Lincolnville Go Station Improvements: Cultural Heritage Screening Report
Prepared for: Metrolinx 20 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto ON M5J 2W3
~ METROLINX
Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 300W-675 Cochrane Drive Markham ON L3R 0B8
() Stantec
File No. 1135200010 October 12, 2017
LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
Project Personnel
EA Project Manager: Alex Blasko, B.Sc. (Hon.)
Heritage Consultant: Heidy Schopf, MES, CAHP
Task Manager: Meaghan Rivard, MA, CAHP
Report Writer: Heidy Schopf, MES, CAHP Laura Walter, MA
GIS Specialist: Sean Earles
Office Assistants: Carol Naylor
Quality Review: Meaghan Rivard, MA, CAHP
Independent Review: Tracie Carmichael, BA, B. Ed.
() Stantec
Sign-off Sheet
This document was prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. (“Stantec”) for the account of Metrolinx (the “Client”). The material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. The report has been prepared based, in part, on information provided by others as cited in the Reference section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and / or completeness of third party information.
Prepared by (signature) Heidy Schopf, MES, CAHP Cultural Heritage Specialist
Reviewed by (signature) Signed by Tracie Carmichael on behalf of: Meaghan Rivard, MA, CAHP Senior Cultural Heritage Specialist
Reviewed by (signature) Tracie Carmichael, BA, B.Ed. Senior Associate, Environmental Services
Approved by (Metrolinx signature)
Arthur Fidera Project Manager, Metrolinx
() Stantec LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
Acknowledgements
Jeremy Collins: Coordinator, Acquisitions and Conservation Services, Ontario Heritage Trust
Karla Barboza: Heritage Advisor, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
Christine Halis: Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment, Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville
() Stantec
LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... II
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... I
ABBREVIATIONS ...... III
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1. 1 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT ...... 1. 1 1.2 CULTURAL HERITAGE STUDY AREA ...... 1. 2
2.0 STUDY PURPOSE AND METHODS ...... 2. 1 2.1 METROLINX HERITAGE PROTOCOLS ...... 2. 1 2.2 METHODOLOGY ...... 2. 1
3.0 THEMATIC HISTORY ...... 3. 1 3.1 TOWNSHIP OF WHITCHURCH ...... 3. 1
4.0 PROPERTY DATA SHEETS ...... 4. 1
5.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING ...... 5. 1 5.1 EXISTING HERITAGE RECOGNITIONS ...... 5.1 5.1.1 Existing Heritage Recognitions ...... 5.1 5.2 CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING QUESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 5. 1 5.2.1 Summary of Findings ...... 5.2
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 6. 1
7.0 REFERENCES ...... 7. 1
LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Metrolinx Potential Heritage Property Descriptions ...... 2. 2 Table 2: Results of CHSR Screening, Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville ...... 5.3 Table 3: Results of CHSR Screening, Township of Uxbridge ...... 5. 3
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location ...... 1. 3 Figure 2: Cultural Heritage Study Area ...... 1. 5 Figure 3: Study Area overlaid on the 1860 map of the County of York, Canada West ...... 3.7 Figure 4: Study Area overlaid on the 1878 map of the Township of Whitchurch and 1877 map of the Township of Uxbridge ...... 3. 9
() Stantec
LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
Figure 5: Study Area overlaid on the 1922 Topographic map of Markham ...... 3.11 Figure 6: Study Area overlaid on the 1954 Aerial Photo of Whitchurch ...... 3.13 Figure 7: Property Lines and Addresses within the Cultural Heritage Study Area ...... 5.1 Figure 8: Conditional Heritage Properties ...... 5. 1
LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A: PROPERTY DATA SHEETS AND CHSR SCREENING FORMS
() Stantec
LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
Executive Summary
Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by Metrolinx to complete environmental studies to support planned improvements for the Lincolnville Layover and Go Station site.
According to Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.) 157/10 (Government of Ontario 2014b), Metrolinx is identified as a prescribed public body for the purposes of Part III.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 2009). As such, Metrolinx is responsible for the establishment and maintenance of a cultural heritage conservation policy and procedure for the identification and management of provincial heritage properties. As well, section B.4 of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport (MTCS) Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (Standards and Guidelines), applies to all Metrolinx properties (MTCS 2010). In addition, assessment was conducted to meet the requirements of Section 2.6.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (Government of Ontario 2014a) made under the Planning Act (Government of Ontario 1990).
The purpose of this Cultural Heritage Screening Report (CHSR) is to screen the Cultural Heritage study area for properties with known or potential cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI) and make recommendations for further study, as appropriate. Further study would include completion of a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) and Cultural Heritage Evaluation (CHE) Recommendations Report for each property identified as having known or potential CHVI as per the Metrolinx Interim Cultural Heritage Management Process (2013).
Under the Metrolinx Terms of Reference, there are three possible outcomes when identifying CHVI during the screening process:
1. Potential Provincial Heritage Property - The property is owned or occupied by Metrolinx, and the answer to at least one screening question is ‘yes’ (except age).
2. Conditional Heritage Property - The property is not owned or occupied by Metrolinx and the answer to at least one question is ‘yes’ (except age).
3. Adjacent Land - The property is adjacent to a protected heritage property.
This CHSR considers all properties within 50 metres (m) of the existing Lincolnville Layover Facility.
The CHSR was conducted by Meaghan Rivard, Senior Cultural Heritage Specialist, Heidy Schopf, Cultural Heritage Specialist, and Laura Walter, Cultural Heritage Specialist Assistant, all with Stantec Consulting Ltd. The site visit was conducted on November 7th, 2016.
() Stantec i LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
A total of 12 properties were screened as part of this study. Of these, five were found to be Conditional Heritage Properties. These include:
• 13121 Tenth Line
• 13203 Tenth Line
• 2299 York Durham Line
• 2499 York Durham Line
• 2699 York Durham Line
All planned improvements for the Lincolnville Layover and Go Station site are expected to take place within the existing Lincolnville GO Station Site. Accordingly, CHERs are not recommended for the five Conditional Heritage Resources since no direct or indirect impacts are anticipated to these properties resulting from the proposed work. Should the project location change, or work is proposed within 50 metres of the Conditional Heritage Resources, then drawings of the planned improvements should be reviewed to confirm if impacts are anticipated and if CHERs are required.
No further work from a heritage perspective is recommended for the five properties found not to be potential, conditional, or adjacent properties.
() Stantec ii LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
Abbreviations
CHER Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report
CHSR Cultural Heritage Screening Report
CHVI Cultural Heritage Value or Interest
CNR Canadian National Railway
EA Environmental Assessment
EPR Environmental Project Report
HIA Heritage Impact Assessment
MTCS Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
MMAH Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
MTO Ministry of Transportation
PIC Public Information Centre
PPS Provincial Policy Statement
ROW Right-of-Way
SGC Stouffville Rail Corridor Grade Separation
TRCA Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
() Stantec iii
LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
Introduction October 12, 2017 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by Metrolinx to complete environmental studies to support planned improvements for the Lincolnville Layover and Go Station site.
This report is a Cultural Heritage Screening Report (CHSR) for Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes. This screening report is the first step in the Metrolinx Interim Cultural Heritage Management Process (2013). This CHSR includes research and documentation, application of screening questions, and recommendations for heritage evaluation for properties found to have cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI).
This CHSR considers all properties within 50 metres of the existing Lincolnville Layover Facility.
The study area for the proposed improvements includes the existing layover/station property (where the existing layover facilities will be expanded). The study area is shown on Figure 1.
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
According to Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.) 157/10 (Government of Ontario 2010b), Metrolinx is identified as a prescribed public body for the purposes of Part III.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 2009). As such, Metrolinx is responsible for the establishment and maintenance of a cultural heritage conservation policy and procedure for the identification and management of provincial heritage properties. This report has been completed to satisfy Metrolinx requirements as outlined in Section 2.1.
Section B.4 of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport (MTCS) Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (Standards and Guidelines), applies to all Metrolinx properties (MTCS 2010). This section requires evaluation of the cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI) of a property which contains a building older than 40 years of age and is under consideration for removal or transfer of ownership. In the event the property is considered to be a provincial heritage property, Metrolinx is required to put in place appropriate protection and maintenance measures to safeguard the resource for future use.
In addition, assessment was conducted to meet the requirements of Section 2.6.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (Government of Ontario 2014a) made under the Planning Act (Government of Ontario 1990). The purpose of this report is to screen for properties with known or potential CHVI and make recommendations for further study for properties that are required to be purchased and are directly impacted by the project. For these properties, further study will include completion of a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) and Cultural Heritage Evaluation (CHE) Recommendations Report to evaluate the CHVI of the property and classify the heritage status of the property as per the Metrolinx Interim Cultural Heritage Management Process (2013). () Stantec
\\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\rpt_1135200010_chsr_20171012.docx 1.1 LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
Introduction October 12, 2017
Under the Metrolinx Terms of Reference, there are three possible outcomes when identifying CHVI during the screening process:
1. Potential Provincial Heritage Property - The property is owned or occupied by Metrolinx, and the answer to at least one screening question is ‘yes’ (except age).
2. Conditional Heritage Property - The property is not owned or occupied by Metrolinx and the answer to at least one question is ‘yes’ (except age).
3. Adjacent Land - The property is adjacent to a protected heritage property.
1.2 CULTURAL HERITAGE STUDY AREA
The Cultural Heritage study area for the Lincolnville Layover Facility has been defined to conservatively capture the full extent of potential project effects and address relevant regulatory requirements (Figure 2). The Cultural Heritage study area includes the study footprint plus a 50 metre buffer. The study footprint has been established to understand where project activities will take place and includes the total area within which the following activities will occur, including but not limited to: roadway detours, property acquisition areas, temporary easements, railway detours, work areas and access roads.
In order to delineate a boundary for cultural heritage screening purposes, a 50 metre buffer was added to the study footprint. A 50 metre buffer was based on an understanding of potential project effects, including the potential for vibration effects associated with project construction and the transportation of project components and personnel. Although the effect of construction vibrations on historic period structures is not fully understood, negative effects have been demonstrated on buildings with a setback of less than 40 metres from the curbside (Crispino and D’Apuzzo 2001; Ellis 1987; Rainer1982; Wiss 1981). The use of a 50 metre buffer was determined to encompass a wide enough buffer zone to define the distance at which there may be potential for indirect impacts resulting from the vibrations.
() Stantec
1.2 \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\rpt_1135200010_chsr_20171012.docx 635000 640000 645000
oad Wagg Road e R Mccowan Road tra allan B Brock Road Stantec Aurora Road L l ake og ai d L g Tr Sta y g e a l e id s Concession 2 R e r Ro nan Goodwood Road $ $
ee r R Shadow ow G o d thr Lake a nes ¯ Legend to S ( L akes 7 Crescent Study Area hor 4 e R y o a d a e w a d k h o Expressway / Highway La ig R M H e n l idg Dri u a a ewood v ss n R Major Road e _\ hit elm \ io er Aurora Road W e eg D \ R Minor Road h c e rso e n n k Hillsdale Drive nd Concession 4 a a A r L Watercourse B r - t o \ s s '\- B a d Lower Tier Municipality Jesse Thomson Road o d E n r r i u a e l ev W Lobraico Lane iv Waterbody R \ d Cresc d Ree e n \ d n n Wooded Area 10Th Line to t la on ew l S P N o \ ecord' s H 9Th Line y Vandorf Sideroad \ Township Of Uxbridge 4875000 Concession 2 4875000
Concession 3
ek on Cre ix Vandorf Sideroad oad Webb Road n R W ngto omi Blo iew D aev ri R v e
Gla Webb Road sgow Pond W
10Th Line i
R x
o e
n e
s
C o r
r C e e ad Bethesda Road re k Ro 0 1,000 2,000
Town Of e line W n Bloomington Road k Tow metres Whitchurch- ring e icke 1:50,000 (At original document size of 11x17) Stouffville s e P t idg D xbr City Of U Sideline 20 u Pickering Notes f f 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N i n M
s 2. Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural
C i
d d c
r Resources and Forestry © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2016.
r
a h
r er Stouffville Creek e
v e y
ayb llC e
Bethesda Road B e
Kennedy Road S l r
Ratcliff Road u k
e t o
r t e
Bethesda Road e tree e k d S B Sideline 24 t lar W Mil tre la i S el ll ba e C F Lake ito t am Lake o an Sideline 26 w M Simcoe \ Scugog \ g Uxbridge Pickering Townline Road Sideline 22 Cookstown II ro t L Port \ v e nt Sideline 28 e e o ce 1.1 Perry tr Cres Bradford West Uxbridge Cr S r tta M Gwillimbury d ad S e k Lake Ridge Rd \ Bethesda Road r o t i lla R o Sideline 30 e e Mi lm c e E e u e '-· nu Main Street f r h UV48
k e Beeton Av fv C e ert i y n Newmarket Study p l a l Kennedy Rd l W Sideline 32 l 4870000 u e o 4870000 R W Lori Avenueb o ix ac C J Tottenham Area e C r W Aurora 404 l r e d e UV Brooklin e e M 9Th Con Rd W
o c k c k Ba
a r Bowmanville M n W o
King y d w v
e R i a o 10Th Line e 7 e Cit y e n n UV Whitby s iv w o r ad A R D s Oshawa t o v d k A a a r R a n e 407 P t o v UV r r i d e s e ov es Richmond S o c 16Th Ave Ajax S H D Con Bolton Hwy 7 a t uf h Hill nd r f 9T \ Pickering ee Sideline 24 . Markham i f er S i Lake o lb n e t r t D i s C d Vaughan Ontario
d d e k
i r C e
D r l a i e
c v n re r r l ule e e i e Bo ve 19Th Avenue \ y k ~i\1 3 a C 4 W Sideline 28 •.:0\~~ s n e Project Location 1135200010-0001 REVA ,,,,,,,. ..,,I.- v o 9Th Line e Re ix Regional Municipality Prepared by SE on 2017-05-09 Sams Way ,,,,,,..,,· Sideline 30 19Th Avenue S W W .,,,,,,..1,.,,,,,,,."' Of York York Durham Line
i to
l ,,,,.,,, u Stouffville Road l f o f Reesor Road v Client/Project w ,,,,,. i lle Creek g H METROLINX
_,,.,,,,,,,... i r g o 19Th Avenue v h LINCOLNVILLE STATION e ,.,,,,,.,.,,,,..~ Iw City, Of C a
y CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT Markham Sideline 32 Sideline 24 r ~·""' e 4 Sideline 26 ,,,,. e 8
Sideline 34 Figure No. ... k L ,,.,,,,,,,,., --·-- it Mccowan Road tl 8Th Concession Road 1 e 19Th Avenue Sideline 30 R Title ouge Cre R Elgin Mills Road East e Project Location e k es o ek r C re
635000 640000 645000
\\cd1215-f01\work_group\01609\Active\1135200010\planning\drawing\MXD\Cultural_Heritage\Report_Figures\Screening_Report\1135200010_SR_Fig01_Project_Location.mxdDisclaimer: Revised: 2017-05-09 By: searles Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data.
641500 642000 4873500 4873500 Sleepy Hollow L ane
$ $ (¯ Legend Study Area
50m Buffer
Existing Commuter
Parcel Boundary (York Region)
Major Road
Minor Road
Watercourse
Lower Tier Municipality
Township Of 10Th Line Uxbridge
York Durham Line
0 70 140 Town Of metres 4873000 Whitchurch- 4873000 1:4,000 (At original document size of 11x17) Stouffville
Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 2. Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2016. 3. Orthoimagery © First Base Solutions, 2016. Imagery Date, 2016. 4. York Region Data downloaded from York Region Open Data (20161024).
YORK DURHAM LINE Uxbridge 7A SANDFORD RD S UV I M REACH ST C O H 404 E
W UV 7 L 4 REG RD 8 Y S
A T Y A
1 48 K UV W 1 E REG RD 21 UV12 R H I Newmarket IG D H G
L E A GOODWOOD RD S BAYVIEWAVE N R W O I DR I D M IS 9TH LINE G C AV E D AURORA RD R O KENNEDY RD E
THICKSON RD N S T
N
BATHURST ST 9TH CON RD
KEELE ST B R O
MCCOWAN RD C DUFFERIN ST K 407 WARDEN AVE UV R Y D O Whitby N 400 G UV E King S 7 412 T UV UV City Richmond UV401 16TH AVE Hill Pickering HWY 7
Project Location 1135200010-0002 REVA d R oa e Regional Municipality Prepared by SE on 2017-10-12 R e da s s o Of York e Cr h et
B r e Client/Project
e
k METROLINX T
r LINCOLNVILLE STATION i b u CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT t a r y Figure No. 2 Bethesda Road Title Cultural Heritage Study Area - Layover Site
641500 642000
\\cd1215-f01\work_group\01609\Active\1135200010\planning\drawing\MXD\Cultural_Heritage\Report_Figures\Screening_Report\1135200010_SR_Fig02_Study_Area.mxd Revised: 2017-10-12 By: searles Disclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data.
LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
Study Purpose and Methods October 12, 2017
2.0 STUDY PURPOSE AND METHODS
2.1 METROLINX HERITAGE PROTOCOLS
In 2013, Metrolinx prepared the Metrolinx Interim Cultural Heritage Management Process. This process provides a framework for determining whether properties owned or controlled by Metrolinx are of CHVI and the process for managing such cultural heritage resources. As defined by the Metrolinx Interim Cultural Heritage Management Process, Metrolinx is required to prepare reports that screen, evaluate and manage known or potential cultural heritage properties (those owned or to be acquired by Metrolinx and those with other ownership) in the vicinity of the project (2013).
The CHSR is the first step of the process and has been carried out for the Cultural Heritage study area. The CHSR must meet requirements as outlined, and in accordance with, the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (MTCS 2010) issued under the Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 1990). As required by the Standards and Guidelines, Metrolinx has developed protocols for addressing cultural heritage resources. These include the Metrolinx Interim Cultural Heritage Management Process (Metrolinx 2013) and the Metrolinx Draft Terms of Reference for Consultants: Cultural Heritage Screening Report for Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (Draft Terms of Reference) (Metrolinx 2016).
2.2 METHODOLOGY
The CHSR report follows the Draft Terms of Reference (Metrolinx 2016). As outlined in the Draft Terms of Reference, there are three components to a CHSR: research and documentation; application of screening questions; and preparation of recommended outcomes and reports. The CHSR is then submitted to the Metrolinx Environmental Programs and Assessment Group for review. To address these components, the CHSR was prepared based on historical background research, a windshield and pedestrian survey of the Cultural Heritage study area, and consultation with local municipalities and relevant agencies.
Historical research was undertaken to provide a broad overview of the Cultural Heritage study area, its historical development and thematic context. Research was compiled using local history resources obtained from public libraries, historical atlases, and mapping where available. Stantec contacted heritage planning staff at local municipalities to determine whether there are any properties listed or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act are located within the Cultural Heritage study area. The MTCS and the Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) were also contacted to identify properties subject to easement or of agency interest.
() Stantec
\\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\rpt_1135200010_chsr_20171012.docx 2.1 LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
Study Purpose and Methods October 12, 2017
A windshield and pedestrian survey of the study area was undertaken on November 7, 2016 by Heidy Schopf of Stantec. The windshield and pedestrian survey was conducted from the public right-of-way (ROW). Photographs were taken of all properties within the Cultural Heritage study area.
Properties with potential CHVI were screened using the Metrolinx Screening Questions and Recommendations table as contained in the Draft Terms of Reference (Metrolinx 2016). The Draft Terms of Reference (Metrolinx 2016) contains content from the Check Sheet for Environmental Assessments, Screening for Impacts to Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes and Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.) 9/06 made under the Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 2009). The screening questions are used to determine if a property:
• Has recognized cultural heritage value • Is 40 years or older • Has potential cultural heritage value or interest using O. Reg. 9.06 • Is adjacent to a protected property Metrolinx provides three categories of properties with potential CHVI including: Potential Provincial Heritage Properties; Conditional Heritage Properties; and Adjacent Lands. Each category is further described in Table 1 below. A CHER is recommended when one of these types of properties is identified by the CHSR screening. Where a property is not determined to meet one of these three criteria, no further work is required.
Table 1: Metrolinx Potential Heritage Property Descriptions
Property Type Description Potential Provincial Heritage Property The property is owned or occupied by Metrolinx, and the answer to at least one screening question is ‘yes’ (except age) Conditional Heritage Property The property is not owned or occupied by Metrolinx and the answer to at least one question is ‘yes’ (except age) Adjacent Land The property is adjacent to a protected heritage property
() Stantec
2.2 \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\rpt_1135200010_chsr_20171012.docx LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
Thematic History October 12, 2017 3.0 THEMATIC HISTORY
3.1 TOWNSHIP OF WHITCHURCH
The historical development of the Township of Whitchurch is largely tied to its close proximity to the City of Toronto and Yonge Street, which was the main 19th century thoroughfare in the area. On July 16, 1792, Upper Canada was divided into 19 counties, including the County of York named after Yorkshire, England. The County of York was part of the Home District and stretched north from the shores of Lake Ontario to the shores of Lake Simcoe. The Township of Whitchurch was part of the east riding of the County of York. It was bounded by the Township of Markham to the south, the Township of King to the west, the Township of East Gwillimbury to the north, and the Township of Uxbridge (part of the County of Ontario) to the east (WTHBC 1993: 12). Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe named the township in reference to his wife’s birthplace in Herefordshire, England (WTHBC 1993: 14).
The western border of the Whitchurch Township was influenced by the layout of Yonge Street in the 1790s. When Simcoe landed in Upper Canada in 1792, he was accompanied by the Queen’s Rangers, a group of troops that would be utilized for both military and civic purposes. The rangers would provide assistance in the construction of various public works projects including roads and bridges, as well as being available for military duties (Magel 1998: 22). Under the directions of Simcoe, a party of Queen’s Rangers was instructed to assist Augustus Jones in the survey of Yonge Street from Lake Ontario north to Lake Simcoe. Jones began the survey at the Holland Landing in 1793 working south towards Lake Ontario. An Aboriginal trail between the two lakes originally existed prior to the survey, and formed the basis of the survey. Jones reported to Simcoe on February 20, 1796, that Yonge Street was open from Holland Landing on Lake Simcoe to the Town of York on Lake Ontario (Magel 1998: 14). The name Yonge Street was chosen by Simcoe in honour of his friend, the British Secretary of War, Sir George Yonge (Berchem 1996: 16).
Following the opening of Yonge Street, settlers began to arrive to the Township of Whitchurch in 1795, prior to survey of the township. Early settlers included Joseph Bouchette in 1796, Frederic Smith, Charles Fathers, and James Pitney in 1797, and William Bond, John Chrisholm and Captain W. Graham in 1798. The township was first surveyed by Deputy Surveyor John Stegman from 1800 to 1802. The township initially contained 59,743-acres, and was laid out with 10 concessions, numbered east to west (Mulvany et al 1885: 145). Concessions nine and ten were not complete due to the angular boundaries of the township and the layout of the adjacent Township of Uxbridge. One-seventh of the township lands were set aside for clergy reserves, and an additional one-seventh for crown reserves (WTHBC 1993: 14). The survey of the northern portion of the township was completed by Deputy Surveyor Samuel Wilmot, followed by a re-survey of the township lines in 1869, by John Shier (Miles & Co. 1878: xv).
() Stantec
\\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\rpt_1135200010_chsr_20171012.docx 3.1 LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
Thematic History October 12, 2017
Early settlement in the township developed close to watercourses and along Yonge Street. The Oak Ridges Moraine that extends east to west through the township, also influenced settlement patterns, as small villages developed north or south of the high ridge (WTHBC 1993: 15). The moraine consists of rolling hills and valleys and is the headwaters for numerous watercourses in the township (Mulvany et al 1885: 151). As the township was made up of dense woods sawmills were the initial industry for early settlers. Mills were established in the township along the Rouge and Holland Rivers. In 1804, a road was constructed from Yonge Street east to the Township of Uxbridge, between Lots 90 and 91, increasing accessibility for settlement in the northern portion of the township (WTHBC 1993:19).
Early settlers in the Township of Whitchurch were mostly Quakers, Mennonites, United Empire Loyalists, or former British officers. Timothy Rogers, of Quaker background arrived in the township in 1801 from Vermont, United States, and influenced the development of the township. Rogers acting as a land agent for the Upper Canada government was offered 1000-acres if he could bring a set number of settlers to the township. He brought forty families to the township, mostly of Quaker background, from Vermont, New York and Pennsylvania (WTHBC 1993: 14). These Quaker families settled on Concession 1, in the township along Yonge Street (Healey 2006: 38). Other early property owners were former British officers, who were granted land in the township for their participation in the American War of Independence. Frederic Baron de Hoen, one such officer, received 2,600-acres of land in the township (Mulvany 1885: 146). In the study area, along Concession 9, Lot 3 was granted to Mary Walts in 1805, and Lot 4 to John Bogard in 1802. Along Concession 10, Lot 6 was granted later to Michael Law, in 1842, and Lot 7 to Sarah Vanwick in 1808 (Miles & Co. 1878: xvi).
The earliest township administrative records date to 1826, when Joseph Hewitt, was chosen as town clerk, William Reader, and J. Hewitt as assessors, Samuel Ball as collector, and Eli Gorham and John Bogart, as town wardens (Mulvany et al 1885: 153). At this time small communities began to take shape throughout the township mostly around mill sites and road intersections. This includes Vandorf, Bogarttown, Ballantrae, Pine Orchard, Bloomington, Gormley, Lemoville, Bethesda, Vivian, Cedar Valley, Pleasantville, and Stouffville (WTHBC 1993: 16).
The largest village that developed in the township close to the study area was Stouffville. The small Village of Bloomington was located to the northwest and the Hamlet of Lincolnville was to the northeast. Abraham Stouffer, arrived in the township with his family in 1804, and purchased 400-acres (Lots 1 and 2, Concession 9) in March 1805 from Russell Hoag. The Stouffer family was of Swiss descent and emigrated from Pennsylvania along with Mennonite German families who also settled in the County of York. Stouffer’s wife, Elizabeth, was from the Reesor family, who settled in the Township of Markham. Stouffer followed Duffins Creek from Lake Ontario, north almost to its source and chose that location for settlement. Stouffer later purchased an additional 200-acres (Lot 33, Concession 9) in the Township of Markham (Barkey 1977: 4). Stouffer operated a sawmill on Duffins Creek by 1817 and a grist mill by 1825. A small village developed east of Stouffer’s mills, with the first stores opened by Charles Sheldon and Ben
() Stantec
3.2 \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\rpt_1135200010_chsr_20171012.docx LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
Thematic History October 12, 2017
Boyer. The first blacksmith shop was established by Hugh Casler (Barkey 1977: 7). Within ten years, about fifty-five families settled in the community, mostly of German descent (Barkey 1977: 4). The Stouffville post office was established in 1832 and Charles Sheldon was the first postmaster. Stouffer’s mills and property passed to his son Christian Stouffer in the 1840s who continued to operate the family business. Christian Stouffer sold the mills and property in 1847 to Edward Wheeler, and moved to the County of Oxford (Barkey 1977: 8). The Village of Stouffville was incorporated in 1877, as a separate entity from the township.
The Village of Bloomington developed to the northwest at the intersection of Bloomington Road and Concession 9 (now Ninth Line). Early settlers in the village were Quakers, Mennonites and United Empire Loyalists (WTHBC 1993: 100). The community was partially located in the Township of Whitchurch, and its eastern half in the Township of Uxbridge. The area was initially covered in tall pine stands that were felled and transported by horse and wagon down the Mast Road (now Tenth Line) to Lake Ontario, where they were exported to England. The road was referred to as Mast Road, as the logs transported along the roadway were used for shipping masts (WTHBC 1993:108).
The Township of Whitchurch, was incorporated on January 1, 1850, following the abolition of districts and the creation of municipalities. The township, with a population of 4,242, became an organized municipality with a reeve, deputy reeve and three councilors. The first meeting of the new municipality took place on January 6, 1851, at Smith’s Inn in Stouffville, with Joseph Hartman appointed as the first reeve (WTHBC 1993: 17). By 1850, due to the large number of sawmills, only 35 percent of the township was wooded. A shift occurred with the coming of the railway in 1853, from reliance on milling industries, to the exportation of agricultural goods. The Ontario, Simcoe, and Huron Railway, opened a line through the township in 1853, with stations in the villages of Aurora and Newmarket. The line was taken over as the Northern Railway in 1858.
The 1860 Tremaine map of the County of York depicts 19th century property owners and features in the study area (Figure 3). Peter Raymer is depicted as the property owner for Lot 4, Concession 9. David Law is shown as the property owner for the south half of Lot 6, Concession 7 and Jeremiah Brown is shown to be the property owner for the north half of Lot6 and Lot 7, Concession 10. No historical structures or landscape features are depicted in these properties.
The Toronto and Nipissing Railway, was charted in March 1868, to build a railway line form Toronto north to Lake Nipissing. Construction began on the line the following year, with a station in Stouffville, and the main railway yards in Uxbridge. The railway line officially opened in September 1872. 1881 the line was amalgamated with the Midland Railway System, and in 1883 within the Grand Trunk Railway (Brown 2011: 47). In 1877, the Simcoe Junction Railway was opened as a branch line from Stouffville. The railway line was a passenger line carrying tourists north to Lake Simcoe (Brown 2011: 49). Following the opening of a second railway line through the community it became known as the Stouffville Junction (Barkey 1977: 19). Because of the influence of the railway lines, by 1878 the population of the township reached 4,500
() Stantec
\\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\rpt_1135200010_chsr_20171012.docx 3.3 LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
Thematic History October 12, 2017
(Miles & Co. 1878: xvi). The rail lines allowed for the export of agricultural products and by 1881 the township was producing 78,543 bushels of wheat, 93,562 bushels of barley, 200,323 bushels of oats, 4,554 bushels of rye, 63,120 bushels of peas, 69,687 bushels of potatoes, 104,482 bushels of turnips, and 44,950 bushels of other roots (Mulvany et al 1885: 152).
The 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York and the 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario show the late 19th century property owners and historical features in the study area (Figure 4). Abraham Barkey Junior is depicted as the property owner for Lot 4, Concession 9. A farmstead and an orchard are depicted on east side of the property, adjacent to Tenth Line. The Toronto and Nippissing Railway is shown running through the east half of the property in a general northeast-southwest direction. Lots 6 and 7, Concession 10 were broken into several small parcels with S.L.E., S.B., A.S., A.T., T.B., and R.S. listed as the property owners. A farmstead and an orchard are depicted on the property belonging to T.B. Two residences are shown adjacent to the rail line on the east side of Tenth Line in Lot 6, Concession 10 but no property owners are listed. Other notable features depicted include the Lake Simcoe Junction Railway (located west of the study area) and numerous property owners and farmsteads in adjacent lots.
By the late 19th century, the amount of deforestation in the township led to open fields of blowing and drifting sands, along with water erosion on the moraine areas that had washed away nutrient rich soils, which resulted in deep gullies on the barren hillsides and along watercourses. In response, the township offered farmers twenty-five cents per tree planted to encourage reforestation (WTHBC 1993: 22). Nonetheless, land degradation continued to be a problem in the township in the early 20th century. By 1910, only seven percent of the township was wooded (WTHBC 1993: 21). A program of reforestation was furthered in the 1920s, initiated by officials from the County of York, and Township of Whitchurch. The 1922 topographic map of Markham demonstrates the sparsely forested nature of the study area at this time (Figure 5). In 1924, the York County Forest Agreement was established between the county and the Minister of Lands and Forests. Under the agreement the county purchased property for reforestation that was to be managed in part by the Ministry of Lands and Forests (now the Ministry of Natural Resources). The first tract of land, the Hollidge Tract, was purchased in 1924 in the Township of Whitchurch (Fulford 2010: 13). Additional tracts of land were purchased by the county in the township, increasing to 1,166-acres in 1938, and to 4,900-acres by 1983 (WTHBC 1993: 32).
Road development and accessibility to the study area increased beginning in the 1950s, with the extension of Highway 48 through the township. Highway 48 became a provincial highway in the late 1930s and was a small 10 kilometre route from Port Bolster to Highway 12 near Beaverton. The highway was extended significantly in the 1950s from Port Bolster to the City of Toronto. The extension through to Markham in 1954 added 70 kilometres to the highway (Bevers, The King’s Highway 48; online). With its close proximity to the City of Toronto, the township began to develop as suburban community for commuters who worked in the city to the south. The first subdivision constructed on farmland in Stouffville was built in 1953 extending from Park Drive. The study area and surrounding landscape was comprised of rural/agricultural
() Stantec
3.4 \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\rpt_1135200010_chsr_20171012.docx LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
Thematic History October 12, 2017
land during the mid-20th century (Figure 6). Further road development occurred with the construction of Highway 404, that now serves as the western boundary of the Municipality of Whitchurch Stouffville. The highway was completed from 1977 to 1989, as an extension of the Don Valley Parkway to the south (Bevers, The King’s Highway 404; online).
The Township of Whitchurch amalgamated with the Regional Municipality of York in 1971. The Township of Whitchurch and the Town of Stouffville became the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, and the boundaries of the Towns of Aurora, Newmarket and Richmond Hill were expanded. In 1971, The Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville had a combined population of 11,487 (Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville 2011: 17). The population increased to 19,036 by 1991 and GO Transit began operating a passenger railway between Whitchurch-Stouffville and downtown Toronto (Transit Toronto; online). A new railway station was built in Stouffville in 1995, for GO Transit commuters travelling to Toronto (Brown 2011: 49). The population of Whitchurch-Stouffville continued to grow and in 2001 the population reached 22,008 (Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville; online). To meet the demand, a new rail yard and station was constructed just north of Stouffville in the hamlet of Lincolnville, within the study area. The Lincolnville railway yard opened in 2007 and serves as a commuter station for residents in the York and Durham regions (Transit Toronto; online). Today, the Town of Whitchuch-Stouffville is the second fastest growing municipality in Ontario (Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville; online).
() Stantec
\\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\rpt_1135200010_chsr_20171012.docx 3.5
Stantec $ $ (¯ Le g e nd Stu d yAr e a (App roxi m at e ly) s r e e - - d _ . d e :20170509By:sal Notes c 1.Notts o e c al. 2.Histr o i ac R e fe re nc e :Tr e m aine ,G e o. .1860R re m .T aine ’sMap of th e Countyof York,Cana a d We s.Toonto:G t r e o.C.Te rmaine . R Fig03Hist
SIDERD 5 S
I CONC 3 3 D D 1 E R 35 YONGE ST CONC 7 G R RE UV D D S \ R
REG RD 6I
2 M
D
0 C
N O
A 404 E UV LAKE RIDGE RD L 89 S UV S I COUNTY RD 27 T UV400 SANDFORD RD UV7A HW 20 Y D REG RD 8 R R eenn t15000S_c re e _ _ ning R e x p o rt1135200010_S o ri York1860m R e vis 1 48 E G D 1 UV E R G R \ 8TH LINE L KENNEDY RD Study R D e A 12 9TH LINE UV N A 5 C 7
BATHURST ST Area r _ r sS Claremont UV9 TAUNTON RD DUFFERIN ST
B 9TH CON RD 407 WESTON RD UV A JANE ST Y
K V BROCK RD E I 412 HWY 5 HWY 27 E E UV ALTONA RD 401 W UV L e 0 E A HWY 7 S 16TH AVE V T E E E AV aHrtg \ RualH e ritage p o tFigu Bolton S Lake LE E E EE AV ST CH EE Ontario JOHN ST FIN AV KING ST D
\ R PA EP SH HWY 2A XClr_ MXDCultr \
Proje c tLo c atio n 1135200010- EVA 0003R R e g ionalMuni ipalitc y Pr e p are d bySE 20170509o n - - OfYor k
ann \ d\ p rawing lanning Clie nt/Proj e c t MET R OLINX LINCOLNVI LL ESTATION \ e CULTU R ALHE R ITAGESC R EENING R EPO R T Figure No . 3 Titl e Study Area overlaid on 1860 map of
- \wor_gr \ \ ctiv County of York, Canada West 1215f01 k o up 01609A 1135200010 d
\ \ c Disclaim e r:Stantc ue ass m e sno re p s onsibilityfor ats d a upp lide in e l ce tronic form at re.The c ipienta c sfuc e p t rell s ponsibilityfor verifying e a th c c uracy and com plt e e n e ss of thed at a.The r e c ipie ntre l assStante e soffi ec,it s cer,employ es onse , c sand ultant ag nt,frome anys a and llc laimsarising inanywayfrom th e c ontntore p r ovision of th ate d a.
Stantec $ $ (¯ Legend Study Area (Approximately)
Notes 1. Not to scale. 2. Historic References: Miles & Co. 1878. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York and the Township of West Gwillimbury & Town of Bradford in the County of Simcoe, Ont. J.H. Beers & Co. 1877. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario, Ont.
SIDERD 5 S
I CONC 3 3 D D 1 E R 35 YONGE ST CONC 7 G R RE UV D D S R
REG RD 6I
2 M
D
0 C
N O
A 404 E UV LAKE RIDGE RD L 89 S UV S I COUNTY RD 27 T UV400 SANDFORD RD UV7A HW 20 Y D REG RD 8 R R 1 48 E G D 1 UV E R G R 8TH LINE L KENNEDY RD Study R A 12 D 9TH LINE UV N A 5 C 7
BATHURST ST Area Claremont UV9 TAUNTON RD DUFFERIN ST
B 9TH CON RD 407 WESTON RD UV A JANE ST Y
K V BROCK RD E I 412 HWY 5 HWY 27 E E UV ALTONA RD 401 W UV L 0 E A HWY 7 S 16TH AVE V T E E VE Bolton S A Lake LE E E EE AV ST CH EE Ontario JOHN ST FIN AV KING ST RD PA EP SH HWY 2A
Project Location 1135200010-0004 REVA Regional Municipality Prepared by SE on 2017-05-09 Of York
Client/Project METROLINX LINCOLNVILLE STATION CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT Figure No. 4 Title Study Area overlaid on the 1878 map of the Township of Whitchurch and 1877 map of the Township of Uxbridge
\\cd1215-f01\work_group\01609\Active\1135200010\planning\drawing\MXD\Cultural_Heritage\Report_Figures\Screening_Report\1135200010_SR_Fig04_HistoricWhitchurch_1878_Uxbridge1877.mxdDisclaimer: Revised: 2017-05-09 By: searles Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data.
Stantec $ $ (¯ Legend Study Area MARKHAM SHEET (Approximately)
15'
• Notes 1. Not to scale. 2. Historic Reference: Department of Militia and Defense. 1922. National Topographic Survey, Markham Sheet 30 M/14. "ll 0
• SIDERD 5 S ~ I CONC 3 3 D D 1 E R 35 YONGE ST CONC 7 G ~ R RE UV D D S R
REG RD 6I
2 M
D
0 / C
N O
A • 404 E tJ UV LAKE RIDGE RD L 89 S • UV S I • COUNTY RD 27 T UV400 SANDFORD RD UV7A HW 20 Y D REG RD 8 R R 1 48 E G .. D 1 UV E R G R 8TH LINE L KENNEDY RD Study R A 12 D 9TH LINE UV N A 5 • C 7
BATHURST ST Area Claremont UV9 TAUNTON RD DUFFERIN ST
B 9TH CON RD 407 WESTON RD UV A JANE ST Y
K V BROCK RD E I 412 HWY 5 HWY 27 E E UV ALTONA RD 401 W UV L 0 E A HWY 7 S 16TH AVE V T E E VE Bolton S A Lake LE E E EE AV ST CH EE Ontario JOHN ST FIN AV KING ST RD PA EP SH HWY 2A
Project Location 1135200010-0005 REVA Regional Municipality Prepared by SE on 2017-05-09 Of York
Client/Project METROLINX LINCOLNVILLE STATION CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT Figure No. 5 Title Study Area overlaid on the 1922 Topographic map of Markham
\\cd1215-f01\work_group\01609\Active\1135200010\planning\drawing\MXD\Cultural_Heritage\Report_Figures\Screening_Report\1135200010_SR_Fig05_1922_Markham.mxdDisclaimer: Revised: 2017-05-09 By: searles Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data.
Stantec $ $ (¯ Legend Study Area (Approximately)
Notes 1. Not to scale. 2. Historical References: Hunting Survey Corporation Limited. 1954. Digital Aerial Photographs, Southern Ontario. Plates 438.791 and 441.791.
SIDERD 5 S
I CONC 3 3 D D 1 E R 35 YONGE ST CONC 7 G R RE UV D D S R
REG RD 6I
2 M
D 0
~ C \
N O
A 404 E UV LAKE RIDGE RD L 89 S UV S I COUNTY RD 27 T UV400 SANDFORD RD . -;:::::J,--- ..c UVcc7Ac HW 20 Y D REG RD 8 R R 1 48 E G D 1 UV E R G R 8TH LINE L KENNEDY RD Study R A 12 D 9TH LINE UV N A 5 C 7
BATHURST ST Area Claremont UV9 TAUNTON RD DUFFERIN ST
B 9TH CON RD 407 WESTON RD UV A JANE ST Y
K V BROCK RD E I 412 HWY 5 HWY 27 E E UV ALTONA RD 401 W UV L 0 E A HWY 7 S 16TH AVE V T E E VE Bolton S A Lake LE E E EE AV ST CH EE Ontario JOHN ST FIN AV KING ST RD PA EP SH HWY 2A
Project Location 1135200010-0006 REVA Regional Municipality Prepared by SE on 2017-05-09 Of York
Client/Project METROLINX LINCOLNVILLE STATION CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT Figure No. 6 Title Study Area overlaid on the 1954 Aerial Photo of Whitchurch
\\cd1215-f01\work_group\01609\Active\1135200010\planning\drawing\MXD\Cultural_Heritage\Report_Figures\Screening_Report\1135200010_SR_Fig06_1954_AirPhoto.mxdDisclaimer: Revised: 2017-05-09 By: searles Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data.
LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
Property Data Sheets October 12, 2017 4.0 PROPERTY DATA SHEETS
Data sheets were completed for each property in the Cultural Heritage study area. These sheets were prepared as per the Draft Terms of Reference (Metrolinx 2016). Complete data sheets are provided in Appendix A.
The data sheets contain the following information:
• Municipal address • Municipality • Metrolinx/Go Transit Rail Corridor • PIN • Ownership [Metrolinx, other government, or private, and any lease] • Aerial photo showing location & boundaries • Exterior, street-view photo • Date of construction of built resources (known or estimated and source) • Architect/designer/builder (and source) • Previous owner(s) or occupants • Current function • Previous function(s) • Heritage recognition/protection (municipal, provincial or federal) • Local heritage interest • Adjacent lands
() Stantec
\\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\rpt_1135200010_chsr_20171012.docx 4.1
LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
Cultural Heritage Screening October 12, 2017 5.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING
5.1 EXISTING HERITAGE RECOGNITIONS
In order to identify existing heritage recognitions, the MTCS, OHT, the Town of Whitchurch- Stouffville, and the Township of Uxbridge were consulted. The results of this consultation are provided in subsequent sections. Heritage recognitions include properties listed on the MTCS List of Provincial Heritage Properties, subject to an easement with the OHT, listed on a municipal register, or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.
5.1.1 Existing Heritage Recognitions
Karla Barboza, Heritage Advisor at the MTCS, confirmed that no provincial heritage properties are located within, or adjacent to, the study area. Jeremy Collins, Coordinator, Acquisitions with the OHT, confirmed that there are no conservation easement sites within the vicinity of the Cultural Heritage study area.
At the municipal level Christine Halis, Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment, Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, identified that two properties listed on the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Built Heritage Inventory are located within, or adjacent to, the Cultural Heritage study area. These properties include:
• 13121 Tenth Line • 13203 Tenth Line
Debbie Leroux, Director of Legislative Services/Clerk, Township of Uxbridge, confirmed that no listed or designated properties are located within, or adjacent to, the Cultural Heritage study area.
Addresses in relation to the study area are shown in Figure 7.
() Stantec
\\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\rpt_1135200010_chsr_20171012.docx 5.1
2699 York Sleepy H Durham Line ollow Lane Stantec
2699 York $ $ Durham Line (¯ Legend c::::J Study Area --50m Buffer I - ' Parcel Inside 50m Buffer 13245 D Tenth Line n Property Boundary Existing Commuter Base Features Major Road Minor Road Watercourse 13203 2499 York Tent h Durham Line Lower Tier Municipality Line
10Th Line
Township Of Uxbridge
13121 Tenth Line
York Durham Line
6840 Bethesda Road 0 80 160 Town Of metres Whitchurch- 1:5,000 (At original document size of 11x17) S touffville 13081 Tenth Notes Line 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 2. Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2016. 3. Orthoimagery © First Base Solutions, 2016. Imagery Date, 2016. 2299 York Durham Line 4. York Region Data downloaded from York Region Open Data (20161024).
YORK DURHAM LINE Uxbridge 7A SANDFORD RD S UV I M REACH ST C O H 404 E
W UV 7 L REG RD 8 4Y S
A T Y A
1 48 K UV W 1 REG RD 21 Bethesda Road E UV12 R H I Newmarket IG D H G
L E A GOODWOOD RD S BAYVIEWAVE N R W I R O M D I D IS 9TH LINE G C AV E D R O AURORAKENNEDY RD RD E
THICKSON RD N S T
N
BATHURST ST 9TH CON RD
K B E R ELE ST O
6833 Bethesda Road MCCOWAN RD C DUFFERIN ST K 407 WARDEN AVE UV R Y D O Whitby N 400 G UV E King S UV7 412 T UV City E AV Richmond TH UV401 16 Hill 12957 Y 7 Pickering HW Tent h 12942 Bethesda Road Line York/Durham Line Project Location 1135200010-0007 REVA Regional Municipality Prepared by SE on 2017-05-11 Of York
120 Webb Client/Project Road METROLINX LINCOLNVILLE STATION CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
6639 Figure No. Bethesda Road 12875 7 12902 Tenth Title Tent h Line Line Rail Corridor 6517 Bethesda Road Property Lines and Addresses - Layover Site
\\cd1215-f01\work_group\01609\Active\1135200010\planning\drawing\MXD\Cultural_Heritage\Report_Figures\Screening_Report\1135200010_SR_Fig07_Properties.mxd Revised: 2017-05-11 By:Disclaimer: searles Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data.
LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
Cultural Heritage Screening October 12, 2017
5.2 CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING QUESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Screening questions and recommendations were completed for each property in the Cultural Heritage study area. These questions were prepared as per the Draft Terms of Reference for Consultants: Cultural Heritage Screening Report for Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes provided by Metrolinx. This includes screening for cultural heritage value, age, potential CHVI using O. Reg. 9/06, and adjacency.
The screening for recognized cultural heritage value includes the following questions:
• If the property includes a railway station, is it designated under the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act? • If the property includes a bridge, is it on the Heritage Bridge List? • Is the property federally owned, and is a building on it designated as a Federal Heritage Building? • Is the property provincially owned or occupied, and has it been identified as a Provincial Heritage Property? • Is the property a National Historic Site? • Is the property commemorated by the Ontario Heritage Trust? • Is the property subject to an Ontario Heritage Trust Conservation Easement? • Is the property municipally designated under the OHA, Part IV? • Is the property part of a municipally designated Heritage Conservation District under the OHA, Part V? • Is the property listed on a municipal register? • Has the heritage value of the property been identified or protected by the municipality through other planning documents, easements or commemorations? (eg. Heritage overlay, official plan provisions, zoning) • Is the subject property recognized or valued by an Aboriginal community? The screening for age includes the following questions:
• Does the property have built resources that appear to be more than 40 years of age? • Does the property have landscape features that may have been created or altered more than 40 years ago? The screening for potential CHVI using O. Reg. 9/06 includes the following questions:
• Does the property, its built resources or its landscape features, appear to have significant design value because:
() Stantec
\\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\rpt_1135200010_chsr_20171012.docx 5.1 LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
Cultural Heritage Screening October 12, 2017
− it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, or − it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or − it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? • Does the property, its built resources or landscape features, appear to have significant historical or associative value because: − it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, or − it yields or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or − it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community? • Does the property, its built resources or its landscape features, appear to have significant contextual value because, − it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, or − it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or − it is a landmark? The screening for adjacency to protected properties includes the following question:
• Is the property adjacent to a designated property under the OHA, Part IV, a Heritage Conservation District under the OHA, Part V, or a property that is protected by a heritage easement or covenant? (Use the definition of adjacency in the municipal official plan, or if there is none, the definition of adjacency in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005.) Complete screening questions and recommendations are provided in Appendix A. A summary of findings is provided in subsequent sections.
5.2.1 Summary of Findings
Municipal staff identified two properties within 50 metres of the Cultural Heritage study area. An additional four properties were identified during the field review. The remaining properties appear to be less than 40 years old and therefore not considered to have potential CHVI.
Table 2 and Table 3 include a summary of the screening checklist results and recommendations for further work. Figure 8 shows the locations of Conditional Heritage Properties located within the Cultural Heritage study area.
() Stantec
5.2 \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\rpt_1135200010_chsr_20171012.docx LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
Cultural Heritage Screening October 12, 2017
Table 2: Results of CHSR Screening, Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville
Municipal Address Checklist Outcome Recommendation Not a potential, conditional, or adjacent 12957 Tenth Line CHER not recommended property Not a potential, conditional, or adjacent 13081 Tenth Line CHER not recommended property CHER not recommended since 13121 Tenth Line Conditional heritage property there are no anticipated direct or indirect impacts CHER not recommended since 13203 Tenth Line Conditional heritage property there are no anticipated direct or indirect impacts Not a potential, conditional, or adjacent 13245 Tenth Line CHER not recommended property Not a potential, conditional, or adjacent 6833 Bethesda Road CHER not recommended property Not a potential, conditional, or adjacent 6840 Bethesda Road CHER not recommended property 12942 York Durham Not a potential, conditional, or adjacent CHER not recommended Line property Railway Corridor between Millard Not a potential, conditional, or adjacent CHER not recommended Street and York property Durham Line
Table 3: Results of CHSR Screening, Township of Uxbridge
Municipal Address Checklist Outcome Recommendation 2299 York Durham Conditional heritage property CHER not recommended since Line there are no anticipated direct or indirect impacts 2499 York Durham Conditional heritage property CHER not recommended since Line there are no anticipated direct or indirect impacts 2699 York Durham Conditional heritage property CHER not recommended since Line there are no anticipated direct or indirect impacts
() Stantec
\\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\rpt_1135200010_chsr_20171012.docx 5.3
2699 York Sleepy H Durham Line ollow Lane Stantec
2699 York $ $ Durham Line (¯ Legend Study Area Parcel Inside 50m Buffer Property Boundary 13245 Tenth Line Existing Commuter Base Features Major Road Minor Road Watercourse Lower Tier Municipality 13203 2499 York Tent h Durham Line Line Cultural Heritage Features IZZI Conditional Heritage Property
10Th Line
Township Of Uxbridge
13121 Tenth Line
York Durham Line
6840 Bethesda Road 0 80 160 Town Of metres Whitchurch- 1:5,000 (At original document size of 11x17) S touffville 13081 Tenth Notes Line 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 2. Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2016. 3. Orthoimagery © First Base Solutions, 2016. Imagery Date, 2016. 2299 York Durham Line 4. York Region Data downloaded from York Region Open Data (20161024).
YORK DURHAM LINE Uxbridge 7A SANDFORD RD S UV I M REACH ST C O H 404 E
W UV 7 L REG RD 8 4Y S
A T Y A
1 48 K UV W 1 REG RD 21 Bethesda Road E UV12 R H I Newmarket IG D H G
L E A GOODWOOD RD S BAYVIEWAVE N R W I R O M D I D IS 9TH LINE G C AV E D R O AURORAKENNEDY RD RD E
THICKSON RD N S T
N
BATHURST ST 9TH CON RD
K B E R ELE ST O
6833 Bethesda Road MCCOWAN RD C DUFFERIN ST K 407 WARDEN AVE UV R Y D O Whitby N 400 G UV E King S UV7 412 T UV City E AV Richmond TH UV401 16 Hill 12957 Y 7 Pickering HW Tent h 12942 Bethesda Road Line York/Durham Line Project Location 1135200010-0008 REVA Regional Municipality Prepared by SE on 2017-05-30 Of York
120 Webb Client/Project Road METROLINX LINCOLNVILLE STATION CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
6639 Figure No. Bethesda Road 12875 8 12902 Tenth Title Tent h Line Line Rail Corridor 6517 Bethesda Road Conditional Heritage Properties - Layover Site
\\cd1215-f01\work_group\01609\Active\1135200010\planning\drawing\MXD\Cultural_Heritage\Report_Figures\Screening_Report\1135200010_SR_Fig08_CH_Properties.mxd Revised: 2017-05-30 By:Disclaimer: searles Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data.
LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
Recommendations October 12, 2017 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
A total of 12 properties were screened as part of this study. Of these, five were found to be Conditional Heritage Properties. These include:
• 13121 Tenth Line • 13203 Tenth Line • 2299 York Durham Line • 2499 York Durham Line • 2699 York Durham Line
All planned improvements for the Lincolnville Layover and Go Station site are expected to take place within the existing Lincolnville GO Station Site. Accordingly, CHERs are not recommended for the five Conditional Heritage Resources since no direct or indirect impacts are anticipated to these properties resulting from the proposed work. Should the project location change, or work is proposed within 50 metres of the Conditional Heritage Resources, then drawings of the planned improvements should be reviewed to confirm if impacts are anticipated and if CHERs are required.
No further work from a heritage perspective is recommended for the five properties found not to be potential, conditional, or adjacent properties.
() Stantec
\\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\rpt_1135200010_chsr_20171012.docx 6.1
LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
References October 12, 2017
7.0 REFERENCES
Berchem, F.R. 1996. The Yonge Street Story, 1793-1860: An Account from Letters, Diaries, and Newspapers. Toronto: Natural Heritage/Natural History Inc.
Bevers, Cameron. The King’s Highway 48. Electronic Document: http://www.thekingshighway.ca/Highway48.htm Last accessed: 11/03/2016
Bevers, Cameron. The King’s Highway 404. Electronic Document: http://www.thekingshighway.ca/Highway404.htm Last accessed: 11/03/2016
Boles, Derek. 2009. Toronto’s Railway Heritage. South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing.
Brown, Ron. 2011. In Search of the Grand Trunk: Ghost Rail Lines in Ontario. Toronto: Dundurn Press.
Crispino, M. and M. D’Apuzzo. 2001. Measurement and Prediction of Traffic-induced Vibrations in a Heritage Building. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 246 (2): 319-335.
Ellis, Patricia. 1987. Effects of Traffic Vibration on Historic Buildings. The Science of the Total Environment. 59: 37-45.
Fulford, Pam. 2010. York Regional Forest: A Piece of Agreement Forest Puzzle. Toronto: Forest History Society of Ontario. 1(2): 12-15.
Government of Canada. 2016. Treaty Text- Upper Canada Land Surrenders. Electronic Document: https://www.aadncaandc.gc.ca/eng/1370372152585/1370372222012#ucls13 Last accessed: 11/03/2016
Government of Ontario. 1990. Planning Act. Electronic Document: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13. Last accessed: 11/03/2016.
Government of Ontario. 2006. Ontario Regulation 9/06, Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, Under the Ontario Heritage Act. Electronic document. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060009. Last accessed 11/03/2016.
Government of Ontario. 2009. Ontario Heritage Act. Electronic document. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18. Last accessed 11/03/2016.
Government of Ontario. 2010. Ontario Regulation 10/06, Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of Provincial Significance. Electronic document. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060010. Last accessed 11/03/2016.
() Stantec
\\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\rpt_1135200010_chsr_20171012.docx 7.1 LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
References October 12, 2017
Government of Ontario. 2014a. Provincial Policy Statement, under the Planning Act. Electronic Document: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page10679.aspx. Last accessed: 11/03/2016.
Government of Ontario. 2014b. Ontario Regulation 157/10: Public Bodies Part III of the Act. Electronic document. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/100157. Last accessed 11/03/2016.
Guillet, Edwin C. 1946. Pioneer Life in the County of York. Toronto: Hess-Trade Typesetting Company.
Healey, Robynne Rogers. 2006. From Quaker to Upper Canadian: Faith and Community Among Yonge Street Friends, 1801-1850. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press.
Magel, Ralph. 1998. 200 Years Yonge: A History. Toronto: Natural Heritage.
Metrolinx. 2016. Draft Terms of Reference for Consultants: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report and Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report Recommendations. Provided by Metrolinx.
Metrolinx. 2013. Metrolinx Interim Cultural Heritage Management Process. Provided by Metrolinx.
Miles, & Co. 1878. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York and the township of West Gwillimbury & town of Bradford in the County of Simcoe, Ont. Toronto: Miles & Co.
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS). 2010. Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. Electronic Document: http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Standards_Conservation.pdf Last accessed: 11/03/2016
Mitchell, John. 1952. The Settlement of York County. County of York: The Municipal Corporation of the County of York.
Rainer, J.H. 1982. Effect of Vibrations on Historic Buildings. The Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin. XIV (1): 2-10.
The Town of Whitchurch Stouffville. Demographics and Statistics. Electronic Document: http://www.townofws.ca/en/business/demographics-and-statistics.asp Last accessed: 11/03/2016
The Town of Whitchurch Stouffville. 2011. Town of Whitchurch Stouffville 2011 Community Report. Electronic Document: http://www.townofws.ca/en/town- hall/resources/Documents/Annual-Report-2011.pdf Last accessed: 11/07/2016
() Stantec
7.2 \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\rpt_1135200010_chsr_20171012.docx LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
References October 12, 2017
Toronto and Region Conservation. 2016. Flood Risk Management, History. Electronic Document. https://trca.ca/conservation/flood-risk-management/history/ Last accessed: 11/14/2016
Transit Toronto. Go Transit’s Stouffville Line. Electronic Document: http://transit.toronto.on.ca/regional/2110.shtml Last accessed: 07/11/2016
York Durham Heritage Railway. History of the Rail Line Used by the YDHR. Electronic Document: http://www.ydhr.ca/history_rail-line.php Last accessed: 11/03/2016
Whitchurch Township History Book Committee (WTHBC). 1993. Whitchurch Township. Erin: Boston Mills Press.
Wiss, J.F. 1981. Construction Vibrations; State-of-the-Art. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division. 107:167-181.
() Stantec
\\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\rpt_1135200010_chsr_20171012.docx 7.3
LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT
APPENDIX A: PROPERTY DATA SHEETS AND CHSR SCREENING FORMS
() Stantec
Appendix A PROPERTY DATA SHEETS AND CHRS SCREENING FORMS
Table of Contents
A.1 TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE PROPERTIES ...... 2 12957 Tenth Line ...... 2 13081 Tenth Line ...... 5 13121 Tenth Line ...... 8 13203 Tenth Line ...... 11 13245 Tenth Line ...... 14 6833 Bethesda Road ...... 17 6840 Bethesda Road ...... 20 12942 York Durham Line ...... 23 Rail Corridor between Millard Street and York Durham Line ...... 26
A.2 TOWNSHIP OF UXBRIDGE PROPERTIES ...... 29 2299 York Durham Line ...... 29 2499 York Durham Line ...... 32 2699 York Durham Line ...... 35
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 1
A.1 TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE PROPERTIES
Field Property Data
Municipal address 12957 Tenth Line
Municipality Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Metrolinx/GO Transit Rail Corridor Stouffville
PIN Unknown
Ownership Private Aerial photos See Figure 7
Exterior street view photo
Date of construction Post 1954, Construction date unknown
Date of significant alterations Not known
Architect/designer/builder Not known
Previous owners or occupants Private Current function Residential/industrial
Previous function(s) Residential/industrial
Heritage recognition/protection N/A Local heritage interest N/A
Adjacent lands N/A
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 2
CHSR Screening Questions Property Name: N/A Municipal Address: 12957 Tenth Line Metrolinx/GO Transit Rail Corridor: Stouffville PIN: N/A Ownership: Private Screening for Recognized Cultural Heritage Value Y/N Explanatory Notes If the property includes a railway station, is it designated under the N The property does not include a Railway Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act? Station If the property includes a bridge, is it on the Heritage Bridge List? N The property does not contain a bridge Is the property federally owned, and is a building on it designated as a N The Directory of Federal Heritage Federal Heritage Building? Designations was consulted and the property is not a Federal Heritage Building Is the property provincially owned or occupied, and has it been N Consultation with the MTCS confirmed the identified as a Provincial Heritage Property? property is not a Provincial Heritage Property Is the property a National Historic Site? N The list of National Historic Sites of Canada was consulted and the property is not a NHS Is the property commemorated by the Ontario Heritage Trust? N Consultation with the OHT confirmed that the property is not commemorated Is the property subject to an Ontario Heritage Trust Conservation N Consultation with the OHT confirmed that the Easement? property is not subject to an easement Is the property municipally designated under the OHA, Part IV? N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed that the property is not designated under Part IV Is the property part of a municipally designated Heritage Conservation N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed District under the OHA, Part V? that the property is not designated under Part V Is the property listed on a municipal register? N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed that the property is not listed on the municipal register Has the heritage value of the property been identified or protected by N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed the municipality through other planning documents, easements or that the property is not protected by other commemorations? (eg. Heritage overlay, official plan provisions, planning documents zoning) Is the subject property recognized or valued by an Aboriginal N No interest was identified during the community? document review and that detailed information regarding aboriginal pre-contact activity in the area can be found in the Stage 1 Archaeology Report
Screening for Age Y/N Explanatory Notes Does the property have built resources that appear to be more than N All the building(s) on the property appear to 40 years of age? be constructed recently Does the property have landscape features that may have been N The property has been landscaped recently. created or altered more than 40 years ago?
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 3
Screening for Potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest using Y/N Explanatory Notes Ontario Regulation 9/06 Does the property, its built resources or its landscape features, N Common example of late 20th and early 21st appear to have significant design value because: residential/industrial construction. • it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, or • it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or • it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? Does the property, its built resources or landscape features, appear to N No known historical value identified during have significant historical or associative value because: preliminary screening. • it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, or • it yields or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or • it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community? Does the property, its built resources or its landscape features, N The property is in keeping with the appear to have significant contextual value because, surrounding context but is not considered to • it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the be an important component in this context. character of an area, or • it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or • it is a landmark? Screening for Adjacency to Protected Properties Y/N Explanatory Notes Is the property adjacent to a designated property under the OHA, Part N The property is not adjacent to a protected IV, a Heritage Conservation District under the OHA, Part V, or a property. property that is protected by a heritage easement or covenant? (Use the definition of adjacency in the municipal official plan, or if there is none, the definition of adjacency in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005.) Screening Outcomes Y/N Explanatory Notes Potential Provincial Heritage Property N The property is not a potential provincial heritage property. Conditional Heritage Property N The property does not have potential for CHVI. Adjacent Land to a Protected Heritage Property N The property is not adjacent to a protected heritage property. Outcome: This is not a potential, conditional, or adjacent property. Recommendations: CHER not recommended
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 4
Field Property Data
Municipal address 13081 Tenth Line Municipality Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville
Metrolinx/GO Transit Rail Stouffville Corridor
PIN Unknown Ownership Private
Aerial photos See Figure 7
Exterior street view photo
Date of construction Post 1954, Estimated 1990s/2000s
Date of significant Not known alterations
Architect/designer/builder Not known
Previous owners or Private occupants Current function Commercial
Previous function(s) Commercial
Heritage N/A recognition/protection Local heritage interest N/A
Adjacent lands Adjacent 13121 Tenth Line (listed by municipality)
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 5
CHSR Screening Questions Property Name: N/A Municipal Address: 13081 Tenth Line Metrolinx/GO Transit Rail Corridor: Stouffville PIN: N/A Ownership: Private Screening for Recognized Cultural Heritage Value Y/N Explanatory Notes If the property includes a railway station, is it designated under the N The property does not include a Railway Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act? Station If the property includes a bridge, is it on the Heritage Bridge List? N The property does not contain a bridge Is the property federally owned, and is a building on it designated as a N The Directory of Federal Heritage Federal Heritage Building? Designations was consulted and the property is not a Federal Heritage Building Is the property provincially owned or occupied, and has it been N Consultation with the MTCS confirmed the identified as a Provincial Heritage Property? property is not a Provincial Heritage Property Is the property a National Historic Site? N The list of National Historic Sites of Canada was consulted and the property is not a NHS Is the property commemorated by the Ontario Heritage Trust? N Consultation with the OHT confirmed that the property is not commemorated Is the property subject to an Ontario Heritage Trust Conservation N Consultation with the OHT confirmed that the Easement? property is not subject to an easement Is the property municipally designated under the OHA, Part IV? N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed that the property is not designated under Part IV Is the property part of a municipally designated Heritage Conservation N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed District under the OHA, Part V? that the property is not designated under Part V Is the property listed on a municipal register? N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed that the property is not listed on the municipal register Has the heritage value of the property been identified or protected by N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed the municipality through other planning documents, easements or that the property is not protected by other commemorations? (eg. Heritage overlay, official plan provisions, planning documents zoning) Is the subject property recognized or valued by an Aboriginal N No interest was identified during the community? document review and that detailed information regarding aboriginal pre-contact activity in the area can be found in the Stage 1 Archaeology Report
Screening for Age Y/N Explanatory Notes Does the property have built resources that appear to be more than N All the building(s) on the property were 40 years of age? recently constructed. Does the property have landscape features that may have been N The property has been landscaped recently. created or altered more than 40 years ago?
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 6
Screening for Potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest using Y/N Explanatory Notes Ontario Regulation 9/06 Does the property, its built resources or its landscape features, N Common example of late 20th and early 21st appear to have significant design value because: commercial construction. • it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, or • it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or • it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? Does the property, its built resources or landscape features, appear to N No known historical value identified during have significant historical or associative value because: preliminary screening. • it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, or • it yields or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or • it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community? Does the property, its built resources or its landscape features, N The property is in keeping with the appear to have significant contextual value because, surrounding context but is not considered to • it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the be an important component in this context. character of an area, or • it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or • it is a landmark? Screening for Adjacency to Protected Properties Y/N Explanatory Notes Is the property adjacent to a designated property under the OHA, Part N The property is adjacent to 13121 Tenth Line, IV, a Heritage Conservation District under the OHA, Part V, or a which is listed by the municipality. However, property that is protected by a heritage easement or covenant? (Use this property is not protected under the OHA the definition of adjacency in the municipal official plan, or if there is or by a heritage easement or covenant. none, the definition of adjacency in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005.) Screening Outcomes Y/N Explanatory Notes Potential Provincial Heritage Property N The property is not a potential provincial heritage property. Conditional Heritage Property N The property does not have potential for CHVI. Adjacent Land to a Protected Heritage Property N The property is not adjacent to a protected heritage property. Outcome: Not a potential, conditional, or adjacent heritage property Recommendations: CHER not recommended
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 7
Field Property Data
Municipal address 13121 Tenth Line Municipality Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville
Metrolinx/GO Transit Rail Corridor Stouffville
PIN Unknown Ownership Private
Aerial photos See Figure 7
Exterior street view photo
Date of construction 1876-1900
Date of significant alterations Not known
Architect/designer/builder Not known
Previous owners or occupants Private Current function Residential
Previous function(s) Residential
Heritage recognition/protection Listed by Municipality, Class C Heritage Property Local heritage interest Yes
Adjacent lands Adjacent to 13203 Tenth Line (listed by municipality)
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 8
CHSR Screening Questions Property Name: N/A Municipal Address: 13121 Tenth Line Metrolinx/GO Transit Rail Corridor: Stouffville PIN: N/A Ownership: Private Screening for Recognized Cultural Heritage Value Y/N Explanatory Notes If the property includes a railway station, is it designated under the N The property does not include a Railway Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act? Station If the property includes a bridge, is it on the Heritage Bridge List? N The property does not contain a bridge Is the property federally owned, and is a building on it designated as a N The Directory of Federal Heritage Federal Heritage Building? Designations was consulted and the property is not a Federal Heritage Building Is the property provincially owned or occupied, and has it been N Consultation with the MTCS confirmed the identified as a Provincial Heritage Property? property is not a Provincial Heritage Property Is the property a National Historic Site? N The list of National Historic Sites of Canada was consulted and the property is not a NHS Is the property commemorated by the Ontario Heritage Trust? N Consultation with the OHT confirmed that the property is not commemorated Is the property subject to an Ontario Heritage Trust Conservation N Consultation with the OHT confirmed that the Easement? property is not subject to an easement Is the property municipally designated under the OHA, Part IV? N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed that the property is not designated under Part IV Is the property part of a municipally designated Heritage Conservation N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed District under the OHA, Part V? that the property is not designated under Part V Is the property listed on a municipal register? Y Consultation with the Municipality confirmed that the property is listed on the heritage register as a Class C property Has the heritage value of the property been identified or protected by Y This property falls within the lands included in the municipality through other planning documents, easements or the Community of Stouffville Secondary Plan, commemorations? (eg. Heritage overlay, official plan provisions, which recommends the preservation and zoning) enhancement of heritage resources. Is the subject property recognized or valued by an Aboriginal N No interest was identified during the community? document review and that detailed information regarding aboriginal pre-contact activity in the area can be found in the Stage 1 Archaeology Report
Screening for Age Y/N Explanatory Notes Does the property have built resources that appear to be more than Y The property contains a residence that was 40 years of age? constructed between 1876 and 1900 Does the property have landscape features that may have been Y The property retains landscape features created or altered more than 40 years ago? related to the 19th century residence
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 9
Screening for Potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest using Y/N Explanatory Notes Ontario Regulation 9/06 Does the property, its built resources or its landscape features, Y The property has design value due to its appear to have significant design value because: construction materials (stucco). • it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, or • it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or • it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? Does the property, its built resources or landscape features, appear to Y This property has historical/associated value have significant historical or associative value because: due to its links with • it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person(s)/orgaizations/institutions in the person, activity, organization or institution that is significant Township of Whitchurch. to a community, or • it yields or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or • it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community? Does the property, its built resources or its landscape features, Y The property has contextual value due to its appear to have significant contextual value because, continued use as a residence since the late- th • it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the 19 century and relatively intact site and character of an area, or setting. • it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or • it is a landmark? Screening for Adjacency to Protected Properties Y/N Explanatory Notes Is the property adjacent to a designated property under the OHA, Part N The property is adjacent to 13203 Tenth Line, IV, a Heritage Conservation District under the OHA, Part V, or a which is listed by the municipality. However, property that is protected by a heritage easement or covenant? (Use this property is not protected under the OHA the definition of adjacency in the municipal official plan, or if there is or by a heritage easement or covenant. none, the definition of adjacency in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005.) Screening Outcomes Y/N Explanatory Notes Potential Provincial Heritage Property N The property is not a potential provincial heritage property. Conditional Heritage Property Y The property is listed as a Class C heritage property by the Municipality. Adjacent Land to a Protected Heritage Property N This property is not adjacent to a protected heritage property. Outcome: Conditional Heritage Property Recommendations: CHER recommended if work is proposed within 50 metres of the residence. However, drawings of the proposed work demonstrated that all work will take place at least 130 metres away from residence, within the existing Lincolnville GO Station property. Therefore, a CHER is not recommended for this property since there are no anticipated direct or indirect impacts.
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 10
Field Property Data
Municipal address 13203 Tenth Line Municipality Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville
Metrolinx/GO Transit Rail Corridor Stouffville
PIN Unknown Ownership Private
Aerial photos See Figure 7
Exterior street view photo
Date of construction 1860
Date of significant alterations Not known
Architect/designer/builder Not known
Previous owners or occupants Private Current function Residential
Previous function(s) Residential
Heritage recognition/protection Listed by Municipality Local heritage interest Yes
Adjacent lands Adjacent to 13121 Tenth Line (listed by municipality)
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 11
CHSR Screening Questions Property Name: N/A Municipal Address: 13203 Tenth Line Metrolinx/GO Transit Rail Corridor: Stouffville PIN: N/A Ownership: Private Screening for Recognized Cultural Heritage Value Y/N Explanatory Notes If the property includes a railway station, is it designated under the N The property does not include a Railway Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act? Station If the property includes a bridge, is it on the Heritage Bridge List? N The property does not contain a bridge Is the property federally owned, and is a building on it designated as a N The Directory of Federal Heritage Federal Heritage Building? Designations was consulted and the property is not a Federal Heritage Building Is the property provincially owned or occupied, and has it been N Consultation with the MTCS confirmed the identified as a Provincial Heritage Property? property is not a Provincial Heritage Property Is the property a National Historic Site? N The list of National Historic Sites of Canada was consulted and the property is not a NHS Is the property commemorated by the Ontario Heritage Trust? N Consultation with the OHT confirmed that the property is not commemorated Is the property subject to an Ontario Heritage Trust Conservation N Consultation with the OHT confirmed that the Easement? property is not subject to an easement Is the property municipally designated under the OHA, Part IV? N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed that the property is not designated under Part IV Is the property part of a municipally designated Heritage Conservation N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed District under the OHA, Part V? that the property is not designated under Part V Is the property listed on a municipal register? Y Consultation with the Municipality confirmed that the property is listed on the heritage register Has the heritage value of the property been identified or protected by N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed the municipality through other planning documents, easements or that the property is not protected by other commemorations? (eg. Heritage overlay, official plan provisions, planning documents zoning) Is the subject property recognized or valued by an Aboriginal N No interest was identified during the community? document review and that detailed information regarding aboriginal pre-contact activity in the area can be found in the Stage 1 Archaeology Report
Screening for Age Y/N Explanatory Notes Does the property have built resources that appear to be more than Y The property contains a residence that was 40 years of age? constructed between 1876 and 1900 Does the property have landscape features that may have been Y The property retains landscape features created or altered more than 40 years ago? related to the 1860 residence
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 12
Screening for Potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest using Y/N Explanatory Notes Ontario Regulation 9/06 Does the property, its built resources or its landscape features, Y The property has design value due to its appear to have significant design value because: design (Vernacular) and materials • it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a (clapboard) style, type, expression, material or construction method, or • it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or • it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? Does the property, its built resources or landscape features, appear to Y This property has historical/associated value have significant historical or associative value because: due to its links families (Regan, Sibley, • it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, Winterstein, Wells families) in the Township person, activity, organization or institution that is significant of Whitchurch. to a community, or • it yields or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or • it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community? Does the property, its built resources or its landscape features, Y The property has contextual value due to its appear to have significant contextual value because, continued use as a residence since the mid- th • it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the 19 century and relatively intact site and character of an area, or setting. • it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or • it is a landmark? Screening for Adjacency to Protected Properties Y/N Explanatory Notes Is the property adjacent to a designated property under the OHA, Part N The property is adjacent to 13121 Tenth Line, IV, a Heritage Conservation District under the OHA, Part V, or a which is listed by the municipality. However, property that is protected by a heritage easement or covenant? (Use this property is not protected under the OHA the definition of adjacency in the municipal official plan, or if there is or by a heritage easement or covenant. none, the definition of adjacency in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005.) Screening Outcomes Y/N Explanatory Notes Potential Provincial Heritage Property N The property is not a potential provincial heritage property. Conditional Heritage Property Y The property is listed as a heritage property by the Municipality. Adjacent Land to a Protected Heritage Property N This property is adjacent to 13121 Tenth Line, which is listed as a heritage property by the Municipality. Outcome: Conditional Heritage Property Recommendations: CHER recommended if work is proposed within 50 metres of the residence. However, drawings of the proposed work demonstrated that all work will take place at least 250 metres away from residence, within the existing Lincolnville GO Station property. Therefore, a CHER is not recommended for this property since there are no anticipated direct or indirect impacts.
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 13
Field Property Data
Municipal address 13245 Tenth Line Municipality Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville
Metrolinx/GO Transit Rail Corridor Stouffville
PIN Unknown Ownership Private
Aerial photos See Figure 7
Exterior street view photo
Date of construction Post 1954, Estimated 1980s
Date of significant alterations Not known
Architect/designer/builder Not known
Previous owners or occupants Private Current function Residential/agricultural
Previous function(s) Residential/agricultural
Heritage recognition/protection N/A Local heritage interest N/A
Adjacent lands Adjacent to 13203 Tenth Line (listed by municipality)
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 14
CHSR Screening Questions Property Name: N/A Municipal Address: 13245 Tenth Line Metrolinx/GO Transit Rail Corridor: Stouffville PIN: N/A Ownership: Private Screening for Recognized Cultural Heritage Value Y/N Explanatory Notes If the property includes a railway station, is it designated under the N The property does not include a Railway Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act? Station If the property includes a bridge, is it on the Heritage Bridge List? N The property does not contain a bridge Is the property federally owned, and is a building on it designated as a N The Directory of Federal Heritage Federal Heritage Building? Designations was consulted and the property is not a Federal Heritage Building Is the property provincially owned or occupied, and has it been N Consultation with the MTCS confirmed the identified as a Provincial Heritage Property? property is not a Provincial Heritage Property Is the property a National Historic Site? N The list of National Historic Sites of Canada was consulted and the property is not a NHS Is the property commemorated by the Ontario Heritage Trust? N Consultation with the OHT confirmed that the property is not commemorated Is the property subject to an Ontario Heritage Trust Conservation N Consultation with the OHT confirmed that the Easement? property is not subject to an easement Is the property municipally designated under the OHA, Part IV? N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed that the property is not designated under Part IV Is the property part of a municipally designated Heritage Conservation N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed District under the OHA, Part V? that the property is not designated under Part V Is the property listed on a municipal register? N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed that the property is not listed on the municipal register Has the heritage value of the property been identified or protected by N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed the municipality through other planning documents, easements or that the property is not protected by other commemorations? (eg. Heritage overlay, official plan provisions, planning documents zoning) Is the subject property recognized or valued by an Aboriginal N No interest was identified during the community? document review and that detailed information regarding aboriginal pre-contact activity in the area can be found in the Stage 1 Archaeology Report
Screening for Age Y/N Explanatory Notes Does the property have built resources that appear to be more than N All the building(s) on the property were 40 years of age? recently constructed. Does the property have landscape features that may have been Y The property contains agricultural field that created or altered more than 40 years ago? dates to pre-1954
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 15
Screening for Potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest using Y/N Explanatory Notes Ontario Regulation 9/06 Does the property, its built resources or its landscape features, N Common example of late 20th century rural appear to have significant design value because: residential construction and land use • it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, or • it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or • it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? Does the property, its built resources or landscape features, appear to N No known historical value identified during have significant historical or associative value because: preliminary screening. • it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, or • it yields or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or • it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community? Does the property, its built resources or its landscape features, N The property is in keeping with the appear to have significant contextual value because, surrounding context but is not considered to • it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the be an important component in this context. character of an area, or • it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or • it is a landmark? Screening for Adjacency to Protected Properties Y/N Explanatory Notes Is the property adjacent to a designated property under the OHA, Part N The property is adjacent to 13203 Tenth Line, IV, a Heritage Conservation District under the OHA, Part V, or a which is listed by the municipality. However, property that is protected by a heritage easement or covenant? (Use this property is not protected under the OHA the definition of adjacency in the municipal official plan, or if there is or by a heritage easement or covenant. none, the definition of adjacency in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005.) Screening Outcomes Y/N Explanatory Notes Potential Provincial Heritage Property N The property is not a potential provincial heritage property. Conditional Heritage Property N The property does not have potential for CHVI. Adjacent Land to a Protected Heritage Property N The property is not adjacent to a protected heritage property Outcome: Not a potential, conditional, or adjacent property Recommendations: CHER not required
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 16
Field Property Data
Municipal address 6833 Bethesda Road Municipality Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville
Metrolinx/GO Transit Rail Corridor Stouffville
PIN Unknown Ownership Private
Aerial photos See Figure 7
Exterior street view photo
Date of construction Post 1954, Estimated between 1980 and 2016
Date of significant alterations Not known Architect/designer/builder Not known
Previous owners or occupants Private
Current function Residence Previous function(s) Residence
Heritage recognition/protection N/A
Local heritage interest N/A Adjacent lands N/A
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 17
CHSR Screening Questions Property Name: N/A Municipal Address: 6833 Bethesda Road Metrolinx/GO Transit Rail Corridor: Stouffville PIN: N/A Ownership: Private Screening for Recognized Cultural Heritage Value Y/N Explanatory Notes If the property includes a railway station, is it designated under the N The property does not include a Railway Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act? Station If the property includes a bridge, is it on the Heritage Bridge List? N The property does not contain a bridge Is the property federally owned, and is a building on it designated as a N The Directory of Federal Heritage Federal Heritage Building? Designations was consulted and the property is not a Federal Heritage Building Is the property provincially owned or occupied, and has it been N Consultation with the MTCS confirmed the identified as a Provincial Heritage Property? property is not a Provincial Heritage Property Is the property a National Historic Site? N The list of National Historic Sites of Canada was consulted and the property is not a NHS Is the property commemorated by the Ontario Heritage Trust? N Consultation with the OHT confirmed that the property is not commemorated Is the property subject to an Ontario Heritage Trust Conservation N Consultation with the OHT confirmed that the Easement? property is not subject to an easement Is the property municipally designated under the OHA, Part IV? N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed that the property is not designated under Part IV Is the property part of a municipally designated Heritage N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed Conservation District under the OHA, Part V? that the property is not designated under Part V Is the property listed on a municipal register? N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed that the property is not listed on the municipal register Has the heritage value of the property been identified or protected by N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed the municipality through other planning documents, easements or that the property is not protected by other commemorations? (eg. Heritage overlay, official plan provisions, planning documents zoning) Is the subject property recognized or valued by an Aboriginal N No interest was identified during the community? document review and that detailed information regarding aboriginal pre-contact activity in the area can be found in the Stage 1 Archaeology Report
Screening for Age Y/N Explanatory Notes Does the property have built resources that appear to be more than N All the building(s) on the property were 40 years of age? recently constructed. Does the property have landscape features that may have been N The property has been landscaped recently. created or altered more than 40 years ago?
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 18
Screening for Potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest using Y/N Explanatory Notes Ontario Regulation 9/06 Does the property, its built resources or its landscape features, N Common example of late 20th and early 21st appear to have significant design value because: residential construction. • it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, or • it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or • it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? Does the property, its built resources or landscape features, N No known historical value identified during appear to have significant historical or associative value because: preliminary screening. • it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, or • it yields or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or • it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community? Does the property, its built resources or its landscape features, N The property is in keeping with the appear to have significant contextual value because, surrounding context but is not considered to be an important component in this context. • it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, or • it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or • it is a landmark? Screening for Adjacency to Protected Properties Y/N Explanatory Notes Is the property adjacent to a designated property under the OHA, Part N The property is not adjacent to a protected IV, a Heritage Conservation District under the OHA, Part V, or a property. property that is protected by a heritage easement or covenant? (Use the definition of adjacency in the municipal official plan, or if there is none, the definition of adjacency in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005.) Screening Outcomes Y/N Explanatory Notes Potential Provincial Heritage Property N The property is not a potential provincial heritage property. Conditional Heritage Property N The property does not have potential for CHVI. Adjacent Land to a Protected Heritage Property N The property is not adjacent to a protected heritage property. Outcome: This is not a potential, conditional, or adjacent property. Recommendations: CHER not recommended
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 19
Field Property Data
Municipal address 6840 Bethesda Road Municipality Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville
Metrolinx/GO Transit Rail Corridor Stouffville
PIN Unknown Ownership GO Transit/Metrolinx
Aerial photos See Figure 7
Exterior street view photo
Date of construction 2008
Date of significant alterations N/A
Architect/designer/builder Not known
Previous owners or occupants Unknown Current function Train and bus station
Previous function(s) Train and bus station
Heritage recognition/protection N/A Local heritage interest N/A
Adjacent lands Adjacent to 13121 and 13203 (listed by municipality)
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 20
CHSR Screening Questions Property Name: N/A Municipal Address: 6840 Metrolinx/GO Transit Rail Corridor: Stouffville PIN: N/A Ownership: GO/Metrolinx Screening for Recognized Cultural Heritage Value Y/N Explanatory Notes If the property includes a railway station, is it designated under the N The property includes a railway station but it Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act? is not designated under the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act. If the property includes a bridge, is it on the Heritage Bridge List? N The property does not contain a bridge Is the property federally owned, and is a building on it designated as a N The Directory of Federal Heritage Federal Heritage Building? Designations was consulted and the property is not a Federal Heritage Building Is the property provincially owned or occupied, and has it been N Consultation with the MTCS confirmed the identified as a Provincial Heritage Property? property is not a Provincial Heritage Property Is the property a National Historic Site? N The list of National Historic Sites of Canada was consulted and the property is not a NHS Is the property commemorated by the Ontario Heritage Trust? N Consultation with the OHT confirmed that the property is not commemorated Is the property subject to an Ontario Heritage Trust Conservation N Consultation with the OHT confirmed that the Easement? property is not subject to an easement Is the property municipally designated under the OHA, Part IV? N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed that the property is not designated under Part IV Is the property part of a municipally designated Heritage N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed Conservation District under the OHA, Part V? that the property is not designated under Part V Is the property listed on a municipal register? N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed that the property is not listed on the municipal register Has the heritage value of the property been identified or protected by N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed the municipality through other planning documents, easements or that the property is not protected by other commemorations? (eg. Heritage overlay, official plan provisions, planning documents zoning) Is the subject property recognized or valued by an Aboriginal N No interest was identified during the community? document review and that detailed information regarding aboriginal pre-contact activity in the area can be found in the Stage 1 Archaeology Report
Screening for Age Y/N Explanatory Notes Does the property have built resources that appear to be more than N All the building(s) on the property were 40 years of age? recently constructed. Does the property have landscape features that may have been N The property has been landscaped recently. created or altered more than 40 years ago?
Screening for Potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest using Y/N Explanatory Notes Ontario Regulation 9/06 Does the property, its built resources or its landscape features, N The Lincolnville train and bus station was appear to have significant design value because: built recently and it’s a typical GO station with I I associated parking lots. () Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 21
• it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, or • it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or • it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? Does the property, its built resources or landscape features, N No known historical value identified during appear to have significant historical or associative value because: preliminary screening. • it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, or • it yields or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or • it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community? Does the property, its built resources or its landscape features, N No significant built or landscape features appear to have significant contextual value because, were noted in the property. • it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, or • it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or • it is a landmark? Screening for Adjacency to Protected Properties Y/N Explanatory Notes Is the property adjacent to a designated property under the OHA, Part N The property is adjacent to 13121 and 13203 IV, a Heritage Conservation District under the OHA, Part V, or a Tenth Line (both listed by municipality) but property that is protected by a heritage easement or covenant? (Use these are not protected heritage properties the definition of adjacency in the municipal official plan, or if there is under the OHA or a heritage easement or none, the definition of adjacency in the Provincial Policy Statement, covenant. 2005.) Screening Outcomes Y/N Explanatory Notes Potential Provincial Heritage Property N The property is not a potential provincial heritage property. Conditional Heritage Property N The property does not have potential for CHVI. Adjacent Land to a Protected Heritage Property N The property is not adjacent to a protected heritage property. Outcome: Not a potential, conditional, or adjacent property Recommendations: CHER not recommended
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 22
Field Property Data
Municipal address 12942 York Durham Line Municipality Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville
Metrolinx/GO Transit Rail Corridor Stouffville
PIN Unknown Ownership Private
Aerial photos See Figure 7
Exterior street view photo
Date of construction N/A Date of significant alterations N/A
Architect/designer/builder N/A
Previous owners or occupants Private Current function Agricultural field
Previous function(s) Agricultural field
Heritage recognition/protection N/A Local heritage interest N/A
Adjacent lands N/A
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 23
CHSR Screening Questions Property Name: N/A Municipal Address: 12942 York Durham Line Metrolinx/GO Transit Rail Corridor: Stouffville PIN: N/A Ownership: Private Screening for Recognized Cultural Heritage Value Y/N Explanatory Notes If the property includes a railway station, is it designated under the N The property does not include a Railway Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act? Station If the property includes a bridge, is it on the Heritage Bridge List? N The property does not contain a bridge Is the property federally owned, and is a building on it designated as a N The Directory of Federal Heritage Federal Heritage Building? Designations was consulted and the property is not a Federal Heritage Building Is the property provincially owned or occupied, and has it been N Consultation with the MTCS confirmed the identified as a Provincial Heritage Property? property is not a Provincial Heritage Property Is the property a National Historic Site? N The list of National Historic Sites of Canada was consulted and the property is not a NHS Is the property commemorated by the Ontario Heritage Trust? N Consultation with the OHT confirmed that the property is not commemorated Is the property subject to an Ontario Heritage Trust Conservation N Consultation with the OHT confirmed that the Easement? property is not subject to an easement Is the property municipally designated under the OHA, Part IV? N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed that the property is not designated under Part IV Is the property part of a municipally designated Heritage N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed Conservation District under the OHA, Part V? that the property is not designated under Part V Is the property listed on a municipal register? N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed that the property is not listed on the municipal register Has the heritage value of the property been identified or protected by N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed the municipality through other planning documents, easements or that the property is not protected by other commemorations? (eg. Heritage overlay, official plan provisions, planning documents zoning) Is the subject property recognized or valued by an Aboriginal N No interest was identified during the community? document review and that detailed information regarding aboriginal pre-contact activity in the area can be found in the Stage 1 Archaeology Report
Screening for Age Y/N Explanatory Notes Does the property have built resources that appear to be more than N No structures on the property 40 years of age? Does the property have landscape features that may have been Y Agricultural field that dates to pre-1954 created or altered more than 40 years ago?
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 24
Screening for Potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest using Y/N Explanatory Notes Ontario Regulation 9/06 Does the property, its built resources or its landscape features, N Common example of an agricultural field in a appear to have significant design value because: rural setting • it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, or • it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or • it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? Does the property, its built resources or landscape features, N No known historical value identified during appear to have significant historical or associative value because: preliminary screening. • it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, or • it yields or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or • it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community? Does the property, its built resources or its landscape features, N The property is in keeping with the appear to have significant contextual value because, surrounding context but is not considered to be an important component in this context. • it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, or • it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or • it is a landmark? Screening for Adjacency to Protected Properties Y/N Explanatory Notes Is the property adjacent to a designated property under the OHA, Part N The property is not adjacent to a protected IV, a Heritage Conservation District under the OHA, Part V, or a property. property that is protected by a heritage easement or covenant? (Use the definition of adjacency in the municipal official plan, or if there is none, the definition of adjacency in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005.) Screening Outcomes Y/N Explanatory Notes Potential Provincial Heritage Property N The property is not a potential provincial heritage property. Conditional Heritage Property N The property does not have potential for CHVI. Adjacent Land to a Protected Heritage Property N The property is not adjacent to a protected heritage property. Outcome: This is not a potential, conditional, or adjacent property. Recommendations: No CHER is required.
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 25
Field Property Data
Municipal address Rail Corridor between Millard Street and York Durham Line Municipality Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville
Metrolinx/GO Transit Rail Corridor Stouffville
PIN N/A Ownership GO Transit/Metrolinx
Aerial photos See Figure 7
Exterior street view photo
Date of construction 1869
Date of significant alterations Rail line converted from narrow gauge to standard gauge in 1880; subsequent repairs and alterations
Architect/designer/builder Toronto and Nipissing Railway
Previous owners or occupants Toronto and Nipissing Railway, Midland Railway, Grand Trunk Railway, Canadian National Railway
Current function Railway
Previous function(s) Railway
Heritage recognition/protection N/A
Local heritage interest Part of the York Durham Heritage Railway
Adjacent lands Adjacent to 13121 and 13203 Tenth Line (listed by Municipality)
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 26
CHSR Screening Questions Property Name: N/A Municipal Address: Railway Corridor between Millard Street and York Durham Line Metrolinx/GO Transit Rail Corridor: Stouffville PIN: N/A Ownership: GO Transit/Metrolinx Screening for Recognized Cultural Heritage Value Y/N Explanatory Notes If the property includes a railway station, is it designated under the N The property does not include a Railway Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act? Station If the property includes a bridge, is it on the Heritage Bridge List? N The property does not contain a bridge Is the property federally owned, and is a building on it designated as a N The Directory of Federal Heritage Federal Heritage Building? Designations was consulted and the property is not a Federal Heritage Building Is the property provincially owned or occupied, and has it been N Consultation with the MTCS confirmed the identified as a Provincial Heritage Property? property is not a Provincial Heritage Property Is the property a National Historic Site? N The list of National Historic Sites of Canada was consulted and the property is not a NHS Is the property commemorated by the Ontario Heritage Trust? N Consultation with the OHT confirmed that the property is not commemorated Is the property subject to an Ontario Heritage Trust Conservation N Consultation with the OHT confirmed that the Easement? property is not subject to an easement Is the property municipally designated under the OHA, Part IV? N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed that the property is not designated under Part IV Is the property part of a municipally designated Heritage N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed Conservation District under the OHA, Part V? that the property is not designated under Part V Is the property listed on a municipal register? N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed that the property is not listed on the municipal register Has the heritage value of the property been identified or protected by N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed the municipality through other planning documents, easements or that the property is not protected by other commemorations? (eg. Heritage overlay, official plan provisions, planning documents zoning) Is the subject property recognized or valued by an Aboriginal N No interest was identified during the community? document review and that detailed information regarding aboriginal pre-contact activity in the area can be found in the Stage 1 Archaeology Report
Screening for Age Y/N Explanatory Notes Does the property have built resources that appear to be more than N The railway was constructed more than 40 40 years of age? years ago, but appears to have been subject to subsequent repairs and alterations Does the property have landscape features that may have been N The railway landscape was created more created or altered more than 40 years ago? than 40 years ago, but appears to have been subject to subsequent repairs and alterations Screening for Potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest using Y/N Explanatory Notes Ontario Regulation 9/06 Does the property, its built resources or its landscape features, N Common, single track rail line that has been appear to have significant design value because: altered since construction • it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, or () Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 27
• it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or • it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? Does the property, its built resources or landscape features, N Original railway constructed c.1869 appear to have significant historical or associative value because: associated with the theme of railway development in the area. However, there do • it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, not appear to be any structures or landscape person, activity, organization or institution that is significant features along the rail line in the study areas to a community, or that specifically support this theme. • it yields or has the potential to yield, information that Accordingly, the rail line between Millard contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, Street and York Durham Line does not meet or this criterion. • it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community? Does the property, its built resources or its landscape features, N The property is in part of a new residential appear to have significant contextual value because, subdivision that is still under construction. • it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, or • it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or • it is a landmark? Screening for Adjacency to Protected Properties Y/N Explanatory Notes Is the property adjacent to a designated property under the OHA, Part N The property is not adjacent to a protected IV, a Heritage Conservation District under the OHA, Part V, or a property. property that is protected by a heritage easement or covenant? (Use the definition of adjacency in the municipal official plan, or if there is none, the definition of adjacency in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005.) Screening Outcomes Y/N Explanatory Notes Potential Provincial Heritage Property N The property is not a potential provincial heritage property. Conditional Heritage Property N The property is not a conditional heritage property. Adjacent Land to a Protected Heritage Property N The property is not adjacent to a protected heritage property. Outcome: This is not a potential, conditional, or adjacent property. Recommendations: No CHER is required.
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 28
A.2 TOWNSHIP OF UXBRIDGE PROPERTIES
Field Property Data
Municipal address 2299 York Durham Line
Municipality Township of Uxbridge Metrolinx/GO Transit Rail Corridor Stouffville
PIN Unknown
Ownership Private Aerial photos See Figure 7
Exterior street view photo
Date of construction Dates pre-1954; a farmstead in this location is depicted in the 1877 map of the Township of Uxbridge
Date of significant alterations Unknown
Architect/designer/builder Unknown
Previous owners or occupants Private
Current function Residential/agricultural Previous function(s) Residential/agricultural
Heritage recognition/protection N/A
Local heritage interest N/A Adjacent lands N/A
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 29
CHSR Screening Questions Property Name: N/A Municipal Address: 2299 York Durham Line Metrolinx/GO Transit Rail Corridor: Stouffville PIN: N/A Ownership: Private Screening for Recognized Cultural Heritage Value Y/N Explanatory Notes If the property includes a railway station, is it designated under the N The property does not include a Railway Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act? Station If the property includes a bridge, is it on the Heritage Bridge List? N The property does not contain a bridge Is the property federally owned, and is a building on it designated as N The Directory of Federal Heritage a Federal Heritage Building? Designations was consulted and the property is not a Federal Heritage Building Is the property provincially owned or occupied, and has it been N Consultation with the MTCS confirmed the identified as a Provincial Heritage Property? property is not a Provincial Heritage Property Is the property a National Historic Site? N The list of National Historic Sites of Canada was consulted and the property is not a NHS Is the property commemorated by the Ontario Heritage Trust? N Consultation with the OHT confirmed that the property is not commemorated Is the property subject to an Ontario Heritage Trust Conservation N Consultation with the OHT confirmed that Easement? the property is not subject to an easement Is the property municipally designated under the OHA, Part IV? N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed that the property is not designated under Part IV Is the property part of a municipally designated Heritage N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed Conservation District under the OHA, Part V? that the property is not designated under Part V Is the property listed on a municipal register? N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed that the property is not listed on the municipal register Has the heritage value of the property been identified or protected N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed by the municipality through other planning documents, easements or that the property is not protected by other commemorations? (eg. Heritage overlay, official plan provisions, planning documents zoning) Is the subject property recognized or valued by an Aboriginal N No interest was identified during the community? document review and that detailed information regarding aboriginal pre-contact activity in the area can be found in the Stage 1 Archaeology Report
Screening for Age Y/N Explanatory Notes Does the property have built resources that appear to be more than Y Farm and residence appear on the 1954 40 years of age? aerial and are depicted on the 1877 map of the Township of Uxbridge Does the property have landscape features that may have been Y Agricultural fields and appear to be created or altered more than 40 years ago? contemporary with the residence and barn Screening for Potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest using Y/N Explanatory Notes Ontario Regulation 9/06 Does the property, its built resources or its landscape features, N/A The residence and barn are screened from appear to have significant design value because: view by vegetation so the design value of this property cannot be determined.
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 30
• it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, or • it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or • it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? Does the property, its built resources or landscape features, Y Property appears on the 1877 map of the appear to have significant historical or associative value because: Township of Uxbridge and A. Morris is depicted as the property owner. • it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, or • it yields or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or • it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community? Does the property, its built resources or its landscape features, Y The property is historically, functionally, and appear to have significant contextual value because, physically linked its surroundings. • it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, or • it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or • it is a landmark? Screening for Adjacency to Protected Properties Y/N Explanatory Notes Is the property adjacent to a designated property under the OHA, Part N The property is not adjacent to a protected IV, a Heritage Conservation District under the OHA, Part V, or a property. property that is protected by a heritage easement or covenant? (Use the definition of adjacency in the municipal official plan, or if there is none, the definition of adjacency in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005.) Screening Outcomes Y/N Explanatory Notes Potential Provincial Heritage Property N The property is not a potential provincial heritage property. Conditional Heritage Property Y The property has potential CHVI. Adjacent Land to a Protected Heritage Property N The property is not adjacent to a protected heritage property. Outcome: Conditional Heritage Property Recommendations: CHER recommended if work is proposed within 50 metres of the residence and barn. However, drawings of the proposed work demonstrated that all work will take place at least 85 metres away from residence and barn, within the existing Lincolnville GO Station property. Therefore, a CHER is not recommended for this property since there are no anticipated direct or indirect impacts.
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 31
Field Property Data
Municipal address 2499 York Durham Line Municipality Township of Uxbridge
Metrolinx/GO Transit Rail Corridor Stouffville
PIN Unknown Ownership Private
Aerial photos See Figure 7
Exterior street view photo
Date of construction Pre-1954; a farmstead in this location is depicted on the 1877 map of the Township of Uxbridge
Date of significant alterations Unknown
Architect/designer/builder Unknown
Previous owners or occupants Private Current function Residential/agricultural
Previous function(s) Residential/agricultural
Heritage recognition/protection N/A Local heritage interest N/A
Adjacent lands N/A
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 32
CHSR Screening Questions Property Name: N/A Municipal Address: 2499 York Durham Line Metrolinx/GO Transit Rail Corridor: Stouffville PIN: N/A Ownership: Private Screening for Recognized Cultural Heritage Value Y/N Explanatory Notes If the property includes a railway station, is it designated under the N The property does not include a Railway Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act? Station If the property includes a bridge, is it on the Heritage Bridge List? N The property does not contain a bridge Is the property federally owned, and is a building on it designated as N The Directory of Federal Heritage a Federal Heritage Building? Designations was consulted and the property is not a Federal Heritage Building Is the property provincially owned or occupied, and has it been N Consultation with the MTCS confirmed the identified as a Provincial Heritage Property? property is not a Provincial Heritage Property Is the property a National Historic Site? N The list of National Historic Sites of Canada was consulted and the property is not a NHS Is the property commemorated by the Ontario Heritage Trust? N Consultation with the OHT confirmed that the property is not commemorated Is the property subject to an Ontario Heritage Trust Conservation N Consultation with the OHT confirmed that Easement? the property is not subject to an easement Is the property municipally designated under the OHA, Part IV? N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed that the property is not designated under Part IV Is the property part of a municipally designated Heritage N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed Conservation District under the OHA, Part V? that the property is not designated under Part V Is the property listed on a municipal register? N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed that the property is not listed on the municipal register Has the heritage value of the property been identified or protected N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed by the municipality through other planning documents, easements or that the property is not protected by other commemorations? (eg. Heritage overlay, official plan provisions, planning documents zoning) Is the subject property recognized or valued by an Aboriginal N No interest was identified during the community? document review and that detailed information regarding aboriginal pre-contact activity in the area can be found in the Stage 1 Archaeology Report
Screening for Age Y/N Explanatory Notes Does the property have built resources that appear to be more than Y Farm and residence appear on the 1954 40 years of age? aerial and are depicted on the 1877 map of the Township of Uxbridge Does the property have landscape features that may have been Y Agricultural fields and appear to be created or altered more than 40 years ago? contemporary with the residence and barn Screening for Potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest using Y/N Explanatory Notes Ontario Regulation 9/06 Does the property, its built resources or its landscape features, N/A The residence, barn, and outbuildings are appear to have significant design value because: screened from view by vegetation and a deep setback so the design value if this property cannot be determined. () Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 33
• it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, or • it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or • it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? Does the property, its built resources or landscape features, Y Property appears on the 1877 map of the appear to have significant historical or associative value because: Township of Uxbridge and J. Eckardt is depicted as the property owner. • it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, or • it yields or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or • it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community? Does the property, its built resources or its landscape features, Y The property is historically, functionally, and appear to have significant contextual value because, physically linked its surroundings. • it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, or • it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or • it is a landmark? Screening for Adjacency to Protected Properties Y/N Explanatory Notes Is the property adjacent to a designated property under the OHA, Part N The property is not adjacent to a protected IV, a Heritage Conservation District under the OHA, Part V, or a property. property that is protected by a heritage easement or covenant? (Use the definition of adjacency in the municipal official plan, or if there is none, the definition of adjacency in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005.) Screening Outcomes Y/N Explanatory Notes Potential Provincial Heritage Property N The property is not a potential provincial heritage property. Conditional Heritage Property Y The property has potential CHVI. Adjacent Land to a Protected Heritage Property N The property is not adjacent to a protected heritage property. Outcome: Conditional Heritage Property Recommendations: CHER recommended if work is proposed within 50 metres of the farm complex. However, drawings of the proposed work demonstrated that all work will take place at least 180 metres away from residence and barn, within the existing Lincolnville GO Station property. Therefore, a CHER is not recommended for this property since there are no anticipated direct or indirect impacts.
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 34
Field Property Data
Municipal address 2699 York Durham Line Municipality Township of Uxbridge
Metrolinx/GO Transit Rail Stouffville Corridor
PIN Unknown Ownership Private
Aerial photos See Figure 7
Exterior street view photo
Date of construction Golf Course constructed 2000; residence on property appears to date to 19th century
Date of significant alterations 2000 (construction of golf course)
Architect/designer/builder Thomas McBroom
Previous owners or occupants Private Current function Golf course
Previous function(s) Farmstead
Heritage N/A recognition/protection Local heritage interest N/A
Adjacent lands N/A
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 35
CHSR Screening Questions Property Name: N/A Municipal Address: 2699 York Durham Line Metrolinx/GO Transit Rail Corridor: Stouffville PIN: N/A Ownership: Private Screening for Recognized Cultural Heritage Value Y/N Explanatory Notes If the property includes a railway station, is it designated under the N The property does not include a Railway Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act? Station If the property includes a bridge, is it on the Heritage Bridge List? N The property does not contain a bridge Is the property federally owned, and is a building on it designated as a N The Directory of Federal Heritage Federal Heritage Building? Designations was consulted and the property is not a Federal Heritage Building Is the property provincially owned or occupied, and has it been N Consultation with the MTCS confirmed the identified as a Provincial Heritage Property? property is not a Provincial Heritage Property Is the property a National Historic Site? N The list of National Historic Sites of Canada was consulted and the property is not a NHS Is the property commemorated by the Ontario Heritage Trust? N Consultation with the OHT confirmed that the property is not commemorated Is the property subject to an Ontario Heritage Trust Conservation N Consultation with the OHT confirmed that the Easement? property is not subject to an easement Is the property municipally designated under the OHA, Part IV? N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed that the property is not designated under Part IV Is the property part of a municipally designated Heritage N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed Conservation District under the OHA, Part V? that the property is not designated under Part V Is the property listed on a municipal register? N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed that the property is not listed on the municipal register Has the heritage value of the property been identified or protected by N Consultation with the Municipality confirmed the municipality through other planning documents, easements or that the property is not protected by other commemorations? (eg. Heritage overlay, official plan provisions, planning documents zoning) Is the subject property recognized or valued by an Aboriginal N No interest was identified during the community? document review and that detailed information regarding aboriginal pre-contact activity in the area can be found in the Stage 1 Archaeology Report
Screening for Age Y/N Explanatory Notes Does the property have built resources that appear to be more than Y Property contains a residence and barn that 40 years of age? appear to date to the 19th century. However, these buildings do not appear on historical mapping or the 1954 aerial image so it is likely that they were moved to this location relatively recently. Does the property have landscape features that may have been N The property has been landscaped recently. created or altered more than 40 years ago? Screening for Potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest using Y/N Explanatory Notes Ontario Regulation 9/06 Does the property, its built resources or its landscape features, Y The Granite Golf Club course was designed appear to have significant design value because: by Thomas McBroom, who is a renowned golf architect. The golf course is designated () Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 36
• it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a as a Certified Audubon Cooperative style, type, expression, material or construction method, or Sanctuary, which is awarded to golf courses • it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, that protect natural resources and wildlife. or The Granite Golf Club has won numerous • it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific awards for its design. achievement? The deep setback of the 19th century residence on the property prevents observations of this built heritage resource. Does the property, its built resources or landscape features, Y The 19th century residence has the potential appear to have significant historical or associative value because: to yield information on the community of Lincolnville and possibly early settlers in the • it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, area. person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, or • it yields or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or • it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community? Does the property, its built resources or its landscape features, N The property is in keeping with the appear to have significant contextual value because, surrounding context but is not considered to be an important component in this context. • it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, or • it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or • it is a landmark? Screening for Adjacency to Protected Properties Y/N Explanatory Notes Is the property adjacent to a designated property under the OHA, Part N The property is not adjacent to a protected IV, a Heritage Conservation District under the OHA, Part V, or a property. property that is protected by a heritage easement or covenant? (Use the definition of adjacency in the municipal official plan, or if there is none, the definition of adjacency in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005.) Screening Outcomes Y/N Explanatory Notes Potential Provincial Heritage Property N The property is not a potential provincial heritage property. Conditional Heritage Property Y The property has potential CHVI. Adjacent Land to a Protected Heritage Property N The property is not adjacent to a protected heritage property. Outcome: Conditional Heritage Property Recommendations: CHER recommended if work is proposed within 50 metres of the 19th century residence. However, drawings of the proposed work demonstrated that all work will take place at least 240 metres away from residence, within the existing Lincolnville GO Station property. Therefore, a CHER is not recommended for this property since there are no anticipated direct or indirect impacts.
() Stantec cn \\cd1217-f01\01609\active\1609 archaeology internal\1135200010\work_program\report\heritage\chsr\draft\appendix_a\appendix_a_datasheets_screening_revised_20171012.docx 37