FINAL REPORT Heritage Assessment, Whittington Wind Project, Dufferin County, ON

Transcription

1 FINAL REPORT Heritage Assessment, Whittington Wind Project, Dufferin County, ON Prepared for: wpd Canada Corporation 405 Britannia Road East, Suite 214 Mississauga, ON L4Z 3E6 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd 2791 Lancaster Rd., Suite 200 Ottawa, ON K1B 1A7 February 2012 Project No.:

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Specific sections of the Ontario Regulation 359/09, Renewable Energy Approvals Under Part V.0.1 Of The Environmental Protection Act pertain to Heritage Resources, specifically built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. In order to meet the conditions of the regulation, Stantec Consulting Ltd was retained by wpd Canada Corporation to conduct a Heritage Assessment of the location of a proposed wind project in the Township of Amaranth in Dufferin County, Ontario. The assessment included a review of historic period maps, aerial imagery and Census data as well as records and inventories held by the Township of Amaranth, the Town of Mono, the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture, and the Ontario Heritage Trust. Using locations of known buildings and the locations of buildings from historic period maps, a visual survey of the Study Area was completed on June 10 th, 2010 to determine the existence of any potentially significant built heritage resources within the Study Area. During the site visit the Study Area was also assessed for any groupings of resources that might constitute a cultural heritage landscape. A total of eight resources were identified as potentially significant built heritage resources. All eight resources were evaluated using the criteria outlined under O.Reg 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. One resource was evaluated as being significant, the David Spence House in Lot 20, Concession 1. The property meets criteria 1(i) and 2(i) as outlined in O.Reg 9/06 and, as a result, was assessed for potential Project-related negative impacts as per InfoSheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (MTC, 2006a). Potential negative impacts assessed included: destruction, alteration, shadows, isolation, direct or indirect obstruction and changes in land-use. No potential negative impacts of significant magnitude were identified for the David Spence House. No further mitigation is recommended. No cultural heritage landscapes were identified in, or adjacent to, the Study Area and no further mitigation has been recommended with respect to cultural heritage landscapes. The following report details the findings of the Heritage Assessment as completed under Section 23 of O.Reg 359/09. Project No.: i

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... I 1 INTRODUCTION O.Reg. 359/09 Requirements, Heritage Assessment Project Description Study Methodology STUDY AREA HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Township Survey and Early Settlement Agriculture Domestic/Residential Commercial and Industrial Educational, Religious and Public Buildings Transportation BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCES Methodology Existing Heritage Designations, Easements and Conservation Districts Agricultural Resources Domestic/Residential Built Heritage Resources Educational, Religious and Public Built Heritage Resources Commercial and Industrial Built Heritage Resources Transportation Related Built Heritage Resources CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES Methodology Cultural Heritage Landscapes IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Methodology Identification of Impacts Project No.: ii

4 6.3 Proposed Mitigation STUDY RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CLOSURE REFERENCES Literature Cited Literature Reviewed Personal Communications LIST OF PLATES Plate 1 Farmhouse in Lot 20, Concession 1 (BHR 1) LIST OF VISUAL AIDS Visual Aid 1 Wind Turbine Scale Schematic Visual Aid 2 Wind Turbine Scale Schematic, with trees LIST OF TABLES Table 4-1 Agricultural Built Heritage Resources Table 4-2 Residential Built Heritage Resources Table 6-1 Potential Negative Impacts and Recommended Mitigation LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Location of Study Area... 4 Figure 1-2 Site Plan... 5 Figure 3-1 Study Area Shown over Detail from 1861 Leslie and Wheelcock Map of Wellington County... 7 Figure 3-2 Study Area Shown over Detail from 1877 Walker and Miles Historical Atlas of Wellington County... 8 Figure 3-3 Study Area Shown over Detail from 1879 Miles & Co. Map of Wellington County... 9 Figure 4-1 Location of Built Heritage Resources LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A Built Heritage Resource Forms Project No.: iii

5 1 INTRODUCTION Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by wpd Canada Corporation to prepare a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) Application, as required under Ontario Regulation 359/09 Renewable Energy Approvals under Part V.0.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (O.Reg. 359/09). According to subsection 6.(3) of O.Reg. 359/09, the Project is classified as a Class 4 Wind Facility and will follow the requirements identified in O.Reg.359/09 for such a facility. The Project consists of three (3) turbines with a 6.9 MW nameplate capacity. The Project will be located entirely within the Township of Amaranth, Dufferin County in central Ontario. The Study Area is generally bounded by Sideroad 20 to the north, west of Second Line to the west, the Mono- Amaranth Townline to the east and Sideroad 15 to the South (Figure 1-1). This Heritage Assessment Report is one component of the REA Application for the Project, and has been prepared in accordance with O. Reg. 359/09. The study was conducted by Stephen Jarrett, B.A., Archaeological Technician and Christienne Uchiyama, B.A., Heritage Planning Consultant. A visual survey was conducted on June 10, 2010 by Mr. Jarrett, and Colin Varley, M.A., R.P.A., Senior Heritage Planning Consultant. Colin Varley acted as Team Leader and Senior Reviewer. 1.1 O.Reg. 359/09 Requirements, Heritage Assessment This Heritage Assessment Report has been conducted in accordance with O.Reg. 359/09, s.23 (1) and (3). O. Reg.359/09 s.23 (1) states that: 23. (1) If, as a result of the consideration mentioned in subsection 20 (1), a person concludes that engaging in the renewable energy project may have an impact on a heritage resource described in paragraph 2 of subsection 20 (1), the person shall, (a) conduct a heritage assessment consisting of, (i) an evaluation of whether there are any heritage resources at the project location, applying the criteria set out in Ontario Regulation 9/06 (Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest) made under the Ontario Heritage Act Section 4 of this report satisfies the requirements of O.Reg.359/09, s.23(1)(a)(i). The Regulation further states that: (ii) if any heritage resources are identified as a result of the evaluation under subclause (i), an evaluation of any impact of the renewable energy project on the heritage resources and proposed measures to avoid, eliminate or mitigate the impact, which may include a heritage conservation plan. Project Number:

6 In order to satisfy O.Reg.359/09, s.23(1)(a)(ii), an assessment of potential Project-related negative impacts was carried out for each significant built heritage resource and cultural heritage landscape within the Study Area. This assessment, conducted as per InfoSheet #5 in Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (MTC, 2006a), is presented in Section Project Description The Project, known as the Whittington Wind Project, consists of three (3) turbines with a 6.9 MW nameplate capacity. Schematics are included in Appendix B, Turbine Schematics. The Project will be located in the Township of Amaranth, Dufferin County in central Ontario. The Study Area is generally bounded by Sideroad 20 to the north, west of Second Line to the west, the Mono- Amaranth Townline to the east and Sideroad 15 to the South (Figure 1-1). According to subsection 4.(3) of Ontario Regulation 359/09, the proposed Whittington Wind Project is a Class 4 facility. Existing provincial and municipal roads will be used to transport project-related components, equipment and personnel to the Study Area. Turbines will be installed on private lands and access to these lands will be required for installation and operation of the wind turbines (Figure 1-2). Permanent access roads will be approximately 4 metres wide. Locations of Project components are shown in Figure Study Methodology The Heritage Assessment study was composed of a program of archival research and visual assessment of potentially significant built heritage resources and potential components of cultural heritage landscapes within the vicinity of the Study Area. To familiarise the study team with the Study Area, local historical societies were consulted, archival documents were reviewed and a summary historical background of the local area was prepared. Listings of provincially and locally designated built heritage sites, districts and easements and buildings of architectural or historical interest for each municipality were reviewed in order to compile a catalogue of existing identified heritage resources. A visual survey was conducted on June 10 th, The Study Area was surveyed for extant buildings, outbuildings or other built heritage remains. During the site visit built heritage resources which might satisfy criteria outlined under O.Reg. 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, Under the Ontario Heritage Act, 2006 and components of potential cultural heritage landscapes were photographed and their locations recorded. Where municipal addresses were not available locations were recorded using a handheld Global Positioning System (GPS). In general, buildings and structures of more than forty years of age were evaluated during the survey for their potential to satisfy O.Reg. 9/06 criteria. The use of the forty year threshold is generally accepted by both federal and provincial authorities as a preliminary screening measure Project Number:

7 for heritage interest or value. This practice does not imply that all buildings or structures more than forty years of age are inherently of significant heritage value, nor does it exclude exceptional examples constructed in the past forty years of being of significant cultural heritage value. The Study Area was assessed for groupings of resources and environs that might potentially constitute cultural heritage landscapes as defined by the Ministry of Culture s InfoSheet #2 Cultural Heritage Landscapes in Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (MTC, 2006b). 2 STUDY AREA The Study Area is composed of approximately 420 hectares (1030 acres) around Whittington, Ontario being comprised of Lots 16 through 20, Concession 1 and part of Lots 16 through 20, Concession 2, in the Township of Amaranth, Dufferin County (Figure 1-1). The Town of Mono lies immediately to the east of the Study Area. Two small drainage features are located within the Study Area, in poorly drained areas (Figure 1-1). Land use in the Study Area is primarily agricultural with some areas of undeveloped, forested land (Figure 1-2). The topography of the Study Area is relatively level with an elevated area south of 20 th Sideroad below which is located a drainage feature (Figure 1-1). The Study Area falls within the Dundalk Till plains physiographic region (Chapman and Putnam, 1984). The gently undulating Dundalk till plains, sitting at 1400 to 1750 feet in elevation, form the watershed from which the headwaters of many rivers originate including the Saugeen, Maitland, Nottawasaga and Grand. The plains are characterized by poorly drained swamps and bogs. Most of the area carries a surficial deposit of silt comparable to the loess in the Mississippi Valley. Project Number:

8 Study Area 1000m Figure 1-1 Location of Study Area

9 th Mono Amaranth 2nd Mono Amaranth Georgian Bay QUEBEC! Ottawa 2nd Project Area 11 ^_! Toronto ONTARIO Lake Ontario Lake Erie Legend USA 15th Monday, June 13, :56:30 PM V:\01225\active\other_pc\ Whittington WF\gis\map_site plan_ mxd Study Area Collector System Access Road Turbine Blade Tip Switching Station Notes Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17 NAD 83. Data Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Queens Printer Ontario, Image Source: First Base Solutions, Imagery Date: June 2011 Project No Client/Project wpd CANADA CORPORATION WHITTINGTON WIND FARM Figure No m Title SITE PLAN :15,

10 3 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 3.1 Township Survey and Early Settlement Settlement of Amaranth Township began in Amaranth Township grew slowly having fewer than 500 individual entries in the 1851 census. Settlement began in earnest between 1845 and 1865, following the American Civil War (Sawden 1952). Mono Township was surveyed in 1823 and the first settlers arrived the same year (Sawden 1952). Dufferin County was created in 1881 from parts of Grey, Simcoe and Wellington Counties in an effort to create a more central municipality in the region. Upon creation of the County the Town of Orangeville was awarded the distinction of being named the County Seat. 3.2 Agriculture Census records from the late 19 th century indicate that the majority of land owners in the Study Area were farmers. Agricultural census records no longer exist for the Township of Amaranth, so it is not possible to determine the extent of land clearing or the success of individual farmers at that time. An 1861 map of Wellington County does show that all of the lots within the Study Area were occupied (Figure 3-1). To the west of the Study Area there are many lots marked non, indicating that the owners of those lots were non-resident in the township, and were likely land speculators. Although not indicated on any either of the 1861 or 1877 maps, it should be expected that there were agricultural outbuildings associated with each of the lots within the Study Area (Figures 3-1 and 3-2) Farmers in the Town of Mono focused their efforts on growing spring wheat, peas, oats and potatoes. It also appears that a large number of farmers were using a large percentage, over half in many cases, of their cleared land for pasture. This may be due, in part, to imperfectly drained soils that were more prevalent in Mono than neighbouring townships. Amaranath Township, particularly the location of the Study Area, had similar conditions and it is likely that farmers in east Amaranath followed similar patterns. 3.3 Domestic/Residential Residential structures are not indicated on historic maps of the Study Area (Figures 3-1 and 3-2). Amaranth is the only township in the 1877 Walker and Miles Atlas that does not show the location of individual farmhouses. However, given that all of the lots in the Study Area were occupied in both 1861 and 1877 it should be expected that there were homes in most, if not all, of the lots. Project Number:

11 Study Area 500m Figure 3-1 Study Area Shown over Detail from 1861 Leslie and Wheelcock Map of Wellington County

12 Study Area School Church 800m Figure 3-2 Study Area Shown over Detail from 1877 Walker and Miles Historical Atlas of Wellington County

13 Figure 3-3 Study Area Shown over Detail from 1879 Miles & Co. Map of Wellington County Study Area

14 3.4 Commercial and Industrial There is no evidence to indicate the presence of substantial commercial development within or adjacent to the Study Area. Census data indicates that all of the residents within the Study Area were either farmers or mariners. Commercial development in the vicinity of the Study Area appears to have been focused in the Hamlet of Whittington, in the southwest corner of the Study Area. At its height the hamlet contained a buttery, store, hotel and smithy (Marshall 1977:101). The 1861 map shows the location of the hotel, then known as Bowsfields Inn, immediately across Second Line from the Study Area (Figure 3-1). Kennedy s Tavern operated for a time at the crossroads of Sideroad 20 and Second Line, on the northern edge of the Study Area (Sawden 1952), although it does not appear on any of the available 19 th century maps. 3.5 Educational, Religious and Public Buildings The historic Hamlet of Whittington contained a number of public buildings and was located in the southwest corner of the Study Area. At its height the hamlet contained a school, a church and a post office (Figures 3-1 to 3-3). All of the public buildings were located outside of the Study Area limits. The school, which still stands on the northwest corner of Lot 15, Concession 2, is now a residence. The former United and Methodist Church was also located in Lot 15 Concession 2, to the southwest of the Study Area. All that remains is a plaque on a small section of fieldstone wall. 3.6 Transportation Transportation within the Study Area was largely by road. Road corridors shown on all of the 19 th century maps follow the present day road corridors (Figures ). The Toronto Grey and Bruce Railway, chartered in 1868 and operational in the Study Area by 1871, passed within 250 m of the Study Area to west on a parallel north-south axis (Figures 3-2 and 3-3). The nearest junction was in Orangeville, 8.2 km south of the Study Area. Project Number:

15 4 BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCES During the June, 2011 site visit two built heritage resources which might potentially satisfy the criteria outlined under O.Reg 9/06 were documented. One of those resources was determined to be of significant cultural heritage value following evaluation. In general, a threshold of forty years of age was used as a preliminary screening measure. Built heritage resources are defined as one or more significant buildings, structures, monuments, installations or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic or military history and identified as being important to a community (MTC, 2006a). 4.1 Methodology Evaluation of potentially significant built heritage resources in the Study Area was performed using criteria set out under O.Reg 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). A property meeting one or more of the following criteria is considered significant under the OHA. 1. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 2. The property has 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. 3. The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2). 4.2 Existing Heritage Designations, Easements and Conservation Districts There are no properties within a 5 km radius of the Study Area designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. No other properties are located within or adjacent to the Study Area which are protected as per the table in Section 19, O.Reg. 359/09 (Gervais, 2011 pers comm.; Early, 2011 pers. comm., Fraser, 2011 pers. comm.). Project Number:

16 4.3 Agricultural Resources Agricultural built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscape features one might expect as a result of agricultural activities include; fencing surrounding or separating fields and pastures, windmills and outbuildings such as sheds, barns and silos. Three isolated potential agricultural built heritage resources were recorded during the June, 2010 visual survey (Figure 4-1). Table 4-1 summarises the evaluation of all three potentially significant agricultural resources. descriptions. See Appendix A, Built Heritage Resource Record Forms for full Table 4-1 Agricultural Built Heritage Resources Built Heritage Property Criteria Met Justification Rating Resource (BHR) Number Barn near Second Line Does not meet criteria Design Value or Physical Value - The barn is vernacular and is not considered to be a rare, unique, representative or early example of any particular style, type, expression, material, or construction method. It does not display an especially high degree of craftsmanship, nor does it demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. The cupola on top of the metal roof is an interesting feature of the barn, but is not considered sufficient, in itself, to satisfy criterion 1(ii). Not Significant Historical Value or Associative Value - There is no evidence to suggest any direct associations with any themes, events, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to the community. The barn is not likely to yield information that contributes to an understanding of the community, nor does it demonstrate the works of an architect, artist, builder or designer that is noted as being important to the community. Barn near Second Line Does not meet criteria Contextual Value the barn certainly suits the agricultural nature of the surrounding landscape, but individually is not considered by this study to be integral in defining, maintaining or supporting the surrounding character. The barn is not physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings and is not a landmark. Design Value or Physical Value - The barn is vernacular and is not considered to be a rare, unique, representative or early example of any particular style, type, expression, material, or construction method. It does not display an Not Significant Project Number:

17 especially high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, nor does it demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Historical Value or Associative Value - There is no evidence to suggest any direct associations with any themes, events, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to the community. The barn is not likely to yield information that contributes to an understanding of the community, nor does it demonstrate the works of an architect, artist, builder or designer that is noted as being important to the community. Barn South of Second Line Does not meet criteria Contextual Value the barn certainly suits the agricultural nature of the surrounding landscape, but individually is not considered by this study to be integral in defining, maintaining or supporting the surrounding character. The barn is not physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings and is not a landmark. Design Value or Physical Value The wooden barn with saltbox roof is vernacular and is not considered to be a rare, unique, representative or early example of any particular style, type, expression, material, or construction method. It does not display an especially high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, nor does it demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Not Significant Historical Value or Associative Value - There is no evidence to suggest any direct associations with any themes, events, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to the community. The barn is not likely to yield information that contributes to an understanding of the community, nor does it demonstrate the works of an architect, artist, builder or designer that is noted as being important to the community. Contextual Value the barn certainly suits the agricultural nature of the surrounding landscape, but individually is not considered by this study to be integral in defining, maintaining or supporting the surrounding character. The barn is not physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings and is not a landmark. All three potential agricultural resources are barns. In general, the barns were not found to meet the criteria outlined in Section 4.1. None of the barns are early constructions, nor do they exemplify representative or unique architecture styles. Project Number:

18 th nd Line ") ") David Spence House Mono Amaranth ") nd Line ") Townline nd ") nd Line ") Townline nd ") nd Line ") Barn QUEBEC Georgian Bay Project Area! Ottawa Mono Amaranth ONTARIO ^_! Toronto Lake Ontario Lake Erie USA 15th m 1:15, Revised: By: sarogers V:\01225\active\other_pc\ Whittington WF\gis\map_heritage resources_ mxd February, 2012 Project No Legend ") ") Significant Built Heritage Resource Not Significant Built Heritage Resource Study Area Collector System Access Road Turbine Blade Tip Switching Station Notes Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17 NAD 83. Data Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Queens Printer Ontario, Image Source: First Base Solutions, Imagery Date: Client/Project wpd CANADA CORPORATION WHITTINGTON WIND FARM Figure No. 4-1 Title LOCATION OF BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCES

19 4.4 Domestic/Residential Built Heritage Resources The majority of potential built heritage resources identified during archival research were residential in nature. A total of five potential residential built heritage resources were recorded within the Study Area (Figure 4-1). Table 4-2 summarises the evaluation of all five potentially significant residential resources. See Appendix A, Built Heritage Resource Record Forms for full descriptions. Table 4-2 Residential Built Heritage Resources Built Heritage Resource (BHR) Number Property Criteria Met Second Line Does not meet criteria Justification Design Value or Physical Value - The farmhouse at Second Line is vernacular construction dating to the 20 th century. It is not considered to be a rare, unique, representative or early example of any particular style, type, expression, material, or construction method. It does not display an especially high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, nor does it demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Rating Not Significant Historical Value or Associative Value - There is no evidence to suggest any direct associations with any themes, events, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to the community. The farmhouse is not likely to yield information that contributes to an understanding of the community, nor does it demonstrate the works of an architect, artist, builder or designer that is noted as being important to the community. Contextual Value the farmhouse is consistent with the rural nature of the surrounding landscape, but individually is not considered by this study to be integral in defining, maintaining or supporting the surrounding character. The barn is not physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings and is not a landmark. Project Number:

20 BHR 1 David Spence House, Lot 20, Concession 1 Criteria 1.i, 2.i Design Value or Physical Value - The dichromatic brick Gothic Revival Cottage style farmhouse is a relatively early example of the style in the area, particularly involving dichromatic brickwork which became popular in Ontario in the 1870 s (Ritchie, 1979). Significant Historical Value or Associative Value The farmhouse is associated with David Spence, an early resident in the community and original owner of the home Second Line Does not meet criteria Contextual Value the farmhouse is certainly suits the rural nature of the surrounding landscape, but individually is not considered by this study to be integral in defining, maintaining or supporting the surrounding character. It is not physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings and is not a landmark. Design Value or Physical Value - The farmhouse at Second Line is a twostorey vernacular construction with vinyl siding and a redbrick addition to the rear. It is not considered to be a rare, unique, representative or early example of any particular style, type, expression, material, or construction method. It does not display an especially high degree of craftsmanship, nor does it demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. The decorative cornice brackets are not considered by this study to be sufficient to satisfy criterion (1)(ii). Historical Value or Associative Value - There is no evidence to suggest any direct associations with any themes, events, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to the community. The farmhouse is not likely to yield information that contributes to an understanding of the community, nor does it demonstrate the works of an architect, artist, builder or designer that is noted as being important to the community. Not Significant Contextual Value the farmhouse is certainly suits the rural nature of the surrounding landscape, but individually is not considered by this study to be integral in defining, maintaining or supporting the surrounding character. It is not physically, Project Number:

21 functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings and is not a landmark Townline Does not meet criteria Townline Does not meet criteria Design Value or Physical Value - The farmhouse at Townline Road is a one and a half storey Gothic Revival Cottage style farmhouse clad in a synthetic siding meant to resemble masonry. It is not considered to be a rare, unique, representative or early example of any particular style, type, expression, material, or construction method. It does not display an especially high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, nor does it demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Historical Value or Associative Value - There is no evidence to suggest any direct associations with any themes, events, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to the community. The farmhouse is not likely to yield information that contributes to an understanding of the community, nor does it demonstrate the works of an architect, artist, builder or designer that is noted as being important to the community. Contextual Value the farmhouse is certainly suits the rural nature of the surrounding landscape, but individually is not considered by this study to be integral in defining, maintaining or supporting the surrounding character. It is not physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings and is not a landmark. Design Value or Physical Value - The twostorey red brick farmhouse at Townline Road is vernacular in design. It is not considered to be a rare, unique, representative or early example of any particular style, type, expression, material, or construction method. It does not display an especially high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, nor does it demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Historical Value or Associative Value - There is no evidence to suggest any direct associations with any themes, events, belief, person, activity, organization, or Not Significant Not Significant Project Number:

22 institution that is significant to the community. The farmhouse is not likely to yield information that contributes to an understanding of the community, nor does it demonstrate the works of an architect, artist, builder or designer that is noted as being important to the community. Contextual Value the farmhouse is certainly suits the rural nature of the surrounding landscape, but individually is not considered by this study to be integral in defining, maintaining or supporting the surrounding character. It is not physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings and is not a landmark. One of the built heritage resources meets criteria outlined in O.Reg 9/06. The remaining four farmhouses do not satisfy the criteria. Plate 1 Farmhouse in Lot 20, Concession 1 (BHR 1) Project Number:

23 Lot 20 Concession 1, Amaranth Township The residence in Lot 20, Concession 1 in the Township of Amaranth is a one and a half storey red brick Gothic Revival Cottage style farmhouse. The building is decorated with beige brick quoins and flat arch trim above the windows and doors. This decorative style is representative of the area s architecture. Archival sources are scarce for this property; however, a plaque at the end of the driveway indicates that David Spence pioneered the plot in The 1877 map of the Amaranth Township shows D. Spence as the owner of the S1/2 of Lot 20, Concession 1 (Figure 3-2). This is likely the same David Spence who was Clerk for an Amaranth Township meeting in 1861 held at the Wallace Hotel (Sawden 1952). The enumerator of the 1861 Nominal Census for Amaranth Township was also David Spence (LAC, 1861). The farmhouse is a good example of local dichromatic brickwork and includes the use of beige brick for quoins along the corners and lintels above the windows and doors. As a result, the building meets criteria 1.i. of O.Reg. 9/06, as outlined in Section 4.1. Based on the property s association with David Spence, an active member of the early settlement, the property has associative value. As a result, the property meets criteria 2.i. This property is considered to be a significant built heritage resource. 4.5 Educational, Religious and Public Built Heritage Resources There are no educational, religious or public built heritage resources in or adjacent to the Study Area. 4.6 Commercial and Industrial Built Heritage Resources There are no commercial built heritage resources in or adjacent to the Study Area. 4.7 Transportation Related Built Heritage Resources Background research into the transportation methods of the Study Area identified all the roads within the Study Area as possible heritage resources. A visual survey of the roads on June 10, 2010 determined all the roads had undergone extensive repair and modification to modernize them for current use including raising the level, reducing the grade and paving the surface. As a result all roads within the Study Area maintain the plan of the original road but lack the integrity required to be considered heritage resources. Project Number:

24 5 CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES 5.1 Methodology During the site visit in June, 2010 the Study Area was assessed for groupings of resources and environs that might potential constitute cultural heritage landscapes as defined by the Ministry of Culture. Cultural Heritage Landscapes for the purposes of this study are: a defined geographical area of heritage significance which has been modified by human activities and is valued by a community. A landscape involves a grouping(s) of individual heritage features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites and natural elements, which together form a significant type of heritage form, distinctive from that of its constituent elements or parts (MTC, 2006b). During the site visit, the Study Area was examined for evidence of human modification and resources that might reflect potential themes identified through the course of background research. These themes include, but are not exclusive to: First Nations use of the land; early settlement; and agriculture. 5.2 Cultural Heritage Landscapes During the June, 2010 site visit, no significant cultural heritage landscapes were recorded. Project Number:

25 6 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 6.1 Methodology Assessment of potential direct or indirect impacts of the project on identified built heritage resources in the Study Area considered Ministry of Tourism and Culture guidelines concerning Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (MTC, 2006a). The Ministry of Tourism and Culture outlines seven potential negative impacts on heritage resources: Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features; Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden; Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; and Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource. Land disturbances are being assessed in a separate Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment and have not been included in the current evaluation. Identification of potential impacts considered the proposed site plan for the layout of turbines and optioned parcels in relation to identified cultural heritage resources (Figure 4-1). 6.2 Identification of Impacts Table 6-1 provides a summary of potential direct and indirect impacts of the project on significant cultural heritage resources. Destruction BHR-1 will not be destroyed by the Project. Alteration BHR-1 will not be altered by the Project. Project Number:

26 Shadows The turbines will be sited approximately 750m, 1250m and 1850m from BHR-1 and as such will not cast shadows on the property (Figure 4-1). Isolation The Project will not isolate BHR-1. Obstruction of Views Turbines are the only Project components expected to interact with views of BHR-1. When viewing BHR-1 from the northwest, all three turbines may be visible. This will not be the case when viewing the subject property from the road in front of BHR-1 or from the southwest (Figure 4-1). Visual Aid 1 illustrates the visual impact of turbines similar to those proposed for the Project at a distance of 550 m and 1,000 m from a two storey residential building. Visual Aid 2 shows the same model with simulated mature tree plantings around the residence. As shown in Plate 1, BHR-1 is surrounded by trees. The visual impact of the turbines on direct views of BHR-1 is further lessened as a result of their positioning in relation to the residence. The turbines will likely be visible in the periphery when viewing BHR-1 facing east, but will not obstruct views of the property (Figure 4-1). Change in Land Use There will be no change in land use as a result of the Project. Table 6-1 Potential Negative Impacts and Recommended Mitigation Resource Number Potential Negative Impact Recommended Mitigation Destruction Alteration Shadows Isolation Obstruction of Views BHR 1 NE NE NE NE NE NE No further mitigation recommended Change in Land Use BHR - Built Heritage Resource, CHL - Cultural Heritage Landscape Potential Impacts: R - Reversible, I - Irreversible, NE - Not Expected 6.3 Proposed Mitigation Given that no significant and irreversible negative impacts are expected, no further mitigation has been recommended. Project Number:

27 Turbine 1 Turbine 2 Notes: Camera: 1.8m height, 50mm lens Turbine: 95m to tower hub, 44m blade length Distance from Camera Turbine 1 = 550m Turbine 2 = 1,000m House: standard two storey, 50m from camera WIND TURBINE SCALE SCHEMATIC, MARCH 2011 VISUAL AID 1

28 Turbine 1 Turbine 2 Notes: Camera: 1.8m height, 50mm lens Turbine: 95m to tower hub, 44m blade length Distance from Camera Turbine 1 = 550m Turbine 2 = 1,000m House: standard two storey, 50m from camera Trees: 13-15m (40-50 ) height, forest 300m from camera WIND TURBINE SCALE SCHEMATIC, MARCH 2011 VISUAL AID 2

29

30 9 REFERENCES 9.1 Literature Cited Chapman, L.J., and D.F. Putnam, The Physiography of Southern Ontario (3 rd Edition). Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Hutchinson, Jean F., The History of Wellington County. Grand Valley, Ontario:Landsborough Printing Limited. Leslie, Guy, and Charles J. Wheelcock, Map of the County of Wellington, Canada West. Orangeville, ON: Leslie & Wheelcock, Publishers. National Map Collection H1/420/Wellington/1861. LAC (Library and Archives Canada) 1851 Nominal Census of Canada East, Canada West, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia 1851, Microfilm C Agricultural Census of Canada East, Canada West, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, 1861, Microfilm C Federal Census of 1871 (Ontario Index). Microfilm C Federal Census of 1881 (Ontario Index). Microfilm C Miles and Company, Map of the County of Wellington. National Map Collection H12/420/Wellington/1879 Ministry of Culture (MTC), 2006a. Ontario Heritage Toolkit. Toronto: Queen s Printer for Ontario. ---, 2006b. Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans. Sheet No. 5, Information Sheet Series from Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Statement, Toronto: Queen s Printer for Ontario. ---, Ontario Heritage Properties Database. Ontario Regulation 9/06, Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, Under the Ontario Heritage Act, Ontario Regulation 359/09, Renewable Energy Approvals Under Part V.0.1 Of The Environmental Protection Act, Ritchie, Thomas, Notes on Dichromatic Brickwork in Ontario. Ontario Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin, Vol. 11(2) pp Sawden, Stephen History of Dufferin County. Orangeville, ON: Orangeville Banner. Township of Amaranth, Official Plan for the Township of Amaranth. Accessed online at, June, Walker and Miles, Illustrated Atlas of the County of Wellington. Toronto: Walker and Miles, Publishers. (Reprint Edition published in Ross Cumming, Port Elgin.) Project Number:

31 9.2 Literature Reviewed Cruikshank, Tom and John de Visser, Old Ontario Houses: Traditions in Local Architecture. Willowdale, ON: Firefly Books. Fram, Mark, Well-Preserved: the Ontario Heritage Foundation s Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation. 3 rd ed.. Erin, ON: The Boston Mills Press. Gentilcore, Louis R. and C. Grant Head, Ontario s History in Maps. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Stantec Consulting Ltd, Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment, Whittington Wind Farm, Dufferin County, ON. Report prepared for WPD Corporation. Mikel, Robert, Ontario House Styles: The distinctive architecture of the province s 18 th and 19 th century homes. James Lorimer & Company Ltd., Publishers: Toronto. Ontario Architecture, Parks Canada, Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. 9.3 Personal Communications Early, Mark C. Director of Planning, Town of Mono. June, 2010 and March, Fraser, Sean, Manager, Acquisitions and Conservation Services, Ontario Heritage Trust. Letter dated September 10, Gervais, Christine, Planner, Township of Amaranth and Township of East Garafraxa, March, Project Number:

32 APPENDIX A Built Heritage Record Forms Project Number:

33 Built Heritage Resource Record Form Built Heritage Resource Name: Municipal Address: nd Line Lot: 17 2 Municipality: Township of Amaranth County/RM: Dufferin Resource Type: Barn Concession: Associated Date (original, additions, alterations) : Unknown Description of Resource: Landmark (Y/N?) N This wood construction barn is located in fields associated with nd Line. The current residence is modern. The barn includes a metal gable roof with cupola Architecture/Engineering: Unknown Storeys: N/A Structural Material: Wood Roof Type: gable Notable Features: Current Use: Agriculture Outbuildings: N/A Cladding: metal Roof Material: metal cupola and weathervane Context (Geographic/Historical/Thematic Associations): Group Value/CHL Association: Farmstead Completed by (name): SJ CDV / CU Built Heritage Resource Number: Date Completed: June10 / July 19

34 Built Heritage Resource Record Form Built Heritage Resource Name: Municipal Address: nd Line Lot: 19 2 Municipality: Township of Amaranth County/RM: Dufferin Resource Type: Barn Concession: Associated Date (original, additions, alterations) : Unknown Description of Resource: Landmark (Y/N?) N Bank barn on hill with gambrel roof. No residence is visible from road. Architecture/Engineering: Vernacular Storeys: N/A Structural Material: Wood Roof Type: Gambrel Notable Features: Current Use: Agriculture Outbuildings: N/A Cladding: Metal Roof Material: Metal None Context (Geographic/Historical/Thematic Associations): Four lots north of historic village of Whittington, Owned by Hewitt in 1879 Group Value/CHL Association: Farmstead Completed by (name): SJ CDV / CU Built Heritage Resource Number: Date Completed: June 10 / July 19

35 Built Heritage Resource Record Form Built Heritage Resource Name: Municipal Address: Unknown, South of nd Line Rd Lot: 17 1 Municipality: Township of Amaranth County/RM: Dufferin Resource Type: Barn Concession: Associated Date (original, additions, alterations) : Unknown Description of Resource: Landmark (Y/N?) N Wooden barn with possible stone foundation (concrete clad) and saltbox steel roof. Not directly associated with a residence. Architecture/Engineering: Storeys: N/A Structural Material: Wood Roof Type: Saltbox Notable Features: Current Use: Agriculture Outbuildings: N/A Cladding: Wood Roof Material: Steel Context (Geographic/Historical/Thematic Associations): One lot north of the historic village of Whittington, Plot of R. Whitten in 1879 Group Value/CHL Association: None Completed by (name): SJ CDV / CU Built Heritage Resource Number: Date Completed: June 10 / July 19

36 Built Heritage Resource Record Form Built Heritage Resource Name: Municipal Address: nd Line Lot: Concession: 18 2 Municipality: Township of Amaranth County/RM: Dufferin Resource Type: Residence Associated Date (original, additions, alterations) : Landmark (Y/N?) N Description of Resource: Vernacular 1.5 storey red brick cottage-style farmhouse with dormer above front door. 2 barns and 3 silos at rear of building with cut stone and fieldstone foundations. A log structure is located at the rear of the property. It is not possible to assess the log structure from the road. Laneway has mature trees along either side. Architecture/Engineering: Georgian Storeys: Structural Material: Wood Roof Type: High Gable with centre gable façade Notable Features: 1.5 Current Use: Agriculture Outbuildings: 2 Barns, 3 Silos Cladding: Primarily Red Brick, some vinyl Roof Material: Metal Log building behind residence. Context (Geographic/Historical/Thematic Associations): Three lots north of historic Whittington village, A. Spence's property in 1879 Group Value/CHL Association: farmstead Completed by (name): SJ CDV / CU Built Heritage Resource Number: Date Completed: June 10 / July 19

37 Built Heritage Resource Record Form Built Heritage Resource Name: Rich Hill Farm Municipal Address: Across from nd Line Rd Lot: 20 1 Municipality: Township of Amaranth County/RM: Dufferin Resource Type: Residence Concession: Associated Date (original, additions, alterations) : Post 1860, the lot was first settled by David Spence in 1860 Description of Resource: Landmark (Y/N?) N Red brick Gothic Revival Cottage farmhouse with a small brick addition on the southwest corner and a modern wooden addition across the southeast of the residence. Architecture/Engineering: Gothic Revival Cottage Storeys: Structural Material: Roof Type: gable Notable Features: Current Use: Agriculture Outbuildings: 1.5 Cladding: Red Brick Roof Material: asphalt shingle 2 Two additions (one brick, one wood), sandstone quoins along corners, sanstone flat arch heads above windows and door Context (Geographic/Historical/Thematic Associations): Group Value/CHL Association: Farmstead Completed by (name): SJ CDV / CU Built Heritage Resource Number: Date Completed: June 10 / July 19 1

38 Built Heritage Resource Record Form Built Heritage Resource Name: Municipal Address: nd Line Lot: Concession: 20 2 Municipality: Township of Amaranth County/RM: Dufferin Resource Type: Residence Associated Date (original, additions, alterations) : Landmark (Y/N?) N Description of Resource: Vernacular farmhouse with hip roof and decorative double brackets along the roof line. Architecture/Engineering: vernacular Storeys: Structural Material: Roof Type: Hip Notable Features: 2 Current Use: Residence Outbuildings: 4 Total, 2 Barns, 1 Plastic hay cover, 1 Wood Hay cover Cladding: Vinyl Roof Material: Asphalt shingle Decorative bracketsbrick addition on back (W), stone lug sills Context (Geographic/Historical/Thematic Associations): Group Value/CHL Association: Farmstead Completed by (name): SJ CDV / CU Built Heritage Resource Number: Date Completed: June 10 / July 19

39 Built Heritage Resource Record Form Built Heritage Resource Name: Municipal Address: Townline Rd Lot: Concession: 17 1 Municipality: Township of Amaranth County/RM: Dufferin Resource Type: Residence Associated Date (original, additions, alterations) : Landmark (Y/N?) N Description of Resource: One and a half storey Gothic Revival Cottage style farmhouse. Typical fieldstone foundation barn collapsed to the southwest of the residence. Two modern additions on the rear (W) of the residence. Architecture/Engineering: Gothic Revival Cottage Storeys: Structural Material: Roof Type: Gable Notable Features: 1.5 Current Use: Agriculture Outbuildings: 2, Silo and Barn Cladding: Unknown Roof Material: metal Context (Geographic/Historical/Thematic Associations): One lot north of the historic village of Whittington, Plot of H. Currie in 1879 Group Value/CHL Association: Farm Complex Completed by (name): SJ CDV / CU Built Heritage Resource Number: Date Completed: June 10 / July 19

40 Built Heritage Resource Record Form Built Heritage Resource Name: Kulik House Municipal Address: Townline Rd Lot: 18 1 Municipality: Township of Amaranth County/RM: Dufferin Resource Type: Residence Concession: Associated Date (original, additions, alterations) : Landmark (Y/N?) N Description of Resource: A two and half storey redbrick vernacular farmhouse with decorative stone lintels above windows. Full verandah is recent construction. Large wooden barn to the south of the residence with fieldstone foundation and multiple additions. Architecture/Engineering: Vernacular Storeys: Structural Material: Wood Roof Type: Gable Notable Features: Current Use: residence Outbuildings: 2.5 Cladding: Red Brick Roof Material: Asphalt 1 Context (Geographic/Historical/Thematic Associations): Three lots north of the historic village of Whittington, Plot of J. Large in 1879 Group Value/CHL Association: Farmstead Completed by (name): SJ CDV / CU Built Heritage Resource Number: Date Completed: June 10 / July 19