I 2-1 CULTURAL HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 11098 DIXE ROAD CITY OF BRAMPTON REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL
Prepared for
Metrus Development Inc.
SCARLETT JANUSAS ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HERITAGE CONSULTING AND EDUCATION 269 Cameron Lake Road Tobermory, Ontario N0H 2R0 phone and fax 519-596-8243 cell 519-374-1119 [email protected]
June 10, 2011 ©
I 2-2 ii
Table of Contents
Project Personnel 6 Acknowledgments 6 Executive Summary 7
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 HISTORIC SUMMARY 4 2.1 Individual Property History 6 2.1.1 East Half of Lot 17, Concession 3 (EHS) 6
3.0 MUNICIPAL CONTACT 10 3.1 11098 Dixie Rd – Category B 10
4.0 PROCESS & POLICIES FOR HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) 11 4.1 Applicable Heritage Policies 11 4.2 Process for Determining Heritage Value 11
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF PRINCIPAL BUILDING COMPONENTS 13 5.1 Surrounding Areas 13 5.2 11098 Dixie Road – Building Description 15 5.3 Foundation/Basement 18 5.3.1 Construction 18 5.3.2 Current Condition 22 5.4 Exterior Wall 22 5.4.1 Construction 22 5.4.2 Current Condition 24 5.5 Windows & Doors 24 5.5.1 Description 24 5.5.2 Current Condition 26 5.6 Roof and Eaves 26 5.7 Front Verandah 26 5.8 Interior Doors & Wood Trim 29 5.9 Outbuildings 30 5.9.1 Description 30 5.10 Additional Observations 34
6.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES 35 6.1 Land Uses and Activities 35 6.2 Spatial Organization 35 6.3 Vegetation Related to Land Use 36 6.4 Landscape of 11098 Dixie Road 36
I 2-3 iii
7.0 HERITAGE INVENTORY & EVALUATION OF HERITAGE ELEMENTS 38 7.1 Heritage Register – 11098 Dixie Road 38 7.2 Heritage Evaluation of Building – 11098 Dixie Road 39
8.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS 42 8.1 Assessment of Potential Impacts 43
9.0 MITIGATION RECOMMENDED 44
10.0 REFERENCES CITED AND CONSULTED 45
Figures 1. General Location of Subject Property 1 2. Draft Plan of Subdivision Identifying Property 2 3. 1859 George Tremaine Map of Study Area 8 4. 1877 Illustrated Atlas Map of Study Area 9 5. 11098 Dixie Road (ASI 2008) 14 6. Satellite Image of 11098 Dixie Road 37 7. Draft Plan of Subdivision 42 8. 11098 Dixie Road Building Footprint 43
Tables 1. Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value 12
Photographs 1. Front of 11098 facing west 16 2. 11098 facing approximately NNW 16 3. 11098 facing east 17 4. 11098 facing south 17 5. Exterior Entrance to Basement 19 6. Former Access from Basement to Main Floor 19 7. Trapdoor to Main House Basement 20 8. Hewn Logs, Parged Front Walls, Interior Basement 20 9. Late Addition (Rear West), Front, Basement Interior 21 10. Framing of the Floor Above Basement 21 11. Exterior View of Front in Disrepair 22 12. Original Front Wing visible Above Interior Stair 23 13. Wood Framing Above Sill Plate Above Foundation 23 14. Original Wood Siding Visible Beneath Cladding 24 15. Original Front Wind of House – Modified Windows 25 16. Second Floor Windows 25 17. Only Original Window in Bathroom 26 18. Return Eaves 27 19. North Facing Wall – One Return Eave 27 20. Verandah 28 I 2-4 iv
21. Dentillated Fascia 28 22. Doors in Rear Kitchen Wing 29 23. North Facing Interior Wall/Doors 30 24. Rough Framed Shed 30 25. Shed at Rear of House 31 26. Garage to Southwest of House 31 27. Outbuilding Complex 32 28. Garage at Southern End of Outbuildings 32 29. Outbuilding Adjacent to Garage 33 30. Barn 33
Appendices Appendix A - Definition of Key Terms 48 Appendix B – Land Registry Records for 11098 Dixie Road 49 Appendix C – Curriculum Vitaes of Key Personnel 51
I 2-5 v
Project Personnel
Project Manager Scarlett Janusas, B.A., M.A. Principal Researcher and Report Preparation
Historian Patrick Folkes, B.A., M.A. Historic Researchers Peel Region Archives
Architectural Analysis AREA Architects, David Eckler
Acknowledgments
Scarlett Janusas Archaeological & Heritage Consulting & Education (SJAHCE) extends our thanks to Mr. Jason Bottoni and Mr. George Poulias of Metrus Development Inc. for providing maps of the area, and access to the properties. In addition, we wish to thank the tenants of 11098 Dixie Road for allowing us entry into their home to conduct our research. The staff at the Region of Peel Archives has assisted in compiling the research for this document.
I 2-6 vi
Executive Summary
Scarlett Janusas Archaeological & Heritage Consulting & Education (SJACHE) was retained by Metrus Developments to conduct a cultural heritage impact assessment on two properties in the proposed Employment Block (subdivision) located at 11098 Dixie Road in the City of Brampton. This property had been identified as exhibiting potential according to the City of Brampton Heritage Guidelines by Archaeological Services Inc. in 2008, as part of a larger cultural heritage assessment.
This property lies within the proposed “Employment Block” subdivision, bordered by Highway 410, Mayfield Road, Dixie Road, and Countryside Road, in the City of Brampton.
The cultural heritage impact assessment of these properties included a field visit, archival research, and architectural evaluation.
The original historic landscape of the area is rural agricultural. The property located at 11098 Dixie Road has been subject to recent modifications to the landscape (dewatering along Dixie Road, in ground pool, large construction berm to immediate west of property) to diminish the historic landscape.
The structures located on 11098 Dixie Road consist of a 1 and 1/2 storey wood frame house with additions and five outbuildings (2 barns, a shed, and another outbuilding). The residence at 11098 Dixie Road is not original to the property, and was moved to this location circa 1900 (personal communication, Mr. Gray, Sr.).
The property does not meet any of the criteria of OHA O. Reg. 9/06.
The outbuildings lack any heritage value.
The following recommended options for the property have been identified:
1. Commemorate the location of 11098 Dixie Road with a plaque and a description of its importance in early adaptive reuse (house located to this location and used as a store/residence, and then residence). 2. Commemorate the early settlers of this property through use of the family name for street names.
I 2-7 CULTURAL HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 11098 DIXIE ROAD CITY OF BRAMPTON, ONTARIO REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Scarlett Janusas Archaeological and Heritage Consulting and Education (SJAHCE) was retained METRUS Development Inc. to conduct a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment for two properties located in the City of Brampton. This report deals with the property on Lot 16, Concession 3, EHS, former Township of Chinguacousy, Regional Municipality of Peel. This property is located at 11908 Dixie Road (Figures 1 and 2).
The current Official Plan designation of the proposed study area is Industrial. There is no Official Plan Amendment required to redesignate this land for the proposed employment purposes. The current zoning of the subject land is Agricultural (A), Agricultural (A-847), and Institutional 2 (12). The proposed Zoning of the subject land is a site specific Industrial One (M1) Zone, along with the Floodplain (F) for the valley feature and Stormwater Management Pond (both distant from the two heritage properties). The Countryside Villages Secondary Plan (SP48a) designates that land as Prestige Industrial, Stormwater Management Facility, Wetland, Terrestrial Features and Valleyland (MacKinnon 2010).
Figure 1 General Location of Subject Property
I 2-8 2
Figure 2 Draft Plan of Subdivision Identifying Property
A cultural heritage study was completed in 2008 by Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) of a larger geographic area, which included the study area. This report extracts data from the ASI report pertinent to the two properties, including a general historic overview.
The purpose of conducting a cultural heritage assessment is to “…Know where the heritage value of the historic place lies; how it fits physically and functionally in its surroundings; and how it was and is important to its larger community past, present and future” (Parks Canada 2003:4).
Additional research and field visits were conducted by Scarlett Janusas, B.A, M.A. of SJAHCE and Mr. David Eckler, AREA Architects, with permission of Metrus Development Inc. Curriculum vitaes of key personnel are presented in the appendices. I 2-9 3
This report provides details on the built heritage of this property and its associated cultural heritage landscape. Potential impacts to the property will be examined based on the proposed plans for subdivision and discuss any proposed mitigation measures by the proponent. The results of the cultural heritage impact assessment provides a description of the historical context of the area, the property itself, an evaluation of significant cultural features, and recommendations for adaptive reuse or alternative recommendations.
I 2-10 4
2.0 HISTORIC SUMMARY
The following historic summary is taken from the ASI (2008:13-14) cultural heritage assessment of a larger geographic area, as pertinent to the property.
“Part of the land which encompasses Chinguacousy Township was alienated by the British from the native Mississaugas through a provisional treaty dated October 28, 1818 (Indian Treaties 1891:#19 p.47).
The township is said to have been named by Sir Peregrine Maitland after the Mississauga word for the Credit River, and which signified “young pine”. Other scholars assert that it was named in honour of the Ottawa Chief Shinguacose, which was corrupted to the present spelling of “Chinguacousy,” under whose leadership Fort Michilimacinac was captured from the Americans in the War of 1812” (Mika 1977:416; Rayburn 1997:68).
The township was formally surveyed in 1818, and the first “legal” settlers took up their lands later in that same year. The extant Survey Diaries indicated that the original timber stands within the township included oak, ash, maple, beech, elm, basswood, hemlock and pine. The survey crew working in the township in the summer of 1891 suffered under extreme conditions…
It was recorded that the first landowners in Chinguacousy were composed of settlers from New Brunswick, the United States and also some United Empire Loyalists and their children (Pope 1877:65; Mika 1977:417; Armstrong 1985:142).
Chinguacousy was originally included within the limits of the Home District until 1849, when the old Upper Canadian Districts were abolished. It formed part of the United Counties of York, Ontario and Pell until 1851, when Peel was elevated to independent County status under the provisions of 14 & 15 Vic. Ch. 5. A provisional council for Peel was not established until 1865, and the first official meeting of the Peel County council did not occur until January 1867. In 1974, part of the township was amalgamated with the City of Brampton, and the remainder was annexed to the Town of Caledon (Pope 1877:59; Mika 1977:417-418); Armstrong 1985:152; Rayburn 1997:68).
Due to the small population of the then newly acquired tract, Chinguacousy was initially united with the Gore of Toronto Township for political and administrative purposes. In 1821, the population of the united townships numbered just 412. By 1837, the population of the township had reached an estimated 1,921. The numbers grew from 3,721 in 1842 to 7,469 in 1851. Thereafter the figures declined to 6,897 in 1861 and to 6, 129 by 1871 (Walton 1837:71; Pope 1877:59).
The township was the largest in Peel County. Chinguacousy was described as one of the best settled townships in the Home District. It contained excellent, rolling land which was timbered mainly in hardwood with some pine intermixed. Excellent wheat was grown here. The township contained one grist mill and seven saw mills. By 1851, this number had increased to two grist mills and eight sawmills (Smith 1846:32; Smith 1851:279). I 2-11 5
The principal crops grown in Chinguacousy included wheat, oats, peas, potatoes and turnips. It was estimated that the only township in the province which rivaled Chinguacousy in terms of wheat production at that time was Whitby. Other farm products included maple sugar, wool, cheese and butter (Smith 1851:279).
In 1877, it was described as a “first class agricultural township and the farmers as a general thing have been very successful in their undertakings, many of them having amassed quite a fortune. The township is noted for its beautiful and substantial farm residences and commodious barns. The farms also are generally in the highest state of cultivation, while the grounds in front of the residences are for the most part tastefully arranged with beautiful flowers and shade trees, giving each place and the country generally a handsome appearance (Pope 1877:65).
Mayfield: This village was described as a “small settlement” which contained a brick school house, store, post office, blacksmith shop and hotel. The hotel was managed by F. Archdeken in 1869. The postmaster was William Spiers, and the village store was kept by Robert Hiscocks. The population was about 50 inhabitants in 1877 (McEvoy 1869:304; Pope 1877:66).”
The former village of Mayfield is included in the general description because of its influence at the crossroads of Mayfield Road and Dixie Road.
Additional research conducted by SJAHCE provides a synopsis on the economic ups and downs from circa 1845 to 1910 in former Peel County.
In a study of Peel County, Canada West, general conditions were noted by Gagan (1981:12) of the period of the 1850s. Gagan wrote,
“The 1850s were ushered in by a series of events…The Irish famine emigrations of 1847-8, the advent of responsible government in 1849, the completion of the St. Lawrence canal system, a reciprocal trading agreement with the United States of America, and an expanding imperial market for Canadian wheat, all contributed, in less than a decade (1845-54), to the definition of a new era in Canadian history”.
By this, Gagan infers that the time was ripe for settlement and growth from 1845 to 1854, in the then, County of Peel. This prosperous time, however, was shortlived, as the early 1860s brought , “commercial depression (1857-1860), decline in wheat prices (47% in 4 years), a series of severe crop failures, disruption of the American market for Canadian livestock, dairy products, cereal and forage crops…(ibid:13). These processes caused a crisis in the community. No longer was there expansion, but rather those hardy settlers that could endure, became “survivors”. Changes in their daily lives included marrying later in life, having fewer children, no longer having extended families in one household, and for many, movement out of the province altogether.
By 1870, there was again an economic recovery and stabilization in Peel County, and for approximately 40 years, there was what could be coined as a relative respite from hard times. Former agricultural reliance on wheat as a crop, moved to a more mixed farming community. I 2-12 6
Those individuals who settled in the area in the 1840s and 1850s, and weathered through the difficult late 1850s and 1860s, are examples of the strength and ingenuity of Peel‟s early settlers.
2.1 Individual Property History
The following history of Lot 17, east half, Concession 3 (EHS) are taken from ASI (2008:14-17), as they pertain to the three properties investigated in this report.
2.1.1 East Half of Lot 17, Concession 3 (EHS)
The earliest patent plan showed that the east half of this was in possession of James Townly or Townley during the 1820s and 1830s (Sherwood 182?). Townley (ca. 1789-1830) was a native of England who arrived in York, Upper Canada on September 3, 1819. He submitted his petition for land as a settler on the following day. This document described him as a farmer from Catton, Lancashire, England, while other records stated that he was a native of Yorkshire. His wife, Ann (1785-1865) was a native of Whitehaven, Cumberland, England. His settlement duties for this land had been completed by the end of October 1824. This meant that he had cleared and fenced part of his acreage, constructed a permanent dwelling house at least 16 x 20 feet in size, and had cleared one-half of the road allowance in front of his farm. His patent fees were paid by the third week of November in the same year (Upper Canada Land Petition T12/81); Township Papers pp. 455-457; Perkins Bull pp. 68912-68918).
….
Evidence shows that this lot was in the possession of Thomas Archdekin and Fenton Lawler in 1837 (Walton 1837:67, 69). Unfortunately, this early Directory is not specific as to the amount of land held by each man, which part of the lot they held, and whether they owned or simply occupied it as tenants.
One of the early assessment rolls for the township showed that this lot was occupied by Thomas Archdekin and Isaac Bailey in 1844. Bailey was partially assessed upon the value of his livestock which consisted of horses, milch cows and an ox. Archdekin owned horses, a milch cow and other “horned” cattle (Assessment roll 1844).
The east half of the lot was patented by James Townley on November 24, 1824. It was sold to Maurice Hearn approximately three weeks later for £25. Subsequent owners included Lawler Fenton (1827) and Thomas Ingoldsby (1854). A small half acre parcel was sold to Thomas Archdekin in February 1835 (Chinguacousy Abstract Index volume “A” p. 81). The 1871 census indicates that Archdekin (b. 1816) was a hotel keeper on this land, and the 1859 Tremaine map showed a hotel at the most northerly angle of the lot in the village of Mayfield. The Archdekin household consisted of his wife, Martha (b. 1812) and a 16 year old servant named Henry Connington. He was a native of Ireland, and a member of the Church of England. Archdekin grew potatoes and apples on his land (1871 Census division d-2 p.14 #5). This small parcel passed through the hands of several owners, until it was acquired by Joseph Peter McGurk in April 1903. The balance of the lot remained in the possession of the Ingoldsby family until after I 2-13 7 the turn of the twentieth century. By February 1905, it was in the hands of Thomas and Thaddeus Ingoldsby (Chinguacousy Abstract Index volume “B” p. 140). The 1877 Atlas showed that this corner of the lot contained an inn, as well as a house, barn, and orchards.”
Appendix B presents the abstract index for the property. Land registry records are principally records for the transference, and amounts paid for said transference, of lands.
Structures are indicated on this lot in the area of the inn (not the extant structure of this study) on the 1859 Tremaine map – suggesting early settlement in the area. The same structure, and the extant structure of this study area are indicated on the 1877 Illustrated Historic Atlas map. The 1877 map indicates ownership by Thomas Ingoldsby, and the abstract index suggests that he owned that portion of the property in 1854. It can be assumed that he built the structure sometime between 1854 and 1877. Early settlement structures did not tend to be substantial, so the presence of a field stone house situated near the crossroads of Mayfield is a direct reflection of status and wealth of the early owners.
Instrument No. 55739, is the probate of the last will and testament of George Gray, identified as a yeoman. The instrument number is January 12, 1909, however, the will actually dated August 30th , 1908. Fifty acres of land from Lot 16, Concession 3, EHS, was bequeathed to his son, Joseph Gray, and the remainder was bequeathed equally to the remaining sons and daughters, without specifying amounts, or what the assets actually entailed.
There were no structures indicated on this lot in the 1859 Tremaine map – suggesting the family had a homestead on other lands. However, by 1877, the Illustrated Historic Atlas does depict structures, which suggests that the extant house dates sometime between 1860 and 1877.
Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the study area from the 1859 Tremaine Map and the 1877 Illustrated Historic Atlas.
I 2-14 8
Figure 3 1859 George Tremaine Map of Study Area
I 2-15 9
Figure 4 1877 Illustrated Atlas Map of Study Area
I 2-16 10
3.0 MUNICIPAL CONTACT
Mr. Jim Leonard, City of Brampton, Heritage, was informed of the cultural heritage impact assessment of the property in March 2010. Mr. Leonard provided additional information with respect to the property (see below).
3.1 11098 Dixie Rd – Category B
The heritage portion of the subject property comprises the farmhouse, immediate frontage, tree lines and groupings in the generally vicinity surrounding the farmhouse, along with nearby barn complex and laneways.
The property was identified by a heritage consulting firm, as being of cultural heritage value or interest as part of a 2007-2008 secondary planning heritage study for SP Area 48 (Countryside Villages).
The subject property exhibits cultural heritage value as a cultural heritage landscape. It comprises a vernacular Ontario farmhouse, exhibiting simple Georgian/Loyalist proportions.
This landscape comprises four structures - two barns, a shed and a farmhouse. The house is a 1 and a half storey side gabled structure with a metal clad roof and likely sitting on a fieldstone foundation. The front facade is adorned with an original verandah that is supported by wood posts. Original wood window and door openings appear intact. The exterior is currently clad with synthetic siding.
The barns feature metal clad gable roof lines and vertical plank wood exteriors.
The shed is metal clad and has a metal exterior.
Also of note on the property are the existing front yard setback, groupings of mature trees and other plantings immediately surrounding the farmhouse.
Rare and representative example of a vernacular Ontario farmhouse with Georgian/Loyalist design influences dating to the mid 19th century; barn and shed complex; associated with Brampton's and Chinguacousy settlement history, history of agriculture, trees, setbacks and other property characteristics help define the area.
I 2-17 11
4.0 PROCESS & POLICIES FOR HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA)
4.1 Applicable Heritage Policies
The conservation of cultural heritage properties is governed at the provincial level by the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, with amendments up to 2006 (OHA) (Government of Ontario 2006) and Section 2.6 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology of the Provincial Policy Statement of the Planning Act, 2005 (PPS). The PPS Policy 2.6.3 is a recent policy which incorporated a requirement for an impact assessment on adjacent heritage resources:
“Development and site alteration may be permitted on adjacent lands to protected heritage property 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.”
These two provincial pieces of legislation, the OHA and PPS, have been incorporated into the heritage policies of the City of Brampton. But the PPS regulation does not specifically apply to these properties since they have not been designated under the OHA and hence, by definition, is not a “protected heritage property” under this legislation.
Instead, the applicable municipal legislation governing these properties would be the Brampton Official Plan 1993 which establishes the requirement of an HIA as follows:
4.9.2.10 The City may request the preparation of a heritage impact statement when any conduction, development or property alteration might adversely affect [sic] a listed or designated property or a property adjacent to such a property.
The format and content of the HIA are described in the Ministry of Culture Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (Ontario Ministry of Culture 2006) and also, analogous to the provincial standards, in the City‟s Guidelines for Preparing Heritage Impact Assessment (Leonard 2008). These content requirements are incorporated into the sections below except for some changes to section titles for relevance to the subject properties and project.
4.2 Process for Determining Heritage Value
Each property listed on the City‟s Heritage Inventory is graded by assigning points under a set of heritage attributes which are derived from the provincial Ontario Heritage Act Criteria (Government of Ontario 2006) and, in the case of Brampton, further developed with a specific municipal scoring system, Brampton‟s Criteria of Heritage Value (Leonard 2007). The provincial criteria categories will be used in section 7, titled, “Heritage Inventory & Evaluation of Heritage Elements” to evaluate the heritage significance of the subject properties.
Each property listed on the Town‟s Heritage Register is graded by assigning points under a set of heritage attributes which are derived from the provincial Ontario Heritage Act Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value (Government of Ontario 2006). The provincial criteria I 2-18 12 categories will be used in the subsequent sections of this report to evaluate the heritage significance of the subject properties according to Table 1.
Table 1 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value
OHA O. Reg. 9/06 OHA Criteria for Heritage Value Categories Design or Physical The property has design value or physical value because it: Value Is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or Demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement Historical or The property has historical value or associative value because it Associative Value Is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method Yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artists, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community Contextual Value The property has contextual value because it Is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area Is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or Is a landmark.
I 2-19 13
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF PRINCIPAL BUILDING COMPONENTS
The property was identified by ASI (2008) during the cultural heritage assessment of a larger geographic area. The property was recommended for additional heritage evaluation. The property is presented below (Figure 5) as described by ASI during the field season of 2007 and from the 2008 report (2008:60, 64-65).
None of the interiors of any of the property formed part of the cultural heritage assessment conducted by ASI.
5.1 Surrounding Areas
SJAHCE and AREA Architects conducted a field visit of the exterior and interior of both properties on March 1st, 2010. The study area was bounded to the east by Dixie Road, to the north by Mayfield Road, to the west by Highway 410, and to the south by Countryside Road. A dewatering program was underway along Dixie Road during the field visit. The view to the east remained relatively unchanged by “modern” development, consisting of an old school building, with a date stone of 1872 [now demolished], located at the northeast corner of Dixie and Countryside Roads. In addition, there were two residences (11623 and 11575 Dixie Road) which were considered to date between the 1950s and 1960s. There was also a farm complex located at 1115 Dixie Road, known as Grey Haven Farms.
The view to the south is very disruptive to the original historic view (farmland). It is currently under intense development for a “Master Planned Community” and no longer retains any of its original rural agricultural aspect.
The view to the west includes a moderately rolling hill topography (existing associated farmlands), and Highway 410. A large earth berm sits directly behind (west) of 11098 Dixie Road. The berm and Highway 410 impact the original rural agricultural character of the two properties.
The view to the north includes a very busy Mayfield Road which has been widened from its original two lane configuration, and farmland. This view retains a more historical aspect of farmlands, and a mid-Victorian two storey brick residence. I 2-20 14
Figure 5 11098 Dixie Road (ASI 2008)
I 2-21 15
5.2 11098 Dixie Road - Building Description
Street Address 11098 Dixie Rd., Brampton Building Type: 1 ½ storey wood frame house Historical Use: Residential Current Use: Residential Form / Roof Composition: L-shape plan comprising two rectangular blocks of (i) front (east) wing, original house with gable roof parallel to street; and (ii) rear (west) wing, addition to house with gable roof transverse to street. Construction Date: Between 1859 & 1877 as indicated in historic maps Additions, Alterations: 1 ½ storey rear addition to original house probably dating late nineteenth century; later chimney projecting on north (side) façade; porch structure replacement of front columns with utilitarian unornamented pressure-treated posts. Storeys: 1 ½ storey with roof attic Foundations: Parged field stone masonry Main Structural Materials: wood structural material for exterior walls, floor joists, roof rafters and other framing of interior walls, etc. Cladding: siding of synthetic material, aluminum, non- original Windows: rectangular shape, proportions width-to-height of 1:2; flat headers, wood frames and sills; generally double-hung with 1-over-1 sashes; replacement sashes with unauthentic aluminum vertical sliders Roof Cladding: Metal Photographs: Photographs 1 - 4, general views of the building
I 2-22 16
Photograph 1 Front of 11098 facing west
Photograph 2 11098 facing approximately NNW
I 2-23 17
Photograph 3 11098 facing east
Photograph 4 11098 facing south
I 2-24 18
5.3 Foundations/Basement 5.3.1 Construction The foundations are constructed in two parts in accordance with the phases of the house. The two basement portions are almost separate except of an opening at the south end of the shared wall (which is the rear/west foundation of the front and earlier portion of the house). The rear (west) basement is currently accessed directly from the exterior by means of stairs and an outside door which are contained within concrete retaining walls (Photograph 5). The basement used to have access from an interior stair which is still visible but with the ground floor opening closed up (Photograph 6). This stair also accesses the rear basement so the front basement curiously does not have a separate access which would have been expected to serve the original house before the later addition. Instead, a pre-existing access to the basement is found in a trap door in the floor of the present living room (Photograph 7) which was used to transport produce to the basement for storage. This basement condition (trapdoor) accords with the history of this building being a relocated store, discussed elsewhere in this report. The front (east) foundation has a perimeter fieldstone wall comprised of large boulders and almost fully parged. The foundations carry the ground floor on hewn logs supporting irregularly sized floor boards (Photograph 8). The logs suggest a construction date earlier than the 1859 Tremaine Map not yet showing this house and therefore are also consistent with the relocation of a building constructed earlier in the century. The rear (west) foundation is clearly a later addition exhibiting smaller stones in the perimeter wall without a consistent parged finish (Photograph 9) and framing of the floor above comprising a combination of milled joists, 2x8s, and lathed round members, the latter appearing to be electrical poles (Photograph 10). Throughout the two foundation areas the floor is simply dirt which does not provide any structural bracing to the perimeter walls. Both foundations are of a nineteenth century construction but with a span of time between them. The front log floor structure appears to represent pre-1850 construction although the stone foundations were built after 1859 to receive the relocated building. The rear foundations could be dated later in the century possibly with reinforcement in the early twentieth century.
I 2-25 19
Photograph 5 Exterior Entrance to Basement
Photograph 6 Former Access from Basement to Main Floor
I 2-26 20
Photograph 7 Trapdoor to Main House Basement
Photograph 8 Hewn Logs, Parged Foundation Walls, Interior Basement
I 2-27 21
Photograph 9 Later Addition (Rear West), Foundation, Basement Interior
Photograph 10 Framing of the Floor Above the Basement I 2-28 22
5.3.2 Current Condition The foundations are in poor condition and not feasible for reuse. The headroom is limited with a clear height of approximately 6 ft. (1.8 m) which could not be adapted to a basement without very costly underpinning. Such extensive new footing work should only be contemplated if the existing foundation walls are sufficiently stable to withstand such an intervention. Although the interior face of the stone foundations cannot be visibly assessed because of their parging, the exterior masonry base exhibits severe deterioration with large gaps and missing mortar such that it appears loose-laid (Photograph 11).
Photograph 11 Exterior View of Foundation in Disrepair
I 2-29 23
5.4 Exterior Wall 5.4.1 Construction The exterior wall above the foundations is constructed of wood stud framing and originally wood siding. Although the house perimeter was not fully open at any locations, a rear (west) wall of the original front wing was visible inside above the stair opening to the second floor (Photograph 12). This wall became interior when the rear wing was added around the late nineteenth century and therefore is indicative of the exterior wall construction throughout. This wall opening shows wood studs of approximately 2x6 on a plate of the same depth with interior and exterior wood board sheathing. Gaps in the aluminum cladding at several locations also reveals the wood framing at the sill plate above the stone foundation (Photograph 13) and probably original wood siding (Photograph 14). Photograph 12 Original Front Wing Visible Above Interior Stair
I 2-30 24
Photograph 13 Wood Framing Above Sill Plate Above Foundation
Photograph 14 Original Wood Siding Visible Beneath Cladding
I 2-31 25
5.4.2 Current Condition The exterior walls are in fair to poor condition because they have a tendency to deteriorate from in-wall moisture. The original wood clad walls have been covered with aluminum siding. Besides the diminished heritage integrity of this exterior alteration, this modern cladding tends to further deteriorate an exterior wall. To begin with, the original wood siding was likely already deteriorating which led to this re-cladding. The metal cladding was, however, added on top of the pre-existing wood siding which exacerbated the causes of wood decay. Aluminum siding, by itself, tends to retain moisture within the wall cavity causing rot and mold in the wood and its cladding. 5.5 Windows & Doors 5.5.1 Description Almost all of the original doors and windows have been removed and replaced including, in most cases, their accompanying outside frames and casing trim. The original windows, for the most part, would have been double-hung sashes with some multi-pane division with muntin bars (i.e. 6-over-6, 4-over-4, 2-over-2). In the older front wing of the ground floor, the windows, their frames and casing trim have been wholly replaced (Photograph 15). On the second floor, most of the windows have been replaced with incompatible double-hung aluminum slider-type sashes within the retained opening frames, casings and sills (Photograph 16). Only one window appears to be original in the washroom of the rear addition (Photograph 17) which would be part of the later nineteenth century construction, is a casement type and is neither remarkable nor a unique representative for the non-extant original windows as a group. Photograph 15 Original Front Wing of House – Modified Windows I 2-32 26
Photograph 16 Second Floor Windows
Photograph 17 Only Original Window in Bathroom I 2-33 27
5.5.2 Current Condition The condition of these existing exterior windows and doors is immaterial because they are not original and low quality replacements. It can be noted nevertheless that they all require storm windows and, in the bedrooms, are covered with plastic attesting to the poor thermal resistance of the building envelope. 5.6 Roof and Eaves The roof cladding is corrugated metal and probably a twentieth century replacement of the original roofing. The only distinctive feature of the roof is its return eaves on its side gable ends (Photograph 18). With the addition, the north wall of the house, only has one remaining return eave (Photograph 19). 5.7 Front Verandah The entry porch may have been added on when the front porch of the house, the former store, was relocated to this site. Although quite deteriorated now, this verandah (Photograph 20) was, at one time, a distinctive design feature which incorporated several decorative elements including A hipped roof A dentillated fascia (Photograph 21) Round pilasters incorporating ogee and other molding shapes (Photographs 11 and 13) capped by square capitals with moldings, and Original wood columns at the front no longer extant but presumably matching the existing pilasters.
Photograph 18 Return Eaves I 2-34 28
Photograph 19 North Facing Wall – One Return Eave
Photograph 20 Verandah
I 2-35 29
Photograph 21 Dentillated Fascia
The verandah, with only vestiges remaining, suggests an Italianate style which is incompatible with, and clearly a later addition, to the vernacular main structure. This porch is considerably compromised by its deterioration and also the loss of several of its original elements as follows: I 2-36 30
The turned decorative columns at the front would have matched the extant pilasters (Photographs 11 and 13) but have been replaced with utilitarian unornamented pressure- treated posts (Photographs 20 and 21). The porch floor deck (Photograph 13) is missing exposing the dirt base. The steps up to the deck and a balustrade for these steps and, if it existed, around the entire deck are also nonexistent. This porch represents a distinctive architectural element on the house exterior and, therefore, the loss of its integrity diminishes the heritage value of the building as a whole. 5.8 Interior Doors and Wood Trim Although the original exterior doors and their casing trim have been removed and replaced, the rear wing of the house contains interior doors and other trim presumably dating from the construction of this addition. Pairs of door openings are symmetrically located on three of the walls of the ground floor rear kitchen wing (Photographs 22 and 23). The north wall openings contain five-panel doors (Photograph 23) which appear to be original dating from the late nineteenth century. The door frame is fluted and intersects at the top corners in squares incised with rondels. This kitchen also incorporates other wood trim, with a matching stain finish, in wainscoting crown moulding, a ceiling of tongue-in-groove siding and decorative brackets at the ceiling corners (Photograph 23). This interior wood trim is notable but the rear wing, being a later addition, is not as significant to the property history.
Photograph 22 Doors in Rear Kitchen Wing
Photograph 23 North Facing Interior Wall/Doors
I 2-37 31
5.9 Outbuildings 5.9.1 Description Immediately to the rear of the residence is a rough framed building of plywood and scrap material (Photograph 24). This is not considered to have any cultural significance to the original building. The large earth berm is seen in the left corner of Photograph 24.
Photograph 24 Rough Framed Shed
At the rear of the residence, near the north side of the house, is another rough shed (Photograph 25). Also visible in the photograph is the in ground pool.
Photograph 25 I 2-38 32
Shed at Rear of the House
There is a small metal clad garage located at the end of the driveway that sits southwest of the residence. Photograph 26 illustrates the garage.
Photograph 26 Garage to Southwest of House
There are three additional outbuildings associated with the property that are located to the northwest of the main residence (Photograph 27). These are accessed through a gravel drive from Dixie Road. The buildings (from south to north) consist of a garage for storage of oversize vehicles/farm equipment and is a relatively modern construction (Photograph 28); a building which serves as storage with four large “garage style doors” (Photograph 29); and the most I 2-39 33 northern building is a wood frame construction barn with concrete block foundation (Photograph 30). The two most southerly buildings are constructed with sheet metal and metal roofs.
Photograph 27 Outbuilding Complex
Photograph 28 Garage at Southern End of Outbuildings
Photograph 29 Outbuilding Adjacent to Garage I 2-40 34
Photograph 30 Barn
None of the outbuildings are considered to exhibit heritage value.
5.10 Additional Observations
I 2-41 35
The original side entranceway to the addition of the house has been sealed over and converted to a pantry room. Flooring on the main floor of the original house appears to be original thin wood strips.
The house is heated with oil (oil tank on north facing wall, Photograph 5). Tenants informed us that the electrical used to be Nob and tube wiring (common usage between 1880 and 1930), but it has all been updated.
In a conversation with current owner Tim Gray, (March 2010), he indicated that he was told by this father that the “house” used to be a store and was moved to the area. In further conversation with his father, Sam Gray (March 2010), the senior Mr. Gray was able to confirm that he was told this also by his father, George Gray. The store was supposed to have been moved to its current location in 1900 and the addition built on to it shortly thereafter. The trapdoor in the current living room was apparently used to transport produce to the basement for storage. This trapdoor used to be open all the time, and Mr. Sam Gray reported his falling through it when he was two years of age. None of this information regarding the former use of the structure or its being moved, can be verified by the Grays. The current tenant informed SJAHCE that the basement filled with between two to four inches of water every year, and that 2010 was the first year this did not happen. There is currently a dewatering program being conducted along Dixie Road, which would explain the absence of water this year. An archaeological assessment of the front and side yards conducted this year by This Land Archaeology located the foundations of the original structure on the north side of the extant house.
6.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES
I 2-42 36
Cultural heritage landscape is defined as
… a defined geographical area of heritage significance which has been modified by human activities and is valued by a community. It involves a grouping(s) of individual heritage features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites and natural elements, which together form a significant type of heritage form, distinctive from that of its constituent elements or parts.
From the document, Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments (1983), cultural landscapes are defined as
The use and physical appearance of the land as we see it now as a result of man‟s activities over time in modifying pristine landscape for his own purposes. A cultural landscape is perceived as a collection of individual man-made features into a whole. Urban cultural landscapes are sometimes given special names such as townscapes or streetscapes that describe various scales of perception from the general scene to the particular view.
A cultural feature is defined as
…an individual part of a cultural landscape that may be focused upon as part of a broader scene, or viewed independently. The term refers to any man-made or modified object or on the land….such as buildings of various types, street furniture, engineering works, plantings and landscaping, archaeological sites, or a collection of such objects seen as a group because of close physical or social relationships.
6.1 Land Uses and Activities
The township survey was completed in 1819. The Peel Plain physiographic region provided soils suitable for agricultural use, and its relatively flat topography also made it an ideal location for farming pursuits. Wheat farming was the prominent crop and prices for wheat rose to remarkable prices, and peaked in 1854-55 when crops in Europe failed and the Crimean War cut off supply to Russian wheat. This brought wealth to the farmers of the area.
The Reciprocity Treaty with the United States of America in (1854-1865), and the construction of the railway, encouraged farmers to diversify farming pursuits. Outbuildings now were built to accommodate more than just wheat, but also livestock. During 1854-1865 there was a growth in barn building to reflect the change in farming.
6.2 Spatial Organization
Samuel Rykman completed the survey of Chinguacousy Township in 1819. He used the double- front system where the concessions tend to run north-south and every five lots provides a road allowance for a side road. The common unit is the half-lot of 100 acres, where the entire lot is 200 acres.
Tremaine‟s 1859 map clearly demonstrates the configuration of roadways, and the lot is divided into north and south parcels. I 2-43 37
The study area is bounded to the north by Mayfield Road, to the west by Highway 410, to the south by Countryside Drive, and to the east by Dixie Road.
Access to farmsteads was typically off of one of the original concession or sideroads via a dirt or gravel lane. Outbuildings were further accessed by a rougher system, usually a cart trail.
6.3 Vegetation Related to Land Use
The property at 11098 Dixie Road had an orchard in the late 19 th century (1877 Historical Atlas of Peel County), but does not exhibit any evidence of this former orchard. Windrows sheltering the farm lanes are also no longer in evidence, although there is one mature tree still extant near Dixie Road at the location of 11098 Dixie Road.
Agricultural fields are present north of Mayfield Road and east of Dixie Road.
Agricultural fields are still extant west and north of 11098 Dixie Road, although the fields to the west are obscured by a large earth berm. The area to the south has been left to regenerate and is not being actively farmed.
There are stream crossings located in the agricultural fields to the south and west of the property.
6.4 Landscape of 11098 Dixie Road
The landscape around the house is depicted in Figure 6 from a satellite image obtained from Google Earth (2010) on August 31, 2009. Because of the seasonal conditions, this imagery was used in conjunction with the site visit to identify landscape for the property. In addition, the ASI (2008) photographs of the property (Figure 5 in this report) were used to assist in the assessment of landscape. Information provided by Jim Leonard, City of Brampton, also describes the landscape, “…existing front yard setback, groupings of mature trees and other plantings immediately surrounding the farmhouse.” Access to the residence is from Dixie Road along a small paved driveway which has a loop turnaround. A metal clad detached garage sits at the end of the driveway. The driveway includes small “dirt covered” parking areas off the main driveway to accommodate overflow parking. There is a post and wire fence which runs east-west that separates the residence from the main outbuildings. In front of the verandah are seven bushes which when in season hide the verandah (refer to Figure 6). There are numerous deciduous and coniferous trees that also appear around the residence, but none are considered “mature” to the original residence. Along the north side of the house are numerous mature lilac trees, and a large apple tree is located at the southeast corner of the residence. In the rear of the building is a large coniferous tree. To the rear of the building, there is an in ground pool, and silt fencing immediately on the other side of the pool/backyard area. At the roadside, adjacent to the driveway (north side) is a mature tree. There is a small raised flower bed located at the rear side of the house addition near the south door (refer to Photograph 16 and 22). I 2-44 38
Access to the outbuildings is also from Dixie Road, but with its own designated access (hard packed driveway). There is no special landscaping around these outbuildings. A large earthen berm is located behind the house (west) which separates the house from adjacent agricultlural fields. The 2010 archaeological excavation of the front and side yards of 11098 Dixie Road removed immature trees and all of the vegetation along the front verandah. The historic landscape reflected a rural agricultural theme. The property landscape has been altered by construction (berm, modern additions such as the garage and in ground pool, and removal of plantings, trees and lawn) and recent archaeological excavations. The latter excavation area has been refilled and reseeded.
Figure 6 Satellite Image of 11098 Dixie Road
7.0 HERITAGE INVENTORY & EVALUATION OF HERITAGE IMPACTS I 2-45 39
7.1 Heritage Register – 11098 Dixie Road The subject property is included on the Brampton Register of Cultural Heritage Resources, also known as the “Heritage Inventory” (Leonard 2010). In the Heritage Inventory, the property is evaluated as Class „B‟. This category is described as being “significant, worthy of preservation, [and its] municipal designation under the Ontario Heritage Act will always be considered”. The property‟s inclusion on the Brampton Heritage Inventory, also called “listing”, is an administrative tool to monitor heritage resources but, in itself, does not have legal status under the OHA. A “listed” property would have to be historically designated under Subsection 27 of the OHA through passing a municipal by-law in order to be legally protected under the legislation. Properties are removed from the Heritage Inventory if they are designated and would instead be included in the City‟s Heritage Designation Register. So the inventory itself comprises “listed” properties only and it recognizes that a property‟s category or heritage value can determine its “designatability”. The City‟s website “Heritage FAQs‟ page explains that “a heritage „listing‟ is an informal tool used to identify properties of cultural heritage value [whereas] a heritage designation provides formal recognition of heritage value through the passing of a municipal by-law.” Under the OHA clause 27.(4).(b), notice of designation requires “a statement explaining the cultural heritage value or interest of the property and a description of the heritage attributes of the property”. Listing does not necessitate the same level of documentation, however, some research is encouraged according to the Ontario Ministry of Culture‟s [now Ministry of Tourism and Culture] “InfoSheet: Listing Cultural Heritage Properties on the Municipal Register”: “Although detailed research and evaluation of the property is not required, a brief rationale should be provided explaining why it may be important to the community.” To properly consider a listed property, the aforementioned “brief rationale” should be prepared to establish the heritage significance of the resource to the community. The evaluation of the current house (11098 Dixie Road) appears to have been based primarily upon a visual evaluation only. This is not uncommon due to the limited resources of municipal staff, volunteer heritage committees or consultants preparing area surveys all of which can be sources for recommending inventory listings. In this case, Mr. Jim Leonard, the City Heritage Coordinator, has indicated in correspondence that “the property was identified by a heritage consulting firm, as being of cultural heritage value or interest as part of a 2007-2008 secondary planning heritage study for SP Area 48 (Countryside Villages).” The aforementioned study would have been the ASI (2008) report which is limited by the large study area of approximately 650 hectares. The research and visual review of the area properties were understandably broad in scope as the report methodology is described: Building interiors were not subject to survey. Historical research was also conducted for the purposes of identifying broad agents or themes of historical change in the area. The property summary of each identified heritage resource was documented in a one page inventory sheet only. This HIA report provides a more in-depth assessment of the properties with focused historical research and documentation about the lands and buildings. The assessment of the subject buildings represents the first site specific stage in reviewing its heritage significance. It is recommended that the City Heritage Coordinator and the BHB re evaluate this listed property based upon the new information in this report. The evaluation methodology to grade the listed buildings should be based on the over-riding set of provincial I 2-46 40 criteria established in Ontario Regulation 9/06 under the Ontario Heritage Act (Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value) passed in January 2006 (OHA O.Reg 9/06)(Government of Ontario 2006). In the Ministry of Culture‟s Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Property Evaluation, Section 4: Municipal Criteria, Ontario Regulation 9/06 advises that “existing evaluation models may have to be revised to take into account the mandatory criteria set out in the regulation (Ministry of Culture 2006). The “Background Information” prefacing the City‟s inventory (Leonard 2007) acknowledges that the properties do have some variability: “Listed properties may be subject to periodic re evaluation and re-grading by the Heritage Coordinator, as additional information is uncovered or as properties undergo restoration or alteration.” For this particular property, its inventory rating does bring into question whether it has sufficient heritage value to warrant designation. So the thorough review of each criterion in this report will serve as a re-evaluation of the heritage significance of this property.
7.2 Heritage Evaluation of Building – 11098 Dixie Road The site specific research and more detailed review of the building conditions, including interiors, and outbuildings, allows for a more accurate heritage assessment. Using the provincial criteria categories under the OHA to evaluate the heritage significance of the subject house, the following are applicable:
Criteria Question Yes/No Determination of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Design Value or Is the property a rare, unique, representative or early NO Physical Value ` example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method? Does the property display a high degree of craftsmanship NO or artistic merit? Does the property demonstrate a high degree of NO technical or scientific achievement? Historical Value or Does the property have direct associations with a theme, NO Associates Value event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community? Does the property yield, or have the potential to yield, NO information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture? Does the property demonstrate or reflect the work or NO ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community? Contextual Value Is the property important in defining, maintaining or NO I 2-47 41
Criteria Question Yes/No Determination of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest supporting the character of an area? Is the property physically, functionally, visually or NO historically linked to its surroundings? Is the property a landmark? NO
Design Value: The original house of the front wing is not rare or particularly representative of a residential type. In fact, the house structure being a relocated store entails that it cannot, by its origins, incorporate any high level of style, craft or construction technique which might be an expression of nineteenth-century domestic architecture. Although correspondence from the City Heritage Coordinator (Leonard 2007) suggests its style as having “Georgian/Loyalist design influences”, this house must be regarded as a vernacular construction which is how it is described in the ASI (2008) report. The same accounting holds for the outbuildings. There is no remarkable degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit nor is there a high degree of technical or scientific merit. Historical Value: No notable themes, community or architectural significance are associated with this house or outbuildings. Among the previous farm owners is the locally known Gray family which is associated with the history of this area of rural Brampton. The theme for the property historically was rural agricultural. Due to modifications of the cultural landscape, the theme value has diminished. These previous farm owners are known locally and without any broader historical importance on the provincial or national levels which would register significance in this category. The property is not considered rare, unique, representative or an early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. Contextual Value: This house and associated outbuildings do not have a great potential to add appreciably to this historical character of the area. The property does not significantly define, maintain or support the character of the area. It does not physically, functionally, visually or historically link to its surroundings nor is it considered a landmark.
The subject farm has a „B‟ category but no score in the City‟s inventory because the ASI Secondary Plan Heritage Study (2008) did not evaluate it with a numeric grade. The Class „B‟ category, the subject property‟s grading, is the second of the three inventory classifications and has a grading range from 40 to 69 points. A property in this inventory category “exhibit[s] a reasonably high level of preservation, physical integrity or completeness [and] hold[s] citywide importance The poor conditions of the house have implications for its heritage value and preservation. The deterioration within walls and floor cavities occurs in building areas which are internal, unexposed and inaccessible for repair and restoration. The process of restoring the damaged I 2-48 42 structure would be so extensive that the historic elements would lose their integrity – such as reconstructing whole portions of walls. Provincial guidelines for “Heritage Property Evaluation” in the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (Ministry of Culture 2006) recognize this resolvability of severely deteriorated structures: “The ability of the structure to exist for the long term, and determining at what point repair and reconstruction erode the integrity of the heritage attributes, must be weighed against the cultural heritage value or interest held by the property.” A re evaluation of this property is recommended for the City inventory. I 2-49 43
8.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS The property occupies land that will form part of a “business subdivision” (Figure 7) known as the Employment Lands. This subdivision will house large warehouse types of business.
Figure 7 Draft Plan of Subdivision
11098 Dixie Road is illustrated (Figure 8) with its footprint plans from details of the above figure.
I 2-50 44
Figure 8 11098 Dixie Road Building Footprint
8.1 Assessment of Potential Impacts
The proposed “Employment Block” is meant to incorporate large warehouse scale buildings/businesses. As a result of this proposal, there will be grading of the landscape, servicing, and road widening, in addition to general construction, operation and maintenance impacts. These impacts will be significant and large scale.
The main heritage structure on the property is the main house. The outbuildings at 11098 Dixie Road do not hold any unique heritage value to the original rural agricultural landscape and the specific property landscape has been subject to extreme modification. The main structure 11098 Dixie Road is in poor condition, and not original to the property.
The current impacts have already affected the property with the dewatering program at Dixie Road. I 2-51 45
9.0 MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Ideally, the development of the property should be designed to avoid impacts to the heritage property. The property is in poor condition and does not meet any of the critieria OHA O. Reg. 9/06. The outbuildings lack any heritage value.
The following recommended options for the property have been identified as well as a brief discussion of pros and cons for each option.
1. Retain all buildings in situ and integrate them within the proposed development. PRO – Former buildings from the historic period remain in the community. CON- 11098 Dixie Road is not representative of any particular style, person, is not from this original location, and does not contribute in a significant way to the former community of the area. 2. Commemorate the location of 11098 Dixie Road with a plaque and a description of its importance in early adaptive reuse (house located to this location and used as a store/residence, and then residence). PRO – A plaque marking this reuse of a store into a house would contribute to the significance and recognition of the enterprise of settlers in the area. CON – The house is not original to this location. A plaque must also be accessible to readers, and not just a stand alone sign.
3. Commemorate the early settlers of both of the property through use of the family names for street names. PRO – Recognition of the families/early settlers of this area by naming streets after them, would assist in commemorating their value and contributions to the community. CON – Most people do not know why a street was named in a special way, and the commemorative value will only be known to a few. I 2-52 46
10.0 REFERENCES CITED AND CONSULTED
Archaeological Services Inc. 2008 Cultural Heritage Study: City of Brampton Secondary Plan Area 48 (Countryside Villages), Lots 16 and 17, Concessions 3 to 6 EHS, Former Township of Chinguacousy, County of Peel, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel. On file with Archaeological Services Inc.
Armstrong, Frederick H. 1985 Handbook of Upper Canadian Chronology. Dun urn Press, Toronto.
Department of the Environment and Heritage 2004 Adaptive Reuse: Preserving Our Past, Building Our Future. Commonwealth of Australia.
Federal Heritage Building Review Office 2006 FHBRO Evaluation Criteria. www.pc.gc.ca/progs/beefp-fhbro/item1-/criteres criteria_E.asp
Gagan, David 1981 Hopeful Travelers: Families, Land, and Social Change in Mid-Victorian Peel County, Canada West. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Government of Ontario n.d. Conserving a Future for Our Past: Archaeology, Land-Use Planning & Development in Ontario. An Educational Primer and Comprehensive Guide for Non- Specialists. Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, Cultural Programs Branch, Archaeology & Heritage Planning Unit.
1990 The Heritage Act R.S.O. 1990. Ontario Regulation 9/06, made under the Ontario Heritage Act. Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Queen's Printer, Toronto.
2005 Mandatory Standards and Guidelines for Provincial Heritage Properties, under Part III, 1 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
2006 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Ontario Heritage Act, O. Reg. 9/06, January 24, 2006.
Klanten, Robert and Lukas Feireiss (editors) 2009 Build-On: Converted Architecture and Transformed Buildings. Gestatlen, Berlin.
Kyles, Shannon I 2-53 47
2002 Ontario Architecture Website. Mohawk College, Hamilton-Halton Construction Association. http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/index.html/
Leonard, Jim 2007 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Brampton Heritage Board, Heritage Coordinator, Brampton Urban Design and Public Buildings Section.
2008 Draft: Guidelines for Preparing Heritage Impact Assessment, City of Brampton.
2010 Brampton Register of Cultural Heritage Resources. Brampton Heritage Board, Heritage Coordinator, Brampton Urban Design and Public Buildings Section, last updated January 2010.
Lowenthal, David 1985 The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
1998 The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
MacKinnon, Keith 2010 Email to J. Bottoni from K MacKinnon, KLM Planning.
McEvoy, H. 1869 The Province of Ontario Gazetteer and Directory, Containing Concise Descriptions of Cities, Towns and Villages in the Province. Robertson & Cook, Toronto.
McIlwraith, Thomas F. 1999 Looking for Old Ontario. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Meinig, D.W. (editor) 1979 The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essays. Oxford University Press, NewYork.
Mika, Nick and Helma Mika 1977 Places in Ontario. Their Name Origins and History, Part 1, A – E. Mika Publishing Company, Belleville.
Mikal, Robert 2004 Ontario House Styles: The Distinctive Architecture of the Province’s 18 th and 19 th Century Homes. James Lorimer and Company Ltd., Toronto.
Ministry of Culture 2002 Architectural Conservation Notes No. 6, “Heritage Conservation Principles for Landuse Planning. Modified August 2, 2002.
I 2-54 48
2006 Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Property Evaluation – A Guide to Listing, Researching and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario Communities. Queen‟s Printer for Ontario.
Ministry of Natural Resources 2006 A Technical Guideline for Cultural Heritage Resources for Projects Planned under the Class Environmental Assessment for MNR Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Project and the Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves. On file with the Ministry of Natural Resources and on line.
No author n.d. People of Ontario, 1600 – 1900. Alphabetized Dictionary of the People, Places and Vital Dates. Noel Montgomery Elliot (ed.), The Genealogical Research Library, London, England.
Parks Canada 2003 Canada’s Historic Places. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Parks Canada.
2006 Canadian Register of Historic Places: Writing Statements of Significance. Historic Places Program Branch, National Historic Sites Directorate, Winnipeg.
Pope, J.H. 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Peel, Ontario. Walker & Miles, Toronto.
Rabun, J. Stanley and Richard Kelso 2009 Building Evaluation for Adaptive Reuse and Preservation. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey.
Rayburn, Alan 1997 Place Names in Ontario. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Smith, W.H. 1846 Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer, Comprising Statistical Analysis and General Information Respecting All Parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West. H & W Rowsell, Toronto.
1851 Canada: Past, Present and Future, Being a Historical, Geographical, Geological and Statistical Account of Canada West, Volume 1. Thomas Maclear, Toronto. Tremaine, G. 1859 Tremaine’s Map of the County of Peel, Canada West. Compiled and Drawn from Actual Surveys. Lithographed by J. Ellis for G.R. and G.M. Tremaine, Toronto (Archives of Ontario, negative Photostat A-19, sheets 6/16 and 10/16). Walton, George 1837 The City of Toronto and the Home District Commercial Directory and Register with Almanack and Calendar for 1837. T. Dalton and W.J. Coates, Toronto. I 2-55 49
[-----] 1891 Canada: Indian Treaties and Surrenders from 1680 to 1890, Volume 1. Brown Chamberlain, Queen‟s Printer, Ottawa. Appendix A Definition of Key Terms From Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada 2003:2).
Character-defining elements: the materials, forms, location, spatial configurations, uses and cultural associations or meanings that contribute to the heritage value of a historic place, which must be retained in order to preserve its heritage value.
Conservation: all actions or processes that are aimed at safeguarding the character-defining elements of a cultural resource so as to retain its heritage value and extend its physical life. This may involve “Preservation,” “Rehabilitation,” “Restoration,” or a combination of these actions or processes.
Fascia: term used to describe the horizontal board which caps the end of rafters outside a building.
Guidelines: statements that provide practical guidance in applying the Standards for the Conservation of Historic Places. They are presented herein as recommended and non- recommended actions.
Heritage value: the aesthetic, historic, scientific, cultural, social or spiritual importance or significance for past, present or future generations. The heritage value of a historic place is embodied in its character-defining materials, forms, location, spatial configurations, uses and cultural associations or meaning.
Historic place: a structure, building, group of buildings, district, landscape, archaeological site or other place in Canada that has been formally recognized for its heritage value.
Intervention: any action, other than demolition or destruction, that results in a physical change to an element of a historic place.
Maintenance: routine, cyclical, non-destructive actions necessary to slow the deterioration of a historic place. It entails periodic inspection; routine, cyclical, non-destructive cleaning; minor repair and refinishing operations; replacement of damaged or deteriorated materials that are impractical to save.
Minimal Intervention: the approach which allows functional goals to be met with the least physical intervention.
Muntin Bar: a strip of wood or metal separating or holding panes of glass in a window.
I 2-56 50
Parging: Parging is the application of a thin coat of a sticky cement over the wall surface.
Standards: Norms for the respectful conservation of historical places. I 2-57 51
Appendix B - Land Registry Records for 11098 Dixie Road Lot 16, E ½, 3 rd Concession East
No. of Instrument Date of Grantor Grantee Comments Instrument Registration Patent September The Crown Samuel 100 acres 21 1844 Gray 4437 B & S April 12 1845 Samuel Gray et ux George G. s ½ of E ½, 50 acres Gray £5 4438 B & S April 21 1845 Samuel Gray et ux William n ½ of E ½, 50 acres Gray £5 142 Grant January 2 George Gray School part £7 10/ 1854 Trustees 6451 M April 16 1859 William Gray Isaac M. North ½ of E ½ £100 Chaffee 6452 M April 16 1859 George G. Gray et ux Isaac M. S 1/2 of E ½ Chaffee 2021 DM February 13 Isaac M. Chaffee William N ½ of East 1/2 1864 Gray 2284 M April 11, William Gray Isaac M. N ½ of E ½, £100 1864 Chaffee 3928 DM December 8 Isaac M. Chaffee George G. S ½ of E ½ 1865 Gray 739 DM December 13 Isaac McG. Chafee William N ½ of E ½ 50 acres, 1870 Gray 12284 1480 Will March 11 Thaddeus Ingoldsby Peter E ½ 50 acres, and 1873 Ingoldsby et other lands al 1557 M May 29 1873 George Gray et ux James S ½ 50 acres, 500 Robinson 2681 M March 1 1877 William Gray et ux Robert Kerr N ½ of E ½ 50 acres, 700 6625 DM March 5 1891 Robert Kerr William N ½ of E ½ 50 acres Gray 7974 M July 9 1896 George Gray (a Hannah S ½ of E ½ 50 acres, widower), and Robinson 530, not registered Joseph Gray in full 7978 DM July 9 1896 John J. Manning et George S ½ of E ½ 50 acres al executors Gray 8190 Will April 5 1897 William Gray William N ½ of E ½ 50 acres, John Gray subject to certain changes, and other land 8366 Release March 23 Prudence William N ½ of E ½ 50 acres, 1898 Cummington John Gray $1 I 2-58 52
9449 B & S March 4 1903 William John Gray et William N ½ of E ½ 50 acres, ux John 3300 Sanderson 9448 M March 4 1903 William J. Sanderson Lavina N ½ of E ½ 50 acres, et ux Hunter 2300 10535 DM February 21 Hannah Vollmer, Joseph Gray S ½ of E ½ 50 acres 1908 formerly Hannah Robinson 10701 Prob. Will January 12 George Gray Joseph Gray S ½ of E ½ 50 acres, 1909 subject to any mortgage encumbrance 10722 B & S February 12 William Gray & Joseph Gray S ½ of E ½ 50 acres, 1909 George G. Gray, $1 executors of George Gray, deceased
I 2-59 53
Appendix C – Curriculum Vitaes of Key Personnel
SCARLETT E. JANUSAS 269 Cameron Lake Road, Tobermory, Ontario N0H 2R0 Phone and fax 519-596-8243 cell 519-374-1119 [email protected]
EDUCATION B.A., Anthropology/Archaeology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario M.A., Anthropology/Archaeology, Trent University, Peterborough National Museum of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario Basic Museum Management Certificate University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario Courses towards a Certificate in Environmental Assessment
AFFILIATIONS ONTARIO MARINE HERITAGE COMMITTEE ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY SOCIETY FOR HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGISTS (V.P. 2005-2009)(PRES. 2010 2012) COUNCIL FOR NORTHEASTERN HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGY CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF HERITAGE PROFESSIONALS (CAPH)
Experience: 2002 to date SCARLETT JANUSAS ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HERITAGE CONSULTING AND EDUCATION Ontario President – Responsible for conducting cultural impact assessment and site mitigation and development of cultural resource management plans for clients in Ontario as part of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Planning Act, the Aggregates Act and as part of environmental impact assessment both on land and underwater. Compliance with the Ministry of Labour Regulations for work conducted underwater. Responsible for day to day management of above mentioned firm. Responsible for varied crew sizes, ranging from 1 to 16 persons depending on project needs. Experience includes writing proposals and schedules, administration, co-ordination of projects and crew, data collection and analysis, photography, graphics, report writing and preparation, invoicing, payroll, accounting, and compliance mitigation. 2009,2010 THIS LAND ARCHAEOLOGY Field Director/Associate – Stage 2, 3 and 4 projects in Greater Toronto area, Richmond Hill, Aurora, Bond Head, Brampton, Brantford, Innisfil, Bradford, Vaughan, Oshawa. I 2-60 54
1995 to 2002 MAYER HERITAGE CONSULTANTS - London, Ontario Consulting Archaeologist – Responsible for conducting cultural impact assessment and site mitigation and development of cultural resource management plans for clients in Ontario as part of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Planning Act, and as part of environmental impact assessment both on land and underwater. Responsible for varied crew sizes, ranging from 1 to 16 persons, depending on project needs. Responsibilities include writing proposals, schedules, co-ordination of projects and crew, data collection and analysis, photography, graphics, and report writing and preparation. 1993 to 1995 GOLDER ASSOCIATES LIMITED - Mississauga, Ontario Senior Archaeologist – Responsible for eastern Canada, development of an archaeology section, preparation of proposals, field and laboratory work, preparation of reports, marketing and budgeting. Associate in environmental assessment projects. 1993 to 2002 ONTARIO MARINE HERITAGE COMMITTEE - Tobermory, Ontario Co-Principal in the Submerged Prehistoric Shoreline Study in Georgian Bay in cooperation with the Ontario Marine Heritage Committee, Parks Canada, Fathom Five National Marine Park and the Geological Survey of Canada. The study focused on the geological history of previously exposed watercourses and the archaeological potential of the former exposed areas for archaeological sites dating to the Paleo and Archaic periods of southwestern Ontario. The technical portion of the project includes the use of side scan sonar, GPS, depth sounders, navy submersibles, remote videos, SCUBA, and computers. 1991 to 2001 ONTARIO MARINE HERITAGE COMMITTEE - Tobermory, Ontario Chairperson – Responsibilities include scheduling, organization of workshops and meetings, administrative duties, chairing meetings and providing archaeological input into proposed and active projects. 1986 to 1993 REGIONAL MUNCIPALITY OF WATERLOO - Waterloo, Ontario Regional Archaeologist – Responsibilities included 1) the provision of expert advice on archaeological matters to municipalities, developers, planning, engineering and archaeological consultants regarding archaeological potential of the Region, and Planning and Development policy pertaining to heritage resource management; 2) undertaking research and special studies to support Regional decisions on archaeologically related matters; 3) acted as an archaeological consultant for the Region; 4) acted as the liaison between the Province of Ontario and the Municipality; 5) developed policy for the effective management of archaeological resources; 6) acted as an information source for private, business and public sectors on matters of archaeology; 7) initiated and conducted special projects a) the creation of a permanent Archaeology Division for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo b) researched, developed and published the first Archaeological Master Plan in the Province of Ontario c) invited participant for the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office Environmental Assessment and Heritage National Workshop, Ottawa; d) staff liaison for the Regional Official Policies Plan Heritage Advisory Committee (1991-1993); e) acquired the loan of the prehistoric and historic Lisso collection and conducted analysis of the collection f) organized and supervised the collection and analysis of urban historic archaeological potential data for urban centers in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo g) member of the Regional Official Polices Plan Management Team h) Regional courses in field archaeology i) volunteer program j) designation of an Aboriginal cemetery for remains located during development and k) field school at the Waterloo County Jail for primary grade students. 1984 to 1997 SCARLETT JANUSAS AND ASSOCIATES INC. - Tobermory, Ontario President of Archaeological Consulting Firm– Created firm in response to development pressures on archaeological resources. Services provided by the firm included background research studies, archaeological resource assessments, cultural impact studies, interpretative design projects, resource evaluation and interpretation models, extant artifact collection documentation, analysis and interpretation, I 2-61 55 archaeological excavation and monitoring, cultural resource management, historic research to locate environmental hazards, historic interpretation of properties (genealogy of historic properties). Scarlett Janusas and Associates Inc. was a Canadian heritage and archaeological consulting firm specializing in archaeological resource assessment, cultural impact studies, cultural resource management and interpretative studies for land and underwater heritage resources. 1992 to 1995 MAYER HERITAGE CONSULTANTS INC. - London, Ontario Marine Heritage Associate – Responsibilities included management of all marine heritage projects. 1990 ONTARIO MARINE HERITAGE COMMITTEE - Penetanguishene, Ontario Co-principal for the archaeological documentation of the HMS NEWASH.
1990 ONTARIO HERITAGE FOUNDATION - New Dundee, Ontario Principal Conservator – Responsible for the restoration of ceramic class from Inge Va, Perth County, Ontario. 1989 CANADIAN PARKS SERVICE - Tobermory, Ontario Volunteer – Mapping of the shipwreck the MINCH in Fathom Five National Marine Park. 1988 SCARLETT JANUSAS AND ASSOCIATES INC. - Christian Islands, Ontario Principal Investigator – Responsible for the underwater survey of Ste. Marie II, Christian Island and for research for the marine history of the Christian Islands for the Christian Island Archaeological Master Plan. 1987 MAYER, PIHL, POULTON AND ASSOCIATES - Hamilton, Ontario Principal Investigator – Responsible for conducting the TransCanada Kirkwell Pipeline Survey. 1987 SCARLETT JANUSAS AND ASSOCIATES INC. - Toronto, Ontario Principal Investigator – Responsible for the preliminary investigations of a scuttled ship located in the excavation of the Dome Stadium. 1986 MAYER, PIHL, POULTON AND ASSOCIATES - Ontario a) Field Assistant – Responsible for the Union Gas pipeline heritage assessment in Ancaster/Hamilton area, housing development. b) Field Assistant – excavation of the Pengelly site near Mississauga, a Middle Woodland village. c) Field Assistant – several housing subdivision heritage resource assessments in the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo. 1986 EMPRESS OF IRELAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY - Remouski, Quebec Archaeological Consultant – Providing archaeological advice to the Society. 1986 ONTARIO MARINE HERITAGE COMMITTEE - Port Stanley, Ontario Archaeological Assistant – Responsible for the preliminary mapping and excavation of an unidentified mid-19th century ship located in Lake Erie at a depth of 70‟. 1986 SCARLETT JANUSAS AND ASSOCIATES - Penetanguishene, Ontario Principal – Responsible for investigation of a proposed dock area at Historic Naval and Military Establishments. Underwater archaeological survey. 1985 TORONTO HISTORICAL BOARD - Toronto, Ontario Senior Archaeologist – Developed a study report recommending a City Archaeology Policy and implementation guidelines. Two excavations were also conducted at the MacKenzie House and St. James Cathedral. Impact assessment of Toronto Island historic midden. 1984-1987 MAYER, PIHL, POULTON AND ASSOCIATES - Ontario Consulting Archaeologist – Conducting impact assessments and site mitigation on such projects as Union Gas Pipeline impact assessment in Ancaster/Hamilton area, subdivision in Niagara Region, I 2-62 56 excavation of the Pengelly site near Mississauga, subdivision assessment in Kitchener, excavation of 19th century mill (Elmdale Mill) in Ajax, and archaeological assessment along Moira River, Belleville. 1984 CANADIAN PARKS SERVICE - Ontario a) Archaeologist– Responsible for conducting an archaeological resource evaluation of Point Pelee National Park and the development of the Point Pelee National Park Cultural Resource Management Plan. Also conducted two field campaigns to Central Grenedier Island in St. Lawrence Islands National Park. Acted as co-leader in the presentation of a special seminar at Point Pelee National Park to inform staff of progress of the Archaeological Resource Management Plan and to aid in establishing and interpretation exhibition of the prehistory of man at the Park. b) Marine Archaeologist (GT-2), Marine Heritage Unit – Red Bay project, Labrador. Responsible for the excavation of a 16th century Spanish Basque whaling ship locating in approximately 40‟ of water including mapping and recording. Experience with airlifts, dry suits and hot water suits. 1983 FATHOM FIVE PROVINCIAL PARK - Tobermory, Ontario Docent – Aided visiting divers in orientation to the Park, its rules and regulations, and provided information of shipwrecks of the area. 1983 to 1986 ONTARIO UNDERWATER COUNCIL - Toronto, Ontario Vice-President of Marine Conservation – Responsible for providing initiative for the certifying agencies to include an underwater archaeological component in their teaching programs. Developed a slide show on underwater archaeology. Established the Marine Heritage Trust Fun. Hosted and organized numerous underwater archaeological seminars and workshops including Thunder Bay and Toronto. 1983 MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP AND CULTURE - Ontario Archaeologist – Assisted in various underwater archaeological projects across the province including Port Abino and Niagara-on-the-Lake. 1983 ONTARIO MARINE HERITAGE COMMITTEE - Penetanguishene, Ontario Consultant – Provided advice on submerged resource survey of waters off the Penetanguishene Naval and Military Establishments. 1983 SAVE ONTARIO SHIPWRECKS - Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario Consultant – Provided advice on the recording and survey of an 18th century wharf at Navy Hall. 1983 ONTARIO HERITAGE FOUNDATION - Toronto, Ontario Originator, Designer, Producer and Promoter – slide and cassette show on underwater archaeology, lecture material for various diving agencies in Ontario on marine conservation. Grant. 1983 ONTARIO UNDERWATER COUNCIL - Toronto, Ontario a) Program Chairperson – 3rd Annual Underwater Archaeological Seminar. b) Originator and Developer – Ontario Underwater Council Heritage Trust Fund. c) OUC Representative – Provided input for the National Marine Parks Policy. 1983 to 1991 MAYER, POULTON AND ASSOCIATES - Ontario Marine Heritage Associate – Provide advice on all marine projects. 1983 MUSEUM OF INDIAN ARCHAEOLOGY - Ontario Assistant Archaeologist – GO TRAIN (Ministry of Transportation and Communication) survey conducted near Oshawa, Ontario. Field Director – Crawford Lake site, a Middle Woodland village for the Halton Region Conservation Authority. Supervision of a crew of 8 in the excavation and recording of a longhouse and test trenches. Field Assistant – archaeological resource assessment of the McGrath Site, Middlesex County.
1982 MUSEUM OF INDIAN ARCHAEOLOGY - London, Ontario Assistant Field Director – Willcock site, Byron, Ontario. Responsible for the supervision of the I 2-63 57 excavation of an undisturbed prehistoric (circa 1250 A.D.) site, and the preliminary conservation and cataloguing of artifacts. Field Director – Crawford Lake site, Halton Region Conservation Authority. Responsible for the excavation of a longhouse and the survey and excavation of a conservation roadway. Assistant Field Director and Acting Director – Crawford Lake Village site, Halton Region Conservation Authority. Responsible for the excavation of the prehistoric Middleport village, preliminary conservation, cataloguing and flotation. Assistant Photographer and Designer – Responsibilities included preparation of plates for publication, developing film and PMT production. Principal Investigator – preliminary underwater archaeological survey of Crawford Lake, Halton Region. Archaeological Assistant – archaeological resource assessment, City of London. 1981 MUSEUM OF INDIAN ARCHAEOLOGY - London, Ontario Assistant Contract Archaeologist – Responsible for conducting archaeological resource assessments on properties scheduled for development. Contract Archaeologist – responsible for conducting archaeological resource assessment on properties scheduled for development. Research Associate
1981-1983 SELF-EMPLOYED - Ipperwash, Ontario Principal Investigator – Preliminary underwater survey of the Kettle Point chert outcrops off Kettle Point, Lambton County (part of Master‟s thesis). 1981 to 1982 SELF-EMPLOYED- Peterborough, Ontario Principal Investigator – Kettle Point Chert project. Kettle Point chert samples were collected and used in a petrological study and spatial and temporal distribution analysis. Methods of investigation included thin section analysis, x-ray fluorescence, neutron activation analysis and isotopic composition analysis. Master‟s thesis. 1980 MUSEUM OF INDIAN ARCHAEOLOGY- London, Ontario Lab analyst – Conducted the preliminary conservation and cataloguing of the 19th century Van Egmond house materials (Seaforth, Ontario). Assistant Field Director – prehistoric Neutral Lawson village site, London. Responsible for directing excavation, public relations and technical assistance. Field Director – Archaic site was subject of salvage excavation utilizing waterscreens and heavy machinery. Field Assistant – excavation of the 19th century Van Egmond House. Assistant Field Director – multi-component site of Squaw Island in St. Lawrence Islands National park. In association with the Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of Man. 1979 to 1980 MUSEUM OF INDIAN ARCHAEOLOGY - London, Ontario Research Assistant – Analysis of the Draper site castellations employing SPSS, using the DEC10 and PDP11 systems. Completed an edit of the Draper rim sherd file. 1979 MUSEUM OF INDIAN ARCHAEOLOGY- London, Ontario Research Associate. Field Director – Upper Thames Conservation Authority. Conducted an intensive field survey of the prehistoric and historic resources in the Glengowan Dam project area and analyzed materials. Project Director – Upper Thames Conservation Authority. Conducted a preliminary assessment of the prehistoric and historic cultural resources of the Glengowan Dam Project area. Field Director – excavation of a Glen Meyer village located in Longwoods Conservation Area and acted as public relations liaison. Volunteer – Fathom Five Provincial Park, Tobermory, Ontario. Mapping of the 19th century shipwreck, WETMORE. I 2-64 58
1978 MUSEUM OF INDIAN ARCHAEOLOGY - London, Ontario Research Assistant – Researching reference material for the Museum gallery, including such topics as trade networks, ceremonial goods, settlement patterns, burial practices, and artifact types and interpretation. 1977 MUSEUM OF INDIAN ARCHAEOLOGY- London, Ontario Curatorial Assistant – Inventory and preliminary analysis of the complete Wilfred Jury collection. Archaeological Assistant – Survey of the New Toronto International Airport proposed location, Pickering. Project objectives included locating archaeological resources and preparing a site inventory. Also conducted preliminary conservation and cataloguing of recovered materials. Research Assistant –analysis of material recovered from the New Toronto International Airport Survey.
Scarlett Janusas, the President of SJAHCE, is the project leader and coordinator for the project. She has had over 32 years of archaeological experience, and has been the president of her own consulting firm since 1985. She was the former Regional Archaeologist for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for seven years and created the first archaeological Master Plan in the Province of Ontario, and built up an archaeology division in the Planning Department of the Region, providing her with a base for managerial skills. She also served on heritage committees during her tenure with the RMW. Scarlett is a member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Consultants and has conducted a number of heritage assessments and heritage impact assessments in the last few years partnering with AREA Architects and ERA. These include projects in Northumberland Township, Kawartha Lakes, City of Brampton, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and she is currently engaged in conducting a heritage impact statement for a property in the City of Mississauga.
I 2-65 STAFF COMMENT FORM Heritage Impact Assessment 10 June 2011
Name of Applicant/Agent:
METRUS Development Inc. ______
Municipal Address: 11098 Dixie Road
11098 Dixie Road, Lot 16, Concession III EHS ______
HIA Details:
Prepared by: Scarlett Janusas Archaeological and Heritage Consulting and Education Prepared: May 2011 Received: June 2011
The Property:
11098 Dixie Road is located on the north-west corner of Dixie Road and Countryside Drive, Con 3 EHS, Lot 16. The property contains a 19th century vernacular Ontario farmhouse, with Georgian/Loyalist design influences, and two barns with additional ancillary structures. The property is listed as a category B heritage farmstead in the City of Brampton Register of Heritage Resources (2008). The property is no longer in use as a farm and the farmhouse is not occupied. An HIA has been submitted and staff are in contact with the heritage consultant to ensure heritage due diligence will be appropriately undertaken.
I 2-66
Report Highlights:
Metrus Development Inc. retained Scarlett Janusas Archaeological and Heritage Consulting and Education to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for this property. Metrus Development Inc. is proposing to develop the lands as a “business subdivision” known as the Employment Lands. 11098 Dixie Road including the farmhouse and barns and ancillary buildings were evaluated under Regulation 9/06 for this HIA. It was determined the farmhouse, while likely of a mid-nineteenth century construction date, was not original to the property and was moved to this location circa 1900. The eastern or main portion of the building has a foundation of fieldstones which carry the ground floor on hewn logs supporting irregularly sized floor boards. The hewn logs suggest a construction date of the mid-nineteenth century for this front portion, and the rear (west) portion of the house appears to be a later addition with framing of milled joists and 2x8s. Features such as the front basement accessed by an interior trapdoor and no staircase to the front (original) basement supports the owner information that his grandfather was aware the “house” used to be a store that was moved and an addition was built on to it. Therefore the farmhouse has been modified over time. The farmhouse, barns and outbuildings have limited cultural heritage value and are to be impacted by the proposed development. The buildings are not considered of sufficient cultural heritage value to warrant preservation
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff are in support of the demolition of the builldings due to lack of sufficient cultural heritage value based on the information provided in the Heritage Impact Assessment. It is recommended that the salvage for reuse in preferably heritage related-projects be explored. In addition the consultant is to provide the Region of Peel with a copy of the report to go the Region of Peel Archives.
2