APPENDIX E CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT

Transcription

1 APPENDIX E CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT

2 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION & HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT ERAMOSA RIVER BRIDGE SITE No. B WELLINGTON ROAD 124 (LOT 13, CONCESSION 3, GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF ERIN) TOWN OF ERIN COUNTY OF WELLINGTON, ONTARIO [2014] August 2018 Prepared for: WSP Canada Group Limited Prepared by:

3 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION & HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT ERAMOSA RIVER BRIDGE SITE No. B WELLINGTON ROAD 124 (LOT 13, CONCESSION 3, GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF ERIN) TOWN OF ERIN, COUNTY OF WELLINGTON, ONTARIO August 2018 Prepared for: WSP Canada Group Limited 610 Chartwell Road Suite 300 Oakville, ON, L6J 4A5 Prepared by: Unterman McPhail Associates 540 Runnymede Road Toronto, ON, M6S 2Z7 Tel:

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION Description of the Property Report Format HERITAGE POLICIES Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) County of Wellington Official Plan HISTORICAL SUMMARY Township of Erin Ospringe Wellington Road 124 and the Eramosa River Bridge Concrete Rigid Frame Structures Bridge Designer, Department of Highways, Ontario CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION Area Context Site Description BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCE DESCRIPTION Introduction Eramosa River Bridge, Region Site No. B Modifications Comparative Analysis CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE Introduction Evaluation Design Value or Physical Value Historical Value or Associative Value Contextual Value Summary of Cultural Heritage Value Statement of Cultural Heritage Value Description of Heritage Attributes DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 24

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 8.0 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS Introduction Identification of Potential Impacts Direct Impacts Indirect Impacts Impacts to Adjacent Properties COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MITIGATION STRATEGIES Introduction Mitigation Strategies CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 30 SOURCES APPENDIX A: Historical Maps and Drawings APPENDIX B: Eramosa River Bridge Survey Form APPENDIX C: List of variable depth cast-in-place concrete rigid frame structures under the jurisdiction of the County of Wellington provided by MMM Group, June APPENDIX D: County of Wellington Official Plan (As Amended 2010 and 2013), Section 4.1, Cultural Heritage Resources

6 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Key Plan of Eramosa River Bridge on Wellington Road 124, Town of Erin, County of Wellington, Ontario [2018]. 1 Figure 2. Circle shows the section of Highway 24 eastward from Guelph through Ospringe under construction [DHO Annual Report 1936/37]. 11 Figure 3. Circle shows the section of Highway 24 eastward from Guelph through Ospringe under construction [DHO Annual Report 1939/40]. 11 Figure 4. View west along Highway 24 to Ospringe on top of hill in 1958 [AO, RG , B410836, A-1303, May 5, 1958]. 11 Figure 5. North elevation of the Eramosa River Bridge in 1958, five years after completion [AO, RG , B410836, A-1303, May 5, 1958]. 11 Figure 6. View west on Highway 24 from Curries Hill towards the Eramosa River and Ospringe in 1951 [WCMA, A MU 493, Ospringe Women s Institute, Vol. 1]. 11 Figure 7. View west on Highway 24 from Curries Hill towards the Eramosa River Bridge and Ospringe in 1970 [WCMA, A MU 493, Ospringe Women s Institute, Vol. 1]. 11 Figure 8. An aerial photograph depicts land uses in proximity to Eramosa River Bridge [Google Maps, 2014]. 15 Figure 9. Elevation of the Eramosa River Bridge from the General Plan, September 10, Figure 10. Proposed elevation for the Preferred Design Alternative for Bridge Replacement [WSP, PIC, 2018]. 28 Figure 11. Proposed deck section for the Preferred Design Alternative for Bridge Replacement [WSP, PIC, 2018]. 28

7 Executive Summary The County of Wellington is carrying out a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) Study to address the poor condition and the need for an additional northbound lane (passing lane) for the Eramosa River Bridge. The MCEA study is being conducted in accordance with Schedule B of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (October 2000, as amended 2007, 2011, and 2015) process. It will confirm and document the current structural deficiencies, address substandard elements, make improvements to any operational and functional deficiencies with the current water crossing, and identify alternative solutions, including rehabilitation, widening or replacement of the bridge, and evaluate associated environmental impacts. Unterman McPhail Associates completed and submitted a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for Eramosa River Bridge to MMM Group, now WSP Canada Group Limited, on behalf of the County of Wellington (Figure 1) in July The CHER determined through the application of the Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value under Ontario Regulation 9/06 that the Eramosa River Bridge is of some cultural heritage value for historical/associative and contextual reasons. Since 2014 the MCEA process conducted by the County of Wellington and WSP have determined the preferred alternative for the Eramosa River Bridge is replacement of the existing structure due to its current deteriorated physical condition and operational deficiencies. In July 2018, after reviewing the CHER and considering the heritage evaluation that concluded the Eramosa River Bridge has some cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the OHA, the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS), as part of MCEA process for the subject bridge, the CHER be to expanded to include the selection preferred alternative, i.e., replacement of the subject bridge, a heritage impact assessment (HIA) component with recommended mitigation actions and additional community engagement. This document, which builds on the CHER (2014), provides the additional material requested by the MTCS. The Eramosa River is a main branch of the Speed River, a tributary of the Grand River, and is therefore included in the Canadian Heritage River designation of the Grand River. However, the subject bridge was noted as a non-heritage structure inventoried in Appendix C of Arch, Beam & Truss: The Grand River Watershed Heritage Bridge Inventory (March 2013). Consultation with the Chair of the Municipal Heritage Committee, Town of Erin in August 2018 indicates the bridge is not included on a local heritage inventory of cultural heritage resources nor is it included on its municipal heritage register adopted under the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) as a listed or municipally designated property under the OHA. The single span, precast box concrete girder with integral abutment design proposed for the new bridge is considered to be functional for its location on WR 124, it replicates the material of the existing structure and it will be placed in the same location as the existing structure. As a mitigation recommendation, this CHER / HIA report is considered to be the recording and documentation record of the structure. A copy of this report shall be provided to the Heritage Committee, Town of Erin, the Wellington County Library branch in Erin, Ontario and the Wellington County Museum and Archives.

8 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The County of Wellington is carrying out a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Study to address the poor condition and the need for an additional northbound lane (passing lane) for the Eramosa River Bridge. The MCEA study is being conducted in accordance with Schedule B of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (October 2000, as amended 2007, 2011, and 2015) process. It will confirm and document the current structural deficiencies, address substandard elements, make improvements to any operational and functional deficiencies with the current water crossing, and identify alternative solutions, including rehabilitation, widening or replacement of the bridge, and evaluate associated environmental impacts. Figure 1. Key Plan of Eramosa River Bridge on Wellington Road 124, Town of Erin, County of Wellington, Ontario [2018]. In July 2014, Unterman McPhail Associates, Heritage Resource Management Consultants completed and submitted a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) for Eramosa River Bridge to MMM Group, now WSP Canada Group Limited, on behalf of the County of Wellington (Figure 1). The CHER determined through the application of

9 2 the Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value under Ontario Regulation 9/06 that the Eramosa River Bridge is of cultural heritage value for historical/associative and contextual reasons. Since 2014 the MCEA process conducted by the County of Wellington and WSP have determined the preferred alternative for the Eramosa River Bridge is replacement of the existing structure due to its current deteriorated physical condition and operational deficiencies. In July 2018, after reviewing the CHER and considering the heritage evaluation that concluded the Eramosa River Bridge has some cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the OHA, the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS), as part of MCEA process for the subject bridge, the CHER be to expanded to include the selection preferred alternative, i.e., replacement of the subject bridge, a heritage impact assessment (HIA) component with recommended mitigation actions and additional community engagement. This document, which builds on the CHER (2014), provides the additional material requested by the MTCS. To date, the subject bridge has not been recognized currently by the Town of Erin on a local heritage inventory, a heritage register or by municipal designation under the OHA. 1.2 Description of the Property Designed and completed in 1953 by the Department of Highways Ontario (DHO), the Eramosa River Bridge is a single span concrete rigid frame structure. It is located on Wellington Road 124 (WR 124) over Eramosa River in the Town of Erin, Wellington County, Ontario and 1 km east of Wellington Road 125 (Figure 1). Specifically, it is situated on Lot 13, Concession 3, of the geographic Township of Erin. For the purposes of this report, WR 124 is considered to run in an east to west direction in the vicinity of the Eramosa River Bridge. 1.3 Report Format This document builds on the CHER (2014) to provide heritage impact assessment content requested by the MTCS. The CHER included s historical summary of the Eramosa River Bridge, a description of the bridge and its setting, an evaluation of the cultural heritage value of the bridge, a summary of cultural heritage value and mitigation recommendations. The bridge was evaluated using the criteria set out under Ontario Regulation 9/06, which was developed for the purpose of identifying and evaluating the cultural heritage value or interest of a property proposed for protection under Section 29 of the OHA. Ontario Regulation 9/06 describes the three criteria as design value or physical value, historical value or associative value, and contextual value. Section 6 will discuss the preferred alternative of replacement for the subject bridge and provide mitigation recommendations. Historical maps and an original design drawing are included in Appendix A. Appendix B contains a bridge survey form with current

10 3 photographs of the structure. Appendix C includes a list of variable depth cast-in-place concrete rigid frame structures under the jurisdiction of the County of Wellington. Appendix D contains Section 4.1, Cultural Heritage Resources of the County of Wellington Official Plan (As Amended 2010 and 2013). The County of Wellington does not have Terms of Reference for the preparation of Heritage Impact Statements (HIAs) for properties under its jurisdiction. However, the County of Wellington Official Plan (OP) as amended in 2010 and 2013 includes in Section an outline of the contents of a HIA. This information has been considered in the preparation of this document. As well the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) Information Bulletin 3: Heritage Impact Assessments for Provincial Heritage Properties (January 31, 2017) and the former Ministry of Culture s Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (2006), specifically InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans were consulted. The HIA information for the Eramosa River Bridge includes the following: o discussion of relevant heritage policies; o description of the proposed development; o assessment of the impact of the proposed development; o description of public and community engagement; o discussion of mitigation strategies; and o discussion of conservation recommendations. All bridge photographs are attributed to Unterman McPhail Associates and date to HERITAGE POLICIES 2.1 Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act came into effect on April 30, It applies to all planning decisions made on or after that date and replaced the PPS, The PPS (2014) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The conservation of significant features of architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest is identified as a matter of provincial interest, under Section 2 of the Planning Act. Section 2.6 of the PPS deals with Cultural Heritage and Archaeology. Policy of the PPS states: Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved.

11 4 The PPS also deals with development adjacent to a protected heritage property in policy It 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 of the protected heritage property will be conserved. 2.2 Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) Part IV of the OHA enables municipalities to list and to designate properties of cultural value or interest after consultation with its heritage advisory committee, if one is appointed. Section 27 of the OHA requires the clerk of every municipality to keep a register of properties of cultural heritage value or interest in the municipality. As of 2005, subsection 27.1 of the OHA allows municipal councils to include on the municipal register properties of cultural heritage value that have not been designated under the OHA (listed properties) after the council has consulted with its municipal heritage advisory committee. The Provincial Government has established criteria for determining the cultural heritage value or interest of properties through Ontario Regulation 9/06. Once a property is designated under the OHA, it may not be altered or demolished without the approval of the municipal council. An owner may appeal a council s decision on an application to alter or demolish to the Ontario Municipal Board. Once a property is listed in the municipal register under the OHA, any application to demolish a building on a listed property is delayed for 60 days from the date when the council is notified of the proposed demolition, during which the council may pursue designation of the property. The OHA also enables municipalities to enter into easement agreements for the conservation of property of cultural heritage value or interest (section 37). Such easements run with the title to the property and municipalities may enforce such easements. The decision of a municipal council with respect to an easement is final. 2.3 County of Wellington Official Plan The Township of Wellington North does not have a local official plan. Therefore, the County of Wellington s Official Plan governs the Township. The County of Wellington Official Plan, Part 4, General County Policies, Section 4.1, Cultural Heritage Resources, provides information with regard to the identification, and protection of cultural heritage resources (Appendix D).

12 5 With regard to cultural heritage resources, Part 4, Section of the OP states a) Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. e) In order to conserve a cultural heritage resource, a Heritage Impact Assessment and/or a Conservation Plan may be required. 1 Section Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan for cultural heritage resources affected by a development proposal. A heritage impact assessment and conservation plan may be required to determine if any cultural heritage resources are impacted by a development proposal. A heritage impact assessment is a study to determine if any cultural heritage resources are impacted by a development proposal, whether the impacts can be mitigated, and by what means. A heritage impact assessment will generally be required to contain: a) Historical research, site analysis and evaluation. b) Identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resources c) Description of the proposed development or site alteration d) Assessment of development or site alteration impact e) Consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods f) Implementation and monitoring g) Summary statement and conservation recommendations. 2 Furthermore, Section 4.6.7, states the following with regard to the contents of a conservation plan. A conservation plan provides details as to how a cultural heritage resource can be conserved, and will generally be required to contain the following. a) Identification of the conservation principles appropriate for the type of cultural heritage resource being conserved b) Analysis of the cultural heritage resource c) Recommendations for conservation measures and interventions, short or long term maintenance programs, implementation, and the qualifications of anyone responsible for the conservation work d) Schedule for conservation work, inspection, maintenance, costing and phasing e) Monitoring of the cultural heritage resource. 3 1 County of Wellington Official Plan (As Amended 2010 and 2013), Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Town of Erin, History of Erin, History of Erin Township. Access: --<

13 6 With regard to public infrastructure work, the County of Wellington OP, Part 13, Implantation, Section 13.1 states, All public works by-laws and decisions of public authorities shall conform to this Plan HISTORICAL SUMMARY 3.1 Township of Erin Erin Township was originally situated in the District of Wellington, and became part of the County of Wellington in Historically, the township was bounded on the northeast by the Township of Caledon, the northwest by the Township of Garafraxa, the southwest by the Township of Eramosa, and lastly, the Township of Esquesing on the southeast. The Crown purchased land from the Mississauga First Nation on August 2, 1805, which was known as the Old Purchase. It encompassed an area from Etobicoke to Burlington Bay, extending inland for about five or six miles. Following the War of , Crown expanded the settlement area due to an increase in the area population by adding large tracts of land between , including the area that of Erin Township. In 1819, Deputy Surveyor Charles Kennedy and Donald Black of Eramosa Township surveyed the southern half of the Erin Township. They started at the east side of the township and crossed to the Eramosa Township boundary as far as the 17 Side Road leaving a triangular shaped area of land known as a gore. Kennedy and Black named the township Erin, which they regarded as a poetic name for Ireland. The northern portion of the township above the 17 Side Road was surveyed in The Illustrated Historical Atlas (1906) notes two surveyors named O Reilly and Burt having completed the survey of the northern portion of the township, while the History of Erin Township notes surveyors Black and Burt undertook the northern survey starting at the Eramosa boundary and leaving another gore along the Caledon boundary. 5 Local history suggests brothers George or Nathaniel Roszel [Roszell] may have been the earliest settlers to arrive in Erin Township in November of They settled on Lot 1, Concession 7, at Ballinafad. Archibald Patterson settled on Lot 2, Concession 8, around the same time, and William How arrived at the future site of Hillsburgh in Other early township settlers included, amongst others, the Trout family, the McMillian family, 4 Ibid., Town of Erin, History of Erin, History of Erin Township. Access: --< history/township.aspx> (May 2014).

14 7 Archibald Williams, L. Near, Abraham Buck, Alex McArthur, Aaron Teeter, John Dean and A. Wheeler. The first township meeting was held in The 1830 Census indicated that Erin Township had 75 households, a sawmill, a gristmill and 1154 acres of land under cultivation. 6 By 1835, the township population had reached 981 people, increasing to 1,368 by 1841, and by 1850, the township population had reached a total of 3,035 inhabitants. 7 Despite its Irish name, Erin Township was settled principally by Scottish settlers, and Gaelic was the dominant language used in the area for much of its early settlement period. In 1846, Smith s Canadian Gazetteer describes Erin Township development as follows, In Erin, 32,447 acres are taken up, 7,945 of which are under cultivation. Much of the land in the township is hilly and stony There are one grist and four saw mills in the township. In Erin, 1,527 acres of Crown lands are open for sale, as 8s. currency per acre. 8 Wheelock s Map (1861) shows a developed agricultural landscape with open sidelines and concession roads (Appendix A). The hamlet of Ospringe was established on Lot 13, Concession 2 by the 1830s. On the Guelph Erin Road to the east of Ospringe and the Eramosa River was a large hill locally referred to as Curries Hill. This name is taken from the family of Alexander Currie who settled on Lot 13, Concession 4, in Erin Township around Some years later, the Illustrated Historical Atlas (1877) depicts Erin Township as a wellestablished agricultural landscape (Appendix A). The Guelph-Erin Road is shown traversing through Lot 13 for most of the township. In 1880, the total population of Erin Township had reached 5,350 people. The Township remained principally an agricultural landscape to the end of the century. The Illustrated Historical Atlas of Wellington County (1906) and twentieth century topographic maps show the landscape continued as a rural agricultural setting in to its latter decades, with some localized rural residential development (Appendix A). Effective January 1, 1999, the Village of Erin and the Township of Erin amalgamated to become the Town of Erin in Wellington County. The Town of Erin remains a rural community with farming still an important activity. Others commute to larger regional centres for employment. 6 Ibid. 7 Wm. H. Smith, Canada: past, present and future (Toronto: T. Maclear, c1851) Wm. H. Smith, Smith s Canadian Gazetteer (Toronto: H. & W. Rowsell, 1846), 55-56

15 8 3.2 Ospringe Population clusters grew up in Erin Township in the 19 th century including a small settlement located in the southwest of the township known as McMullen s Mills, later named Ospringe. The name Ospringe derives from a village in England, a suburb of Canterbury, Kent County, and the home of the first settlers at the site in The Munn family arrived in the area around 1831 and were followed by the Campbells and the Fergusons. In 1832, Duncan Robertson settled on Lot 13 at the corner with the 1 st Line. 10 Ospringe developed on the Guelph-Erin Road at the intersection of the 1 st Line, approximately six miles from the Erin, and fourteen miles from Guelph. F.S. Clarke opened the first store on the south corner of the intersection. A school was established around 1845 and a schoolhouse was built somewhat later on the north side of the Guelph Road midpoint between the township line and the 1 st Line. 11 The Union Church was built for the community in A new church was built on the Guelph-Erin Road in John Fielding bought the store and made it into the Anglo-American Hotel. A thrice weekly stage coach service ran through Ospringe. John McBain opened a second store on the east corner. The Ospringe post office was opened in 1854 in the store of Francis Clark, who became the postmaster. 13 By 1871, Ospringe was described as a small village on the gravel road from Guelph to Erin. Its population was about 60 people and it received mail delivery three times weekly. Business enterprises included, blacksmiths, a wagonmaker, a shoemaker, and the Anglo-American Hotel and a store containing the post office. 14 The Illustrated Historical Map (1877) shows a schoolhouse, church post office in the community and development on all four corners of the intersection at Guelph-Erin Road and 2 nd Line, now WR 125, intersection (Appendix A). Ospringe continued into the early 20 th century as a local service community and post office. In 1906, the population was about 30 people. 15 A gazetteer reports its population was about 100 people, probably referring to the postal area. It had a daily stagecoach service between to Erin and Guelph, a general store, a post office, a hotel and 9 Centennial History, : Township of Erin and Erin Village (Erin: Erin Centennial Committee, 1967) Ibid. 11 Ibid., Ibid., LAC. Postal Heritage and Philately, Post Offices and Postmasters, Ospringe, Wellington North (Ontario). Access: --< (May 2014); and, Centennial History, : Township of Erin and Erin Village, Gazetteer and directory of the county of Wellington, for (Hamilton, Ontario: A.O. Loomis & Co., Publishers, 1871) Union Publishing Co. s Farmers and Business Directory for the Counties of Halton, Waterloo and Wellington, Vol. XVI (Ingersoll, Ontario: Union Publishing Company of Ingersoll, 1906) 318.

16 9 blacksmith. 16 The community continues to be depicted on 20 th century topographic maps as a small population centre. The Ospringe post office closed in Wellington Road 124 and the Eramosa River Bridge The first route to Guelph from the Ospringe area was an inconvenient and long route along an Aboriginal trail coming from the 7 th Line by Mimosa to the 1 st Line, through Eramosa Township to Guelph. After the first council of Wellington County was formed in 1842, Erin Township presented a petition for a more direct road. The application for a new line of road through Erin Township was made in January 1842 and approved by the County as a by-law in the May 1842 session to create the Guelph-Erin Road. The road was to begin from the 9 th Line at Erin and pass westerly through Lot 13, as a given road outside of the surveyed sideline, to the town line between Erin and Eramosa Townships and then directly to Guelph. Robert Mitchell conducted the road survey. 17 The farmers in Lot 13 from Concession 1 to 5, in Erin Township gave 3 rods as a rightof-way for the Guelph-Erin Road. 18 Local history states that George Anderson, John Webb, Jon Moon, Samuel Dunbar, Jacob Snyder and Duncan Robertson cleared the underbrush away and opened the road in the Ospringe area from the 3 rd Line to the Eramosa Townline. The road was opened c1844. Smith's History of Canada (1851) describes the Guelph-Erin Road and its environs in the mid 19 th century as follows, a road runs straight from Erin Village to the town of Guelph, passing through the town of Eramosa. After crossing the seventh line of Erin, the road which is new, becomes very bad, consisting of almost impassable hills, a long piece of corduroy crossing several cedar swamps, and two or three extensive tamarack swamps. Between Erin village and the town line between Erin and Eramosa the road is not much settled; at intervals however, not withstanding the villainous state of the road, you pass a tolerable clearing. The buildings are generally small, some of the homesteads are however enlivened with flower gardens. Some of the homes are enlivened with flower gardens, which gives them a cheerful and pleasant appearance, particularly in so rough a country. There is a great improvement in the appearance of the country in the last two concessions of the Township, the clearings being larger and apparently older. The timber consists of maple, beech, hemlock, etc., with very little pine Province of Ontario gazetteer and directory for (Ingersoll, Ontario: Union Publishing Company of Ingersoll, 1910) WCMA, A MU 493, Ospringe Women s Institute, Volume 1, Mrs. John Campbell (Mamie Hindley), History of Ospringe (1926) Ibid. 19 Smith, Canada: past, present and future (Toronto: T. Maclear, c1851) 100

17 10 The Wheelock Map (1861) shows the route of the Guelph-Erin Road passing through Lot 13, at Ospringe in Erin Township (Appendix A). As a 19 th century stagecoach route, bridges would have been maintained over the Eramosa River immediately east of Ospringe from the opening of the road. Early bridge structures were timber in construction. In 1867, the Guelph-Erin Road, now referred to as the Eramosa Road, was assumed as a county road from Four Corners in Eramosa Township to Bristol (Brisbane) in Erin Township. A by-law was also passed to open a new piece of the road through Lot 13, Concession 6, Erin Township. The new road section and the present travelled road from Ospringe to Bristol was 50-ft. wide with 25-ft. on each side of the centre line. T.W. Cooper surveyed the road from the Four Corners to Bristol (Brisbane). The road was graveled, which was considered to be a great improvement over the former corduroy road. Tollgates were built along its length. Debentures for $10,000 were issued for the road improvements. 20 Local history refers to a tollgate located half way between Ospringe and the Eramosa River where a ridge crossed. For many years, this was called toll hill. A team of horses was always ready to help another with a heavy load up the hill. The Donald McNeill family who lived close by operated the tollgate until it was closed in At that time, McNeill house moved to Ospringe. 21 In 1909, the Consolidated Telephone Company Limited was granted permission to erect telephone poles and line on either side of the county road. 22 The County of Wellington passed By-Law in 1924 that noted County Road 13 was to be designated a highway under The Highway Improvement Act. The Province assumed County Road 13 as part of Highway and provincial road maps contained in the DHO annual reports show Highway 24 was under construction through Erin Township by 1936 and completed by 1939 (Figures 2 and 3). 23 In 1937, the newly created Department of Highways (DHO) took over all of the provincial highways. In the early 1950s, DHO began plan for the upgrading of Highway 24 east from Guelph. As part of this work, there was considerable tree removal along its length, new grading and gravelling and designs prepared for a new bridge over the Eramosa River just east of Ospringe. The DHO, Bridge Office, Toronto, prepared design drawings, dated September 10, 1952, which refer to the Ospringe Bridge. The drawings do not have an individual engineer s stamp or signature. A gravel base was laid on Highway 24 from Guelph to Ospringe in 1953, and a bituminous pavement was laid on over this highway section in the same year. The bridge structure was completed in 1953 (Figures 4 and 5). 20 WCMA, A MU 493, Ospringe Women s Institute, Volume 1, Mrs. John Campbell (Mamie Hindley), History of Ospringe (1926) Centennial History, : Township of Erin and Erin Village, Ibid. 23 DHO Annual Report for 1936/37 and 1939/40.

18 Cultural Heritage Evaluation & Heritage Impact Assessment Report 11 Figure 2. Circle shows the section of Highway 24 eastward from Guelph through Ospringe under construction [DHO Annual Report 1936/37]. Figure 3. Circle shows the section of Highway 24 eastward from Guelph through Ospringe under construction [DHO Annual Report 1939/40]. Figure 4. View west along Highway 24 to Ospringe on top of hill in 1958 [AO, RG , B410836, A-1303, May 5, 1958]. Figure 5. North elevation of the Eramosa River Bridge in 1958, [AO, RG , B410836, A1303, May 5, 1958]. Figure 6. View west on Highway 24 from Curries Hill towards the Eramosa River and Ospringe in 1951 [WCMA]. Figure 7. View west on Highway 24 from Curries Hill towards the Eramosa River Bridge and Ospringe in 1970 [WCMA]. Unterman McPhail Associates August 2018

19 12 When the DHO widened Highway 24 in 1952, the former McNeill house associated with the tollgate was again moved. The DHO took over the 2 nd Line in 1963 when Highway 25 was extended from Milton to Highway 24. The intersection of Highway 24 and Highway 25 was widened in the late 1960s, resulting in the loss of the former post office and store buildings in Ospringe. 24 In 1998, portions of the Highway 24 were downloaded to municipalities, including the stretch now called Wellington County Road Concrete Rigid Frame Structures Rigid frame structures can be described as essentially an arch with a sudden change of rib alignment at the ends with an integrated superstructure and substructure. Most frequently constructed out of poured concrete, the beams, abutments and piers (if required) of this bridge type form a monolithic unit. Design calculations for rigid frame bridges are more difficult than those of simple girder bridges requiring accuracy and attention to detail. Arthur G. Hayden, design engineer of the Westchester County Park Commission in the State of New York introduced the concrete rigid frame bridge to the United States in Arthur Sedgwick, Chief Engineer, DHO, , is credited for introducing the concrete rigid frame to Canada in the 1930s. 27 The DHO adopted the rigid frame for spans of 20 to 60 feet, and 40 such structures were constructed in the first half of the 1930s. Subsequently, multiple-rib type structures that used less concrete to lighten the weight of the structure and increase the spans were designed and built. The use of the rigid frame grew rapidly after World War II until replaced with prestressed concrete structures in the 1960s. The early bridges along the controlled access Highway 400 and Highway 401 were of the concrete rigid frame type, and were considered to be attractive structures for the new modern freeways. 3.5 Bridge Designers, Department of Highways, Ontario The Department of Public Highways Ontario (DPHO) was established in January The following year DPHO began to assume ownership of numerous roads in the province. The first stretch of road acquired by the province and deemed a provincial highway was from Kingston Road in the County of York to Port Hope in Northumberland County. In June 1918, an Order-in-Council approved by the Lieutenant- Governor extended the provincial highway easterly to the Quebec boundary. The federal government under the Canada Highways Act (1919) allocated funds to the provinces on a pro-rata basis provided the provinces designated an official highway system. In February 1920, the Province of Ontario approved the first highway system in the province, in order 24 Centennial History, : Township of Erin and Erin Village, Cameron Bevers, The King s Highway 24, History of King s Highway 24. Access: --< thekingshighway.ca/highway24.htm> (May 2014). 26 E.R. Graydon, Development and Use of the Rigid Frame Highway Bridge, The Canadian Engineer (August 13, 1935) C. R. Young, Bridge Building, Engineering Journal (June 1937) 495.

20 13 to take advantage of 40% of construction costs for road improvements through the federal program. Provincial Highway No. 2 was developed as the principal east-west route in Southern Ontario, running from Windsor to the Quebec boundary near Lancaster in the east. The Ontario Legislature authorized an Act in 1930 that changed the name of the highways of Ontario from Provincial Highways to the King s Highways. The DPHO became DHO in 1931; the organization included with its own minister who reported directly to the Legislature. DHO was given the responsibility for the planning, construction and maintenance of all highways and secondary roads throughout the Province of Ontario. The Department of Transportation and Communications was established on April 1, 1971, from an amalgamation of the Department of Highways and Department of Transport. It was renamed the Ministry of Transportation and Communications on April 1, 1972, and subsequently, the Ministry of Transportation in September The Department of Highways maintained a bridge engineering office for the design and maintenance of bridges on provincial highways. Known for much of its history as the Bridge Office, its name was changed to the Bridge Division in the 1960s. Staff of the Department of Highways designed a vast number of structures throughout Ontario. DHO with Arthur Sedgwick as Bridge Engineer is credited with the introduction of the concrete rigid structure in Ontario. The department pioneered the development of thin voided slab bridges on single column circular piers particularly noted for use in curved interchange structures in North America. Until the 1950s, all of the DHO bridge design work was completed in-house. The original DHO Bridge Office drawing of the Ospringe Bridge, dated September 10, 1952, is not stamped by an engineer or the Chief Bridge Engineer. The initials T.H. are shown on the drawing. Arthur Sedgwick was the Chief Bridge Engineer for the DHO in Sedgwick was born in Windsor, Ontario on April 21, 1884, the son of John Finch Sedgwick and Anna Maria Wright. He received his early education at Windsor Collegiate and he graduated from the University of Toronto School of Practical Science, Department of Engineering in In his graduating year, the following description was provided. While there he enjoyed a brilliant career, being the recipient of honors each year, and one of the foremost men in intellectual and scholarly attainments each year of his University course. His brilliant career at College spells him a most illustrious future and one in which the School of Science and Toronto University as a whole may look forward to with expectation and delight Torontorensis, 1909 (University of Toronto: Students Administrative Council, 1909) 228.

21 14 Sedgwick married Annie Irene Scott ( ) in 1914 and they resided in Toronto. The Sedgwicks had four children. His wife Annie Sedgwick died in After graduation in 1909, Arthur Sedgwick joined the Ontario civil service. He worked for the DHO for 45 years, serving as the head of the Bridge Plan and Inspection and Bridge Design unit of the County Roads Branch in 1916, and later as the Chief Bridge Engineer for DHO from 1929 until his retirement in May Sedgwick died in Toronto on February 26, 1957, and is buried in the Boston Mills Cemetery, Caledon, Ontario. As Chief Bridge Engineer, Sedgwick was responsible for the design of many bridge structures on provincial highways and county and township roads during his provincial employment. The D.H.O. News reported Sedgwick planned or supervised the construction of 1,187 major bridges, or traffic interchanges, and another 6,921 bridges on county and township roads. Two notable examples of his work include are the Yonge Boulevard High level Bridge, Toronto, and the Burlington Skyway. 29 It was noted, Thousands of bridges in the province stand as memorials which attest to the outstanding engineering ability of Mr. Sedgwick. 30 He also conceived idea of the cloverleaf and designed the monument marking the eastern entrance to the QEW. 31 After his retirement Sedgwick was also an acting consultant on the Burlington Skyway Bridge. 4.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION 4.1 Area Context When the glaciers melted, the central area of the Grand River watershed, including Erin Township, became an active drainage channel located at the intersection of three principal ice lobes. The gravel terraces, or outwash spillways for glacial runoff, developed along the Eramosa River. The spillway is surrounded by drumlinized till plain. There are two Provincially Designated Features in the vicinity of the Eramosa River Bridge crossing, namely the Eramosa River Blue Springs Creek Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) Complex and the Eramosa River Valley Provincially Significant Life Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI). The County of Wellington Official Plan (2016) identifies Eramosa River and its riparian corridor as Core 29 An Appreciation, D.H.O. News, March 1957, 8; and, DHPO Annual Report for Ibid. 31 Robin S. Harris and Ian Montagnes, ed. Cold Iron and Lady Godiva Engineering Education At Toronto (University of Toronto Press, c1972) 134.

22 15 Greenlands. The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) under Reg. 150/06 regulates the Eramosa River and its associated floodplain. The Eramosa River is a main branch of the Speed River, and the Speed River is a tributary of the Grand River. The Grand River is designated as a Canadian Heritage River. It follows the master spillway in front of the Paris Moraine above Guelph. The Eramosa River flows under WR 124 in from north to south and ultimately flows into the Speed River. The watershed is, for the most part, comprised of agricultural land. It is a swampy channel that is seldom less than half a mile wide and bordered by gravel terraces, except where is encroaches upon drumlins such as those located on WR 124 at Wellington Road 125 (WR 125) and the 3 rd Line. Wetlands and steeply sloping hills characterize the area topography with forested areas and cultivation on the rolling areas. The population centre of Ospringe is located at the intersection of WR 124 and WR 125. Both roads are well travelled by both car and truck traffic. There are no identified built heritage resources located at or adjacent to the Eramosa River Bridge on WR Site Description Figure 8. An aerial photograph depicts land uses in proximity to Eramosa River Bridge [Google Maps 2014]. WR 124, formerly Highway 24, is a two lane paved road with wide gravel shoulders and has a posted speed is 80 km/hr. at the bridge crossing (Figure 8). The Eramosa River Bridge carries WR 124 over the Eramosa River in an east to west direction. To the west

23 16 of the bridge crossing, WR 124 follows a straight alignment and descends from the west from the community of Ospringe into a wide river valley, crosses the Eramosa River, and then ascends to the east side of the water crossing intersecting with the 3 rd Line in the Town of Erin. WR 124 has a broken line for passing on the bridge and a posted speed limit of 80 km/hr. A natural environment characterizes the river valley at the crossing. Immediately north of the bridge structure, the Eramosa River is lined with mature trees, and to the south there is a flat wetland area, prone to flooding, with low vegetation. At the east and west ends of the bridge there are signs denoting the Eramosa River. All four corners of the structure have hazard signs. The location of an underground telephone cable is demarcated on the southwest corner and a hydro transmission line with wood poles runs along the north side of the road. 5.0 BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCE DESCRIPTION 5.1 Introduction The following description of the Eramosa River Bridge, MTO Site No. B124135, on WR 124 in Erin Township, County of Wellington, is based on an original design drawing (1952), an inspection report (2011), and a site visit (April 2014). Metric measurements from the inspection reports and the equivalent in imperial measurements shown in brackets are provided. 32 For the purposes of this report, the Eramosa River Bridge runs in an east to west direction. The design drawing (1952) is included in Appendix A and a bridge survey form with current photographs in Appendix B. 5.2 Eramosa River Bridge, Region Site No. B The Eramosa River Bridge is classified as a reinforced concrete rigid frame structure of varying depth. The design drawings indicate structure was built in accordance with the DHO General Specifications for Highway Bridges, 1935, Form No. 9, with special specifications. The design drawings were done in September 1952 and the structure was completed in The Eramosa River Bridge displays the distinctive shallow arch with a smooth soffit and the full height abutment design features of this bridge type. The bridge is constructed of reinforced, cast-in-place concrete abutments, wingwalls and deck. The structure consists of one span of 15 m (50-ft. on drawing) in length over the Eramosa River. The design uses a variable depth structure with full height abutments. The underside of the structure forms a solid soffit. There are two drains on each side of the bridge soffit and four drains each at the bottom of the east and west abutments. The 32 Metric measurements are taken from the inspection report or converted from the imperial measurements on the original design drawing in Appendix A.

24 17 total deck length of the bridge is 17 m (55-ft. 9-in.). The overall width of the structure is 14.4 m (47-ft. on drawing) and it includes a deck with a 6.40 m (21-ft.) westbound roadway and a 6.40 m (21-ft.) eastbound roadway for a total 12.8 m (42-ft.) carriageway width and concrete curbs on either side of the carriageway. Figure 9. Elevation of the Eramosa River Bridge from the General Plan, September 10, The original handrail system is a simple design consisting of reinforced concrete end walls, intermediate posts and a single, wide concrete railing (Figure 9). The handrail system is separated into four sections with the east and west end sections comprising an end wall, a single intermediate post and handrail and each section measuring m (35-ft. 6-in.) in length. There is a separation gap of 12.7 mm (½ -in.) between all sections of the handrail system. The two mid sections each measure approximately 7.62 m (25-ft.) in length and comprise three intermediate concrete posts and a single rail. The single rail is set slightly below the top of the end walls and posts and mm (1-ft. 5-in.) above the top of the concrete curb. It measures mm (1-ft. 4-in.) in height and mm (8-in.) in width. It is finished with a chamfered edge. The two end walls measure 2.67 m (8-ft. 9-in.) in length, mm (10 ½ -in.) in width and are finished with a chamfered edge, and mm (2-ft. 10-in.) in height. The intermediate posts measure mm (1-ft. 6-in.) in length, mm (8 ½ in.) in width with a finishing chamfered edge and mm (1-ft. 4-in.) in height from the top of the curb. The structure does not display have a structure number or a date of completion on the coping face on the standard southwest and northeast corners Modifications The Eramosa River Bridge has undergone few modifications since it was built and has retained its original design intent and handrail system Comparative Analysis The following comparative information was compiled as part of the CHER prepared in 2014.

25 18 The concrete rigid frame structures under the jurisdiction of the County of Wellington range in age from 1931 to According to the information provided by MMM Group in 2014 (Appendix C) the five (5) oldest examples of concrete rigid frame structures under the jurisdiction of the County of Wellington are: o Conestogo River Bridge #4, Bridge No , WR 109, construction date 1931; o Conestogo River Bridge #6, Bridge No , WR 109, construction date 1931; o Conestogo River Bridge #10, Bridge No , WR 109, construction date 1934; o Eramosa River Bridge, Bridge No , WR 124, construction date 1953; and o Maitland River Overflow Bridge, Bridge No , WR 87, construction date The five (5) concrete rigid frame structures under the jurisdiction of the County of Wellington with the longest span are from longest to shortest: o Armstrong Bridge, Bridge No , Eramosa-Guelph Town Line, 24.4 m span; o Watson Road Bridge, Bridge No , WR 41, 18.3 m span; o Mallet River Bridge, Bridge No , WR 109, 18 m span; o Conestogo River Bridge #6, Bridge No , WR 109, 17 m span; and o Carroll Creek Bridge, Bridge No , WR 18, 16.8 m span. There are two examples of concrete rigid frame structures within the Town of Erin, namely: o Eramosa River Bridge, Bridge No , WR 124, construction date 1953, span 15 m; and o West Credit River Bridge, Bridge No , WR 124, construction date 1959, span 11m. Therefore, it is concluded that the Eramosa River Bridge is the fourth oldest example of a concrete rigid frame bridge under the jurisdiction of the County of Wellington; however, it does not have the longest span under the jurisdiction of the County of Wellington. It is one of two examples of its bridge type located in the Town of Erin.

26 CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE 6.1 Introduction The criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest were set out under Ontario Regulation 9/06 established under the OHA, as amended in These criteria were developed to assist municipalities in the evaluation of properties considered for designation. The regulation states that: A property may be designated under section 29 of the Act if it meets one or more of the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest: 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. The Eramosa River is a main branch of the Speed River, a tributary of the Grand River, and is therefore included in the Canadian Heritage River designation of the Grand River. However, the subject bridge was noted as a non-heritage structure inventoried in Appendix C of Arch, Beam & Truss: The Grand River Watershed Heritage Bridge Inventory (March 2013). The Eramosa River Bridge is not included on the MTCS Ontario Heritage Bridge List (January 2018). Consultation with the Chair of the Municipal Heritage Committee, Town of Erin in August 2018 indicates the bridge is not included on a local heritage inventory of cultural heritage resources nor is it included on its municipal heritage register adopted under the