INNISFIL HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA
MEETING DATE: THURSDAY, JANUARY 7, 2021
TIME: 7:00 P.M.
LOCATION: VIRTUAL MEETING
CHAIR: COUNCILLOR C. PAYNE
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
(2.1) Approval of the Agenda for January 7, 2021
Recommendation
That the Innisfil Heritage Advisory Committee Agenda for January 7, 2021, be approved as printed.
3. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST
4. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
(4.1) Innisfil Heritage Advisory Committee Report No. 09-20, dated December 3, 2020 (Will be considered by Council on January 13, 2021)
5. PRESENTATIONS AND DELEGATIONS
(5.1) If you wish to request a delegation to the Heritage Committee, please contact Kevin Jacob, Assistant Clerk for further details at [email protected]
6. BUSINESS ITEMS
(6.1) Consideration to Recommend Property to the Town's Municipal Heritage Register - 7001 County Road 27 'Henryville Manor'
Recommendation
That the discussion concerning recommending 7001 County Road 27 be added to the Town of Innisfil's Municipal Heritage Register be received.
Page 1 of 23 Innisfil Heritage Advisory Committee Agenda January 7, 2021
(6.2) Working Group Updates (a) Heritage Property Research and Evaluation Group (b) Cookstown Heritage Conservation District Working Group (c) Communications Working Group
Recommendation
That the update provided by the Heritage Committee Working Groups be received as information.
(6.3) 2021 Heritage Week Activities
Recommendation
That the updates regarding planning for 2021 Ontario Heritage Week be received.
7. FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES
(7.1) Article -Toronto planners tap staggering 966 properties for heritage registry by Francine Kopun, Toronto Star dated November 25, 2020.
(7.2) Article -Developer pitches plan for 19 homes on old Victoria school property by Erica Engel, CollingwoodToday.ca dated December 31, 2020
(7.3) Article - Histories of Newmarket and Holland Landing have long been intertwined by Richard MacLeod, BradfordToday.com dated January 3, 2021
Recommendation
That Item 7.1 through to 7.3 be received as information.
8. PENDING ITEMS
(8.1) • Barclay House Stones • 17 Queen Street / 7 King Street North Cookstown • Vacant Properties
9. ANNOUNCEMENTS - MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Page 2 of 23 Innisfil Heritage Advisory Committee Agenda January 7, 2021
10. SCHEDULE OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Heritage Committee meetings are being held virtually on-line until further notice. • Thursday, February 4, 2021 • Thursday, March 4, 2021 • Thursday, April 8, 2021 • Thursday, May 6, 2021 • Thursday, June 3, 2021 • NO JULY MEETING • Thursday, August 12, 2021 • Thursday, September 2, 2021 • Thursday, October 7, 2021 • Thursday, November 4, 2021 • Thursday, December 2, 2021
11. ADJOURNMENT
Page 3 of 23 Page 4 of 23 TOWN OF INNISFIL
SUMMARY REPORT 09-20
NAME OF COMMITTEE Innisfil Heritage Advisory Committee DATE: December 3, 2020 TIME: 7:00 p.m. LOCATION: Virtual Meeting
ATTENDANCE: Voting Members: Councillor Carolyn Payne, Chair Deb Crawford, Vice-Chair Jan Blommaert Andrea Harper Elaine Splett Others: Brandi Clement, Partner, Jones Consulting Group Ltd. Rick Martellacci Neil Phillips, ERA Architects Chris Cannon, Placemaker / Planner Kevin Jacob, Assistant Clerk
MOTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION BY COUNCIL
None. ______
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS This summary was provided to the Committee for review and comments prior to consideration and approval by Council.
Item 2.1 – Approval of Agenda for December 3, 2020 Moved By: J. Blommeart / Seconded By: D. Crawford
That the Innisfil Heritage Advisory Committee Agenda for December 3, 2020, be approved as printed.
Item 6.1 – 34 King Street South, Cookstown · The Committee received a presentation from the project consultant concerning the heritage property located on the subject lands and confirmed that it will be incorporated as a stand-alone building within the proposed development. · The draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium includes a provision of a Heritage Preservation Agreement. · The developer is requesting agreement to remove a rear addition of the property. The Committee provided comments and asked questions of clarification including, how will the existing back wall be conserved; is there the potential for adaptive re-use of the building material that would be removed; is there enough setback from the heritage property to proposed units; and will the proposed height of the proposed unit’s impact the heritage property. · The Committee expressed concerns regarding the current state of the property and requested property standards measures be taken in the interim.
Page 5 of 23 Innisfil Heritage Advisory Committee Minutes December 3, 2020 Report No. 09-20
Item 6.2 – Working Group Updates (a) Heritage Property and Evaluation Group · Advised that they are researching several properties for future Committee consideration. · It was noted that there has been considerable renovation work being completed due to people not travelling this year. (b) Cookstown Heritage Conservation District Working Group · No report at this time. (c) Communications Working Group · Advised that draft information sheets on the three designated properties in 2020 will be brought forward at the January meeting for review.
Item 6.3 – Consideration of a Property for Further Discussion · Members of the Heritage Property Research and Evaluation Working Group provided an overview of the property known as ‘Henryville Manor’. The property, built circa 1887 and incorporating several architectural styles including Neo-Gothic, Second Empire and Italianate, is one of the most unique and stunning properties in the municipality. · The Committee adopted the following motion:
Moved By: D. Crawford / Seconded By: J. Blommaert
That the discussion regarding 7001 County Road 27 be received; and
That the property owners be notified that the Committee will consider a motion at the January Heritage Meeting requesting Council to add this property to the Town’s Municipal Heritage Register.
Item 6.4 – Heritage Week in Canada – February 15 – 23, 2021 · Committee members provided input and suggestions for events or activities to recognize 2021 Heritage Week. · Items to be considered: Plaquing of 1358 4th Line, Lucas Store, and Halfway House; 34 King Street Update; Update on Cookstown Cenotaph and Park Restoration; Report and Delegation to Council – February 13, 2021 · Updates will be provided at the January Committee meeting.
Item 8.1 Pending List Items · The Assistant Clerk advised the Committee on the outcome of 1878 Innisfil Beach Road.
Announcement · The Chair advised that a resignation letter has been received from Roger Johnson. Committee expressed their appreciation for all of Roger’s work on behalf of the Committee and especially as a champion of the Cookstown Heritage District. He will be sincerely missed. The Assistant Clerk noted that recruitment for a new member will begin in January.
The next Committee meeting will be held on January 7, 2021 at 7:00 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m.
Page 6 of 23
5 January 2021
To: Mayor Dollin, Deputy Mayor Davidson, and Councillors
Fr: Innisfil Heritage Committee
Subject: Recommendation to Add to Municipal Register 7001 County Rd 27, Innisfil – Henryville Manor
Municipal Address 7001 County Road 27 Innisfil Legal Description Part Lot 1 Concession 6 Pointer Coordinates Lat 44.2614 Long: 79.7186 Role # 431601001803110 (Cty of Simcoe Maps) Inventory Identification CR27 Date of Construction C 1887 Additions to the Buildings unknown Original Use: Residential/farmhouse Building Name Henryville Manor Original Owner William C Henry Current Use Residential Current Owner Current Zoning Residential Official Plan Designation
2021-01-05 11:23 AM
Page 7 of 23
Consultation with the property owner:
Owner has been notified of the Committee’s interest by letter December 2020.
Architectural Assessment:
Style of Building:
The structure depicts Neo-Gothic, Second Empire, and Italianate influences.
Design Details/Craftsmanship:
The long side of the house faces the roadway and behind this front section is a “tail” which contained the “summer kitchen”. Another modern wing sympathetic in style has been built adjoining the kitchen and parallel to the main house. The central tower with its Mansard roof topped by a wrought-iron railing or cresting is Second Empire influence. The 2 wings with their ornate gables and fanciful bargeboard trim are neo-Gothic. The Italianate style is evident in the round-topped windows, the brackets under the tower eaves, and the main double doors with rounded panels. The use of red and buff brick with black brick detailing provides additional interest to the façade.
Architectural Integrity:
Since purchased in 1998 the structure has been fully restored.
Design/Builder/ Architect:
Unknown
Interior Elements:
The original house, built for two families with a central tower, a hallway panelled in oak and elsewhere maple and birds-eye maple flooring and panelling.
The interior of the house was reportedly restored after it was purchased in 1998.
Summary comments on architectural significance:
Henryville Manor is a stunning example of early architecture combining several styles to create a unique and stately structure worthy of preservation and protection under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Design Compatibility with Streetscape:
Henryville Manor is situated just south of the of the village of Thornton on the east side of Highway 27. The manor is set back slightly from the road and is surrounded by actively farmed fields. This location and the area along Highway 27 and south of the 7th Line Innisfil have remained rural-agricultural and not marred by recent development.
2021-01-05 11:23 AM
Page 8 of 23
Community Context:
The town now known as Thornton developed in the 1820’s and in 1833 was established as Henrysville (or Henry’s Corners) after early settler John Henry who was the first teacher and then the schoolmaster and later became the postmaster when an office opened in 1854. The name Henrysville caused confusion in the mail system at the time, so the community became Thornton in 1854 after Henry Thornton who owned a grist mill, sawmill, and planning mill. (Wikipedia - Thornton Ontario)
The property located at 7001 Highway 27 was built for the great-grandson of the John Henry.
The area surrounding this structure remains rural agriculture and the windbreak of trees remaining on the north and eastern boundaries preserves the vision and feel of the original home.
Landmark Status:
Henryville Manor has been a landmark for those travellers between Cookstown and Thornton over the years. The detail and mass of the manor on the eastern side of the road continues to catch the eye of young and old as they pass by.
Site Sketch:
2021-01-05 11:23 AM
Page 9 of 23
Historical Assessment:
John Henry was born in Ireland in 1796 and his wife Sarah Armstrong also born in Ireland c. 1801 were married in Ireland and emigrated to Canada c. 1832. Considered one of the first pioneer families of Thornton, they settled at the south west corner of Thornton in Essa Township. John was interested in education and became the first teacher around Thornton. Hunter’s History of Simcoe County states “His place was locally referred to as “Henry’s School House”.
Only two of their six children remained in the area: Thomas and James married Rebecca Dunn and Mary Dunn (sisters) respectively. The two “Henry” families were active citizens of the Thornton community. They were dedicated helpers at their church and like their father were interested in education.
Thomas and Mary Henry obtained the crown deed to Lot 1 Concession 7 in Innisfil. The Innisfil Review 1951 p 48-49 indicates that he owned 500 acres at one time in the area. Mary was an accomplished soloist and musician. She taught music and often performed with her sister Rebecca. Thomas and Mary had eight children and fostered two cousins however only two sons, James Jr and William C. Henry remained in the Thornton area.
James Jr. married Elizabeth Ann Thompson c. 1890 and took over his father’s homestead of 100 acres and the 50 acres across the road in Essa. His son Charles Wesley was still on Lot 1 Conc. 7 in 1951.
William C. Henry married Ellen Martha Heylands from Essa. They had five daughters between 1887 and 1894. Ellen died before the 1901 census. William re-married in 1905 to Minnie Scythes.
2021-01-05 11:23 AM
Page 10 of 23
According to the land records James Jr. purchased the N ½ Lot 1 Concession 6 – 100 acres in 1879. William C. (his son) purchased the property in 1887 when the house was reportedly built.
William lived on the farm for 20 years then sold it in 1909 to Jerrie (Jerimiah Ramsay) of Innisfil.
In 1945 the house was sold to John A. Patton.
John Patton was born in Euphrasia Township, Grey County, and married Isabella Curry of that township. He farmed in Rocklyn until 1916 when he purchased property in Innisfil. John and Isabella had three children: Everal, Alma, and Annie. Everal never married but operated the farm until it was sold in 1963. He remained a resident of Thornton until he died in 1969.
In 1963 the property was purchased by Jan Veenstra and his family of 12 children. At the time there was no in door plumbing and the coal furnace in the crawl space beneath the front door area was no longer functional. On the passing of her husband Hendrikja Veenstra lost interest in maintaining the property.
At this point the land records become a bit confusing and difficult to ascertain how the property was subdivided to allow for the lots on the north and south corners of the initial 100 acres as well as the actual severance of the house from the rest of the acreage. Additional research of the actual instruments, wills etc. would be needed to fully document the history of the property ownership.
In 1980 according to the land records 99.333 acres N part of the lot was sold to Broman Construction.
In 1998 the house was sold once again. Between the time the property was owned by the Veenstra’s and 1998 the house was occupied by tenants. Considerable damage was done to the interior and the building itself deteriorated. The new owners saw a “diamond in the rough” and vowed to return he building to its former glory.
“Eleven years of restoration work has focused on the chimneys the flooring and plasterwork while some inner walls and rooms have been reconfigured in preparation the owner’s goal of turning the house into a bed and breakfast, and a venue for small gatherings and Victorian Teas” (courtesy of David Steele, former Heritage Committee Chair, former President of Innisfil branch of ACO c. 2009)
Events or Persons:
The Henry, and Patton families were active in the community of Thornton and Innisfil Township. The Thornton village was initially named Henrysville after the Henry family, one of the earliest settlers in the area. Descendants of the families continue to reside in Thornton and Innisfil and contribute to the social and economic fabric of the area.
Summary Comments on Historic Significance
Henryville Manor was originally built for the great-grandson of one of the first pioneers to settle in the Thornton/Innisfil Township area. The structure offers an excellent example of early architecture and construction techniques and has been a landmark for travellers along the busy
2021-01-05 11:23 AM
Page 11 of 23
Highway 27 corridor. The property is unique in design and was home of one of the early Henry and Patton families who settled in the area. While the members of the families did not participate in local politics, they were active in their communities and help shape the future of both Thornton (Essa Township) and Innisfil (Township).
Recommendation:
The Ontario Heritage Toolkit (to be updated to include recent changes to the OHA) provides criteria for determining the cultural heritage value or interest of a property which includes consideration of the design, historical and contextual value.
Based on the architectural elements and design as well as the early settlers who made this property their home, Henryville Manor meets the test of “heritage value”.
It is recommended that this property be added to the Innisfil Municipal Heritage Register.
Innisfil Heritage Committee
Historical Sources:
Innisfil Review 1951, 1984 Ontario Land Records Census Data (Innisfil and Essa) Glimpses of Cookstown Farms of Innisfil Our Stories Innisfil Our Stories Ontario
2021-01-05 11:23 AM
Page 12 of 23 Toronto planners tap staggering 966 properties for heritage registry
By Francine Kopun City Hall Bureau Sun., Nov. 22, 2020 Article was updated Nov. 25, 2020 The Danforth is known for its shopping, food and drink, but few would point to the blocks between Coxwell and Victoria Park avenues as a shining example of urban architecture.
A jumble of discount stores and medical offices, food joints and bars, sprinkled with commercial plazas, it is by and large something to get through and drive by.
It’s not that the businesses have nothing to offer — there are retail jewels to be found along the strip, and business improvement associations have added planters to soften the edges — but the buildings seem less than glamorous, without offering the compensatory street theatre that people move to big cities to become a part of.
The city’s heritage department respectfully disagrees.
After two heritage buildings in other parts of the city were peremptorily razed by developers, and as part of a citywide effort to better protect Toronto’s history, staff are using a more proactive approach to conservation that would see 167 of the buildings on or adjacent to Danforth Avenue between Coxwell and Victoria Park added to the heritage register.
Being listed on the register means the city must be advised of an owner’s intention to demolish the property. It gives the city 60 days to determine whether the building merits full preservation or whether the demolition may proceed.
The Danforth recommendations include some obvious choices, like the converted bus terminal diner in the art deco streamline moderne style that is a local landmark, and a brick Masonic Temple at 15 Chisholm Ave., built in 1930. It also includes some not-so- obvious ones, like the sagging wood-frame building at 2726 Danforth Ave., tucked behind a furniture store, which was once the White House Hotel, serving early settlers.
But the argument for adding them to the registry isn’t so much about individual monuments as it is about the way the buildings work together, forming a largely intact early-20th-century streetscape.
As part of the effort to update the heritage register, staff also found 325 properties worth adding on Queen Street West and in Parkdale; 257 around King and Parliament streets; 162 along Dundas Street West and Roncesvalles Avenue; 39 along Ossington Avenue; and 16 in Forest Hill Village — 966 in all.
Page 13 of 23 It’s an astonishing number of properties to be added to the heritage register in any one year. In 2017, 299 properties were added. In 2018, only 68. In 2019, there were 153.
In all, there are 14,400 addresses on the register.
“When the numbers are so high, you really have to question whether all these properties need to be included,” said Coun. Denzil Minnan-Wong (Ward 16, Don Valley East).
“You wonder if they have an appreciation of the consequences for the property owner.”
Is it too much? There are concerns that adding so many buildings to the registry could hinder intensification in exactly the neighbourhoods that need it the most, those zoned for single-family and semi-detached homes, especially if the buildings move from being simply listed on the heritage register to being officially designated as protected.
“It doesn’t mean that there aren’t opportunities for future development, but it definitely makes it more difficult to do,” said Brad Bradford, a former city planner and the councillor for Ward 19 (Beaches—East York).
“I anticipate that there will be pushback against the city, not just here on Danforth.”
That so many buildings are up for consideration at the Toronto Preservation Board meeting on Nov. 30 is due in part to the fact that the department itself set a target for identifying the buildings, but it was also directed to do so by council, after a 110-year-old beaux arts bank building on Yonge Street near Eglinton Avenue was summarily demolished in 2017. The city had previously lost the elegant Stollerys building on at Yonge and Bloor in a similar fashion in 2015, wrecked by developer Sam Mizrahi even as Coun. Kristyn Wong-Tam (Ward 13, Toronto Centre) scrambled to save it.
The 966 properties being proposed for the heritage register were identified in a variety of planning studies conducted in different neighbourhoods, dating back to 2015. Putting the list together was a year-long project, according to Gregg Lintern, chief planner and executive director of the city’s planning division.
“This is a matter of catching up with a backlog,” he said.
But it’s also the result of a change in the process and in the thinking behind what constitutes heritage, according to Mary MacDonald, senior manager of heritage preservation services for the city.
In the past, city staff would spend days researching a single building, digging deep into the archives, before recommending it be placed on the heritage register. It wasn’t efficient and it prevented deserving buildings from getting on the list. It’s how Stollerys and the beaux arts bank on Yonge Street were lost. They simply weren’t listed at the time, and proving they should be protected couldn’t be done quickly enough to prevent their demolition.
Page 14 of 23 After scanning other jurisdictions for best practices, Toronto began using an abbreviated approach often referred to as “batch listing,” but which MacDonald prefers to call multiple listing. GIVE THE GIFT OF TRUSTED NEWS. A historic context statement about a neighbourhood is researched and written, explaining its significance and describing categories of buildings that contribute to that character — say, pre-war apartments or bay-and-gable houses or stores that belonged to a main street. Buildings that fit into any of the described categories are pitched for the heritage register by city staff. The register suggestions have to be approved by the city’s preservation board, then the local community council, then city council.
It moves away from a strict emphasis on architectural details, although those remain important.
MacDonald says it also means paying attention to inclusivity and social justice.
“There are some areas that are important to people that are not necessarily going to be architecturally significant, but they represent significant parts of this city’s history,” she said, pointing to Little Jamaica, Little Korea and Little India.
“The story of the Danforth is the story of immigrant communities over decades and how they used those spaces. So we want to make sure there is social inclusion in our lens.”
The development industry is casting a careful eye on the new process.
David Wilkes, president and CEO at the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD), said there isn’t currently enough housing supply to meet demand in the city, in particular for affordable housing.
Without commenting on the 966 proposed new entries on the heritage register, he said there are concerns when heritage designations go beyond their intended scope and result in blanket protections on sites that don’t really meet the original intent of the registry.
“We must protect true heritage properties out there,” said Wilkes, adding that designations should not be overly restrictive, “especially in areas like the Danforth, where this is exactly where new housing should be built — new development should be where we need to take advantage of investments that have occurred in transit, like the subway.”
Lintern thinks the two goals can both be met.
“My bottom line on that is that growth and conservation are not mutually exclusive and there’s proof of that all over the city, where we see significant intensification and heritage conservation working hand in glove,” he said.
Billy Dertilis, who runs Red Rocket Coffee, west of Coxwell, and chairs the Danforth Mosaic BIA, which includes part of the area with the 167 buildings, says perhaps there is
Page 15 of 23 something special about the fact that stretches of the strip — and not just individual buildings — remain standing together, 100 years after they were first developed, and are still serving the community.
“I do think there is some value in keeping the streetscape intact and having at least some control over overnight demolitions,” he said.
“In my mind it makes sense to preserve the character that already exists.”
Page 16 of 23 Developer pitches plan for 19 homes on old Victoria school property There will be a public meeting for the development application in January 2021 Dec 31, 2020 12:37 PM By: Erika Engel
The old Victoria School annex building at 400 Maple Street photographed November 2020. Erika Engel/CollingwoodToday
Early in 2021 there will be some action to move forward with a proposed residential development on the former Victoria school property.
There is one building still standing on the 400 Maple Street property. The brick structure, referred to as the annex for the school, was deemed of “cultural heritage interest” by council at the end of 2019 through the passing of a designation bylaw.
Page 17 of 23 Collingwood’s first brick school was built on the site in 1884 and the annex was added in 1895. It is still standing though the original school building was demolished in 1969. The property was owned by Simcoe County until 2004 when it was sold to private developers.
The property has changed ownership several times with each proposing a residential development on site.
Because of the bylaw in place, changes to the existing building will require written consent from council and heritage attributes such as the stone foundation, gables, and original door openings will have to be preserved by the builder.
This year the property changed hands. Georgian International, the developer behind Windfall in The Blue Mountains, announced its intention to purchase the site and heritage building to council in July.
On a proposed development application, the owner is listed as Maple Street Limited Partnership, care of Georgian Communities.
The current owners are proposing 19 residential units for the site including four single- detached and 10 semi-detached homes. The developer plans to keep the existing annex building and split it into two homes. The developer also plans to build a coach house, which will include three townhouse units.
The town is hosting a virtual public meeting for the application on Jan. 25 at 5 p.m. via Zoom..
Currently, the town’s zoning designation on the property allows for the full 19 units, but the developer is requesting permission for smaller lot sizes and a higher maximum lot coverage.
The development application, as well as subsequent studies and plans for stormwater management, urban design, servicing, heritage impact, geotechnical investigations, tree inventory, and landscaping, are available on the town website here.
Page 18 of 23 Histories of Newmarket and Holland Landing have long been intertwined In the first of a two-part series, History Hound Richard MacLeod examines the establishment and growth of Newmarket's neighbour to the north January 3, 2021 By: Richard MacLeod
·
· ·
PreviousNext
This weekend and next, we will examine the history of our neighbours to the north in Holland Landing, which has long held a strategic and historic place in the history of our area.
If we were to draw a line from what is now Holland Landing southeasterly to the mouth of the Rouge River, along the shore of Lake Ontario west over to the Humber and back north to Holland Landing, this wedge of enclosed land would represent a uniquely historic region
Page 19 of 23 containing three major trails all conversing at Holland Landing — the Humber, the Don and the Rouge.
These trails were not merely haphazard paths through the forest; they were the highways, the carrying places that connected Lake Ontario with the lands lying beyond Lake Simcoe, that vast uncharted wilderness known by the Indian name Toronteau. At one time this name applied to all the area between Lake Ontario and Georgian Bay.
It was Champlain who brought the three lakes, Huron, Simcoe, and Ontario, to the attention of his Europeans masters, and it was right here at the northern end of this carrying place that “one of the first, if not the first, Christian mission was established in Upper Canada.”
This region centred on the carrying place was thickly inhabited by the Indigenous Peoples, a “rendezvous area for many tribes”, and from these inhabitants, at various times, all land in Upper Canada was purchased. It is interesting to note that the Toronto Purchase of the late 1700s did not include this area, and was to occur in the 1920s.
Gov. John Graves Simcoe was looking for a military advantage and decided that this shorter route better suited the purpose and wrote home about this easy portage between York (Toronto) and the waters of Lake Simcoe, which ran into Lake Huron, all of which was within 30 miles of York.
Thus, on Feb. 26, 1794, Augustus Jones began a survey of the Don Trail and by March 1794, he had blazed his path all the way to Holland Landing. This new road Simcoe would name Yonge Street in honour of Sir George Yonge, minister for war. Lake la Claies was renamed Lake Simcoe in honour of his father, and the river was to be called the Holland River after Major-Gen. Samuel Holland, surveyor general of Quebec.
After Yonge Street had been surveyed and laid out to Holland Landing in 1794, the government was determined to have the road opened as soon as possible as a means of attracting the fur trade through York (Toronto).
Settlers were expected to build the road, but much of the new road was left untouched.
Holland Landing can lay claim to having had four historic names over its history. During the early years, there were three separate names for the community that appeared on official documents, Gwillimbury Town, so named by John Simcoe, St. Albans, chosen they say because it sounded aristocratic, and Beverley, named by Peter Robinson to honour his brother Beverley Robinson.
We will learn more about Peter Robinson shortly. When the post office was established in 1821, the name was changed to Holland Landing and it stuck.
In 1799, plans were drawn up to build a mill and hostelry at Holland Landing and to run a ferry service on Lake Simcoe by Eli Beman and his son Elisha. By 1869, Beman’s sailboat was almost the only way for those on Lake Simcoe and north to communicate with the outside settlers to the south.
Page 20 of 23 An incident of historical interest is recalled in a letter dated April 11, 1825, written by John Franklin (Sir), the Arctic explorer, to Peter Robinsons of Newmarket. He, along with his party, had planned to reach Fort George as early as possible that spring. Lake Simcoe still had ice and given that it was impossible to reach the Nottawasaga River, Eli Beman volunteered to “put the party through”.
Franklin writes that they reached the river with all their stores, indebted to Beman, stating that without his aid and that of the men with him, they would have had to remain some days on the other side of the Portage (Barrie).
On June 12, 1957, this portage used by Franklin was marked by a plaque. Franklin and his party would embark by canoe, or bateaux, and by traversing several portages, finally reaching the inland waters of Hudson’s Bay, where his ships awaited him.
In 1811, the North West Company, already established in Holland Landing from at least 1781, applied for more land at Holland Landing, Kempenfelt Bay and Penetang, strengthening hope that the original plan to channel the fur trade along Yonge Street might happen.
Unfortunately, those hopes died in 1821 when the company merged with the Hudson’s Bay Company and the idea was dropped.
The location of this early North West Company fort on the Holland River has been virtually lost to history. The only clue we have is that it was located along the river seven miles and 53 chains south from the entrance to Lake Simcoe. Has the lake receded; we just don’t know.
Locally, it was clear that the economy would be better based upon the resources of the area, resources of permanence rather than on an unreliable fur trade. Remember, the fur trade was diametrically opposite to the development of agricultural wealth, increased milling capacity, vast timber riches and the commercial exchange occurring from each.
Holland Landing is best known today for its local relic of the War of 1812, an anchor said to be capable of holding the largest ocean frigate. I have heard several stories about this anchor over the years.
The district of Penetanguishene was a strategic point on the Upper Great Lakes and was chosen as the site of a naval yard. Iron ships were constructed there and anchors at that time were not being made in Canada, so military authorities sent one forged in the dockyards at Chatham in England.
It arrived at Quebec late in 1814 and was shipped by bateau on the St. Lawrence River from Quebec to Montreal, carried by oxen over the road to Kingston and again by bateau to York (Toronto).
Captain Samuel Brock, grandfather of Mrs. Benjamin Cody of Newmarket, and a distant relative of General Brock, was dispatched to convey the anchor as far as the Holland River from where it would again be transported by bateau to Penetang, where it was destined for
Page 21 of 23 a large gunboat being planned to maintain English supremacy on the Upper Lakes. For a description of how it was moved to Holland Land you can read my article on NewmarketToday.
After traversing the rough road from York (Toronto) for four days, the edge of the Holland Marsh was finally reached but by then the war was over, and a courier arrived with a proclamation declaring peace. Thus, they merely hoisted the anchor from the sled and left it where it rested from 1815 to 1870. Now, it sits in Anchor Park in Holland Landing.
The Robinson-Beman family, kingpins in the Family Compact and a prosperous Newmarket family, took an active interest in the district north of Newmarket, near Holland Landing and beyond, though Newmarket remained their headquarters.
Robinson was a stepson of Eli Beman. In his efforts to rebuild the family fortunes, Peter Robinson, who would go on to establish Peterborough, had acquired, in part or in whole, Lots No. 103, 104, 105, 109 and 118 on the west side of Yonge Street, between the years 1814 and 1832. On the east side he owned Lots No. 106, 107 and 108.
Seeing a valuable mill site, he erected the famous Red Mill on Lot No. 106 in 1821. The construction was done by Enos Dennis, millwright and carpenter. At that time, Robinson was likely the only local man financially able to build such a mill. The first millers employed at the Red Mill were Isaiah Tyson and his two sons, Thomas, and John, who had recently arrived from Pennsylvania and had settled on Lot No. 107. Tyson obtained a 21-year lease on the mill.
His mill did prove a great convenience to the area settlers although it was under the control of the Family Compact. Robinson would also erect a popular roadhouse that he leased to Francis Phelps. Robinson thus became “founder, builder and owner” of the village of Holland Landing on Lot 107.
During the ninth Parliament of Upper Canada, the County of Simcoe was created and separated from the County of York. The first election to choose a representative for the new county was held in July 1828. Holland Landing served as the polling station for both constituencies.
William Benjamin Robinson was the first Family Compact candidate, and his opponent was John Cawthra of Newmarket. The returning officer at this famous election was George Lount, and the poll was kept open for one week.
Voters in those early days had to travel long, hard distances to register their preferences. Partisanship ran high. Each party had its own ‘house’ from which to dispense hospitality, with little or no restraint exercised regarding drinking.
I guess some wild going-ons occurred as the supporters of the two candidates made their drunken way along Yonge Street, cheering for Cawthra or Robinson.
Many incidents are related about the roughhouse tactics of those early political contests. Robinson kept open house at Phelps’s tavern; Cawthra did the same at Johnson’s Landing.
Page 22 of 23 Since voting was conducted on a pedestal where you shouted out your choice, it was sometimes doubtful if the voter would be permitted to leave in safety.
The men from the Scotch Settlement, on the other hand, greatly impressed with their responsibility, as they drew near the polling place removed their bonnets and knelt and asked for divine guidance in discharging their duty honourably.
Cawthra was elected by a majority of nine votes, the first ever representative for Simcoe County.
Holland Landing was part of the Yonge Street Church Circuit, an area of about 50 miles by 25 miles. Some of these meetings would continue for 22 days and more than 1,200 might attend.
On Sunday July 23, 1836, an important missionary meeting was held at Newmarket and attended by several of the Indigenous groups from the Holland Landing and Lake Simcoe area. Rev. Egerton Ryerson preached to a large gathering and Peter Jones, the famous Indian missionary and son of Augustus Jones, the surveyor of Yonge Street, attended. He was accompanied by the Indigenous of Holland Landing and Lake Simcoe with two of his native helpers. This is the first record of Jones visiting Newmarket with the Indigenous Peoples to the north.
In my article on the Toronto Purchase and the Crown’s relationship with the First Nations, I spoke of how the traders paid for their purchases and provided gifts for the Indigenous at their headquarters in Holland Landing, having moved it from Toronto at their bequest.
In part two next weekend, I will pick up the story with Holland Landing becoming ‘Rebel Country’ behind their local neighbour, Samuel Lount.
Sources: East Gwillimbury in the Nineteenth Century – A centennial History of the Township of East Gwillimbury by Gladys M. Rolling; Articles from the Newmarket Era; The Yonge Street Story 1793 – 1860 by F. R. Berchem ; The History of Simcoe County by Andrew F. Hunter; The History of Newmarket by Ethel Trewhella
**********************
Newmarket resident Richard MacLeod — the History Hound — has been a local historian for more than 40 years. He writes a weekly feature about our town's history in partnership with Newmarket Today, conducts heritage lectures and walking tours of local interest, and leads local oral history interviews.
Page 23 of 23