City of Vaughan Official Plan Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study. Prepared for:

Transcription

1 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Prepared for: City of Vaughan Policy Planning and Urban Design Department 2141 Major Mackenzie Drive Vaughan, ONL6A 1T1 Tel Fax ASI File 09SP-54 March 2010

2 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Vaughan retained Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI), in collaboration with Unterman McPhail Associates and AECOM to: develop a preliminary cultural inventory; and prepare cultural policies for inclusion into the City s new Official Plan. The protection and integration of significant cultural s into the land use planning process is recognized through new definitions and policy statements contained in the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Although some types of cultural s have been conserved for years in various municipalities through designation of heritage conservation districts under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, the 2005 PPS defines cultural s much more broadly and provides municipalities with a clear mandate to develop programs for identifying, evaluating, and protecting these types of cultural heritage resources. To establish a conservation framework for cultural s in the City of Vaughan, the following report provides the following: Historic land use themes significant in the City of Vaughan, traces of which may still be extant. Cultural s typologies relevant for application in the City of Vaughan. Compilation of a preliminary cultural inventory, consisting of a range of cultural types. Mapping of potential cultural s on a GIS platform. Demonstration of a framework for analyzing cultural s through a case study analysis of the Skandatut-Kleinburg cultural. Overview of relevant cultural policy and practice used in other jurisdictions. Proposed cultural policies for inclusion into the City of Vaughan s new Official Plan.

3 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page iii PROJECT PERSONNEL Project Manager: Cultural Heritage Specialists Dr. Ronald Williamson, PhD Chief Archaeologist & Managing Partner, ASI Mr. Richard Unterman, MA, CAHP Unterman McPhail Associates Ms. Rebecca Sciarra, MA, CAHP ASI Natural Heritage Specialist Report Preparation: Ms. Dale Leadbetter, B.Sc., B. Ed. AECOM Mr. Richard Unterman Ms. Dale Leadbetter Ms. Rebecca Sciarra Ms. Lindsay Popert, MA, CAHP Assistant Heritage Planner, ASI Annie Veilleux, B.A., Dip. CCM Research Archaeologist, ASI Graphics: Annie Veilleux Sarina Finlay, Hon. BA GIS/CAD Technician, ASI TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND REPORT STRUCTURE Cultural Heritage Resources: Definitions Conservation, Change and Planning: Some Key Concepts Defining Cultural Heritage Defining Cultural Heritage Landscapes CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE INVENTORY Introduction Purpose and Scope Scope of Preliminary Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory Scope of Case Study Analysis Preliminary Cultural Heritage Landcsape Inventory for the City of Vaughan Identified Cultural Heritage Landscape Typologies Proposed Properties for Inclusion on a Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory Mapping of Proposed Cultural Heritage Landscapes... 20

4 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page iv 3.0 Skandatut-Kleinburg Cultural Heritage Landscape Case Study Introduction Historic Landscape Analysis Existing Conditions Potential Cultural Heritage Significance MUNICIPAL HERITAGE POLICY AND STRATEGIES FOR CONSERVING CUTLURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES Introduction City of Brampton Town of Caledon City of Hamilton PROPOSED CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE POLICIES References...41 Appendix A: LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Identified resources for inclusion on the City of Vaughan s Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory Figure 2: Identified resources for inclusion on the City of Vaughan s Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory showing archaeological potential and natural heritage systems within proposed cultural s Figure 3: Approximate location of the Skandatut-Kleinburg cultural in the former Township of Vaughan, County of York, Figure 4: Approximate location of the Skandatut-Kleinburg cultural in the former Township of Vaughan, County of York, Figure 5: Location of the study area on 1954 aerial mapping Figure 6: Location of the Skandatut-Kleinburg cultural on more recent aerial mapping Figure 7: Location of Skandatut and the Kleinburg ossuary LIST OF TABLES Table 1:Cultural Heritage Landscape Types Derived from Significant Land Use Themes...9 Table 2: Overview of Ethnobotany of Plants Observed at the Site...32

5 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page INTRODUCTION AND REPORT STRUCTURE The City of Vaughan retained Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI), in collaboration with Unterman McPhail Associates and AECOM to: develop a preliminary cultural inventory; and prepare cultural policies for inclusion into the City s new Official Plan. The protection and integration of significant cultural s into the land use planning process is recognized through new definitions and policy statements contained in the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Although some types of cultural s have been conserved for years in various municipalities through designation of heritage conservation districts under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, the 2005 PPS defines cultural s much more broadly and provides municipalities with a clear mandate to develop programs for identifying, evaluating, and protecting these types of cultural heritage resources. This study focuses on the identification, protection and management of cultural s by: Proposing a method for establishing a cultural inventory; Recommending particular sites and properties that may be included on a cultural heritage landscape inventory; Demonstrating application of a preliminary framework for analyzing cultural s; and Presenting associated policy statements for inclusion into the City of Vaughan s Official Plan. The study begins in this section with a review of key concepts and definitions regarding cultural heritage resources generally and cultural s specifically. Sections 2.0 and 3.0 provide a framework for identifying and analyzing cultural s in the City of Vaughan. Section 2.0 presents historical land use themes that have shaped the natural landscape and built environment in the City of Vaughan and then identifies and maps potential cultural sites based on: a review of previously conducted studies; review of current aerial mapping; and analysis of the City of Vaughan s existing Heritage Inventory. Section 3.0 presents a case study analysis of one potential cultural and demonstrates application of a framework for analyzing cultural heritage landscapes and establishing their significance and identifying associated heritage attributes. Section 4.0 reviews municipal approaches for conserving cultural s and integrating them into the land use planning and development approval process. The results of this policy review and the proposed cultural inventory provide the basis for developing cultural policies for inclusion into the City s Official Plan. Section 5.0 proposes a series of policy statements that aim to continually inventory, evaluate, and conserve significant cultural sites in the City, and integrate these unique cultural heritage resources into the land use planning process.

6 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page Cultural Heritage Resources: Definitions Conservation, Change and Planning: Some Key Concepts The Province s natural resources, water, agricultural lands, mineral resources, and cultural heritage and archaeological resources provide important environmental, economic, and social benefits. The wise use and management of these resources over the long term is a key provincial interest. The Province must ensure that its resources are managed in a sustainable way to protect essential ecological processes and public health and safety, minimize environmental and social impacts, and meet its long-term needs (Vision for Ontario s Land Use Planning System, Provincial Policy Statement, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 2005, pp. 2-3). In Ontario, cultural heritage conservation is accepted as a legitimate objective of planning activity, as it is in many other provinces and countries. Conservation planning provides an important mechanism for ensuring that future development (e.g., residential, industrial and infrastructure construction) respects the cultural heritage of the City. Conservation planning and management is generally concerned with ensuring that valued cultural heritage resources are conserved and protected, in a sound and prudent manner, in the continuing and unavoidable process of change in the environment. A key issue is that the role of the custodian and steward of these resources generally falls to the private property owner. It is neither possible nor desirable that all resources be brought into public ownership. Therefore, conservation management is undertaken by a variety of actors, and it is necessary, through legislation and education, to bring all of these actors together in pursuit of a common goal. In many instances, it is traditional planning mechanisms that now seek to ensure that cultural heritage resources are conserved and/or maintained within the process of change. In the process of change, cultural heritage resources may be affected in several ways. Change may be some action that is purposefully induced in the environment, such as development activities (e.g., road building, residential construction). This may result in both adverse and beneficial impacts, depending on the degree to which the change is sensitively managed. Change may also be a gradual and natural process of aging and degeneration, independent of human action, which affects artifacts, building materials, human memories or landscapes. Thus cultural resource management must ensure that change, when it does occur, is controlled. Its negative impacts upon cultural heritage resources must be either averted or minimized, through either ensuring that change has no adverse impacts whatsoever, or that intervention in the process will result in the promotion of beneficial effects. In the protection of above ground cultural heritage resources from land use disturbances or infrastructure facilities, the major characteristics of these resources and planning have a bearing on success. Above ground cultural heritage resources have many distinct attributes that make their protection a challenging task. Not only are they fragile and non-renewable, but from a planning perspective these resources are typically immovable and are frequently located on private property, and may retain heritage attributes that permeate municipal parcel boundaries. Thus, any policy must attempt to satisfy the dual and sometimes conflicting objectives of respecting certain private property rights while at the same time, protecting a resource valued by society. Planning is generally undertaken in an effort to seek a common or public good that market forces and private interests do not seek.

7 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page 3 On the other hand, the nature of the decision-making process constitutes one of the major and unique characteristics of planning in Ontario. Indeed, each example of impact to a cultural heritage resource is considered on a case-by-case basis and is resolved through serious consideration of the resource s significance, which is determined by application of heritage evaluation criteria and identification of a site s heritage attributes. Also, the involvement of public and interest groups is encouraged or mandatory, such that decisions are sensitive to community concerns and are discussed openly. Municipal heritage committees, local historical societies, and interested citizens play an important role in this process. Moreover, the review and approvals process permits administrative hearings on matters at issue, with an independent decision. Thus, there is the opportunity to protect or conserve heritage features by selecting least damaging alternatives, through participation in planning decisions and in the review and approvals process Defining Cultural Heritage The utility of this study as a guide that will assist to incorporate cultural s within the overall planning and development process, fundamentally rests upon a clear understanding of the physical nature of cultural heritage resources in general, the variety of forms they may assume, and their overall significance and value to society. In common usage, the word heritage tends to be vaguely equated with things of the past. While it may be arguable that such an interpretation of the term is true, it is so only in the very narrowest sense. An interest in heritage does indeed indicate an awareness of, and concern for, things of the past, yet at the same time it recognizes that these relics are worthy of such interest primarily because they provide insights into the processes that have helped to shape the contemporary world in which we live, and that will continue to exert an influence into the future. Examination of our heritage, therefore, not only allows us to learn about our origins and our history, but it also provides a means of understanding who we are now, and a means of glimpsing who we may become. In recognition of the essentially timeless quality of these things of the past, Ontario s heritage has been defined as: all that our society values and that survives as the living context both natural and human from which we derive sustenance, coherence and meaning in our individual and collective lives (Ontario Heritage Policy Review [OHPR] 1990:18-19). Such an all-encompassing definition has the additional advantage of recognizing that our heritage consists of both natural and cultural elements. As human beings, we do not exist in isolation from our natural environment. On the contrary, there has always been a complex interrelationship between people and their environment and each has shaped the other, although the nature and direction of these mutual influences has never been constant. This definition further recognizes that heritage not only includes that which is tangible, but also that which is intangible. All of those elements that make up this heritage are increasingly being viewed in the same manner as are natural resources, in that they are scarce, fragile, and non-renewable. These cultural heritage resources, therefore, must be managed in a prudent manner if they are to be conserved for the sustenance, coherence and meaning of future generations, even if their interpretations of the significance and meaning of these resources in contributing to society may be different from our own.

8 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page 4 The development of the means by which to manage these cultural resources depends, in turn, on the recognition that on a practical level it is necessary to categorize them by type, yet at the same time these basic types also form a continuum. Both the distinctiveness of the individual categories of cultural resources and the overlap between these categories has been recognized by the Ontario Heritage Policy Review. This work (OHPR 1990:23) defined three broad classes of cultural resources: IMMOVABLE HERITAGE land or land-based resources, such as buildings or natural areas that are fixed in specific locations; for example: structures buildings, ruins, and engineering works, such as bridges; sites archaeological sites, battlegrounds, quarries, earth science sites such as rock formations, and life science sites such as rare species habitats; areas streetscapes, neighbourhoods, gardens, lakes, rivers and other natural, scenic, and cultural landscapes; MOVABLE HERITAGE resources, such as artifacts and documents, that are easily detachable and can be transported from place to place; for example: objects artifacts such as artworks, utensils and adornments, and earth and life science specimens, such as fossils and crystals; documents including newspapers, letters, films, and recordings; INTANGIBLE HERITAGE such as traditional skills and beliefs; for example: values attitudes, beliefs and tastes; behaviours including skills, games, dances and ceremonies; speech stories and narratives, songs, sayings, and names. Each of these categories, however, often overlaps with others. Archaeological sites, for example, are immovable resources, yet in most cases these sites are formed by concentrations of man-made or manmodified objects that are movable resources. Similarly, movable or immovable resources, such as buildings or documents often derive their significance through their intangible cultural associations, as they may reflect or typify specific skills or beliefs. Despite the fact that all cultural heritage resources should be viewed as components of a single continuum, there remains a need to distinguish between the three basic categories outlined above. This is because the approaches to the examination of resources within the different categories must be specifically tailored to their characteristics and needs. Not only does the study of the different types of resources require different and often highly specialized techniques, but the threats that these resources face are often different as well. Thus planning decisions related to the conservation of different types of resources are informed by different sets of considerations. Likewise, the means by which such planning decisions are implemented will also vary.

9 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page Defining Cultural Heritage Landscapes The term cultural (CHL) has a long history in the evolution of the heritage conservation field. The concept initially evolved out of investigations centred on cultural geography with the term officially coined in 1926 to describe any place modified by humankind. By the mid twentieth century, the concept and its holistic approach to resource investigation emerged at the international level when the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) adopted a Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding of the Beauty and Character of Landscapes and Sites. This recommendation called for the preservation and, where possible, the restoration of the aspect of natural, rural, and urban landscapes and sites, whether natural or man-made, which have a cultural or aesthetic interest or form typical natural surroundings. By 1975, the General Assembly of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), the international professional membership NGO which acts as the custodian of conservation doctrine, further recognized the importance of cultural s as an integral unit of analysis with passing Resolutions on the Conservation of Smaller Historic Towns. During the 1980s, additional declarations and charters issued by ICOMOS emerged, with special attention placed on defining cultural s. In 1992, the World Heritage Convention was amended to include the concept of cultural heritage landscapes, resulting in the first legal instrument able to recognize and protect cultural heritage landscapes. Article 1 of the World Heritage Convention now acknowledges that cultural heritage landscapes represent the combined works of nature and man. The World Heritage Convention further developed this concept by identifying three categories of cultural s (See World Heritage Convention Operational Guidelines 2008, Annex 3). The three broad cultural categories include: Landscapes designed and created intentionally by man. These embrace garden and parkland landscapes constructed for aesthetic reasons which are often (but not always) associated with religious or other monumental buildings and ensembles. Organically evolved landscapes. This results from an initial social, economic, administrative, and/or religious imperative and has developed its present form by association with and in response to its natural environment. Such landscapes reflect that process of evolution in their form and component features. [These landscapes] fall into two sub-categories: a relict (or fossil) landscape is one in which an evolutionary process came to an end at some time in the past, either abruptly or over a period. Its significant distinguishing features are, however, still visible in material form. A continuing landscape is one which retains an active social role in contemporary society closely associated with the traditional way of life, and in which the evolutionary process is still in progress. At the same time it exhibits significant material evidence of its evolution over time. Associative cultural landscapes. The inclusion of such landscapes on the World Heritage List is justifiable by virtue of the powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations of the natural element rather than material cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or even absent. In the Province of Ontario, formal protection of cultural s has been legally established since the early 1980s when the first heritage conservation district was recognized. Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act enables designation of areas which as a whole, retain cultural heritage value. Within this context, cultural s can include:

10 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page 6 an area with a group or complex of buildings, or a larger area with many buildings and properties. It may also comprise entire municipalities potential districts can be found in urban and rural environments. They may include residential, commercial, and industrial areas, rural landscapes or entire villages or hamlets with features or land patterns that contribute to a cohesive sense of time or place (Ministry of Culture 2006:5-6) In 2005, cultural s were further recognized in the Province of Ontario s Provincial Policy Statement. This document establishes that significant built heritage resources and significant cultural shall be conserved. In this policy context, a cultural means a defined geographical area of heritage significance which has been modified by human activities and is valued by a community. It involves a grouping(s) of individual heritage features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites and natural elements, which together form a significant type of heritage form, distinctive from that of its constituent elements or parts. Examples may include but are not limited to, heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; and villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways, and industrial complexes of cultural heritage value (Provincial Policy Statement: 29) Municipalities in the Province of Ontario have simultaneously recognized the value of cultural heritage landscapes and the need to integrate them into the planning approval process. Municipal official plans frequently contain provisions for their identification, protection, and management. Designation of cultural s sites under Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act is encouraged and several municipalities in the Province of Ontario have initiated mechanisms for identifying these types of resources by developing cultural inventories or registers. Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act provides the legislative basis for establishing cultural inventories. While such inventories list properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, they also function as a tool to identify properties that a municipality believes to be of cultural heritage interest and which should be considered during the course of infrastructure improvements and integrated into the planning approval process.

11 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE INVENTORY 2.1 Introduction As part of the City of Vaughan s Official Plan review and associated development of cultural heritage landscape policies, a preliminary cultural inventory was developed. The Provincial Policy Statement (2005) provides the policy context for conserving significant cultural heritage landscapes and integrating them into the development review process and Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act provides the legislative basis for establishing and maintaining heritage registers or inventories. As part of the long-term conservation of these types of cultural heritage resources, several municipalities have developed cultural inventories so that these resources are clearly identified and can be appropriately and effectively incorporated into the land use planning and development approval process. The City of Mississauga, the City of Hamilton, and Town of Caledon are examples of municipal jurisdictions that have initiated development of cultural inventories. Development of an inventory represents an important component of a cultural heritage landscape conservation framework. Once a range of cultural s are identified within a municipality, relevant Official Plan policies can be effectively applied and additional conservation tools may be developed, including methods for analyzing and evaluating cultural s. 2.2 Purpose and Scope To inform development of cutlural policies for inclusion into the City of Vauaghan s new Official Plan and to initiate a cultural conservation framework, ASI in collaboration with Unterman McPhail Associates (UMA) and AECOM developed a preliminary cultural inventory. The primary objective of this exercise included identification and mapping of known or potential cultural heritage landcsapes in the City of Vaughan. A secondary objective of this excerise included consideration of a framework for analyzing potential cultural heritage lanscapes and identifying their cultural heritage significance and associated heritage attributes. A case study approach was used to address this second objective. One potential cultural was selected for analysis in this regard. Section 2.3 presents the preliminary cultural heritage landcape inventory and Section 3.0 provides the results of the case study analysis Scope of Preliminary Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory The following methodology guided generation of a preliminary cultural inventory in the City of Vaughan: Step One: Step Two: Step Three: Identification of significant land use themes in the City of Vaughan. Analysis of land use themes in the City of Vaughan to identify a range of cultural typologies that may be currently extant in the municipality. Review of previously conducted environmental assessment and/or planning studies completed by ASI and UMA to compile previously identified cultural s.

12 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page 8 Step Four: Step Five: Step Six: Step Seven: Review of the City of Inventory in conjunction with 2009 aerial mapping to identify resources that may be considered potential cultural s. Attention was paid to reviewing properties listed on the City s Heritage Inventory which occupy large land holdings and which retain a combination of the following features: archaeological potential; natural heritage components; building complexes; and landscape elements visible through aerial mapping such as fence lines, woodlots, entrance drives and/or windbreaks. Consultation with the City of Vaughan s heritage staff to identify properties or resources which may considered to be potentially significant cutlural s. Brief windshield survey of select properties to confirm if they may be considered to retain cultural Mapping of potential cultural s on a GIS platform. Boundaries of potential cultural s were defined based on a review of aerial mapping, previoulsy conducted studies, and in some cases, based on the results of a brief windshield survey. The results of this methodology are provided in Section 2.3. Section presents a list of potential cultural types that may be extant within the municipality. These typologies have been developed based on an analysis of significant land use themes and which are provided in Appendix A. Section then identifies specific properties with cultural potential and which are organized according to identified typologies. The locations of these identified resources are then illustrated in Section Scope of Case Study Analysis To demonstrate an approach for analyzing cutlural heritage lanscapes and determining their cultural heritage significance, a case study approach was used to examine the Skandatut-Kleinburg cultural. The following methodology was used to anlayze the potential cultural heritage significane of this sacred landscape. Step One: Step Two: Step Three: Step Four: Review of the site s historic and physiographic landscape context in relation to significant land use themes identified as part of the preliminary cultural inventory. Analysis of results of previously conducted archaeological assessments to identify below ground and above ground cultural heritage resources that may express the site s cultural heritage significance. Field review of the site to identify landscape features and natural heritage components that express the site s cultural heritage significance as a sacred cultural. Map boundaries based on the results of background research, site analysis, and field review results.

13 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page 9 The results of this case study analysis are provided in Chapter 3.0. It should be noted that this methodology establishes the site s potential cultural heritage significance. Consultation with the Huron/Petun is recommended to confirm the proposed boundaries and proposed statement of cutlural heritage significance. 2.3 Preliminary Cultural Heritage Landcsape Inventory for the City of Vaughan Identified Cultural Heritage Landscape Typologies Following a review of significant land use themes in the City of Vaughan a range of potential cultural typologies were identified. The following table provides a summary of proposed cultural typologies. Table 1:Cultural Heritage Landscape Types Derived from Significant Land Use Themes Cultural Heritage Landscape Types Associated Land Use Theme Agricultural Complexes Early British Administration Agricultural Development First part of Township Growth Industrial Landscapes Township Growth Urbanization Commercial Landscapes Township Growth Urbanization Waterscapes Pre-Contact Period Contact Period Early British Administration Agricultural Development Township Development Railscapes Agricultural Development Township Development Roadscapes Early British Administration Agricultural Development Township Development Power Line Corridors Township Development Settlement Centres Early British Administration Agricultural Development Township Development

14 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page 10 Table 1:Cultural Heritage Landscape Types Derived from Significant Land Use Themes Cultural Heritage Landscape Types Associated Land Use Theme Recreational Landscapes Township Development Urbanization Religious Complexes Early British Administration Agricultural Development Township Development Cemeteries Early British Administration Agricultural Development Township Development Sacred Sites Pre-Contact Period Contact Period Artistic Landscapes Township Development Urbanization Post-War Residential Subdivisions Urbanization 20 th Century Transportation Corridors Township Development Urbanization

15 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page Proposed Properties for Inclusion on a Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory Cemetery Landscapes Identifier Name Address Status 1 Source of Information for Identification 2 CEM 1 CEM 2 CEM 3 CEM 4 CEM 5 CEM 6 CEM 7 CEM 8 CEM 9 CEM 10 CEM 11 CEM 12 CEM 13 CEM 14 Baker-Cober Cemetery Pine Grove Congregational Cemetery Nashville Cemetery McMichael Canadian Art Collection Cemetery Edgeley Mennonite Burying Ground Westside Cemetery Hope Primitive Methodist Cemetery Zion Evangelical Lutheran Cemetery Presbyterian Free Cemetery Purpleville Methodist Cemetery St. Paul s Presbyterian Church & Cemetery Carville Cemetery Reaman Family Burial Ground Rupert s Settlement Pioneer Burying Ground Dufferin Street Inventory Gamble St Inventory Huntington Rd Islington Ave Potential Inventory Inventory Jane St Inventory Highway 7 N/A Previously conducted environmental assessment study. Keele St Inventory 8795 Keele St Pine Valley Dr Pine Valley Dr Pine Valley Dr Rutherford Rd Rutherford Rd Rutherford Rd Inventory Inventory Inventory Inventory Inventory Inventory Inventory Method for Determining Boundaries 1 Status indicates if the property or resource has been previously identified or recognized through municipal listing or Ontario Heritage Act designation. The City of Inventory includes properties that are listed as well as properties that have not been formally listed but which have the potential for listing. These properties are described as potential in this column. 2 Source of information for identification may include the City of Inventory, previously conducted reports completed by ASI or UMA, and/or consultation with heritage staff at the City of Vaughan.

16 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page 12 Identifier Name Address Status 1 Source of Information for Identification 2 CEM 15 CEM 16 CEM 17 CEM 18 CEM 19 CEM 20 CEM 21 Knox Presbyterian Cemetery Fisherville Church Cemetery McNaughton Memorial Cemetery Christ Church, Rectory and Cemetery Methodist Cemetery St. Stephen s Anglican Cemetery Coleraine Cemetery 6316 Rutherford Rd Steeles Ave W 20 Topaz Crt 8025 Islington Avenue Meeting House Road Langstaff Road East of Keele south side. Major Mackenzie Part V Designation Potential N/A Inventory Inventory Inventory Inventory Inventory Inventory Previously conducted environmental assessment study. Method for Determining Boundaries Heritage Conservation Districts (Designated Part V) Identifier Name Address Status Method for Determining Boundaries HCD 1 Thornhill-Vaughan n/a Designated Part V designation HCD 2 Maple n/a Designated Part V designation HCD 3 Kleinburg- n/a Designated Part V designation Nashville HCD 4 Woodbridge n/a Designated Part V designation Agricultural Landscapes Identifier Name Address Status Source of Information for Identification 3 AGR 1 Dalziel Farmstead and Cemetery 7060 Jane St Part IV Designation AGR 2 McMillan Farm 9605 Dufferin St Part IV Designation Recommended by RU Previously conducted environmental assessment study. Method for Determining Boundaries 3 Sources of information for identification in relation to agricultural complexes also included examination of 2009 aerial mapping and windshield surveys for select properties where aerial mapping did not provide sufficient information. Aerial mapping was consulted to determined if resources already listed on the City of Vaughan s Heritage Inventory may retain cultural potential based on the presence of building complexes and landscape features such as woodlots, entrance drives, windbreaks, and notable tree lines.

17 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page 13 Identifier Name Address Status Source of Information for Identification 3 AGR 3 Baker Sugar Bush and Johnathan Baker House and Baker Cottage 91 Thornill Woods Drive and adjacent park Baker House and Cottage Inventory and in previously conducted environmental assessment reports, and cross-checked against 2009 aerial mapping to identify cultural AGR 4 Farmstead Weston Rd N/A Previously conducted environmental assessment study. AGR 5 James Dalziel Farmstead AGR 6 Farmstead Huntington Rd 7230 Nashville Rd AGR 7 Farmstead Highway 50 AGR 8 Farmstead Huntington Rd AGR 9 James Somerville House 8934 Huntington Rd AGR 10 Farmstead 6701 Highway 7 Method for Determining Boundaries Boundaries consist of property parcel data for 91 Thornhill Woods Drive and property parcel limits of adjacent wooded area.

18 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page 14 Identifier Name Address Status Source of Information for Identification 3 AGR 11 Farmstead 7141 Highway 50 AGR 12 George Pearson House 8265 Huntington Rd AGR 13 John Lawrie House 8682 Highway 27 AGR 14 Richard Jeffrey House 6241 Rutherford Rd Part IV Designation AGR 15 Farmstead 6666 Rutherford Rd AGR 16 AGR 17 AGR 18 Neil McGillivray House Richard Agar House William Hartman House 6181 Major Mackenzie Dr W Huntington Rd 5670 Steeles Ave W Method for Determining Boundaries

19 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page 15 Identifier Name Address Status Source of Information for Identification 3 AGR 19 AGR 20 Flora Cameron House James Calhoun House 5011 Teston Rd 3911 Teston Rd AGR 21 Farmstead 6100 Langstaff Rd N/A Previously conducted environmental assessment study. AGR 22 Farmstead Pine Valley Drive N/A Previously conducted environmental assessment study. AGR 23 Farmstead 4330 Teston Rd Potential AGR 24 Farmstead Pine Valley Dr AGR 25 Upper Cold Creek Farm AGR 26 N/A Huntington Rd N/A Previously conducted environmental assessment study Pine Valley Dr Potential AGR 27 Hambly House Highway 27 AGR 28 Locust Lawn Farm Highway 27 Method for Determining Boundaries

20 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page 16 Identifier Name Address Status Source of Information for Identification 3 AGR 29 N/A Huntington Road AGR 30 N/A Kipling Avenue AGR 31 N/A Highway 27 AGR 32 Hollingshead House 5800 King Vaughan Side Road AGR 33 N/A Pine Valley Drive AGR 34 N/A Pine Valley Drive AGR 35 N/A Pine Valley Drive Potential AGR 36 N/A 4660 Kirby Road Method for Determining Boundaries

21 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page 17 Identifier Name Address Status Source of Information for Identification 3 AGR 37 N/A 3840 Kirby Road AGR 38 AGR 39 Donald Cairns House Jesse Ireland House Weston Road Pine Valley Drive AGR 40 N/A Weston Road AGR 41 Isaac Murray House 3180 Teston Road AGR 42 N/A Jane Street AGR 43 Archibald McDougald House Jane Street Part IV Designation AGR 44 N/A Jane Street Method for Determining Boundaries

22 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page 18 Identifier Name Address Status Source of Information for Identification 3 AGR 45 Patterson Farm Bathurst Street and 1078 Major Mackenzie Drive AGR 46 George Beynon House Bathurst Street AGR 47 N/A 1445 King Vaughan Road AGR 48 N/A 1314 King Vaughan Road Potential AGR 49 N/A Keele Street Identified on the City of mapping and subject to windshield survey. AGR 50 N/A Jane Street Identified on the City of mapping and subject to windshield survey. AGR 51 Donald Cameron House Jane Street Identified on the City of mapping and subject to windshield survey. Method for Determining Boundaries Two properties combined into one and boundaries consist of two parcel limits put together including the former mill pond remnant and is based on results of a windshield survey. and Windshield Survey and Windshield Survey and Windshield Survey

23 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page 19 Sacred Landscapes Identifier Name Address Status Source of Information for Identification SAC Skandatut- Kleinburg N/A Registered archaeological sites Previous archaeological assessments Method for Determining Boundaries Field review and analysis of archaeological and natural heritage resources Industrial Landscapes Identifier Name Address Status Source of Information for Identification IND 1 N/A 1890 Highway 7 Potential Recommended by Heritage Staff for inclusion and subject to a windshield survey. Method for Determining Boundaries Field review data determined boundaries; exceeds parcel boundaries Commercial Landscapes Identifier Name Address Status Source of Information for Identification COM 1 Nashville Grainery 816 Nashville Road Potential Recommended by Heritage Staff for inclusion and subject to a windshield survey. Method for Determining boundaries Field review data determined boundaries; exceeds parcel boundaries.

24 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page Mapping of Proposed Cultural Heritage Landscapes Figure 1: Identified resources for inclusion on the City of Vaughan s Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory

25 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page 21 Figure 2: Identified resources for inclusion on the City of Vaughan s Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory showing archaeological potential and natural heritage systems within proposed cultural s.

26 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page Skandatut-Kleinburg Cultural Heritage Landscape Case Study 3.1 Introduction The following sections provide a case study analysis of the Skandatut archaeological site and Kleinberg Ossuary as a cultural. The Skandatut archaeological site represents a two hectare early contact period village and is located on the summit of a promontory overlooking a tributary of the East Branch of the Humber River. This site is located approximately half way between Teston Road and Major Mackenzie Drive west of Pine Valley Drive. The Kleinburg Ossuary is located approximately 600 m west of the Skandatut site and was excavated in 1970 and found to contain the remains of 561 individuals. Section provides a historic landscape analysis of the area included within the proposed boundary of the Skandatut-Kleinburg cultural. This section traces the historic landscape development of the subject area through examination of land use themes which have been identified as significant in the City of Vaughan. This review examines the physiographic characteristics of the study area and also traces various layers of landscape change that have occurred within the study area. This analysis provides a framework for understanding the site s full range of cultural heritage values and identifying associated heritage attributes. Section describes the area s archaeological and natural heritage resources and sensitivities, as based on the results of previously conducted archaeological investigations and a pedestrian survey of the area in December Following, Section presents a preliminary analysis of the site s cultural heritage significance and associated heritage attributes Historic Landscape Analysis Physiography The majority of the study area is located within the Peel Plain physiographic region of southern Ontario, with the extreme northern edge of the study area situated at the interface between the Peel Plain physiographic region and the South Slope region to the north (Chapman and Putnam 1984). The Peel Plain physiographic region covers a large area across the central portions of the Regional Municipalities of Peel, York, and Halton. The surface of the plain is characterized by level to gently rolling topography, with a consistent, gradual slope toward Lake Ontario. The plain is made up of deep deposits of dense, limestone- and shale-imbued till, often covered by a layer of clay sediment. While the clay soils of the plain may be imperfectly drained in inter-stream areas, the region is without large swamps or bogs. Several major rivers and numerous smaller streams cut across the plain, draining southward into Lake Ontario. The South Slope physiographic region (Chapman and Putnam 1984: ) is the southern slope of the Oak Ridges Moraine. The South Slope meets the Moraine at heights of approximately 300 metres above sea level, and descends southward toward Lake Ontario, ending, in some areas, at elevations below 150 metres above sea level. Numerous streams descend the South Slope, having cut deep valleys in the till. In the vicinity of the study area, the South Slope is ground moraine of limited relief.

27 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page 23 Pre-Contact Period The subject lands are situated within the Humber River watershed and traversed by a tributary of the East Humber River. As water is arguably the single most important resource necessary for any extended occupation or settlement, this area would have been an ideal location for a village, a short-term campsite, or even as a resting spot. The proximity of the Toronto Carrying Place, which is probably of great antiquity, is further evidence that this area potentially saw the presence of early Aboriginal peoples even before the construction and occupation of Skandatut. Contact Period The Skandatut site (AlGv-193) was discovered on the summit of a promontory flanked on all but its east side by steep bluffs. The site overlooks the river valley and is located approximately 600 metres to the east of the Kleinburg Ossuary (AlGv-1). Based on the artifact assemblages, both the two hectare village and the ossuary date to the early contact period. The presence of European trade goods, however, does not necessarily indicate a European presence on the site. It is more likely that the glass beads and other artifacts arrived with Indigenous traders who obtained them farther east, either directly from Europeans, or from Aboriginal intermediaries. Information concerning these two sites can be found in Section below. During the Contact Period, the Toronto Carrying Place played an important role in the early fur trade and was travelled by a few famous explorers and missionaries (e.g., René-Robert Cavelier Sieur de La Salle in ) and countless unknown coureurs de bois and fur traders, all led by Aboriginal guides. Early British Administration Period Governor Simcoe and his team traveled through this area in the autumn of 1793 on their exploration of the region between Toronto and Matchedash Bay. They followed the Humber Trail from south to north, explored the area between Lake Simcoe and Matchedash Bay, and returned to Toronto following another ancient Carrying Place along the Don River. The lots and concession surrounding the surrounding area would have been surveyed during this time period. Agricultural Development Period During this time period, Lot 23, Concession VII, which had been previously surveyed, would have been slowly cleared of the forest that had replaced the abandoned corn fields as new settlers attempted to establish a new home and farm for themselves and their families. As mentioned above, the farms were quite basic in the beginning but eventually grew to include more substantial residences and farm buildings.

28 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page 24 Township Growth Period Historic mapping from this time period dates to 1860 and 1878 (Figures 3 and 4). The 1860 Tremaine s Map of the County of York indicates that E. Miller owned and/or occupied the northeast quarter of Lot 23, Concession VII, H. Howland occupied the southeast quarter of the same Lot, and S. Matheson occupied the entire western half. Jacob Stump occupied the land in Lot 24, Concession VII which falls within the Skandatut-Kleinburg CHL boundary. No features are indicated within any of these properties, however, features such as farmhouses are generally not shown on this particular map. The branch of the East Humber River which is located between Skandatut and the Kleinburg Ossuary is illustrated. Figure 3: Approximate location of the Skandatut-Kleinburg cultural in the former Township of Vaughan, County of 4 A review of the Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York from 1878 indicates Edward Miller still owned and/or occupied the northeast quarter of Lot 23, Concession VII. The southeast quarter was now occupied by Robert Kerr, and the western half by Archibald Cameron. Jacob Stump still occupied the east half of Lot 24. The atlas map indicates that there was a farmhouse in the middle of what was once the village of Skandatut, within Robert Kerr s property. A laneway is also illustrated running across the southeast corner of the CHL. The various branches of the East Humber River are also illustrated on this map. It must be noted that not all features of heritage interest today would have been considered within the scope of the historic maps at the time of their publication. 4 It should be noted that the locations of these individual archaeological sites are approximate and the boundaries of the cultural are preliminary.

29 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page 25 Figure 4: Approximate location of the Skandatut-Kleinburg cultural in the former Township of Vaughan, County of York, A search of the 1881 Census Returns indicates that Edward Miller, Robert Kerr and Archibald Cameron continued to live on their respective properties. There is no entry for Jacob Stump suggesting that he no longer lived on Lot 24, Concession VII in The census records (Division 4, Page 19, Household No. 84) indicate that Edward Miller, an 80 year old widowed farmer from Ireland, lived with his 36 year old daughter Mary. They also indicate (Division 4, Page 7, Household No. 31) Robert Kerr, 69 years old, was born on the Island of Guernsey (Channel Islands) off the French coast of Normandy, and was of Scottish descent. Mr. Miller was a farmer and lived with his Irish wife Elizabeth (65 years old), and their daughters Hannah (34 years old) and Louise (23 years old). Archibald Cameron (Division 4, Page 5, Household No. 23) was born in Ontario and was of Scottish descent. He lived with his wife Catherine (55 years old) and their five children: Elizabeth (25 years old), Alexander (21 years old), Archibald (18 years old), Sarah (16 years old), and Jane (14 years old).

30 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page 26 Urbanization Period While the period after World War II saw an influx of immigration in Vaughan Township, the process of the urbanization of the land began in the south. The following aerial photograph from 1954 confirms that the study area remained virtually unchanged from its nineteenth century rural and agricultural land use throughout this initial urbanization period (Figure 5). Figure 5: Location of the study area on 1954 aerial mapping. The study area presently consists of undeveloped table lands and valley lands. It should be noted, however, that the Skandatut village site was found during a routine survey of a proposed subdivision development (Block 40/47 Plan, OPA 400, City of Vaughan). Figure 6 shows that the landscape between Kipling Avenue and Pine Valley Drive remains largely undeveloped. The Town of Kleinburg, which is situated to the west of the study area is well-developed, as is the area to the east of Pine Valley Drive on both side of Major Mackenzie Drive West.

31 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page 27 Figure 6: Location of the Skandatut-Kleinburg cultural on more recent aerial mapping.

32 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page Existing Conditions Archaeological Resources and Sensitivities Survey of a proposed subdivision development in the City of Vaughan provided an opportunity to examine a large tract of land located immediately adjacent to the Toronto Carrying Place trail. This transportation corridor, also known as the Humber Trail, was a long overland trail connecting the navigable portion of the Humber River in the south to the navigable portion of the Holland River in the north, thus linking Lake Ontario and Lake Simcoe. As a result of this work (ASI 2004), a two hectare early contact period village, registered as the Skandatut site (AlGv-193), was discovered on the summit of a promontory flanked on all but its east side by steep bluffs. The site has a commanding view of the river valley and is located approximately 600 metres to the east of the Kleinburg Ossuary (AlGv-1) (Figure 7). Although located within an agricultural field, the settlement site was previously undocumented. Figure 7: Location of Skandatut and the Kleinburg ossuary. Following its discovery, the site was immediately subject to a controlled surface collection, although the quantity of artifacts within the surface scatter was such that the collection was limited to diagnostic material. The analyzable ceramic vessels recovered included 12 Ripley Plain, five Huron Incised, four Sidey Notched, two Niagara Collared, two untyped, and one Dutch Hollow Notched specimens. A further 18 rim fragments were provisionally identified as probable Huron or Lawson Incised (n=7), likely Dutch Hollow Notched (n=1), Dutch Hollow Notched or a variant of Seed Incised (n=1), Sidey Notched (n=1), and Ripley Plain (n=2). Eleven complete or near complete Late Woodland projectile points were recovered, all but one of which were small triangular forms with straight or concave bases (Plate 1). One of the points has serrated edges which were likely produced with a metal tool. Onondaga chert was the predominant material used in the manufacture of these tools, but three are Fossil Hill formation chert, and one is Knife River Flint. The latter appears to have been made on a flake, and has been only minimally worked on its ventral face. Twelve shell beads were recovered (Plate 2). Eleven of these are thin, simple discoidal specimens. The other is a tubular specimen that somewhat preserves the irregular shape of the piece of shell from which it was manufactured, that is, it would not be considered Early Wampum in the generally accepted sense of the term (e.g., Ceci 1989). Beads made from small mammal long bone elements include five complete or fragmentary tubes. A freshwater gastropod shell (Pleurocera acuta) that may also represent a bead was recovered as was a short tubular black slate bead. Rounding out the bead assemblage are three European glass specimens (Plate 3): a wire wound clear turquoise class specimen (Kidd and Kidd [1970] type WIb11), a gooseberry (round light grey glass with white stripes, Kidd and Kidd type IIb18), and a longitudinally split round ultramarine (Kidd and Kidd type IIa52) specimen. All three beads are

33 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page 29 considered to date to the earliest period of European contact and exchange, circa or Glass Bead Period 1 (e.g., Fitzgerald 1982; Kenyon and Kenyon 1983; Kenyon and Fitzgerald 1984; Fitzgerald et al. 1995). European trade goods in the form of metal items were recovered as well. These include eight rolled copper/brass tubes that likely served as beads, a rolled copper/brass cone or bangle, and a probable copper/brass finger ring, seven pieces of cut, folded or torn kettle scraps, the tang portion of an iron knife, and a curved iron strap or bar. An unusually large collection of ground stone tools was found on the surface of the site (Plate 4). This artifact class is dominated by 25 woodworking tools of varying sizes and in various states of preservation. Twelve specimens are complete or near complete and range from small hatchet- or gouge-sized hand tools to large heavy axes that would most likely have been hafted. Plate 1: Sample of projectile points recovered from Skandatut. Plate 2: Sample of shell, bone, and stone beads recovered from Skandatut

34 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page 30 Plate 3: Sample of glass trade beads recovered from Skandatut. Plate 4: Sample of ground stone tools recovered from Skandatut. Plate 5: 1970s excavation of the Kleinburg Ossuary. The Skandatut site clearly represents a large, presumably heavily fortified, late 16 th -century settlement, one that is likely associated with the nearby Kleinburg Ossuary, which was excavated in 1970 under the supervision of Dean Knight and Jerry Melbye (Plate 5). That ossuary contained the remains of 561 individuals and its structure links it to Huron/Petun ancestry. Four peripheral burials were also found including one extended, one flexed, one bundle, and one partial individual. Grave goods interred with the deposit include bone and ceramic objects, early style iron trade axes, an iron kettle, shell beads, native copper beads, and large glass trade beads. Skandatut also appears to be the latest and most northerly of the Late Iroquoian Humber River sites, representing the culmination of occupations through sites such as the early to mid-16 th -century Boyd and McKenzie-Woodbridge sites and the slightly later Seed-Barker site. It may therefore represent one of the

35 Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory and Policy Study Page 31 final moments in the permanent Iroquoian occupation of this portion of the South Slope prior to the migration of these communities northward to Huronia. On the basis of the current limited evidence, Skandatut also had external ties with the Neutral of the Hamilton-Niagara region, given the predominance of plain collarless vessels, which occur in large numbers on contact period sites in that area. It may be through such terminal Toronto area sites as Seed-Barker and Skandatut that the historically attested close relations that existed between the Petun and the Neutral were facilitated. Natural Heritage Resources and Sensitivities The terrain surrounding Skandatut consists of a rolling till plain deeply incised by the East Humber valley. The tableland has been under active cultivation to the top of the slope (Plate 6). In intensely agricultural landscapes, natural features are confined to places inaccessible to field tools (e.g., ploughs, discs, etc.) This contrasts with agriculture at the hands of First Nations where the manual nature of the work enabled access to valley slopes and bottomlands. The forest of on the valley slopes is multi-aged and composed of both deciduous and coniferous species (Plates 7 and 8). It is dominated by Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum), Red Oak (Quercus rubra), and White Ash (Fraxinus americana). Other species include American Beech (Fagus grandifolia), Ironwood (Ostrya virginia), White Pine (Pinus strobes), Eastern Hemlok (Tsuga canadensis), Black Cherry (Prunus serotina), and White Birch (Betula papyfera). Blue Beech (Carpinus caroliniana) and Bur Oak (Quercus macrocarpa) occur on the lower slopes and on the floodplain. It has few non-native invasive species. Ground cover varies considerably across the valley slope and includes Shield Fern (Dryopteris carthusiana), Wild Ginger (Asarum canadense), Onesided Aster (Aster lateriflorus), Beech Drops (Epifagus virginiana) and Virginia Waterleaf (Hydrophyllum virginiana). These give way in the moist conditions on the floodplain (Figure 4) to Ostrich Fern (Matteuccia struthiopteris), Tall Goldenrod (Solidago altissima), Herb-Robert (Geranium robertianum), Virginia Rye (Elymus virginicus) and Red Osier Dogwood (Cornus stolonifera). The multi-aged composition of the forest is a result of the succession of cultures that have occupied the site and three age and species classes have been identified that reflect possible land use. The oldest and largest trees observed include White Pine (c. 125 years), Plate 6: Agricultural tableland. Plate 7: Forested valley slopes. Plate 8: Mature Eastern Hemlock.