Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 22, 2025 Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda Electronic Meeting October 22, 2025 - 07:00 PM Members of the public may observe the meeting proceedings by viewing the livestream on the HTML Agenda or the archived video available on the City's website. For inquiries related to accessibility, please contact Legislative Services Phone: 905.420.4611 | Email: clerks@pickering.ca. Review and Approval of Agenda Disclosure of Interest Approval of Minutes May 28, 2025 Meeting Minutes Page 3 Delegations New Business Proposed 2026 HPAC Meeting Schedule Page 8 Verbal Update - Pickering Forward: Official Plan Review - Community Elements and Infrastructure Engagement Summary Report Page 9 Memorandum from Matt Somerville, Senior Planner, Heritage Page 29 Re: Part IV Designation - 681 Pleasant Street Other Business Next Meeting 1. 2. 3. 3.1 4. 5. 5.1 5.2 5.3 6. 7. Adjournment 8. Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda October 22, 2025 - 2 - Page 1 of 5 Minutes/Meeting Summary Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee May 28, 2025 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm Attendees: S. Croteau L. Jeffrey S. Monaghan R. Smiles J. White A. MacGillivray, Council & Committee Coordinator M. Somerville, Senior Planner, Heritage (Staff Liaison) K. Hearst, Records, Privacy & Elections Coordinator (Recording Secretary) Absent: R. Anderson N. Brewster C. Doody-Hamilton Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 1. Review and Approval of Agenda Moved by S. Croteau Seconded by S. Monaghan That the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda of May 28, 2025 be approved. Carried 2. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 3. Approval of Minutes Moved by S. Croteau Seconded by R. Smiles That the April 23, 2025 Meeting Minutes be approved. Carried 4. Delegations There were no delegations 5. New Business - 3 - Page 2 of 5 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 5.1 Memorandum from Matt Somerville, Senior Planner, Heritage Re: Heritage Permit Application HP 01/25 3230 North Road, Pickering M. Somerville provided an overview of Heritage Permit Application HP 01/25 at 3230 North Road, Pickering highlighting the proposed alterations to the existing structure and the ways in which the proposal meets and does not meet the 1990 Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD) Plan guidelines. Discussion ensued amongst the Committee regarding: • the replacement of non-historic aluminum cladding with historically appropriate wooden board and batten siding to maintain visual compatibility with the district; • the closure of secondary door on the North side of the building and the rehabilitation of the main entrance and two new window openings on South elevation; • the removal of all original windows and two original doors for energy efficiency after recommendation to maintain the existing windows and doors; • the permittance of encroachment on the corner of the property to allow for the rear addition and wraparound porch, and how the proposed alterations fit with historical precedents; • how the cruciform and roof lines will be maintained with rear addition to meet HCD guidelines and preserving historic chimneys; • the need to ensure new roof line remains compatible with the existing structure, differentiating the new structure while keeping it harmonious with the existing structure; • the white structure with black windows for historical colour selection with simple country aesthetic; and, • the materials to be used for the construction. Moved by S. Monaghan Seconded by S. Croteau That the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee recommend that the Director, City Development & CBO approve the proposed Heritage Permit for 3230 North Road, in accordance with Delegation By-law 7651/18. - 4 - Page 3 of 5 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) Carried 5.2 Advertisement for New HPC Committee Member M. Somerville informed the Committee of an opening for a new HPC Committee Member and that there are currently two applicants. M. Somerville encouraged Committee Members to share the opportunity with anyone who would be interested in joining the Committee. 5.3 Northern Facilities Report – Upcoming Heritage Evaluations M. Somerville informed the Committee regarding the Northern Facilities Report put forward to Council in April and discussed the Seaton Community Centre project and the consolidation of existing facilities within the Northern part of the City, including Brougham Hall, Greenwood Library, Mount Zion Community Centre, and the former Green River Community Centre. Discussion ensued amongst the Committee regarding: • the federal and local heritage designation of Brougham Hall and rehabilitation of the property; • whether the facilities noted above maintain their existing use or get sold; • the closure of Greenwood Library, its heritage designation status, and its candidacy for sale; and • the recent Council direction for staff to undertake a heritage assessment for the Green River and Mount Zion Community Centres. 5.4 Potential Relocation of Vardon House to Whitevale M. Somerville provided an update on the potential relocation of Vardon House to the corner of North Road and Whitevale Road in Whitevale. Discussion ensued amongst the Committee regarding: • discussions between the Mayor and FGF to potentially relocate the house; • the condition of the former Temperance Hall at the potential relocation site and whether any site remediation work would be required; M. Somerville to send weblink to Committee Members to share with interested parties for Committee position. M. Somerville to provide the Committee with an update on heritage assessment in Fall of 2025. - 5 - Page 4 of 5 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) • the approximate price to relocate the Vardon House, including the purchase the land from Infrastructure Ontario; • the estimated timeline for the relocation to potentially take place in Fall 2025; • the search for a potential buyer for the Vardon House to pay for the relocation of the house; • permits to relocate hydro to the Vardon House at the new location and its anticipated transport along Highway 7; • the compatibility of the Vardon House with the features and aesthetics of other heritage buildings within the Whitevale Community; • whether the sale of the Vardon House will be an open bid process and strategies to inform the community of the project; • the need to ensure that the house remains on blocks for the shortest time possible during the relocation; and, • clarification that the barn on the property will not be relocated. 5.5 Update on the Official Plan Community Elements and Infrastructure Open House M. Somerville informed the Committee of his presentation at the Official Plan Community Elements and Infrastructure Open House held in early May. M. Somerville indicated that their presentation focused on approaches to heritage, relocation, and maintaining structures in their original location and how it relates to Official Plan development. Discussion ensued amongst the Committee regarding the project consultants providing a “What We Heard” report to the City in June and the development of Official Plan policies to follow after the report. M. Somerville to schedule a meeting with the Mayor next week to provide a status update on the relocation. M. Somerville to contact Kristen Calis from Pickering News Advertiser for potential opportunities to advertise the sale of the Vardon House. M. Somerville to add the “What We Heard” Report to the June 25, 2025 Committee Meeting Agenda 6. Other Business There was no other business. - 6 - Page 5 of 5 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 7. Next Meeting The next regular meeting of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee is scheduled for June 25, 2025. 8. Adjournment Moved by S. Croteau Seconded by R. Smiles That the meeting be adjourned. Carried Meeting Adjourned: 8:09 pm - 7 - Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee (HPAC) Proposed 2026 Meeting Schedule (All meetings will publicly accessible but held online) Wednesday January 28, 2026 – 7:00 pm Wednesday February 25, 2026 – 7:00 pm Wednesday March 25, 2026 – 7:00 pm Wednesday April 22, 2026 – 7:00 pm Wednesday May 27, 2026 – 7:00 pm Wednesday June 24, 2026 – 7:00 pm There are no scheduled meetings after June due to the 2026 Municipal Elections. HPAC Meetings will resume in January 2027. - 8 - 0 Pickering Forward: Official Plan Review Community Elements and Infrastructure Engagement Summary Report June 2025 - 9 - Pickering Forward: Official Plan Review Community Elements and Infrastructure Engagement Summary Report Prepared by LURA Consulting i Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... ii Section 1: Project Overview ....................................................................................................... 1 Section 2: Engagement Process and Communication Methods ................................................. 2 Section 3: What We Heard ......................................................................................................... 4 Section 4: Next Steps................................................................................................................17 Appendix A: In-Person Public Information Centre Appendix B: Virtual Public Information Centre Appendix C: Online Survey - 10 - Pickering Forward: Official Plan Review Community Elements and Infrastructure Engagement Summary Report Prepared by LURA Consulting ii Executive Summary During engagement on the Community Elements and Infrastructure component of Pickering Forward, the City of Pickering's Official Plan Review, input was gathered from about 250 residents through two Public Information Centres and an online survey. Key emerging themes highlighted the need to improve transportation options beyond driving, with many calls for safer, more accessible, and connected infrastructure for walking, cycling, and public transit. Priorities included wider sidewalks, separated bike lanes, better lighting, reliable transit services, and concerns about traffic growth and equitable access for all users. On cultural heritage, participants emphasized protecting buildings and intangible heritage through storytelling, plaques, and inclusive public art. A strong desire was expressed to integrate local stories and cultural identity into urban design, with support for spaces that commemorate community history and celebrate diverse narratives. Participants expressed mixed views on how to best preserve heritage buildings but agreed on the importance of context-sensitive approaches and community-led decision-making. Regarding parks, participants preferred a mix of large and small parks that are walkable, multi- purpose, and connected through trail systems. Integrating green spaces wherever possible was suggested to enhance recreational opportunities across the city. Inclusive design and natural features such as bioswales and permeable pavers were also suggested. The community expressed the importance of a more sustainable, inclusive, and connected Pickering. This input will guide the development of the updated Official Plan, ensuring it reflects the community's vision regarding Pickering's growth. This report was written by LURA Consulting, the independent community engagement team retained to deliver community engagement. It summarizes and reflects the community's diverse inputs for the City of Pickering's Official Plan. - 11 - Pickering Forward: Official Plan Review Community Elements and Infrastructure Engagement Summary Report Prepared by LURA Consulting 1 Section 1: Project Overview Project Description and Engagement Objectives The City of Pickering is updating its Official Plan, the City's long-range, comprehensive planning document that guides land use decision-making. An Official Plan addresses issues such as: • Where to locate new housing, industry, offices, and shops. • What services will be needed, such as roads, water mains, sewers, parks and schools. • How to protect what is important, such as the natural environment and cultural heritage. • When, where, and in what order the community will grow. • Where and how the City will invest in community improvement initiatives. This engagement report summarizes input from the fifth community conversation related to community elements and infrastructure, which will inform the City's Official Plan Review. Figure 1 – Pickering Forward project logo. - 12 - Pickering Forward: Official Plan Review Community Elements and Infrastructure Engagement Summary Report Prepared by LURA Consulting 2 Section 2: Engagement Process and Communication Methods Engagement Methods In May 2025, the City of Pickering hosted an in-person Public Information Centre (PIC), a virtual PIC, and an online survey to gather community input about community elements and infrastructure. Two hundred and forty-six (246) people participated in these events. In-Person Public Information Centre On May 6th, 2025, from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m., an in-person PIC was held at the Purpose Church (1527 Bayly Street). Eight (8) people attended the event. City staff delivered a brief overview of what makes up Pickering’s community elements and infrastructure, including policies in place to enhance and protect transportation, cultural heritage, parks and open spaces. The presentation was followed by a question-and-answer period and activity to stimulate discussions. Appendix A includes a detailed summary of the in-person PIC. Virtual Public Information Centre The project team hosted a virtual PIC on May 7th, 2025, from 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. Seventeen (17) people attended the online event. City staff presented the same content as the in-person PIC. The presentation was followed by a question-and-answer period. Appendix B includes a detailed summary of the virtual PIC's comments. Online Survey From April 22nd, 2025, to May 20th, 2025, an online survey was available on Let's Talk Pickering. The survey questions sought input from the community on how the City of Pickering can create complete communities, improve mobility, preserve heritage buildings, and expand the parks Figure 2 – Image of participants engaging in discussion at the in-person Public Information Centre. - 13 - Pickering Forward: Official Plan Review Community Elements and Infrastructure Engagement Summary Report Prepared by LURA Consulting 3 system. Two hundred and twenty-one (221) people responded to the survey. The demographics of the survey participants are provided in the Who Participated section below. Appendix C includes a detailed summary of the survey responses. Communication Methods The City of Pickering used various methods to advertise the Official Plan review and engagement opportunities. Information was shared through the following channels: • Via email with interested parties, registered ratepayers' groups, and Committee of Council liaisons. • Published multiple notices on social media, including paid pushes on Facebook. • Displayed digital message boards throughout the City. • Posters were placed in all City library branches. • Details were posted on the City's website and online public notices section. Engagement and Reach Table 1 below shows the reach of engagement throughout the engagement period. Table 1: Summary of engagement activities. Engagement Activity Date Location or Format Attendance or Response Count In-Person Public Information Centre May 6th, 2025 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. In-person at the Purpose Church 8 Virtual Public Information Centre May 7th, 2025, 7:00 – 8:00 p.m. Online via Teams Webinar 17 Online Survey April 22nd, 2025 – May 20th, 2025 Online via Let's Talk Pickering 221 TOTAL 246 Data Analysis Methodology Input was gathered through in-person and virtual PICs, and an online survey. Where responses were received to a quantitative question, results have been quantified. All qualitative responses are analyzed thematically. This involves summarizing and categorizing qualitative data to capture important concepts within the data set. - 14 - Pickering Forward: Official Plan Review Community Elements and Infrastructure Engagement Summary Report Prepared by LURA Consulting 4 Section 3: What We Heard This section summarizes the key themes heard on Community Elements and Infrastructure. In-Person Public Information Centre Below are highlights of the in-person PIC findings. Discussions on each topic, transportation, cultural heritage, and parks, are captured thematically. Transportation Figure 3 - Image of participants discussing topics about transportation. Participants reported primarily getting around Pickering by car, followed by walking, using transit, and cycling. They expressed concerns about transit accessibility, traffic congestion, and safety on major roads like Highway 7. Participants recommended more and wider sidewalks, separated bike lanes, better lighting, and safer, non-glass bus shelters to improve transportation services and conditions. There were suggestions for infrastructure that supports safe, connected, and inclusive mobility options for all residents, including seniors and people with disabilities. Cultural Heritage Elements Figure 4 – Image of participant discussing topics about cultural heritage elements. Participants emphasized protecting physical heritage elements like cemeteries, public art, commemoration spaces, and intangible cultural heritage—particularly storytelling. They wanted - 15 - Pickering Forward: Official Plan Review Community Elements and Infrastructure Engagement Summary Report Prepared by LURA Consulting 5 to see local stories, histories, and origin narratives meaningfully integrated throughout the city through plaques, displays, and public spaces. Suggestions included using storytelling to build identity and community pride, with creative approaches like “in the footsteps” walking tours and culturally themed initiatives. Regarding redevelopment, participants preferred buffering heritage buildings rather than relocating them and called for preservation strategies tailored to each building’s specific context and era. Parks Figure 5 - Image of participant discussing topics about parks. Participants preferred a mix of several smaller parks and a few large ones in Pickering, emphasizing accessibility, connectivity, and inclusive design for all ages and abilities. Suggestions included integrating parks into employment areas, ensuring walkability, adding parking, and incorporating natural features like bioswales and hydro pavers for stormwater management. Participants also stressed the importance of parks as vital community spaces that support mental health, offer free recreation, and serve those without private yards. Parks like Maple Ridge and Beverley Morgan were praised for their amenities, accessibility, and neighbourhood walkability. - 16 - Pickering Forward: Official Plan Review Community Elements and Infrastructure Engagement Summary Report Prepared by LURA Consulting 6 Online Survey Below are highlights of the online survey findings. Each multiple-choice question includes a graph showing responses and themes emerging from ideas participants provided under 'Other' in the list of survey answers. Open-ended questions are summarized thematically. Complete Community Complete communities accommodate people of all ages, abilities, incomes, and backgrounds. Complete communities allow people to live close to the area where they work, learn, shop, and play. Complete communities may look different in Pickering’s urban and rural communities. Participants were asked to identify which neighbourhoods in Pickering offer the best characteristics of a complete community. The most frequently mentioned neighbourhoods seen as having characteristics of a complete community in Pickering include Amberlea, Bay Ridges, West Shore, City Centre, and Rosebank. These areas were praised for their walkability, mix of housing types, access to parks, schools, transit, and community services. However, many participants felt that no neighbourhood in Pickering truly meets the standard of a complete community, citing issues like car dependency, lack of bike lanes, disconnected amenities, and poor planning. Some highlighted newer areas like Seaton as having potential but lacking basic infrastructure like shopping and transit. Additional comments included the following: • Specific Areas o Amberlea (21) o Bay Ridges (14) o Not sure (13) o West Shore (11) o City Centre / Downtown (10) o Rosebank / South Rosebank (7) o Liverpool (5) o Near Pickering Mall (4) o Seaton / Setonville / New Seaton (3) o Pickering Village (3) o Other areas mentioned by two or less participants include: Glendale, Maple Ridge, Rouge West / Rougemount, Glenanna / Glen Grove, Valley Farm Road, Dunbarton, Major Oaks Road, Whites Road and Finch, The Esplanade N., Altona Forest/North Pickering, Lookout Point, Taunton & Whites / Burkholder, Fox Hollow, Abbey Road, Greenwood, Northshore, Chestnut Hill / Recreation Centre, Fairport and Finch, Pacific Fresh Food Market area, Kinsale. Participants were asked what Pickering neighbourhoods need more of to become complete communities. The following feedback was received: - 17 - Pickering Forward: Official Plan Review Community Elements and Infrastructure Engagement Summary Report Prepared by LURA Consulting 7 Figure 6 - Summary of elements selected to make Pickering neighbourhoods complete communities. N = 217 Figure 6 shows that most participants selected “parks and green space” (69%), followed by “stores and services” (60%), and “accessible sidewalks and transit” (55%). Some participants expanded on their choices. Their explanations are summarized below: • Transportation and Connectivity o Improve public transit with frequent, reliable service that connects to TTC and within neighbourhoods. o Develop a walkable and bikeable city with connected bike lanes and safer sidewalks (shelters, signage, lighting, and emergency features). o Build more roundabouts, wider roads, and turn lanes to ease congestion and reduce emissions. • Community Facilities & Services o Build more localized community centres and public gathering spaces. o Expand access to green spaces, trails, libraries, family clinics, and senior activity spaces. o Ensure public spaces have basic amenities like public bathrooms and seating. • Land Use and Zoning o Promote mixed-use zoning and the “live-work-play” model to reduce car dependency. o Limit high-rise development; support low-rise and diverse housing options for seniors and families. • Economy and Local Business o Attract more local jobs with livable wages and reduce reliance on external commercial hubs. o Support independent businesses with affordable rents and storefronts. o Encourage third spaces (e.g., pottery studios, yoga, coworking) for local gathering and creativity. - 18 - Pickering Forward: Official Plan Review Community Elements and Infrastructure Engagement Summary Report Prepared by LURA Consulting 8 • Equity and Inclusion o Design inclusive communities for all ages, abilities, and racial backgrounds. o Add more Indigenous spaces and representation in the built environment. o Increase visible, responsive safety infrastructure (street lighting, emergency communication). Transportation and Mobility Participants were asked to identify how they usually get around in Pickering. The following feedback was received: Figure 7 - Summary of transportation methods participants used to get around Pickering. N=220 Figure 7 shows that most participants selected “driving” (96%), followed by “walking” (56%), and “cycling” (22%). Participants were asked to select what could make walking, cycling, or taking transit easier and/or safer in Pickering. The following feedback was received: - 19 - Pickering Forward: Official Plan Review Community Elements and Infrastructure Engagement Summary Report Prepared by LURA Consulting 9 Figure 8 - Summary of elements identified to make transportation easier and/or safer in Pickering. N=216 Figure 8 shows that most participants selected “more sidewalks, paths, and trails” (65%), followed by “improved connectivity” (58%), “more frequent and reliable public transit services” (58%) and “better lighting along roads and trails at night” (50%). Some participants expanded on their choices. Their explanations are summarized below: • Pedestrian Safety o Build and maintain sidewalks near schools and along rural or high-traffic roads. o Improve crossing safety with features like safer on/off-ramp designs, more crosswalks, and better lighting. o Add pedestrian-only zones. • Cycling Infrastructure o Create protected bike lanes that are separated from traffic. o Ensure full network connectivity with continuous cycling routes and multi-use trails. • Public Transit o Improve transit service quality and wayfinding; explore alternatives like LRT, subway, or small elevated trains. o Increase transit safety through enforcement and shorter distances to stops. o Encourage mixed-use and walkable developments so people can live, work, and shop without needing a car. • Traffic Management and Safety o Introduce traffic-calming measures (e.g., speed humps, chicanes, lower speed limits). o Improve traffic flow and road maintenance, especially on arterial roads (e.g., Brock, Kingston, Bayly). o Enforce traffic laws more strictly to reduce dangerous driving behaviour. - 20 - Pickering Forward: Official Plan Review Community Elements and Infrastructure Engagement Summary Report Prepared by LURA Consulting 10 Cultural Heritage Participants were asked what cultural heritage elements in Pickering should be protected, aside from heritage buildings. Many participants emphasized the importance of protecting Pickering’s waterfront, citing concerns about overdevelopment and a desire to preserve public access. Natural features such as forests, trails, wetlands, and green spaces were also widely valued for their ecological and recreational significance. Parks, recreational areas, and agricultural lands were seen as integral to the city’s identity and community wellbeing. Several responses also highlighted the need to preserve Indigenous cultural elements, small heritage landmarks, and spaces that foster local cultural life. Additional comments included the following: • Waterfronts o Protect the waterfront, including Frenchman’s Bay, Liverpool Beach, boardwalks, and marinas. o Avoid overdevelopment and loss of public access to lakefront areas. o Designate waterfront zones as parkland or wildlife refuges. • Green Spaces and Natural Features o Preserve trails (e.g. Seaton Trail), wetlands, forests, and conservation areas. o Protect the Greenbelt, Duffins Creek, Petticoat Creek, Lynde Shores, and Rouge National Urban Park. o Maintain big trees, marshes, watersheds, and native wildlife habitats. • Recreation Areas o Preserve parks, swimming areas, splash pads, and playgrounds. o Protect public parks like Diana Princess of Wales Park and Beachfront Park. • Cultural Identity o Preserve Indigenous cultural sites and historical areas like Whitevale, and hamlets. o Protect spaces like Devi Mandir, youth murals, small malls, and community gathering spots. o Increase and protect public art, storytelling routes, performance centres, and heritage-based tourism. • Agricultural & Rural Landscape o Ensure that farmland in North Pickering is protected for agritourism and local food production. o Preserve scenic rural roads, brick farm walls, and rolling hills. - 21 - Pickering Forward: Official Plan Review Community Elements and Infrastructure Engagement Summary Report Prepared by LURA Consulting 11 Participants were asked to select the best way to preserve and protect heritage buildings in neighbourhoods that are being redeveloped. Figure 9 - Summary of suggestions identified as the best ways to preserve and protect heritage buildings in neighbourhoods that are being redeveloped. N=214 Figure 9 shows that most participants selected “incorporate the heritage buildings into the new development” (67%), followed by “develop around the heritage buildings” (51%). • Conditional Support o Preservation should depend on the building’s condition, context, or proposed use. o Integrate heritage buildings into new developments with green space or design consistency. o Ensure that relocated heritage buildings remain within Pickering. • Opposition or Indifference o Redevelopment should take precedence. o Let heritage buildings go if the upkeep is costly. • Policies and Planning o Ensure that community values are understood and apply clear planning tests during development reviews. o Model policies after successful examples in other municipalities like Markham or Barrie. o Develop and enforce stricter guidelines and protections near heritage sites. Parks - 22 - Pickering Forward: Official Plan Review Community Elements and Infrastructure Engagement Summary Report Prepared by LURA Consulting 12 Participants were asked what parks in Pickering they love and why. The following feedback was received: Most Loved Parks Table 2 – Summary of which parks in Pickering participants love and why. Park Why People Love It Petticoat Creek Conservation Area (50) Walking/biking trails, water proximity, size, family friendliness, and nature access Frenchman’s Bay & Waterfront Parks (45) Lake views, fresh air, calm atmosphere, and open trails Rouge National Urban Park (30) Preserved natural landscapes, hiking, and a break from urban life Seaton Trail (20) Immersive nature experiences and scenic hiking Alex Robertson Park (10) Shade, sledding, culture/history, and ease of access David Farr Park (10) Open green space, safety, trails, and multi-season usability Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park (10) Natural remnants, marshes, and centrality Esplanade Park (10) Artistic elements, shade, event programming, and accessibility Amberlea Park (10) Splash pad, sports fields, tobogganing, and lack of parking Princess Diana Park / Diana Princess of Wales Park (10) Community gardens, play equipment, trail loops, and sports amenities Millennium Square (10) Social hub, event space, and lakefront access Altona Forest / Altona Park (5) Natural, less developed environment Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park (5) Beach, water access, and good facilities Desired Features • Forested areas, wildlife, and natural beauty. • Trail connectivity. • Water access/waterfront parks. • Family-friendliness (playgrounds, splash pads, etc.). • Multi-use amenities (sports fields, gardens, etc.). • Walkability and cycling access. • Cleanliness and maintenance. • Event programming and community use. Concerns and Criticisms • Poor maintenance or degradation. • Limited parking or access. • Overdevelopment/loss of green space. • Lack of quality parks in certain areas. • Accessibility issues. • Dog waste. • Overcrowding. - 23 - Pickering Forward: Official Plan Review Community Elements and Infrastructure Engagement Summary Report Prepared by LURA Consulting 13 • Safety on mixed-use trails. Participants were asked to identify how important it is to integrate parks into the design and planning of new developments. The following feedback was received: Figure 10 - Summary of the level of importance of integrating parks into the design and planning of new developments. N=220 Figure 10 shows that most participants selected “very important” (91%), followed by “somewhat important” (7%). - 24 - Pickering Forward: Official Plan Review Community Elements and Infrastructure Engagement Summary Report Prepared by LURA Consulting 14 Participants were asked what types of parks are most needed in Pickering. The following feedback was received: Figure 11 – Summary of the type of parks identified as most needed in Pickering. N=212 Figure 11 shows that most participants selected “several smaller-sized parks” (44%), followed by “a few larger-sized parks” (42%). Participants who selected “other” emphasized the need for a variety of park types, including large and small spaces to serve different purposes - from family gatherings and sports to quiet relaxation and play. Many stressed the importance of integrating parks into all neighbourhoods, especially areas that lack green space, and highlighted the value of connecting parks through off-road trails. All participants were asked to expand on their choices. Their explanations are summarized below: • Accessibility and Proximity o Strong desire for parks within walking distance of homes. o Smaller, distributed parks are seen as more accessible, especially for children, seniors, and those without cars. o Emphasis on walkability, active transportation, and reducing car dependence. • Balance Between Large and Small Parks o Many respondents want smaller neighbourhood parks for daily use and large destination parks for gatherings and events. o Large parks are valued for hosting community events and sports and having varied amenities. o Smaller parks are praised for being peaceful, accessible, and integrated into neighbourhoods. • Desired Amenities and Infrastructure - 25 - Pickering Forward: Official Plan Review Community Elements and Infrastructure Engagement Summary Report Prepared by LURA Consulting 15 o Sports courts (pickleball, basketball, tennis) o Splash pads and outdoor pools o Playgrounds (including accessible/ inclusive ones) o Trails and paths for walking and biking o Picnic areas, seating, shade, BBQ spots o Skating rinks, sledding hills, nature elements • Mental and Physical Wellbeing o Parks are tied to improved mental health, wellness, and physical activity. o Parks are essential in high-density living where backyards are limited or absent. o Comments emphasize the calming, peaceful nature of green space. o Parks are seen as a way to preserve green space, support biodiversity, and mitigate climate change. • Equity and Inclusion o Concerns that park distribution isn’t equitable—rural areas, high-density developments, and northern neighbourhoods may be underserved. o There is a desire for inclusive designs and diverse programming to serve all ages and abilities. Who Participated Figure 12 - Summary of participant ages. N=213 Figure 12 shows most survey participants were between the ages of 35 and 54 with: • 19% being 65+. • 17% between 55 and 64. • 22% between 45 and 54. • 28% between 35 and 44. • 11% between 25 and 34. • 1% between 18 and 24. - 26 - Pickering Forward: Official Plan Review Community Elements and Infrastructure Engagement Summary Report Prepared by LURA Consulting 16 • 2% prefer not to answer. Figure 13 - Summary of participant postal codes. N=200 Figure 13 shows the location of the survey participants. 56% live in the L1V postal code area, 23% live in the L1W postal code area, and 16% live in the L1X postal code area. The remaining 5% were participants from other postal code areas. - 27 - Pickering Forward: Official Plan Review Community Elements and Infrastructure Engagement Summary Report Prepared by LURA Consulting 17 Section 4: Next Steps Input from this engagement will inform the Official Plan about Community Elements and Infrastructure. The next PIC will be in June 2025 to discuss Housing and Affordability. The PICs provide an opportunity for more detailed conversations on how legislative changes, Pickering initiatives, and best practices will impact each listed topic. Further details on timelines are included below in Figure 14. Figure 14 - Illustration of the Pickering Forward phases and breakdown. - 28 - Memo To: Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee October 17, 2025 From: Matt Somerville Senior Planner, Heritage Copy: Chief Planner Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design Subject: Part IV Designation – 681 Pleasant Street File: A-3300-109 The purpose of this memo is to seek approval from the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee to recommend the designation of 681 Pleasant Street under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. 1.0 Background The property at 681 Pleasant Street is located within the historic Village of Fairport, which is Pickering’s original shipping port on Frenchman’s Bay (see Location Map, Attachment 1). The two-storey red brick house, constructed circa 1872, is historically associated with Thomas Mansfield Sr., a prominent local merchant who operated the Mansfield General Store and post office at 1291 Commercial Street. Together, the store and residence illustrate the pattern of nineteenth-century village development, in which shopkeepers lived within walking distance of their businesses. Photograph 1: View of 681 Pleasant Street (LHC, 2024) - 29 - Page 2 of 9 October 17, 2025 681 Pleasant Street 1.1 Property Description 681 Pleasant Street is not currently listed on the City’s Heritage Register nor designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. The property has an area of approximately 0.10 of a hectare (0.25 acres) and is located on the east side of Pleasant Street, north of Commerce Street, within the historic Village of Fairport. The rectangular-shaped lot is bounded by residential properties to the north, east, and south. The site contains a two-storey red-brick house, constructed circa 1872, that exemplifies the vernacular Gothic Revival farmhouse style. Character-defining elements include a T-shaped plan, a steeply pitched gable roof with a pointed-arch window, and segmental-arched window openings with brick voussoirs. The dwelling sits close to the street with a shallow front-yard setback—an arrangement typical of nineteenth-century village lotting patterns—and is accessed by a short asphalt driveway at the northwest corner and a narrow concrete walkway leading to the enclosed front porch. A wood-frame shed and historic well remain in the rear yard, reflecting the depth and utilitarian use of early Fairport village lots. This siting pattern, established in the 1848 village survey, placed merchants’ homes near the street for visibility and convenience, while reserving generous rear yards for gardens and outbuildings. Historical research indicates that the dwelling was built by John Fisher in 1872 and later occupied by Thomas Mansfield Sr., owner of the Mansfield General Store and post office at 1291 Commerce Street. The close proximity of the house and store illustrates the functional and social relationships typical of nineteenth-century merchant households, where owners resided within walking distance of their businesses. These properties together help define the surviving historic core of the Fairport village. 1.2 Previous Land Division Application In 2022, the current owners, Ahmed and Wara Choudhury, applied to sever the property into two residential lots. Their proposal included demolishing the existing dwelling and constructing two new three-storey single detached homes. On May 1, 2022, Durham Region Planning staff recommended that the application be supported in principle, subject to conditions, including zoning compliance, environmental review, and the preparation of a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA). On May 9, 2022, the Regional Land Division Committee considered the application, during which the applicant confirmed their intention to demolish the house. After considering staff comments and community input, the Committee tabled the application for up to two years, requiring the applicant to address zoning deficiencies and heritage concerns before any approval to sever the property could be granted. - 30 - Page 3 of 9 October 17, 2025 681 Pleasant Street As the two-year deferral period expired, the land severance matter was returned to the City of Pickering Committee of Adjustment on May 8, 2024. City Development staff reiterated that both proposed lots would not meet the minimum lot frontage requirement under the zoning by-law and, therefore, required approval of minor variances. More importantly, staff noted that the dwelling at 681 Pleasant Street had been identified on the City’s 2002 Inventory of Heritage Properties as one of the last surviving vernacular farmhouses with Gothic Revival influences in Fairport. Staff recommended that the application remain tabled until the applicant obtained the required variance to reduce the minimum lot frontage requirement and submitted an HIA acceptable to the City. 2.0 Heritage Review 2.1 Review of the submitted Heritage Impact Study and staff’s differing conclusion The applicant retained LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc., who completed a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER), dated November 2024 (see LHC Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, 2024, Attachment 2). LHC concluded that while the property met one of the criteria under Ontario Regulation 9/06, it did not meet the required threshold of two criteria for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Recognizing the potential significance of one of Fairport’s few remaining original nineteenth- century buildings, as well as its potential associative and contextual relationship to the community’s historic development of Fairport, City staff conducted additional research to review LHC’s findings. The supplementary work included input from local historians and historical texts from the Library archive that were not part of the original LHC review. The City’s additional research reinforced the property’s historical importance, particularly its connection to the Mansfield family and their role in Fairport’s early growth as Pickering’s primary commercial centre and lakeport hub. As a result, City staff determined that 681 Pleasant Street satisfies all three categories under Ontario Regulation 9/06 – design/physical, associative, and contextual value – and should therefore be recommended for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. 2.2 Historical Context: Development of Fairport The development of Fairport, a lakeshore village situated at Frenchman’s Bay, began in the mid-nineteenth century. Initially, it was a strategic location for shipping and trade; Indigenous peoples and later settlers had long used the area due to its naturally sheltered inland harbour. Frenchman’s Bay, initially known as Gandatsetiagon by the Seneca, provided access to Lake Ontario while offering protection from direct exposure to the lake. In the early 1800s, the surrounding forests were cleared for farming, and by the 1840s, Fairport had established itself as a regional port. The opening of a channel into the bay in 1843 by William Edwards and William Henderson, using a horse-drawn dredge, greatly enhanced the harbour’s utility. By 1845, piers had been installed, which are still visible in the bay, and the Port began shipping significant quantities of masts, pine logs, and square timber. The area was particularly active in the export of lumber, reportedly over three million board feet annually, by the mid-19th century, and extensive barley exports to the United States. - 31 - Page 4 of 9 October 17, 2025 681 Pleasant Street Photograph 2: Frenchman’s Bay, 1890 Fairport’s prosperity reached its peak in the 1870s with government investment in port infrastructure, including a lighthouse, wharf, and a 50,000-bushel grain elevator. These improvements bolstered the village’s role in international trade, particularly to Oswego, New York, via the Erie Canal. The creation of the Pickering Harbour Company in 1853 formalized the port’s operations. However, competition from Toronto and the shift from ship to rail led to a decline in commercial shipping by the 1880s. During its economic height, Fairport featured a commercial core with general stores, boarding houses, a post office, and related maritime support buildings. One of the most prominent families of this period was the Mansfields. Thomas Mansfield Sr. immigrated to Canada in 1867 and later operated a general store and post office at 1291 Commercial Street. His residence at 681 Pleasant Street, built in 1872 by John Fisher, is illustrative of the historical pattern in which merchants used to live close to their businesses for security reasons. The layout of Commerce and Pleasant Streets reflects the 19th-century village grid, and the contextual relationship between the house and former store is still discernible today. Photograph 3: Thomas Mansfiel St. General Store, 1900 - 32 - Page 5 of 9 October 17, 2025 681 Pleasant Street Photograph 3: Mansfield General Store, 1924 In addition to shipping and commerce, Fairport supported niche industries such as stonehooking. From the 1820s to the early 20th century, schooners operating from Frenchman’s Bay extracted flat stones from the lakebed for use in urban construction. This labour-intensive process was a vital part of Ontario’s early building-material economy, tying Fairport to a broader regional network that included Port Credit, Whitby, and Oakville. Fairport also hosted the Lake Simcoe Ice and Fuel Company, which harvested ice from Frenchman’s Bay each winter for sale and distribution before the advent of electric refrigeration. Large sawdust-insulated icehouses preserved the ice through the summer months, supporting regional demand for cold storage in the early 20th century. By the late 19th century, Fairport transitioned into a seasonal destination for urban vacationers, especially from Toronto and Rochester. The lakefront scenery and recreation opportunities drew cottagers and day-trippers. The Glen-Avis Pavilion, boat liveries, and a regular train service helped solidify Fairport’s identity as a summer resort. Many of these seasonal visitors eventually became permanent residents, further densifying the community. One notable household during this transition period was the O’Briens at 1279 Commerce Street. May O’Brien operated the local post office and soda shop from the 1920s to the 1960s, offering not only mail service but also a community gathering space. Her husband, William O’Brien, had previously served as the lighthouse keeper and worked at the grain elevator before his death in a work-related accident at the Fairport Grainery. These stories underscore the deep relationship between the port and its local residents. - 33 - Page 6 of 9 October 17, 2025 681 Pleasant Street By the mid-20th century, Fairport’s port functions had largely ceased. With the postwar suburban expansion, neighbourhoods like Bay Ridges and West Shore transformed the area into residential suburbs. Today, the surviving streets and heritage structures clustered around the intersection of Pleasant Street and Commerce Street serve as important reminders of Fairport’s historical and nautically oriented identity. This concentration of potential heritage properties includes: 1.681 Pleasant Street (c.1872) – subject property 2.1291 Commerce Street – Fairport General Store (c.1921) – not currently on heritage register 3.1279 Commerce Street - former Lighthouse Keeper’s Home / Post Office / Ice Cream Shop (c.1860s/1920s) – approved for demolition 4.1285 Commerce Street (c.1880s) – not currently on heritage register 5.1290 Commerce Street (c.1870s) – not currently on heritage register 3.0 Cultural Heritage Evaluation The existing dwelling at 681 Pleasant Street is a two-storey red-brick residence in the Gothic Revival style. The structure features buff brick detailing, a steeply pitched gable with a pointed- arch window, symmetrical fenestration, and decorative segmental-arched windows with brick voussoirs. The building is situated close to the road on a narrow urban lot, typical of 19th century village development patterns. The house contains a high degree of physical integrity dating to its original construction and remains in residential use, although it is currently vacant. The property is a representative example of a typical vernacular Gothic Revival Ontario farmhouse. Key stylistic features include: •Steeply pitched front gable with pointed-arch window; •Symmetrical three-bay front façade; •Dichromatic brickwork with buff accents; •Segmental-arched windows with decorative brick voussoirs; and •Bracketed eaves and tall, narrow window openings. 3 2 1 4 5 Frenchman’s Bay - 34 - Page 7 of 9 October 17, 2025 681 Pleasant Street This form of domestic Gothic Revival was common in Ontario from the 1850s to the 1880s and is closely associated with the rural prosperity of that period. Ontario Regulation 9/06, made under the Ontario Heritage Act, establishes the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest of properties that may be designated under Part IV of the Act. A property may be designated if it meets one or more of the nine criteria grouped under three categories: design/physical value, historical or associative value, and contextual value. Table 1 below presents the evaluation of the subject property using Ontario Regulation 9/06. Table 1: Evaluation of 815 Highway 7 as per Ontario Regulation 9/06 1.The property has design value or physical value because it, i.is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method, Y 681 Pleasant Street is a well-preserved example of a vernacular Gothic Revival house, characterized by materials and design elements that reflect the late 19th century rural architecture of Ontario. The style is exemplified by the use of steeply pitched roofs, decorative bargeboard (gingerbread) detailing, pointed-arch windows, vertical ornamentation, and the integration of a veranda that has since been enclosed. ii.displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or Y The property demonstrates a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit through the overall articulation of 19th century rural Ontario architectural style elements, and is reflective of the era's construction techniques. iii.demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. N The property does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 2.The property has historical value or associative value because it, i.has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, Y The property is directly associated with Thomas Mansfield Sr. and his family, who moved into the house in 1897 and remained there until approximately 1920. Thomas Sr. was a prominent figure in Fairport’s commercial history and operated the Fairport General Store located nearby at 1291 Commerce Street. Later, his son, Thomas Mansfield Jr., continued to reside at 681 Pleasant Street and to operate the Fairport General Store until approximately 1920. Their residency and relationship with the General Store are associated with a period of significant economic development within the Fairport community. - 35 - Page 8 of 9 October 17, 2025 681 Pleasant Street 2.The property has historical value or associative value because it, ii.yields, or has the potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or Y The Mansfield family’s association with the nearby General Store at 1291 Commerce Street is also significant, as it yields information as it relates to an understanding of a culture relating to a long-held historical norm of merchants living close to their places of business for security and commuting, further adding to its associative value. 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 and builder of the building at 815 Highway 7 is not of significance. 3.The property has contextual value because it, i.is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, Y 681 Pleasant Street has contextual value for its visual and functional relationship to the historic core of Fairport. The house is situated within the original 19th century street grid, with a shallow setback along Pleasant Street that is consistent with historic village development patterns. It is visually and historically linked to the Mansfield store at 1291 Commerce Street, together forming a residential-commercial pairing that helps define the character of the village core ii.is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or Y The property contributes to the continuity of the streetscape along Pleasant and Commerce Streets. It serves as a physical reminder of Fairport’s origins as a port and commercial hub on Frenchman’s Bay. iii.is a landmark. N No significant views of the property distinguish the building as a notable or distinct property. It does not serve as a local landmark in the community. (A Draft Statement of cultural and heritage value is included as Attachment 3). - 36 - Page 9 of 9 October 17, 2025 681 Pleasant Street 4.0 Staff Recommendations to Heritage Pickering This memo provides recommendations to the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee regarding the Part IV designation of 681 Pleasant Street. As outlined in the CHER and additional heritage information conducted by staff. Staff determined that 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 draft Statement of Significance for the property only 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 681 Pleasant Street under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. 5.0 Next Steps Should Heritage Pickering support the designation of 681 Pleasant Street, City Development staff will prepare a Recommendation Report to Council recommending Part IV designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. MS:NS:nr:jc /CityDevDept/A3300/A-3300-109 681 Pleasant Street/Committee and Council Reports/HPAC/October 22, 2025 - HPAC Memo.docx Attachments 1.Location Map – 681 Pleasant Street 2.Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, 681 Pleasant Street, prepared by LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc., dated November 22, 2024 3.681 Pleasant Street - Draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value - 37 - af:j of PlCKERlNG City Development Department C "' (/) "' Q) ii >¢,~ J' Location Map ~ Commerce Street ~ ~ ~ ~ ~--Subject Lands Annland Street Municipal Address:681 Pleasant Street © 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 of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.,© Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. L:\PLANNI NGIO 1-MapFiles\01-City Development\A-3300 Historical Heritage Conservation\681 Pleasant St_ LocationMap\681 PleasantSt_ LocationMap.aprx "O "' 0 a:: 0 0 C. .; > :.:::; Cl C (/) (/) e () ::, (9 Broadview Street /y >----A Date: Sep. 05, 2025 SCALE: 1:1,500 I THIS ISNOTAPLANa= SURVEY. Attachment 1 - 38 - CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT 681 Pleasant Street, Pickering, ON FINAL REPORT Date: 22 November 2024 Project #: LHC0476 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. 400-837 Princess Street Kingston, Ontario K7L 1G8 Phone: (613)507-7817 Toll Free: 1-833-210-7817 Email: info@lhcheritage.com Web: www.lhcheritage.com Attachment 2 - 39 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 ii This page has been left blank deliberately - 40 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 iii Report prepared for: Ahmed Chowdhury Banalata Consultants Ltd. 3400 Danforth Avenue, Unit #5 Scarborough, ON M1L 1E1 Report prepared by: Diego Maenza, MPl CAHP-Intern Graphics prepared by: Jordan Greene, BA (Hons.) Reviewed by: Benjamin Holthof, MPl MMA RPP MCIP CAHP Christienne Uchiyama, MA CAHP - 41 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 iv RIGHT OF USE The information, recommendations, and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of Banalata Consultants Ltd. Any other use of this report by others without permission is prohibited and is without responsibility to LHC. The report, all plans, data, drawings, and other documents as well as all electronic media prepared by LHC are considered its professional work product and shall remain the copyright property of LHC, who authorizes only Banalata Consultants Ltd., and approved users (including municipal review and approval bodies) to make copies of the report, but only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report by those parties. Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations, and opinions given in this report are intended only for the guidance of Banalata Consultants Ltd. and approved users. REPORT LIMITATIONS The qualifications of the heritage consultants who authored this report are provided in Appendix A. This report reflects the professional opinion of the authors and the requirements of their membership in various professional and licensing bodies. All comments regarding the condition of any buildings on the Property are based on a superficial visual inspection and are not a structural engineering assessment of the buildings unless directly quoted from an engineering report. The findings of this report do not address any structural or physical condition related issues associated with any buildings on the property or the condition of any heritage attributes. Concerning historical research, the purpose of this report is to evaluate the cultural heritage value or interest and heritage attributes the property at 681 Pleasant Street, and the surrounding area. The authors are fully aware that there may be additional historical information that has not been included. Nevertheless, the information collected, reviewed, and analyzed is sufficient to conduct this assessment. The review of policy and legislation was limited to that information directly related to cultural heritage management and is not a comprehensive planning review. Additionally, soundscapes, cultural identity, and sense of place analyses were not integrated into this report. Archaeological potential has not been assessed as part of this CHER. A separate archaeological assessment may be required as part of a complete application. - 42 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary only provides key points from the report. The reader should examine the complete report including background, results, as well as limitations. LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. (LHC) was retained by Banalata Consultants Ltd. (the Client) on 18 September 2024 to prepare a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) to evaluate the cultural heritage value or interest of the property at 681 Pleasant Street (the Property), in the City of Pickering (the City), in the Regional Municipality of Durham (the Region). This CHER was completed in accordance with the City of Pickering Official Plan (OP). It follows cultural heritage best practices drawing upon applicable frameworks, such as the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism’s (MCM) Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Property Evaluation (2006). The purpose of this CHER is to evaluate the Property for Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI). It has been prepared in response to a municipal request for a third-party evaluation of the Property for heritage value. In our professional opinion, LHC finds that the Property at 681 Pleasant Street meets one criterion of O. Reg. 9/06 (criterion 1). The Property is not eligible for designation under Part IV Section 29 of the OHA. - 43 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction to the Property .......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Report Purpose .............................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Description of the Property............................................................................................ 1 1.4 Heritage Recognition...................................................................................................... 1 2 Study Approach ...................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Legislation and Policy Review ....................................................................................... 4 2.2 Historical Research ......................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Enquiries ......................................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Site Visit .......................................................................................................................... 5 3 Legislative and Policy Context ............................................................................................... 6 3.1 Provincial Context .......................................................................................................... 6 3.1.1 Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18 ................................................................. 6 3.1.1.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 ..................................................................................... 6 3.1.2 Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 ........................................................................................... 8 3.1.3 Provincial Planning Statement (2024) ....................................................................... 8 3.1.4 Provincial Planning Context Summary ..................................................................... 9 3.2 Local Framework .......................................................................................................... 10 3.2.1 Durham Region Official Plan (1991) ......................................................................... 10 3.2.2 City of Pickering Official Plan (1997, 2022 Consolidation) ...................................... 10 3.2.3 Local Planning Context Summary ........................................................................... 11 4 Background Research and Analysis ..................................................................................... 12 4.1 Early Indigenous History .............................................................................................. 12 4.1.1 Paleo Period (9500 – 8000 BCE) ............................................................................... 12 4.1.2 Archaic Period (8000 – 1000 BCE) ............................................................................ 13 4.1.3 Woodland Period (1000 BCE – 1650 CE) .................................................................. 13 4.2 Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Historic Context (1600s and 1700s) ............. 14 4.3 The Johnson-Butler Purchase and Williams Treaty .................................................... 15 - 44 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 vii 4.4 Post Euro-Canadian Contact History ........................................................................... 16 4.5 Survey and European Settlement in the Area ............................................................. 16 4.5.1 Township of Pickering .............................................................................................. 16 4.5.2 Village of Fairport ..................................................................................................... 18 4.6 Property History ........................................................................................................... 19 4.6.1 People Associated with the Property ...................................................................... 27 4.6.1.1 John Fisher (1836-1900) ................................................................................... 27 4.6.1.2 Thomas Mansfield Sr. (1851-1927) ................................................................... 28 4.6.1.3 James C. Clark (1908-1998) .............................................................................. 30 5 Assessment of Existing Conditions ...................................................................................... 31 5.1 Surrounding Context .................................................................................................... 31 5.2 The Property ................................................................................................................. 34 5.2.1 Front Yard .................................................................................................................. 34 5.2.2 The Rear Yard and Shed Structure ........................................................................... 35 5.2.3 Main House Exterior ................................................................................................. 38 5.2.4 Main House Interior .................................................................................................. 43 5.2.4.1 Basement .......................................................................................................... 43 5.2.4.2 First Floor .......................................................................................................... 51 5.2.4.3 Second Floor ..................................................................................................... 56 5.3 Design ........................................................................................................................... 60 5.3.1 Ontario Farmhouse / Gothic Revival Style (1850-1900) .......................................... 60 5.3.2 Prevalence of local Ontario Farmhouse / Gothic Revival Style Buildings .............. 61 6 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest ................................................................ 62 6.1 Heritage Status ............................................................................................................. 62 6.2 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation ............................................................................ 62 6.2.1 Summary of Evaluation ............................................................................................ 62 7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 67 8 Signatures ............................................................................................................................. 68 9 References ............................................................................................................................ 69 - 45 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 viii List of Tables Table 1. Chain of Property Ownership for 681 Pleasant Street. ................................................. 19 Table 2. Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation for the Property at 681 Pleasant Street............... 62 Table 3: City of Pickering Relevant Official Plan Policies ............................................................ 81 List of Images Image 1. View east of Commerce Street and Pleasant Street with the Property at centre, annotated by LHC, 1920. ................................................................................................ 21 Image 2. View southeast of the T-intersection of Commerce Street and Pleasant Street with the Property at centre-left, annotated by LHC, 1923. ................................................... 21 Image 3. View of the south elevation of the house, 1940. .......................................................... 22 Image 4. View of the west elevation of the house, 2012. ............................................................ 22 Image 5. View of the west elevation of the house, 2014. ............................................................ 23 Image 6. Thomas Mansfield Sr.’s general store on Lot 7, Block E on the south side of Commercial Street, 1900s. ............................................................................................. 29 Image 7. Thomas Mansfield Sr.’s general store on Lot 7, Block E, 1291 Commercial Street, 1924. ....................................................................................................................................................... 30 Image 8. Illustration of a suburban villa or farmhouse, 1864. .................................................... 61 List of Figures Figure 1. Location of the Property. ................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2. Current Conditions of the Property ................................................................................ 3 Figure 3: Map of Williams Treaties and Pre-Confederation Treaties. ......................................... 17 Figure 4. 1837, 1860, 1874, and 1877 Historic Mapping Showing the Property. ........................ 24 Figure 5. 1914 and 1943 Historic Topographic Maps Showing the Property. ............................. 25 Figure 6. 1961 and 2002 Aerial Photographs Showing the Property. ......................................... 26 - 46 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 ix List of Photos Photo 1. View west towards Frenchman’s Bay. ........................................................................... 32 Photo 2. View south along Pleasant Street. ................................................................................ 32 Photo 3. View north along Pleasant Street towards Commercial Street. .................................. 33 Photo 4. View east along Commercial Street. ............................................................................. 33 Photo 5. View west along Commercial Street. ............................................................................ 34 Photo 6. View northeast at the front of the Property .................................................................. 35 Photo 7. View east of the rear yard. ............................................................................................. 36 Photo 8. View north of a well in the rear yard. ............................................................................ 36 Photo 9. View east of the west and south elevations of the shed structure............................... 37 Photo 10. View east of the north and west elevations of the shed structure. ............................ 37 Photo 11. View of the interior of the shed structure. .................................................................. 38 Photo 12. View east of the west (front) elevation. ....................................................................... 39 Photo 13. View north of the south elevation. .............................................................................. 40 Photo 14. View south of the north elevation. .............................................................................. 41 Photo 15. View northwest of the south and east rear wing elevations. ..................................... 41 Photo 16. View west of the east rear wing elevation. .................................................................. 42 Photo 17. View west of the east elevation and the rear wing. .................................................... 42 Photo 18. View south of the north elevation. .............................................................................. 43 Photo 19. View of the wooden staircase from the first floor to the basement. .......................... 44 Photo 20. View of the warped wooden boards of the first floor. ................................................ 45 Photo 21. View of rusticated CMU blocks supporting the wooden staircase. ............................ 45 Photo 22. View of a parged cement wall and two three-pane windows with wooden surrounds. ....................................................................................................................................................... 46 Photo 23. View of the fieldstone foundation wall with concrete wall below. ............................ 46 Photo 24. View of the fieldstone foundation wall with concrete wall below. ............................ 47 Photo 25. View of the fieldstone foundation parged with cement. ............................................ 47 Photo 26. View of rusticated CMU blocks, heating equipment and metal ductwork. ............... 48 - 47 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 x Photo 27. A chimney plate stamped “J. Smart Manufacturing Co. Limited Brockville Ont.”, pre- 1912. ............................................................................................................................. 48 Photo 28. Sill plate beams. ........................................................................................................... 49 Photo 29. View of a large square hewn timber beam adjacent to a steel beam supported by a steel pillar. .................................................................................................................... 49 Photo 30. View of a wooden board supported by a steel beam. ................................................ 50 Photo 31. View of a wooden sill plate. ......................................................................................... 50 Photo 32. View of the ceiling boards supported on wooden joists. ........................................... 51 Photo 33. View of the enclosed porch. ........................................................................................ 52 Photo 34. View of the red brick voussoirs with cracks. ............................................................... 52 Photo 35. View of cracked and chipped brick below the windowsill. ........................................ 53 Photo 36. View of the parlour room. ............................................................................................ 53 Photo 37. View of the bay window. .............................................................................................. 54 Photo 38. View of the fireplace in the living room area. ............................................................. 54 Photo 39. View towards the living room with the access door to the basement at right. ......... 55 Photo 40. View of the stamped pattern ceiling. .......................................................................... 55 Photo 41. View of the kitchen. ..................................................................................................... 56 Photo 42. View of the warped wooden second floor staircase. .................................................. 57 Photo 43. View of the second-floor staircase with handrails and newel posts. ......................... 57 Photo 44. View of the corridor to various bedrooms. ................................................................. 58 Photo 45. View of a bedroom. ...................................................................................................... 58 Photo 46. View of a bedroom. ...................................................................................................... 59 Photo 47. View of the washroom. ................................................................................................ 59 - 48 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPERTY LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. (LHC) was retained by Banalata Consultants Ltd. (the Client) on 18 September 2024 to prepare a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) to evaluate the cultural heritage value or interest of the property at 681 Pleasant Street (the Property), in the City of Pickering (the City), in the Regional Municipality of Durham (the Region). This CHER was completed in accordance with objectives of the City of Pickering Official Plan (OP). It follows cultural heritage best practices drawing upon applicable frameworks, such as the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism’s (MCM) Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Property Evaluation (2006). 1.2 REPORT PURPOSE The purpose of this CHER is to evaluate the Property for Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI). It has been prepared in response to a municipal request for a third-party evaluation of the Property for cultural heritage value. 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY The Property is in the geographic Pickering Township in the City of Pickering. It is on the east side of Pleasant Street, to the south of Commerce Street and to the north of Annland Street (Figure 1). The Property is legally described as “LT 6, BLK D, PL 65 (PIN 26320-0307)”. The Property is a long, deep, rectangle-shaped lot. It is in a block bound by Pleasant Street to the west, Commerce Street to the north, Liverpool Road to the east and Annland Street to the south. The Property is bound by Pleasant Street to the west and residential properties to the north, east and south. Surrounding residential properties include 685 Pleasant Street on the north, part of 1295 Commer Street on the east, part of 682 Liverpool Road on the east and 675 Pleasant Street to the south (Figure 2). 1.4 HERITAGE RECOGNITION The Property is not Listed on the City of Pickering MHR under Part IV Section 27 of the OHA. It is not Designated under Part IV Section 29 of the OHA. It is not designated as part of a Heritage Conservation District under Part V Section 41 of the OHA. - 49 - - 50 - - 51 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 4 2 STUDY APPROACH LHC follows a three-step approach to understanding and planning for cultural heritage resources based on the understanding, planning and intervening guidance from the Canada’s Historic Places Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada and the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit.0F1 Understanding the cultural heritage resource involves: • Understanding the significance of the cultural heritage resource (known and potential) through research, consultation and evaluation–when necessary. • Understanding the setting, context and condition of the cultural heritage resource through research, site visit and analysis. • Understanding the heritage planning regulatory framework around the cultural heritage resource. This CHER is guided by the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Property Evaluation. The evaluation considers the Property against the Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest from Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O. Reg. 9/06) under the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). Evaluation is based on research conducted into the history of the area and the property along with a site visit to understand the design, construction and current condition of the buildings on the Property. A glossary of terms used in this CHER is provided in Appendix B. 2.1 LEGISLATION AND POLICY REVIEW This CHER includes a review of provincial legislation, plans and cultural heritage guidance, and relevant municipal policy and plans. This review outlines the cultural heritage legislative and policy framework that applies to the Property (Section 3). 2.2 HISTORICAL RESEARCH Historical research for this CHER included local history research. LHC consulted primary and secondary research sources including: • Local histories; • Historic maps; • Aerial photographs; and, • Online sources about local history. 1 Canada’s Historic Places, “Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada”, 2010, 3; Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries, “Heritage Property Evaluation”, Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, 2006, 18. - 52 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 5 Online sources consulted included (but was not limited to): • The Archives of Ontario; • Library and Archives Canada; • The Ontario Council of University Libraries, Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project; • The Canadian County Atlas Digital Project; • City of Pickering; • Pickering Public Library; • University of Toronto Library; • McMaster University Library; • Ancestry; • FamilySearch; and, • The Internet Archive. 2.3 ENQUIRIES LHC contacted: • Pickering Public Library on 12 November 2024 for archival research. 2.4 SITE VISIT A site visit was conducted on 5 November 2024 by Senior Heritage Planner, Benjamin Holthof and Heritage Planner, Diego Maenza. The purpose of this site visit was to document the current conditions of the Property, adjacent properties, and their surrounding context. Unless otherwise attributed all photographs in this CHER were taken during the site visit. A selection of photographs from the site visit that document the Property are included in Section 5. - 53 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 6 3 LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY CONTEXT 3.1 PROVINCIAL CONTEXT In Ontario, cultural heritage is considered a matter of provincial interest and cultural heritage resources are managed under Provincial legislation, policy, regulations, and guidelines. Cultural heritage is established as a key provincial interest directly through the provisions of the OHA, Planning Act, the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), and the Environmental Assessment Act. Other provincial legislation deals with cultural heritage indirectly or in specific cases. These various acts and the policies under these acts indicate broad support for the protection of cultural heritage by the Province. 3.1.1 ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C. O.18 The OHA (consolidated on 1 July 2024) and associated regulations set minimum standards for the evaluation of heritage resources in the province and give municipalities power to identify and conserve individual properties, districts, or landscapes of cultural heritage value or interest.1F2 Part I (2) of the OHA enables the Minister to determine policies, priorities, and programs for the conservation, protection, and preservation of the heritage of Ontario. Part IV, Section 27(1) requires the clerk of a municipality to keep a register of property in the municipality that is of cultural heritage value or interest—often known as a Municipal Heritage Register (MHR). A Property may be Listed on the MHR if it meets one or more of the prescribed criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest. A municipality may Designate individual properties under Section 29 Part IV of the OHA if the property meets two or more of the criteria of O. Reg. 9/06. An OHA designation applies to real property rather than individual structures. An evaluation of the Property using the criteria from O. Reg. 9/06 under the OHA is outlined in Section 6. 3.1.1.1 ONTARIO REGULATION 9/06 O. Reg. 9/06 identifies the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Part IV Section 27(3), 29(1)(a) and Part V Section 41(1)(b) of the OHA.2F3 A Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (SCHVI) is created based on evaluation using these criteria. These criteria are used in determining if an individual property or HCD has CHVI. The regulation has 2 Province of Ontario, Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, last modified 1 July 2024, accessed 30 October 2024, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18. 3 Province of Ontario, Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, last modified 1 January 2023, accessed 30 October 2024, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060009. - 54 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 7 nine criteria for evaluation of individual properties and nine criteria for evaluation of properties in HCDs. The two sets of criteria are substantially similar. The criteria for evaluation of individual properties under Part IV of the OHA are: 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. 5. The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark.3F4 Properties that meet one of these criteria may be listed on a MHR under Part IV, Section 27 of the OHA. Properties that meet at least two of these criteria may be designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the OHA. 4 Province of Ontario, “Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest”, last modified 1 January 2023. - 55 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 8 3.1.2 PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990 The Planning Act is the primary document for municipal and provincial land use planning in Ontario and was consolidated on 1 July 2024. This Act sets the context for provincial interest in heritage. It states under Part I (2, d): The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as…the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest.4F5 Details about provincial interest as it relates to land use planning and development in the province are outlined in the PPS, which is used under the authority of Part 1 (3). 3.1.3 PROVINCIAL PLANNING STATEMENT (2024) The PPS provides direction for municipalities regarding provincial requirements. The PPS includes cultural heritage in its Vision for shaping how communities grow and prosper, indicating that “cultural heritage and archaeology in Ontario will provide people with a sense of place (Chapter 1).” Section 4.6 of the PPS outlines provincial policy regarding cultural heritage and archaeology (relevant definitions are outlined in Appendix B of this CHER). The subsections state: 4.6.1 Protected heritage property, which may contain built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes, shall be conserved. 4.6.2. Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless the significant archaeological resources have been conserved. 4.6.3. Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property unless the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. 4.6.4. Planning authorities are encouraged to develop and implement: a) archaeological management plans for conserving archaeological resources; and b) proactive strategies for conserving significant built heritage resources 5 Province of Ontario, Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, last modified 20 October 2024, accessed 30 October 2024, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13, Part I (2, d). - 56 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 9 and cultural heritage landscapes. 4.6.5 Planning authorities shall engage early with Indigenous communities and ensure their interests are considered when identifying, protecting and managing archaeological resources, built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes.5F6 Land use planning decisions made by municipalities, planning boards, the Province, or a commission or agency of the government must be consistent with the PPS. The PPS makes the consideration of cultural heritage equal to all other considerations in relation to planning and development within the province. The PPS definition of a Protected heritage property is property designated under Part IV or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; property included in an area designated as a heritage conservation district under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act; property subject to a heritage conservation easement or covenant under Part II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; property identified by a provincial ministry or a prescribed public body as a property having cultural heritage value or interest under the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal heritage legislation; and UNESCO World Heritage Sites.6F7 The Property is not a Protected Heritage Property as defined in the PPS. 3.1.4 PROVINCIAL PLANNING CONTEXT SUMMARY In summary, cultural heritage resources are considered an essential part of the land use planning process with their own unique considerations. As directed by the province, these policies and guidelines must be considered by the local planning context. In general, the province requires significant cultural heritage resources to be conserved. The Property is not a Protected Heritage Property. This CHER is intended to determine if it meets the relevant criteria for heritage Listing or Designation and if it could be eligible to become a Protected Heritage Property. 6 Province of Ontario, Provincial Policy Statement, 2024: Under the Planning Act, 2024, accessed 28 October 2024, 28, https://www.ontario.ca/files/2024-10/mmah-provincial-planning-statement-en-2024-10-23.pdf. 7 Province of Ontario, PPS, 2024, pg. 50. - 57 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 10 3.2 LOCAL FRAMEWORK 3.2.1 DURHAM REGION OFFICIAL PLAN (1991) The Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP) was adopted by Regional Council on 5 June 1991 and approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on 24 November 1993. The ROP was most recently consolidated on 26 May 2020. The ROP serves to guide growth and land use decisions to 2031. Section 2 includes cultural heritage resource policies with the goal “to preserve and foster the attributes of communities and the historic and cultural heritage of the Region”.7F8 Policy 2.3.49 states that: 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.8F9 The ROP does not include a section dedicated to cultural heritage resources and directs the development of these policies to the area municipalities. 3.2.2 CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN (1997, 2022 CONSOLIDATION) The City of Pickering Official Plan (OP) (1997, 2022 Consolidation) was approved by Council on 3 March 1997 and approved by the Ontario Municipal Board on 21 October 1997. The OP was most recently consolidated in March 2022. A new Draft OP is currently being prepared. The OP provides a long-term set of visions, goals, and direction for the City to help appropriately address changes resulting from anticipated growth. Cultural heritage policies are addressed in Chapter 8 with the goal to conserve Pickering’s heritage in coordination with the City’s planning needs. The OP cultural heritage objectives are: 8 Durham Region, Durham Regional Official Plan. 1997, last modified 26 May 2020, accessed 30 October 2024, 3, https://www.durham.ca/en/doing-business/resources/Documents/PlanningandDevelopment/Official- Plan/2020-Durham-Regional-Official-Plan-Consolidation---Revised-1.pdf. 9 Durham Region, Durham Regional Official Plan, 15. - 58 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 11 8.2 City Council shall: (a) identify important cultural heritage resources from all time periods, so that they can be appropriately conserved and integrated into the community fabric, including:  significant heritage structures, features and sites;  buildings, sites, and artifacts of historical, archaeological and architectural significance including modern or recent architecture;  significant landscape features and characteristics, including vistas and ridge lines; and  other locally important cultural heritage resources; (b) foster public awareness and appreciation of the City’s cultural heritage; (c) prevent the demolition, destruction or inappropriate alteration of important cultural heritage resources to the extent possible; (d) where possible, restore, rehabilitate, maintain and enhance important cultural heritage resources owned by the City, and encourage the same for those owned by others; (e) where possible, ensure development, infrastructure, capital works and other private and public projects conserve, protect and enhance important cultural heritage resources; and (f) involve the public, business-people, landowners, local heritage experts, heritage committees, relevant public agencies, and other interested groups and individuals in cultural heritage decisions affecting the City.9F10 Commentary on the Property and the City’s broad cultural heritage policies is in Appendix C (Table 3). The Property has not been identified by the City as a significant or important heritage structure or cultural heritage resource. 3.2.3 LOCAL PLANNING CONTEXT SUMMARY The Region and the City consider cultural heritage resources to be of value to the community and value them in the land use planning process. Through ROP and OP policies, the Region and the City have committed to identifying and conserving cultural heritage resources. However, the Property is not a Protected Heritage Property and has not been added to the Municipal Heritage Register. It is not identified by the municipality as a cultural heritage resource. 10 City of Pickering, Pickering Official Plan, Edition 9, 1997, office consolidation March 2022, accessed 30 October 2024, https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/resources/Official-Plan---Main-Page/Edition-9/OP9ACC.pdf - 59 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 12 4 BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS 4.1 EARLY INDIGENOUS HISTORY The City of Pickering website includes the following Indigenous Territorial Land Acknowledgment: We acknowledge that the City of Pickering resides on land within the Treaty and Traditional Territories of the Mississauga, the Scugog Island First Nation, and Williams Treaty signatories, the Mississauga and Chippewa Nations. Pickering is also home to many Indigenous persons and communities who represent other diverse, distinct, and autonomous Indigenous nations. This acknowledgement reminds us of our responsibilities and relationships with the First Peoples of Canada, and to the ancestral lands of which we share, learn, work, and live.10F11 The following section provides a brief overview of early Indigenous history of the general area, followed by a general overview of early Euro-Canadian settlement. The pre-European contact (pre-contact) history of this area is long and diverse. Archaeologists generally divide the chronology of pre-contact land use in Southern Ontario into three primary periods based on characteristics of settlement patterns and material culture: Paleo, Archaic, and Woodland. 4.1.1 PALEO PERIOD (9500 – 8000 BCE) The cultural history of southern Ontario began around 11,000 years ago following the retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet.11F12 During this archaeological period, known as the Paleo period (9500-8000 BCE), the climate was similar to the present-day sub-arctic and vegetation was largely spruce and pine forests.12F13 The initial occupants of the province had distinctive stone tools. They were nomadic big-game hunters (i.e., caribou, mastodon, and mammoth) who lived in small groups and travelled over vast areas, possibly migrating hundreds of kilometres in a single year.13F14 11 City of Pickering, “Council Meeting, November 27”, 27 November 2023, accessed 12 November 2024, https://www.viddler.com/v/18753fba?secret=57115818. 12 Christopher Ellis and D. Brian Deller, “Paleo-Indians”, in The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, ed. Christopher Ellis and Neal Ferris, London, ON: Ontario Archaeological Society, London Chapter, 1990, 37. 13 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, in Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks, prepared by the Toronto Region Conservation Authority, 2001, http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/37523.pdf 14 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001. - 60 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 13 4.1.2 ARCHAIC PERIOD (8000 – 1000 BCE) During the Archaic archaeological period (8000-1000 BCE) the occupants of southern Ontario continued their migratory lifestyles, although they lived in larger groups and over time occupied smaller territories of land – possibly remaining within specific watersheds. People refined their stone tools during this period and developed polished or ground stone tool technologies. Evidence of long-distance trade has been found on archaeological sites from the Middle and Later Archaic times; including items such as copper from Lake Superior, and marine shells from the Gulf of Mexico.14F15 4.1.3 WOODLAND PERIOD (1000 BCE – 1650 CE) The Woodland archaeological period in southern Ontario (1000 BCE – CE 1650) represents a marked change in subsistence patterns, burial customs, and tool technologies, as well as the introduction of pottery making. The Woodland period is sub-divided into the Early Woodland (1000–400 BCE), Middle Woodland (400 BCE – CE 500) and Late Woodland (CE 500 - 1650).15F16 The Early Woodland is defined by the introduction of clay pots which allowed for preservation and easier cooking.16F17 During the Early and Middle Woodland, communities grew and were organized at a band level. Peoples continued to follow subsistence patterns focused on foraging and hunting. Woodland populations transitioned from a foraging subsistence strategy towards a preference for agricultural village-based communities around during the Late Woodland. During this period people began cultivating maize in southern Ontario. The Late Woodland period is divided into three distinct stages: Early Iroquoian (CE 1000–1300); Middle Iroquoian (CE 1300– 1400); and Late Iroquoian (CE 1400–1650).17F18 The Late Woodland is generally characterised by an increased reliance on cultivation of domesticated crop plants, such as corn, squash, and beans, and a development of palisaded village sites which included more and larger longhouses. By the 1500s, Iroquoian communities in southern Ontario – and more widely across northeastern North America –organized themselves politically into tribal confederacies. South of Lake Ontario, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy comprised the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas, while Iroquoian communities in southern Ontario included the Petun, Huron, and Neutral Confederacies.18F19 15 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001. 16 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001. 17 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001. 18 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001. 19 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001; Haudenosaunee Confederacy, “Who Are We”, Haudenosaunee Confederacy, 2020, https://www.haudenosauneeconfederacy.com/who-we-are/ - 61 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 14 Adjacent to the Pickering border, an intact late 1600s village was founded by Seneca peoples by the Rouge River and is known as the Bead Hill National Historic Site of Canada. It was designated a National Historic Site of Canada in 1991.19F20 4.2 SEVENTEENTH- AND EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY HISTORIC CONTEXT (1600S AND 1700S) French explorers and missionaries began arriving in southern Ontario during the first half of the 17th century, bringing with them diseases for which the Indigenous peoples had no immunity, contributing to the collapse of the three southern Ontario Iroquoian confederacies. Also contributing to the collapse and eventual dispersal of the Huron, Petun, and Attiwandaron, was the movement of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy from south of Lake Ontario. Between 1649 and 1655, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy waged war on the Huron, Petun, and Attiwandaron, pushing them out of their villages and the general area.20F21 As the Haudenosaunee Confederacy moved across a large hunting territory in southern Ontario, they began to threaten communities further from Lake Ontario, specifically the Ojibway (Anishinaabe). The Anishinaabe had occasionally engaged in conflict with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy over territories rich in resources and furs, as well as access to fur trade routes; but in the early 1690s, the Ojibway, Odawa and Patawatomi, allied as the Three Fires, initiated a series of offensive attacks on the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, eventually forcing them back to the south of Lake Ontario.21F22 Oral tradition indicates that the Mississauga played an important role in the Anishinaabe attacks against the Haudenosaunee.22F23 A large group of Mississauga established themselves in the area between present-day Toronto and Lake Erie around 1695, the descendants of whom are the Mississaugas of the Credit.23F24 Artifacts from all major Indigenous communities have been discovered in the Greater Toronto Area at over 300 archaeological sites.24F25 20 Parks Canada, “Bead Hill National Historic Site of Canada”, Directory of Federal Heritage Designations, accessed 30 October 2024, https://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/page_nhs_eng.aspx?id=531. 21 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, “The History of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation,” Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, 2018, http://mncfn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/The- History-of-MNCFN-FINAL.pdf 22 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, “History”, 3-4. 23 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, “History”, 3-4. 24 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, “History”, 3-4. 25 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Archaeology Opens a Window on the History of Indigenous Peoples in the GTA,” News, 2018, https://trca.ca/news/archaeology-indigenous-peoples-gta/ - 62 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 15 In 1669, Sulpician missionary priests, Francois de Fenelon and Michel Trouve, explored the Rouge River and Gandatsekwyagon.25F26 The Rouge River Portage extended from the mouth of the Rouge River northwards on the east bank along the river. 4.3 THE JOHNSON-BUTLER PURCHASE AND WILLIAMS TREATY The Johnson-Butler Purchase, or “Gunshot Treaty” was entered into in 1788 by representatives of the Crown and certain Anishinaabe peoples.26F27 The Treaty contained no exact description of the land covered and was meant to cover land as far as a person could hear a gunshot from the shore of Lake Ontario. The treaty covers the north shore of Lake Ontario, beginning at the eastern boundary of the Toronto Purchase and continuing east to the Bay of Quinte, where it meets the Crawford Purchase. As the Williams Treaties First Nations write: The Gunshot Treaty was made in a series of Councils, first in 1787 with Sir John Johnson and in 1788 with Lt. Colonel John Butler and then confirmed with Lt. Governor Simcoe between the Chippewas of Lake Huron and Lake Simcoe and the Mississaugas of Rice Lake, Mud Lake and Scugog, circa 1794-1795. This treaty concerned lands along the shore of Lake Ontario west of the Crawford Purchase and south of Lake Simcoe.27F28 Due to the uncertainty of land surrendered and breach of terms from European settlers, several Indigenous groups contested the earlier Treaty. A commission was set up by the Crown in 1916, led by R.V. Sinclair.28F29 Sinclair concluded: The Indian title to these lands has never been extinguished and I am of the opinion that some arrangement should be made for quieting the title by the payment to the claimants of compensation in the same way that the Crown has dealt with other Indians whose title has been extinguished by treaty.29F30 In 1923, to settle the matters as quickly as possible, A.S. Williams set out to resolve the land claim issues and offered the provincial limit of $500,000.30F31 The Williams Treaty encompassed 26 Melba E. McKay, Pickering Women’s Institute, 1957, 11. 27 Government of Ontario, “Johnson-Butler Purchase”, 23 April 2024, accessed 30 October 2024, https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-ontario-treaties-and-reserves#t4. 28 Williams Treaties First Nations, “Gunshot Treaty,” Pre-Confederation Treaties, n.d. 29 Robert J. Surtees, “Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties”, Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1986. 30 Robert J. Surtees, “Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties”, Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1986. 31 Robert J. Surtees, “Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties”, Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1986, 19. - 63 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 16 approximately 52,000 km2 and was signed by seven Anishinaabe Nations and Crown representatives in 1923 (Figure 3). The haste to sign the Williams Treaty was in part due to European settlement on land that was not yet ceded by the First Nations groups. The unforeseen problem with the Williams Treaty was it overlapped with earlier Treaties, including Treaty 20, and omitted hunting and fishing rights – that were covered in earlier Treaties.31F32 4.4 POST EURO-CANADIAN CONTACT HISTORY Prior to the nineteenth century, the area saw only limited European or Euro-Canadian activity. French fur traders and Jesuit missionaries travelled with and lived with Indigenous communities in what would become Ontario from the early seventeenth-century until the British gained control of the area in the late eighteenth-century.32F33 International conflicts including the Seven Years War (1756-1763) between Great Britain and France, leading to the 1763 Royal Proclamation, and the American Revolution (1775-1783) lead to a push by the British Crown for greater settlement in Canada which in turn led to efforts to sign treaties with Indigenous peoples.33F34 The western part of the Province of Quebec, west of the Ottawa River (which would eventually become Ontario) saw little settlement until Loyalists moved north following the American Revolution. 4.5 SURVEY AND EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT IN THE AREA 4.5.1 TOWNSHIP OF PICKERING In 1791, the Township of Pickering was first surveyed by Provincial Land Surveyor, Augustus Jones. It was initially known as Township No. 9, and then given the name Edinburgh. The Township was primarily settled after Asa Danforth completed construction of Kingston Road in 1796. This was a major road from Ancaster to Kingston, which was designed to be two rods wide to accommodate horses and situated a safe distance from Lake Ontario. The crossing of the Rouge River was across a rudimentary wooden bridge constructed by 1811. A majority of the Township was taken up by military and additional grants allocated to largely absentee landholders. Large portions of Township, in particular desirable lands along the shoreline, remained wild well into the 1800s when the original landowners began selling off parcels to new settlers. 32 Robert J. Surtees, “Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties”, Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1986, 20. 33 Toronto Public Library, “Local History & Genealogy, Selections and Full PDFs of “The Jesuit Relations”: Sainte- Marie among the Hurons and Beyond,” accessed 30 October 2024, https://torontopubliclibrary.typepad.com/local-history-genealogy/2020/01/sainte-marie-among-the-hurons- selections-from-the-jesuit-relations-and-allied-documents.html 34 Peel Art Gallery, Museum, and Archives [PAMA], “About Peel,” 2022, accessed 30 October 2024, https://peelarchivesblog.com/about-peel/. - 64 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 17 Figure 3: Map of Williams Treaties and Pre-Confederation Treaties.34F35 The first Euro-Canadian settler in Pickering was William Peak, who arrived in 1798 and settled along the lakeshore at the mouth of Duffins Creek, working as a trader and interpreter with Indigenous peoples.35F36 By the beginning of the nineteenth century, the southeastern portion of the Township began to be settled by Quakers from the eastern United States. In 1809, the population of the Township numbered at 180 inhabitants.36F37 In 1811, Pickering Township became a separate municipality. In 1821, the Township was included in the East Riding of York County. As the Township was characterized by rolling hills covered in hardwood trees, settlement of the area flourished. By 1846, approximately 63,061 acres of land out of the total 74,660 acres in the Township were taken up and in use.37F38 35 Williams Treaties First Nations, Map of William Treaties and Pre-Confederation Treaties, accessed 30 October 2024, https://williamstreatiesfirstnations.ca/maps-of-our-treaties/. 36 J.E. Farewell, Ontario County: A Short Sketch of Its Settlement, Physical Features, and Resources with Brief Historical Notes, Whitby, ON: Gazette-Chronicle Press, 1907, 11-13; William R. Wood, Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Community, Toronto, ON: William Briggs, 1911, 16-18. 37 W.C. Murkar, “Early Settlers in Pickering”, Pickering News, 29 June 1961. 38 William H. Smith, Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer: Comprising Statistical and General Information Respecting All Parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West, Toronto, C.W.: H. & W. Rowsell, 1846, 146. - 65 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 18 In 1842, the population increased to 3,752 inhabitants.38F39 By 1850, it had increased to 6,385 inhabitants.39F40 Throughout the 1850s, in part due to the Crimean War and the resulting economic boom in Canada, the Township was considered one of the best settled townships in the County of Ontario and contained a number of fine farms. The economic centres were Audley and Duffins Creek (later Pickering Village).40F41 4.5.2 VILLAGE OF FAIRPORT With the continuation of settlement along the north shore of Lake Ontario, the lake itself became a highway of communication and exports. At Frenchman’s Bay, a natural enclosed harbour was proposed as a location for a commercial harbour. It became increasingly important as a port for the export of ship’s masts, pine logs, cordwood, and squared timber. In the 1840s, the Pickering Harbour Company was formed for the development and management of the harbour. By 1845, a channel was opened along the gravel bar that enclosed the harbour, and within a few years, Pickering Harbour, or Port of Liverpool, was a busy port exporting pine logs, timber and agricultural products.41F42 In 1848, the Village of Fairport was surveyed by John Shier, Provincial Land Surveyor with each rectangular lot in Block D being 1 chain (20.11 m) in length by 2.50 chains (50.29 m) in width, and 0.25 acres in area. When the Grand Trunk Railway (GTR) was opened through Pickering Township in 1856, use of Frenchman’s Bay as a port declined sharply.42F43 The 1873 Lovell’s Gazetteer of British North America noted that Frenchman’s Bay had a population of 100 inhabitants.43F44 However, the provincial government funded an upgrade of port facilities in 1875. A new wharf replaced the old one, a lighthouse was built, a new channel was dredged, and a 50 000-bushel elevator was constructed.44F45 These improvements allowed for the export of large quantities of barley grown in the Township to the United States. 39 William H. Smith, Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer: Comprising Statistical and General Information Respecting All Parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West, Toronto, C.W.: H. & W. Rowsell, 1846, 146. 40 William H. Smith, Canada: Past, Present and Future, Being A Historical, Geographical, Geological and Statistical Account of Canada West, Vol. II, Toronto, C.W.: Thomas Maclear, 1851, 21. 41 R.A. Murison, The Village of Pickering 1800-1970, Pickering, ON: The Corporation of the Village of Pickering, 1970, 3. 42 William R. Wood, Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Community, Toronto, ON: William Briggs, 1911, 163-164. 43 John W. Sabean, “A Capsule History of the Township of Pickering”, Pickering Township Historical Society, Pathmaster, Vol. 1, No. 1, 7 May 1997, 9, accessed 14 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/0/edoc/171049/191.pdf. 44 John Lovell, Lovell’s Gazetteer of British North America, Montreal, QC: John Lovell, 1873. 121. 45 Pickering Township Historical Society, Pathmaster, No. 7, Fall 2022, 10, accessed 11 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=254410&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING&searchid=41c e09cc-f1d7-4882-b6e8-d6f6c73c8ca9 - 66 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 19 Other businesses survived for short periods in Frenchman’s Bay including commercial fisheries and especially the harvesting of ice in wintertime. In the early 1900s, Fairport began to develop as a centre for recreation. In time, many of the cottages were winterized and the number of residents stabilized.45F46 4.6 PROPERTY HISTORY Table 1. Chain of Property Ownership for 681 Pleasant Street. Property Owner Years of Ownership Instrument Remarks Captain George Hill 1796-1834 Crown Patent All Richard Gardiner 1834-1852 Inst. 1737. ¼ acres. James Youmans 1854 --- Scott James 1854-1866 Inst. 17007. --- William Taylor 1866 Inst. 28010. Through Court of Chancery George White 1866-1868 Inst. 28010. --- John Fisher 1868-1874 Inst. 106. --- Patrick Ure 1874 Inst. 2100. --- John and Susan Fisher 1875-1888 Inst. 3238. --- William Palmer 1888-1893 Inst. 8472. --- Charles Palmer 1893-1895 Inst. 7165. --- Elizabeth Taylor 1895-1897 --- --- Thomas Mansfield Sr. 1897-1906 Inst. 9064. --- Julia Dunn 1906-1917 Inst. 11537. $425. Charles Clarke and Annie A. Clarke 1917-1944 Inst. 14211. $1,400. James C. Clark 1944-1999 Inst. 24221. $3,000. James Peter Russell 1999-2010 Inst. LT892085. All. Kiera Brown 2010-2021 Inst. DR914723. All. Ahmed Chowdhury 2021-Present Inst. DR2033191. All. 46 Pickering Township Historical Society, Pathmaster, No. 7, Fall 2022, 10, accessed 11 November 2024. - 67 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 20 The Crown Patent for Township Lot 23, Broken Front, Concession 3 was granted to Captain George Hill in 1796. The Township Lot was sold to Richard Gardiner in 1834 and he subdivided and surveyed the Township Lot into smaller lots, including the Property as Lot 6, Block D under Plan 65 in 1848. In 1854, the Property was sold to James Youmans and then sold again to Scott James the same year. In 1866, it was foreclosed and sold to William Taylor through the Court of Chancery, who then sold it to George White the same year. In 1868, the Property was purchased by John Fisher. Around 1872, he had the two-storey red brick residential building constructed. The 1874 Kingford Map of Frenchman’s Bay shows the Property at the south side of Commerce Street and Pleasant Street is unmarked. The Property including the adjacent Lot 8 and Lot 9 were sold to Patrick Ure in 1874, and the following year, it was purchased by Susan Fisher. In 1888, the Property was purchased by William Palmer. The 1888 tax assessment roll notes that William Palmer owned Block D, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12; Block E Lots 1 & 12, and Water Lot 1, totalling 2.75 acres valued at $500.46F47 During the 1890s, the Property changed hands multiple times. In 1897, the Property was purchased by Thomas Mansfield Sr, a local general store merchant. In 1906, he sold the Property to Julia Dunn for a sum of $425. The 1914 topographic map illustrates the Property as being one of two brick or stone buildings in Fairport Village (the other building was located at the southeast corner of Liverpool Road and Wharf Street). In 1917, the Property was purchased by Charles Clarke and Annie A. Clarke for a sum of $1,400. The 1921 Census notes that Charles Clarke and Annie A. Clarke were living in a single- detached brick house and his occupation was manufacturer.47F48 Photographs from 1920 and 1923 demonstrate the location of the Property within Fairport (Image 1 and Image 2). A 1940 photograph shows the south elevation of the house on the Property with a symmetrical fenestration pattern, a crowning wooden finial above the gable roof end, a red brick chimney centered at the main gable roof, and a red brick chimney at the rear wing gable end (Image 3). In 1944, the Property was purchased by James C. Clarke for a sum of $3,000 who resided there for over 50 years. In 1999, the Property was sold to James P. Russell. In 2010, the Property was sold to Kiera Brown. Photos from 2012 and 2014 demonstrate the addition of decorative bargeboard (gingerbread) to the west (front) elevation of the gable roof and removal of the finials. In 2021, the Property was sold to the current owner. 47 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1888. Line 1229. 48 Library and Archives Canada, Sixth Census of Canada, 1921, Enumeration District No. 109 Ontario South, Sub- district No. 3 Pickering, 4, Line 7, accessed 8 November 2024, https://www.ancestry.ca/discoveryui- content/view/2220182:8991. - 68 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 21 Image 1. View east of Commerce Street and Pleasant Street with the Property at centre, annotated by LHC, 1920.48F49 Image 2. View southeast of the T-intersection of Commerce Street and Pleasant Street with the Property at centre-left, annotated by LHC, 1923.49F50 49 “Frenchman’s Bay – Fairport, Ontario”, Pickering Public Library, The P.E.S.C.A. Collection, Item ID: 96-01660, 1920, accessed 8 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=166942&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING&searchid=ff98 146d-6e13-49de-8f78-dc5a62f388cd. 50 “An Aeroplane View of Frenchman’s Bay, Ont”, Canadian Post Card Co., Frenchmans Bay 01. Pickering Public Library, Item ID: 2009-00175, July 1923, accessed 11 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=171324&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING. - 69 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 22 Image 3. View of the south elevation of the house, 1940.50F51 Image 4. View of the west elevation of the house, 2012.51F52 51 Brian Winter, “Frenchman’s Bay, Ontario”, Pickering Public Library, The P.E.S.C.A. Collection, Item ID: 96-01657, 1940, accessed 6 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=166947&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING. 52 Google Street View, August 2012, accessed 8 November 2024. - 70 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 23 Image 5. View of the west elevation of the house, 2014.52F53 53 Google Street View, August 2014, accessed 8 November 2024. - 71 - - 72 - - 73 - - 74 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 27 4.6.1 PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY 4.6.1.1 JOHN FISHER (1836-1900) John Fisher was born in Stonegrave, North Yorkshire, England to parents Joseph Fisher (1800- 1848) and Elizabeth Fisher (née Snowden) (1807-1888). He emigrated with his parents and siblings to Pickering Township in 1842, where they settled on 100 acres of Lot 33, Concession 1. After his father's early death in 1848, John and his mother continued to farm. The 1860 Tremaine’s Map illustrates the ownership of Lot 33, Concession 1 by John Fisher. The 1861 Census notes that he lived in a one storey log building with his family.53F54 He married Susan Bellchambers (1839-1926) in 1861 at Dunbarton & Canton Church in Pickering Township. They had 6 children and continued to live in Pickering. The 1865 Tax Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering notes that he worked as a sailor and owned 0.25 acres of land in Broken Front, Township Lot 23 valued at $200.54F55 In 1866, he along with James Hiltz purchased Water Lot 1 in Fairport. After selling 50 acres of the family farm, he and his wife moved to Fairport Village in 1868 where John worked as a wharfinger and sailed a schooner.55F56 The 1868 Tax Assessment roll for Pickering Township notes that he worked as a wharfinger and owned 1.5 acres of land valued at $925.56F57 That same year, he purchased the Property on Lot 6, Block D, and other properties including Lot 8 and Lot 9, Block D which fronted Liverpool Road, and Lot 1 and Lot 12, Block E on the south side of Pleasant Street. Lot 1 and Lot 12 of Block E was the location of a large two-storey hotel and adjacent wharf known as the Fairport House or Fairport Hotel upon which he purchased the land with James Hiltz.57F58 In 1869, he received a hotel licence.58F59 The 1869 Conner and Coltson’s County of Ontario Directory notes that he worked as a wharfinger.59F60 In 1870, a contract was awarded by Pickering Township Council to John Fisher and William Bellchambers for the construction of a bridge over Lot 20 and Lot 21 on what is now Sandy Beach Road.60F61 The 1870 Tax Assessment Roll notes that he worked as an innkeeper and his property was valued at $925.61F62 54 Library and Archives Canada, Personal Census, Enumeration District Pickering Township, 1861, 105, 29, accessed 7 November 2024, https://www.ancestry.ca/imageviewer/collections/1570/images/4391564_00367?pId=797977095 55 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1865, Line 67. 56 “Highland Creek”, The Pickering News, 26 January 1900, 8. 57 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1868, Line 368. 58 Land Registry Ontario, Durham (LRO 40), Book 348, Plan 65, Lot 1, Block E, 1868. Inst. 28300.; Lot 12, Block E, 1867; Water Lot 1, 1866. 59 “Pickering Township Council”, Whitby Chronicle, 11 March 1869, 2. 60 J.W. Coltson and J.C. Conner, The County of Ontario Directory for 1869-70, Toronto, ON: Conner and Coltson, 1870, 123. 61 “Whitby Chronicle 10 September 1870. 62 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1870, Line 313. - 75 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 28 The 1871 Census notes that his occupation was tavern keeper.62F63 The 1871 Tax Assessment Roll notes that he worked as an innkeeper and his property was valued at $1,200. In 1872, he received a tavern licence as the owner and proprietor of the Fairport Hotel.63F64 The 1876 Tax Assessment Roll notes that he worked as a sailor and owned Block D, Lots 6, 8, 9, and Block E, Lot 1 and 12 (1.5 acres) valued at $1,200.64F65 The 1877 Tax Assessment Roll notes that he worked as a sailor and owned 1.75 acres of land which included Water Lot 1, valued at $1,200. The 1877 H. Belden & Co. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario notes that he continued to own 50 acres of Lot 33, Concession 1 which was his family’s farmstead.65F66 The 1881 Tax Assessment Roll noted that he owned the south ½ of Lot 23, Broken Front known as the “Whiteside Property”, totalling 10.5 acres valued at $1,500; and Block D, Lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7; Block E, Lot 1, 12, Water Lot 1, totalling 2.75 acres valued at $400.66F67 The 1885 Tax Assessment Roll (Lot 1-7), 500. And south half Lot 23, 9.5 acres values at $1,200.67F68 The 1886 Tax Assessment Roll notes he worked as a sailor and owned Block D, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7; Block E, Lot 1, 12, Water Lot 1, totalling 2.75 acres valued at $600.68F69 He moved to Toronto around 1887 and worked as a grocer.69F70 In 1888, the Property and Lot 1, Block E were sold. He passed away in 1900 and was buried in Highland Creek Wesleyan Cemetery in Scarborough. 4.6.1.2 THOMAS MANSFIELD SR. (1851-1927) Thomas Mansfield Sr. was born in London, United Kingdom to parents Henry Mansfield. His family immigrated to Canada in 1867. In the 1870s and 1880s, he worked as a sailor and fisherman. He married Ardelia Mansfield (née Marks) (1858-1929) and they had three sons and six daughters. Until 1914, he operated a general store located at 1291 Commercial Street, which was taken over by his son Thomas Mansfield Jr. (Image 6).70F71 In 1922, he constructed the 63 Library and Archives Canada, Census of 1871, Enumeration District South Ontario, Sub-district Pickering, 1871, 46, Line 20, accessed 6 November 2024, https://www.ancestry.ca/discoveryui-content/view/1934820:1578. 64 City of Pickering, “Frenchman’s Bay History 1763-1965”, X2023-013-070, 27, accessed 22 October 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=252387&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING. 65 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1876, Line 379. 66 H. Belden., Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario, Ont., Toronto, ON: H. Belden & Co., 1877. 67 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1881, Line 429. 68 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1885, Line 475. 69 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1886, Line 527. 70 Find-a-Grave, “John Fisher (1836-1900), n.d., accessed 22 October 2024, https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/58800954/john-fisher. 71 “Death of Thomas Mansfield”, Pickering News, 28 October 1927, 4, accessed 8 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/0/edoc/179470/PN1927_10_28.pdf. - 76 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 29 current building at 1291 Commercial Street which was used as a general store, post office, and residence (Image 7).71F72 He passed away in 1927 and was buried at Fairport United Cemetery.72F73 Image 6. Thomas Mansfield Sr.’s general store on Lot 7, Block E on the south side of Commercial Street, 1900s. 72 “Fairport”, Pickering News, 26 May 1922, 1, accessed 11 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=179179&page=1&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING&sear chid=94856b80-93a0-4604-8f8e-b0022eeac325. 73 Find-a-Grave. “Thomas Mansfield (1851-1927) accessed 15 November 2024, https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/137433331/thomas-mansfield. - 77 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 30 Image 7. Thomas Mansfield Sr.’s general store on Lot 7, Block E, 1291 Commercial Street, 1924.73F74 4.6.1.3 JAMES C. CLARK (1908-1998) James C. Clark was born in Toronto and grew up in England. From 1925 until the 1960s, he worked at Consumers Gas Company and was a Member of the Chemical Institute of Canada. In 1933, he married Fanny Bond and they moved to Fairport Village in 1944. In the 1950s, he was president and a charter member of the Rouge Hill Lions Club, a member of the Frenchman’s Bay Ratepayer and Community Association, secretary of the Frenchman’s Bay Yacht Club, and the Toronto Foreman’s Club.74F75 He also helped assist with local municipal elections as a returning officer.75F76 74 Pickering Public Library, “Fairport Village 1”, Item ID: 2009-00168, n.d. accessed 11 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=171318&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING. 75 “To Head Rouge Lions Club.”, The Pickering News, 22 June 1956, 1. 76 The Corporation of the Township of Pickering, By-law No. 4072/71. 15 November 1971, 2. - 78 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 31 5 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.1 SURROUNDING CONTEXT The Property is located in Peel Plain physiographic region. The Peel Plain is characterized by level-to-undulating clay soils, gently rolling topography which slopes westerly towards the Rouge River valley from the Property. The Credit, Humber, Don, and Rouge Rivers and streams such as the Bronte, Oakville, and Etobicoke Creeks have cut deep valleys across the plain. Soils in the area are predominantly imperfectly drained and stone-free clay loam. The Property is in the Rouge River watershed and the most prominent natural feature, Frenchman’s Bay is found 100 metres to the west. The surrounding area can be characterised as urban with a mixture of commercial and residential properties. Commercial properties are clustered along Liverpool Road to the south. Residential buildings are located immediately around the Property along Pleasant Street and Commercial Street. They are generally one-to- two storeys in height. Many residential buildings are of contemporary construction. However, there are several buildings that appear to have been constructed during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Pleasant Street is a two-lane street which runs in a north-to-south direction. It has utility poles, light fixtures, concrete curbs, and concrete sidewalks on the west and east sides of the street (Photo 1 and Photo 2). Commercial Street is a two-lane street which runs in a north-to- south direction. It has utility poles, light fixtures, concrete curbs, and concrete sidewalks on the west and east sides of the street (Photo 3 and Photo 4). - 79 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 32 Photo 1. View west towards Frenchman’s Bay.76F77 Photo 2. View south along Pleasant Street. 77 HouseSigma, “681 Pleasant St Pickering - Bay Ridges”, Listing ID: E5202121, 23 April 2021, accessed 8 November 2024, https://housesigma.com/on/pickering-real-estate/681-pleasant- st/home/gJRv53KJnrx7VPW4?id_listing=dXze3eKzgMgy8m9K&utm_campaign=listing&utm_source=user- share&utm_medium=desktop&ign=. - 80 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 33 Photo 3. View north along Pleasant Street towards Commercial Street. Photo 4. View east along Commercial Street. - 81 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 34 Photo 5. View west along Commercial Street. 5.2 THE PROPERTY 5.2.1 FRONT YARD The front yard of the Property includes a parking space, sidewalk to the front door, small area of grass, a birch tree and some shrubs (Photo 6). The house has a short, approximately 7 m, setback from the street edge. A narrow concrete sidewalk extends straight from the street to the front door. The Property includes a short, narrow asphalt driveway in the northwest corner and a wood gate blocking access to the side yard north of the house. Concrete pavers extend along the front of the house to a wide concrete step in front of the front door. - 82 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 35 Photo 6. View northeast at the front of the Property 5.2.2 THE REAR YARD AND SHED STRUCTURE The Property contains a large rear yard (Photo 7) with a well (Photo 8) and a wood-frame shed structure. The shed structure has a gable roof with a rectangular red brick chimney and the exterior cladding is comprised of horizontal wood siding and vertical metal siding (Photo 9 through Photo 11). - 83 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 36 Photo 7. View east of the rear yard. Photo 8. View north of a well in the rear yard. - 84 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 37 Photo 9. View east of the west and south elevations of the shed structure. Photo 10. View east of the north and west elevations of the shed structure. - 85 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 38 Photo 11. View of the interior of the shed structure. 5.2.3 MAIN HOUSE EXTERIOR The c.1872 red brick building is two-storeys in height and on an irregular T-shaped plan with a rear wing. The foundation of the house is stone and concrete. The front foundation wall is even coursed cut stone (Photo 12). The north and south walls of the house have a coursed rubble foundation with rough mortar (Photo 13). The rear wing appears to be a slab on grade section. The exterior brickwork is laid in a common bond pattern. The mortar has been scribed with a double line mark. The house has an offset gable roof clad in asphalt shingles. It has projecting eaves with a plain fascia and soffit over most of the house and decorated fascia (bargeboard trim) on the front (west) and south elevations. As mentioned in Section 4.6 the decorated fascia elements are recent additions to the house (2012-2014). There is evidence of partial removal of wooden finials above the roof line after 1940 and before 2021 (See Image 3 and Image 4 in Section 4.6). The plain fascia and soffit are covered in metal flashing. The building contains an enclosed wooden porch with a hipped roof (Photo 12). The front door to the porch is an aluminum storm door. One-over-one sash windows line the front porch with fixed narrow top lites over the door and each window. The wood wall panel sections of the porch are tongue and groove. The base of the porch is concrete. - 86 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 39 Typical windows on the house include two-over-two, wood sash windows with segmental brick arches and concrete sills (Photo 12 and Photo 13). One window on the façade and on the second floor, north side are two-over-one sash pointed arch (lancet shape) windows with pointed brick arches (Photo 12 and Photo 14). False shutters have been added to house walls next to two of the front windows and one second storey window on the south elevation (Photo 12 and Photo 13). On the south elevation there is a large, modern, three-pane bay window (Photo 13). Evidence of the historic window and a former eaves trough are still present on the wall. The rear wing includes a narrow porch with shed roof on the south side (Photo 15). Windows on the rear wing are rectangular, fixed windows with flat concrete headers and sills (Photo 15 and Photo 16). Photo 12. View east of the west (front) elevation. - 87 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 40 Photo 13. View north of the south elevation. - 88 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 41 Photo 14. View south of the north elevation. Photo 15. View northwest of the south and east rear wing elevations. - 89 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 42 Photo 16. View west of the east rear wing elevation. Photo 17. View west of the east elevation and the rear wing. - 90 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 43 Photo 18. View south of the north elevation. 5.2.4 MAIN HOUSE INTERIOR 5.2.4.1 BASEMENT The basement is accessed from the first floor via a narrow wooden staircase (Photo 19). The staircase is supported on rusticated CMU blocks and the first floor appears warped (Photo 20 and Photo 21). The fieldstone foundation (Photo 23) has been dug out with a formed concrete wall underneath—with wide concrete form board marks present—and parged with cement (Photo 22 through Photo 25). Rusticated CMU blocks (c. 1905-1930s) appear to support the structure in other areas of the basement (Photo 26). A pre-1912 chimney stamp is marked “J. Smart Manufacturing Co. Limited Brockville Ont” (Photo 27). The sill plate of the house appears to be large hewn timber beams (Photo 28). Large square hewn timber beams, milled timbers—laid on their sides—(Photo 29) and steel beams (Photo 30) support milled wooden joists and support the wooden floor boards above (Photo 31 and Photo 32). Some steel and timber beams are supported with steel jack posts. The rusticated CMU blocks, chimney plate, concrete foundations with form marks indicate modifications in the early twentieth century. This may indicate that the house had a crawl space which was excavated into a deeper basement. The steel beams, timber laid on their sides, jack posts and rusticated CMU blocks may also indicate various attempts to renovate the basement over time to attempt to stabilize the house or correct sagging or sloping floors. - 91 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 44 Photo 19. View of the wooden staircase from the first floor to the basement. - 92 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 45 Photo 20. View of the warped wooden boards of the first floor. Photo 21. View of rusticated CMU blocks supporting the wooden staircase. - 93 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 46 Photo 22. View of a parged cement wall and two three-pane windows with wooden surrounds. Photo 23. View of the fieldstone foundation wall with concrete wall below. - 94 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 47 Photo 24. View of the fieldstone foundation wall with concrete wall below. Photo 25. View of the fieldstone foundation parged with cement. - 95 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 48 Photo 26. View of rusticated CMU blocks, heating equipment and metal ductwork. Photo 27. A chimney plate stamped “J. Smart Manufacturing Co. Limited Brockville Ont.”, pre - 1912. - 96 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 49 Photo 28. Sill plate beams. Photo 29. View of a large square hewn timber beam adjacent to a steel beam supported by a steel pillar. - 97 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 50 Photo 30. View of a wooden board supported by a steel beam. Photo 31. View of a wooden sill plate. - 98 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 51 Photo 32. View of the ceiling boards supported on wooden joists. 5.2.4.2 FIRST FLOOR The first floor is accessed through an enclosed porch which leads to the front of the house. The enclosed porch is constructed out of wood and features long vertical sash windows and smaller stained glass transom windows above (Photo 31). The red brick masonry wall features a double line scribe mark in the mortar. However, there are cracks evident above the brick window voussoirs, cracks and chipped brick below the window sills (Photo 32 and Photo 33). Inside the front door a hall leads to stairs to the second floor. Two doorways lead to other rooms. The house includes a large parlour room with windows that look out towards Pleasant Street (Photo 34). In the living room there is a large bay window with a view towards the side yard (Photo 35), a large red brick fireplace (Photo 36 and Photo 37), and a stamped patterned ceiling (Photo 38. The kitchen contains plain, painted, shaker style cabinetry, access to an attic space, and access to the rear yard through a side door (Photo 39). - 99 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 52 Photo 33. View of the enclosed porch. Photo 34. View of the red brick voussoirs with cracks. - 100 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 53 Photo 35. View of cracked and chipped brick below the windowsill. Photo 36. View of the parlour room. - 101 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 54 Photo 37. View of the bay window. Photo 38. View of the fireplace in the living room area. - 102 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 55 Photo 39. View towards the living room with the access door to the basement at right. Photo 40. View of the stamped pattern ceiling. - 103 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 56 Photo 41. View of the kitchen. 5.2.4.3 SECOND FLOOR The second floor is accessed from the first floor via a wooden staircase which has warped treads at the top landing (Photo 40). It has wooden handrails and newel posts (Photo 41). A corridor (Photo 42) provides access to four bedrooms (Photo 43 and Photo 44)and a washroom constructed from a converted closet (Photo 45). - 104 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 57 Photo 42. View of the warped wooden second floor staircase. Photo 43. View of the second-floor staircase with handrails and newel posts. - 105 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 58 Photo 44. View of the corridor to various bedrooms. Photo 45. View of a bedroom. - 106 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 59 Photo 46. View of a bedroom. Photo 47. View of the washroom. - 107 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 60 5.3 DESIGN The c. 1872 building on the Property includes design elements of the Gothic Revival architectural style. This style was popularized in Ontario during the mid-nineteenth century through a vernacular form known as the Ontario Farmhouse. 5.3.1 ONTARIO FARMHOUSE / GOTHIC REVIVAL STYLE (1850-1900) The Ontario Farmhouse (also known as the Ontario Cottage/Gothic Cottage) is a subset of Gothic Revival architecture, commonly found in Ontario and throughout the northeastern United States. The Gothic Revival architectural style was developed by early British settlers to Ontario. Architectural details were translated from English Gothic and medieval stone architecture into wood, creating an eclectic and ornate appearance. The Gothic Revival or Gothic Cottage architectural style was the most pervasive Ontario residential style between 1850 and 1900.77F78 The growing focus on the rural Picturesque was due to the conditions of workers’ housing in cities and the respect given to the aesthetics of the rural landscape.78F79 An 1864 article in The Canada Farmer journal from the architect James Avon Smith (1832-1918) (of the firm Smith and Gemmell) provides a study on the ‘suburban villa or farmhouse’ with subtle Gothic elements that could be constructed from brick or stone.79F80 Being rather larger than Gothic Cottage, his design featured two floors, a cross-gable roof configuration with exterior gingerbread bargeboard, multiple bedrooms, rooms for lounging, second-storey Gothic lancet windows, an asymmetrical front elevation with projecting bay window and verandah on an L- shaped plan.80F81 This particular design was introduced in pattern-books and proved to be versatile, found in many vernacular manifestations across Ontario in which this design was added to or simplified depending on location and cost concerns.81F82 These buildings showed that the farmer and his family were very successful. These homes reflected the prosperity of the time, as a result of high grain and livestock prices during the Crimean and American Civil War periods and concerns for style and appearance (Image 8).82F83 78 Shannon Kyles, “Gothic Revival”, OntarioArchitecture, accessed 15 November 2024, http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/gothicrevival.html. 79 Jessica Mace, Beautifying the Countryside: Rural and Vernacular Gothic in Late Nineteenth-Century Ontario, JSSAC, Vol 38, No. 1, 2013, 30. 80 The Canada Farmer, Rural Architecture, Vol. 1, No. 9, 16 May 1864, accessed 21 November 2022, https://www.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.8_04206_9/5. 81 The Canada Farmer, Rural Architecture, Vol. 1, No. 9, 16 May 1864, accessed 21 November 2022, https://www.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.8_04206_9/5. 82 Jessica Mace, Beautifying the Countryside: Rural and Vernacular Gothic in Late Nineteenth-Century Ontario, JSSAC, Vol 38, No. 1, 2013, 34. 83 Shannon Kyles, “Gothic Revival”, OntarioArchitecture, accessed 15 November 2024, http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/gothicrevival.html. - 108 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 61 Image 8. Illustration of a suburban villa or farmhouse, 1864.83F84 5.3.2 PREVALENCE OF LOCAL ONTARIO FARMHOUSE / GOTHIC REVIVAL STYLE BUILDINGS The City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register includes four properties with Heritage Value descriptions that describe houses with Gothic Revival style influences. Other entries describe Victorian or Ontario Cottage designs, which based on a Google Streetview review of the addresses appear to be consistent with Ontario Farmhouse / Gothic Revival designs. Several designated heritage properties in the City, including 2390 Rosebank Road, 2319 Wildwood Court, 1505 Whitevale Road, 1200 Whitevale Road and 1860 7th Concession Road appear –based on a Google Streetview review—to have Gothic Revival influences in their form, massing, roof style, gables, window designs and materials. Furthermore, the Heritage Building Inventory in the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guidelines shows several properties that appear to be in the Gothic Revival style or demonstrate influences from the style. 84 The Canada Farmer, Rural Architecture, Vol. 1, No. 9, 16 May 1864, accessed 15 November 2024. - 109 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 62 6 EVALUATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST 6.1 HERITAGE STATUS 6.2 ONTARIO REGULATION 9/06 EVALUATION The Property at 681 Pleasant Street was evaluated against O. Reg. 9/06 under the OHA using research and analysis presented in Sections 4.5.2, 4.6, and 5 of this CHER. The findings are presented in Table 2 below. 6.2.1 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION In our professional opinion, LHC finds that the Property at 681 Pleasant Street meets one criterion of O. Reg. 9/06 (criterion 1). The Property is not eligible for designation under Part IV Section 29 of the OHA. Table 2. Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation for the Property at 681 Pleasant Street Criteria Criteria Met Justification 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. Yes The Property meets this criterion. The 1872 red-brick vernacular farmhouse building contains Gothic Revival influences. However, it is not an early example of the style—which first appeared in Ontario approximately 20 years earlier. It is not rare or unique. As described in Section 5.3.2 Gothic Revival style buildings are common throughout the City. The Property is representative of a Gothic Revival vernacular farmhouse building. It includes features of the Gothic Revival style including the T-shaped plan, brick cladding, segmental arch window openings and pointed arch window openings and gable roof. However as discussed in Sections 4.6 and 5, the significant alteration to the building have been made over time. Finials have been removed from the peaks of the gables, modern metal flashing has been installed over the fascia and soffits, the parlour window has been replaced with a modern bay - 110 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 63 Criteria Criteria Met Justification window, a chimney was removed from the rear wing, contemporary decorative wooden bargeboard has been added to some -but not all—of the gables, and a red brick chimney has been added in the centre of the roof. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The Property does not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. There is no evidence to suggest that the 1872 two-storey brick building has greater craftsmanship than a standard residential brick building at its time of construction (see Section 4.6). The warped floors and various interventions in the basement to stabilize and support the house indicate that it does not demonstrate a high level of craftsmanship. Features to make the house look more historic such as the bargeboard and shutters are contemporary. 3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The Property does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. There is no evidence to suggest that the 1872 two-storey brick building meets this criterion. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The building on the Property is one of last remaining brick buildings from Fairport Village in the 1870s However, there are no direct associations between this Property and specific events, activities, organizations or institutions that are significant to Fairport Village, to the wider Pickering Township or to the City of Pickering. Historic research found that the Property is connected to John Fisher (built the house in 1872), - 111 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 64 Criteria Criteria Met Justification Thomas Mansfield Sr. and James C. Clark. These men participated in community affairs but no evidence has been found that suggests any of these men were historically significant figures for Fairport Village or the wider Pickering community. 5. The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The Property does not yield, or have the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. There is no evidence to suggest that the Property meets this criterion. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The 1872 red brick building on the Property does not demonstrate or reflect the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is important to a community. There is no evidence to suggest that John Fisher may have designed or constructed the building in 1872. An architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist was not identified. Plans or designs for the building were not identified. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. No The Property does not meet this criterion. As discussed in Sections 4.5.2 and 5.1, the character of the village of Fairport is identified as being a mix of properties with buildings dating from the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries. Buildings from the twentieth century and contemporary buildings are predominant in the area. The area can be - 112 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 65 Criteria Criteria Met Justification described as an evolved, largely 20th and 21st century residential area instead of a 19th century village. Surrounding and adjacent properties along the west and east sides of Pleasant Street and along the north and south sides of Commerce Street maintain similar 0.25-acre lot sizes, setbacks, vegetation, massing and lot patterns to the Property due to being situated on lots surveyed under the 1848 Plan of the Village of Fairport. However, the building on the Property does not define, maintain, or support the local character of the area. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The Inventory of heritage properties, City of Pickering, prepared by Unterman McPhail Associates for the City of Pickering in 2002, notes that the Property is one of the few historic buildings remaining from the settlement of Fairport Village in the 1870s. However, due to surrounding contemporary developments around the Property, no significant historical links between the Property and a 19th century village context are present. The Property is not physically, functionally, visually or historically linked in a meaningful way to the surrounding area, to the wider Pickering Township, or the City of Pickering. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The MCM defines landmark as: …a recognizable natural or human-made feature used for a point of reference that helps orienting in a - 113 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 66 Criteria Criteria Met Justification familiar or unfamiliar environment; it may mark an event or development; it may be conspicuous.84F85 There is no evidence to suggest that the Property is a landmark. 85 Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, “Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties, Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process.” - 114 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 67 7 CONCLUSION LHC was retained by Banalata Consultants Ltd. on 18 September 2024 to prepare a CHER to evaluate the cultural heritage value or interest of the Property at 681 Pleasant Street, in the City of Pickering, in the Regional Municipality of Durham. This CHER was completed in accordance with objectives of the City of Pickering Official Plan. It follows cultural heritage best practices drawing upon applicable frameworks, such as the MCM’s Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Property Evaluation (2006). The purpose of this CHER is to evaluate the Property for CHVI. It has been prepared in response to a municipal request for a third-party evaluation of the Property for heritage value. In our professional opinion, LHC finds that the Property at 681 Pleasant Street meets one criterion of O. Reg. 9/06 (criterion 1). The Property is not eligible for designation under Part IV Section 29 of the OHA. - 115 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 68 8 SIGNATURES Sincerely, Benjamin Holthof, MPl, MMA, RPP, MCIP, CAHP Senior Heritage Planner LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. Diego Maenza, MPl, CAHP Intern Heritage Planner LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. - 116 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 69 9 REFERENCES Archives of Ontario. 2015. The Changing Shape of Ontario. “The Evolution of Ontario’s Boundaries 1774-1912”. Accessed 31 October 2024. http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/en/maps/ontario-boundaries.aspx. City of Pickering. 1997. Pickering Official Plan. Edition 9, Office consolidation March 2022. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/resources/Official-Plan---Main- Page/Edition-9/OP9ACC.pdf 27 November 2023. “Council Meeting, November 27”. Accessed 12 November 2024. https://www.viddler.com/v/18753fba?secret=57115818. Coltson, J.W. and Conner, J.C. 1870. The County of Ontario Directory for 1869-70, Toronto, ON: Conner and Coltson, 123. The Corporation of the Township of Pickering. 15 November 1971. By-law No. 4072/71. 2. Durham Region. 1997. Durham Regional Official Plan. Last modified 26 May 2020. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.durham.ca/en/doing- business/resources/Documents/PlanningandDevelopment/Official-Plan/2020- Durham-Regional-Official-Plan-Consolidation---Revised-1.pdf. Farewell, J.E. 1907. Ontario County: A Short Sketch of Its Settlement, Physical Features, and Resources with Brief Historical Notes. Whitby, ON: Gazette-Chronicle Press. Find-a-Grave. N.d. “John Fisher (1836-1900). Accessed 22 October 2024. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/58800954/john-fisher. Find-a-Grave. “Thomas Mansfield (1851-1927). Accessed 15 November 2024. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/137433331/thomas-mansfield. Government of Ontario. 3 April 2024. “Johnson-Butler Purchase”. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-ontario-treaties-and-reserves#t4. H. Belden & Co. 1878. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the Counties of Northumberland and Durham Ont. Toronto, ON: H. Belden & Co. Kyles, Shannon. “Gothic Revival”. OntarioArchitecture. Accessed 15 November 2024. http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/gothicrevival.html. Land Registry Ontario. Durham (LRO 40), “Lot 23, Concession 3, Broken Front”, Pickering Township. - 117 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 70 Durham (LRO 40), “Lot 6, Block D, Plan 65”, Pickering Township, Book 348. Library and Archives Canada. 1861. Personal Census, Enumeration District Pickering Township, 105, 29. Accessed 7 November 2024. https://www.ancestry.ca/imageviewer/collections/1570/images/4391564_00367?pId= 797977095. 1871. Census of 1871. Enumeration District South Ontario, Sub-district Pickering. 46, Line 20. Accessed 6 November 2024. https://www.ancestry.ca/discoveryui- content/view/1934820:1578. 1921. Sixth Census of Canada. Enumeration District No. 109 Ontario South, Sub-district No. 3 Pickering. 4, Line 7. Accessed 8 November 2024. https://www.ancestry.ca/discoveryui-content/view/2220182:8991. Lovell, John Lovell. 1873. Lovell’s Gazetteer of British North America. Montreal, QC: John Lovell. Mace, Jessica. 2013. Beautifying the Countryside: Rural and Vernacular Gothic in Late Nineteenth- Century Ontario. JSSAC. Vol 38, No. 1. 30. 2 September 2022. “A Cheap Farm House”, c. 1864-onward”. SmartHistory. 2 September 2022. Accessed 15 November 2024. https://smarthistory.org/a-cheap-farm- house-1864-onward/. Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. N.d. Physiography. Google Earth Pro extension. Accessed 11 July 2024. https://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/ogsearth.html. N.d. Surficial Geology. Google Earth Pro extension. Accessed 11 July 2024. https://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/ogsearth.html. Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery. N.d. “The Changing Shape of Ontario: Early Districts and Counties 1788-1899.” Accessed 11 July 2024. http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/en/maps/ontario-districts.aspx. Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. N.d. “History.” Accessed 8 August 2024. https://mncfn.ca/about-mncfn/community- profile/. - 118 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 71 2018. “The History of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation”. Accessed 30 October 2024. http://mncfn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/The-History-of-MNCFN- FINAL.pdf. Murison, R.A. 1970. The Village of Pickering 1800-1970. Pickering, ON: The Corporation of the Village of Pickering. Parks Canada. N.d. “Bead Hill National Historic Site of Canada”, Directory of Federal Heritage Designations. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/page_nhs_eng.aspx?id=531. Peel Art Gallery, Museum, and Archives [PAMA], “About Peel,” 2022, accessed 30 October 2024, https://peelarchivesblog.com/about-peel. Pickering Public Library. 1865. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 67. 1868. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 368. 1870. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 313. 1876. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 379. 1881. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 429. 1885. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 475. 1886. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 527. 1888. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 1229. 1920. “Frenchman’s Bay – Fairport, Ontario”. The P.E.S.C.A. Collection, Item ID: 96- 01660,. Accessed 8 November 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=166942&dbid=0&repo= PICKERING&searchid=ff98146d-6e13-49de-8f78-dc5a62f388cd. July 1923. “An Aeroplane View of Frenchman’s Bay, Ont”. Canadian Post Card Co. Frenchmans Bay 01, Item ID: 2009-00175. Accessed 11 November 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=171324&dbid=0&repo= PICKERING. N.d. “Fairport Village 1”. Item ID: 2009-00168. Accessed 11 November 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=171318&dbid=0&repo= PICKERING. - 119 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 72 N.d. “Frenchman’s Bay History 1763-1965”. X2023-013-070, 27. Accessed 22 October 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=252387&dbid=0&repo= PICKERING. Winter, Brian. 1940. “Frenchman’s Bay, Ontario”. The P.E.S.C.A. Collection, Item ID: 96- 01657. Accessed 6 November 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=166947&dbid=0&repo= PICKERING. Pickering News. 26 January 1900. “Highland Creek”, 8. 26 May 1922. “Fairport”. 1. 28 October 1927. “Death of Thomas Mansfield”, 4. 22 June 1956. “To Head Rouge Lions Club”. 1. W.C. Murkar. 29 June 1961. “Early Settlers in Pickering”. Pickering Township Historical Society. Pathmaster. No. 7, Fall 2022. 10. Accessed 11 November 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=254410&dbid=0&repo= PICKERING&searchid=41ce09cc-f1d7-4882-b6e8-d6f6c73c8ca9. Province of Ontario. “Map of Ontario Treaties and Reserves.” Last updated 23 April 2024. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-ontario-treaties-and-reserves. 1990. Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18. Last modified 20 October 2024. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18. 1990. Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13. Last modified 20 October 2024. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13. 2005. Places to Grow Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 13. Last modified 22 February 2024. Accessed 28 October 2024. 2006. Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Last modified 1 January 2023. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060009. 2021. Ontario Regulation 385/21. Last modified 1 July 2024. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/210385. - 120 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 73 2024. Provincial Policy Statement, 2024: Under the Planning Act. Accessed 28 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/files/2024-10/mmah-provincial-planning-statement-en- 2024-10-23.pdf. Roberts, Arthur. 1984. “Paleo-Indian on the North Shore of Lake Ontario”. Archaeology of Eastern North America. No. 8. 28-45. 1985. Paleo-Indian, “Preceramic Occupations Along the North Shore of Lake Ontario”. National Museum of Man, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mercury Series, Paper 132. Sabean, John W. 7 May 1997. “A Capsule History of the Township of Pickering”, Pickering Township Historical Society. Pathmaster. Vol. 1, No. 1, 9. Accessed 14 November 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/0/edoc/171049/191.pdf. Six Nations Elected Council. “About,” Six Nations of the Grand River. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.sixnations.ca/about. Smith, William H. 1846. Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer: Comprising Statistical and General Information Respecting All Parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West. Toronto, C.W.: H. & W. Rowsell. 1851. Canada: Past, Present and Future, Being A Historical, Geographical, Geological and Statistical Account of Canada West. Vol. II, Toronto, C.W.: Thomas Maclear. Surtees, Robert J. 1986. “Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties”, Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. The Canada Farmer. 16 May 1864. Rural Architecture. Vol. 1, No. 9. Accessed 15 November 2024. https://www.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.8_04206_9/5 Toronto Public Library, “Local History & Genealogy, Selections and Full PDFs of “The Jesuit Relations”: Sainte-Marie among the Hurons and Beyond,” accessed 30 October 2024, https://torontopubliclibrary.typepad.com/local-history-genealogy/2020/01/sainte- marie-among-the-hurons-selections-from-the-jesuit-relations-and-allied- documents.html. Toronto Region Conservation Authority. 2018. “Archaeology Opens a Window on the History of Indigenous Peoples in the GTA,” News. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://trca.ca/news/archaeology-indigenous-peoples-gta. - 121 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 74 University of Waterloo. “Land acknowledgment,” Faculty Association. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://uwaterloo.ca/faculty-association/about/land-acknowledgement. Watson, Gordon. Prehistoric Peoples of the Rideau Waterway. (Ontario Archaeology 1982), 5- 26. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://ontarioarchaeology.org/Resources/Publications/oa50-1-watson.pdf. Whitby Chronicle. March 1869. “Pickering Township Council”. 10 September 1870. White, Randall. 1985. Ontario 1610-1985 a political and economic history, Toronto, ON: Dundurn Press Limited. Williams Treaties First Nations. N.d. “Gunshot Treaty,” Pre-Confederation Treaties. N.d. Map of William Treaties and Pre-Confederation Treaties. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://williamstreatiesfirstnations.ca/maps-of-our-treaties/. Wood, William R. 1911. Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Community. Toronto, ON: William Briggs. - 122 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 75 APPENDIX A Qualifications Christienne Uchiyama, MA CAHP - Principal, LHC Christienne Uchiyama MA CAHP is Principal and Manager - Heritage Consulting Services with LHC. She is a Heritage Consultant and Professional Archaeologist (P376) with two decades of experience working on heritage aspects of planning and development projects. She is currently Past President of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals and received her MA in Heritage Conservation from Carleton University School of Canadian Studies. Her thesis examined the identification and assessment of impacts on cultural heritage resources in the context of Environmental Assessment. Chris has provided archaeological and heritage conservation advice, support and expertise as a member of numerous multi-disciplinary project teams for projects across Ontario and New Brunswick, including such major projects as: all phases of archaeological assessment at the Canadian War Museum site at LeBreton Flats, Ottawa; renewable energy projects; natural gas pipeline routes; railway lines; hydro powerline corridors; and highway/road realignments. She has completed more than 300 cultural heritage technical reports for development proposals at all levels of government, including cultural heritage evaluation reports, heritage impact assessments, and archaeological licence reports. Her specialties include the development of Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, under both O. Reg. 9/06 and 10/06, and Heritage Impact Assessments. Diego Maenza, MPl CAHP Intern – Heritage Planner Diego Maenza is a Heritage Planner with LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. He holds a B.A. in Human Geography and Urban Studies from the University of Toronto and a Master of Planning degree from Dalhousie University. His thesis considered the urban morphological changes of railway infrastructure, landscapes, and neighbourhoods before and after the 1917 Halifax Explosion. Diego is a heritage professional with three years of public sector experience in Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Ontario through team-based and independent roles. He is an intern member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and a candidate member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI). At LHC, Diego has worked on numerous projects dealing with all aspects of Ontario’s cultural heritage. He has been lead author or co-author of over twelve cultural heritage technical reports for development proposals including Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, Heritage Impact Assessments, and Heritage Documentation Reports. Diego has also provided heritage planning advisory support for the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake and the Municipality of Port - 123 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 76 Hope which included work on heritage permit applications and work with municipal heritage committees. His work has involved a wide range of cultural heritage resources including institutional, infrastructural, industrial, agricultural. and residential sites in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Benjamin Holthof, MPl, MMA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP – Senior Heritage Planner Ben Holthof is a heritage consultant, planner and marine archaeologist with experience working in heritage consulting, archaeology and not-for-profit museum sectors. He has a Master of Urban and Regional Planning degree from Queens University; a Master of Maritime Archaeology degree from Flinders University of South Australia; a Bachelor of Arts degree in Archaeology from Wilfrid Laurier University; and a certificate in Museum Management and Curatorship from Fleming College. Ben has consulting experience in heritage planning, cultural heritage screening, evaluation, heritage impact assessment, cultural strategic planning, cultural heritage policy review, historic research and interpretive planning. He has been a project manager for heritage consulting projects including archaeological management plans and heritage conservation district studies. Ben has also provided heritage planning support to municipalities including work on heritage permit applications, work with municipal heritage committees, along with review and advice on municipal cultural heritage policy and process. His work has involved a wide range of cultural heritage resources including on cultural landscapes, institutional, industrial, commercial, and residential sites as well as infrastructure such as wharves, bridges and dams. Ben spent over 7 years working in museums as a curator which included caring for collections and exhibit development. He has experience with museum strategic planning, interpretive planning and policy development. His experience includes caring for historic museum buildings, sites and specialized large artifacts such as ships, boats and railway cars. Ben is also a maritime archaeologist having worked on terrestrial and underwater sites in Ontario and Australia. He has an Applied Research archaeology license from the Government of Ontario (R1062). Jordan Greene, B.A. (Hons) – Mapping Technician Jordan Greene, B.A., joined LHC as a mapping technician following the completion of her undergraduate degree. In addition to completing her B.A. in Geography at Queen’s University, Jordan also completed certificates in Geographic Information Science and Urban Planning Studies. During her work with LHC Jordan has been able to transition her academic training into professional experience and has deepened her understanding of the applications of GIS in the fields of heritage planning and archaeology. Jordan has contributed to over 100 - 124 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 77 technical studies and has completed mapping for projects including, but not limited to, cultural heritage assessments and evaluations, archaeological assessments, environmental assessments, hearings, and conservation studies. In addition to GIS work she has completed for studies Jordan has begun developing interactive maps and online tools that contribute to LHC’s internal data management. In 2021 Jordan began acting as the health and safety representative for LHC. - 125 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 78 APPENDIX B Glossary Definitions are based on those provided in the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 (PPS), Ontario Heritage Act (OHA), the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties – Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process (I&E Process), and the Durham Region Official Plan (OP). Adjacent lands: means for the purposes of policy 4.6.3, those lands contiguous to a protected heritage property or as otherwise defined in the municipal official plan. (PPS) Archaeological resources: includes artifacts, archaeological sites and marine archaeological sites, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act. The identification and evaluation of such resources are based upon archaeological assessments carried out by archaeologists licensed under the Ontario Heritage Act. (PPS) Built heritage: means one or more significant buildings (including fixtures or equipment located in or forming part of a building), structures, monuments, installations, or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic, or military history and identified as being important to a community. For the purposes of these Standards and Guidelines, “structures” does not include roadways in the provincial highway network and in- use electrical or telecommunications transmission towers. (I&E Process) Built heritage resource: means a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Indigenous community. (PPS) Character the combination of physical elements that together provide a place with a distinctive sense of identity. It may include geomorphology, natural features, pattern of roads, open spaces, buildings and structures, but it may also include the activities or beliefs that support the perceptions associated with the character. (I&E Process) 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 conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has been approved, accepted or adopted by the relevant planning authority and/or decision-maker. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches should be included in these plans and assessments. (PPS) - 126 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 79 Cultural heritage landscape: means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Indigenous community. The area may include features such as buildings, structures, spaces, views, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. (PPS) Development means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures requiring approval under the Planning Act, but does not include: a) activities that create or maintain infrastructure authorized under an environmental assessment process; b) works subject to the Drainage Act; or c) for the purposes of policy 2.1.4(a), underground or surface mining of minerals or advanced exploration on mining lands in significant areas of mineral potential in Ecoregion 5E, where advanced exploration has the same meaning as under the Mining Act. Instead, those matters shall be subject to policy 2.1.5(a). (PPS) Development: means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures, any of which require approval under the Planning Act, or that are subject to the Environmental Assessment Act, but does not include: a) the construction of facilities for transportation, infrastructure and utilities used by a public body; b) activities or works under the Drainage Act. (In the case of lands on the Oak Ridges Moraine, this applies only to the reconstruction, repair or maintenance of an existing drain approved under the Drainage Act.); and c) the carrying out of agricultural practices on land that continues to be used for agriculture uses. (ROP) Heritage attributes means, in relation to real property, and to the buildings and buildings on the real property, the attributes of the property, buildings and buildings that contribute to their cultural heritage value or interest (“attributs patrimoniaux”). (OHA) Heritage attributes: means, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act, in relation to real property, and to the buildings and structures on the real property, the attributes of the property, buildings and structures that contribute to their cultural heritage value or interest. (PPS) Heritage attributes means the physical features or elements that contribute to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property’s built or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting. (I&E Process) - 127 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 80 Integrity means the degree to which a property retains its ability to represent or support the cultural heritage value or interest of the property. (I&E Process) Landmark means a recognizable natural or human-made feature used for a point of reference that helps orienting in a familiar or unfamiliar environment; it may mark an event or development; it may be conspicuous (I&E Process) Protected heritage property: means property designated under Part IV or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; property included in an area designated as a heritage conservation district under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act; property subject to a heritage conservation easement or covenant under Part II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; property identified by a provincial ministry or a prescribed public body as a property having cultural heritage value or interest under the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal heritage legislation; and UNESCO World Heritage Sites. (PPS) Qualified person(s) means individuals – professional engineers, architects, archaeologists, etc. – having relevant, recent experience in the conservation of cultural heritage resources. (I&E Process) Significant: means in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act. While some significant resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others can only be determined after evaluation. (PPS) Spatial configuration means the arrangement of a property’s elements in relation to each other, to the site and to adjacent sites. (I&E Process) Statement of Cultural Heritage Value means a concise statement explaining why a property is of heritage interest; this statement should reflect one or more of the criteria found in Ontario Heritage Act O. Regs. 9/06 and 10/06. (I&E Process) View means a visual setting experienced from a single vantage point, and includes the components of the setting at various points in the depth of field. (I&E Process) - 128 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 81 APPENDIX C Policy Tables City of Pickering Official Plan Table 3: City of Pickering Relevant Official Plan Policies85F86 Policy Policy Text Commentary 8.4 (Ontario Heritage Act) City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, where warranted shall implement the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, including the designation under the Act of heritage sites and heritage districts. The Property is not Designated or Listed under provisions of the OHA. 8.7 (Cultural Heritage Inventory) City Council, in association with its heritage committee, shall: (a)conduct an inventory of heritage resources owned by the City, its boards and commissions, and establish an overall program for the maintenance, use, reuse or, if warranted, disposal of these resources; (b)maintain an inventory of heritage resources designated or worthy of designation under the Ontario Heritage Act; and (c) store and disseminate cultural heritage resource inventories and databases in convenient and publicly accessible locations and formats, and maintain an archive of heritage conservation information. The Property is not Designated or Listed under provisions of the OHA. 86 City of Pickering, Pickering Official Plan, 1997 (2022), 109 - 129 - Attachment 3 - Draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value 681 Pleasant Street is of cultural heritage value or interest as a well-preserved example of a nineteenth-century Gothic Revival farmhouse, significant for its architectural design, direct associations with prominent historical figures in Fairport’s development, and integral role in defining the character of the village core. The property exhibits the design/physical value required by Ontario Regulation 9/06. Its red-brick construction, T-shaped plan, steeply pitched gable with a pointed-arch window, segmental-arched openings, and original massing and proportions illustrate craftsmanship, stylistic expression, and architectural integrity. The property also has historical/associative value by virtue of its connections with Thomas Mansfield Sr., a key merchant and community leader in Fairport, and its long- term relationship to the Mansfield General Store nearby. The house embodies the nineteenth-century pattern of merchant-residence integration in small lakeport villages. Description of Heritage Attributes Exterior Design / Physical Attributes: •Original form, scale, and massing; •Red brick construction with buff brick detailing; •Steeply pitched front gable with pointed-arch window; •Segmental-arched window openings with decorative voussoirs; •Tall, narrow windows and symmetrical front façade; and •Bracketed eaves; •Orientation of the house towards Pleasant Street with a shallow setback consistent with the historic village grid; and •The property’s visual and historical relationship with the Mansfield General Store at 1291 Commerce Street. Historical / Associative Attributes: •Association with Thomas Mansfield Sr., a prominent early local merchant in Fairport; and •Historical associations between the Thomas Mansfield Sr., his place of residence at 681 Pleasant Street and his place of work nearby at 1291 Commercial Street. Contextual Attributes: •Proximity and visual relationship to 1291 Commercial Street; •Location within the historic core of Fairport; •Contribution to the streetscape and understanding of village life in the late 1800s. Attachment 3 - 130 -