Agenda Heritage and Museum Advisory Committee Meeting #6 Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 7:00 PM Municipal Office Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest & Nature Thereof 3. Adoption of the Minutes
i. Minutes of the 5th Regular Meeting of the Scugog Heritage and Museum Advisory Committee held May 16, 2017 Errors & Omissions: Recommendation: THAT the Minutes of the 5th Regular Meeting of the Scugog Heritage and Museum Advisory Committee held May 16, 2017 be adopted.
4. Business Arising Out of the Minutes
5. Deputation i. Doug Young - Property Owner David Brand – Developer Re: 234 Union Avenue
ii. Sol-Arch Ltd. Jonathan Benczkowski Re: 289 North Street
iii. Fraser Dimma – TENTATIVE Re: 221 Mary Street – Mueller Property
To request an alternative accessible format, please contact the Clerks Department at 905-985-7346
6. Reports/Updates i. GBCA Architects
RE: Borgal Report - Merits of Designating the Property at 221Mary Street
ii. Township of Scugog – Peter Wokral RE: Township of Scugog’s Reply to Borgal Report 221 Mary Street
Committee to review and forward a motion to Council to adjust or reaffirm the committee’s previously stated position regarding the above noted matter.
iii. Erika Kohek – Township Staff RE: Draft Policy for Evaluation of Heritage Resources
Committee to review and forward a motion to adopt or revise.
iv. Erika Kohek – Township Staff RE: Adding Properties to the Register
Committee to review and forward a motion to adopt or revise.
v. Curator’s Report(s)
Recommendation:
THAT the reports prepared by the Curator dated June 20, 2017 be received for information.
Updates i. BIA ii. Phase II Waterfront Steering Committee iii. Township of Scugog
To request an alternative accessible format, please contact the Clerks Department at 905-985-7346
Planning Issues
Heritage Permit Sub Committee Minutes
i. Nothing to Report at this time
Education and Public Awareness i. Accessibility Committee to meet in September RE: Information Sharing Session
7. Correspondence
i. Street Names
RE: Committee to review and recommend to Council two street names for the New Plan of Subdivision.
8. Other Matters/New Business i. 2018 Committee Budget To discuss the 2018 budget in full detail (amount requested and reasons why)
ii. Important Dates
• August 13, 2017 Driftwood Theatre presents the Bard’s Bus Tour • August 20, 2017 Pioneer Day • Date tbc September, 2017 Murder Mystery Evening • September – October 2017 (dates tbc) Celebrating Durham/Scugog’s Agricultural Heritage • December 10, 2017 Children’s Old Fashioned Christmas in the Village
9. Outstanding Matters i. Plaque Revision – Canadian Bank of Commerce
To request an alternative accessible format, please contact the Clerks Department at 905-985-7346
10. Follow-Up/ Recommendations from Council
11. Date and Time of Next Meeting Date in September to be determined, 2017 at 7:00 PM.
12. Adjournment
To request an alternative accessible format, please contact the Clerks Department at 905-985-7346
Minutes of the 5th Regular Meeting of the Scugog Heritage & Museum Advisory Committee Held Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 7:00 PM Scugog Arena
Present: Council Representative(s) Ms. Jennifer Back Mr. Don Kett Chair Mr. Dan Stone Vice Chair Ms. Marina Brock Members Mr. Peter Hvidsten Mr. Guy Latreille Mr. Brandon Guido Ms. Jasmine Stein
Also Present: Committee Coordinator Ms. Christy Harrison Planning Technician Mr. Roberto Vertolli Planning Student Ms. Erika Kohek Museum Curator Ms. Shannon Kelly
Guests from Twp. Of Uxbridge Mayor Ms. Gerri Lynn O’Connor Councillor Ms. Pamela Beach Committee Chair Mr. Robin Coombs Committee Member Ms. Eileen Wilson Committee Member Ms. Helen Pruss Committee Member Ms. Robin John Committee Member Ms. Tamara Williamson
Regrets: Director of Development Services Mr. Kevin Heritage
Call to Order
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. A quorum was present and round table introductions followed. Guests from the Township of Uxbridge introduced themselves and gave a brief statement as to their invested interest in heritage matters.
1. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest & Nature Thereof
No member made a disclosure of pecuniary interest.
Heritage & Museum Advisory Committee Meeting # 5 May 16, 2017
2. Adoption of the Minutes
i. Minutes of the 4th Regular Meeting of the Scugog Heritage and Museum Advisory Committee held April 18, 2017 Errors & Omissions: Committee Recommendation: Moved by: Councillor Kett THAT the Minutes of the 4th Regular Meeting of the Scugog Heritage and Museum Advisory Committee held April 18, 2017 be adopted. Carried
3. Business Arising Out of the Minutes
i. Heritage Plaque Presentation The Chair and Mr. Hvidsten presented Ms. Stein with her plaque to be displayed on her (now designated) home. The committee and guests all congratulated Ms. Stein.
ii. Blackstock Church - Update The Committee discussed the designation of the Blackstock Anglican Church and the current status of the application.
5. Deputation - Nil
6. Reports/Updates
i. Curator’s Report
Committee Recommendation:
Moved by: Peter Hvidsten
THAT the report prepared by the Curator dated May 16th, 2017 be received for information.
Carried
Heritage & Museum Advisory Committee Meeting # 5 May 16, 2017 Updates
BIA – Recap
Vice Chair Brock provided an update on the current status on the BIA’s projects that included but was not limited to the following: BIA is currently looking at arch lighting in the conservation district; Working on the final details, costs, etc. Hopefully to be finalized within the next year to a year and a half.
Phase II Waterfront Steering Committee
Councillor Back provided the Township of Uxbridge with an overview of the Old Mill project including history of the Old Mill itself. Councillor back then discussed in further detail the current status of the report that went to Council, which included but was not limited to the following:
The engineering report has been received and very happy with the outcome; Old Mill is structurally sound; Have send out a request of interest out to the public to restore the Old Mill; Prospects could include a high end restaurant or winery.
The committee continued the discussion and noted the possibilities the Old Mill could create within the downtown core.
Township of Scugog
See above notes
Planning Issues
Heritage Permit Sub-Committee Minutes
i. Nothing to report at this time
Heritage & Museum Advisory Committee Meeting # 5 May 16, 2017
Education and Awareness
i. Scugog Heritage Gallery
The Chair updated all in attendance on the above noted website that was created by Mr. Peter Hvidsten. The Chair also noted that the link to the website is already on the BIA’s website and would like to have it placed on the Township’s website in the near future.
ii. Uxbridge Heritage Committee
Re: Information Sharing Session
The Township of Uxbridge Committee participated and shared their experiences throughout the meeting.
7. Correspondence i. CHO News
Re: Spring 2017 Update
Committee Recommendation:
Moved by: Guy Latreille
THAT the Correspondence be Received for Information.
Carried
ii. Ontario Heritage Conference
RE: 2017 Ontario Heritage Conference – Registration
Committee Recommendation:
Moved by: Brandon Guido
THAT the Correspondence be Received for Information.
Carried
Heritage & Museum Advisory Committee Meeting # 5 May 16, 2017
8. Other Matters / New Business
i. Adding Properties of Heritage Significance to the Registry
The Chair and Vice Chair made reference to the list (Attachment 1) of properties to be placed on the Register. The discussion included but was not limited to the following:
Noted there are several procedural differences between the two Townships including record keeping, heritage significance and support within the community; Shared the importance of preserving heritage as a whole; Discussed the importance of staff members and the value of the volunteers; Ms. Kohek, Township of Scugog, Planning Student, noted her adjustments to the list.
The Committee discussed amongst themselves and agreed to have the properties listed in Attachment #1 added to the Township of Scugog’s Heritage Register based on the recommendations from both Staff and Council.
Committee Recommendation: Moved by: Councillor Kett THAT the Properties listed in Attachment 1, be placed on the Scugog Heritage Register subject to staff confirming the correct address and Heritage Value of each property.
ii. Reminder – The Scugog Accessibility Advisory Committee will be joining the Heritage Committee on June 20th
Heritage & Museum Advisory Committee Meeting # 5 May 16, 2017
iv. Important Dates May 20, 2017 Scugog Shores Museum Village opens for the season June 3, 2017 49th Annual Canoe the Nonquon July 15 and July 16, 2017 15th Annual Dog Days of Scugog August 13, 2017 Driftwood Theatre presents the Bard’s Bus Tour August 20, 2017 Pioneer Day Date tbc September, 2017 Murder Mystery Evening September – October 2017 (dates tbc) Celebrating Durham/Scugog’s Agricultural Heritage December 10, 2017 Children’s Old Fashioned Christmas in the Village
9. Outstanding Matters
10. Follow-up/Recommendations from Council i. 289 North Street - Designation to Council
11. Date and Time of Following Meeting
The next meeting will be June 20, 2017 at 7:00 PM
12. Adjournment 9:04PM
Committee Recommendation:
Moved by: Guy Latreille
THAT the meeting be adjourned.
Carried
Respectfully submitted,
Mr. Dan Stone, Chair
Report on the Merits of Designating the Property at 221 Mary Street (Lot 76, Plan H50020), Port Perry, Township of Scugog under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act
Prepared by Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd. Architects for Eva and James Mueller
8 March 2017
8 March 2017
Ms Eva Mueller and Mr. James Mueller 4 – 340 Buena Vista Avenue Oshawa, Ontario, L1J 1M5
Dear Ms Mueller and Mr. Mueller:
Re: 221 Mary Street, Port Perry, Township of Scugog, Case Number CRB1618
Thank you for asking us to report on the merits of designating the property at 221 Mary Street in Port Perry under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.
We have reviewed the designation by-law through our site visits, historical research and reading of Township minutes, the municipal heritage register, official plan policies and zoning by-law provisions.
We offer an opinion by comparing our findings to the criteria given in Ontario Regulation 9/06 for determining cultural heritage value or interest.
Yours sincerely Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd. Architects
Christopher Borgal, OAA., FRAIC, CAHP President cc: Shannon Carrick, CRB Case Coordinator Nicole Wellsbury, Municipal Clerk, Township of Scugog Adnan Naeem and Soojin Lee, Co-Counsel, Township of Scugog Eileen Costello, Partner, Aird + Berlis LLP
221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
Table of Contents
Section Number Page
1.0 Background 1
2.0 Findings of Visual Inspection and Historical Research 7
3.0 The Arts & Crafts Bungalow as an Architectural Style 20
4.0 The Character of the North Side of Mary Street 41
5.0 Conclusions 54
6.0 Bibliography 59
Appendix A: Notice of Intention to Designate i
Appendix B: Report Author’s Qualifications ii
221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
1.0 Background
1.1 Steps Leading to the Designation
At the March 2016 meeting of the Township of Scugog Heritage and Museum Advisory Committee, James Mueller, son of Eva Mueller, the owner of the property at 221 Mary Street, requested that the property be removed from the Township of Scugog Municipal Heritage Register. The Muellers wished to demolish the house and replace it with new rental accommodation. The property had been listed under Section 27 (1.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act for the one-storey, Craftsman house standing on it. We note that the register listing provided a construction date of c.1951 for the house.
In anticipation of the meeting, Peter Wokral, the Township’s heritage advisor and a heritage planner employed by the City of Markham, had advised Kim Cox, Committee Coordinator for the Township of Scugog, that the house at 221 Mary Street had been placed on the Township of Scugog Municipal Heritage Register for both its age, estimated at almost 100 years, and for being a good example of an early 20th century Arts & Crafts Bungalow. Ms Cox was informed that Arts & Crafts Bungalows are relatively rare in Port Perry and Scugog Township. Peter Wokral compared the architectural features of the house at 221 Mary Street to illustrations found in the Lee Valley reprint of the 1923 Morgan Woodwork Organization book of house plans. He disputed the house’s date of construction – 1951 – since its exterior architectural features appear to be earlier. He suggested that an inspection of the interior would provide more valuable information about the true date of construction.
Because the construction date could not be determined from an assessment of the exterior, James Mueller agreed to offer access to the house’s interior and to wait on the heritage advisor’s report before proceeding further on the matter.
In April 2016, Peter Wokral was invited into the house by the Muellers so that he could conduct his interior inspection. He concluded that the house was not constructed in 1950 [sic]. He said:
“The house is in fact an evolved house having a floor structure that dates from the late 19th century, sometime between 1860 and 1900, based on the circular saw marks found on the joists and hand hewn main beams. This type of construction is most certainly not from the 1950's. The ground floor exhibits many characteristics of early 20th century interiors including thin strip oak floors, plaster walls, cast iron floor grates, trims and door hardware typical of the early 20th century, a 9 foot high ceiling with crown mouldings in the living room, double French doors with bevelled glass, and a patterned rug-brick
1 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
fireplace. These types of interior finishes are rarely found in homes constructed after the Second World War. The interior also features salvaged 19th century solid wooden doors and wooden windows typical of the late 19th century.
“The exterior of the house has strong Arts & Crafts bungalow features such as the one- storey form, the large low sloped sheltering roof, with clipped gables, supported by simple decorative eave brackets, prominent exterior brick chimney, an informal building footprint and arrangement of openings, wooden clapboard cladding, and wooden windows banked in groups of two or three. Of special note are the fine classical trims around the front door and large picture window.”
He then inferred that the house had been moved:
“It is my opinion that the existing house was moved to its current location from another property in town and set upon a pre-existing stone foundation from an earlier 19th century house or structure that was either demolished or burned. This is based on the fact that part of the foundation is of granite rubble fieldstone that does not conform to the footprint of the house, while the remainder is of poured concrete. This opinion is also based on the ground floor joists continuing over the internal stone foundation wall to a beam located within the crawl space instead of the usual arrangement of having the beam resting on the top of an internal foundation wall.
“This move may have occurred in 1950 and would help explain the Township records, the poured concrete foundation, large front facing picture window, and the exterior claddings of aluminum siding and angel stone veneer. These exterior features are all typical of the 1950's.”
At the Committee’s June meeting, both Peter Wokral and James Mueller attended. Mr. Mueller disagreed with Peter Wokral’s analysis, believing that the house was built on site and not moved there. Mr. Mueller also thought that the house was more than likely built around 1950.
Dan Stone, Committee Chair, advised that even if the house were built in the 1950s it would still have heritage value as a heritage designation takes into account more than the date it was built. Accepting Mr. Wokral’s visual assessment, the Committee recommended designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. At the same time, the Committee encouraged the Muellers to work with the Committee on any development project involving the property at 221 Mary Street and the property at 230 Queen Street, which is also owned by Eva Mueller and is directly north of 221 Mary Street. Mr. Mueller’s inquiry about relocating the house was not discussed.
Township Council adopted the Committee’s recommendation on June 27, 2016, making
2 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017 the property at 221 Mary Street merely the eighth property in all of Scugog Township to be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.
At the Council meeting, Eva Mueller objected to the designation. She compared the property to the criteria in Ontario Regulation 9/06 and asserted that:
– The Township believes that the building at 221 Mary Street had been moved from an unknown location.
– The existing building is now completely different from its 19th century appearance and is no longer representative of its original style.
– The building is neither rare nor unique.
– The building does not display a high degree of craftsmanship.
– The building is not associated with a theme, event, person or activity that is significant to Port Perry.
– The building is not a landmark.
The Township’s Director of Community Services offered her the opportunity of appealing to the Conservation Review Board. In response to the Township serving notice of intention to designate on July 5, Eva and James Mueller sent their letter of objection. In their August 3 letter, they noted that designation would seriously impact any development plans.
1.2 Content in the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and Description of Heritage Attributes
The notice of intention to designate 221 Mary Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act is reproduced in Appendix A.
To summarize, the two-paragraph statement of cultural heritage value or interest explains the property’s cultural heritage significance as follows:
– The house is a good example of an early 20th century Arts & Crafts Bungalow. It exhibits several of the classic-defining characteristics of this early modern house style.
3 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
– The house is a rare example of an Arts & Crafts Bungalow since only a relatively few Arts & Crafts Bungalows were constructed in Port Perry.
– The house’s structure tells the story of an earlier 19th century house which evolved over time, and how builders of the early 20th century recycled older buildings and materials to create an up-to-date residence.
– Along with numerous other nearby heritage homes, the dwelling helps define the historic residential character of Port Perry’s earliest neighbourhood; which was planned by Peter Perry in 1848.
The description of heritage attributes includes several exterior features on the house and one interior feature. Two of the identified heritage attributes ensure that the house can never co-exist with new construction on the site. They are:
– the foundation walls made of local 19th century fieldstone and early 20th century poured concrete; and,
– the late 19th century first floor structure composed of hand-hewn beams and pocketed 2 x 6 circular-sawn floor joists.
These heritage attributes, in particular, prevent relocation of the house on the property and the placing of the relocated house on a new foundation. The house is set back farther from the street than adjacent houses. The selected heritage attributes make it impossible to bring the house closer to the street so that a front yard similar to adjacent houses is created and new construction behind the relocated house can be accommodated.
1.3 Other Municipal Planning Controls on 221 Mary Street
According to the Township web site, the Heritage and Museum Advisory Committee is guided in the evaluation of properties of cultural value by the regulations of the Ontario Heritage Act and the policies of the Township of Scugog Official Plan:
“Using the guidelines of the Ontario Heritage Act and the Township of Scugog Official Plan, the Committee: ...
– Establishes criteria for evaluating properties of architectural, historic or cultural value and interest.”
4 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
The Township of Scugog Official Plan designates the historic commercial core of Port Perry as the Main Central Area. The property at 221 Mary Street is located there. In addition to several kinds of commercial uses, a variety of housing forms are permitted – single-detached and semi-detached houses, duplexes, three-plexes, four-plexes, apartments and townhouses (street, block and stacked).
Official Plan Amendment No. 5, passed by Township Council in November 2015, provides detailed policies to guide development within the Port Perry Urban Area. The official plan amendment does not locate the property at 221 Mary Street in a Priority Intensification Area; but intensification is encouraged in the remainder of Port Perry’s built-up area, including the Established Neighbourhood of which 221 Mary Street is part. The Established Neighbourhood encompasses Queen Street (the main commercial street in Port Perry), several blocks north of Queen Street, and several blocks between Queen and Scugog Streets. Intensification in this large Established Neighbourhood will occur with a density and massing similar to the area’s existing character. Adaptive reuse of buildings will be supported for infill and intensification projects.
The Township of Scugog Zoning By-law 14-14, which should and is meant to conform to the official plan, zones the property at 221 Mary Street C3-1 – Main Central Commercial with an exception. Permitted uses include dwelling units, provided that they occupy a portion of a Non-Residential Building. Zoning regulations for C3 – Main Central Commercial have no minimum requirements for lot area, lot frontage, the front yard, rear yard, side yards or landscaped open space. Lot coverage can go up to 80 per cent, and the maximum building height is 12 metres (about 39 feet or three storeys). However, in C3-1, a minimum front yard requirement is added. In C3-1, the minimum front yard requirement is the front yard as it existed when the zoning by-law was passed in 2014. As well, no more than 40 per cent of the front yard can be used for driveways and parking. The C3-1 zone is very small, applying to only a few properties along Mary Street. The prospect of intensification at 221 Mary Street is therefore restricted since the front yard at 221 Mary Street is deep – unlike its neighbours at 209 Mary Street, 229 Mary Street and 233 Mary Street.
Furthermore, the property at 221 Mary Street is controlled by its adjacency to the Downtown Port Perry Heritage Conservation District extending along both sides of Queen Street. Property located in the heritage conservation district is defined as protected heritage property under the Provincial Policy Statement, which states:
“Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes
5 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
of the protected heritage property will be conserved.”
With the designation of 221 Mary Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, the municipality appears to have gone to extraordinary lengths to discourage intensification at 221 Mary Street.
1.4 Engagement of Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd. Architects (GBCA) by the Property Owner
Believing that the Township was wrong in designating her property, Eva Mueller sought out the opinion of GBCA in the summer of 2016. Christopher Borgal OAA FRAIC CAHP (a CV is included in the Appendices), is author of this report and is principal of the firm which specializes in architectural conservation. The mandate of the retained was to review the site in relation to the conclusions reached by the municipality.
6 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
2.0 Findings of Visual Inspection and Historical Research
2.1 Visual Inspection, October 27, 2016
The one-storey, frame bungalow at 221 Mary Street is set back 70 feet from the street. The backyard is also relatively deep.
In plan, the bungalow occupies a square footprint except for a short projecting bay and porch along the front facade. Most of the area under the house is crawl space with perimeter walls of mid-20th century concrete and a small, earlier cellar constructed of stone. Reclaimed joists (showing evidence of previous markings of lath and plaster) project from the stone cellar into the crawl space areas. The main beam is hewn with pocketed timbers (not consistent with an early 20th century or 1951 date) and the top of the stone foundation wall has been hacked off: the main floor framing is therefore a re- used composite of at least one and perhaps more than one earlier structure.
Aluminum siding on the walls hides wood siding, the original cladding. The metal siding appears to date from the late 1960’s or early 1970’s while wood siding was still in use in the 1950’s.
The building’s most distinctive feature is its clipped gable roofs which are seen on all elevations. The roofs hang over the walls to create deep bracketed eaves. The front facade incorporates a cantilevered porch supported by brackets. The porch meets, and nestles into, a projecting bay. The front door and a picture window beside it are sheltered under the porch. Both the front door and picture window are surrounded with a Classically influenced treatment of wood pilasters and entablatures. These surrounds appear to be much older than the remainder of the fabric of the building and may have been salvaged from another structure.
Other windows are trimmed with plain wood surrounds and are typically 2/2 pattern which is not consistent with Arts and Crafts detailing nor with windows of the 1950’s. They, too, may have been salvaged from an earlier structure.
A tall, red brick, splayed chimney is set against the bungalow’s west wall. This chimney is constructed of mid-20th century extruded red brick masonry and is cut into the stone foundation wall below grade. It appears to be contemporary with the upper portion of the house and much newer than the foundation itself.
Photographs on the following pages, dated to 27 October 2016, illustrate the observations.
7 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
The bungalow has an unusually deep front yard in comparison to its neighbours.
The backyard is also deep and abuts the backyard of the two-storey brick-veneer building at 230 Queen Street.
8 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
Wood siding lies hidden under aluminum siding.
The bungalow’s most distinctive feature is its clipped gable roofs which hang over the walls to create deep bracketed eaves. Shown is a corner view of the front facade and east elevation.
9 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
The east elevation.
The west elevation.
10 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
The rear (north) elevation.
The front door is framed by pilasters and an entablature.
11 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
The picture window beside the front door is similarly trimmed with surrounds in a Classical treatment.
Other windows have plain wood surrounds.
12 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
A tall, red brick, splayed chimney is set against the bungalow’s west wall.
A little bit of the rubble stone foundation under part of the bungalow is visible on the west elevation.
13 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
A view in the cellar shows the join between the rubble stone foundation and the concrete foundation. The cellar is not a habitable space and forms only a part of the area under the house, which primarily rests on mid-20th century concrete foundations.
14 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
2.2 Historical Research
For our review, we searched fire insurance plans, the land title, and property tax assessment data. We asked Shannon Kelly, curator of the Scugog Shores Museums, and Sandy Denby, volunteer archivist, for historic photographs showing the north side of Mary Street, including the house at 221 Mary Street: none exist in their archives. We also reviewed relevant portions of a number of books written about Port Perry’s history and architecture, although none of them feature 221 Mary Street.
Only one fire insurance plan of Port Perry survives. Drawn in 1923 (see next page), the plan illustrated a one-storey, frame dwelling at the property with the current street address of 221 Mary Street (it was numbered 236 Mary Street in 1923). The dwelling’s front yard setback in 1923 was similar to the existing house’s setback from the street, but the front wall of the dwelling did not have the projecting bay and porch of the existing house. Also unlike the existing house, the dwelling had two back wings with an east-facing porch. Although the building on the 1923 plan matches the existing house in terms of construction, stated height, setback from the street and use, it does not match in terms of plan.
A search of the property’s land title at the Durham Land Registry Office revealed that a house stood on the property in 1898 (see a summary of the land title at the end of subsection 2.2). That year, John Wyne Davis wrote his will. The will described Davis as an undertaker. He had “brick furniture warerooms” located at the southwest corner of Queen and Perry Streets. He lived in a house on Lot 76, on the north side of Mary Street. He bequeathed the house and lot to his daughter, Naomi Davis; and directed that his son, Albert John Davis, pay off the mortgage on the house and lot.
The property stayed in the Davis family until 1942. The fire insurance plan from 1923, therefore, dates from the time when the Davis family owned the property. In addition to the Davis’ frame dwelling, the plan showed an adjacent “undertaker’s auto shed” and a brick store at the southwest corner of Queen and Perry Streets.
15 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
Detail from Underwriters Survey Bureau, “Insurance Plan of Port Perry Ont.” (Toronto and Montreal: Underwriters Survey Bureau, Nov. 1923), pl. 2, Toronto Reference Library. Typically, buildings shown in fire insurance plans were accurate representations as they appeared in plan. These colour-coded plans captured details such as porches and bay windows. For instance, the bay windows on the brick-veneer dwelling next door to the subject property were drawn on the 1923 plan exactly as the house exhibits them today.
16 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
In 1942, Annie Eliza Davis, a widow, sold Lot 76 on the north side of Mary Street to George Murray Williams, an automobile salesman, and his wife, Doris Jean Williams, for $800. For the Second World War period, the price seems low; it compares with the lot’s value in 1872, 70 years before. When George and Doris Williams sold the lot in 1955 to merchant Herbert Howard Stone and his wife, Edna Alberta Stone, the selling price was $2,500. While conjecture, it seems reasonable that the property in 1942 contained a relatively derelict residence. The much higher value in 1955 suggests major improvements after the 1942 sale.
A year-to-year comparison of real property value recorded in property tax assessment rolls or collectors’ rolls can be helpful in determining the date of construction for principal buildings. Unfortunately for Port Perry, a continuous run of assessment rolls and collectors’ rolls has not survived. The Archives of Ontario has collectors’ rolls from 1908 and 1910-30, assessment rolls for 1920-30, and combined assessment and collectors’ rolls covering 1955-58. The period between 1942 and 1955 is missing. However, the available property tax assessment data reflects the same pattern as shown in the land title – that real property value was flat between 1908 and 1930, and that in 1955 it spiked upward (see chart below).
Selected Property Tax Assessment Data for 221 Mary Street Year Roll # Tax Payer Property Description Value 1908 106 Mrs. Naomi Coburn & Mary St., Lot 76, 1/4 acre $600 total value of A.J. Davis, owner real property 1910 109 same same same 1920 172 & Naomi Coburn, married Mary St., Lot 76, 1/4 acre $100 value of real 173 woman, & A.J. Davis, property exclusive druggist, owner of buildings; $550 value of buildings; $650 total value of land and buildings 1930 171 Naomi Coburn, widow, Mary St., Lot 76, 1/4 acre $100 value of real 79 years old & A.J. property exclusive Davis, owner of buildings; $400 value of buildings; $500 total assessment 1955 for 420 Howard H. Stone, Mary St., Lot 76, 66-foot $300 value of land; 1956 merchant, 72 years old [frontage] $3,225 value of & Edna Stone, married buildings; $3,525 woman, 69 years old total value of real property
17 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
Summary of Land Title for 221 Mary Street, Port Perry, Plan H50020, Lot 76
Instrument # Date Transaction Grantor Grantee Consideration Remarks 2721 22 Sept. 1854 B & S Hugh M. Chisholm John Cameron All 12180 24 Feb. 1860 Trust John Cameron Hector Cameron All 56 13 Mar. 1872 B & S Hector Cameron of Toronto, trustee Maria Shipman of Port Perry $200. All 172 2 Dec. 1872 B & S Maria Shipman John Currie of Port Perry, $830. All accountant 2309 11 Aug. 1884 B & S John Currie of Winnipeg, John Wyne Davis of Port Perry, $1,000. All bookkeeper furniture dealer 3636 30 Jan. 1896 B & S John Wyne Davis of Port Perry, Albert John Davis of Port Perry, $1,000. All – Lots 76, 75 & 74 except for 70 widower druggist feet off the south side of Lots 74 & 75 3909 15 Feb. 1898 Will John Wyne Davis of Port Perry, Naomi Davis, his daughter Nil “ ... my house and Lot being Lot (G.R. 1855) undertaker, (whose “brick furniture number Seventy Six on the north side warerooms” were located at the of Mary Street in the village of Port southwest corner of Queen and Perry freed and released from the Perry Streets) mortgage thereon which I Direct to be paid by my son Albert.” G.R. 10005 8 Jun. 1932 Certificate Albert John Davis who died on 10 All – Lots 76, 75 & 74 except for 70 (registered 21 of payment Apr. 1932 feet off the south side of Lots 74 & 75 Mar. 1946) of success- ion duty 7425 22 Oct. 1942 Grant Annie Eliza Davis of Port Perry, George Murray Williams of Port $800. All – Lot 76 widow Perry, automobile salesman, & Doris Jean Williams, his wife 9097 31 Oct. 1955 Grant George Murray Williams & Doris Herbert Howard Stone of Port $2,500. All – Lot 76 Jean Williams Perry, merchant, & Edna Alberta Stone, his wife 235926 19 Jan. 1973 Grant Mary Jane Kerr, executrix of the Margaret Brignall of Port Perry $2. & c. All estate of Edna Alberta Stone 248117 9 Nov. 1973 Grant Margaret Brignall Helen Rodgers of Port Perry $2. & c. All D105623 5 Mar. 1980 Grant Helen Rodgers Joseph M. Terrett & Judith A. $2. & c. All Terrett D124124 5 Jun. 1981 Grant Joseph M. Terrett & Judith A. Ruth Holmes All Terrett
18 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
D133352 9 Dec. 1981 Certificate Ruth Holmes Scugog Township $3,200. All – home renewal loan (forgivable of Lien loan only) D133353 9 Dec. 1981 Certificate Ruth Holmes Scugog Township $3,383. All – home renewal loan (repayable of Lien loan lonly) D186674 31 Oct. 1984 Grant Ruth Holmes Morley Keith Bruce & Lola All Bernice Bruce D252452 19 Jun. 1987 Grant Morley Keith Bruce & Lola Bernice Joyce Evelyn Bruce All Bruce D355764 28 Dec. 1990 Transfer Joyce Evelyn Bruce Eva Mueller & Anna Mueller All
19 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
3.0 The Arts & Crafts Bungalow as an Architectural Style
3.1 The Arts & Crafts Bungalow in North America
Peter Wokral’s understanding of the architectural style of the house at 221 Mary Street is reflected in the designation by-law’s statement of cultural heritage value or interest. The house is identified as a good example of an early 20th century Arts & Crafts Bungalow, which is described as “an early modern house style.”
For our review, we reviewed John Blumenson’s chapter on the Bungalow in his book, Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms, 1784 to the Present (1990). We also reviewed Leslie Freudenheim’s definitive work on the Arts & Crafts home in the United States – Building with Nature: Inspiration for the Arts & Crafts Home (2005). In addition, we reviewed eight books published between 1908 and 1936 in the United States, Canada and England on building bungalows.
Freudenheim argues that the style which came to be known as the Arts & Crafts Bungalow, California Bungalow, Craftsman Bungalow or just Bungalow with a capital “B” originated in the San Francisco Bay area. She cites Rev. Joseph Worcester’s cottage overlooking San Francisco Bay, built in 1876-78, as the progenitor of the style. The style disseminated throughout many parts of California, most notably, in Pasadena and Los Angeles, and then combined with the growing American interest in the English Arts & Crafts movement to influence the design of simple, affordable homes across the United States in the early twentieth century.
The English Arts & Crafts movement, formalized by the Art Workers’ Guild in 1884 and the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society in 1888, was a reaction to the grim, mass- produced environments of industrialized Britain in favour of a return to fine craftsmanship wrought simply with natural building materials. Worcester and his circle looked to achieve a locally rooted architectural expression inspired by the Arts & Crafts philosophy of John Ruskin and William Morris.
There were many variations on the California Bungalow – some simpler than Worcester’s cottage and others as elegant as the Gamble House by Greene & Greene in Pasadena. Henry Saylor in his book, Bungalows, which was published in Toronto in 1913 by the Canadian agents of an American publishing house remarked: “There is so much borrowing and blending of important characteristics between the main classes of [American Bungalows] that any attempt at a separation must necessarily be open to criticism.”
20 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
Leslie M. Freudenheim, Building with Nature: Inspiration for the Arts & Crafts Home (Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, 2005).
21 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
Leslie M. Freudenheim, Building with Nature: Inspiration for the Arts & Crafts Home (Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, 2005).
The Gamble House, Pasadena, California, 1908-9, is a masterpiece by Charles and Henry Greene. GG
Stephen Calloway and Elizabeth Cromley, Ed. The Elements of Style: An [sic] Practical Encyclopedia of Interior Architectural Details from 1485 to the Present (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991/96), p. 306. Freudenheim calls houses designed by Greene & Greene “ultimate bungalows.”
22 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
By the first decade of the 20th century, the Arts & Crafts Bungalow was being constructed everywhere. Radford’s Artistic Bungalows, published in Chicago and New York in 1908, opened its catalogue of 208 Bungalow designs for families of moderate means with an effusive introduction:
“The bungalow age is here. It is the renewal in artistic form of the primitive ‘love in a cottage’ sentiment that lives in some degree in every human heart. Architecturally, it is the result of the effort to bring about harmony between the house and its surroundings, to get as close as possible to nature. ...
“The bungalow is a tangible protest of modern life against the limitations and severities of humdrum existence. It is ‘homey,’ and comes near to that ideal you have seen in the dreamy shadows of night when lying restless on your couch you have yearned for a haven of rest. Maybe it has a wide, low, spreading roof, which sweeps down and forms a covering for the porch. It has a large healthy chimney, patios, with fountains, large verandas, good sized living and dining rooms, ... .
“And while primarily intended for the wilds, this form or style of home has been seized upon eagerly by home builders in every hamlet of the land, in every town and every city. So that out of this general demand for homes of this character all sections of the country are being beautified with little structures that delight the eye.”
A sample plate from the book is reproduced below. The index at the back of the book estimated the cost to build Design No. 5079 at between $2,125 and $2,325.
23 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
n.a. Radford’s Artistic Bungalows: Unique Collection of 208 Designs: Best Modern Ideas in Bungalow Architecture (Chicago & New York: Radford Architectural Company, 1908), p. 9.
24 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
Of all the examples illustrated in the eight books we examined, the closest to the house at 221 Mary Street was Design No. 369 in J.W. Lindstrom’s Bungalows. The publication date of this Minneapolis architect’s 112-page book of plans was not recorded. The Toronto Reference Library estimates a publication date in the 1920’s. A more credible publication date is the date given by the Canadian Centre for Architecture in Montreal – c. 1936 and reissued in 1938. The front cover of Lindstrom’s book is illustrated with a flat-roofed, one- and two-storey house with Art Deco and International Style features – nothing like an Arts & Crafts Bungalow.
25 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
J.W. Lindstrom, Bungalows (Minneapolis: J.W. Lindstrom, n.d.), p. 21.
26 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
In his travels through Ontario, John Blumenson photographed 19 subjects to depict the Bungalow style as it occurred in our province. There is a variety among them. Some are one-storey tall without any upper floor sleeping quarters. But most have an upper floor for sleeping quarters, and one is actually a full two storeys in height. Blumenson defines the style as follows: “The Bungalow style is a permanent home maintaining in many instances the appearance of a one-storey house, with sleeping quarters often squeezed into the upper floor; in more fully developed or elaborate examples a full second storey is concealed beneath the overhanging roof.”
Blumenson’s chapter on the Bungalow style is reproduced below.
27 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
28 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
29 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
30 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
31 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
32 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
33 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
34 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
35 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
36 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
3.2 Arts & Crafts Bungalows in Port Perry
In the designation by-law’s statement of cultural heritage value or interest, it is asserted that only a relatively few Arts & Crafts Bungalows were constructed in Port Perry.
For comparison to 221 Mary Street, we identified six houses we would categorize as Arts & Crafts Bungalows on a drive along the streets of Port Perry.
Each of these six examples has an upper floor sleeping quarters, which is most often associated with the Arts & Crafts Bungalow style in Ontario. None of the examples are listed in the Township of Scugog Heritage Register.
(1) The house at 220 Bigelow Street has a characteristically sweeping gable roof that hangs over the front verandah, one bay of which has been enclosed. The ground floor is clad in cobblestones, presenting a rustic appearance. The half storey above offers room for sleeping quarters. A tall red brick chimney climbs one side wall.
37 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
(2) Next door is 228 Bigelow Street. Very similar to 220 Bigelow Street, more of its original character has survived. The only detraction is the synthetic siding that hides its original cladding.
(3) The house at 246 Bigelow Street retains some features from its Arts & Crafts Bungalow appearance.
38 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
(4) At a prominent corner in town and in good repair, the house at 291 Queen Street shares many traits of the Arts & Crafts Bungalow style.
(5) Perhaps the best preserved among the six examples is the house at 534 Queen Street. It has many of the features of Arts & Crafts Bungalows as they typically appeared in Ontario – a sweeping roof tall enough to offer sleeping quarters upstairs, a verandah integral with the roof overhang, original cladding materials including cobblestone and shingles, a collection of single and grouped windows, brackets under the eaves and exposed roof rafters.
39 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
(6) The house at 15371 Simcoe Street, adjacent to 291 Queen Street, has some features associated with the Arts & Crafts Bungalow style, notably the tall gable roof continuing to form the verandah’s roof.
40 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
4.0 The Character of the North Side of Mary Street
The designation by-law’s statement of cultural heritage value or interest states: “Located one block south of the thriving commercial core of Queen St., this dwelling along with numerous other nearby heritage homes, helps define the historic residential character of Port Perry’s earliest neighbourhood, planned by Peter Perry in 1848.”
For our review, we defined the immediate vicinity of 221 Mary Street to be the north side of Mary Street in the blocks between Simcoe Street in the west and Water Street in the east. This three-block streetscape is immediately south of, and contiguous to, the Downtown Port Perry Heritage Conservation District which runs along both sides of Queen Street. Queen Street is the traditional commercial core of Port Perry.
As shown in the satellite-generated aerial view and the series of street-level photographs presented from west to east below, most of the north side of Mary Street between Simcoe and Water Streets is devoted to parking lots serving the commercial core function of Queen Street. In the entire three-block stretch, the only buildings still standing along the north side of Mary Street are: a pocket of four single-detached house forms near Simcoe Street; another pocket of four single-detached house forms which includes 221 Mary Street; a brewery at the corner of Mary and Perry Streets; and a restaurant at the corner of Mary and Water Streets. Of the eight house forms, four appear to date from the 19th century and the other four from the 20th century.
41 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
A preponderance of parking lots characterizes the north side of Mary Street between Simcoe and Water Streets. (The pink line denotes the boundary of the heritage conservation district.)
42 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
1. A pocket of four house forms is found near the corner of Mary and Simcoe Streets.
2. Two of the four house forms – 291 Mary Street on the left and 285 Mary Street on the right – are Edwardian Classical houses from the early 20th century. Both are listed in the Township of Scugog Heritage Register.
43 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
3. Another of the four house forms – 279 Mary Street – appears to be an altered 19th century house. It is not listed in the heritage register.
4. The last in the pocket of four house forms near the corner of Mary and Simcoe Streets – 271 Mary Street – appears to be an altered 19th century house. It is listed in the heritage register.
44 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
5. Beside 271 Mary Street is the loading dock for the Foodland grocery store and its parking lot. In the distance, you can see the old library on Queen Street.
6. The northeast corner of Mary and John Streets provides another parking lot.
45 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
7. The parking lot extends to the lot line of 233 Mary Street, the first in another pocket of four house forms.
8. The house form at 233 Mary Street has Gothic Revival features of the late 19th century. It is listed in the heritage register.
46 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
9. The house form at 229 Mary Street also has Gothic Revival features of the late 19th century. It is listed in the heritage register.
10. The view shows the relation between 229 Mary Street on the left and 221 Mary Street on the right.
47 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
11. The house form at 221 Mary Street is the only house form on the north side of Mary Street between Simcoe and Water Streets to be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.
12. The view of the eastern side yard of 221 Mary Street shows the buildings along Queen Street in the distance.
48 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
13. The last in the pocket of four house forms – 209 Mary Street – is an Edwardian Classical house from the early 20th century. It is listed in the heritage register.
14. The view at the corner of Mary and Perry Streets shows 209 Mary Street on the left and a brewery on the right.
49 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
15. The brewery faces Perry Street.
16. A wing on the brewery is fronted by a loading dock and parking lot.
50 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
17. A parking lot extends eastward from the brewery.
18. The broad parking lot east of the brewery serves the back entrances to Queen Street businesses.
51 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
19. The parking lot east of the brewery meets a restaurant’s parking lot whose fence is shown on the right.
20. The restaurant on the right uses the Mary Street frontage for parking and loading.
52 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
21. The restaurant at Mary and Water Streets faces Water Street.
22. The northwest corner of Mary and Water Streets is used for the restaurant’s front yard parking.
53 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
5.0 Conclusions
5.1 Purpose of Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act
The Ontario Heritage Act, proclaimed in 1975, was Ontario’s response to a worldwide effort at preserving for future generations works that have acquired cultural significance. When the Act was amended in 2005, power was given to municipalities to protect significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes in perpetuity. Part IV of the Act enables municipalities to protect properties of singular importance to the community’s cultural heritage. (Part V is set out to protect historic areas.)
With this increased power to protect, the Province provided a set of standard criteria on which to evaluate a candidate property for designation under Part IV. Ontario Regulation 9/06 is written so that all types of structures that hold significant cultural heritage value may be evaluated. While the regulation is broad in scope, the expectation is that it be fairly applied. A fair evaluation means a rigorous assessment that involves recording of the candidate property’s as-found appearance, historical research specific to the property, research to place the property in local history and in architectural and landscape history, and comparison of the candidate property to similar extant examples in the community. A rigorous assessment leads to reflecting an accurate picture of the property in the designation by-law. Conjecture by itself instead leads to a designation by-law that confuses the public about the property’s cultural meaning and our understanding of architectural and landscape history.
As far as we can tell from the Township’s records of the assessment process, the methodology undertaken to assess the merits of designating the property at 221 Mary Street under Part IV was limited to a visual inspection. The Township’s incomplete assessment led the Township to base the designation by-law’s statement of cultural heritage value or interest on incorrect assumptions. We have endeavoured to fill in gaps in the methodology.
5.2 Incorrect Assumptions about 221 Mary Street
We respond to the four points made about 221 Mary Street in the designation by-law’s statement explaining the property’s cultural heritage value.
1. The house is a good example of an early 20th century Arts & Crafts Bungalow. It exhibits several of the classic-defining characteristics of this early modern house style.
54 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
The closest word in meaning to “good” in the regulation’s first criterion is “representative.” To be representative of an early 20th century Arts & Crafts Bungalow, the house would need to be a typical example of that architectural style from the early 20th century. Were it an original example of its type, a case could be made that it is of heritage value but it is our opinion that the building is a mid-20th century creation which has also incorporated dismantled parts, of unknown provenance, from an earlier building or buildings.
Our historical research suggests that the house was built by George Murray Williams, an automobile salesman, and his wife, Doris Jean Williams, sometime between 1942 and 1955. The presence of newspapers from 1949 stuck to a floor beam and the Township’s own records that the house was constructed in 1951 support our deductions from the land title search and property tax assessment roll research. The Williams may have kept the rubble stone foundations from the 19th century house that we know from John Wyne Davis’ will had stood on the site, and added a poured concrete foundation around the remaining perimeter. Except for a portion of the foundation walls, portions of the main floor framing and some floor boards, the house at 221 Mary Street is a mid-20th century house.
The Williams may have loosely modelled their house on Design No. 369 in J.W. Lindstrom’s 1936/38 book of plans or may have been inspired to build a house like Design No. 369 they saw in their travels.
The house that stands at 221 Mary Street has some features associated with Arts & Crafts Bungalows, but it does not exemplify the Arts & Crafts Bungalow as they were most often built in Ontario. The house at 221 Mary Street lacks a tall overhanging roof that shelters an upper floor for sleeping quarters – a characteristic that would make it truly representative of the style.
From our standpoint in the early 21st century, it is confusing to call the Arts & Crafts Bungalow an early modern house style. Radford’s Artistic Bungalows implied that building a Bungalow was a reaction to modernity – “a tangible protest of modern life.” In Ontario, the Modern movement in architecture first showed itself tentatively in the early 1930s (Lawren Harris House, Toronto, 1931; Toronto, Hamilton & Buffalo Railway Station, Hamilton, 1932-33). By the mid-20th century, when the house at 221 Mary Street was constructed, the Modern movement had been widely embraced, especially for institutional, commercial, multiple-unit residential and industrial buildings. Even some single-detached houses followed the tenets of Modernism (Dr. George Lindsey House, Whitby, 1953). Far from trends in mid-20th century architecture, the Arts & Crafts touches on the house at 221 Mary Street look back to late 19th century design principles. Although built in the mid-20th
55 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017 century, the house at 221 Mary Street does not express trends in mid-20th century architecture.
2. The house is a rare example of an Arts & Crafts Bungalow since only a relatively few Arts & Crafts Bungalows were constructed in Port Perry.
Our windshield survey of Port Perry identified six Arts & Crafts Bungalows. While we did not conduct historical research to ascertain construction dates for these examples, each of them has the distinctive profile of typical Arts & Crafts Bungalows as they were most often built in Ontario in the early 20th century. The houses at 228 Bigelow Street, 291 Queen Street and 534 Queen Street would all be better representative examples of Arts & Crafts Bungalows than the house at 221 Mary Street. The house at 534 Queen Street is a particularly interesting and well-preserved example. For the village’s small population when the six examples were presumably erected, it is an exaggeration to state that only a relatively few Arts & Crafts Bungalows were constructed in Port Perry.
3. The house’s structure tells the story of an earlier 19th century house which evolved over time, and how builders of the early 20th century recycled older buildings and materials to create an up-to-date residence.
The Williams’ mid-20th century project of reducing a 19th century house to its floor boards and reusing the rubble stone foundation is not a story commending itself for celebration. The construction of the house at 221 Mary Street is not adaptive reuse as it is known in heritage conservation. In addition, the part of the existing foundation wall that is rubble stone is so far from the street that the public never sees it; and one would have to get into the cellar to view the floor structure. The naming of the rubble stone and concrete foundations, floor structure and building footprint (which is nearly square and not irregular) as heritage attributes serves to prevent the Muellers from undertaking any kind of development. The front door and front window surrounds are likely from an early dwelling – but their provenance is not known. The 2/2 pattern windows are not typical of the 1920's – rather more of the late 19th century which suggests that these too may have been salvaged. However, the demolition and parting out of heritage houses has little to do with the conservation of heritage buildings; such work is typically condemned in the heritage community and should not be celebrated with a designation.
4. Along with numerous other nearby heritage homes, the dwelling helps define the historic residential character of Port Perry’s earliest neighbourhood; which was planned by Peter Perry in 1848.
56 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
There are a total of eight single-detached house forms in the three-block stretch along the north side of Mary Street between Simcoe and Water Streets. Most properties along the north side of Mary Street provide parking for Queen Street businesses. The house at 221 Mary Street bears no relation to Peter Perry’s life and his plans for the village. He died in 1851, a century before the house was built.
5.3 Comparison of Findings to Criteria in Ontario Regulation 9/06
We apply our findings to the three sets of criteria in Ontario Regulation 0/06 to determine whether the property at 221 Mary Street is of cultural heritage value or interest.
“The property has design value or physical value because it,
i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method,
ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or
iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.”
The property at 221 Mary Street does not meet the criteria related to design value or physical value. The building which stands at 221 Mary Street does not exemplify an Arts & Crafts Bungalow from the early 20th century. Rather, it is a mid-20th century house with Arts & Crafts touches. It appears that the house assembles dismantled parts, of unknown provenance, from an earlier building or buildings, with materials from about 1949-51 to resemble loosely a house depicted in a book of plans from 1936 or 1938. The frame house so created does not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit; and obviously, as well, does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Local examples of Arts & Crafts Bungalows that truly represent the architectural style are superior.
“The property has historical value or associative value because it,
i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community,
ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or
iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community.”
57 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
The property at 221 Mary Street does not meet the criteria related to historical value or associative value. The house that stands at 221 Mary Street was likely built for George Murray Williams, an automobile salesman, and his wife, Doris Jean Williams, who are not known to be historically significant. The house does not deepen our understanding of Port Perry’s history in any estimable way. The house is a vernacular construction.
“The property has contextual value because it,
i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area,
ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or
iii. is a landmark.”
The property at 221 Mary Street does not meet the criteria related to contextual value. Parking lots serving Queen Street businesses typify the north side of Mary Street where No. 221 is located. The mid-20th century house at 221 Mary Street exists in a pocket of four house forms. Its three neighbours were all built decades earlier. Set back far from the street and standing only a storey tall, the house at 221 Mary Street is not a landmark in the core of Port Perry.
Our findings do not support the designation of the property at 221 Mary Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.
58 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
6.0 Bibliography
Arculus, Paul. The Merchants of Old Port Perry: The Commercial and Social History of a Small Ontario Community. Port Perry, Ont.: Port Perry Star, 1999.
Arculus, Paul & Hvidsten, J. Peter. Historic Homes & Estates of Port Perry & Scugog Township. Port Perry, Ont.: Observer Publishing, 2002.
Blumenson, John. Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms, 1784 to the Present. [Toronto]: Fitzhenry & Whiteside, 1990.
Calloway, Stephen & Cromley, Elizabeth, Ed. The Elements of Style: An [sic] Practical Encyclopedia of Interior Architectural Details from 1485 to the Present. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991/96.
Comstock, William Phillips. Bungalows, Camps and Mountain Houses. New York: William T. Comstock, [c. 1915].
Dustman, U.M. Construction of Dwelling Houses and Bungalows. Chicago: Charles C. Thompson Co., 1913.
E.R.A. Architects Inc. “Heritage Conservation District Plan: Downtown Port Perry Heritage Conservation District.” 30 Aug. 2010.
Freudenheim, Leslie M. Building with Nature: Inspiration for the Arts & Crafts Home. Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, 2005.
Grander, H.F. “Plan of Survey of Lot 76, Plan H50020, Village of Port Perry, Township of Scugog, Regional Municipality of Durham.” 6 Feb. 1990.
Harrison, Percival T. Bungalow Residences: A handbook for all interested in building. London: Crosby Lockwood & Son, 1909/20.
Hodgson, Fred. T. & Braucher, E.N. Practical Bungalows and Cottages for Town and Country. Chicago: Frederick J. Drake & Co., 1915.
Hvidsten, J. Peter. Out of the Ashes: Port Perry: A Century of Progress. [Port Perry, Ont.]: Observer Publishing of Port Perry & Port Perry Star Co. Ltd., 1999.
59 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
-----. Scugog Exposed. Port Perry, Ont.: Observer Publishing, [2004].
Land title search for 221 Mary Street, Port Perry, Plan H50020, Lot 76. Durham Land Registry Office. 9 Dec. 2016.
Lindstrom, J.W. Bungalows. Minneapolis: J.W. Lindstrom, n.d. [1936/38].
Mueller, Eva & Mueller, James. Letter of Objection to Designation of 221 Mary Street, Port Perry, 3 Aug. 2016.
Port Perry, Municipality of. “Assessment Roll for the Municipality of Port Perry, Ont., 1920.” p. 10. Archives of Ontario, F 1875-4-0-1, Barcode D303486.
-----. “Assessment Roll for the Municipality of [Port Perry, Ont., 1930], p. 13. Archives of Ontario, F 1875-4-0-11, Barcode D303489.
-----. “Assessment Roll for the Municipality of the Village of Port Perry, Made in the Year 1955 upon which Taxes for the Year 1956 Will Be Levied.” p. 57. Archives of Ontario, F 1875-6-0-1, Barcode D312845.
-----. “Collector’s Roll for the Municipality of Port Perry, Ont., 1908.” p. 12. Archives of Ontario, F 1875-5-0-1, Barcode D312850.
-----. “Collector’s Roll for the Municipality of Port Perry, Ont., 1910.” p. 10, Archives of Ontario, F 1875-5-0-1, Barcode D312849.
Port Perry Star. Port Perry: Exploring Our History. Port Perry, Ont.: Port Perry Star, 1991.
Radford’s Artistic Bungalows: Unique Collection of 208 Designs: Best Modern Ideas in Bungalow Architecture. Chicago & New York: Radford Architectural Company, 1908.
Saylor, Henry H. Bungalows. Toronto: Copp Clark, 1913.
Scugog, Township of. Council. Minutes of Meeting # 9, 27 Jun. 2016.
-----. Heritage & Museum Advisory Committee. Minutes of Meeting # 3, 8 Mar. 2016, Meeting # 4, 19 Apr. 2016 & Meeting # 6, 21 Jun. 2016.
-----. Municipal Heritage Register, Oct. 2016.
60 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
-----. Notice of Intention to Designate 221 Mary Street as a Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. 5 Jul. 2016.
-----. Official Plan Amendment No. 5 to the Official Plan of the Township of Scugog (Port Perry Secondary Plan), 9 Nov. 2015.
-----. Township of Scugog Official Plan (Office Consolidation), Nov. 2014.
-----. Township of Scugog Zoning By-law 14-14 (Office Consolidation), Nov. 2014.
-----. Web Page Devoted to Scugog Heritage & Museum Advisory Committee. Jan. 2016.
Underwriters Survey Bureau. “Insurance Plan of Port Perry Ont.” Toronto and Montreal: Underwriters Survey Bureau, Nov. 1923. pl. 2. Toronto Reference Library.
White, Charles E., Jr. The Bungalow Book. New York: Macmillan, 1923.
Wokral, Peter. “221 Mary St. Port Perry Inspection Saturday April 16, 2016 10:00 a.m.”
-----. E-mail to Kim Cox, Committee Coordinator for Township of Scugog, 7 Mar. 2016.
61 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
Appendix A: Notice of Intention to Designate
i 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
ii 221 Mary Street, Port Perry – CRB Report 8 March 2017
Appendix B: Report Author’s Qualifications
iii Christopher Borgal B.ARCH., OAA, FRAIC, CAHP PRINCIPAL
CHRISTOPHER BORGAL, PRESIDENT • Architect in Joint Venture for $10M Guelph POA Court in the former 1856 William Thomas- PROFILE designed City Hall, Guelph, Ontario Christopher Borgal has over 35 years experience in architecture with specialized knowledge in heritage • Heritage Consultant for renovations of the planning, building science, historical restoration and Governorʼs House, Don Jail (now Bridgepoint museum design. Hospital), Toronto, Ontario His project experience includes a vast array of • Heritage Consultant and Architect for security building types including some of the most visible and upgrades, Union Station, Toronto, Ontario important buildings in Canada. • Pre-planning and on-going consulting for renovations at Massey Hall, Toronto, Ontario CURRENT AND RECENT PROJECTS Partner-in-charge and Owner of GBCA • Restoration of the exterior façade and various other projects at the Royal Alexandria Theatre, • Heritage Architect, various conservation Toronto, Ontario projects at the Legislative Assembly of Ontario including a heritage skylight and decorative • Restoration work at the Elam Martin farmstead, metalwork City of Waterloo, Ontario • Panel Member evaluating the restoration of the • Expert Witness, Heritage Architect, various Legislative Chamber, Queens Park, Toronto, Ontario Municipal Board hearings Ontario • Heritage Consultant, Sir John Carling Annex, • Team Leader, redevelopment of the Peel Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, Ontario Heritage Complex, Brampton, project value • Heritage Consultant, Maple GO Station, $13,000,000 Vaughan, Ontario • Heritage Consultant, redevelopment of Union • Heritage Consultant, 100 Devonshire Place, Station Train Shed, Metrolinx, project value University of Toronto, Ontario $250,000,000 • Heritage Consultant, St. Mary of the Heritage Consultant as a part of the • Assumption, St. Catharines, Ontario team for the redevelopment of 10 Toronto Street, Toronto, Ontario • Heritage Consultant, Parkway Mall, Scarborough, Ontario • Restoration of the Birks Clock, Hamilton, Ontario • Heritage Architect, Franklin Carmichael Art Centre, Toronto, Ontario • Heritage Advisor, Master Plan for the Alberta Legislative Precinct with • Heritage Consultant, Downtown Whitby Kasian Architecture and Sasaki Heritage Conservation District, Whitby, Ontario Associates • Heritage Consultant, Canon Theatre, Toronto, • Grange, Art Gallery of Ontario Ontario • Heritage Consultant, Edmonton • Heritage Consultant to Niagara Falls Museum Federal Building, Edmonton, Alberta (formerly Lundyʼs Lane Heritage Museum), Niagara Falls, Ontario • Advisor to the Canada Agriculture Museum for implementation of Master Plan elements including new buildings, renovations and site work, Ottawa, Ontario • Heritage Consultant for the redevelopment of the $40,000,000.00 Guelph City Hall Complex including the 1856 William Thomas-designed City Hall, Guelph, Ontario
PAST PROJECTS Parliamentary Library, East Block, West Block and Vaux walls, Ottawa, Ontario HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS & • Consultant for projects at the National Gallery of RELATED PROJECTS Canada including window replacements, • Canada Agricultural Museum Master Plan and interior renovations, Ottawa, Ontario • Heritage Conservation District Plan for the • Asbestos mitigation, G Block, RCMP Head- MacGregor/Albert Neighbourhood City of quarters, Ottawa, Ontario Waterloo, Ontario • Specifications and consultation for the Capitolio • West Street Goderich, Town of Goderich, (State Capital) Building, San Juan, Puerto Rico Ontario • Consultant for roofing repairs over the Royal • Seaforth Heritage Conservation District Plan Suite, Rideau Hall, Ottawa, Ontario for LACAC, Seaforth, Ontario • Cultural Landscape Inventory for City of COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES Mississauga, Ontario, • Trinity College Archives expansion, University of Toronto, Ontario • Elam Martin Farmstead Preservation Master Plan, City of Waterloo, Ontario • Various repairs including windows, landscape features and porches at the Gatehouse, Beatty NATIONAL SITES Building and Parkin Building, Upper Canada College, Toronto, Ontario • Canada Agriculture Museum – new barn facility, and studies related to hay storage, • Restoration work at Annesley Hall, Victoria functional program for Building 94, conceptual College, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario design for Reception Centre, site planning, and • Analysis for repairs and upgrades of the Ontario various repairs to building 88, Ottawa, Ontario Veterinary College, Creelman Hall, Mills Hall, • Heritage Advisor, Master Plan for the Palisades MacDonald Hall and Johnston Hall National Training Centre, Jasper, Alberta at the University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario • Consultant to the Auditor General for Canada • Restoration of portions of the Reynolds for the Canadian Museum of Natureʼs Victoria Building, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario Memorial Museum Building upgrade, Ottawa, • Heritage consultant, 100 Laurier, University Ontario of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario • Heritage Advisor, Long Term Vision and Plan for the Parliamentary Precinct, Ottawa, Ontario ONTARIO SITES • Heritage Consultant, master planning and • Heritage consulting as a part of the team upgrade of the British Columbia Legislature (P. Goldsmith as partner-in-charge) for the Complex, British Columbia new National Ballet School, Toronto (phase • Risk assessment for the redevelopment of one) and heritage input (as principal architects) the West Block, Parliament Hill, Ottawa for the redevelopment, restoration and adaptive re-use (as residences) of the original facility • Heritage Advisor, redevelopment of the former (phase two), Toronto, Ontario U.S. Embassy Building into the proposed • Preliminary repairs and restoration, former OPP National Portrait Gallery, Ottawa, Ontario HQ, Brampton, Ontario Project Conservation Architect for restoration of • • Heritage Consultant, Dickenson Square Cultural the South Façade, (Centre Block, Parliament Centre, Manotick, Ontario Hill), and masonry repairs and studies for the
Page 2 of 6
• MacGregor Albert Heritage Conservation • Heritage and building envelope review, District, Waterloo, Ontario (lead consultant) Empress Hotel, Victoria, British Columbia • Condition review and on-going consultation, • Review of restoration work for Colliers the Devereaux House, Georgetown, Ontario International, Chateau Frontenac, Quebec City • Building Audit, Fairmont Hotel, Winnipeg Renovations and restoration of the Turkish • Manitoba Embassy, (former 1914 Tudor revival hospital) Ottawa, Ontario • Building Audit, Holiday Inn (now York the Hotel), Winnipeg, Manitoba GTA SITES • Building Audit, Clarion Hotel, Canmore, Alberta • Restoration of the exterior façade and other projects at the Royal Alexandra Theatre, MUSEUM SITES Toronto, Ontario • Master plan for Homer Watson House and • Heritage Consultant, Flatiron Building, Toronto, Gallery, Kitchener, Ontario Ontario • Master plan for the Canada Agriculture • Heritage Consultant, restoration of components Museum, Ottawa, Ontario of the 12 storey National Building at the Bay- Adelaide Centre (new 50 storey office tower), • Continuing restoration projects of several Toronto, Ontario buildings at Black Creek Pioneer Village, Toronto, Ontario • Heritage Guidelines for Masonry and Windows, City of Toronto, Ontario • Restoration work at the Elam Martin farmstead, City of Waterloo, Ontario • Restoration of Building 3 and 4, the Gooderham Cottages, at Sanofi Pasteur Laboratories, • Heritage consultant, condition surveys of Inge- Toronto, Ontario Va, Bethune Thompson House, and McMartin House for the Ontario Heritage Trust • Heritage Consultant, proposed 50 storey tower and conversion of 151 Front Street and 20 York • Renovations and addition to the Bruce County Street (the Skywalk), Toronto, Ontario Museum and Cultural Centre, Southampton, Ontario • Heritage Consultant, modifications to the north façade, Scotiabank Plaza, Toronto, Ontario • Restoration of Fulford Place (in joint venture), Brockville, Ontario • Heritage Advisor, redevelopment of Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario • Condition review of the Sir Harry Oakes Chateau, Kirkland Lake, Ontario • Condition review, the Arts and Letters Club, Toronto, Ontario • Condition review and master plan, Fanshawe Pioneer Village, London, Ontario • Condition review, several buildings, the Guild Inn, Toronto, Ontario • Restoration and expansion of the Woodstock Museum, Woodstock, Ontario • Cultural Resource Survey, City of Mississauga Mississauga, Ontario • Repairs to Helliwell House, Todmordern Mills, Toronto, Ontario • Restoration of cast iron light fixtures, Palmerston Ave., Toronto, Ontario • Repairs to Colborne Lodge, High Park, Toronto, Ontario • Repairs to the Princesʼ Gates, Toronto, Ontario • Heritage consultation, Manitoba Children’s Museum, Winnipeg, Manitoba HOTELS • For the Getty Institute, review of restoration work at the Glessner House (Chicago), Darwin
Page 3 of 6
Martin House (Buffalo) and the Schindler House • Building Audit and feasibility study for (Los Angeles) Flight Information Centre, control tower buildings, Halifax International Airport, • Condition review of facilities at the Pigeon Island Quebec City International Airport, London, Fortification Complex, Pigeon Island, St. Lucia Ontario Airport, North Bay Airport, Winnipeg
International Airport, Edmonton International CHURCHES Airport, Calgary International Airport, and • Design of new octagonal chapel and additions Abbotsford Airport, British Columbia plus restoration work at St. Peterʼs Anglican Church (1853), Cobourg, Ontario LIGHTHOUSES • Steeple restoration, general restoration and • On-going consultation on the Burlington Canal upgrading, Keene United Church, Keene, Lighthouse, Hamilton, Ontario including a Ontario recent business plan for the lighthouse complex • Building Condition Survey and Assessment of • Consultant for lighthouse repairs and interior decorative paint scheme, St. Brigidʼs restoration at Bonavista, Newfoundland Roman Catholic Church, Ottawa, Ontario • Condition review and use plan for lighthouse • Restoration of ornate decorative paint scheme, and keeper’s cottage at Presqu’ile Ontario George Street United Church, Peterborough, • Heritage character statements for 5 Imperial Ontario Lighthouses, Lake Huron and Georgian Bay, • Building Condition Survey, All Saintʼs Anglican Ontario Church, Ottawa, Ontario ADVOCACY • Restoration of St. Paulʼs Presbyterian Church, Port Hope, Ontario Over the years, Mr. Borgal has contributed his time to the protection of many heritage structures. Most • Repairs and restoration to Annunciation recently, these included the conservation of heritage Roman Catholic Church, Mount Royal, buildings damaged by the tornado in Goderich, Quebec Ontario. Churches in St. Joachim and Stoney Point, • Masonry Restoration, Soeurs de la Charite Ontario, The Devereaux House In Georgetown, Chapel, Sussex Drive, Ottawa, Ontario Ontario and the Lister Block in Hamilton, Ontario also benefited from his efforts. TRANSPORTATION He has volunteered his time on many reports on behalf of the Ontario Historical Society and the • Heritage Consultant, Union Station Train Shed, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario during the Metrolinx, Toronto, Ontario course of his career. He has also participated as • Heritage Consultant, Maple GO Station, both a member of, and board member of several Vaughan, Ontario heritage organizations and put forward initiatives, which continue to bear results such as the now well- • Heritage Consultant for restoration of the Argyle established joint conferences of the Architectural Street Bridge, Caledonia, Ontario Conservancy and Community Heritage Ontario. • Building condition survey and repairs to small He was a significant fundraiser on behalf of the tower, Windsor Station, Montreal, Quebec Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals for support for the Heritage Canada annual conferences • Restoration of exterior and interior, former North Toronto Station, Toronto, Ontario in Quebec in 2008, Toronto in 2009, St. John's, Newfoundland in 2010, and Montreal in 2011. He • Heritage character statements and reviews of also raised support funds for the activities of the several railway stations in Macadam N.B. and Architectural Conservancy of Ontario over a period of Stratford, North Bay and Woodstock, Ontario several years.
Page 4 of 6
PAST PRACTICE Board member and chair of the membership In addition to the above, while acting as principal of committee 2006-2007 Christopher Borgal Architect, Mr. Borgal was the Board member 1990-1991 responsible project architect for over 600 projects including over 30 museums and churches such as • Redevelopment Board Member, Royal the renewal of copper domes and exterior masonry, Canadian Regiment Museum, London, Ontario St. Josephʼs Roman Catholic Church, Chatham, since 2006 Ontario and exterior masonry, St. Paulʼs Anglican • Member Architectural Conservation program, Cathedral, London, Ontario. Museum projects advisory committee, Ryerson University, from involving heritage restoration included the Huron July 2007 County Museum, the Lambton County Museum, the Oil Museum of Canada, the Simcoe County Museum COMMITTEE WORK and many other sites of similar nature. • Canadian Standards Association (CSA)
Member of technical committee developing a EDUCATION new national standard for Blast Resistance in B.Arch., University of Toronto, 1974 Buildings – 2008-2009 Post-professional seminars at West Dean College, • National Research Council of Canada – UK and University of York, UK Member of technical committee on mortars for heritage buildings – 1997 to present Seminars presented by the Danish Institute and
National Research Council of Canada PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
1977 – 1983 MEMBERSHIPS Partner in Hill and Borgal Architects and Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, since 1977 Planners Ontario Association of Architects, since 1977 1983 - 2001 Christopher Borgal Architect Inc. Chair of the Professional Development Committee from 1983-1985 1983 - 1985 Canadian Institute of Planners (provisional) Co-founder and partner in Canadian Cultural Resource Consultants Inc. 1978 - 1989 1993 -1997 Heritage Canada, since 1981 Senior Conservation Architect, Public Works Construction Specifications Canada, since 1978 and Government Services Canada, Heritage Conservation Directorate (term contract) 1997 - Architectural Conservancy of Ontario 1999 since 1977 Senior Project Manager, uma Engineering Ltd. President, Huron County Branch, 1990 to 1992 1999 - 2000 Senior Building Science and Conservation Provincial President, 2001 to 2003 Specialist, Morrison Hershfield Ltd. • Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals 2001 - 2008 (formerly the Canadian Partner, Goldsmith Borgal & Co. Ltd. Architects Association of Professional Heritage Consultants) since 1992 2008 to present Sole proprietor, Goldsmith Borgal & Co. Ltd. Past President and Development Officer Architects National President 2007 - 2008
Page 5 of 6
LECTURES, PAPERS AND MEDIA • Co-host and technical advisor on History Televisionʼs series entitled “Project Restoration” was aired beginning in spring of 2010. • Appearance on Rogers Cable TV “Structures” related to the development of Strachan Avenue, in Toronto. • Lectures at Queenʼs University, Waterloo University, Carleton University and several community colleges • Lectures to annual meetings of various organizations including Association for Preservation Technology, ICOMOS, Canadian Museums Association, and Ontario Museum Association in locations including Nashville, Washington, Ottawa, Toronto, Halifax and Quebec City. • Papers in various journals including the APTI Bulletin, and the Ontario Association of Architects Perspectives of Architecture in Canada, v23, no 1 (1998)
Page 6 of 6
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER SUBSECTION 29(5) OF THE Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.O.18, as amended
Owner/Objector: Eva Mueller and James Mueller Subject: Notice of Intention to Designate Property Address: 221 Mary Street Legal Description: PLAN H-50020 LOT 76 Ward 2, Port Perry Municipality: Township of Scugog (Port Perry) CRB Case No.: CRB1618 CRB Case Name: Mueller v. Scugog (Township)
TOWNSHIP REPLY to Owner’s Report (March 8 2017)
April 30, 2017
Prepared by: Peter Wokral, B. Tech. Arch. Sc. Heritage Conservation Planner
CRB1618
Introduction
The Landowners Eva and James Mueller (“Owners”) provided the Township of Scugog (“Township”) with a report prepared by Christopher Borgal (“Author”) of ‘Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd. Architects’ titled “Report on the Merits of Designating the Property at 221 Mary Street (Lot 76, Plan H50020), Port Perry, Township of Scugog (“Subject Property”) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act,” dated March 8, 2017 (“Borgal Report”). The Borgal Report addresses the Township’s intention to designate the Subject Property under the Ontario Heritage Act. I have read and reviewed the Borgal Report in order to prepare this reply statement.
The Borgal Report
The main argument of the Borgal Report is that the Statement of Significance prepared by the heritage consultant for the Township of Scugog, Peter Wokral, is based on incorrect assumptions derived solely from a visual inspection of the interior and exterior of the existing structure, and therefore does meet the criteria for designating a building as set out by Ontario Regulation 9/06.
The parking lot proposed to replace the existing house at 221 Mary Street is intended to serve a planned residential expansion of another heritage house that the Owners also own at 230 Queen Street and which directly backs the Subject Property, through an addition comprised of approximately seven new dwelling units.
This reply statement examines the Borgal Report’s historical research of the property, its discussion of the architectural merits of 221 Mary Street compared to other examples of Arts and Crafts Architecture, and its conclusions regarding the appropriateness of designation. The review contained herein does not dispute the methods, sources, or findings of the historical research of the Subject Property, but it is critical of the Borgal Report’s conclusions that are based on the Author’s selective comparisons to other Arts and Crafts residences, his methodology in establishing physical context, and his application of the criteria for designation set out by Ontario Regulation 9/06.
Critical Evaluation
Arts & Crafts Bungalow Style
No fault can be found with the Author’s historical research of the subject property. The findings derived from examining the 1923 Fire Insurance Map, land title and property assessment data limit the timeframe as to when the 19th century house, which still partially occupies 221 Mary Street, was extensively altered and remodelled into its present form. From his research and available Township data, it can safely be assumed that the present form of the house was arrived at between 1942 and 1955 after the property was sold by the Davis Family and when it was owned by George Murray
1
CRB1618
Williams, and his wife Doris Jean. Despite narrowing down the timeframe as to when the previous 19th century house was extensively altered, this scoping does not discredit the Statement of Significance’s assertion that the existing house is a good example of an early 20th Century Arts & Crafts Bungalow style house.
The findings of the Author’s visual inspection of the property conducted on October 26, 2016 only confirm the Statement of Significance’s assertion that 221 Mary Street is an evolved late 19th century historical structure incorporating portions of the pre-existing 19th century house, including a significant portion of the granite rubble fieldstone foundation, floor structure, floor boards, windows, interior doors, and possibly exterior trim. The author’s allegations found on page 4, 6, and 56 of the Borgal Report, that the Municipality is trying to make it impossible for the Muellers to develop their property and discourage intensification by including the granite fieldstone foundation as a significant architectural attribute of 221 Mary Street, are false and unfounded. Listing a granite fieldstone foundation as a heritage attribute of a 19thcentury building is common practice when preparing a Statements of Significance, and was done for two rational and logical reasons. One reason is to recognize the significance of 221 Mary Street as an evolved heritage building and its late 19th century origins. The other reason is to recognize the original relationship and setback from Mary Street of the remodelled 19th century house as shown in the 1923 Fire Insurance Map. Relocating a structure from its original foundation has the effect of diminishing the heritage value of a building. Despite the Author’s repeated suggestions that the Municipality is trying to prevent development and intensification, there is in fact ample space behind the existing house at 221 Mary Street that would permit the Muellers with an opportunity to intensify and develop their property through the construction of an addition to the rear of the building, subject to obtaining the appropriate approvals.
From pages 20 to 41 the Borgal Report contains photographs and excerpts from both period and contemporary publications related to the Arts & Crafts Bungalow Style of architecture. The examples of North American Arts and Crafts bungalows provide the reader with a good idea of the defining architectural features of Arts & Crafts Bungalow Style, almost all of which can be found on the existing house at 221 Mary Street, and confirms that Arts & Crafts Bungalow style rose to prominence in North America in the early years of the 20th century.
Of special note is page 26 of the Borgal Report, which features an illustration of Design No. 369 from J.W. Lindstrom’s architectural pattern book “Bungalows” which bears an uncanny resemblance to the house at 221 Mary Street.
The most relevant publication cited in the discussion of the Arts & Crafts Bungalow Style is John Blumenson’s “Ontario Architecture, A Guide to Styles and Building Terms, 1784 to the present” because it describes the Arts & Bungalow style as it is commonly encountered in Ontario.
2
CRB1618
Character and Context of Mary Street
On pages 41-53 the Author provides photographs with captions attempting to describe the physical character and immediate context of 221 Mary Street. On page 41 he states, “For our review, we defined the immediate vicinity of 221 Mary Street to be the north side of Mary Street in the blocks between Simcoe Street in the west, and Water Street in the east.” The Author limits the context of the Subject Property to one side of a street in a longitudinal line extending over a block in either direction. This unusual approach in describing the context of a property leads to inaccurate conclusions as to the context and contextual value of 221 Mary Street later in the report.
The Author argues that parking lots located hundreds of feet away from subject property provide context for the house at 221 Mary Street, yet he elects to ignore properties that are only steps away, directly across Mary Street. This faulty analysis of the surrounding context supports the Borgal Report’s conclusions. For if the Author were to include photographs and descriptions of the other side of Mary Street he would see that the south side of Mary Street directly across from the house at 221 Mary Street is a remarkably intact 19th century landscape that stretches to Simcoe Street to the west, Shanly Street to the south, and Perry Street to the East.
Township’s Assessment
Ideally, as the Author states on page 54, the identification and designation or significant heritage properties should be fairly applied to all property owners, and based on rigorous assessment. Prior to the designation of Port Perry’s downtown core in 2008, the entire Township of Scugog had only designated four properties under the Ontario Heritage Act. The task of identifying heritage properties, and getting them listed on the Register has been overseen by the volunteers that make up the Township’s municipal heritage committee. Also up until 2016, the Township of Scugog has never tried to designate a property under the Ontario Heritage Act without obtaining the consent of the property owner.
The inclusion of the Subject Property on the Register list was a result of the Property’s unique architectural style and estimated date of construction, based on its architectural style. The Township prudently tried to ensure that its inclusion on the Register was warranted. When it was suggested by the Owners that the house was constructed in 1950, the Township arranged a visit to the Subject Property by its Heritage Consultant to inspect the building both inside and out.
The Author states that there are other heritage properties in the Township that the municipality has not yet included on its Register, or moved to designate. This statement appears to suggest that the Owners have in some way been unfairly treated by the Township. This is false, as the owners were properly notified of their property’s inclusion on the Heritage Register, despite there being no requirement for the Township to do so. The incompleteness of the Township’s Heritage Register and lack of other
3
CRB1618
designated properties is a reflection of the Township’s lack of sufficient resources and expertise to designate more properties, not its intention to unfairly treat the Owners.
The Township's Report on the Subject Property provided undisputable photographic evidence that the house was in fact not constructed in 1950, and was an example of an evolved house that had its beginnings in the late 19th century. Although the Township’s Heritage Consultant may have incorrectly inferred that the building had been moved to the site, this suggestion in no way detracts from the physical evidence of its 19th century beginnings, or the significance of its existing architectural style.
Satisfied that the building’s inclusion on the Register was justified, as well as the content of the Statement of Significance, Township Council passed an intention to designate the property both to prevent its demolition, and recognize its value to the community. This red flagging of heritage properties to prevent insensitive alterations or demolition is exactly how a Heritage Register is meant to be utilized by municipalities. The subsequent more detailed historical analysis of the property by the Author, only provides a greater understanding of the property’s history, but in no way undermines the wording of the Statement of Significance and reasons for designation. The Author’s insinuation of unfairness shown to his clients is only meant to act as a distraction from the real issue of whether the subject property is worthy of designation under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Criteria in Ontario Regulation 9/06
From page 54 to 58 the Author describes what he perceives to be incorrect assumptions made about 221 Mary Street in the Statement of Significance, and how he believes that the house does not meet any of the criteria, as set out by Ontario Regulation 9/06 that is necessary for a property to be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. However, a property need only meet one of the broad sets of criteria described in Ontario Regulation 9/06 in order for a municipality to be justified in designating it under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Design or Physical Value
Ontario Regulation 9/06 states that for a property to have Design or Physical value, it must:
• Be a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method; or • Display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit; or • Demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement
On page 55 the Author claims that the Subject Property has no design or physical value because the original house did not take the form of an Arts & Crafts Bungalow and that the existing house is a 20th century creation incorporating dismantled parts of unknown provenance from an earlier building or buildings. The Author goes on to say that a case
4
CRB1618
might be made that the Subject Property is representative of the Bungalow style, if it were an “original” or “typical” example of the Arts & Crafts architectural style from the early 20th century, but this argument is flawed because nowhere in Ontario Regulation 9/06 does it say that a building’s design or physical value is dependent on the date or time period of its construction. Since Ontario Regulation 9/06 clearly does not link the significance of architectural style to the time frame in which it was constructed, the Author has in effect admitted that the house at 221 Mary Street meets at least one of the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06 that would make it worthy of designation.
The Author’s fixation on the time frame of construction as a determinant of design and physical design value is noteworthy on page 55 in the paragraph where he compares the house at 221 Mary Street to examples of the Modern Movement in architecture in Ontario as demonstrated by the Lawren Harris house in Toronto constructed in 1931. The Author claims that the Township’s Statement of Significance is trying to confuse the reader by referring to 221 Mary Street as representing a “modern” architectural style of the mid 20th century. This is false and misleading, as the statement of significance only uses the adjective “modern” in the most commonly understood meaning of the word, meaning that the house at 221 Mary Street was remodelled to incorporate modern conveniences such as running water, and central heating and reflects a modern uses of interior space compared with homes of the 19th century. The Statement of Significance is in no way trying to make a connection between the architectural style of 221 Mary Street with mid- 20th century architectural style.
Rather, the Author himself confuses the issue. The description of the style of the Lawren Harris house in Toronto according to John Blumenson’s book “Ontario Architecture A Guide to Styles and Building Terms 1784 to the present” is the “Art Moderne” style. Indirectly, the Author ends up contradicting his earlier assertion that 221 Mary Street does not reflect an early 20th century architectural style, by claiming that “the house at 221 Mary Street does not express trends in mid-20th century architecture”. If a house built between 1942 and 1955 in the opinion of the Author does not express trends in mid- 20th architecture, it begs the question of what period or style of 20th century architecture does 221 Mary Street express?
The Author goes on to say that “The Williams may have loosely modelled their home on Design No. 369 in J.W. Lindstrom’s c. 1936 book of plans” and that “the house at 221 Mary Street has some features associated with Arts and Crafts Bungalows”. In my opinion, this is an understatement. The Author again employs understatement on page 57 when he says “The building that stands at 221 Mary Street does not exemplify an Arts & Crafts Bungalow from the early 20th century. Rather it is a mid-20th century house with Arts & Crafts touches.”
The house at 221 Mary Street does not loosely resemble Design No. 369 in Lindstrom’s pattern book; it is a near faithful copy of Design 369. On seeing this illustration for the first time one can be forgiven for assuming that this is a long lost archival photograph of 221 Mary Street. Except for flipping the elevation and floor plan and some very minor architectural details such as trim, and size of door openings, there can be absolutely no
5
CRB1618 doubt that the Williams based the remodelling of the 19th century house at 221 Mary Street on J.W. Lindstrom’s Design 369. On page 55 and 57 the Author suggests that 221 Mary Street has no design or physical value, stating that 221 Mary Street does not “exemplify” and Arts & Crafts Bungalow from the early 20th century. This statement is misleading, because nowhere in Ontario Regulation 9/06, does it say a building must “exemplify” a particular style. However, Ontario Regulation 9/06 does state that a building may merely be representative of a style.
Although the Author chooses to refer to the title of J.W. Lindstrom’s book c. 1936 “Bungalows” as minimally as possible, the fact that the Williams appear to have faithfully remodelled their house on Lindstrom’s Design 369 from his c. 1936 architectural pattern book called “Bungalows” does in fact make it an exemplary example of the Arts & Craft Bungalow Style. Architectural Pattern books like J.W. Lindstrom’s were the primary method for dispersing architectural theory, designs, and construction techniques as far back as the 1840s. Pattern books such as Andrew Jackson Downing’s “Cottage Residences of 1842 had enormous influence on the style and design of residences throughout the 19th century, and Lindstrom’s architectural pattern book of bungalows is part of that lineage and tradition. Architectural Pattern books by their very nature were meant to provide the best examples of a given style possible, and therefore “exemplify” certain architectural styles.
Far from the Author’s assertion that the house at 221 Mary Street merely has “Arts and Crafts Bungalow touches”, the house possesses almost all of the defining characteristics of the style as listed in John Blumenson’s chapter 19 entitled “Bungalow (1900-45) in his book “Ontario Architecture A Guide to Style Building 1784 to the present”. On pages 176-177 of the chapter, Blumenson provides numerous photographs of both one and two storey examples in Ontario, and describes the character defining features of Arts & Crafts Bungalows as including: broad gently pitched roofs, deep overhanging eaves, extensive porches or verandas, informal asymmetrical floor plans, lack of applied ornamentation and exposed structural framing including rafters, purlins and braces highly visible in gable ends, under eaves, supporting members of extensive porches and verandas with siding of horizontal board or shingles, and at least one chimney usually large, in stone or brick, that can be found along a wall or centrally located along the slope of the roof. Windows are often grouped in twos or threes and be multi-paned or single. Although every single one of these design features can be found on the house at 221 Mary Street, somehow the Author maintains that the house is not even representative of the Bungalow style.
It is also notable that John Blumenson identifies the style as having a time frame in Ontario from 1900 to 1945. Nowhere in Blumenson’s chapter does he suggest that a house falling outside this general time frame cannot be considered to be of the style. From the research conducted by the Author, we can safely assume that the William’s remodelled their house between 1942 and 1955. This time frame generally coincides with Blumenson’s suggested time span of the style, and it should be expected that there may be some slightly earlier, or later examples of the style found in Ontario. Blumenson’s chapter therefore refutes the Author’s assertion that the house need to have
6
CRB1618
been remodelled in the early 20th century to be considered representative of the early 20th century Bungalow style.
The Author also states that the house at 221 Mary Street has no design or physical value because it does not resemble the design of other examples of the Arts & Crafts Bungalow Style found in Port Perry. Mr. Borgal shows through photographs of the six other examples of Arts and Crafts Bungalows that he identified in Port Perry that these homes typically have an upper floor for sleeping quarters. Contrary to the Author’s false application of the criteria for design and physical value found in Ontario Regulation 9/06 that a building must represent the “typical” example of a style, these photographs only serve to both illustrate the similar architectural features of these homes to the ones found at 221 Mary Street, and clearly indicate that 221 Mary Street is both a “rare” and “unique” example of the style in Port Perry. Ontario Regulation 9/06 does state that for a building to have design or physical value that it can be a “rare” or “unique” example and Mr. Borgals photographs confirm that 221 Mary Street is rare and unique representation of the style.
Historical or Associative Value
Ontario Regulation 9/06 states that for a property to have historical or associative value that a property must:
• Have direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person activity, organization, or institution that is significant to a community; or • Yield or has potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding or a community or culture; or • demonstrate or reflect the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to the community.
The Author believes that the house at 221 Mary Street has no historical or associative value because it was built for the automobile salesman George Murray Williams and his wife Doris Jean, who he claims have no known significance to the community, and because the vernacular construction of the house does not deepen our understanding of Port Perry’s history in any estimable way. This dismissal of the house at 221 Mary Street as being a “vernacular construction” suggests the Borgal Report fails to appreciate the definition of vernacular architecture. If one accepts the definition of vernacular architecture as, “an architectural style or building that is designed based on local needs, availability of construction materials, and reflects local traditions”, the Williams’ faithful copying of a Minneapolis based architect’s Design No. 369 from a pattern book, distributed throughout North America, is the exact opposite of vernacular architecture, as it in no way reflects any unique traditions or building materials used by Port Perry builders.
The Statement of Significance claims that the house at 221 Mary Street does yield information that deepens our understanding of Port Perry’s history for it tells us how builders of the early 20th century recycled older building materials to create an up-to-date
7
CRB1618
residence. Although we now know that the 19th century house at 221 Mary Street was remodelled between 1942 and 1955, it does illustrate how older buildings evolved over time, and how builders of the mid 20th century re-used sound old building material in a frugal and sensitive way. The Author acknowledges that the setback of the existing house is the same as shown in the 1923 Fire Insurance map prior to the house being remodelled by the Williams. Through his visual inspection he confirms that there is a partial rubble stone foundation and hand hewn sills with pocketed floor joists and original floor boards that are definitely not from the 1950s. The Author also confirms that the house uses 19th century windows and doors and possibly trims from 19th structures of unknown provenance. On page 56 he goes on to suggest that this remodelling of a heritage building has little to do with the conservation of heritage buildings, and notes that such work is typically condemned in the heritage community and should not be celebrated with designation. While the Author is correct about how the modern heritage community would view the William’s remodelling of the 19th century house between 1942 and 1955, the remodelling of 221 Mary Street nonetheless today yields much information that contributes to the deeper understanding of the community and its history.
The remodelling of 221 Mary Street illustrates that compared with today, there was indeed little regard in the mid 20th century given to preserving the architectural integrity of older structures. This is a reflection of society’s broad embrace of all things new which was prevalent in the post Second World War period. After years of economic stagnation beginning with the crash of the stock market in 1929, followed by the Great Depression, and fighting of the Second World War, society as a whole was eager for change and the promise of a better future. The remodelling of an old house to reflect a more current architectural style is a reflection of this popular attitude and optimism.
The fact that Mr. and Mrs. Williams could make such a significant investment in their property in a time period marked by austerity and rationing both during, and following the Second World War, yields information that the Williams, unlike most people, were prospering. Why were they prospering? It was likely due to the fact that Mr. Williams was playing a role in the automobile industry, which was expanding at an unprecedented pace, so that by the 1950s, most families could now boast that they owned an automobile. The automobile industry and the nearby General Motors assembly plants of Oshawa, have had a major impact on the whole of Durham Region, and therefore the remodelled house at 221 Mary Street does shed light on the affects that this important industry has had on our community.
The fact that Mr. and Mrs. Williams chose to remodel their 19th century house based on a design from an architectural pattern book of 1936, choosing an architectural style that had its origins in the early 20th century, and not the most current architectural styles, tells us something about the conservatism in taste so often found in small rural communities like Port Perry. This conservatism in architectural taste continues to this day, as Port Perry continues to embrace and celebrate its early history and architectural styles, rather than adopting the latest most current architectural trends.
8
CRB1618
The Author also claims that the Statement of Significance exaggerates when it says that 221 Mary Street represents a relatively rare architectural style in the community, because he was able to find six examples of the style in the Town. A drive through the back streets of Port Perry and an examination of Town records would make it clear that there are far more examples of late 19th century houses to be found in Port Perry, than there are houses dating from the early to mid-20th century. This relatively small ratio of early to mid-20th century homes compared to the stock of late 19th century homes does yield important information about the history of Port Perry. It shows us in built form, how the town underwent a major building boom following the arrival of the Whitby Port Perry railway in 1871, and how the economy gradually shrank to stagnation by the First World War, due to several factors such as the extension of the railway line to Lindsay, competition from other more successful railways, dramatic improvements made to the Province’s roads, and the adoption of the automobile.
Contextual Value
Ontario Regulation 9/06 states that for a property to have Contextual Value it means that the property is:
• Important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area; or • Physically, functionally, visually linked to its surroundings; or • A Landmark.
On page 58 of his report, the Author states that the remodelled 19th century house at 221 Mary Street has no contextual value, because parking lots typify the north side of Mary Street, it only exists in a pocket of four house forms that were all built decades earlier, and it is setback far from the street. The Author also states that the house at 221 Mary Street is not a landmark in the core of Port Perry, and this is the only statement of his that can be considered accurate regarding the contextual value of the property.
The Author’s inability to find contextual value in the house at 221 Mary Street is a direct result of the faulty methodology of only looking at the north side of Mary Street in a linear fashion, two blocks west of the subject property, and one block east in his efforts to establish the immediate physical context of the property. Had the Author been more thorough in his study of the immediate context, and looked directly across Mary Street, he would have noticed that the north side of Mary Street marks the northern edge of Port Perry’s oldest residential neighbourhood planned by Peter Perry in 1848, originally named Scugog Village. Indeed, Mary Street was named after Peter Perry’s wife, Mary. John Street to the west was named after his son, Casimir Street to the south, was originally named Cinderella Street, after his daughter, and Perry Street named after his surname. This residential neighbourhood roughly bordered by Scugog Street to the South, Perry Street to the East, Simcoe Street to the West and Mary Street to the North is actually a remarkably intact 19th century neighbourhood comprised of an eclectic mix of homes. Among the streets mentioned earlier, one can find modest mid to late 19th century 1 ½ storey frame houses, grand Italianate brick residences of the Township’s 19th
9
CRB1618
century elite, infill houses from the 1960s, 70s and 80s and mature trees. One of the reasons that 221 Mary Street was listed early on the Township’s Register of Heritage Buildings, while other historic homes in the Town were not, was in recognition of the importance of this historic neighbourhood.
The modest 1 ½ storey frame house almost directly across the street from 221 Mary Street happens to be the childhood home of Daniel David Palmer, the founder of Chiropractic medicine, and only a few houses away on Perry Street is the first home of Joseph Bigelow, who is arguably Port Perry’s most influential citizen of any century. The section of Mary Street between John Street and Perry Street where 221 Mary Street is located, is actually the most intact residential portion of the north side of Mary Street, as the only parking lot on this block of the street has been screened from view by a cedar hedge. Over the last 40 years, demolitions of other small houses on the north side of Mary Street allowed for the expansion of the parking lots behind the 19th century commercial buildings of Port Perry. The 1923 Fire Insurance of Port Perry should have confirmed for the Author the existence of homes all along the north side of Mary Street which predated the existing parking lots by several decades. To argue that the existing heritage homes on the north side of Mary Street are out of context because of the presence of the existing parking lots is fundamentally flawed, as it is the parking lots which are out of context with the 19th century residential neighbourhood, and not the other way around.
The Author’s description of the Municipal Planning controls that apply to 221 Mary Street on pages 4-5 of his report note that the Township’s Official Plan Amendment No. 5 (OPA 5 – Secondary Plan), adopted by Council in November of 2015, includes the property at 221 Mary Street within the “Established Neighbourhood” designation of the plan and not the “Priority Intensification Area” designation. This inclusion of 221 Mary Street within the “Established Neighbourhood” designation, which also happens to include the residential neighbourhood to the south, was not done by accident. The decision to include 221 Mary Street in the “Established Neighbourhood” designation was supported by the professional planning consultant that worked on OPA 5. This professional planner was of the opinion that 221 Mary Street fits within the neighbourhood context and Township Council adopted that opinion.
As a remodelled 19th century house, on a portion of its original foundation, and original setback from the street, the existing house at 221 Mary Street is indeed physically, functionally, and visually linked to its surroundings, and it is important in defining, maintaining and supporting the historical residential character of this area.
Conclusion
In summary, the Borgal Report does do a good job in presenting historical research on the subject property that helps determine the time frame for the remodelling of the 19th century house to its current form.
10
CRB1618
Unfortunately, it also indulges in unfounded accusations and insinuation as to the Township’s motivation in designating the property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and contains flawed methodology for determining the immediate physical context of the subject property.
The Author’s discussion of the application of the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06 is misleading and ignores obvious physical and historical facts, while also misinterpreting the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06.
Bibliography
Blumenson, John. Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms, 1784 to the Present. [Toronto]: Fitzhenry & Whiteside, 1990.
11
Curator’s Report To: Heritage and Museum Advisory Committee Date: June 20, 2017 Submitted by: Shannon Kelly, Curator ______
Scugog Shores Museum Village and Scugog Shores Heritage Centre & Archives
A. EVENTS 49th annual Canoe the Nonquon Summary • 78 total boats (canoe and kayaks) • 122 total participants • 25 total volunteers assisted with race • Gross revenue $6,200 (sponsorship $600, BBQ $300, registration $5300) • Planning for 50th annual running of the race will take start in September. We are looking for new members to be part of the planning committee.
The next large event will be the 15th annual Dog Days of Scugog, taking place at the Museum Village on July 15-16. To date we have 25 vendors booked as well as the following groups who will be providing entertainment and demonstrations: • WoofJocks Performance Team • DogLoversDays • Scugog Disc Dog • Sporting Detection Dogs Association • Old English Sheepdog Festival • Canadian Dachshund Rescue - raceing
Summer students are currently looking for new heritage demonstrators to assist with our annual Pioneer Day taking place on Sunday, August 20.
B. EXHIBITS Upcoming 2017/18 exhibits: September – Celebrate Durham Agriculture (Durham Farm Connections) November – Threadworks (Wellington County Museum & Archives) March – Egypt, Gift of the Nile (Royal Ontario Museum)
C. PROGRAMMING Harry Potter PA day camp held at the Museum Village on Friday June 2 was very successful with 16 children attending.
139 students from Good Shepherd CS participated in the Scugog 150 exhibit programming at the Heritage Centre
Full day education programs will continue at the Museum Village until the end of the school year.
Several adult group tours have been booked throughout June at the Museum Village.
D. MARKETING Our social media campaign #Scugog150 continues to receive positive response on both facebook and twitter. Our ‘likes’ on facebook continue to grow at a quick rate. Museum staff have been attending quarterly meetings with Lori Bowers to further increase our social media reach. A Museum Instagram account was created.
E. COLLECTIONS Database entry and collections management continues on a regular basis by volunteers.
F. VILLAGE Nothing to report.
G. STAFF DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGES A staff BBQ and human resource training was held on Thursday June 15 for all full-time and seasonal staff.