), A 09/90(R) & A 17/90(R) Date: Feb. 01, 2024 5113 Brock Road 1:10,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department ofNatural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. Bro c k R o a d Ninth Concession Road ClaremontMemorialPark ClaremontPublic School ¯ E SubjectLands Attachment #2 Heritage impact assessment 5113 Old Brock Road Claremont, Pickering, ON December 9, 2022 PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY: ii HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 416-963-4497 Claremont Development Inc. #300-3190 Steeles Ave E Markham ON, L3R 1G9 905-477-1177 Project #21-332-01 Prepared by PE / SI / EA / JG iiiISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IV 1 INTRODUCTION 5 1.1 Report Scope 5 1.2 Present Owner Contact Information 5 1.3 Site Description and Context 7 1.4 Heritage Status 10 2 BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS 11 2.1 Historical Context 11 2.2 Site Evolution 17 3 CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE 21 3.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Analysis 21 3.2 Draft Statement of Significance 24 4 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITION 26 5 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 39 6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 42 7 CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES 44 8 RECOMMENDED CONSERVATION STRATEGY 47 9 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 48 APPENDIX A: PROJECT PERSONNEL 49 APPENDIX B: LIST OF SOURCES 50 APPENDIX C: HERITAGE POLICY REVIEW 51 APPENDIX D: CLAREMONT SECONDARY PLAN STUDY HERITAGE INVENTORY (1978) 54 iv HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT ExEcutivE Summary Impact of Proposed Development The proposed development anticipates the following impacts to the Site’s cultural heritage value, based on ERA’s draft Statement of Significance: • Removal of the barn and silos to accommo- date new residential lots; • Isolation of the farmhouse from its agri- cultural context on the Site, including the reduction of the farmstead lot size to 0.51 hectares; • New construction in the immediate vicin- ity of the farmhouse, including new houses on estate size lots, a detached garage, a replacement septic bed, and a new road; and • Alteration of the Site’s existing rural land- scape and topography along Old Brock Road, through the introduction of four new residential lots flanking Old Brock Road and a 1.8 metre wood privacy fence and contin- uous hedgerow. Mitigation and Conservation Strategy The potential impacts of the proposed development are proposed to be partially mitigated through a recommended design and landscape strategy, which would interpret the Site’s rural character. This would include design guidelines for the new houses along Old Brock Road, and an interpretive rural landscape strategy. A buffer zone is proposed around the farmhouse, with generous setbacks from the north, east, and south properties lines (24 metres, 19 metres, and 36 metres, respectively). The existing setback from Old Brock Road will be maintained, along with the front-yard mature trees and semi-circular driveway. Although a minimal change in grade is proposed (up to 0.60m) with an upward slope to the north lot line, it will not impact any heritage landscape features. Background ERA Architects Inc. (“ERA”) was retained by Claremont Development Inc. to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment (“HIA”) for the proposed redevelopment of 5113 Old Brock Road, Claremont (the “Site”). The Site comprises a large farmstead property, including a farmhouse (1916), barn, and four silos. Heritage Status The Site is not listed on the City of Pickering’s Heritage Register, or designated under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (“OHA”). It is not located within a designated Heritage Conservation District (“HCD”). The Site is not considered adjacent to any listed or designated properties. ERA has evaluated the Site in accordance with Ontario Regulation 9/06 (“O. Reg. 9/06”). We find that the Site meets the criteria for design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual value. As such, the property is a candidate for designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the OHA. • It has design value as a representative example of an historic Ontario farmstead, including a representative early-20th centu- ry American Foursquare farmhouse. • It has historical/associative value for its direct association with G.M. Forsyth, a prominent municipal leader and farmer. • It has contextual value for defining, main- taining, and supporting a rural character along Old Brock Road in Claremont. Proposed Development The proposed development involves the full in-situ retention of the existing farmhouse within a new residential subdivision, including 71 lots for detached dwellings, new public roads, a new public park, open space buffers, and two stormwater management facilities. 5ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 1 introduction ERA Architects Inc. (“ERA”) was retained by Claremont Development Inc. to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment (“HIA”) for the proposed redevelopment of 5113 Old Brock Road, Claremont (the “Site”). ERA was retained in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement for the Site (OLT Case Number OLT-22-002250), which stipulates that an HIA be provided as a condition of Draft Plan Approval. The purpose of an HIA, according to the City’s Terms of Reference (2022), is to “determine if any cultural heritage resources may be adversely impacted by a specific proposed development or site alteration, and to recommend an overall approach to conserve the resource(s)” (City of Pickering, 2022). This report was prepared with reference to the following documents: • Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2010); • Provincial Policy Statement (2020); • O. Reg. 9/06; • Ontario Heritage Toolkit; • Durham Regional Official Plan (consolidated 2020); and • City of Pickering Official Plan, Edition 9 (consolidated 2022); and • City of Pickering Terms of Reference for Heritage Impact Assessments (April, 2022). 1.1 Report Scope 1.2 Present Owner Contact Information Claremont Development Inc. #300-3190 Steeles Ave E Markham ON, L3R 1G9 905-477-1177 6 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT View of the farmhouse on the Site from the driveway entrance (ERA, 2022). West and south elevations of the farmhouse (ERA, 2022). 7ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 1.3 Site Description and Context The Site comprises a large farmstead property, known municipally as 5113 Old Brock Road. Located at the northeastern edge of Claremont, in Pickering, the Site’s principal frontage extends along Old Brock Road north of Lane Street. The Site also has a large frontage on Brock Road extending between Central Street and the railway corridor. The Site contains the following buildings and structures, which are set against an agricultural landscape of open fields and mature trees: • A two-storey brick farmhouse, set back from Old Brock Road. It is estimated to have been built by G.M. Forsyth in 1916. The front yard features a semi-circular driveway lined with mature trees. • A frame barn with a concrete foundation, located immediate- ly north of the farmhouse. It is estimated to have been built during the early-to-mid-20th century. • Four silos, with one located beside the barn, and the remain- ing three clustered near centre of the Site at the end of a drive lane. Old Brock Road transects the village of Claremont, an historic rural settlement in the City of Pickering. The area north of Lane Street is defined by its rural context, which includes a collection of late- 19th century houses near the railway, and an agricultural landscape (i.e. the Site) on the east side of Old Brock Road. Developed as a northern extension of the village following the arrival of the railway, the area contains notable examples of late-19th century residential architecture, including the Tobias Castor House (5230 Old Brock Road), built circa 1890. To the west of the site is a natural area along Mitchell Creek, a tributary of the East Duffins Creek. There is also some infill development along its edge, on the west side of Old Brock Road, mostly in the form of mid-to-late 20th century bungalow-style houses. To the south of the Site is the main village of Claremont, which is centred on the “four corners” intersection at Old Brock Road and Central Street. The 19th-century village, which is laid out on a grid pattern, has been encircled by contemporary (post-1980) residential subdivisions. Farmhouse (ERA, 2022). Barn (ERA, 2022). Silo, beside barn (ERA, 2022). Silos, near centre of the Site (ERA, 2022). 8 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT Aerial photograph showing the Site, shaded blue (Google Maps, 2022; annotated by ERA). Ol d B r o c k R d Central St Br o c k R d Railwa y 9ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 Preliminary servicing plan for the Site, showing the proposed layout of the subdivision (SCS Consulting Group; annotated by ERA). 10 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT 1.4 Heritage Status On-Site Heritage Resources The Site is not listed on the City’s Heritage Register, or designated under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (“OHA”). It is not located within a designated Heritage Conservation District (“HCD”). The Site is not included on the City’s Inventory of Historic Properties (2002), however it was identified in the Claremont Secondary Plan Study Heritage Inventory (1978), attached in Appendix D. Adjacent Heritage Resources The Site is not considered adjacent to any properties that are listed on the City’s Heritage Register, or designated under Section 29, Part IV of the OHA. 11ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 2 Background rESEarch and analySiS 2.1 Historical Context Indigenous History (Pre-1800s) The Site forms part of the territory of the Wendat, Haudenosaunee, and Mississaugas (part of the Anishinaabe Nation). For each of these nations, rivers and waterways were central to traditional ways of life before the arrival of European settlers. The Site is located just east of Mitchell Creek, a tributary of the East Duffins Creek. Within the Duffins Creek Watershed, there are approximately seventeen registered archaeological sites from the Late Woodland Period (AD 700-1651), a period associated with the emergence of horticulture and semi-permanent villages in Southern Ontario. The Draper Site (AlGt-2), an ancestral Wendat village, is the largest known village site in the Duffins Creek Watershed. Located near Highway 7 approximately eight kilometers southwest of Claremont, it was excavated in the mid-1970s in anticipation of the new Toronto Airport in Pickering. Following the northward dispersal of the Wendat, the Seneca established a village known as Ganatsekwyagon at the mouth of the Rouge River in the mid-to-late 1600s, at the foot of the Toronto Carrying Place Trail (east branch); an important portage route which connected Lake Ontario with the upper Great Lakes. Towards the end of the 17th-century, the Mississaugas arrived in southern Ontario, where they continued to follow a yearly cycle of movement and resource-harvesting along the rivers in the Greater Toronto Area, including the Credit, Humber, Don and Rouge. The mouth of Duffins Creek would have been used by the Mississaugas as a seasonal hunting and fishing grounds. After the British conquest of New France in 1763, the British Crown issued a royal proclamation, which established guidelines for the colonization of Indigenous territories in North America. The proclamation stated that Indigenous peoples held title to their territory until it was ceded by a treaty. Despite this, the Site was not subject to a treaty until 1923, after the area had been settled by Euro-Canadians. In 1923, the Williams Treaties were signed between seven Anishinaabe First Nations and the Crown. In 2018, the Williams Treaties First Nations negotiated an out-of-court settlement with the Provincial and Federal govern- ments, contending that the Crown did not provide proper compensation and unjustly denied harvesting rights. 1688 French map of Lake Ontario, show- ing the village of Ganatsekwyagon and the Carrying Place trail. The approximate location of the Site is indicated with a blue arrow (university of Toronto Map and Data Library). 12 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT Pickering Township The Constitutional Act of 1791 established the new colony of upper Canada (today’s Ontario), and set in place a British colonial administration. Shortly thereafter, the government began to survey the province’s first counties and townships, with the townships divided into a grid of 200-acre lots organized by concession lines and sideroads. The Site was located in Pickering Township, which was originally part of York County before being partitioned off to the newly-formed Ontario County in 1852. The grid pattern superimposed a colonial understanding of land over the seasonal and resource-dependent relationship held by the Mississaugas, who were displaced from their territory and left with small reserves. In 1806, Joseph Wixson patented Lot 18 in the Ninth Concession of Pickering Township, a 200-acre farm lot which included the Site. The Wixson brothers, Joseph and Joshua, were among the first European settlers in the northern part of Pickering Township, having arrived from New York towards the end of the 18th century. The Wixons settled on either side of Brock Road, north of the 9th Concession, where Joseph is said to have cleared approximately 400 acres. Writing in 1973, local historian Robert A. Miller noted that “Joseph took up land and built his house just where the road deviates between Claremont and the C.P.R. Station, close to the big elm tree on the west side of Brock Road. Joshua settled on the east side of Brock Road and built his house south east of the C.P.R” (Miller, 1973, pg.158). In the 1830s, a number of English families settled on the Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Concessions of Pickering Township, including the Tracys, Gosticks, Palmers, Bennetts and Winters. Brock Road and Kingston Road were the only main roads in the township at this time. By the mid-19th century, the northern part of Pickering Township was emerging as a productive agricultural landscape, as described by local historian Lillian Gauslin in 1974: “houses and barns were built. Pigs, cows and horses were found on almost every farm, and large clearings were to be seen almost everywhere. The log houses were giving way to brick and then to stone” (Gauslin, 1974, pg.20). It was during this period that crossroads hamlets, such as Claremont, were established as rural centres for religion, education and commerce. Historical sketch of Pickering Township, showing the crossroads settlements along Brock Road during the early-to- mid-19th century. The Site is indicated with a blue arrow (Pickering Library). 13ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 1860 Tremaine’s Map of Ontario County. Lot 18 in the Ninth Concession is shaded blue. The location of the Site is indicated with a blue circle (university of Toronto; annotated by ERA). 14 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT Historic Ontario Farmstead Typology (ERA). Historic Ontario Farmsteads Farms of this era in the Site’s vicinity, and elsewhere in Ontario, were typically characterized by a combination of built and landscape features that today we recognize as the Ontario Farmstead. Farmhouses formed only one central component of the interrelated features of these productive agricultural landscapes. Other typological features of the Ontario Farmstead included barns, fields, tree-lined driveways, and orchards. 15ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 The Village of Claremont The origins of Claremont can be traced back to the 1840s, when the first businesses were established at the “four corners” (Old Brock Road and the Ninth Concession). In 1844, John C. Michell opened a general store on the east side of Brock Road, approximately half a mile south of the present village. Not long after, in 1847, a stone store was erected by John Hamilton on the southwest corner of the intersection, which was leased to Thomas Noble. Originally known as Noble’s Corners, by the 1850s the village featured several stores and a tavern, along with a number of cottage industries, including: two blacksmiths, a saw mill, a wagon-maker, a cooper, a tanner and several grist mills. Change came in 1884 with the arrival of the Canadian Pacific Railway just north of the village,transforming Claremont from “an insignificant little settlement to a thriving village” (Gauslin, 1974, pg.27). The railway allowed for increased settlement in the northern part of the township, while facilitating the shipment of grain and livestock. Two grain elevators, along with coal and lime sheds, were constructed near the station. As detailed in the Claremont Secondary Plan Study Heritage Inventory, “a proportionately high number of the hamlet’s buildings date from around this [railway] period, especially in the northern sector near the tracks, when a noticeable increase in population took place” (Ian MacPherson Associates, 1978, pg.6). Old Brock Road in Claremont, no date (Pickering Library). 1877 Map of the Village of Claremont, from the Ontario County Atlas. The loca- tion of the Site is indicated with a blue arrow (Gauslin, 1974, pg.22; annotated by ERA). 16 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT Looking south on Old Brock Road in Claremont, early-20th century. Likely at the bend in the road just south of the Site (Pick- ering Library). Looking south on Old Brock Road from just south of the railway, early-20th century (Pickering Library). 17ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 2.2 Site Evolution Based on the historical research outlined below, it is estimated that the existing farmhouse on the Site was built in 1916 by G.M. Forsyth, a prominent municipal leader and farmer. It is estimated that the barn and silo were built during the early-to-mid 20th century, followed by the three silos at the centre of the Site post-1954. The following section includes a detailed chronological summary of the Site’s history of ownership and development. The existing farmhouse and outbuildings are located on Lot 18 in the Ninth Concession of Pickering Township, which was patented by Joseph Wixson in 1806. A review of secondary sources suggests that Joshua Wixson, Joseph’s brother, settled on the east side of Old Brock Road (on or near the Site) towards the end of the 18th century. By the 1860s, as illustrated by Tremaine’s Map of Ontario County, the 200-acre farm lot had been subdivided into a number of smaller parcels, with the area southeast of Old Brock Road (including the Site) owned by Joseph Wixson. Although many of the land registry records are illegible, it is estimated that Joseph Wixson sold the property in 1871 to John Reid, who was recorded as the owner in the 1877 County Atlas. The Tweedsmuir History provides further insight, indicating that John Reid “lived on the old, Joseph Wixson property, just north of the bend on the Brock Road” (Claremont Women’s Institute, pg.113). According to the 1901 census, the Reid farmstead included a composite (i.e. wood/frame) farmhouse with ten rooms, along with four barns, stables or other outbuildings. Several years earlier, in 1896, the Pickering News reported that “John Reid has the stonework of his barn about completed and the frame work started. The old barn will be torn down” (Pickering News, 26 June 1896). In 1903, John Reid placed the farm on the market, with an advertisement in the Pickering News reading “[...] purchase of that valuable farm, known as the Old Wixon Homestead, containing about 60 acres more or less, and situated between Claremont Village and C.P.R. station” (Pickering News, 10 July 1903). In March of the following year, it was reported that Daniel Forsyth had purchased the John Reid farm, although tax assessment rolls indicate that he would have granted the lot to his son, George Malcolm (G.M.) Forsyth, shortly after. In 1905, tax assessors recorded 163 acres of land on the southern half of Lots 17 and 18 under G.M. Forsyth’s ownership. The value of buildings on this property was assessed at $1,300. 1860 Tremaine’s Map of Ontario County. The Site is shaded blue (university of Toronto; annotated by ERA). 1877 Ontario County Atlas. The Site is indicated with a blue circle (McGill uni- versity; annotated by ERA). Advertisement for the sale of John Reid’s farm (Pickering News, 10 Jul 1903). 18 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT In May of 1916, the Pickering News announced that G.M. Forsyth was “making preparations for the erection of a fine new residence” on his farm (Pickering News, 19 May 1916). In October of the same year, it was reported that “the frame for G.M. Forsyth’s new residence is now up. When completed this will be one of the prettiest homes in Pickering Township” (Pickering News, 13 October 1916). The brickwork was laid by a local mason, C.H. Found, shortly after the frame was completed (Pickering News, 20 October 1916). C.H. Found was responsible for a number of other buildings in the Claremont area, including the village fire hall and library (Gauslin, 1974, pg.175). In June of 1917, G.M Forsyth moved into his new residence (Pickering News, 15 June 1917). Several months later, Forsyth commissioned a landscape gardener to lay out the grounds in front of his new house: “James Douce, landscape gardener, of Toronto, accompanied by James Stevens, of Toronto, was here one day last week, when he laid out G.M. Forsyth’s grounds in front of his beautiful residence” (Pickering News, 3 October 1917). According to the 1921 census, G.M. Forsyth lived in a seven-room brick house in Claremont along with Lillian Forsyth and their two daughters. While the exact location of G.M. Forsyth’s house is not documented in the available historical record, it is estimated to be the extant farmhouse on the Site. This is supported by secondary sources, which note that “in 1916, G.M. Forsyth built a new home and operated the [former John Reid] farm located in north Claremont” (Gauslin, 1974, pg.262). A review of available Tax Assessment Rolls between 1912 and 1921 provides inconclusive data. In 1912, 1917 and 1921, tax assessors recorded 109 acres of land under Forsyth’s ownership on Lot 17, however the value of buildings declined from $500 to $250 during this period. This suggests that the farmhouse was built on Lot 18, despite the property being omitted from Forsyth’s assessment. There is no evidence that the house was built for Thomas Gregg, as documented in the Claremont Secondary Plan Study Heritage Inventory. The available Tax Assessment Rolls between 1905 and 1924 indicate that Gregg owned land on Lot 23 in the Eight Concession and Lot 26 in the Ninth Concession, west of Claremont. Further, there are no (legible) land transactions between G.M. Forsyth and Thomas Gregg, apart from the sale of a small quarter-acre parcel on Lot 18 in September, 1922, after Gregg had constructed his own residence. In June of 1922, it was reported that “Thos. Gregg has the excavating for his new residence Photograph of the farmhouse on the Site (Claremont Secondary Plan Heritage Inventory, 1978). 1922 topographical map showing the Site, indicated with a blue circle. Note the black square indicating the pres- ence of a building (Ontario Council of university Libraries; annotated by ERA). Newspaper brief announcing the con- struction of G.M. Forsyth’s new resi- dence (Pickering News, 19 May 1916). 19ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 completed and the cement foundation constructed” (Pickering News, 8 June 1922). Of note, the cement foundation of Gregg’s house is inconsistent with the stone foundation found on the Site. In 1946, G.M. Forsyth sold his farm to Edgar Ward for $18,000. Following the sale, it was reported that “Edgar Ward of Balsam is moving into the Forsyth home” (Pickering News, 4 April 1947). The 1954 aerial photograph shows a barn and silo to the north of the farmhouse, however the three silos at the centre of the Site had not yet been constructed. Between 1969 and 1978, a series of land transactions involving the Wards and Toko Investments were recorded in the abstract index for Lot 18. In 1990, Toko Investments submitted a development application for 27 single-detached lots on the Site, however the plans never came to fruition. 1954 aerial photograph showing the barn and silo to the north of the farmhouse, indicated with a pink circle. The location of the three unbuilt silos is indicated with a dashed orange circle (McMaster university; annotated by ERA). Newspaper brief announcing the sale of the G.M. Forsyth farm to Edgar Ward (Pickering News, 1 February 1946). 1967 Map of Pickering Township showing the Site, shaded blue, on Edgar Ward’s 109-acre farm (Pickering Library). 20 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT George Malcolm (G.M.) Forsyth Below is the biography of G.M. Forsyth, as found in the Tweedsmuir History: Mr. Forsyth was one of Pickering Township’s most active and enthusiastic municipal leaders. During his colourful political career, which extended from 1901 until his death, Mr. Forsyth held almost every major office in both the Township of Pickering and the Police Village of Claremont. He was intensely proud of his municipal record. He was one of the Township’s most noted historians. His compact office-library carried records dating back to early pioneer life in the municipality. He was active in the South Ontario Liberal Association. Mr. Forsyth started at the bottom of the municipal ladder and climaxed his career by being chosen Warden of Ontario County in 1923. In 1901, he was elected to the Claremont Public School Board, an office he held off and on for thirty years. He was a board member when the Continuation School was established in Claremont. Other members at that time were Dr. Ralph Brodie and Albert Rawson. He was a charter member of the Claremont Cemetery Board from 1908 until his death. He was a member of the first board of Trustees when Claremont was declared a Police Village in 1908 and held that position until 1917. G.M. Forsyth was elected to Pickering Council in 1921. From 1923 to 1926, he was Deputy Reeve and in 1927 he became Reeve of Pickering Township holding the office for two years. He had been appointed the Claremont representative of the Hydro Commission and during his term as Reeve, he was instrumental in bringing hydro to Claremont. “Mac” was the son of Daniel Forsyth and Rachel Barry, who settled first around Glasgow, in Uxbridge Township and then in Claremont. He married Lillian Cooper of Claremont and they had four children: Viola, Mary (deceased in 1943), Georgina and Barry, who died in infancy. Viola and Georgina sold their home in 1973 and moved to Markham. Mr. Forsyth had many interests but farming was his livelihood. He specialized in breeding Shorthorn cattle and Clydesdale horses. He was a charter member of the Ontario Plowmen’s Association and was called on to judge cattle at many rural fairs. Mr. Edgar Ward purchased the Forsyth Farm in 1946 and Mr. Forsyth built a lovely red brick bungalow at the corner of Wixson Street and the Ninth Concession, where he spent his retirement years. He died in 1959. 1910 photograph of G.M. Forsyth, from a collage titled “the business men of Claremont” (Pickering Library). 21ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 3 cultural hEritagE valuE 3.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Analysis The Site has been evaluated against the Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O.Reg 9/06) “Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest” under the OHA. O. Reg. 9/06 was developed for the purpose of identifying and evaluating the cultural heritage value or interest of a property proposed for protection under Section 29 of the OHA. The purpose of the criteria is to provide a consistent approach for the evaluation of heritage properties. O. Reg. 9/06 states that “a property may be designated under section 29 of the Act if it meets one or more of the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest”. While meeting one or more of the criteria may be sufficient justification, in some cases, for protection of a property under the OHA, O. Reg 9/06 does not provide a clear threshold or automatic mandate for designation. Based on historical research, our evaluation finds that the Site meets the O. Reg. 9/06 criteria for design/physical, historical/associative and contextual value. As such, the property is a candidate for designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the OHA. • It has design value as a representative example of an historic Ontario farmstead, including a representative early-20th century American Foursquare farmhouse. • It has historical/associative value for its direct association with G.M. Forsyth, a prominent municipal leader and farmer who is historically significant to the community of Claremont. • It has contextual value for defining, maintaining, and support- ing a rural character along Old Brock Road in Claremont. 22 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT Value (quoted from Ontario Reg. 9/06)Y/N Assessment of 5113 Old Brock Road 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,Y The property is a representative example of an historic Ontario farmstead, evidenced by its farmhouse, barn, and silos, which form part of an agricultural landscape of open fields and mature (front-yard) trees. As an individual component of the farmstead, the farmhouse is a fine representa- tive example of an early-20th century American Foursquare farmhouse. ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or N The property does not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. The farmhouse displays craftsmanship that is typical of the early- 20th century period. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. N The property does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 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 has a direct association with G.M. Forsyth, a prominent municipal leader and farmer who is historically significant to the commu- nity. Forsyth held many major offices in both the Township of Pickering and the Village of Claremont over the course of his political career. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a commu- nity or culture, or N The property does not offer new knowledge or a greater understanding of particular aspects of the community’s history 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 architect or builder of the farmhouse is not documented in the historical record. There is no evidence that the mason, C.H. Found, or landscape gardener, James Douce, are significant to the com- munity. 23ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, Y The property is important in defining, maintain- ing and supporting the rural character Old Brock Road in Claremont, an historic village in the former Township of Pickering. Old Brock Road, north of Lane Street, can be characterized by its agricultural landscape on the east side of the road (i.e. the Site), which forms the backdrop to the late-19th century village fabric. The area contains a concentration of late-19th century houses near the railway, built in a variety of vernacular styles, with mature front-yard trees creating a green edge along the road. ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or N The property does not have a relationship to its broader context that is important to understand the meaning of the property and/or its context. iii. is a landmark. N The property is not a landmark. 24 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT 3.2 Draft Statement of Significance Description of Property – 5113 Old Brock Road 5113 Old Brock Road is a farmstead property located on the east side of Old Brock Road in the village of Claremont, Pickering. The property contains a two-storey brick farmhouse, a frame barn with a concrete foundation, and four silos. Statement of Cultural Heritage Value 5113 Old Brock Road has design value as a representative example of an historic Ontario farmstead, evidenced by its farmhouse, barn, and silos, which are set against an agricultural landscape of open fields. Built in 1916, the farmhouse is valued as a fine representative example of an early-20th century American Foursquare farmhouse. This is expressed through its square plan, two-storey scale, hipped roof, and varied design details, including the wrap-around verandah with its two-storey frontispiece. 5113 Old Brock Road has historical/associative value for its direct association with G.M. Forsyth, an historically significant municipal leader and farmer in Claremont. Forsyth held many major offices in Pickering Township and the Village of Claremont over the course of his political career, culminating in his appointment as Warden of Ontario County in 1923. During his term as Reeve of Pickering Township, he was instrumental in bringing hydro-electric power to Claremont. This association is expressed through the grandeur of the farmhouse and its estate-style landscape treatment. 5113 Old Brock Road has contextual value for defining, maintaining, and supporting a rural character along Old Brock Road in Claremont. Sited on the northern edge of the village, the property’s agricultural landscape forms the backdrop to the late-19th century village fabric. Description of Heritage Attributes Key attributes that express the property’s value as a representative example of an historic Ontario farmstead: • Farmhouse, set back from and oriented towards Old Brock Road, with front-yard mature trees; • Paired barn and silo, located to the north of the farmhouse; • Grouping of silos near the centre of the site, accessed by a drive lane; and 25ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 • Rear fields. Key attributes that express the value of the farmhouse as a fine representative example of an early-20th century American Foursquare farmhouse, with eclectic architectural and landscape features: • Scale, form and massing of the two-storey house, with its square plan and flat-topped hipped roof; • Wrap-around verandah, including the two-storey frontispiece, pedimented roof, and Tuscan columns; • Five-sided single-storey bay window, covered by the veran- dah; • Varied segmental-arch window openings; • Dormer windows and chimneys protruding from the attic; • Brick materials, laid in a stretcher bond pattern; • Raised cut-stone foundation; Key attributes that express the property’s value for its direct association with G.M. Forsyth: • Grandeur and scale of the farmhouse, distinguished by its wrap-around verandah and two-storey pedimented frontis- piece. • Siting of the farmhouse atop a landscaped pedestal, marked by a retaining wall and split staircase. • Semi-circular front driveway lined with mature trees. Key attributes that express the property’s value in defining, maintaining, and supporting the rural character of Old Brock Road in Claremont: • Its location on the east side of Old Brock Road, just north of the village of Claremont; • Views of the farmhouse, barn, and silos across fields from Old Brock Road; and • Mature front-yard trees, fields, and scrub along the Old Brock Road frontage. 26 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT 4 aSSESSmEnt of ExiSting condition DEFINITION OF TERMS The building components were graded using the following assessment system: Excellent: Superior aging performance. Functioning as intended; no deterioration observed. Good: Normal Result. Functioning as in- tended; normal deterioration observed; no maintenance anticipated within the next five years. Fair: Functioning as intended. Normal deterioration and minor distress observed; maintenance will be required within the next three to five years to maintain func- tionality. Poor: Not functioning as intended; sig- nificant deterioration and distress ob- served; maintenance and some repair required within the next year to restore functionality. Defective: Not functioning as intended; significant deterioration and major dis- tress observed, possible damage to sup- port structure; may present a risk; must be dealt with immediately. ERA performed a visual inspection of the property in September 2022. All observations were carried out from grade. Inspections were limited to visible exterior envelope features such as the brick facade, brick piers, stone foundation, brick chimney, windows, doors, wood porch, wood dormers, wood soffits, asphalt shingles, flashings, rainwater management systems (gutters and downspouts), and the masonry retaining wall. The roof areas of the buildings were not accessible at the time of the inspection. The review does not include interior spaces, structural, mechanical, electrical or plumbing systems/elements. Farmhouse Overall, the exterior of the farmhouse appears to be in fair to poor condition. The exterior facade is clad in red brick (stretcher bond), which appears to be in fair condition, with some areas of poor condition showing step cracking, damaged bricks, mortar loss, efflorescence, and staining. The brick porch piers appear to be in fair condition with areas of poor condition showing efflorescence, mortar loss, step cracking, and brick delamination. The brick chimneys appear to be in fair condition with some efflorescence. The stone foundation appears to be in good condition. The ground and second floor wood porch appears to be in poor condition with areas of wood rot, damage, delaminated and missing floor boards and soffit boards, damaged fascia boards, paint flaking, and deformation of the second floor porch structure. The wood porch stairs appear to be poor condition with areas of defective condition showing wood rot, delaminated wood, deformation, and biological staining. The wood dormers appear to be in fair condition and have been overclad with vinyl siding. The windows and doors appear to be modern inserts which are in good condition. The black asphalt shingles appear to be in poor to fair condition, with areas of poor condition showing curling and missing shingles. The wood fascia and soffits appear to be in fair condition, with areas of poor condition showing paint flaking, wood cracks, and unsympathetic repairs. Farmhouse porch condition (ERA, 2022). 27ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 The existing metal flashing, gutters, and downspouts appear to be in fair condition, with some areas of poor condition showing biological staining and vegetation growth in the gutters (requiring cleaning). The masonry retaining wall appears to be in poor condition, with areas of defective condition where the masonry has cracked, delaminated, and shifted. Barn Overall, the barn building exterior appears to be in poor condition. The concrete foundation appears to be in fair condition, with areas of poor condition showing step cracking and material delamination. The wood siding appears to be in poor to fair condition, with some areas of defective condition where there is missing and damaged siding. The existing window and door openings have been boarded up and were not reviewed. The existing metal roof appears to be in poor condition, with areas of rusting and deformed metal. The existing metal flashing, gutters, and downspouts appear to be in defective condition with areas of missing, damaged, and deformed gutters and downspouts. Retaining wall condition (ERA, 2022). Barn foundation condition (ERA, 2022). 28 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT Looking east towards the farmhouse from Old Brock Road. Note the semi-circular driveway, mature trees, and retaining wall (ERA, 2022). View of the farmhouse (ERA, 2022). 29ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 Farmhouse, west elevation (ERA, 2022). Farmhouse, west elevation and retaining wall (ERA, 2022). 30 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT Farmhouse, north elevation (ERA, 2022). Farmhouse, south elevation (ERA, 2022). 31ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 Farmhouse, east elevation (ERA, 2022). 32 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT Barn, south elevation (ERA, 2022). 33ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 Barn, west elevation (ERA, 2022). Barn, east elevation (ERA, 2022). 34 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT Barn, north elevation (ERA, 2022). 35ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 Silo, beside barn (ERA, 2022). 36 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT Silos, at centre of Site (ERA, 2022). 37ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 View of the silos from Old Brock Road (ERA, 2022). Looking north on Old Brock Road from the Site (ERA, 2022). 38 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT Looking north on Old Brock Road from the Site (ERA, 2022). Looking south on Old Brock Road from the Site (ERA, 2022). 39ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 5 dEScription of thE propoSEd dEvElopmEnt The proposed development involves the full retention of the existing farmhouse within a new residential subdivision, including 71 lots for detached dwellings, new public roads, a new public park, open space buffers, and two stormwater management facilities. Franklin Street, which currently terminates at the south property line, will be extended north to Lane Street through the Site. A new street (currently “Street A”) is proposed to the north of the farmhouse, providing vehicular and pedestrian access to the subdivision from Old Brock Road. To accommodate new residential lots (nos. 27, 29, and 30), the existing barn and silos are proposed to be removed. The farmhouse will be retained in-situ on a dedicated lot (no. 71), surrounded by green space, with minimal regrading along the north lot line and a replacement septic bed to the south of the farmhouse. It will be set back from its new north, east, and south property lines by 24 metres, 19 metres, and 36 metres, respectively. The existing 37-metre setback from Old Brock Road will be maintained, along with the semi-circular driveway, mature trees, and retaining wall in front of the farmhouse. The northernmost driveway access of the semi-circular driveway may be relocated to Street A, due to its close proximity to the new intersection, however the southernmost access will remain in its existing location. At the northeast corner of the lot, a new detached garage is proposed. Per the terms of the Site’s sale agreement, Lot 71 will remain in the ownership of the previous owner of the full development site. North of Lot 71, three new proposed residential lots will have frontage onto Old Brock Road (lots 30, 11 and 1). Per the terms of a mediated settlement with the City of Pickering, these lots are proposed to be separated and sheltered from Old Brock Road via a 1.8-metre wood privacy fence and continuous white spruce hedgerow. Further, these new houses will be subject to specific architectural control guidelines, which are currently being developed by the proponent’s architectural team. 40 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT Preliminary servicing plan for the Site, showing the location of the farmhouse, to be retained, and barn/silos, to be removed (SCS Consulting Group). Farmhouse (to be retained)Barn (to be removed)Silos (to be removed) 41ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 Preliminary servicing plan for the Site, showing the proposed layout of the subdivision. The farmhouse lot, Lot 71, is highlighted in blue (SCS Consulting Group; annotated by ERA). 42 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT 6 impact aSSESSmEnt Below is the framework provided by the Province for assessing negative impacts to a cultural heritage resource. Negative impact on a cultural heritage resource include, but are not limited to: Destruction of any, or part of any, sig- nificant heritage attributes or features; Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; Shadows created that alter the appear- ance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden; Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; Direct or indirect obstruction of signifi- cant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site al- teration to fill in the formerly open spaces; Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeo- logical resource. (Ontario Heritage Toolkit). The Site is not listed on the City’s Heritage Register, or designated under Section 29, Part IV of the OHA. Based on historical research, our evaluation finds that the Site meets the O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria for design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual value. ERA has thus prepared a draft Statement of Significance to accompany the Site’s recommended designation under Part IV of the OHA. The proposed development anticipates the following impacts to the Site’s cultural heritage value, as identified in ERA’s draft Statement of Significance: • Removal of the barn and silos to accommodate new resi- dential lots: the barn and silos, both of which contribute to the Site’s value as a representative historic Ontario farmstead and are identified as heritage attributes, are both proposed to be removed in service of the proposed new subdivision neighbourhood; • Isolation of the farmhouse from its agricultural context on the Site: the proposed development anticipates the erection of a suburban community on the historic farm, which repre- sents the disconnection of the farmhouse building from its historic rural context, and the reduction of its lot size to 0.51 hectares; • New construction in the immediate vicinity of the farm- house, including new houses on estate size lots, a detached garage, a replacement septic bed, and a new road: the influx of new development presents an impact on the extant resource’s legibility as an historic farmhouse and its promi- nence as an historic resource; and • Alteration of the Site’s existing rural landscape and topog- raphy along Old Brock Road: the Site’s cultural heritage value as a representative Ontario farmstead is communicated in part by the expansive rural landscape along the east side of Old Brock Road. Alterations to this landscape are proposed, including the addition of four new residential lots fronting Old Brock Road, the development of the expansive land- scape beyond them, and the installation of a suburban-style 1.8-metre wood privacy fence and continuous hedgerow along the Old Brock Road Site boundary. 43ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 The potential impacts identified on the previous page are proposed to be partially mitigated through the strategy recommended in Section 7 of this report, which includes various landscape and design measures. As an individual heritage resource, the farmhouse will not be adversely impacted by the proposed development. All of its draft heritage attributes will be conserved, including the existing front-yard setback and views of the farmhouse from Old Brock Road. Although a minimal change in grade is proposed (up to 0.60m) – with an upward slope towards the north lot line and a gradual decline as it nears the west lot line – it is not anticipated that any landscape features will be impacted. The realignment of the semi-circular driveway’s northernmost entrance constitutes a neutral impact to the Site’s cultural heritage value. With respect to the proposed septic bed south of the farmhouse, the size and geometry will be confirmed at the building permit application stage, at which point efforts will be made to retain any trees within its vicinity, and in particular to retain trees that obscure views of the septic bed from the front lawn and from Old Brock Road. Any trees requiring removal will be replaced. 44 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT 7 conSidErEd altErnativES and mitigation StratEgiES The potential impacts of the proposed development on the Site’s cultural heritage value are proposed to be partially mitigated through the implementation of a buffer zone around the retained farmhouse, and a recommended design and landscape strategy for new development, which would interpret the Site’s rural character. It is recommended that the mitigation strategies be incorporated and finalized through the Detailed Design stage. Impact: removal of the barn and silos The barn and silos are proposed to be removed to accommodate new residential lots. To mitigate this impact, it is recommended that the barn’s wood materials be salvaged for future reuse, either as part of an on-site installation or as an off-site contribution to other local historic barn structures, to be determined as the design/development process advances. Impact: isolation of the farmhouse from its agricultural context To mitigate the impact of the farmhouse’s isolation from its sprawling agricultural context, a green buffer zone has been maintained around the farmhouse. The farmhouse will be retained in-situ on a dedicated lot, with generous setbacks from the north, east, and south properties lines (24 metres, 19 metres, and 36 metres). The existing setback from Old Brock Road will be conserved, along with the semi-circular driveway and mature front-yard trees. The northernmost driveway access of the semi-circular driveway may be relocated to Street A, due to its close proximity to the new intersection, however the southernmost access will remain in its existing location. In addition to creating a buffer zone around the retained heritage building, the setbacks will conserve the farmhouse’s historical relationship to Old Brock Road, in order to mitigate the impact of reducing the farmstead lot size. This is consistent with the policy direction set out in the City of Pickering’s Official Plan, which states “retain the original location and orientation of such [heritage] structures” (8.9 (a)). Impact: new construction in the immediate vicinity of the farmhouse To mitigate the impact of new neighbourhood construction in the immediate vicinity of the farmhouse, a set of specific architectural control guidelines are currently being developed for the new estate 45ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 lots along Old Brock Road, which are proposed to incorporate a mix of traditional and contemporary styles, and materials like siding, stone and brick. It is ERA’s recommendation that the architectural control guidelines be expressly crafted to interpret and communicate rural / agricultural built character - particularly for the four houses flanking Old Brock Road north of the farmhouse, and for any other houses that would be considered adjacent to the farmhouse. This contemporary interpretation of rural built character might include simple box forms and gabled roof pitches, and siding as the predominant material, with contemporary masonry employed as an accent. It is recommended that the houses flanking Old Brock Road and any others adjacent to the farmhouse be designed to be contemporary in style, so that they reflect their own architectural era and allow the farmhouse to remain prominent and distinct as an historic resource. The new garage on the farmhouse lot is currently proposed to embody this approach, with a contemporary design and siting northeast of the house that references and interprets the historic barns on the farmstead (including the extant one currently proposed to be removed). ERA recommends interpretive design elements that may include wood double-doors for any garage bays, vertical board siding and a simple gabled roof pitch, as well as a colour palette that complements the farmhouse. With respect to the new road north of the farmhouse, it is anticipated that the entrance will be designed as a semi-urbanized right-of-way cross-section for the portion of Street A adjacent to the existing lot, which includes a narrowed pavement width (7m from 8.5m) and a ditch only on the south side of the roadway, to conserve its rural character. Other recommended strategies include alternatives to asphalt (e.g. interlocking paving), non-manicured green landscaping at the edges (e.g. bioswales), and trees (3-4) on either side of the street as it enters the subdivision. The proposed stormwater management pond on the north side of the new road, which provides landscaped buffer space between the farmhouse and its developed surroundings, is recommended to be designed with an explicitly rural character. Existing condition along the east side of Old Brock Road (ERA, 2022). 46 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT Impact: alteration of the Site’s existing rural landscape and topography along Old Brock Road The introduction of four new residential lots with flankage onto Old Brock Road (one south and three north of the farmhouse) will present an impact to the current expansive rural landscape context on the east side of Old Brock Road. There is a history of contemporary infill of the rural landscapes along Old Brock Road, for example in the mid-20th century when several new houses were built fronting onto the west side of the street, across from the Site. unlike the precedents along the west side, in this instance the redevelopment of the street’s east side is characterized by a suburban subdivision approach, which includes the orientation of houses flanking Old Brock Road to internal streets instead, and a 1.8-metre-high wood privacy fence and continuous white spruce hedgerow along the extent of Old Brock Road to screen the development from the street. In order to address the impact of the conversion of Old Brock Road’s east side from a rural streetscape to a suburban neighbourhood, it is ERA’s recommendation that a mitigation strategy could include: • The location of the continuous white spruce hedgerow along the west side of the fence, to screen views of the suburban wood privacy fence from Old Brock Road; • Retention of the existing landscape character along Old Brock Road, including existing landscape features like random/ irregular scrub, tall fallow-field grasses, and existing trees where possible; • Low, wood, rural-style fencing framing or marking the entrances into the subdivision streets; and • Contemporary interpretation of rural character for the build- ings flanking Old Brock Road, which might include simple box forms and gabled roof pitches, and siding as the predomi- nant material, with contemporary masonry employed as an accent. 47ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 8 rEcommEndEd conSErvation StratEgy The proposed conservation approach is rehabilitation, including the introduction of 71 new residential lots to the Site, and the full retention of the 1916 farmhouse in-situ. A buffer zone is proposed around the farmhouse, with generous setbacks from the north, east, and south properties lines (24 metres, 19 metres, and 36 metres). The existing setback from Old Brock Road will be maintained, along with the front- yard mature trees, semi-circular driveway, and retaining wall. The farmhouse itself is proposed for preservation, maintaining its existing materials, form, and integrity while conserving its heritage value. The conservation approach is supported by a broader design and landscape strategy, which includes a recommended interpretive rural landscape strategy, and recommended design guidelines for the new houses along Old Brock Road. These strategies, which are informed by the historic Ontario Farmstead typology, are intended to respond to the Site’s rural character, while making new work “physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place” (Standards and Guidelines, pg.23). Given that the farmhouse lot will be retained by the previous landowner, it is recommended that the property owner address the following baseline conservation scope, identified in the condition assessment in Section 4, as part of normal maintenance and repairs on an ongoing basis: • Repair of wrap-around verandah; • Repair and replacement of exterior stairs and retaining wall; • Repair and replacement of roof materials, where necessary; • Replacement of windows to match original profiles; and • Masonry and stone cleaning, repair, and replacement where necessary. Rehabilitation: the action or process of making possible a continuing or com- patible contemporary use of an historic place, or an individual component, while protecting its heritage value. Restoration: the action or process of ac- curately revealing, recovering or repre- senting the state of an historic place, or of an individual component, as it appeared at a particular period in its history, while protecting its heritage value. Preservation: the action or process of protecting, maintaining, and/or stabi- lizing the existing materials, form, and integrity of a historic place or of an indi- vidual component, while protecting its heritage value. (Standards and Guidelines for the Con- servation of Historic Places in Canada) 48 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT 9 concluSion and rEcommEndationS The Site is comprised of a farmstead property, including a farmhouse, barn, and four silos. Based on historical research, it is estimated that the farmhouse was built in 1916 by G.M. Forsyth, a prominent municipal leader and farmer in Claremont. Our evaluation finds that the property meets the O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria for design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual value. As such, the property is a candidate for designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the OHA. The proposed development involves the full retention of the farmhouse in-situ within a new residential subdivision, including 71 lots for detached dwellings. A buffer zone is proposed around the retained farmhouse, with generous setbacks from the north, east, and south properties lines. The existing setback from Old Brock Road will be maintained, along with the front-yard mature trees and semi-circular driveway. All of the identified heritage attributes relating to the farmhouse, as an individual component of the farmstead, will be conserved. The potential negative impacts of the proposed development are proposed to be partially mitigated through the implementation of a buffer zone around the retained farmhouse, and a recommended design and landscape strategy for new development, which would interpret the Site’s rural character. This would include design guidelines for the new houses along Old Brock Road, and an interpretive rural landscape strategy. Overall, the proposed development balances the planning and heritage objectives for the Site, in accordance with relevant provincial and municipal heritage policies, and the recognized professional standards in the field of heritage conservation in Canada. 49ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 appEndix a: projEct pErSonnEl Philip Evans OAA, MRAIC, ICOMOS, CAHP is a Principal at ERA and the founder of Culture of Outports and small. Over the course of 17 years working in the field of heritage conservation, he has led a wide range of conservation, adaptive reuse, design, and feasibility planning projects. Samantha Irvine JD, ICOMOS, CAHP is a Senior Associate with the heritage planning team at ERA, where she has overseen projects that impact culturally significant buildings, neighbourhoods and landscapes since 2015. She holds a BA in History and Sociology from McGill university (Great Distinction); MA degrees in Historical & Sustainable Architecture (NYu) and Sustainable urbanism (Wales); and a JD from Queen’s university. She is a member of the Ontario Bar Association and a former Fellow of Sustainable urbanism with the Prince’s Foundation in London, England. Emma Abramowicz CAHP is a Planner and Senior Project Manager at ERA Architects. She holds a BAH in History from Queen’s university, and a Master of Planning from Ryerson university. Her prior experience includes public-sector heritage work in Ontario and Alberta, including heritage planning and urban design in the Town of Banff, AB. Jamie Glasspool is a Heritage Planner at ERA Architects, specializing in historical research and analysis. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in urban Studies from McGill university, where he also completed a semester abroad at the university of Manchester. 50 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT appEndix B: liSt of SourcES Archives of Ontario. (n.d.). Assessment rolls 1901-1924 for Pickering Township. Claremont past and present. (1938). https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=171071&dbid=0 Claremont Women’s Institute. (n.d.). Tweedsmuir history. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=171298&dbid=0 Gauslin, L. M. (1974). From paths to planes: a story of the Claremont area. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=171275&dbid=0 Ian Macpherson Associates. (1978). Claremont secondary plan study heritage inventory. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=171187&dbid=0 Library and Archives Canada. (n.d.). Census 1901, 1911, 1921. https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/census/Pages/census.aspx McGill university. (2001). Canadian county atlas digital project. https://digital.library.mcgill.ca/countyatlas/ Miller, R. A. (1973). The Ontario village of Brougham. The Alger Press Limited. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=169099&dbid=0 Ontario Land Registry. (n.d.). Abstract index for concession 9 lot 18, Pickering Township. https://www.onland.ca/ui/40/books/search. https://www.onland.ca/ui/40/books/search Pickering Library. (n.d.). Local history collection digital archive. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/Welcome.aspx university of Toronto. (n.d.). Ontario historical county map project. https://utoronto.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html? 51ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 appEndix c: hEritagE policy rEviEw The following policy documents were reviewed in the preparation of this report: • Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Second Edition); • The Ontario Heritage Tool Kit; • Provincial Policy Statement (2020); • A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horse- shoe (2019); • Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O. 1990); • Durham Regional Official Plan (consolidated 2020); and • City of Pickering Official Plan, Edition 9 (consolidated 2022). Provincial Policy Statement (2020) The PPS guides the creation and implementation of planning policy across Ontario municipalities, and provides a framework for the conservation of heritage resources, including the following relevant policies: 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. 2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) The Growth Plan, 2019 is the Province of Ontario’s initiative to plan for growth and development in a way that supports economic prosperity, protects the environment, and helps communities achieve a high quality of life. Section 1.2.1 of Guiding Principles includes: Conserve and promote cultural heritage resources to support the social, economic, and cultural well-being of all communities, including First Nations and Métis communities. Conserved: means the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conserva- tion plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has been approved, accepted or adopted by the relevant planning authority and/or decision-maker. Mitigative measures and/ or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and as- sessments (PPS, 2020). 52 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT With the objective of “protecting what is valuable”, Section 4.2.7 of the Growth Plan (2020) states: 1. Cultural heritage resources will be conserved in order to foster a sense of place and benefit communities, particularly in strategic growth areas. Durham Regional Official Plan (2020) Section 2 of the Durham Regional Official Plan relates to the environment and provides the goal “to preserve and foster the attributes of communities and the historic and cultural heritage of the Region”. Cultural heritage policies include: 2.2.11 The conservation, protection and/or enhancement of Durham’s built and cultural heritage resources is encouraged. 2.3.49 Regional Council shall encourage Councils of the area municipalities to utilize the Ontario Heritage Act to conserve, protect and enhance the built and cultural heritage resources of the municipality, to establish Municipal Heritage Committees to consult regarding matters relating to built and cultural heritage resources planning and, the designation of heritage conservation districts and properties as provided for in the Ontario Heritage Act. City of Pickering Official Plan (2022) Chapter 8 of the Pickering Official Plan addresses cultural heritage, stating that “City Council shall respect its cultural heritage, and conserve and integrate important cultural heritage resources from all time periods into the community” (Policy 8.1). The following heritage policies are relevant to the Site: 8.8 City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, shall: (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; 53ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 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; Although not directly applicable to the Site, it should be noted that the Site borders the Hamlet of Claremont, a Rural Settlement identified in Chapter 13 of the Official Plan. Cultural heritage policies include: 13.12 City Council shall: (a) encourage opportunities for enhancing the historic village of Claremont through general or site specific zoning that allows the introduction of arts and craft studios, custom workshops and small-scale commercial enterprises on suitable sites, providing the historic character of the village and the interests of neighbouring residents are respected; 54 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT appEndix d: clarEmont SEcondary plan Study hEritagE invEntory (1978) Peer Review Letter | 5113 Old Brock Road Page 1 of 12 Attachment #4 HERITAGE | Studio Alex Rowse-Thompson MCIP RPP CAHP 149 Ordnance St. Kingston, ON, K7K 1G9 alex@heritagestudio.ca March 3, 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 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, PICKERING (HERITAGE STUDIO PROJECT 23-001-02) _____________________________________________________________________________________ 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 in response to a condition of the Draft Plan of Subdivision, approved in part by the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) Decision and subject to Minutes of Settlement, for the proposed residential subdivision of the lands at 5113 Old Brock Road. The following documents were reviewed as part of this process: Application Materials •Heritage Impact Assessment (ERA Architects Inc., December 9, 2022) •Draft Plan of Subdivision •Planning Opinion Report (Malone Given Parsons Ltd., July 2021) •Stage 1 & 2 Archaeological Report (Amick Consultants Ltd. Archaeology, April 2015) Project Background Materials •Minutes of Settlement, Ontario Land Tribunal, June 15, 2022 (OLT Case No. PL171210) •City of Pickering Terms of Reference for a Heritage Impact Assessment •A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Peer Review Letter | 5113 Old Brock Road Page 2 of 12 • Durham Regional Official Plan • 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 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND This peer review of the Heritage Impact Assessment by ERA Architects Inc. (ERA) assesses the report findings and provides an opinion on whether it is consistent with the existing heritage policy framework (municipal, provincial, and federal). The property, known municipally as 5113 Old Brock Road, is located just north of Lane Street, between Old Brock Road and Brock Road, in the Hamlet of Claremont. The property is approximately 38.18 hectares (94 acres) and contains an agricultural landscape including a two-and-a-half storey brick farmhouse, a barn and four silos. This property has been the subject of development applications since 1990, including a change in ownership and appeal process initiated in 2017 and concluding with a final decision in August 2022. The OLT decision approved, in part, the Zoning By-Law Amendment and the Draft Plan of Subdivision for the residential subdivision of the lands at 5113 Old Brock Road, subject to the conditions of the Draft Plan of Subdivision approval contained within the Minutes of Settlement. The residential subdivision includes: • 71 residential lots (70 new homes and the retention of the existing farmhouse) • New public roads • Stormwater management ponds • A new public park The property has no heritage status, nor is it considered to be adjacent to a designated heritage resource. However, the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) Minutes of Settlement for the property (OLT Case Number OLT-22-002250) required that an HIA be provided as a condition of Draft Plan Approval. The submission of the HIA report by ERA follows a lengthy timeframe and complex appeal process. Typically, an HIA would be completed simultaneously with a development proposal, thereby allowing an iterative design process. Consequently, the ability of the submitted HIA report to inform the layout and design of the development is limited. This peer review letter Peer Review Letter | 5113 Old Brock Road Page 3 of 12 recognizes the constraints of this context and frames its comments accordingly, while also acknowledging Condition 20 of the Minutes of Settlement, which states: “That the Owner agrees to implement any mitigation, avoidance measures or alternative development or site alteration approaches recommended through the submitted Heritage Impact Assessment or at the recommendation of the City’s peer review cultural heritage consultant. Revisions may include a modification to the lotting and/or road pattern and may result in a different dwelling form and loss of lots.” Heritage Studio completed a site visit on February 7, 2023. The site review included walking the surroundings, property and an external viewing of the farmhouse, barn, and most westerly silo. 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, a draft Statement of Significance for the property, an assessment of existing conditions, a description of the proposed development, an assessment of the potential impacts of the development on the heritage resource, recommended mitigation strategies and lastly a recommended conservation strategy. The report correctly determines that the property, including the barns, silos, existing farmhouse and surrounding landscape have cultural heritage value. The report accurately describes the cultural heritage values of the property, placing emphasis on its historic Ontario farmstead typology. Collectively, the farmhouse and supporting agricultural buildings set within a landscape of open fields have cultural heritage value. Significantly, the report describes how the property’s Ontario farmstead character defines, maintains, and supports a rural character along Old Brock Road and forms the backdrop to the late-19th century village fabric of Claremont. The Impact Assessment section identifies many of the potential negative impacts of the development proposal on the cultural heritage values and attributes of the property, but does not address all potential negative impacts described in the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. The mitigation strategies that follow are light touch and only “partially” mitigate the identified impacts. There are no considered alternatives provided (i.e., no review of alternative site layouts) and ultimately the conservation strategy relies heavily on the retention of the farmhouse as a built resource. Peer Review Letter | 5113 Old Brock Road Page 4 of 12 As previously mentioned, the HIA process has not been typical and there are many complex layers of considerations. Nonetheless, the HIA report should provide, as far as possible, an unbiased and honest record. For example, if alternative site layouts have been considered and dismissed for other reasons, this commentary should be included. Moreover, there should be acknowledgement that the development proposal is a dramatic transformation of an historic rural landscape and ultimately that there are negative impacts that cannot be fully mitigated. 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 of the property and surrounding area and a well-researched evolution of the subject property. Based on the research provided, the report establishes a plausible construction date for the farmhouse and that the house was constructed for G.M. Forsythe (not for Thomas Gregg as recorded in the Claremont Secondary Plan Heritage Inventory). The establishment of G.M. Forsythe as the original owner of the farmhouse is an important finding given his long-standing role in local politics. Based on ERA’s research, the property has experienced considerable change over the last 200 years, including subdivisions and lot additions. Originally forming part of a 200-acre lot patented in 1806 by Joseph Wixson, it was subdivided by the 1860s and sold to John Reid in approximately 1871. According to the HIA report, the 1901 census identifies a composite farmhouse with four barns, stables, or other outbuildings. Furthermore, the HIA notes that the 1896 Pickering News reports that “John Reid has the stonework of his barn about completed and the frame work started. The old barn will be torn down.” The property description in Section 1.3 dates the barn’s construction from early to mid-20th century. Based on the property research provided, it seems more plausible that the existing barn dates to approximately 1896. The HIA notes that the foundation is cement but given that no interior inspection of the barn was completed, it is possible that the foundation is stonework that has been parged with a cement-based mortar. 2.3 Cultural Heritage Value The cultural heritage evaluation provided employs Ontario Regulation 9/06 and identifies the following cultural heritage values: • Design value as a representative example of an historic Ontario farmstead, including a representative early-20th century American foursquare farmhouse; • Historical/associative value for its direct association with G.M. Forsythe, a prominent municipal leader and farmer; and • Contextual value for defining, maintaining, and supporting a rural character along Old Brock Road in Claremont. Peer Review Letter | 5113 Old Brock Road Page 5 of 12 I agree with the identified cultural heritage values but would consider the inclusion of two additional contextual values. The property has contextual value because it: ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. iii. is a landmark. Arguably, this property’s historic role as a rural farmstead at the edge of Claremont ties it historically to its surroundings. The draft Statement of Significance identifies “its location on the east side of Old Brock Road, just north of the Village of Claremont” as a heritage attribute, which supports this assertion. Lastly, its character and identity as an historic Ontario farmstead along Old Broad Road, an agricultural landscape that is quickly disappearing, raises the question whether it may be considered a local landmark. 2.4 Impact Assessment The impact assessment identifies potential negative impacts to the property’s cultural heritage value as identified in the draft Statement of Significance. For the sake of clarity, this section should include “negative” as a descriptor for “impact”. The report is supposed to assess potential negative and where applicable, positive impacts. However, the impacts identified in the HIA report are potential negative impacts and this should be made clear. Paragraph two on page 42 states “the proposed development anticipates the following impacts”. I believe that the authors intended to say, “it is anticipated that the proposed development will have the following negative impacts on the Site”. The list of potential negative impacts described by the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit is referenced on page 42. Although not explicitly linked, most of the identified impacts in this section relate to the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit list. The impact assessment identifies four negative impacts of the proposed development on the heritage resource (i.e., farmhouse and rural landscape including barn and silos). 1. Removal of barn and silos to accommodate new residential lots 2. Isolation of the farmhouse from its agricultural context on the site 3. New construction in the immediate vicinity of the farmhouse, including new houses on estate sized lots, a detached garage, a replacement septic bed, and a new road. 4. Alteration of the Site’s existing rural landscape and topography along Old Brock Road I agree with the identified negative impacts, which are succinctly described and, in some instances, would benefit from additional explanation/analysis. For example, the fourth impact notes that the Site’s cultural heritage value as a representative Ontario farmstead is communicated in part by the expansive rural landscape along the east side of Old Brock Road. I would argue that one of the most important elements of the Ontario farmstead is the Peer Review Letter | 5113 Old Brock Road Page 6 of 12 expansive views and rural landscape character and that the change in land use (Ontario Heritage Tool Kit impact #7) is less of an “alteration” and more of an absolute negative impact. Lastly, they have not identified the following potential negative impact from the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; The draft Statement of Significance for the property identifies “views of the farmhouse, barn, and silos across fields from Old Brock Road” as a heritage attribute. My initial assessment suggests that 1.8 metre high privacy fencing and houses flanking Old Brock Road will directly obstruct these views. An analysis of potential adverse impacts to identified views/vistas in the draft Statement of Significance should be included in the HIA report. View southeast towards the farmhouse from Old Brock Road and looking north along Old Brock Road (Heritage Studio, February 7, 2023) 2.5 Considered Alternatives and Mitigation Strategies The HIA does not provide a description of considered alternatives. Given the report’s emphasis on the cultural heritage value of the historic Ontario farmstead landscape, one would expect to see recommendations regarding alternative site layouts that would better conserve the identified cultural heritage values and attributes. For example, were other site layouts considered that would better conserve the rural character of the property’s frontage along Old Brock Road (e.g., reorienting lots along Old Brock Road to address the street in combination with appropriate landscaping may improve the sense of openness and rural character). It is my understanding that the 1.8 metre high privacy fencing is to visually shield the new development from adjacent neighbours. Unfortunately, the fencing has unintended negative impact(s) on the cultural heritage values and attributes of the property; notably blocking the ‘openness’ or visual permeability of the rural landscape, including views south and north along Old Brock Road and across the property. The suburban style fencing also introduces an Peer Review Letter | 5113 Old Brock Road Page 7 of 12 uncharacteristic form of landscaping along Old Brock Road. As acknowledged in the introduction of this peer review letter, the ability of the HIA report to inform the layout and design of the development is limited, however, an overview of alterative development options and why they were dismissed, should be provided. The Minutes of Settlement are clear that as a result of the HIA process and associated Peer Review process changes to the site layout may be required. Mitigation strategies are presented that address the impacts identified in Section 6. The introduction to the section notes that the potential impacts will be “partially” mitigated through the implementation of a green buffer around the farmhouse and a design and landscape strategy for the new development. It is important to note that the strategies only partially mitigate the impacts, which means that there will be long-term negative impacts to the identified cultural heritage values and attributes of the property. Impact: removal of barn and silos Given the condition of the barn and underlying assertion that its heritage value lies primarily in its contribution to the overall rural landscape context, the proposed salvage of the barn’s wood materials for future reuse is a reasonable strategy (as opposed to relocating the entire barn structure). The HIA report recommends either reuse of the wood material as part of an on-site installation or off-site as a contribution to other local historic barn structures. On-site installation is recommended as this would provide an opportunity to reinterpret the property’s agricultural history either at one of the entrances to the subdivision or within the public park space. Furthermore, how and where the salvaged wood will be stored for the future reinstallation as part of landscape strategy should be identified. Impact: isolation of the farmhouse from its agricultural context The proposed buffer zone (i.e., new lot lines) for the farmhouse will help to provide some breathing space and sense of its former rural setting, but this will only partially mitigate its disconnection from its original rural setting. The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) defines the setting of a heritage structure, site or area as “the immediate and extended environment that is part of, or contributes to, its significance and distinctive character”1. The retention of the farmhouse is only one component of the Ontario farmstead typology, which has been evaluated as having cultural heritage value. Ideally, alternative site layouts that better conserve the rural landscape setting of the farmhouse would have been explored; however, I am generally satisfied with the proposed lot lines for the farmhouse and retention of the surrounding landscape (i.e., circular driveway, mature trees, etc.). 1 ICOMOS, Xi’an Declaration on the Conservation of the Setting of Heritage Structures, Sites and Areas, November 22, 2005. Peer Review Letter | 5113 Old Brock Road Page 8 of 12 Impact: new construction in the immediate vicinity of the farmhouse The HIA recommends that architectural control guidelines “be expressly crafted to interpret and communicate rural/agricultural built character – particularly for the four houses flanking Old Brock Road, and for any other houses that would be considered adjacent to the farmhouse.” The new houses adjacent to the farmhouse and Old Brock Road will have the greatest visual impact on the setting of the farmhouse. Not only should their character and exterior finish be carefully considered, but also their massing so that the farmhouse continues to be the dominant visual focal point along the Old Brock Road frontage2. I agree with the broad-brush design guidelines recommended by ERA for the Architectural Control Guidelines. The requirement for Architectural Control Guidelines is referenced in the Minutes of Settlement; however, it is recommended that specific guidelines for the houses flanking Old Brock Road be further developed by a heritage architect and reviewed by municipal heritage staff. The recommendations for the design of the new garage on the farmhouse lot are reasonable, and its character should be compatible with the character and style of the farmhouse. The location of the new garage is not identified on the draft plans, but it should be located to the rear of the farmhouse to avoid obstructing views of the principal building. The mitigation strategies for the design of Street A and the stormwater management pond (i.e., landscaping designs that have an explicit rural character) are practical and will help to soften the impact of the contrasting subdivision character. Having reviewed the landscape plans (Schollen & Company Inc, 2022/11/2025) submitted in support of the approved Draft Plan of Subdivision conditions, there are inconsistencies between the HIA’s recommendations and the landscape plans. Key concerns include: • The recommendation for a rural character at the entrances off Old Brock Road does not appear to be implemented (e.g., a ditch on the south side with no sidewalk, non- manicured green landscaping or bioswales at the edges, etc.). • The white spruce plantings along Old Brock Road are on the inside (east) of the proposed 1.8 metre high fencing. Although concerns are noted with the proposed fencing, if it is required for other planning rationale to be installed, then the white spruce hedgerow should be planted on the outside (west) of the fencing to soften its suburban character (ERA recommends this as part of their mitigation strategies). • The northern access point to the circular driveway for the farmhouse is directly adjacent 2 Standard 11 – Conserve the heritage value and character-defining elements when creating new additions to an historic place or any related new construction. Make the work physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place (Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines). Peer Review Letter | 5113 Old Brock Road Page 9 of 12 to ‘Street A’. The HIA report noted safety traffic concerns and that this northern access to the circular driveway may need to be rerouted to ‘Street A’. The proposed access to the circular driveway should be identified on plans as it is noted as a heritage attribute in the draft Statement of Significance. Excerpts from draft Landscaping Plan (Schollen & Company Inc., November 25, 2022) Impact: alteration of the Site’s existing rural landscape and topography along Old Brock Road The HIA report suggests four strategies for mitigating the conversion of Old Brock Road’s east side from a rural streetscape to a suburban neighbourhood. It must be acknowledged that these strategies will help to soften the impact of the new residential subdivision, but the proposed site layout and landscaping represents a dramatic transformation of the landscape, and this negative impact cannot be fully mitigated. I agree that if the 1.8 metre high fencing is required that the spruce hedgerow should be planted on the west side to soften the impact and screen some views of the fencing. It is not clear how the recommendation to retain the existing landscaping along Old Brock Road (e.g., irregular scrub, fallow-field grasses, and existing trees, etc.), which is owned by the City will be implemented. However, if houses continue to be oriented to internal streets and fencing is erected, this is a sound recommendation. The last recommendation relates to the proposed design guidelines for houses adjacent to the farmhouse and along Old Brock Road. I agree that a contemporary interpretation of rural residential character would help to soften the impact, but that if the 1.8 metre high fencing is implemented, the efficacy of this recommendation will be diluted. Peer Review Letter | 5113 Old Brock Road Page 10 of 12 Additional Recommended Mitigation Strategies The City’s Official Plan policy 11.60 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.” A mitigation measure is needed to address this policy. The property (farmhouse, barn, silos and setting) should be photographically documented prior to development, including earth works, and the photographs and ERA’s HIA report should be deposited at the Pickering Public Library archives. Finally, a small-scale but worthwhile suggestion is to include the naming of the streets as part of the design/landscape strategy for the site (e.g., utilizing the names of former owners). 2.6 Recommended Conservation Strategy The HIA’s recommended conservation approach is rehabilitation3, “including the introduction of 71 new residential lots to the Site, and the full retention of the 1916 farmhouse in-situ”. Given the number of negative impacts to the cultural heritage values and attributes (described in the draft Statement of Significance), the use of rehabilitation as a conservation approach is a misnomer. Ultimately, the proposed transformation of the landscape from an Ontario farmstead to a residential subdivision is a dramatic departure from its historic character, and the proposed mitigation strategies are correctly described as only “partially” mitigating the impacts. The HIA report states that “the conservation approach is supported by a broader design and landscape strategy, which includes a recommended interpretative rural landscape strategy, and recommended design guidelines for new houses along Old Brock Road.” As discussed in the mitigation strategy section above, I believe that these measures will help to soften the impact of the new construction on the retained farmhouse. However, given the dramatic transformation of the landscape, it is not clear how the landscape and design strategies are “informed by the historic Farmstead typology”. It should also be clear that the strategies’ ability to make new work “physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to, and distinguishable from the historic place” only relates to the retained farmhouse. Nonetheless, the design and landscape recommendations along with the conservation scope of work provided for the farmhouse should be implemented. The HIA report recommends that the previous landowner who will be retaining the farmhouse lot should address the baseline conservation scope, which includes: • Repair of the wrap-around verandah • Repair and replacement of exterior stairs and retaining wall; 3 Rehabilitation: the action or process of making possible a continuing or compatible contemporary use of an historic place, or an individual component, while protecting its heritage value. Peer Review Letter | 5113 Old Brock Road Page 11 of 12 • Repair and replacement of roof materials, where necessary; • Replacement of windows to match original profiles; and • Masonry and stone cleaning, repair, and replacement where necessary. This baseline conservation scope should not be considered “normal maintenance and repairs” as it includes relatively large-scale repair and restoration works. It is recommended that the existing owner (i.e., Claremont Development Inc.) undertake this scope of work as part of the development process. The completion of this scope of conservation works and the future Part IV designation of this property, would be considered a positive impact of the development. 3.0 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS In my professional opinion, the HIA report completed by ERA demonstrates a good understanding of the property’s history and its cultural heritage value. The report identifies most of the potential negative impacts on the cultural heritage resource and provides mitigation strategies. The retention of the farmhouse as an individual built heritage resource supports the City’s Official Plan policy 8.9 (a), which states “maintain, if possible, the original use of heritage structures and sites, and if possible, retain the original location and orientation of such structures” and complies with the Ministry’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties. Accordingly, the HIA’s recommended repairs and restoration of the farmhouse should be undertaken as part of the development process to ensure the long-term conservation of the farmhouse. Given the lengthy timeframe and complex appeal process, I recognize the limited ability of the HIA report to inform the layout and design of the development. Nonetheless, I recommend that the HIA be revised, or an addendum provided to include: • The identification of negative impacts to views/vistas in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit; and • A discussion of considered alternatives as explained in Section 2.5 of this letter and/or an acknowledgement of why considered alternatives were not included or dismissed. Additionally, I recommend that as part of the ongoing development approvals process, the heritage consultant prepare and submit a scoped Conservation Plan to City Heritage Staff that further develops and details: • The interpretive rural landscape strategy (including on-site installation and interpretation of the salvaged barn, trees and plantings, fencing, street naming, etc.); • ERA’s recommended architectural guidelines for houses constructed on lots adjacent to the historic farmhouse; and • The required repair and restoration work to the farmhouse. Peer Review Letter | 5113 Old Brock Road Page 12 of 12 Lastly, I agree with ERA’s assertion that the property is a candidate for Part IV designation. Given the approved Draft Plan of Subdivision, I recommend that the retained lot with the historic farmhouse be protected for the long-term under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, following registration of the Plan of Subdivision. Additionally, I recommend that the scope of repair and restoration works with an accompanying letter of credit be included as part of the Subdivision Agreement. 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 PAGE 1 OF 11 ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 Attachment #5 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD HIA ADDENDUM Subject: Issued To: HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ADDENDUM City of Pickering (Development Department) 1 The Esplanade, Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 tel: 905-420-4660 ext. 2035 Memo #: 2 Project: Prepared By: 5113 Old Brock Road, Claremont Emma Abramowicz, Jamie Glasspool Project #: Date Issued: 21-332-02 June 14, 2023 This Heritage Impact Assessment (“HIA”) Addendum has been prepared by ERA Architects Inc. (“ERA”), on behalf of Geranium Claremont Inc. (“Geranium”), to supplement the HIA for the proposed development at 5113 Old Brock Road (the “Site”). The proposed development includes 71 lots for detached dwellings (including one lot for the retained farmhouse), new public roads, a new public park, open space buffers, and two stormwater management facilities. A Zoning By-Law Amendment application and Draft Plan of Subdivision application were made by Geranium and approved at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”) in August, 2022, subject to the conditions of the Draft Plan of Subdivision approval outlined in the Minutes of Settlement, which required an HIA as a condition of approval. An HIA was prepared by ERA and submitted to the City of Pickering (the “City”) on December 9, 2022. The City’s peer reviewer, Heritage Studio, provided comments on the HIA to Geranium Claremont Inc. on March 3, 2023. In accordance with the recommendations of the peer review, this addendum supplements the HIA to include: • The identification of negative impacts to views/vistas in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit; and • A discussion of considered alternatives as explained in Section 2.5 of this letter and/or an acknowledgment of why considered alternatives were not included or dismissed. Additionally, this addendum provides recommendations for the interpretive rural landscape strategy and architectural control guidelines, as requested by the City of Pickering. Background Research and Analysis The peer review includes the following comments on the background research and analysis section: • The property description in Section 1.3 dates the barn’s construction from early to mid-20th century. Based on the property research provided, it seems more plausible that the existing barn dates to approximately 1896. The HIA notes that the foundation is cement but given that no interior inspection of the barn was completed, it is possible that the foundation is stonework that has been parged with a cement-based mortar. ERA has since conducted an interior site visit at the barn on March 14, 2023. Based on the findings of our site visit, it is unlikely that the barn dates to approximately 1896. While some lumber may have been salvaged from an earlier barn PAGE 2 OF 11 ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 Cement foundation in barn interior (ERA, 14 March Earlier stone foundation to the east of the existing barn 2023). (ERA, 14 March 2023). structure, the foundation in the interior of the barn was found to be cement. This is supported by our discovery of an earlier stone foundation immediately east of the existing structure, which is more likely associated with the c. 1896 (or another earlier) barn structure. Cultural Heritage Value The peer review includes the following comments on the cultural heritage value section: • I agree with the identified cultural heritage values but would consider the inclusion of two additional contextual values. The property has contextual value because it: ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. iii. is a landmark. Upon further review, ERA concurs that the property meets the criteria identified in the peer review. Below is a summary of the Site’s cultural heritage value, updating the Ontario Regulation 9/06 Analysis on page 21 of the HIA to include two additional elements of value: • It has design value as a representative example of an historic Ontario farmstead, including a representative early- 20th century American Foursquare farmhouse. • It has historical/associative value for its direct association with G.M. Forsyth, a prominent municipal leader and farmer who is historically significant to the community of Claremont. • It has contextual value for defining, maintaining, and supporting a rural character along Old Brock Road in Claremont; for its physical, functional, visual, and historical links to its rural surroundings; and as a local landmark in Claremont. The additional contextual values are already expressed through the following draft heritage attributes included in the original HIA: • Its location on the east side of Old Brock Road, just north of the village of Claremont; • Views of the farmhouse, barn, and silos across fields from Old Brock Road. PAGE 3 OF 11 ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 Proposed Development Although the proposed development remains substantially in accordance with the HIA submitted on December 9, 2022, the approach to the driveway alteration has been confirmed. This includes the creation of a new driveway entrance from Street A, connecting to the existing driveway north of the farmhouse, with the removal of the existing north entrance from Old Brock Road. The existing south entrance from Old Brock Road will be retained. Landscape plan showing the proposed driveway alteration (Schollen & Company, 2022; annotated by ERA). New driveway. Retained driveway. Removed driveway. PAGE 4 OF 11 ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 Impact Assessment The peer review includes the following comments on the impact assessment section: • The impact assessment identifies potential negative impacts to the property’s cultural heritage value as identified in the draft Statement of Significance. For the sake of clarity, this section should include “negative” as a descriptor for “impact”. • I agree with the identified negative impacts, which are succinctly described and, in some instances, would benefit from additional explanation/analysis. For example, the fourth impact notes that the Site’s cultural heritage value as a representative Ontario farmstead is communicated in part by the expansive rural landscape along the east side of Old Brock Road. I would argue that one of the most important elements of the Ontario farmstead is the expansive views and rural landscape character and that the change in land use (Ontario Heritage Tool Kit impact #7) is less of an “alteration” and more of an absolute negative impact. • Lastly, they have not identified the following potential negative impact from the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features [...] An analysis of potential adverse impacts to identified views/vistas in the draft Statement of Significance should be included in the HIA report. Accordingly, it is anticipated that the proposed development will have the following negative impacts on the Site’s cultural heritage value and attributes: • Removal of the barn and silos to accommodate new residential lots: the barn and silos, both of which contribute to the Site’s value as a representative historic Ontario farmstead and are identified as heritage attributes, are both proposed to be removed in service of the proposed new subdivision neighbourhood; • Isolation of the farmhouse from its agricultural context on the Site: the proposed development anticipates the erection of a suburban community on the historic farm, which represents the disconnection of the farmhouse building from its historic rural context, and the reduction of its lot size to 0.51 hectares; • New construction in the immediate vicinity of the farmhouse, including new houses on estate size lots, a detached garage, a replacement septic bed, and a new road: the influx of new development presents a negative impact on the extant resource’s legibility as an historic farmhouse and its prominence as an historic resource; and • Change in land use allowing the redevelopment of the Site’s rural landscape along Old Brock Road: the Site’s cultural heritage value as a representative Ontario farmstead is communicated in part by the expansive rural landscape along the east side of Old Brock Road. This landscape will be transformed through the addition of four new residential lots fronting Old Brock Road, the development of the expansive landscape beyond them, and the installation of a suburban-style 1.8-metre wood privacy fence and continuous hedgerow along the Old Brock Road Site boundary. • Direct obstruction of significant views of the farmhouse, barn, and silos across fields from Old Brock Road: while the farmhouse will remain visible from Old Brock Road, the introduction of new houses and a 1.8 metre wood privacy fence directly obstructs the view of the farmhouse looking southeast across fields from Old Brock Road (see photo on following page). The removal of the barn and silos will also alter these significant views and constitutes a negative impact to these views. PAGE 5 OF 11 ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 View of the farmhouse and barn, looking southeast across fields from Old Brock Road; a future residential lot with a subdivision fence (ERA, 14 March 2023). View of the barn and silos, looking west across fields from Old Brock Road; a future residential lot with a subdivision fence (ERA, 14 March 2023). PAGE 6 OF 11 ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 View of the silos, looking west across fields from Old Brock Road (ERA, 21 September 2022). Mitigation Strategies The peer review includes the following comments on the mitigation strategies: • The HIA report recommends either reuse of the wood material as part of an on-site installation or off-site as a contribution to other local historic barn structures. On-site installation is recommended as this would provide an opportunity to reinterpret the property’s agricultural history either at one of the entrances to the subdivision or within the public park space. Furthermore, how and where the salvaged wood will be stored for the future reinstallation as part of landscape strategy should be identified. • The property (farmhouse, barn, silos and setting) should be photographically documented prior to development, including earth works, and the photographs and ERA’s HIA report should be deposited at the Pickering Public Library archives. ERA visited to the Site on March 14, 2023 to document the barn, silos, and earthworks (i.e. earlier stone foundation) prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for these structures. A documentation and salvage strategy was issued to the City of Pickering on March 22, 2023, which provides documentation photographs and the recommended strategy for salvaging materials for future reuse on-Site, including how and where the salvaged wood will be stored. The documentation photographs (dated March 14, 2023) are complemented by the photographs taken as part of the HIA. The peer review includes the following additional recommendations: PAGE 7 OF 11 ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 I recommend that as part of the ongoing development approvals process, the heritage consultant prepare and submit a scoped Conservation Plan to City Heritage Staff that further develops and details: • The interpretive rural landscape strategy (including on-site installation and interpretation of the salvaged barn, trees and plantings, fencing, street naming, etc.). • ERA’s recommended architectural guidelines for houses constructed on lots adjacent to the historic farmhouse. As these recommendations constitute impact mitigation measures, rather than technical conservation scope, they have been included instead in this HIA Addendum. A scoped Conservation Plan is recommended to follow to address the technical conservation scope for the farmhouse property. ERA has prepared a set of recommendations to (i) facilitate the conservation of the remaining farmhouse and landscape on Lot 71; and (ii) conserve (as far as possible), reference and interpret the historic rural landscape character along Old Brock Road, at Claremont’s north end. The recommendations are organized into three directive areas: a. Building Design b. Landscape Design c. Additional Heritage Interpretation Building Design While the following Building Design recommendations could be appropriate to the full subdivision, they are only recommended for the lots (a) along Old Brock Road and (b) adjacent to Lot 71. This includes Lots 1, 11, 29, 30, 31, 32. These recommendations should also be applied to any new construction on Lot 71, e.g. a garage. The recommendations are based on the direction in the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, notably Standard 11, which speaks to new construction on or adjacent to a heritage property. 1. Retain the farmhouse’s prominence and legibility as a distinct historic resource. • Avoid red brick as a building material. • Avoid hipped roofs, or mansard roofs. The farmhouse’s hipped roof should be allowed to remain prominent, with the use of gabled roofs elsewhere. • Consider lower-scaled buildings on lots adjacent to Lot 71. • Use simple architectural expression, with classic gabled roof forms and limited ornamentation, particularly on lots adjacent to Lot 71. 2. Convey the historic character of Old Brock Road through buildings that reference the site’s history as a farm and the area’s history as a rural village. • Convey estate-style character and luxury through substantial living space and high-quality design materials, rather than through expressions of “traditional style” or excessive ornamentation. • Use gabled roofs throughout the neighbourhood, a typical farmstead roof form with an established tradition of contemporary architectural interpretation on rural properties. Avoid hipped roofs and mansard roofs. PAGE 8 OF 11 ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 • Design buildings with simple forms, including simple rectilinear windows with limited mullions and restrained sills and lintels. • Use natural materials to reference the site’s history as a farmstead, including siding, wood cladding, and clay brick. High-quality stone masonry is recommended to be used primarily as an accent material. Use of stucco should be limited. 3. Distinguish new buildings from the historic farmhouse by designing them to be contemporary, in the architecture of their own time. • Avoid “traditional styles” that reflect earlier eras of architectural design. • Avoid expressive architectural ornamentation or detailing. • Contribute to the streetscape of buildings of various eras along Old Brock Road, rather than trying to reference or replicate an earlier era or style. Landscape Design The following Landscape Design recommendations are intended to support the conservation and legibility of the house on Lot 71 as an historic farmhouse, and to conserve the historic valued rural character along Old Brock Road as far as will be possible, given the forthcoming subdivision development. 1. Retain all extant landscape character on Lot 71, and replace in kind if required. Elements include: • Semi-circular driveway lined with regular coniferous trees; driveway entrance may be altered for access off Street A as long as the semi-circular shape is retained; • Retaining wall; • Green buffers at the south and east edges of the lot, on the boundaries with what will become Lots 31 and 32; • Green lawns; • Gravel paving where driveways or car parking are required. 2. Establish a rural character at the entrance to Street A off Old Brock Road, with naturalized landscape elements including swales, trees, and informally arranged plants. 3. The proponent and the City of Pickering are encouraged to collaborate to ensure an irregular, rural-style landscape design character along the full edge of Old Brock Road, through some combination of the following strategies: • Retain as much of the existing scrub, trees and plants along Old Brock Road as possible. • Select a series of native plants to use in the new landscape along Old Brock Road. • Avoid a polished character when designing the initial subdivision landscape along Old Brock Road. Use irregular plantings of varying scales, rather than green lawns. • Use grasses, plants and trees to screen and frame views of new houses along Old Brock Road, on Lots 1, 11, 30 and 31. • Distinguish the treatment in Old Brock Road flankage of Lots 1, 11, 30 and 31 from the front-yard treatment of the PAGE 9 OF 11 ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 extant farmhouse on Lot 71. The new residential lots should be less street-facing, more screened, and read as less prominent along Old Brock Road. • Diversify the fencing where it is required on properties along Old Brock Road. Fencing should employ different styles, different stains or paints, and slightly different scales to convey the appearance of a neighbourhood developed over time. The City of Pickering is recommended to permit flexibility in the design of fencing to facilitate this approach. 4. Support the conservation on Lot 71 through an interpretive rural landscape treatment on Lots 29, 30, 32 and 73 (SWM Pond) on their Street A frontage. • Employ native plants of varying scales along the Street A edge; • Use informal permeable paving (e.g. gravel if possible) for driveways and car parking; • Consider using hedgerows or landscaping to screen the chain-linked fence at the edge of the SWM Pond on Lot 73. Additional Heritage Interpretation The Building Design and Landscape Design strategies above are recommended to be supported by the following heritage interpretation interventions which will help to communicate the history of the farmstead at 5113 Old Brock Road. 1. Employ the salvaged stone and wood from the former barns on site in the design of outdoor furniture structures in the neighbourhood park. Furniture structures may include seating, open-air shelters, or others. Designs should be subject to heritage consultant review. The City of Pickering is recommended to permit flexibility in its street furniture standards to facilitate this reuse of salvaged farmstead materials. 2. Consider opportunities for the design of an interpretive public-art installation using the salvaged stone and wood from the former barns on site. 3. Integrate the salvaged agricultural artifacts from the former barn / silos on site into an interpretive installation, likely in the neighbourhood park. Designs should be subject to heritage consultant review. 4. A heritage plaque is recommended to be installed in the neighbourhood park, or elsewhere within the neighbourhood’s public realm. The plaque should speak to the site’s history as a farmstead in the rural village north of Claremont’s core, it should identify the remnant farmhouse on Lot 71, and should identify the salvaged and reused materials. PAGE 10 OF 11 ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 Considered Alternatives The peer review includes the following comments on considered alternatives: • The HIA does not provide a description of considered alternatives. Given the report’s emphasis on the cultural heritage value of the historic Ontario farmstead landscape, one would expect to see recommendations regarding alternative site layouts that would better conserve the identified cultural heritage values and attributes. The following alternative site layouts were considered to better conserve the Site’s cultural heritage value, but determined to be unfeasible in the context of the proposed development and other planning objectives for the Site. Option A (SWM pond along Old Brock Road): As part of an earlier subdivision layout, the location of the stormwater management (“SWM”) pond was considered along Old Brock Road adjacent to the retained farmhouse. In addition to providing the farmhouse with the greatest possible natural buffer, this would have helped to conserve the rural character of the Site’s Old Brock Road frontage, including the sense of openness and permeability. Ultimately, this option was assessed but determined to present drainage challenges that would impact properties on the west side of Old Brock Road, given the area’s topography. Option B (Park along Old Brock Road): Under a similar subdivision layout, the location of the park along Old Brock Road was explored. Like Option A, this would have provided additional natural buffer for the farmhouse, while helping to conserve the rural character of Old Brock Road. The current proposed location at the centre of the subdivision was selected for its proximity within the new neighbourhood, connections to the existing street network in Claremont (i.e. Franklin Street and Lane Street), and adjacency to small residential streets (as opposed to a major road). Option C (Lower Subdivision Fence): A lower subdivision fence could have been considered along Old Brock Road to reduce the negative impacts on the Site’s cultural heritage value, in particular the impact on the rural character of Old Brock Road. A subdivision fence adjacent to the west property line of Lots 1, 11, and 30 (i.e. on Old Brock Road), is required as a condition of draft plan approval. While the conditions do not specify a required fence height, the proposed 1.8 metres is consistent with the required height for fencing on other lots in the subdivision. The 1.8 metre height is also intended to provide privacy for the homeowners. To offset this impact, the proponent is exploring options to break up the fence and provide additional permeability, as opposed to an uninterrupted barrier. Option A: SWM pond along Old Brock Road, hightlighted in blue (Malone Given Parsons, 2018; annotated by ERA). PAGE 11 OF 11 ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 Recommended Conservation Strategy The peer review includes the following comments on the recommended conservation strategy section: • Given the number of negative impacts to the cultural heritage values and attributes (described in the draft Statement of Significance), the use of rehabilitation as a conservation approach is a misnomer. • This baseline conservation scope should not be considered “normal maintenance and repairs” as it includes relatively large-scale repair and restoration works. It is recommended that the existing owner (i.e., Claremont Development Inc.) undertake this scope of work as part of the development process. At this time, the primary conservation treatment is preservation of the 1916 farmhouse in-situ on a dedicated lot, with generous setbacks from the north, east, and south properties lines. This involves protecting and maintaining the existing materials, form, and integrity of the farmhouse, while conserving its heritage value. The conservation scope of work will be detailed in a future scoped Conservation Plan, with the work undertaken by Claremont Development Inc. as part of the development process. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned should you have any further questions regarding the contents of this HIA Addendum. Sincerely, Emma Abramowicz, Senior Project Manager ERA Architects Inc. HIA Addendum Peer Review Letter | 5113 Old Brock Road Page 1 of 5 Attachment #6 HERITAGE | Studio Alex Rowse-Thompson MCIP RPP CAHP 149 Ordnance St. Kingston, ON, K7K 1G9 alex@heritagestudio.ca September 11, 2023. Sent by EMAIL 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 – HIA ADDENDUM 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, PICKERING (HERITAGE STUDIO PROJECT 23-001-02) ______________________________________________________________________________ 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) addendum submitted by ERA Architects (ERA) on June 14, 2023, in response to the HIA peer review comments by Heritage Studio on March 3, 2023. The property, owned by Geranium Claremont Inc. is located just north of Lane Street, between Old Brock Road and Brock Road, in the Hamlet of Claremont. The property is approximately 38.18 hectares (94 acres) and contains an agricultural landscape including a two-and-a-half storey brick farmhouse, a barn and four silos. The proposed residential subdivision includes: •71 residential lots (70 new homes and the retention of the existing farmhouse) •New public roads •Stormwater management ponds •A new public park HIA Addendum Peer Review Letter | 5113 Old Brock Road Page 2 of 5 The property has no heritage status, nor is it considered to be adjacent to a designated heritage resource. However, the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) Minutes of Settlement for the property (OLT Case Number OLT-22-002250) required that an HIA be provided as a condition of Draft Plan Approval. Heritage Studio provided a peer review of the HIA report in March 2023, which recommended an addendum to the HIA as well as a future Conservation Plan. To further inform Heritage Studio’s peer review of the addendum, the Architectural Control Guidelines by John G. Williams Ltd. Architect and Landscape Plans by Schollen & Company, were reviewed. In a succinct and structured fashion, ERA’s HIA addendum provides well-considered responses to the issues raised by the original peer review. By and large, I agree with the responses and associated rationale provided. As previously mentioned in the original peer review, the HIA process was not typical in terms of its timing given the previous appeal history, and consequently, the ability of the HIA report to inform the layout and design of the development was limited. The HIA report did not acknowledge this limitation, however, the HIA addendum successfully does so, providing an explanation of alternative development options and why they were dismissed, as well as a more fleshed out description of potential negative impacts resulting from the residential subdivision, including an explanation of the negative impact to views, which is listed as a possible negative impact in the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, and was missing in the original HIA. The explanations for why Options A and B were dismissed as alternative development options are logical and valid. I support the recommendation in Option C, which notes that the proponent is exploring options to break up the privacy fence along Old Brock Road to provide additional permeability. Additionally, I appreciate the re-framing of the conservation treatment as “preservation”1 for the farmhouse (as opposed to rehabilitation). Given the number of negative impacts to the surrounding agricultural landscape, identifying the conservation treatment of the property as “rehabilitation”2 was misleading, in my opinion. The March 2023 peer review by Heritage Studio included the recommendation that as 1 Preservation involves protecting, maintaining and stabilizing the exiting form, material and integrity of an historic place or individual component, while protecting its heritage value. (The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada) 2 Rehabilitation involves the sensitive adaptation of an historic place or individual component for a continuing or compatible use, while protecting its heritage value. HIA Addendum Peer Review Letter | 5113 Old Brock Road Page 3 of 5 part of the ongoing approvals process, the heritage consultant (e.g., ERA) should prepare and submit a scoped Conservation Plan that further develops and details the interpretive rural landscape strategy, architectural guidelines for the houses constructed on lots adjacent to the farmhouse and the required repair and restoration work to the farmhouse. The addendum contends that these recommendations “constitute impact mitigation measures, rather than technical scope” and accordingly ERA has addressed them within the addendum and recommend that a scoped Conservation should follow with a technical conservation scope for the farmhouse property. The recommendations are organized into Building Design, Landscape Design and Additional Heritage Interpretation categories. I agree with the recommendations regarding Building Design, and their application to Lots 1, 11, 29, 30, 31 and 32 and new construction (i.e., a garage) on Lot 71. In my opinion, the following recommendations are most likely to be successful in mitigating the identified negative impacts: • Use gabled roofs and avoid hipped and mansard roofs • Design buildings with simple forms, including rectilinear windows with limited mullions and restrained lintels and sills • Contribute to the streetscape of buildings of various eras along Old Brock Road, rather than trying to reference an earlier era or style. • Use natural materials to reference the site’s history as a farmstead, including siding, wood cladding and clay brick. Additionally, I recommend that a guideline relating to the size of roofs be included. There is a practice of designing large complex roofscapes on estate style homes, which often increases the overall perceived massing, scale, and height. For example, the height and massing of a single-storey dwelling is significantly increased with the addition of roof with multiple forms and pitches. This guideline is particularly important on Lots 29, 30 and 31, which are in closest proximity to the farmhouse and should be designed to be subservient in scale to the farmhouse. The Architectural Control Guidelines by John G. Williams Architect Ltd. include a section entitled “Priority Lot Dwellings”, which includes guidelines that apply to most of the identified lots above (except for Lots 29 and 32). Subsequently, specific guidelines are provided for “Old Brock Road Character Area”, “Corner Lot Dwellings”, and “Upgraded Side and Rear Architecture”. There is some overlap between ERA’s Building Design recommendations and Section 5.1 for Old Brock Road Character Area, HIA Addendum Peer Review Letter | 5113 Old Brock Road Page 4 of 5 and there are some discrepancies. For example, there is consensus that new buildings along Old Brock Road should include contemporary architectural design. However, the Architectural Control Guidelines speak to the need for distinctive building designs at corner locations to reinforce their landmark status, while ERA recommends simple architectural expression with classic gabled forms and limited ornamentation, particularly on lots adjacent to Lot 71. The Architectural Control Guidelines identify Lot 30 as a corner lot. To ensure that the mitigation strategies are implemented, it is essential that the Architectural Control Guidelines are consistent with ERA’s recommendations. The Landscape Design recommendations are sound and if implemented, will help to mitigate the negative impacts to the rural character along Old Brock Road and support the legibility of the historic farmhouse. From a high level review of the Landscape Plans by Schollen & Company Inc., it is not clear that ERA’s recommendations have been incorporated. For example, ERA recommends establishing “a rural character at the entrance of Street A off Old Brock Road, with naturalized landscape elements, including swales, trees and informally arranged plants”, as well as retaining “as much of the existing scrub, trees and plans along Old Brock Road as possible”. The Landscape Plan appears to show a relatively suburban design at the entrance to Street A with sod (i.e., grass) and regularly spaced tree plantings. Along Old Brock Road, a wooden privacy fence with tree plantings behind is indicated (the original HIA Peer Review commended ERA’s recommendation to plant white spruce along the exterior of the fence to soften its impact). Appreciating that the implementation of all of ERA’s recommendations may not be feasible, a combination of them is required to mitigate the identified negative impacts. I recommend that ERA review the submitted Landscape Plans and provide comments/suggestions to Schollen & Company as necessary. The heritage interpretation ideas presented in the addendum are creative and engaging, with great potential to inform residents and visitors about the history of the site. ERA’s conceptual ideas address the peer review recommendation that salvaged wood material from the barn be installed on site either within the neighbourhood park or at one of the entrances to the subdivision. The addendum identifies the neighbourhood park for the reuse and interpretation of the salvaged barn. Additionally, most of the heritage interpretation ideas are proposed to be in the neighbourhood park, which makes sense from an access and visibility perspective. Nonetheless, I continue to support the idea of investigating design options for reusing HIA Addendum Peer Review Letter | 5113 Old Brock Road Page 5 of 5 some of the salvaged wood at the entrance to Street A. As these interpretation concepts form part of the proposed mitigation strategy, further details will be required to ensure their implementation. In summary, this peer review finds that the HIA addendum provides the additional information required to meet the City’s Terms of Reference for Heritage Impact Assessments (April 2022) and is consistent with the existing heritage policy framework (municipal, provincial, and federal). However, given Condition 20 of the Minutes of Settlement3, I recommend the following actions/next steps to ensure that the recommended mitigation strategies are effectively implemented: 1. A scoped Conservation Plan that addresses the technical scope of the repair and restoration of the farmhouse is provided to the City for review and approval. 2. Finalized details of the recommended heritage interpretation strategies are provided to the City for review and approval. 3. The Architectural Control Guidelines and the Landscape Plans should be reviewed by ERA or another heritage consultant to ensure that the ERA addendum recommendations are appropriately incorporated into the finalized development documents and plans. 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 3 That the Owner agrees to implement any mitigation, avoidance measures or alternative development or site alteration approaches recommended through the submitted Heritage Impact Assessment or at the recommendation of the City’s peer review cultural heritage consultant. Revisions may include a modification to the lotting and/or road pattern and may result in a different dwelling form and loss of lots.