GHC Agenda 1 2018-04-11

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF GEORGINA

HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

AGENDA Wednesday, April 18th, 2018 6:30 PM Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at

“We would like to begin today’s meeting by acknowledging that the Town of Georgina is located over lands originally used and occupied by the First Peoples of the Williams Treaties First Nations and other Indigenous Peoples and thank them for sharing this land. We would also like to acknowledge the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation as our close neighbour and friend, one with which we strive to build a cooperative and respectful relationship.”

2. ROLL CALL

3. INTRODUCTION OF ADDENDUM ITEMS

4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

5. DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND GENERAL NATURE THEREOF

6. ADOPTION OF MINUTES

Pages 1-5 (1) Minutes of Georgina Heritage Committee meeting March 21st, 2018.

7. DELEGATIONS/SPEAKERS

8. PRESENTATIONS Pages 6-99 (1) Golder Associates Ltd. - 36 Church Street

9. CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS ON THE AGENDA

10. COMMUNICATIONS

GHC Agenda 2 2018-04-11

Pages 100-102 (1) Demolition Permits (March 1st to March 31st, 2018)

11. OTHER BUSINESS

Page 103 (1) Terms of Reference – Original Pages 104-106 Terms of Reference – Second Revision

Page 107 (2) Volunteer Wanted! For appointment to Georgina Heritage Advisory Committee

(3) Plaques, proposal for Sutton plaque and regular one’s for designated properties.

(4) Designations (ongoing)  Suggestion: Mann Cemetery on Queensway North, Keswick  Suggestion: Railway and enterprise shipwreck  Suggestion: The Briars, stable and old tree  St. James Parish Hall, update if available  Ainsley Hill: Shouldice Property 216-235 Catering Road

(5) Heritage Register updates (ongoing item)

Pages 108-109  MPAC list

(6) Tax incentives, update if available.

12. CLOSED SESSION, IF REQUIRED

13. MOTION TO ADJOURN

Next Meeting: Wednesday May 16th, 2018

GHC Minutes 1 2018-03-21

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF GEORGINA

HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MINUTES Wednesday, March 21st, 2018 6:30 PM Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 6:36 p.m.

“We would like to begin today’s meeting by acknowledging that the Town of Georgina is located over lands originally used and occupied by the First Peoples of the Williams Treaties First Nations and other Indigenous Peoples and thank them for sharing this land. We would also like to acknowledge the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation as our close neighbour and friend, one with which we strive to build a cooperative and respectful relationship.”

2. ROLL CALL

The following Committee members were in attendance: Terry Russell, Vice Chair Wei Hwa Krista Barclay Denise Roy

The following Committee members were absent with regrets: Allan Morton Councillor Frank Sebo

The following staff member was in attendance: Sandra Dipietrantonio, Committee Services Coordinator

3. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR

Sandra Dipietrantonio, Committee Services Coordinator and Acting Chair, opened the floor for nominations for the election of Chair for the Georgina Heritage Committee.

Moved by Denise Roy, Seconded by Krista Barclay

RESOLUTION NO. GHC-2018-0017

Page 1 of 109 GHC Minutes 2 2018-03-21

That the Georgina Heritage Committee move to nominate the following member as chair of the Georgina Heritage Committee for the year 2018:

Terry Russell

Carried.

Sandra Dipietrantonio, Acting Chair, made three further calls for nominations.

Moved by Denise Roy, Seconded by Wei Hwa

RESOLUTION NO. GHC-2018-0018

That the nominations for chair of the Georgina Heritage Committee be closed.

Carried.

Sandra Dipietrantonio, Committee Services Coordinator and Acting Chair, opened the floor for nominations for the election of Vice Chair for the Georgina Heritage Committee.

Moved by Wei Hwa, Seconded by Krista Barclay

That the Georgina Heritage Committee move to nominate the following member as Vice Chair of the Georgina Heritage Committee for the year 2018:

Denise Roy

Carried.

Sandra Dipietrantonio, Acting Chair, made three further calls for nomination.

Moved by Terry Russell, Seconded by Krista Barclay

RESOLUTION NO. GHC-2018-0019

That the nominations for Vice Chair of the Georgina Heritage Committee be closed.

Carried.

Terry Russell and Denise Roy accepted their nominations for Chair and Vice Chair respectively and there being no further nominations, Sandra Dipietrantonio, Acting Chair, declared the election of Chair and Vice Chair moved. Terry Russell assumed the role of Chair for the remainder of the meeting.

Page 2 of 109 GHC Minutes 3 2018-03-21

4. INTRODUCTION OF ADDENDUM ITEMS None.

5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Moved by Denise Roy, Seconded by Wei Hwa

RESOLUTION NO. GHC-2018-0020

That the agenda be approved as presented.

Carried.

6. DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND GENERAL NATURE THEREOF

7. ADOPTION OF MINUTES

Moved by Denise Roy, Seconded by Wei Hwa

RESOLUTION NO. GHC-2018-0021

(1) Minutes of the Georgina Heritage Committee held on March 21, 2018.

Carried.

8. DELEGATIONS/SPEAKERS None.

9. PRESENTATIONS None.

10. CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS ON THE AGENDA

Demolition Permits (January 10, 2018, through February 14, 2018)

Moved by Wei Hwa, Seconded by Denise Roy

RESOLUTION NO. GHC-2018-0022

That the Georgina Heritage Committee receive the demolition permits from January 10, 2018 through to February 14, 2018.

Carried.

11. COMMUNICATIONS

(1) Another world on Lake Simcoe – The Briars (2) Email - Old Tree Designation

Page 3 of 109 GHC Minutes 4 2018-03-21

(3) OnLand Help Centre – OnLand is Here!

(4) Report DS-2018-0027 YRP Intent to Demolish, 20 Bonnie Blvd.

(5) 25103 Kennedy Road – Verbal Update

(6) St. James Parish – Verbal Update

(7) Direct staff to perform inspections of all designated properties- Verbal Update

Moved by Denise Roy, Seconded by Krista Barclay

RESOLUTION NO. GHC-2018-0023

That the Georgina Heritage Committee receive the following Communication Items:

1. Another world on Lake Simcoe – The Briars 2. Email – Old Tree Designation 3. OnLand Help Centre – OnLand is Here! 4. Reports DS-2018-0027 YRP Intent to Demolish, 20 Bonnie Blvd. 5. 25103 Kennedy Road- Verbal Update 6. St. James Parish – Verbal Update 7. Direct staff to perform inspections of all designated properties – Verbal Update

Carried.

12. OTHER BUSINESS

(1) 26280 Park Road – Chair requesting that a member should be with the surveyor at the time the survey is being done

Moved by Denise Roy, Seconded by Krista Barclay

RESOLUTION NO. GHC- 2018-0024

That the Georgina Heritage Committee request a member to be present at the time the survey for the property at 26280 Park Road is being conducted.

Carried.

(2) Plaques, (ongoing discussion)

(3) Designations (ongoing)

Page 4 of 109 GHC Minutes 5 2018-03-21

 Suggestion: Mann Cemetery on Queensway North, Keswick  Suggestion: Railway and enterprise shipwreck  Suggestion: The Briars, stable and old tree  St. James Parish Hall, update if available  Ainsley Hill. Shouldice property 216-235 Catering Road

(4) Heritage Register updates (ongoing item)

 MPAC list

(5) Terms of Reference – Original Terms of Reference – First Revision Terms of Reference – Second Revision

Item 12(5) be deferred till the next scheduled meeting.

(8) Tax incentives (ongoing item)

13. CLOSED SESSION, IF REQUIRED

14. MOTION TO ADJOURN

Next Meeting: Wednesday April 18, 2018, Council Chambers

Moved by Denise Roy, Seconded by Wei Hwa

RESOLUTION NO. GHC-2018-0025

That the meeting adjourn at 7:44 p.m.

Carried.

______Sandra Dipietrantonio, Committee Services Coordinator

______Terry Russell, Chair

Page 5 of 109 REPORT Heritage Impact Assessment 36 Church Street, Town of Georgina

Submitted to: Michael Vani, BURPI, Planner Weston Consulting 201 Millway Avenue, Suite 19 Vaughan, ON L4K 5K8

Submitted by: Golder Associates Ltd.

+1 (613) 592 9600

1792306-R01

April 10, 2018

Page 6 of 109 April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Distribution List

1 e-copy - Weston Consulting

1 e-copy - Golder Ltd.

Project Personnel

Project Director Carla Parslow, Ph.D., Associate

Project Manager Henry Cary, Ph.D., CAHP, Cultural Heritage Specialist

Research Elizabeth Nicoll, M.Pl., Cultural Heritage Specialist

Field Investigations Christopher Lemon, B.Sc., Cultural Heritage Specialist

Report Production Elizabeth Nicoll, M.Pl.

Henry Cary, Ph.D., CAHP

Liz Yildiz, Environmental Group Administrator

Maps & Illustrations Shane Collins, GIS Specialist

Robyn Lacy, M.A., Cultural Heritage Specialist

Henry Cary, Ph.D., CAHP

Senior Review Hugh Daechsel, Principal

Acknowledgements

Weston Consulting Michael Vani, BURPI, Planner

i Page 7 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Executive Summary

The Executive Summary summarizes only the key points of the report. For a complete account of the results and conclusions, as well as the limitations of this study, the reader should examine the report in full.

In January 2018, 2610818 Ontario Ltd. retained Golder to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for 36 Church Street (Concession 3, Lot 14) in the Town of Georgina, Regional Municipality of York, Ontario. The property was listed on the Georgina Heritage Register in 1999 as an ‘early homestead site’ constructed in 1910.

In response to an application to demolish the dwelling in 2016, ATA Architects conducted a ‘heritage assessment report', which identified the property as having cultural heritage value or interest, and recommended the property be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. 2610818 Ontario Ltd. formally challenged the Town of Georgina’s notice of intent to designate and commissioned a new HIA to address issues with the ATA report and understand the options for future development.

Following guidelines provided by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Town of Georgina Official Plan, and Canada’s Historic Places Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2010), this HIA identifies the heritage policies applicable to new development, summarizes the property’s geography and history, and provides an inventory and evaluation of the property’s built and landscape features. Based on this understanding of the property, the potential impacts resulting from the proposed development are assessed, and future conservation actions recommended.

This HIA concluded that the property at 36 Church Street in the Town of Georgina:  Has cultural heritage value or interest as a representative and well-executed example of a late 19th century Gothic Revival expanded side gable house, constructed in balloon frame with dichromatic brick cladding.

However, the results of a structural engineering investigation determined it is not feasible to conserve or rehabilitate the building for a new use. Golder therefore recommends that:  A Heritage Documentation Report (HDR) be completed prior to demolition of the house at 36 Church Street, and be deposited in a permanent, publicly accessible archive in the Town of Georgina; and,  All recyclable building materials on the property be salvaged, and resold or donated for general re- use.

ii

Page 8 of 109 April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Study Limitations

Golder Associates Ltd. has prepared this report in a manner consistent with the standards and guidelines developed by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport, subject to the time limits and physical constraints applicable to this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied is made.

This report has been prepared for the specific site, design objective, developments and purpose described to Golder Associates Ltd., by 2610818 Ontario Ltd. (the Client). The factual data, interpretations and recommendations pertain to a specific project as described in this report and are not applicable to any other project or site location.

The information, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of the Client. No other party may use or rely on this report or any portion thereof without Golder Associates Ltd.’s express written consent. If the report was prepared to be included for a specific permit application process, then upon the reasonable request of the Client, Golder Associates Ltd. may authorize in writing the use of this report by the regulatory agency as an Approved User for the specific and identified purpose of the applicable permit review process. Any other use of this report by others is prohibited and is without responsibility to Golder Associates Ltd. The report, all plans, data, drawings and other documents as well as electronic media prepared by Golder Associates Ltd. are considered its professional work product and shall remain the copyright property of Golder Associates Ltd., who authorizes only the Client and Approved Users to make copies of the report, but only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report by those parties. The Client and Approved Users may not give, lend, sell, or otherwise make available the report or any portion thereof to any other party without the express written permission of Golder Associates Ltd. The Client acknowledges the electronic media is susceptible to unauthorized modification, deterioration and incompatibility and therefore the Client cannot rely upon the electronic media versions of Golder Associates Ltd.’s report or other work products.

Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations and opinions given in this report are intended only for the guidance of the Client in the design of the specific project.

iii

Page 9 of 109 April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2.0 SCOPE AND METHOD ...... 3 3.0 POLICY FRAMEWORK ...... 4

3.1 Federal and International Heritage Policies ...... 4

3.2 Provincial Heritage Policies ...... 4

3.2.1 Ontario Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement ...... 4

3.2.2 The Ontario Heritage Act and Ontario Regulation 9/06 ...... 6

3.2.3 MTCS Heritage Conservation Guidance...... 7

3.3 Town of Georgina Heritage Policies ...... 8

3.3.1 Official Plan ...... 8

3.3.2 Keswick Secondary Plan ...... 8

3.3.3 Municipal Culture Plan ...... 9

4.0 GEOGRAPHIC & HISTORICAL CONTEXT ...... 10

4.1 Geographic Context ...... 10

4.2 Historical Context ...... 10

4.2.1 Town of Georgina and North Gwillimbury Township ...... 10

4.2.2 36 Church Street ...... 11

5.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 16

5.1 Setting ...... 16

5.2 Built Environment: General Description ...... 19

5.2.1 Main Block ...... 22

5.2.2 Interior ...... 27

5.2.3 West Addition ...... 38

5.2.4 East Addition ...... 39

5.2.5 North Addition ...... 40

5.3 Physical Condition ...... 41

5.4 Structural History ...... 44

iv

Page 10 of 109 April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

5.4.1 Phase 1: 1880s – 1990s ...... 44

5.4.2 Phase 2: 2000 – Present ...... 44

5.5 Interpretation ...... 44

5.6 Integrity ...... 48

5.6.1 Results ...... 50

6.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION ...... 51

6.1 Design or Physical Value ...... 51

6.2 Historical or Associative Value ...... 52

6.3 Contextual Value ...... 52

6.4 Evaluation Results ...... 53

6.5 Proposed Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest ...... 53

6.5.1 Description of Key Heritage Attributes ...... 53

7.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 54

7.1 Development Description ...... 54

7.2 Impact Assessment ...... 54

7.3 Results of Impact Assessment ...... 57

8.0 ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION OPTIONS ...... 57

9.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT & RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 57 10.0 REFERENCES ...... 58

TABLES

Table 1: Physical Condition Assessment...... 41 Table 2: Heritage Integrity Analysis for 36 Church Street...... 48 Table 3: Design Value...... 51 Table 4: Historical or Associative Value...... 52 Table 5: Contextual Value...... 52 Table 6: Assessment of Direct & Indirect Adverse Impacts...... 56

v

Page 11 of 109 April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

FIGURES

Figure 1: Location Map ...... 2 Figure 2: Study Area Overlaid on Historical Maps ...... 13 Figure 3: Study Area Overlaid on Topographical Maps ...... 14 Figure 4: Study Area Overlaid on Aerial Photos ...... 15 Figure 5: View of the Church Street and Woodbine Avenue intersection from the south side of Church Street...... 16 Figure 6: South façade of 36 Church Street from the public right-of-way...... 16 Figure 7: View of Church Street from the main entrance of 36 Church Street...... 16 Figure 8: 1 Woodbine Avenue, located southeast of 36 Church Street...... 17 Figure 9: The Gem Theatre, located immediately south of 36 Church Street ...... 17 Figure 10: 69 Church Street, situated to the west of 36 Church Street...... 18 Figure 11: 82 Church Street, to the west of 36 Church Street...... 18 Figure 12: The south façade of 36 Church Street...... 19 Figure 13: West façade...... 20 Figure 14: North façade...... 20 Figure 15: East façade...... 21 Figure 16: 36 Church Street Site Plan...... 23 Figure 17: Turned wood drop pendant and curvilinear verge board with star motif on east façade...... 24 Figure 18: Dichromatic brick quoins on south façade...... 24 Figure 19: Curvilinear verge board detailing on south façade...... 25 Figure 20: Typical segmental arch head windows with dichromatic soldier brick voussoirs and brow or label formed with headers...... 25 Figure 21: Open veranda...... 26 Figure 22: Interior of the east lean-to, looking into the kitchen...... 26 Figure 23: Exposed joists and beams in Basement...... 27 Figure 24: 36 Church Street interior floor plan...... 28 Figure 25: Main floor living room with entrance from the south façade...... 29 Figure 26: Main Floor Bedroom located to the west of the living room...... 29 Figure 27: Dining room, located to the southwest of the main level...... 30 Figure 28: Moulded baseboard and plank flooring in the main level dining room...... 30 Figure 29: Moulded window architraves and apron in the dining room...... 31 Figure 30: Dining room door architrave...... 31

vi

Page 12 of 109 April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Figure 31: Main level kitchen...... 32 Figure 32: Turned baluster (far right) and second level room of the rear wing...... 32 Figure 33: Staircase leading from the living room to the second level hallway...... 33 Figure 34: Flooring and moulded baseboard in the second level room of the rear wing...... 33 Figure 35: Bedroom with closet located to the southwest of the second floor, across from the bathroom...... 34 Figure 36: Second floor bathroom...... 35 Figure 37: Southeast room on the second level...... 36 Figure 38: Northwest second level bedroom...... 37 Figure 39: Exposed rubble walls with brick buttress in the basement...... 37 Figure 40: Exterior of west addition...... 38 Figure 41: Interior of West Addition...... 39 Figure 42: Exterior of east addition...... 39 Figure 43: Exterior of north addition...... 40 Figure 44: Ice build-up on exterior services...... 42 Figure 45: Chimney stack with mortar washout and brick displacement...... 42 Figure 46: Visible masonry separation and bowing on west wall...... 43 Figure 47: Brick displacement, cracking and mortar washout on the front gable quoins...... 43 Figure 48: Unmaintained pool northeast of the house...... 44 Figure 49: A dichromatic brick house in Merrickville (Ritchie 1979)...... 45 Figure 50: Quoin detailing found on 36 Church Street (from Ritchie 1979)...... 45 Figure 51: 181 Church Street, to the west of 36 Church Street ...... 46 Figure 52: 185 Church Street, to the west of 36 Church Street ...... 47 Figure 53: 24809 Woodbine Avenue, located to the southeast of 36 Church Street...... 47

APPENDICES APPENDIX A Applicable Planning Policy Letter, Weston Consulting APPENDIX B Land Registry APPENDIX C Structural Engineering Report

vii

Page 13 of 109 April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

1.0 INTRODUCTION In January 2018, 2610818 Ontario Ltd. retained Golder to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for 36 Church Street (Concession 3, Lot 14) in the Town of Georgina, Regional Municipality of York, Ontario (the property; Figure 1). The property was listed on the Georgina Heritage Register in 1999 as an ‘early homestead site’ constructed in 1910.

In 2016, the previous owners filed a request with the Town to remove the property from the heritage register and demolish the dwelling. A heritage assessment report by ATA Architects (‘the ATA Report’) was conducted in July 2017, identifying the property as having cultural heritage value or interest for its historical and contextual value. The current owner has objected to the intention to designate the property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Following guidelines by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS), the Town of Georgina, and Canada’s Historic Places Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2010), this HIA provides:  A background on the purpose and requirements of a HIA, and the methods used to investigate and assess impacts to cultural heritage resources;  An overview of the property’s geographic and historical context;  An inventory of the built environment and landscape features on properties adjacent to 36 Church Street;  An assessment of the potential cultural heritage value or interest; and,  An options analysis and recommendations to ensure that the heritage attributes on the property are conserved. At Golder’s recommendation, a structural engineering assessment of the property was also conducted.

1 Page 14 of 109

PATH: S:\Clients\2610818_Ontario\ON_Georgina_ChurchSt_36\99_PROJ\1792306\40_PROD\0001_HeritageImpactAssessment\1792306-0001-HC-0001.mxd PRINTED ON: 2018-02-28 AT: 1:48:37 PM

LEGEND Study Area

KEY MAP

Study Area

0 50 100

1:2,000 METRES

NOTE(S) 1. APPROMIXATE SITE LOCATION

REFERENCE(S) 1. IMAGERY - SERVICE LAYER CREDITS: SOURCES: ESRI, HERE, DELORME, USGS, INTERMAP, INCREMENT P, NRCAN, ESRI JAPAN, METI, ESRI CHINA (HONG KONG), ESRI KOREA, ESRI (THAILAND), MAPMYINDIA, NGCC, © OPENSTREETMAP CONTRIBUTORS, AND THE GIS USER COMMUNITY © 2018 MICROSOFT CORPORATION © 2018 DIGITALGLOBE ©CNES (2018) DISTRIBUTION AIRBUS DS 2. BASE DATA - MNR LIO, OBTAINED 2017. PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD UNDER LICENCE FROM ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, © QUEENS PRINTER 2018 3. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 17N

CLIENT 2610818 ONTARIO LTD.

PROJECT HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT 36 CHURCH STREET,TOWN OF GEORGINA, ON TITLE MAP OF STUDY AREA IF THIS IF MEASUREMENT ISSHOWN,DOES THENOT WHAT MATCH SHEET HAS BEEN MODIFIEDA FROM:ANSI CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2018-02-28 25mm DESIGNED SFC

PREPARED SFC

REVIEWED EN

APPROVED HC PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE Page 15 of 109 1792306 0001 A

1 0 April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

2.0 SCOPE AND METHOD To undertake this HIA, Golder:  Reviewed applicable municipal heritage policies and consulted the Town’s planner responsible for heritage;  Reviewed archival and published documents relevant to the property;  Conducted field investigations to document and identify heritage attributes within the property, and to understand the wider built and landscape context;  Evaluated built and landscape elements identified on the property using the criteria prescribed in O. Reg. 9/06;  Assessed the impact of the proposed development on any heritage attributes using provincial guidelines and municipal policies; and,  Developed recommendations for future action based on international, federal, provincial and municipal conservation guidance.

Several archival and published sources, including historic maps, aerial imagery, photographs, land registry and research articles, were accessed from the National Air Photo Library, Library and Archives Canada, Archives of Ontario, and online sources, as well as the Town’s Heritage Register (the Register).

Field investigations were conducted by Archaeologist Christopher Lemon on February 12th and 23rd, 2018 and included accessing and photographing all elements of 36 Church Street and wider context with a Nikon D5300 and an 18 to 55mm zoom lens. A Canadian Inventory of Historic Buildings Recording Form (Parks Canada Agency 1980) was used to document the structure, and physical conditions and landscape characterization were recorded as written notes.

The property was evaluated using the criteria prescribed in O. Reg. 9/06, and the proposed development was assessed for adverse impacts using the guidance provided in the MTCS Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process. A number of widely recognized manuals related to evaluating heritage value, determining impacts, and conservation approaches to cultural heritage resources were also consulted, including:  The Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (5 volumes, MTCS 2006);  Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties – Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process (MTCS 2014);  Information Bulletin 3: Heritage Impact Assessments for Provincial Heritage Properties (MTCS 2017);  Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Canada’s Historic Places 2010);  Well-Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundation’s Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation (Fram 2003);  The Evaluation of Historic Buildings (Kalman 1979); and,  Informed Conservation: Understanding Historic Buildings and their Landscapes for Conservation (Clark 2001).

3 Page 16 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

3.0 POLICY FRAMEWORK The property is subject to several provincial and municipal heritage planning and policy regimes, as well as guidance developed at the federal level. Although these have varying levels of priority, all are considered for decision-making in a cultural heritage environment. The relevant guidance, legislation, and policies are described below.

Ontario Heritage Act Town of Ontario Georgina Planning Act Official Plan

Provincial Keswick Policy Secondary Statement Plan 2014

Heritage MTCS Conservation Municipal Heritage of the Culture Plan Guidance property

Federal, provincial and municipal policies relevant to development of the property 3.1 Federal and International Heritage Policies No federal heritage policies apply to the property, although many of the provincial and municipal policies detailed below align in approach to that of Canada’s Historic Places Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Canada’s Historic Places 2010). The standards and guidelines —drafted in response to international and national agreements such as the 1964 International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice Charter), 1979 Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance (Burra Charter, updated 2013), and 1983 Canadian Appleton Charter for the Protection and Enhancement of the Built Environment— define the three conservation treatments of preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration, and outlines the process, standards, and guidelines to meet the objectives for each treatment on a range of cultural heritage resources. More recently, the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) has also provided guidance for heritage impact assessments of world heritage properties, but which provide overall ‘best practice’ approaches to assessment of historic assets (ICOMOS 2011). 3.2 Provincial Heritage Policies 3.2.1 Ontario Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement In Ontario, the Planning Act and associated Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 (PPS 2014) provide the legislative imperative for heritage conservation in land use planning. Both documents identify conservation of resources of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological, or scientific interest as a Provincial interest, and PPS 2014 further recognizes that protecting cultural heritage and archaeological resources has economic, environmental, and social benefits, and contributes to the long-term prosperity, environmental health, and social well-being of Ontarians. The Planning Act serves to integrate this interest with planning decisions at the provincial and municipal level, and states that all decisions affecting land use planning ‘shall be consistent with’ PPS 2014.

4 Page 17 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Two sections of the PPS 2014 recognize the importance of identifying and evaluating built heritage and cultural heritage landscapes:  Section 2.6.1 – ‘Significant built heritage resources and significant heritage landscapes shall be conserved’; and,  Section 2.6.3 – ‘Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved.’

PPS 2014 defines significant resources as those ‘determined to have cultural heritage value or interest for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people’, and conserved as ‘the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value of interest is retained under the Ontario Heritage Act.’ Built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, heritage attributes, and protected heritage property are also defined in the PPS:  Built heritage resources: a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Aboriginal [Indigenous] community. Built heritage resources are generally located on property that has been designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or included on local, provincial and/or federal registers.  Cultural heritage landscapes: 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 Aboriginal [Indigenous] community. The area may involve features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Examples may include, but are not limited to, heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways, viewsheds, natural areas and industrial complexes of heritage significance; and areas recognized by federal or international designation authorities (e.g. a National Historic Site or District designation, or a UNESCO World Heritage Site).  Heritage attribute: the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritage property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property’s built or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (including significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage property).  Protected heritage property: property designated under Parts IV, V or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; property subject to a heritage conservation easement under Parts II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; property identified by the Province and prescribed public bodies as provincial heritage property under the Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal legislation, and UNESCO World Heritage Sites.

For municipalities, PPS 2014 is implemented through an ‘official plan’, which may outline further heritage policies (Section 3.4).

5 Page 18 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

3.2.2 The Ontario Heritage Act and Ontario Regulation 9/06 The Province and municipalities are enabled to conserve significant individual properties and areas through the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). Under Part III of the OHA, compliance with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties is mandatory for Provincially-owned and administered heritage properties and holds the same authority for ministries and prescribed public bodies as a Management Board or Cabinet directive.

For municipalities, Part IV and Part V of the OHA enables councils to ‘designate’ individual properties (Part IV), or properties within a heritage conservation district (HCD) (Part V), as being of ‘cultural heritage value or interest’ (CHVI). Evaluation for CHVI under the OHA is guided by Ontario Regulation 9/06, which prescribes the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest. The criteria are as follows:

1) The property has design value or physical value because it: i) Is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method; ii) Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit; or iii) Demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.

2) The property has historic 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; ii) Yields, or has the potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture; or iii) Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community.

3) The property has contextual value because it: i) Is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area; ii) Is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings; or iii) Is a landmark.

If a property meets one or more of these criteria, it may be eligible for designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the OHA.

Designated properties, which are formally described1 and recognized through by-law, must then be included on a ‘Register’ maintained by the municipal clerk. At a secondary level, a municipality may ‘list’ a property on the register to indicate its potential CHVI. Importantly, designation or listing in most cases applies to the entire property, not only individual structures or features.

1 The OHA defines ‘heritage attributes’ slightly differently than PPS 2014; in the former, heritage attributes ‘means, 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’.

6 Page 19 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

The Town maintains a register of heritage properties that includes:  Individual buildings or structures designated under Part IV of the OHA; and,  Listed properties of potential CHVI. At the Town, like most municipalities, heritage planning staff and municipal heritage committees report to Council on issues pertaining to the OHA. If these individuals or bodies are absent in a municipality, the Province may assume responsibility. 3.2.3 MTCS Heritage Conservation Guidance As mentioned above, heritage conservation on provincial properties must comply with the MTCS Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties, but this document also provides ‘best practice’ approaches for evaluating cultural heritage resources not under provincial jurisdiction. For example, the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties – Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process (MTCS 2014) provides detailed explanations of the O. Reg. 9/06 criteria and its application.

To advise municipalities, organizations, and individuals on heritage protection and conservation, the MTCS developed a series of products under the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Of these, Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process (MTCS 2005) defines an HIA as:  ‘a study to determine if any cultural resources (including those previously identified and those found as part of the site assessment) are impacted by a specific proposed development or site alteration. It can also demonstrate how the cultural resource will be c onserved in the context of redevelopment or site alteration. Mitigative or avoidance measures or alternative development or site alteration approaches may be recommended.’

Determining the optimal conservation or mitigation strategy is further guided by the MTCS Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties (2012), which encourage respect for:

1) Documentary evidence (restoration should not be based on conjecture);

2) Original location (do not move buildings unless there is no other means to save them since any change in site diminishes heritage value considerably);

3) Historic material (follow ‘minimal intervention’ and repair or conserve building materials rather than replace them);

4) Original fabric (repair with like materials);

5) Building history (do not destroy later additions to reproduce a single period);

6) Reversibility (any alterations should be reversible);

7) Legibility (new work should be distinguishable from old); and,

8) Maintenance (historic places should be continually maintained).

The Ontario Heritage Tool Kit partially, but not entirely, supersedes earlier MTCS advice for heritage professionals. Criteria to identify cultural landscapes is provided in greater detail in the Guidelines on the Man- Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments (1980:7), while recording and documentation procedures are outlined in the Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments (1992:3-7). The latter document also stresses the importance of identifying and gauging the cumulative effects of a development (MTCS 1992:8).

7 Page 20 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

3.3 Town of Georgina Heritage Policies 3.3.1 Official Plan The Town’s Official Plan (2017) defines tangible cultural heritage as:  Archaeological resources (e.g. artifacts, archaeological sites, marine archaeological sites);  Built heritage resources (e.g. a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured remnant contributing to a property’s cultural heritage value); and,  Cultural heritage landscapes (e.g. defined geographical area identified as having cultural heritage value or interest).

The combination of human-made buildings and structures, as well as the natural landscape, are valued by the community. Section 8.8(10) states that a Heritage Impact Statement is required in support of development proposals on a property that is listed on the Town’s Heritage Registry. Development on adjacent lands to properties on the Registry also require an HIS.

The Official Plan identifies several guiding principles and objectives as it relates to cultural heritage resources:  Preserving significant natural heritage and environmental features;  Maintaining a sustainable rural/agricultural area and agricultural industry;  Providing opportunities for residents while protecting the natural environment; and,  Expanding economic opportunities and diversifying the economic base. These objectives are mainly implemented through the Town’s Municipal Cultural Plan (2012), described in the following section of this HIS.

Section 2.2.2 of the Official Plan identifies the Town’s sustainability objectives, which includes to conserve, protect and enhance the Town’s cultural heritage resources, and promote cultural expression in the Town (Section 2.2.2.9). 3.3.2 Keswick Secondary Plan The property is within the Keswick Secondary Plan area, which has a number of policies related to cultural heritage conservation. Under Section 13.1.1 General Land Use Policies, Heritage Conservation and Archaeological Preservation is discussed under 13.1.2.3. The Town intends to protect cultural and archaeological resources by requiring the identification, restoration, protection and maintenance of cultural and archaeological resources. The Town, through the management of its heritage resources, seeks:  The conservation of the Town’s heritage resources by identifying, recognizing, preserving, protecting, improving and managing those resources, including the potential for their adaptive reuse;  The integration of the conservation of heritage resources into the Town’s general planning approach; and,  The promotion of an understanding and appreciation of the heritage resources of the Town to both residents and visitors.

8 Page 21 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Heritage conservation is integrated into the development approval process by requiring the preparation of an archaeological assessment prior to development approval, in accordance with Ministry of Culture technical conservation guidelines and Heritage Act Regulations. Section 13.1.2.4 Tree Conservation highlights the Town’s focus on ensuring existing trees are protected during development and maximizing the number of trees that can be conserved or established on development sites.

In order to properly evaluate a proposal, the following cultural/heritage information is required:  Archaeological Assessment;  Built Heritage Resource Assessment / Impact Study;  Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment / Impact Study; and,  Heritage Restoration Plan. A full description of the property’s planning context within the Secondary Plan is provided in APPENDIX A. 3.3.3 Municipal Culture Plan The Town of Georgina’s Municipal Culture Plan vision statement is:

Culture in Georgina arises from a unique landscape and a balance of urban and rural life. Cultural expression and celebration in Georgina contributes to the local economy, to personal growth and community well-being; it transforms our communities by fostering creativity.

Overall, the Municipal Culture Plan aims to:  Identify the cultural resources in Georgina;  Set these resources into the provincial, regional and local planning context;  Identify goals and strategies for developing Georgina’s cultural resources; and,  Provide a framework for managing cultural development going forward. From these goals, the Municipal Culture Plan seeks to conserve cultural heritage resources by identifying, recognizing, preserving, protecting, improving and managing those resources. This involves the potential for adaptive reuse, integrating conservation of cultural heritage resources into the Town’s general planning approach, promoting an understanding an appreciation of the cultural heritage resources of the Town to both residents and visitors, and protecting and conserving Indigenous archaeological resources.

9 Page 22 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

4.0 GEOGRAPHIC & HISTORICAL CONTEXT 4.1 Geographic Context The property is located in south-central Ontario, approximately 60 km north of Lake Ontario and 2.5 km east of Cook’s Bay in Lake Simcoe. It is located on a drumlin within the Simcoe Lowlands physiographic zone, described by Chapman and Putnam (1984:161):

The Simcoe Lowlands cover an area of about 1,100 square miles. They fall naturally into two major divisions separated by the uplands of Simcoe County. To the west are the plains, lying between 580 feet and 750 feet a.s.l.[above sea level], draining into Nottawasaga Bay mostly by way of the Nottawasaga River…to the east is the lowland surrounding Lake Simcoe, lying mostly between 718 and 850 feet a.s.l….These two basins are connected at Barrie by a flat-floored valley… Both the lowlands and transverse valleys were flooded by Lake Algonkian and are bordered by shorecliffs, beaches, and bouldery terraces. Thus they are floored by sand, silt and clay.

Drumlins consist of medium-textured stony till, with a varied amount of sand and clay which have steep slopes and stoniness. The soils on drumlins are easy to till, adaptable and durable. Naturally occurring trees in the area are mainly deciduous.

In reference to cultural boundaries and features, the property is approximately 80m west of the Church Street and Woodbine Avenue intersection, and less than 5 km east from Keswick Beach. The topography is relatively flat throughout the immediate area (246-265 m a.s.l). 4.2 Historical Context 4.2.1 Town of Georgina and North Gwillimbury Township The earliest Euro-Canadian settlement was established in the late 18th century. In the 1790s, Lieutenant-Governor John Graves Simcoe named a portion of the area ‘Georgina’ in honour of King George III, and the other portion North Gwillimbury after his wife’s maiden name, ‘Gwillim’ (History of Georgina 2007). Georgina was surveyed and settled at a later date than other townships of the county (Mulvany 1885). The area was surveyed according to the single front survey system by John Stegman between 1800 and 1803. This survey system, used between 1783 and 1818, established concessions containing 200 acre lots divided every five lots by side roads. The concessions were oriented south to north, with the side roads crossing the town from west to east.

One of the first settlers, and founder of the Village of Sutton, was Captain James O’Brien Bouchier, who had commanded Fort Pentanguishene during the War of 1812. Bouchier’s brother William was a British Royal Navy captain and shipbuilder and was granted a large acreage in North Gwillimbury and Georgina in 1818. Many of the other first land grants were also issued to retired military officers and veterans of the Napoleonic Wars and War of 1812.

The area’s large tracts of arable land favoured crop cultivation and pasturing, while several streams could be harnessed to power grist and saw mills. Lake Simcoe and the Holland River formed the principle communication route from the north to south of Upper Canada (Canadian Museum of History 2018), which greatly benefited the Township of North Gwillimbury. By 1821, the population of North Gwillimbury and Georgina reached 272, and would later be comprised of Roche’s Point, Jersey, Belhaven, and Keswick (originally called Medina).

Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer (1846) describes North Gwillimbury as having 13,080 occupied acres, with 3,424 acres under cultivation. A large portion of the north and west of the Township had light soil with pine timber, well- cultivated and situated farms, and a significant amount of marsh land. At this time, the population had grown to

10 Page 23 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

697. By 1871, the population of North Gwillimbury reached 2,304 (Mulvany 1885). Despite its population growth, North Gwillimbury remained the smallest township in the county in both area and inhabitants.

In his 1851 publication Canada: Past, Present and Future, Smith identifies Keswick as being a new settlement within Roche’s Point. The County of York Directory from 1870-71 highlights the post office located in Keswick, stages to Newmarket and Beaverton, and steamers to Bell Ewart. However, the population is listed at only 70 (Anonymous 1870), and Keswick would remain a small agricultural village well into the 20th century (History of Georgina 2007; Canadian Museum of History 2018). By 1908, the population was 150 and was home to two churches (Christian and Methodist), two stores, a hotel, two blacksmith shops, and a telegraph office (Adam 1908). Georgina and surrounding area also prospered, and its population grew into the late 19th century, numbering 2,500 inhabitants by the 1880s.

In 1971, the Town was amalgamated with other neighbouring communities including Jackson’s Point, Keswick, Sutton, Pefferlaw, Port Bolster, Udora and Willow Beach, creating the Regional Municipality of York (Mika and Mika 1981). Keswick was amalgamated with the Township of Georgina in 1986 and is currently the largest urban community within the Town with a population of 26,757 (Statistics Canada 2016). 4.2.2 36 Church Street To trace the occupational history of this lot, title abstract index records, land registry records, census records and directory records were consulted, and are summarized in APPENDIX B. The property is legally described as Part Lot 14, Concession 3 North Gwillimbury as in R369417.

A map of from approximately 1803 by surveyor John Stegmann identifies the 200-acre Lot 14 as the property of Isaac Griffin (Figure 2), and he was granted the Crown Patent the following year. Eleven years later, two 50-acre lots were sold to Arad Smalley (southwest portion) and Benjamin Crittenden (northwest portion), and in 1830, Isaac Griffin sold 150 acres of the east portion to Daniel Mann, listed as ‘gentleman’, for $300. In 1833, Daniel sold 50 acres of the east ¼ to Amos Crittenden, a yeoman, also for $300. Amos Crittenden subsequently sold 10 acres of the land to John Cawthra in 1839 for $100, who in turn sold the property, in 1847, to Harvey Huntley for $156. Amos Crittenden sold an additional 20 acres to James A. Crittenden in 1855 for $40, keeping 20 acres out of the original 50 for himself. James Crittenden is identified in the 1885 Directory as being the town warden around the 1840s (Mulvany 1885).

The 1851 census identifies the lot as having 50 acres under cultivation, 30 acres under crops, 19 acres of pasture, 1 acre of orchards and 25 acres of woods (Library and Archives Canada 1851). Tremaine’s 1860 Map of York County confirms that the east portion of the lot was divided into three properties owned north to south by Amos Crittenden, James Crittenden, and Harvey Huntly, respectively (Figure 2). The census also identifies Harvey as a sixty-two-year-old yeoman, and his twenty-nine-year-old wife Margaret Huntley as Irish emigrants. In 1853, Harvey Huntley briefly mortgaged the 10 acres to the ‘Toronto University’ for $2,000.00. Afterwards he sold the land to Bethuel Draper in 1862 for the significant sum of $5,200, and Draper sold the property back to Margaret Huntley in 1864 for $600. A rent change occurred between Draper and Harvey Huntley in 1863, but what caused the significant value increase is unknown; likely it is the result of a historical transcription error.

Margaret Huntley mortgaged the 10 acres to John Porter in 1872 for $200, and again in 1874 to George Holburn Sr. for $400, before ultimately selling the property to John O’Donahoe for $2,000 in 1878. John mortgaged the 10 acres to Charles Beatty for $1,500. In 1878, legal action (lis pendens) occurred between William. H. Deverell and Margaret Huntly for the 10 acres, with the Court of Chancery awarding Margaret Huntley the land in October 1878. However, an 1878 map of North Gwillimbury by Miles & Co. identifies the property ownership as relatively unchanged from 1860 (Amos Crittenden; James Crittenden; and, M. Huntley: Figure 2). Also shown on the 1878 map is a structure on the east portion of the lot.

11 Page 24 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

John O’Donahoe, now a widower, sold the 10 acres to carpenter Josiah Willoughby in 1881 for $700. Willoughby subsequently sold the property to Elisha Mann, a farmer, in 1885 for $1,800. Elisha lived at the property with his wife Diana until 1921, when he sold the property to D. Van Van Norman for $5,000. David Van Van Norman and his wife (et ux [illegible, page torn]) then sold the property to Roy Rose and Jane Rose in 1937 for $3,500, who granted the land to tenants Harry J. and Ida M. Leppard the same year. The earliest aerial photo and topographical maps, both of which date to the late 1920s, show the house on the lot associated with an orchard (Figure 3 and Figure 4).

The land was granted to multiple people throughout the latter half of the 20th century: J. Harvey Robertson in 1938; John Gable in 1941; and Arthur R. Pollock and Winfred Pollock in 1960. It appears the lot was further divided in 1960 by the Treasury of Ontario, with portions going to George Rigler, John Gable, and Isabella Rigler. John Gable granted a small portion of his lot to the Township of North Gwillimbury in 1965.

Harriett Gable, on behalf of John Gable, granted the land to Gavin P. Morton and Eleanor Morton in 1967. Gavin was a contractor who was heavily involved in the community. It was transferred to solely Gavin Morton later that year, but by 1968 Thomas and Elizabeth Holden had been granted the land. Keith and Pauline Burford are the most recent tenants, having lived at the property since 1985.

12 Page 25 of 109

LEGEND 1803 Subject Property Original Property Lot

1860 1878

NOTE(S) 1. APPROMIXATE SITE LOCATION 2. IMAGES ARE NOT TO SCALE, GEOREFEREENCED TO BEST FIT

REFERENCE(S) 1. IMAGERY - SERVICE LAYER CREDITS: SOURCES: ESRI, HERE, DELORME, USGS, INTERMAP, INCREMENT P, NRCAN, ESRI JAPAN, METI, ESRI CHINA (HONG KONG), ESRI KOREA, ESRI (THAILAND), MAPMYINDIA, NGCC, © OPENSTREETMAP CONTRIBUTORS, AND THE GIS USER COMMUNITY © 2018 MICROSOFT CORPORATION © 2018 DIGITALGLOBE ©CNES (2018) DISTRIBUTION AIRBUS DS 2. BASE DATA - MNR LIO, OBTAINED 2017. PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD UNDER LICENCE FROM ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, © QUEENS PRINTER 2018 3. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 17N

CLIENT 2610818 ONTARIO LTD.

PROJECT HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT 36 CHURCH STREET,TOWN OF GEORGINA, ON TITLE STUDY AREA OVERLAID ON HISTORICAL MAPS IF THIS IF MEASUREMENT IS DOES SHOWN, THE NOTWHAT MATCH SHEET SIZE HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2018-03-08 25mm DESIGNED SFC

PREPARED SFC

REVIEWED EN

APPROVED HC PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE Page 26 of 109 1792306 0001 A PATH: S:\Clients\2610818_Ontario\ON_Georgina_ChurchSt_36\99_PROJ\1792306\40_PROD\0001_HeritageImpactAssessment\1792306-0001-HC-0002.mxd PATH: 10:16:23 AM PRINTED 2018-03-08 ON: AT:

2 0 LEGEND 1929 Subject Property

1935 1939

NOTE(S) 1. APPROMIXATE SITE LOCATION 2. IMAGES ARE NOT TO SCALE, GEOREFEREENCED TO BEST FIT

REFERENCE(S) 1. IMAGERY - SERVICE LAYER CREDITS: SOURCES: ESRI, HERE, DELORME, USGS, INTERMAP, INCREMENT P, NRCAN, ESRI JAPAN, METI, ESRI CHINA (HONG KONG), ESRI KOREA, ESRI (THAILAND), MAPMYINDIA, NGCC, © OPENSTREETMAP CONTRIBUTORS, AND THE GIS USER COMMUNITY © 2018 MICROSOFT CORPORATION © 2018 DIGITALGLOBE ©CNES (2018) DISTRIBUTION AIRBUS DS 2. BASE DATA - MNR LIO, OBTAINED 2017. PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD UNDER LICENCE FROM ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, © QUEENS PRINTER 2018 3. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 17N

CLIENT 2610818 ONTARIO LTD.

PROJECT HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT 36 CHURCH STREET,TOWN OF GEORGINA, ON TITLE STUDY AREA OVERLAID ON TOPOGRAPHICAL MAPS IF THIS IF MEASUREMENT IS DOES SHOWN, THE NOTWHAT MATCH SHEET SIZE HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2018-03-08 25mm DESIGNED SFC

PREPARED SFC

REVIEWED EN

APPROVED HC PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE Page 27 of 109 1792306 0001 A PATH: S:\Clients\2610818_Ontario\ON_Georgina_ChurchSt_36\99_PROJ\1792306\40_PROD\0001_HeritageImpactAssessment\1792306-0001-HC-0003.mxd PATH: 10:23:02 AM PRINTED 2018-03-08 ON: AT:

3 0 1927 1954 1970 LEGEND Subject Property

1988 1999 2007

NOTE(S) 1. APPROMIXATE SITE LOCATION 2. IMAGES ARE NOT TO SCALE, GEOREFEREENCED TO BEST FIT

REFERENCE(S) 1. IMAGERY - SERVICE LAYER CREDITS: SOURCES: ESRI, HERE, DELORME, USGS, INTERMAP, INCREMENT P, NRCAN, ESRI JAPAN, METI, ESRI CHINA (HONG KONG), ESRI KOREA, ESRI (THAILAND), MAPMYINDIA, NGCC, © OPENSTREETMAP CONTRIBUTORS, AND THE GIS USER COMMUNITY © 2018 MICROSOFT CORPORATION © 2018 DIGITALGLOBE ©CNES (2018) DISTRIBUTION AIRBUS DS 2. BASE DATA - MNR LIO, OBTAINED 2017. PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD UNDER LICENCE FROM ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, © QUEENS PRINTER 2018 3. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 17N

CLIENT 2610818 ONTARIO LTD.

PROJECT HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT 36 CHURCH STREET,TOWN OF GEORGINA, ON TITLE STUDY AREA OVERLAID ON AERIAL PHOTOS IF THIS IF MEASUREMENT IS DOES SHOWN, THE NOTWHAT MATCH SHEET SIZE HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2018-03-08 25mm DESIGNED SFC

PREPARED SFC

REVIEWED EN

APPROVED HC PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE Page 28 of 109 1792306 0001 A PATH: S:\Clients\2610818_Ontario\ON_Georgina_ChurchSt_36\99_PROJ\1792306\40_PROD\0001_HeritageImpactAssessment\1792306-0001-HC-0004.mxd PATH: AM 11:30:18 PRINTED 2018-03-08 ON: AT:

4 0 April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

5.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.1 Setting The setting along Church Street can be characterized as a village commercial streetscape, typified by one-to-two storey commercial properties with large setbacks from the street and mature vegetation. Traffic along Church Street is divided into a single travel lane in each direction with no sidewalks or on-street parking (Figure 5).

The house is situated approximately 34m from the public right-of-way, in the central portion of the nearly 1-acre lot (55.43m east to west, 81.74m north to south; Figure 6). The house is surrounded to the north, south, east, and west by mature vegetation which masks it from the street, especially during warmer months (Figure 7). A chain-link fence is located to the rear of the property. A driveway is located to the east of the house, with an unmaintained pool and dilapidated shed to the northeast.

Nearby commercial properties include the Gem Theatre, a storage facility, government offices, and other services within the Georgina Mall (Figure 8 and Figure 9). Further west on Church Street, the streetscape is typified by one-to-two-storey late 20th to early 21st century residential properties (Figure 10 and Figure 11).

Figure 5: View of the Church Street and Woodbine Avenue intersection from the south side of Church Street.

Figure 6: South façade of 36 Church Street from the public right-of-way.

Figure 7: View of Church Street from the main entrance of 36 Church Street.

16 Page 29 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Figure 8: 1 Woodbine Avenue, located southeast of 36 Church Street.

Figure 9: The Gem Theatre, located immediately south of 36 Church Street

17 Page 30 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Figure 10: 69 Church Street, situated to the west of 36 Church Street.

Figure 11: 82 Church Street, to the west of 36 Church Street.

18 Page 31 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

5.2 Built Environment: General Description 36 Church Street includes: a single-detached, three-bay, storey-and-a-half Gothic Revival expanded side gable residence (the ‘Main Block’) with additions on the west, east, and north (Figure 12 to Figure 15). Overall the house measures approximately 34 ft. (10 m) east-west, and 50 ft. (15.24 m) north-south. Each element is described in detail below.

Figure 12: The south façade of 36 Church Street.

19 Page 32 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Figure 13: West façade.

Figure 14: North façade.

20 Page 33 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Figure 15: East façade.

21 Page 34 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

5.2.1 Main Block The Main Block measures approximately 10 m north-south and 13.7 m east-west overall and is T-shaped in plan with gable front, side hall, and rear wing. It stands on a coursed rubble foundation with partial below ground basement, and its walls on all facades are balloon frame construction with dichromatic (buff and red) brick cladding laid entirely in stretcher bond; evidence that the masonry is only a single wythe thick can be seen under the east addition, where a large section of bricks have been removed, exposing the flush wood plank sheathing beneath (Figure 23 and 37). The dichromatic cladding includes a red-brick watertable, red-brick diamonds at the quoins, and alternating red and buff brick at the window heads.

All components have medium gable roofs clad in small sheet metal plates, and cross gables on the side hall and rear wings. All gables and cross-gables (east and west facades) other than the cross gable of the south facade have turned-wood drop pendants and curvilinear verge boards with six-sided star motifs (Figure 17 to Figure 19) and projecting eaves, moulded frieze, and plain fascia and soffit. The cross gable of the south façade also has a double drop pendant with central wood roundel and curved braces. A single, tall brick chimney extends through the roof at offset left and front.

Fenestration is symmetrical, and all have segmental arch windows with soldier brick voussoirs and labels or brows formed in header brick, plain wood lug sills and two-over-two sashes (Figure 20). The windows on the second level are made of wood, but the first level windows are vinyl inserts. There are no windows for the basement. The main entrance has a panelled wood door and is set in a segmental arch headed opening. This entrance is covered by an open veranda covered in metal roofing and with square pressure treated posts (Figure 21).

22 Page 35 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Figure 16: 36 Church Street Site Plan.

23 Page 36 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Figure 17: Turned wood drop pendant and curvilinear verge board with star motif on east façade.

Figure 18: Dichromatic brick quoins on south façade.

24 Page 37 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Figure 19: Curvilinear verge board detailing on south façade.

Figure 20: Typical segmental arch head windows with dichromatic soldier brick voussoirs and brow or label formed with headers.

25 Page 38 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Figure 21: Open veranda.

Figure 22: Interior of the east lean-to, looking into the kitchen.

26 Page 39 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Figure 23: Exposed joists and beams in Basement. 5.2.2 Interior The interior plan can be characterized as side-gable, single-pile (one-room deep) (Hubka, 2013; Figure 24). The main entrance on the south façade enters into the living room, which provides access to the dining room and a bedroom to the west and a stairway to the second level on the north. The living room has pine plank flooring and original wood windows, but late 20th century baseboard, architraves and crown moulding, and popcorn plaster ceiling finish (Figure 25). The dining room to the west also has pine plank flooring, and all baseboard and window and door architraves are wide and moulded (Figure 26 to Figure 30). North of the living room is the kitchen, which has a staircase to the second level and a closet along the north wall. The kitchen has vinyl flooring, fluorescent lighting and late 20th century/21st century wood baseboard (Figure 31). French doors lead to the east addition, with wood double doors leading to the living room. An unfinished bathroom is also located at the north portion of the kitchen, with vinyl flooring and plasterboard walling.

At the second level, the stairs from the living room terminate at a central hall landing that leads to four rooms. The stairs have a wood baluster, moulded handrail and plain blusters, with moulded skirting board on the other side. On the east is a room currently used as an office with wood plank flooring and wide baseboard (Figure 37). In the south the hall leads to a bathroom with vinyl flooring and other late 20th century finishes (Figure 36). On the west of the hallway are two bedrooms; the southwest bedroom has wood plank flooring with wide moulded architraves (Figure 35), while the northwest bedroom has carpet tile flooring with artificial wood panelling (Figure 38). There is only one room in the north wing, and it is floored in 3-inch wide tongue and groove planking (picture?). This room is also accessed from the kitchen. An attic hatch is located above the stairs but was inaccessible. All windows on the second floor have wide moulded wood architraves with aprons.

Access to the basement is from the kitchen. The basement has one room and only extends under the south portion of the house. It has poured concrete flooring and exposed rubble walls that have been buttressed with brick masonry (Figure 39). Overall, the interior has been extensively re-worked, evidenced by floors stains where walls once were located.

27 Page 40 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Figure 24: 36 Church Street interior floor plan.

28 Page 41 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Figure 25: Main floor living room with entrance from the south façade.

Figure 26: Main Floor Bedroom located to the west of the living room.

29 Page 42 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Figure 27: Dining room, located to the southwest of the main level.

Figure 28: Moulded baseboard and plank flooring in the main level dining room.

30 Page 43 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Figure 29: Moulded window architraves and apron in the dining room.

Figure 30: Dining room door architrave.

31 Page 44 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Figure 31: Main level kitchen.

Figure 32: Turned baluster (far right) and second level room of the rear wing.

32 Page 45 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Figure 33: Staircase leading from the living room to the second level hallway.

Figure 34: Flooring and moulded baseboard in the second level room of the rear wing.

33 Page 46 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Figure 35: Bedroom with closet located to the southwest of the second floor, across from the bathroom.

34 Page 47 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Figure 36: Second floor bathroom.

35 Page 48 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Figure 37: Southeast room on the second level.

36 Page 49 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Figure 38: Northwest second level bedroom.

Figure 39: Exposed rubble walls with brick buttress in the basement.

37 Page 50 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

5.2.3 West Addition The west addition is a closed porch clad in oriented strand board (OSB) and vinyl. It has a glazed exterior metal door and aluminium windows, and carpeted interior with late 20th century wood trim. Located to the west of the kitchen, the addition provides access to the exterior and the unfinished bathroom. The floor of the porch is carpet, with two original brick walls and two walls made of drywall.

Figure 40: Exterior of west addition.

38 Page 51 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Figure 41: Interior of West Addition. 5.2.4 East Addition The east addition appears to be constructed of several layers of plywood, and there are no windows or exterior doors. To the east of the kitchen is a ‘lean-to’. The interior has cement flooring and plywood walls and ceiling, and a glazed door leads to the kitchen.

Figure 42: Exterior of east addition.

39 Page 52 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

5.2.5 North Addition The north addition was inaccessible and thus its interior condition is unknown (Figure 43). It is located to the north of the kitchen, bathroom and stairway and does not appear to have any windows or doors.

Figure 43: Exterior of north addition.

40 Page 53 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

5.3 Physical Condition The condition assessment presented in Table 1 summarizes an extensive checklist developed by Historic England (Watt 2010: 356-361). Note that these observations are based solely on visual inspection during Golder’s field investigation. A full structural engineering assessment of the property was conducted by Leonard Kalishenko & Associates Limited on March 26, 2018 and discovered several critical issues (see APPENDIX C). Table 1: Physical Condition Assessment. Element Observed Conditions General structure  Overall, the house appears to be in fair condition, with tilting to the east.  The metal roof is rusty but there are no missing sections. The attic could not Roof be accessed to identify leaks. Water damage is evident on some interior walls, indicating potential roof damage. There are limited gutters and downpipes and some downpipes are broken. Rainwater disposal  The late 20th century additions may also block proper drainage. (Figure 44).  Gables, chimney stacks, pointing, and decoration are in poor condition (Figure 45). Walls, foundations & chimneys,  Evidence of replaced bricks (e.g. east end wall of east façade). exterior features  The masonry cladding wythe is in relatively poor condition, with mortar washout, numerous cracks and movement evident, particularly on the west wall (Figure 46 and Figure 47). Water damage is visible throughout. External doors do not fit their frames. Windows have broken panes and are Windows & Doors  not operable due to sealant and plastic film.  Roof timbers are not visible, making an analysis of their condition unobtainable. There is evidence of water damage in the roof of the north Internal roof structure/ceilings addition.  Water damage is visible around the tub of the second-level bathroom. The general condition of the floors is fair, with no noticeable deflection. Floors  Floors are uneven with sections having been cut and reinstalled. Interior stairs are in good condition. The external veranda has pressure Stairways, galleries, balconies  treated wood construction and is in generally good condition. Interior decorations/finishes  Plasterwork, paints and decorative wood stains are in poor condition. Ventilation grates and lighting dates to the late 20th/21st century and in Fixtures & fittings  generally good condition.  The overhead electrical is in fair condition. Building services  The forced-air central heating system has been upgraded and is in fair condition.  A dilapidated shed is located in the back of the property, along with an unmaintained pool (Figure 48). Some parts of the chain-link fence Site & environment surrounding the property are in poor condition.  Cedar hedges are located on the south and west of the house.  Basic laneway drive located to the east, with no garage or cover. The property is in a developing area but with no excessive traffic or other General environment  issues or threats.

41 Page 54 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Figure 44: Ice build-up on exterior services.

Figure 45: Chimney stack with mortar washout and brick displacement.

42 Page 55 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Figure 46: Visible masonry separation and bowing on west wall.

Figure 47: Brick displacement, cracking and mortar washout on the front gable quoins.

43 Page 56 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Figure 48: Unmaintained pool northeast of the house. 5.4 Structural History Only two developmental phases could be identified from the structural evidence and historical maps. These represent the initial construction and occupation of the house (Phase 1; circa 1880s to 1990s), and the new construction and alterations since approximately 2000. 5.4.1 Phase 1: 1880s – 1990s This phase includes construction of the:  Main block in wood balloon frame with dichromatic brick cladding. 5.4.2 Phase 2: 2000 – Present Alterations made during the second phase include:  Porch on the west addition;  Unidentified room on the north addition; and,  Lean-to on the east addition. Aerial photos identify these additions as being constructed in the early 21st century (Figure 4). 5.5 Interpretation Estimating the period 36 Church Street was built can be determined based on its construction, its architectural style, and the historical evidence.

44 Page 57 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

The main block’s balloon frame construction is typical of the last three decades of the 19th century. Attempts to identify the precise origin and timing of balloon framing suffer from a lack of supporting evidence, but it is generally agreed that the technology was in widespread use across North America and had replaced earlier timber-framing traditions for residential construction by 1870 (Turan 2009; Garvin 2001:26).

The dichromatic brickwork (bricks of two colours) further narrows the date of construction for 36 Church Street. From the 1870s onwards, the dichromatic fashion of yellow or buff bricks on a red background, with the contrasting colour applied at the corners of the buildings in decorative bands and patterns, was widely adopted and may be linked to the tastes of the high number of British immigrants to Ontario in the late 19th century (Figure 49; Ritchie 1979). Ontario brickmakers produced red and buff bricks according to the location the clay was taken from; brick taken from lower levels burned to a buff colour. In some buildings, such as 36 Church Street, the corner design also extended to the doors and windows through voussoir and label or brow detailing. The main block has what Ritchie (1979) describes as Type H design for the quoins, which follows a brick pattern of 1:1 ½:2:2 ½ (Figure 50). The house also features frog markings on the bricks (indentation on the top surface), which is further indication of a late 19th century construction date (Stuart, 2005).

Figure 49: A dichromatic brick house in Merrickville (Ritchie 1979).

Figure 50: Quoin detailing found on 36 Church Street (from Ritchie 1979).

In architectural style, 36 Church Street can be classified as Gothic Revival. Gothic Revival was popular from 1830 to 1900, and often includes dichromatic brickwork, steep cross-gables, and ‘gingerbread’ or other wood detailing at the gables and verandas in curvilinear patterns (Blumenson 1990). Gothic Revival was often also rendered in the Gable Front and Wing or Expanded Side Gable form, and in this 36 Church Street is similar to others in the area such as 181 and 185 Church Street, and 24809 Woodbine Avenue (Figure 51, Figure 52 and Figure 53). However, apart from 181 Church Street, 36 Church Street is more ornate than these nearby properties.

45 Page 58 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

From the construction, decoration, and style, it is likely the house dates to when carpenter Josiah Willoughby owned the property from 1881 to 1885. Willoughby had purchased the property from John O’Donohue for $700, but when Willoughby sold the property to Elisha Mann only four years later, the property value had more than doubled to $1,800.

Figure 51: 181 Church Street, to the west of 36 Church Street

46 Page 59 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Figure 52: 185 Church Street, to the west of 36 Church Street

Figure 53: 24809 Woodbine Avenue, located to the southeast of 36 Church Street.

47 Page 60 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

5.6 Integrity In heritage planning, the concept of ‘integrity’ is linked to the literal definition of ‘wholeness’ or ‘honesty’ of a place. The MTCS Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process (2014:13) and Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Property Evaluation (2006:26) both stress the importance of assessing the integrity and physical condition of a structure in conjunction with evaluation under O. Reg. 9/06 yet provide no guidelines for how this should be carried out beyond referencing the US National Park Service Bulletin 8: How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property (US NPS n.d.). In the latter document, integrity may be demonstrated through an asset’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, but since it is defined as ‘the ability of a property to convey its significance’, the cultural heritage value of the place must already be known.

Other guidance suggests that integrity is a measure of how much of an asset is ‘complete’ or changed from its original or ‘valued subsequent configuration’, and aids in evaluating for cultural heritage value or interest (English Heritage 2008: 45). Kalman’s Evaluation of Historic Buildings (2014:203), for example, includes a category for ‘integrity’ with sub-elements of ‘Site’, ‘Alterations’, and ‘Condition’, that are judged independently from other criteria such as historical value. More detailed criteria, using a question and answer approach, were developed by New Zealand’s Auckland Regional Council (Auckland Regional Council, n.d.), while research commissioned by Historic England (The Conservation Studio 2004) proposed a method for determining levels of change in conservation areas that also has utility for evaluating the integrity of individual structures.

To assess the integrity of the property, the above approaches have been combined, and the results presented in Table 1. These results were then considered as part of the evaluation for design value or physical value and contextual value in Section 6.0. To evaluate the integrity of 36 Church Street, the above approaches have been combined, and the results presented in Table 2. Table 2: Heritage Integrity Analysis for 36 Church Street. Original Survival Element Alteration Rating Comment Material/Type (%) Surrounded by Although the property itself Late 19th to early newer remains relatively unchanged 20th century commercial (e.g. setback, mature vegetation), homesteads of a properties and a significant amount of Setting modest size with residential 75 Good development has occurred in the significant buildings, new area throughout the late 20th to setback and construction early 21st century, which has vegetation. underway influenced the overall setting. nearby. The property retains its original siting and setback. Side yards Site location Original No change. 90 Very good have changed slightly due to the east addition. Additions to Although it has undergone three Footprint T-plan the east, west 85 Very good additions, the original property’s and north. footprint has been retained.

48 Page 61 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Original Survival Element Alteration Rating Comment Material/Type (%) Balloon frame Apart from minor brick with stretcher replacement, there does not No change. Walls dichromatic brick 90 Very good appear to be any significant cladding alterations to the original brick façade. The brick buttressing Foundation Coursed rubble was likely 100 Very good No additional comment. added historically. Screen door has been added to main entrance. Exterior Panelled wood All exterior doors appear to have Other exterior 0 Poor doors doors been replaced. doors are located on the newer additions. First storey Wood frame, one- The first storey windows are more Windows windows have 50 Fair over-one modern than the second storey. been replaced. Unknown cladding (possibly wood shingle) with projecting Roof No change. 100 Very good No further comment. eaves, plain fascia and soffit, and moulded frieze. Chimneys Brick No change. 100 Very good No further comment. There are a limited number Unknown, Water of gutters and possibly rolled 0 Poor No further comment. systems downpipes, metal sheet. but all are prefabricated. Drop pendant and curvilinear verge Exterior board at the No change. 100 Very good No further comment. decoration gables, dichromatic brick

49 Page 62 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Original Survival Element Alteration Rating Comment Material/Type (%) A porch has been added to The open veranda posts have the northwest been pressure treated. Exterior Porch/ Wood open of the building, additions with unauthentic exterior 50 Fair veranda with other materials and features have been additions additions to added to the east, west, and the north and north. northeast. Additions have been added Although additions have been on the first- Interior plan Side gable plan 85 Very good made over the years, the original storey to the T-plan remains intact. east, west, and north. Additions use cement, plywood, and Other than the additions, much of Interior walls Pine plank floors, carpet. Vinyl 90 Very good the original walls and flooring and floors drywall flooring in remain intact. second level bathroom. The wood baseboard has Interior trim Wood been replaced 50 Fair No additional comment. in several rooms. All stairs and Interior balustrades features (e.g. Wood appear to date 100 Very good No additional comment. hearth, to the original stairs, doors) construction. Residential No significant Landscape property with alterations to 100 Very good No additional comment. features mature the landscape vegetation. is evident. Rating of Good is based on the AVERAGE OF RATE OF CHANGE/HERITAGE 74.4 Good original element survival rating INTEGRITY of 50 – 75%

5.6.1 Results Overall, the property at 36 Church Street has a ‘Good’ level of integrity due to the limited number of alterations made to the original structure during the 20th and 21st centuries.

50 Page 63 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

6.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION ATA’s evaluation of the property for cultural heritage value or interest was based on O. Reg. 9/06 but added two criteria under ‘Historical Value or Associative Value’ and introduced a qualitative rating system based – although it is not cited – on Kalman’s The Evaluation of Historic Buildings (1979). Kalman’s rating system is not used in Ontario. Regardless of the methodological issue, ATA did not provide supporting evidence for the statements made in each evaluation, made tenuous and faulty reasoning and, in many instances, did not address the wording of each criterion.

Using the results of the historical research, field investigations, and integrity analysis, Golder re-evaluated the property using the criteria prescribed in O. Reg. 9/06; the results of this evaluation are provided in the following subsections. 6.1 Design or Physical Value Table 3: Design Value. Meets Criteria Criterion Rationale (Yes/ No) Is a rare, unique, representative or The property is a representative and well-executed early example of a style, type, example of a late 19th century expanded side gable Gothic Yes expression, material or construction Revival farmhouse with dichromatic brick cladding over method. balloon frame construction. The property displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit in its:  Gables and cross-gables with drop pendants and curvilinear verge board; Displays a high degree of Yes craftsmanship or artistic merit.  Segmental arch headed windows with dichromatic soldier voussoirs and label detailing; and,  Dichromatic brick quoins. Demonstrates a high degree of As a residential property, it does not demonstrate a high No technical or scientific achievement. degree of technical or scientific achievement.

51 Page 64 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

6.2 Historical or Associative Value Table 4: Historical or Associative Value. Meets Criteria Criterion Rationale (Yes/ No) Although the ATA report identified historical significance of the house based on past tenants, much of this was Has direct associations with a unsupported and tenuous. There is no evidence to theme, event, belief, person, indicate the past tenants held a historically significant No activity, organization, or institution role in the community. Overall, Golder’s historical that is significant to a community. research did not identify the property to be associated with any themes, events, people, or other elements significant to the community (Section 4.2.2). As a relatively small residential acreage with no Yields, or has the potential to yield associated complex (as opposed to industrial site or information that contributes to an No remnant of a large working farm), the property is understanding of a community or unlikely to yield information that contributes to an culture. understanding of the community or culture. Demonstrates or reflects the work The house cannot be linked to, or demonstrate or reflect or ideas of an architect, artist, No the work or ideas of, any architect or builder who is builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to the community. significant to a community.

6.3 Contextual Value Table 5: Contextual Value. Meets Criteria Criterion Rationale (Yes/ No) Although the property itself has remained relatively unaltered, the setting of the surrounding area has Is important in defining, maintaining significantly changed. The streetscape can be or supporting the character of an No characterized as a commercial corridor, with newly area. developed residential properties further west. The property itself is no longer associated with an orchard and mature vegetation masks the view from the street. Is physically, functionally, visually The property is not physically, functionally, visually or or historically linked to its No historically linked to any surrounding properties or surroundings. features. The property is not considered a landmark within the Is a landmark. No community.

52 Page 65 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

6.4 Evaluation Results The preceding evaluation determined that the property has cultural heritage value or interest since it meets two criteria of O. Reg. 9/06. Based on this evaluation, a Statement of CHVI is proposed below. 6.5 Proposed Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest 36 Church Street is of cultural heritage value or interest for its design or physical value. Constructed between 1881 to 1885 in the Gothic Revival style, the house is a representative example of late 19th century construction and design. The house is composed of a one-and-a-half storey, side gable plan, three-bay Main Block with two expanded side gable rooves. The house was modified in the early 21st century with additions to the east, west, and north facades. Mature vegetation surrounds the property. The exterior offers segmental arch fenestration, an open veranda, and detailed dichromatic brickwork on the quoins and soldier voussoirs with labels, which display a high degree of craftsmanship and artistic merit. 6.5.1 Description of Key Heritage Attributes Key attributes that reflect the design or physical value of 36 Church Street include:  1 ½ - storey, Gothic Revival house with side gable plan and rear wing . Balloon frame construction with brick cladding;

. Dichromatic brick decorated quoins and window segmental arch heads;

. Gables and cross-gables with drop pendants and curvilinear verge board;

. Symmetrical fenestration;

. Open front veranda; and,

. Surviving 19th century interior features, including original wood windows and flooring.

53 Page 66 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

7.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 7.1 Development Description In 2016, the previous owners filed a request with the Town to remove the property from the heritage register and demolish the dwelling. A heritage assessment report by ATA Architects (‘the ATA Report’) was conducted in July 2017, identifying the property as having cultural heritage value or interest for its historical and contextual value. The current owner has objected to the intention to designate the property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and is seeking to demolish the existing house to build a commercial development. 7.2 Impact Assessment When determining the effects a development or site alteration may have on known or identified built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes, the MTCS Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process advises that the following direct and indirect adverse impacts be considered:  Direct impacts . Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes, or features; and

. Alteration that is not sympathetic or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance.  Indirect Impacts . Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden;

. Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship;

. Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; or

. A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces.

Other potential impacts associated with the undertaking may also be considered. Historic structures, particularly those built in masonry, are susceptible to damage from vibration caused by pavement breakers, plate compactors, utility excavations, and increased heavy vehicle travel in the immediate vicinity. Like any structure, they are also threatened by collisions with heavy machinery or subsidence from utility line failures (Randl 2001:3-6).

Although the MTCS guidance identifies types of impact and residual effect, it does not advise on how to describe the magnitude or severity. Likewise, impact assessment guidelines produced at the federal level lack clear advice to illustrate the extent of each impact. In the absence of a Canadian source of guidance, the ranking provided in the UK Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges: Volume 11, HA 208/07 (2007: A6/11)2 is used here:  Major . Change to key historic building elements, such that the resource is totally altered. Comprehensive changes to the setting.

2 This guidance provides a method for heritage impact assessments of road and bridge projects in both urban and rural contexts and is the only assessment method to be published by a UK government department (Bond & Worthing 2016:167). Similar ranking systems have been adopted as best practice by agencies and groups across the world, such as the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS 2011), the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (Kalman 2014), and New Zealand Transport Agency (2015), all published after the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit.

54 Page 67 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

 Moderate . Change to many key historic building elements, such that the resource is significantly modified.

. Changes to the setting of an historic building, such that it is significantly modified.  Minor . Change to key historic building elements, such that the asset is slightly different.

. Change to the setting of an historic building, such that it is noticeably changed.  Negligible . Slight changes to historic building elements or setting that hardly affect it.  No impact . No change to fabric or setting.

If adverse impacts are identified, the MTCS guidance suggests that mitigation be achieved through:  Alternative development approaches;  Isolating development and the site alteration from significant built and natural features and vistas;  Design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting, and materials;  Limiting height and density;  Allowing only compatible in-fill and additions;  Reversible alterations; and,  Buffer zones, site plan control, and other planning mechanisms. An assessment of impacts resulting from the proposed development on the property’s heritage attributes is presented in Table 6.

55 Page 68 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Table 6: Assessment of Direct & Indirect Adverse Impacts. Severity of Adverse Potential Adverse Impact Impact Without Assessment Rationale Mitigation  Major adverse Since the property was determined to have CHVI,  Irreversible demolition of the house is considered to be a major Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage  Localized adverse effect on all identified heritage attributes. attributes, or features. However, it has been determined that it is not feasible to Permanent  rehabilitate the structure as a residence or related use.  Once No alteration to the house is proposed, and the addition Alteration that is not of a new structure to the property will not impact the sympathetic or is incompatible, identified heritage attributes which are limited to the with the historic fabric and No impact main block of the house, and not the property or appearance. surrounding properties.

Shadows created that alter Shadows from any new construction will not impact the the appearance of a heritage heritage attributes of the property since these are limited attribute or change the viability No impact to the main block of the house, and not the property or of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden. surrounding properties. Since the heritage attributes are limited to the house and Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding do not have any significant relationship with surrounding environment, context or a No impact elements or context, any proposed development is not significant relationship. predicted to cause adverse impact from isolation.

Direct or indirect No significant views or vistas were identified during obstruction of significant research and field investigation of this property. views or vistas within, from, or No impact of built and natural features. A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, No change in land use has been proposed. allowing new development or No impact site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces. Land disturbances such as a Subsequent land disturbance will not have an adverse change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns No impact effect. that may affect a cultural heritage resource.

56 Page 69 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

7.3 Results of Impact Assessment The preceding assessment has determined that without conservation or mitigation measures, the proposed demolition of the property:  Will adversely impact the heritage attributes of the house at 36 Church Street. 8.0 ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION OPTIONS Although the property at 36 Church Street was determined to have cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI), the structural assessment HIA has determined that the house is not structurally sound nor feasible to preserve, restore or rehabilitate in its current use or for a future use. Another consideration is that the property’s designation as Commercial/Employment within the Keswick Secondary Plan will result in its context undergoing significant change in the coming years, further reducing understanding of the building as a farmhouse. Therefore, the only alternative identified is to:  Preserve by record: document the structure through written notes, measured drawings and photographic records, then demolish.

Preservation by record is the least desirable conservation option but is appropriate in cases where the structural integrity of a building is poor, and it is impractical to stabilize, and there are other representative examples. Although a tangible reminder of Georgina’s architectural heritage would be lost, through detailed investigations, the construction, architecture, and history of the house would be better understood, and become an example for comparative study. Its importance to the architectural heritage of the community would survive as documentary records accessible to the public through the local library or other public repository.

In keeping with Golder’s corporate policy to encourage sustainable development, a preferred option is to salvage all recyclable building materials on the property and limit the amount of material to be deposited in a landfill. 9.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT & RECOMMENDATIONS This HIA has determined that the property at 36 Church Street is of cultural heritage value or interest based on its design or physical value as a representative and well-executed example of a late 19th century Gothic Revival expanded side gable house, constructed in balloon frame with dichromatic brick cladding. However, as a result of the structural engineering assessment, it has been determined that it is not feasible to rehabilitate the house as a residence or other use.

Golder therefore recommends that:  A Heritage Documentation Report (HDR) be completed prior to demolition of the house at 36 Church Street and the report be deposited into a permanent, publicly accessible archive in the Town of Georgina; and,  All recyclable building materials on the property be salvaged, and resold or donated for general use.

57 Page 70 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

10.0 REFERENCES Adam, G.M. 1908 Lovell’s Gazetteer of the Dominion of Canada: Containing the Latest and Most Authentic Descriptions of over 14,850 Cities, Towns, Villages and Places. Lovell & Co: Montreal.

Blumenson, John 1990 Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms, 1784 to Present. Fitzhenry & Whiteside, Toronto.

Canada’s Historic Places 2010 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Second Edition. Canada’s Historic Places, Ottawa.

Canadian Museum of History 2018 Virtual Museum. [Online]. Accessed from http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/sgc-cms/histoires_de_chez_nous- community_memories/pm_v2.php?id=story_line&lg=English&ex=00000624&sl=5022&pos=1&pf=1#16

Chapman, Lyman John and Donald F. Putnam 1984 The Physiography of Southern Ontario. 3rd ed. Ontario Geological Survey Special Volume 2. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto.

Clark, Kate 2001 Informed Conservation: Understanding Historic Buildings and their Landscapes for Conservation. English Heritage, London.

Fram, Mark 2003 Well-Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundation’s Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation. Third edition. Boston Mills Press, Erin, Ontario.

Garvin, James L. 2001 A Building History of Northern New England. University Press of New England, Lebanon, NH.

Government of Ontario 2014 Provincial Planning Statement 2014. Electronic document: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page215.aspx 2014 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties – Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto. 2006 Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Property Evaluation – A Guide to Listing, Researching, and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario Communities. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.

Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Designating Heritage Properties: A Guide to Municipal Designation of Individual Properties Under the Ontario Heritage Act. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Conservation Districts: A Guide to Designation Under the Ontario Heritage Act Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.

58 Page 71 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

1990 The Planning Act. Electronic document: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13?search=planning+act

1990b Ontario Heritage Act. Electronic document: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18?search=heritage+act

History of Georgina 2007 York Region. [Online]. Accessed from https://www.yorkregion.com/community-story/1450207-history-of- georgina/

Hubka, Thomas C. 2013 Houses Without Names: Architectural Nomenclature and the Classification of America’s Common Houses. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) 2013 Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance (Burra Charter). ICOMOS Australia, Burwood, Victoria. 2011 Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties. ICOMOS, Paris. 1983 Appleton Charter for the Protection and Enhancement of the Built Environment. ICOMOS Canada, Ottawa.

1965 International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter 1964). ICOMOS, Charenton-le-Point, France.

Kalman, Harold 2014 Heritage Planning: Principles and Process. Routledge, New York. 1980 The Evaluation of Historic Buildings. Parks Canada, Ottawa.

Library & Archives Canada 1825-1921 Census. [Online]. Accessed from http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/census/Pages/census.aspx

Mika, N., and H. Mika 1981 Places In Ontario: Their Name Origins and History, Part II, F-M. Vol. 2. Encyclopedia of Ontario. Mika Publishing Company, Belleville, Ontario.

Miles & Co. 1878 Map of North Gwillimbury. [Online] Accessed from http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/CA/349/Gwillimbury+++North/York+County+1878/Ontario/

Mulvany, C.P. 1885 History of Toronto and county of York, Ontario, containing an outline of the history of the Dominion of Canada, a history of the City of Toronto and the county of York, with the townships, towns, villages, churches, schools, general and local statistics, biographical sketches, etc., etc. Vol 1. C. Blackett Robinson: Toronto

Parks Canada Agency 1980 Canadian Inventory of Historic Building Exterior Recording Training Manual. Parks Canada, Ottawa.

59 Page 72 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Ritchie, T. 1979 Notes on Dichromatic Brickwork in Ontario. Bulletin of the Association for Preservation Technology, 11(2): 60-75.

Smith, W.H. 1846 Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer: Comprising statistical and general information respecting all parts of the upper province, or Canada West. [Online]. Accessed from: https://archive.org/details/smithscanadianga00smit 1851 Smith’s Canada: Past, Present and Future. [Online]. Accessed from: https://archive.org/details/canadapast01smituoft

Statistics Canada 2016 Census Profile, 2016 Census. [Online]. Accessed from: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census- recensement/2016/dp- pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=POPC&Code1=1067&Geo2=PR&Code2=35&Data=Count&SearchText =Keswick&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&TABID=1

Stuart, I. 2005 The Analysis of Bricks from Archaeological Sites in Australia. Australian Historical Archaeology 23: 79- 88.

Town of Georgina 2016 Official Plan [Online]. Accessed from: https://www.georgina.ca/living-here/planning-and- development/official-plan-and-secondary-plans/official-plan 2015 Keswick Secondary Plan [Online]. Accessed from: https://www.georgina.ca/sites/default/files/page_assets/keswick_seconday_plan_- _revised_for_op_november_23_2016_0.pdf?token=If7feRb1 2012 Municipal Culture Plan [Online]. Accessed from: https://www.georgina.ca/sites/default/files/page_assets/culture_georginamunicipalcultureplan.pdf?token=WRUQIq cA

Turan, Mete 2009 Reconstructing the Balloon Frame: A Study in the History of Architectronics. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture (26:2):175-209.

Unknown Author 1870 County of York Gazetteer and Directory...including a full business directory of the city of Toronto. [Online]. Accessed from: https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/detail.jsp?R=DC-37131055373351D

60 Page 73 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Signature Page We trust that this report meets your current needs. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please contact the undersigned.

Henry Cary, Ph.D., CAHP Hugh Daechsel, M.A. Cultural Heritage Specialist Principal, Senior Archaeologist

HC/HD/ca https://golderassociates.sharepoint.com/sites/22112g/deliverables/hia/1792306 36 church st hia georgina-final.docx

Page 74 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

APPENDIX A Applicable Planning Policy Letter, Weston Consulting

Page 75 of 109

Golder Associates April 10, 2018 309 Exeter Road, Unit 1 File 8698 London, Ontario N6L 1C1

Attn: Henry Cary (PhD, CAHP)

Dear Sir,

RE: Applicable Planning Policy Letter 36 Church Street, Town of Georgina

Weston Consulting has been retained by 2610818 Ontario Ltd., the owner of the property municipality addressed as 36 Church Street, in the Town of Georgina (herein referred to as the “subject property”) to prepare this Applicable Planning Policy Letter. The intent of this letter is to outline the current planning policy framework applicable to the subject property, in addition to outlining the planning context for the lands in the vicinity of the subject property based on approved and under review plans for the area.

The subject property is located on the north side of Church Street, west of Woodbine Ave. The subject property is approximately 0.42 hectares (1.0 acre) in area and has a frontage of approximately 35 metres along Church Street. It presently contains an early homestead home built in 1910. The home is 2 storeys in height and was subject to numerous additions over time. The property contains a fair amount of vegetation, mostly in the front and rear of the home and along the property lines. A driveway extends from the existing home to Church Street.

Figure 1: Aerial Photo of Subject Property and Surrounding Context

Page 76 of 109 2

The subject property is located within the Keswick Community, on the edge of the built-up area. Adjacent to the property on the south side of Church Street is commercial/employment uses containing a self-storage facility, theatre and retail plaza. Low rise residential subdivisions are located beyond. To the east is a service and towing centre. The lands to the north and west of the subject property are presently rural agricultural lands.

Policy Context

The subject property is located within the Urban Area as per the York Region Official Plan. The Town of Georgina Official Plan further designates the property within the Urban Area boundary. The lands located within the Urban Area are targeted for growth and development based on the policies of the Official Plan, which are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conform to the Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe in respects to development within Settlement Areas. As such, the subject property and surrounding lands have been identified and are planned to accommodate growth and development in the near future.

The subject property is located within the Keswick Secondary Plan and is designated as Commercial/Employment per Schedule F1, Keswick Land Use Plan (Figure 2). The Commercial/Employment designation permits an array of employment and retail shopping uses, including: retail and service commercial uses, business and professional offices, institutional and community uses, industrial mall complexes and prestige industrial uses, public and private recreation/community complexes, building supply outlets, hotels and motel, auto service station and automobile dealerships. In addition to the subject property, the lands to the east are also designated as Commercial/Employment. As such, these lands are anticipated to develop in a manner that will achieve the prescribed land use vision directed in the Secondary Plan.

Subject Property

Figure 2: Schedule F1, Keswick Land Use Plan

Page 77 of 109 3

The subject property is zoned Rural (RU) which permits residential uses, including: legally existing dwellings (prior to September 10, 2008), single family dwelling, and temporary accommodations for seasonal farm workers and also permits non - residential uses including: aerodrome (private), agricultural/aquacultural, bed and breakfast residence, veterinary clinic (animal hospital), day care, day nursery within a church, farm produce storage area, home industry, home occupation, kennel, tourist information centre, and accessory buildings. The current applicable zoning of the subject property is not consistent with the Keswick Secondary Plan policies and contradicts the hierarchy of planning policy and the land use vision approved for the area.

Development Context

The development of the lands to the west and north of the subject property are currently under review for Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment in order to facilitate the development of 388 single detached residential units. The proposed development is associated with the Queensway East Development Area Plan (Figure 3), which provides further land use policy in accordance with the Secondary Plan. The lands subject to the subdivision and zoning by-law amendment applications are currently zoned Rural (RU), the same as the subject property. The proposed residential development will allow for the area to realize the approved and prescribed land use planning vision for the area as contemplated in the Keswick Secondary Plan.

Subject Property

Figure 3: Queensway East Development Area Plan

Page 78 of 109 Page 79 of 109 April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

APPENDIX B Land Registry

Page 80 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

36 Church Street Land Registry Information

Date of Date of No. Instrument Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks Instrument Registration …. Patent 29/02/1804 …. Crown Isaac Griffin 200 acres (all) 8435 B&S 16/02/1830 19/01/1832 Isaac Griffin Daniel Mann 300.00 150 acres, east portion 9560 B&S 07/03/1833 06/04/1833 Daniel Mann Amos Crittenden 300.00 50 acres, east ¼ 16066 B&S 11/03/1839 15/04/1839 Amos Crittenden etux John Cawthra 100.00 10 acres 28981 B&S 11/03/1847 06/04/1847 John Cawthra Harvey Huntley 156.00 10 acres [illegible] 35284 Mort. 20/02/1849 15/10/1849 Harvey Huntley etux Malachy O. Donohoe 600.00 10 acres Dis. by 47940 41970 Asst. Mort. 14/10/1851 15/10/1851 Malachy O. Donohoe William Wakefield 600.00 See Mort. No. 35284 10 acres (Intal). Dis by 47939 Mort. 28/02/1853 01/03/1853 Harvey Huntley etux Toronto University 2000.00 1304 47940 Dis. Mort. 01/03/1853 William Wakefield Harvey Huntley See Mort. No. 35284 46 B&S 29/12/1862 14/02/1863 Harvey Huntley etux Bethuel Draper 5200.00 10 acres (Intal.) 1134 B&S 08/03/1864 10/03/1864 Bethuel Draper Margaret Huntley 600.00 10 acres 1136 Rent Chg. 01/01/1863 10/03/1864 Bethuel Draper Harvey Huntley 10 acres 1304 Dis. Mort. 14/04/1864 25/04/1864 Toronto University Harvey Huntley See 47939 10 acres (Intal.) Dis by 411 Mort. 09/12/1871 04/01/1872 Margaret Huntley John Porter 400.00 1593 10 acres (Intal.) Dis by 558 Mort. 04/01/1873 06/01/1873 Margaret Huntley John Porter 200.00 1594 10 acres (Intal.) Dis by 740 Mort. 12/01/1874 23/01/1874 Margaret Huntley George Holborn Sr. 400.00 1994 1571 B&S 08/04/1878 10/04/1878 Margaret Huntley John O’Donohoe 2000.00 10 acres (Intal.) 10 acres (Intal). Dis. by 1586 Mort. 24/04/1878 26/04/1878 John O. Donohoe Chas. Beatty etal, extrs. 1500.00 1993 1593 Dis. Mort. 01/05/1878 03/05/1878 John Porter Margaret Huntley See Mort. 411 1594 Dis. Mort. 01/05/1878 03/05/1878 John Porter Margaret Huntley See Mort. No. 558 Lis Margaret Huntley, etal 10 acres, southeast 1607 31/05/1878 01/06/1878 Wm. H. Deverell (Ptf) Pendens (Dft) portion (Intal.)

Page 81 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Date of Date of No. Instrument Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks Instrument Registration Margaret Huntley, etal 10 acres southeast 1667 Chy. Cert. 25/10/1878 26/10/1878 Court of Chancery (Dft) portion (Intal.) Dis 1607 1993 Dis. Mort. 27/05/1880 02/06/1880 Charles Beatty John O’Donohue See Mort. No. 1586 1994 Dis. Mort. 27/05/1880 02/06/1880 George Holburn Sr. Margaret Huntley See Mort. No. 740 John O’Donohue, 2187 B&S 13/09/1881 14/09/1881 Josiah Willoughby 700.00 10 acres widower 2190 Mort. 13/09/1881 24/09/1881 Josiah Willoughby, etux John O’Donohue 600.00 10 acres, Dis. by 2645 2645 Dis. Mort. 13/09/1883 15/09/1884 John O’Donohue Josiah Willoughby See Mort. No. 2190 2791 B&S 12/10/1885 19/10/1885 Josiah Willoughby Elisha Mann 1800.00 10 acres 10 acres pt. east 8227 B&S 05/03/1921 06/04/1921 Elisha Mann, etux David Van Van Norman 5000.00 [illegible] Roy Rose and Jane 10 acres, pt. 25c x 4c. [Illegible] [Illegible] [Illegible] 22/04/1937 David Van Van Norman Rose, extrs. of John A. 3500.00 com. 1 ½ rd. N. from Rose S.E. L. Roy Rose and Jane Harry J. Leppard and Exchange of 10 acres pt. 25 c. x 4 c. 13851 Grant 02/04/1937 22/04/1937 Rose, extrs. of John A. Ida M. Leppard, Jt. property & com. 1 ½ rds. N. from Rose Tenants 1.00 S.E. l. 10 acres (more or less) Henry Sennett & pt. 25 ch. X 4 ch. Com. Harry J. Leppard & Ida M. Norman L. Mathews 13899 Mort. 15/06/1937 15/06/1937 500.00 1 ½ rds. N. from S.E 1. Leppard (extrs. of Estate of Not received in full. See Richard Young) Dis. 15187. 10 acres pt. lot. 25 c x 4 Harry J. Leppard and Ida 14141 Grant 26/04/1938 28/04/1938 J. Harvey Robertson Exch. & 1.00 com. 1 ½ rd. N. from M. Leppard S.E. L. Sub. to mort. Henry Sennett & 10 acres pt. lot. 25 c x 4 Norman L. Mathews ccom. 1 ½ rd. N. from 14633 Mort. 30/10/1939 31/10/1939 J. Harvey Robertson etux 1000.00 (extrs. of Estate of S.E. L. Not rec. in full. Richard Young) See Dis. 15880

Page 82 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Date of Date of No. Instrument Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks Instrument Registration Kathleen A.M. Robertson, 10 acres pt. lot. 25 c x 4 extrix. Of James H. Val.con. & 15185 Grant 01/10/1941 20/11/1941 John Gable ccom. 1 ½ rd. N. from Robertson & Kathleen 1.00 S.E. L. Sub. to mort. A.M. Robertson Henry Sennett & Norman J. Harvey Robertson 15187 Dis. Mort. 10/10/1939 21/11/1941 L. Mathews (extrs. of See Mort. 13899 etux Estate of Richard Young) 10 acres pt. 4 c. front on Derivative e. lin x 25 c. con. 1 ½ rd. 15576 15/06/1943 17/06/1943 Kathleen A.M. Robertson Beatrice C. Brown Pre. 500.00 Mort. N. from S.E. L. Not rec. in full. 10 acres pt. 4 c. front on William Veil, admr. Of Val con. & e. lin x 25 c. con. 1 ½ rd. 15872 Asst. Mort. 04/04/1944 05/04/1944 Beatrice C. Brown Kathleen A.M. 1.00 N. from S.E. L. Not rec. Robertson in full. William Veil, admr. Of See Mort. No. 15184, 15873 Dis. Mort. 05/04/1944 05/04/1944 John Gable Kathleen A.M. Robertson 15576, & 15872 10 acres pt. 4 c. front on George W. Rigler & e. lin x 25 c. con. 1 ½ rd. 15874 Mort. 18/03/1944 05/04/1944 John Gable, etux Isabella Rigler, Jt. 3000.00 N. from S.E. L. Not rec. Account in full. 24476 Mort. [illegible] [illegible] John Gable etux Ge. W. Rigler 4000.00 [illegible] 24480 Dis. Mort [illegible] [illegible] Ge. W. Rigler John Gable [illegible] [illegible] Dis. Mort. [illegible] [illegible] George W. Rigler John Gable See Mort. 24476 Arthur R. Pollock and [illegible] Mort. [illegible] [illegible] John Gable [illegible] Winfred Pollock Arthur R. Pollock and Val. Con. & Pt. Lot 27183 on 38984 Grant 22/05/1960 25/05/1960 John Gable, etux Winifred Pollock 1.00 [illegible] James Allan – Treas. Of [illegible] [illegible] [illegible] 15/08/1960 George W. Rigler Pt lot as in 10372 Ontario

Page 83 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

Date of Date of No. Instrument Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks Instrument Registration Pt. lot as in #15185 Tres. James Allan – Tres. Of 42197A 22/08/1960 25/08/1960 John C. Gable lease in 38984A & pt lot Consent Ontario as in 38983A Tres. James Allan – Tres. Of 42307A 27/08/1960 31/08/1960 Isabella Rigler Pt lot as in 10332 Consent Ontario The Corporation of the Val. Con. & 171328 Grant 24/08/1965 27/10/1965 John C. Gable In Trust Township of North [illegible] 1.00 Gwillimbury Gavin P. Morton and Harriett Gable, extrix. of 36865B Grant 26/06/1967 05/07/1967 Eleanor Morton, Jt. 2.00 [illegible] John C. Gable Tenants Gavin P. Morton and Val. Con. & [illegible] Grant 01/09/1967 07/09/1967 Gavin Morton [illegible] Eleanor Morton 2.00 Thomas and Elizabeth 58740B Grant 13/11/1968 10/01/1968 Gavin P. Morton, etux. [illegible] [illegible] Holden, Jt. Tenants Pt. lot, Con 25.18’N, 15.37’W and 300’W from Holden, Thomas W. – by Keith and Pauline 369417 Grant 24/05/1985 S limit, then W 150’, N his attorney Tammy Ley Burford, Jt. 271.50’, etc. Same as in 58740B

Page 84 of 109

April 10, 2018 1792306-R01

APPENDIX C Structural Engineering Report

Page 85 of 109

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS & MANAGERS

5050 DUFFERIN STREET, SUITE 240, TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA M3H 5T5

TEL: 416-665-7165 FAX: 416-665-4259

Attn.: 2610818 Ontario LTD c/o Sam Ganni March 26th 2018 2 Sir Modesto Court Maple, Ontario

RE: 2610818 Ontario Ltd 36 Church Street Keswick, Ontario

At your request, Leonard Kalishenko and Associates Ltd. performed a visual inspection of the structure located at 36 Church Street in Keswick, Ontario. The purpose of this investigation was to review the structural integrity of the building and evaluate the capacity of the structure to undergo repairs or withstand a full building relocation. The investigation was performed on March 14th 2018, the results of which are presented below.

1.0 Building Description:

The building is located west of the intersection of Church Street and Woodbine Avenue. It consists of a two-storey wood structure with brick covering the exterior walls of the building. Three additions have been built to the North, East and West that are directly attached to the original building. There is a partial basement covering the South-East corner of the building. The building is currently occupied.

2.0 Main Structural Framing:

All interior walls and ceilings were covered at the time of the investigation, limiting the amount of structure visible for review. The portions of the framing which were reviewed were visible from the basement or from the outside through holes and gaps in the masonry veneer. See pictures 1 to 5  Wall framing: 6” wood studs, spacing unknown.  Ground floor structure (above the basement): Wood joists and 1¼” plank decking.  Roof structure: Not visible for investigation, assumed to be wood rafters.  Foundations walls: Stone masonry approximately 550mm in thickness.  Exterior Cladding: o Original building: Single wythe of 4” thick masonry o Additions: Exposed plywood

Page 86 of 109 3.0 Structural Deficiencies:

Overall, the building exterior was found to be in very poor conditions. Numerous cracks are visible in the masonry cladding and the walls are visibly out of plumb. The construction of the three additions does not appear to be to code and numerous masonry arches have failed over openings. The main structural concerns are outlined below.

1. Significant cracking in masonry cladding: Significant cracks were noticed throughout the perimeter of the structure. These cracks are an indication of settlement and overloading of the masonry. See pictures 6 to 9.

2. Bulging of the masonry cladding: The masonry was noticed to be severely out of plumb in numerous areas and bulging out. At exposed areas, no connection was noticed between the masonry veneer and the backing wood structure. Masonry walls are not intended to support offset loads and without proper lateral restraints the integrity of the wall is significantly compromised. See pictures 10 to 12

3. Failure of masonry arches: Significant cracking was noticed around most window and door opening. The most severe case was noticed along the east elevation where the arch has failed and us currently unsupported. See pictures 13 to 14

4. Foundation settlement: Large cracks and voids were noticed in the corners of the building, with masonry fully disconnected from the structure and separated from the rest of the building. These are indications of excessive differential settlement of the structure. See pictures 15 to 16

5. Chimney integrity: The chimney was found to be in very poor conditions and is in an unstable condition. See picture 17

6. Missing gutters and metal flashing: No gutters were noticed at the perimeter of the roof and no metal flashing was provided at the junction of the additions to the main structure, this condition leads to significant water running down the wall. Due to the numerous cracks in the masonry, the water is allowed to penetrate behind the cladding and reach the wood structure. Although not visible during our review, it is fair to assume that the wood framing has been exposed to significant water for some time and its structural integrity could be compromised. See pictures 18 to 19

4.0 Conclusions:

Based on our site investigation and the findings outlined in the above report, it is our professional opinion that the structure at 36 Church Street in Georgina has reached the end of its service life. Due to the precarious condition of the exterior masonry, any attempts to repair or relocate the house would likely lead to the collapse of the masonry veneer and possibly of the entire structure. It is our professional opinion that in this condition the structure is not structurally sound & represents a safety concern. We recommend that the structure be demolished.

Page 87 of 109 Page 88 of 109

Picture 1: South Elevation

Picture 2: East Elevation

Page 89 of 109

Picture 3: North Elevation

Picture 4: West Elevation

Page 90 of 109

Picture 5: Basement Wall

Picture 6: Severely Deteriorated Masonry at Porch

Page 91 of 109

Picture 7: Cracks in Masonry and Foundation Wall

Picture 8: Cracking in Masonry Below Window

Page 92 of 109

Picture 9: Cracking in Masonry Below Window 2

Picture 10: Wall Bulging Outwards

Page 93 of 109

Pictures 11a & 11b: Wall Bulging Outwards

Pictures 12a & 12b: Wall Bulging Outwards at Windows

Page 94 of 109

Pictures 13: Missing Masonry Arch at East Elevation

Pictures 14: Large Masonry Cracks Above Missing Arch

Page 95 of 109

Picture 15: Severely Deteriorated Foundation Wall

Picture 16: Collapse at Corner Due To Settlement at South-West Corner

Page 96 of 109

Pictures 17: Deteriorated Masonry at Chimney

Page 97 of 109

Picture 18: No gutters at Roof Edge

Picture 19: No Flashing or Roof Termination at East Elevation Additon

Page 98 of 109

golder.com

Page 99 of 109 GORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF GEORGINA 8P5020 Page 7 Date : Apr 03, 2018 Time 11'.48 am Building Permit Listing DEMOLITION

Permit Type : Ail Block : All Permit No. : Ail Section : All District : Ail Town: All Area : Ail D¡strict Lot : All Plan : Ail Zone: All Lot : AI Permit Status : All Project Code : Ail Print Permit W No lnspections Since : lssue Date : [01 Mar 2018] ïo [31 Mar 201 8] Print Name and Address : No (Hide Owne/s Phone #) Completed Date Ail Permit No. Owñer Name lssue Date Roll No. Project Value Fee

1 71 066 14-Ma¡-2018 000 14424400.0000 0.00 510.00 Address: District: Zone: Area: Expiry Date: 14-Mar-2019 ProjectAddress: 161 PLEASANT BLVD Contractor Name: Construction Purpose: Demolish ex¡sting house Legals:

171072 14-Maï2O18 000 14424300.0000 8,000.00 510.00 Address: District: Zone: Area: Expiry Date: 14-Ma¡-2019 ProjectAddress: 1( 5 PLEASANT BLVD Contractor Name: Construction Purpose: DEMOLISH SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SHEDS Legals: UNDER 10M2 (2)

1 80036 01-Mar-2018 000 08219300.0000 4,919.00 816.00 Address District: Zone: Area: Expiry Date:01-Mar-2019 Project Address: 20 BONNIE BLVD Contractor Name: Construction Purpose: DEMOLISH EXISTING BUILDINc Legals

r 80037 0l-Mar-2018 000 08219300.0000 200,000.00 816.00 Address District: Zone: Area: Expiry Date:01-Mar-2019 Project Address: 2( BONNIE BLVD Contractor Name: Construction Purpose: DEMOLISH 2 LARGE BOATHOUSE STRUCTURS AND A Legals BRIDGE

1 80063 07-Mar-2018 000 14076500.0000 150,000 00 518 00 Address District: Zone: Area: Expiry Date:07-Mar-2019 Project Address: 31 2 IRENE DR Contractor Name: Construction Purpose: DEMOLISH AN EXISTINc HOUSE AND A SHED LESS Legals: THAN 1OM2

1 80093 12-Ma¡-2018 000 08061700.0000 200,000.00 828.00 Address: District: Zone: Area: Expiry Date: 12-Mar-2019 ProjectAddress:2( 993 DALTON RD Contractor Name: Construction Purpose: DEMOLISH PART OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING Legals:

1 80094 09-Mar-2018 000 08062000.0000 3,500 00 259 00 Address: District: Zone: Area: Expiry Date:09-Mar-2019 Project Address: 20997 DALTON RD Contractor Name: Construction Purpose: DEMOLISH EXISTING 2 HOUSES Legals:

Page 100 of 109 CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF GEORGINA 8P5020 Page I Date : Apr 03, 2018 Time 11:48 am Building Permit Listing DEMOLITION

Permit Type : Ail Block: All Permit No. : Ail Section : All District : Ail Town: All Area : Ail District Lot : All Plan: Ail Zone: All Lot : Ail Permit Status : All Project Code : Alr Print Permit w/ No lnspections Since : lssue Date : [01 Mar 2018] To [31 Mar 2018] Print Name and Address : No (Hide Owner's Phone #) Completed Date Ail Permit No. Owner Name lssue Date Roll No. Project Value Fee

1 80097 07-Mar-2018 000 08306000.0000 35,000 00 124.00 Address: D¡strict: Zone: Area: Expiry Date:07-MaÊ2019 ProjectAddress: 11 FRANKFORT GROVE Contractor Name: Construction Purpose: DEMOLISH EXISTING ONE CAR GARAGE Legals:

180144 14-Mar-2018 000 04177000.0000 500,000.00 1,139.00 Address: District: Zone: Area: Expiry Date: l4-Mar-2019 Project Address: 2€ 258 HIGHWAY 48 Contractor Name: Gonstruction Purpose: DEMOLISH BUILDINc TO INCLUDE HOUSE AND cAS Legals S ION

1 801 51 27-Mar-2018 000 14322500.0000 60,000.00 518.00 Address District: Zone: Area: Expiry Date: 27-Mar-2019 Project Address: 2i'l GLENWOODS AVE Contractor Name: Construction Purpose: DEMOLISH SINGLE FAMILY D ELLING AND A SHED Legals LESS THAN 1OM2

1 801 70 15-Mar-2018 000 09397100 0000 15,000.00 518.00 Address District: Zone: Area: Expiry Date: 15-Mar-2019 Project Address: 8i LAKE DR N Contractor Name: Construction Purpose: DEMOLISH FIRE DAMAGED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING Legals:

1 80r 83 23-Ma¡-2018 000'14666200.0000 15,000.00 570.00 Address: District: Zone: Area: Expiry Date: 23-Mar2O19 Project Address: 451 THE QUEENSWAY S Contractor Name: Gonstruction Purpose: DEMOLISH SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SHED Legals:

1 801 84 23-Mar-2018 000 14666300.0000 15,000.00 518.00 Address: District: Zone: Area: Expiry Date: 23-Mar-2019 ProjectAddress: 453 THE QUEENSWAY S Contractor Name: Construction Purpose: DEMOLISH SINGLE UNIT DWELLINc AND SHED UNDER Legals: 'toM2

1 80200 22-Mar-2018 000 09293600 0000 1,000.00 124 00 Address: District: Zone: Area: Expiry Date: 22-Mar-2019 Project Address: 238 SHORECREST RD Contractor Name: Construct¡on Purpose: DEMOLISH DETACHED GARAGE Legals:

Page 101 of 109 CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF GEORGINA 8P5020 Page I Date : Apr 03, 2018 Time 11:48 am Building Permit Listing DEMOLITION

Permit Type : Ail Block : All Permit No. : Ail Section : All District : AI Town: All Area: Ail District Lot : All Plan: Ail Zone: All Lot : Ail Permit Status : All Project Code : Ail Print Permit w/ No lnspections Since : lssue Date : [01 Mar 2018] To [31 Mar 201 8] Print Name and Address : No (Hide Owner's Phone #) Completed Date Ail Permit No. Owner Name lssue Date Roll No. Project Value Fee

1 8021 6 28-Mar-2018 000 01631100.0000 1,500 00 124 00 Address: Distr¡ct: Zone: Area: Expiry Date:28-Mar-2019 ProjectAddress: 24404 PARK RD Gontractor Name: Construction Purpose: DEMOLITION OF DETACHED GARAGE Legals:

Summary For This Run: No. of DEMOLITION Listed 15 Total Construction Value : 1,208,919.00 Total Fees : 7,892.00

Page 102 of 109 GEORGINA HERITAGE COMMITTEE

TERMS OF REFERENCE

1. PURPOSE

The Ontario Heritage Act. R.S.O.1 990, c. 0.1 I provides that the council of a municipality can establish a Georgina Heritage Committee.

2. MEMBERSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITY

The responsibilities of the Georgina Heritage Committee are to advise Council on all matters relating to Part lV: lndividual Property Designations and Part V: Heritage Conservation Districts including preparing and maintaining a list of properties, features and areas worthy of monitoring for conservation, and, to establish criteria for the evaluation of properties of architectural, historical and contextual significance; and, to recommend to Council properties worthy of designation under Parts lV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Committee will encourage and facilitate the retention of documentation that is of architectural and historical significance to the Town of Georgina, and establish guidelines for the conservation of heritage resources including individual structures, heritage conservation districts and features of natural heritage.

The committee will also review planning documents, development applications, building permits and sign permits as they pertain to identified heritage resources and review municipal, provincial and federal heritage legislation.

To be eligible to make application and to serve on this Committee you must be a resident of the Town of Georgina, over the age of 18 years.

The Committee shall consist of seven (7) appointees including one Member of Council

3. LENGTH OF TERMruACANCIES

The Committee shall be appointed for the term of Council, but shall continue until such time as new Committee members are appointed by a new Council following an election. Members may be reappointed at the discretion of Council. Recognizing that vacancies may arise, Council will request submissions from the public and will appoint citizens to fill such vacancies.

4. REMUNERATION

$40.00 per meeting, not to exceed eight (B) paid meetings per year

5. FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS

Meetings will be held "as required" basis not to exceed eight (8) per year.

ln the event a member misses three (3) consecutive meetings, without a valid and acceptable reason, then the individual's appointment to the Committee will be rescinded

Revlsed March 25,2015 Resolution C-2015-0248 Page 1

Page 103 of 109 Town of Georgina Heritage Gommittee (GHC)

GEORGINA

Terms of Reference

Purpose

The Ontario Heritage Act. R.S.O.1990, c. 0.18 provides that the council of a municipality can establish a Georgina Heritage Committee. The Georgina Heritage Committee (GHC) or "Committee" is an advisory that will provide information, advice and assistance to Council and staff of the Town of Georgina on Heritage related matters impacting the Municipality. The responsibilities of the Georgina Heritage Committee are to advise Council on all matters relating to Parts lV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act and other Heritage related matters as deemed appropriate by Council.

Meetings

1 The Committee shall meet as required throughout the year, to a maximum of eight (8) times ayear.

2 Quorum for the Committee shall be the majority of the active members (50% plus 1 or round up to nearest whole number).

3 Members of the Committee who are unable to attend a regular meeting are required to report their absence prior to the meeting date and/or time.

4 The office of a member becomes vacant if the member is absent from the meetings for three successive months without being authorized to do so by a resolution of the Committee. Responsibilities

1. The Committee will elect and appoint a Chair and Vice Chair, and shall

2 To advise Council on all matters relating to Part lV: lndividual Property Designations and Part V: Heritage Conservation Districts including preparing and maintaining a list of properties, features and areas worthy of monitoring for conservation, and, to establish criteria for the evaluation of properties of architectural, historical and contextual

Page 104 of 109 significance; and, to recommend to Council properties worthy of designation under Parts lV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act.

3 Encourage and facilitate the retention of documentation that is of architectural and historical significance to the Town of Georgina, and establish guidelines for the conservation of heritage resources including individual structures, heritage conservation districts and features of natural heritage.

4 Review planning documents, development applications, building permits and sign permits as they pertain to identified heritage resources and review municipal, provincial and federal heritage legislation.

Term & Membersh¡p Composition

1 Appointed by Council, the Committee shall consist of seven (7) members composed of:

o One (1) member of Council; o Six (6) citizen appointments

To be eligible to make application and serve on this Committee individuals must be a resident of the Town of Georgina, over the age of 18 years, and be able to demonstrate compliance with all relevant by-laws of the Town.

2 Under the direction of the Clerk of the Clerk's Division, secretarial and other support services will be provided by the Town of Georgina.

3 Resignations from the Committee must be in writing

4 The Committee shall be appointed for the term of Council, but shall continue until such time as new Committee members are appointed by a new Councilfollowing an election. Members may be reappointed at the discretion of Council.

5 Recognizing that vacancies may arise, Councilwill request submissions from the public and will appoint citizens to fill such vacancies.

6 To report to Council, on an annual basis, documenting the activities, accomplishments and comments deemed appropriate as the Committee attempts to fulfil its purpose.

Remuneration

$40.00 per meeting, not to exceed eight (8) paid meetings per year

Page 105 of 109 Member in Good Standing

The rules governing the procedure of Council and the conduct of members shall be observed by this Committee. All members should reflect appropriate conduct when attending meetings and/or representing the GHC.

General Conduct

All members will abide by the Town of Georgina's Code of Conduct and other applicable Town policies and guidelines.

Budget

The Committee, if deemed necessary, will submit a budget for Council's approval, to include anticipated revenue and estimated expenditures. Purchases will adhere to the Town's purchasing By-law or require the CAO's approval. The budget will be administered by the Director of Corporate Services. ln addition, other funds may be requested of Council for special projects or undertakings. Use of Town Logo/Letterhead

The Committee has the ability to draft correspondence and make contacts with external organizations/individuals to solicit information to/from the public, to carry out its mandate. However, the nature and information shall be approved by the Communications Manager and shall not bind the Town. The Committee shall adhere to the Town logo policy in carrying out the mandate of the Committee. Authority

The Committee shall work within the scope of their responsibilities as set out in this Terms of Reference. The Committee has no decision-making authority. Recommendations to Council in the form of resolutions are required. Any information or action that binds the Corporation will require Council's approval. Gonfidentiality

The MunicipalAct, S.O. 2001, c. 25, shall bind the members of the Committee as it relates to confidentiality, conflict of interest, closed sessions, and any other requirements under the Acf, which pertain to the conduct of officials.

Procedural By-Law

The rules and regulations contained in the Town of Georgina Procedural By-law shall be observed in all proceedings of the Committee and shall be the rules and regulations of the dispatch of business by the Committee.

Page 106 of 109 VOLUNTEER WANTED! FOR APPOINTMENT TO GEORGINA HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE GEORGINA

The Municipal Council of the Town of Georgina invites you to serve in your community by considering committee membership on the Georgina Heritage Advisory Committee (GHC). The appointment is for the remaining term of Council. The Terms of Reference for the GHC describes the purpose mandate and member responsibilities, and is available on the Town of Georgina website (www.qeorqina.ca)

The Advisory Committee will meet 'as needed' throughout the year, typically held on the Third Wednesday of the month at 6:30 P.M. Appointed members receive an honorarium payment of $40.00 per meeting attended, to a maximum of 8 meetings, paid annually.

The Town of Georgina is committed to inclusive, barrier-free selection processes and environments. We will accommodate the needs of applicants under the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) throughout all stages of the selection process. Please advise the Human Resources Department to ensure your accessibility needs are accommodated throughout this process.

Application forms may be obtained from the Town of Georgina website wvvw.qeorqina.ca under "Forms" or from:

Sandra DiPietrantonio, Committee Services Coordinator 26557 Civic Centre Road, R.R. #2 Keswick, ON L4P 3G1 (905) 476-4301, ExL 2248 sdipietrantonio(Ooeoroina.ca

Application forms must be submitted to Sandra DiPietrantonio, Committee Services Coordinator, via email, mail or in person before 4:30 p.m. on Friday April 20, 2018.

Page 107 of 109 This is a list of all houses in labeled as built between 1800-1850 that are NOT ALREADY ON THE REGISTER Address Structure Code 6241HE QUEENSWAY S 1810 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 1810 *** *** 547 LAKE DR E 1819 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CEDARBARE, COOLMERE LODGE 1819 30 ÏURNER ST 1825 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED BEECHCROFT HIGHWAY 48 N/S 1850 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED No house #. North west corner of Riverside Dr & PT LOT 17 PLAN 364 GEORGINA; PT LOT 18 PLAN 364 Hwy 48 GEORGINA; PT LOT 19 PLAN 364 GEORGINA; PT LOT 20 PLAN 364 GEORGINA PT 3, 65R1145; GEORGINA Roll Number: 197000006223000 7788OLD SHILOH RD 1800 275 MISCELLANEOUS SHED Not 100% certa¡n. t house, 1 bar, and 3 sheds 185 THE QUEENSWAY N 1800 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 262THE QUEENSWAY N 1803 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 377 RAINES ST 1824 102 SHED 377 RAINES ST t824 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 25382 STONEY BATTER RD 1830 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 24646 MCCOWAN RD 1830 102 SHED 24646 MCCOWAN RD 1830 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 21 LAND's END 1835 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 252 PEFFERLAW RD 1835 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED mix of brick and siding exter¡or 390 CURLEY ST 1840 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 196 PEFFERLAW RD 1840 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED siding exterior. Good condition 28607 HIGHWAY 48 1845 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 129 THE QUEENSWAY N 1848 116 ATTACHED GARAGE 129 THE QUEENSWAY N 1848 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 24710 PARK RD 1850 201 TYPE I BARN Excellent 7433 OLD HOMESTEAD RD 1850 116 ATTACHED GARAGE Not visible from road 7433 OLD HOMESTEAD RD 1850 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED Not visible from road 10914 RAVENSHOE RD 1850 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED Land expropriated by the Town in 2013 6818 OLD SHILOH RD 1850 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED Good cond¡tion 6251 FROG ST 1850 203 WPE III UNINSULATED BARN 6251 FROG ST 1850 275 MISCELLANEOUS SHED 6251 FROG ST 1850 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 7113 FROG ST 1850 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED Site of solar farm. Arch assessment in 2Ot4 (Site BbGt-31) 6627 SMITH BLVD 1850 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 5692 SMITH BLVD 1850 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 5782 SMITH BLVD 1850 102 SHED 9 LEE FARM LANE 1850 301 SINGLE FAMILY DEÏACHED 9425 MORNING GLORY RD 1850 102 SHED 9425 MORNING GLORY RD 1850 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED Approx 52 acres property. Obstructed from street. Building 24982 LAKERIDGE RD 1850 203 TYPE III UNINSULATED BARN stand¡ng (google map)

Page 108 of 109 approx. 73 acres (mpac). Lots of scrap on the property 31250 LAKERIDGE RD 1850 201 TYPE I BARN Obstructed view from street 24369 WARDEN AVE 1850 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 99 BEÏHEL SIDEROAD 1850 2O2TYPE II BARN 99 BETHEL SIDEROAD 1850 203 TYPE III UNINSULATED BARN Georgian house in good shape. Built by John Morton from 168 BETHEL SIDEROAD 1850 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED Amherst, Massachusetts. 3595 LOCKIE SIDEROAD 1850 203 TYPE III UNINSULATED BARN 3458 LOCKIE SIDEROAD 1850 203 TYPE III UNINSULATED BARN 26153 WARDEN AVE 1850 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED AKA 23259 KËNNEDY RD PT LT 4 CON 6 N GWILLIMBURY PTS 96 CARLEY RD 1850 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 2 & 3 65R6735; GEORGINA PIN:034650051 23429 KENNEDY RD 1850 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 21 MT PLEASANT TRAIL 1850 301 SINGLE FAMILY DEÏACHED 23890 MCCOWAN RD 1850 201 TYPE I BARN 23890 MCCOWAN RD 1850 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 23625 MCCOWAN RD 1850 201 TYPE I BARN 23625 MCCOWAN RD 1850 301 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 24309 MCCOWAN RD 1850 203 TYPE III UNINSULATED BARN

Page 109 of 109