I 1-1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Ostrander Farm House 2001 Ostrander Farm House Site, May, 2010 Source: Unterman McPhail OSTRANDER FARM 2378 EMBLETON ROAD Lots 5 and 6, Concession 5 WHS CITY OF BRAMPTON, ONTARIO May 2010 Prepared for: Great Gulf Development Inc. Prepared by: Wayne Morgan,
I 1-2 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT OSTRANDER FARM 2378 EMBLETON ROAD Lots 5 and 6, Concession 5 WHS CITY OF BRAMPTON, ONTARIO May 2010 Prepared for: Great Gulf Development Inc. Prepared by: Wayne Morgan, PO Box 1203, 21 Land s End Sutton West, Ontario, L0E 1R0 Tel: 905-722-5398
Heritage Impact Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I 1-3 Page i Policy 4.9.1.11 of the Brampton Official Plan (OP) requires the preparation of a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) when there is a potential for adverse impacts on heritage resources. In September 2007, Unterman McPhail Associates prepared a Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment of the subject site for the owner. They found only one heritage resource on the property - the Ostrander Farm House. In the fall 2009, a fire destroyed the Ostrander Farm House. In May 2010, I was retained to prepare a HIA taking into consideration: the work of Unterman McPhail Associates; the impact of the fire; and to make heritage recommendations in light of the current state of the resource, provincial and municipal heritage policies and the development proposed by the owner The property is part of the east and west halves of Lots 5 and 6, Concession 5 west of Hurontario Street (WHS) in the City of Brampton. The property is west of Huttonville on the north and south sides of Embleton Road and the east side of Heritage Road. The owner s intent is to develop the property primarily for residential purposes including a parkette, roads, a block for the existing Public School and an open space/valley and storm water management area. The property was evaluated by Unterman McPhail for cultural heritage value using the City s criteria after documenting the historical development of the lands. Heritage resource management options were considered for the property in this report. The property is listed in the City s Heritage Registry, but it is not designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. Based on the above analysis, I recommend that: 1. the Unterman McPhail report and this report be sufficient documentation of the heritage values of the property; 2. the proposed development of the property be permitted as proposed, subject to recommended commemoration measures, because of the damage to the heritage resource caused by the fire; and 3. the site be commemorated through an interpretive plaque and the naming of streets. The adjacent or near-by heritage resources at 2322 Embleton Road 8957 Heritage Road, which are listed in the City s Heritage Registry, but are not designated un the Ontario Heritage Act, will not be adversely impacted by the proposed development. Therefore no recommendations are made in respect to adjacent or near-by heritage properties.
Heritage Impact Assessment I 1-4 Page ii PROJECT PERSONNEL Wayne Morgan
Heritage Impact Assessment I 1-5 Page iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY AND ITS CONTEXT 3 2.1 Location 3 2.2 Ownership and Legal Description 4 2.3 Area Character and Physiography 4 2.4 Context 5 3.0 HISTORICAL SUMMARY 7 4.0 HERITAGE EVALUATION 9 4.1 Assessment of the Heritage Resources on the Property in 2007 9 4.2 Assessment of the Heritage Resources on the Property in May 2010 9 4.3 Summary of Cultural Heritage Values 10 4.4 Adjacent Properties 10 5.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL 11 6.0 HERITAGE POLICIES 13 6.1 The Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement (2005) 13 6.2 Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) 14 6.3 Peel and Brampton Official Plans and Brampton Zoning By-law 15 6.3 Municipal Heritage Status of the Subject and Adjacent Properties 17 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS 19 7.1 Options for Heritage Resources Management 20 7.2 Mitigation Recommendation 22 7.3 Adjacent and Nearby Heritage Properties 24 SOURCES CONSULTED 25
Heritage Impact Assessment I 1-6 Page iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) APPENDICIES Page A B C D E F G H I Partial Property Survey Map Aerial Photograph of the Property North of Embleton Road Ostrander Farm House Photographs from the Unterman McPhail 2007 Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment Report Ostrander Farm House Site May 2010 Photographs Ontario Heritage Act, Regulation 9/06 Adjacent/Nearby Heritage Properties Development Proposal City of Brampton Official Plan Proposed Block Plan 40-3 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 5.1 Figure 7.1 Figure 7.2 Figure 7.3 LIST OF FIGURES General Location Map [Source: Google Maps, 2010]. Subject Site and the Community of Huttonville[Google Earth, 2010, image 2009]. Portion of Proposed Development Plan Showing Relationship to Former ad Existing Buildings Franklin Court, Philadelphia [Source: Semes, p. 151] Algonquin Provincial Park Cache Lake Heritage Zone, Highland Inn Plaque Preliminary Interpretive Signage, City of Brampton, Source: Corbin Design 3 3 11 21 23 23
I 1-7 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 5 1.0 INTRODUCTION In September 2007, the firm of Unterman McPhail Associates produced a Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment Report on 2378 Embleton Road for Great Gulf Development Inc. The consultants found that there was a built heritage resource on the property, namely the Ostrander Farm House. In the fall 2009, a fire destroyed the Ostrander Farm House. In May 2010 Wayne Morgan, was retained to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment in accordance with the requirements of the municipality taking into consideration: the September 2007 work of Unterman McPhail Associates; the impact of the fire on the heritage resource; and to make heritage recommendations in light of the current state of the resource, provincial and municipal heritage policies and the development proposed by the owner. The Brampton Official Plan, policy 4.9.1.11 requires a Heritage Impact Assessment for any alteration work or development activities involving or adjacent to heritage resources. The Provincial Policy statement issued under the Planning Act requires that significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved in development proposals involving approval under the Act. The study area contains lands in the east and west halves of Lots 5 and 6, Concession 5 west of Hurontario Street (WHS) in the City of Brampton (formerly Township of Chinguacousy). The study area is located on the north side of Embleton Road and the east side of Heritage Road, west of the village of Huttonville. The owner intends to develop the site primarily for residential purposes including a parkette, roads, a block for the Public School and an open space/valley and storm water management area. In accordance with municipal and regional planning policies and policies 2.6.1 and 2.6.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) issued under the Planning Act, built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes, both existing and potential, were identified and evaluated within and nearby to the subject property.
I 1-8 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 6
I 1-9 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 7 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY AND ITS CONTEXT 2.1 Location The property is located in the City of Brampton (formerly Township of Chinguacousy) in the Regional Municipality (formerly County) of Peel in Lots 5 and 6 in the fifth Concession west of Hurontario Street (formerly Centre Road), on the north side of Embleton Road, west of the village of Huttonville and east of Heritage Road (Figures 2.1 and 2.2). The property is bounded on the east and north by the Credit River valley, on the west by Heritage Road and on the south by Embleton Road. A portion of the property is south of Embleton Road. To the east of the former farmstead site of this property is Huttonville Public School. Figure No. 2.1 General Location Map [Source: Google Maps 2010] Subject Site Figure No. 2.2 Subject Site and the Community of Huttonville [Google Earth, 2010 image 2009]. Subject Site 2.2 Ownership and Legal Description
I 1-10 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 8 Currently the property is owned by: Shayma Dick Holdings Inc. Great Gulf Group of Companies 3751 Victoria Park Av Avenue Toronto, Ontario M1W 3Z4 The short legal description of property is: part of the east and west halves of Lot 6, part of the east and west halves of Lot 5, part of the original road allowance between the east Halves of Lots 5 & 6 and part of the original road allowance between the west halves of Lots 5 and 6, Concession 5, west of Hurontario Street, in the geographic township of Chinguacousy (now City of Brampton) in the former County (now Regional Municipality) of Peel. Appendix A contains a survey of the property north of Embleton Road. 2.3 Area Character and Physiography As shown on the topographic map (Appendix B), the subject lands are generally flat with exception of the incised valley for the Credit River. The land slopes slightly to the south-east towards Lake Ontario. In 1960, most of the land had been cleared for agricultural production with forest cover limited to the Credit River valley. The topographic map shows the house and other farm buildings on the property at 2378 Embleton Road. Beyond the farmstead, there were gravel pits to the north-east and south-east, the latter on the south side of Embleton Road. Immediately to the east of the subject property is the settlement of Huttonville (Huttonsville) and a dam creating a pond in a section of the Credit River. Since 1960, Highway 407 has been constructed south of Steeles Avenue West and industrial development has occurred between Steeles and the 407. An area east of Mississauga Road has been developed as a golf course. The property is located in a small sand plain between the clay of the Peel Till Plain and the drumlinized till plain of the South Slope of the Oak Ridges Moraine 1. Chapman and Putnam have described the settlement and land use of the South Slope physiographic region up to the 1960s. Lying behind the lakeshore areas of first settlement in Upper Canada, the South Slope was colonized by the second wave, composed largely of British immigrants after the close of the Napoleonic wars. but the interior of Peel and Halton counties was not laid out for settlement until 1819. A mixed, subsistence agriculture was undoubtedly the rule in the early settlements but grain soon began to be exported from the little lake pots. Wheat growing declined to be 1 Chapman, central portion map.
I 1-11 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 9 replaced by commercial mixed farming in which beef cattle, hogs and dairy butter were the chief sources of income. The expansion of the Toronto milk shed displaced the beef cattle and hogs over a large part of the region. 2 2.4 Context The subject property is north of an area that is undergoing conversion from rural to suburban uses - industrial and residential, focused on the City of Brampton (Figure 2.2), although the subject site and the immediate area remain largely rural. Immediately east of the farmstead site, there is an operating school (Appendix C). Embleton Road is a two lane Regional road with a rural character (no sidewalks and open drainage ditches). There are signalized intersections where Embleton Road intersects Heritage and Mississauga Roads. 2 Ibid, pp 290 291.
I 1-12 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 10
I 1-13 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 11 3.0 HISTORICAL SUMMARY The history of the area and the subject property has been fully reviewed in the Unterman McPhail September 2007 study 3. The main findings of their study are: Chinguacousy Township was surveyed for settlement into 200 acre lots in 1819; James Ostrander received land in Lot 6 Concession 5 WHS for his participation in the War of 1812; 1837 and 1846 Directories list James Ostrander as owner of Lot 6 Concession 5 WHS; 1851 Census of Canada identifies James Ostrander and family living in a frame 1 ½ storey house on Lot 6 Concession 5 WHS; Tremaine s 1859 map shows James Ostrander as owner of the property and a house near Embleton and Mississauga Roads; 1861 Census of Canada identifies James Ostrander and family living in a brick 1 ½ storey house on Lot 6 Concession 5 WHS; 1879 County Atlas shows William H. Ostrander as owner of the property in Lot 6 Concession 5 WHS and a house and barn near Embleton and Mississauga Roads; 1901 Census of Canada identifies Noah Ostrander living in a 10 room brick house on Lot 6 Concession 5 WHS; 1945 Noah Ostrander sold the farm in Lot 5 Concession 5 WHS to Leonard Butt; Butt operated a Jersey dairy operation and then a flower and pick-your-own business; and 2005 Leonard Butt sold the farm to Great Gulf Developments. 3 Unterman McPhail, pp 2-6
I 1-14 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 12
I 1-15 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 13 4.0 HERITAGE EVALUATION Selected photographs of the Ostrander Farm House in 2001 and 2007 are included in this report (Appendix D). A more extensive collection of photographs of the House are found in the 2007 study by Unterman McPhail. In May 2010, an on-site survey was conducted of the site to identify any remaining heritage resources on the property (Appendix E). 4.1 Assessment of the Heritage Resources on the Property in 2007 In their September 2007 study, Unterman McPhail assessed the property for heritage value using the criteria established by the City of Brampton which are grouped into historical association, architecture and context. Unterman McPhail found that the property had the following heritage attributes: Historical Association: o Ostrander family important as early settlers in Chinguacousy Township; o Ostrander family built the farm house between 1851 and 1861 with a kitchen addition in 1865; and o Butt family prominent flower and market gardener with a flower business of international renown. Architecture of the Farm House: o Good example of an early vernacular brick farmhouse; o Noteworthy features included dichromatic brick accents, front vestibule with balcony and decorative brick voussoirs; and o Numerous exterior and interior architectural attributes are identified. Context: o Farm House a familiar physical landmark in its environment; and o Farm House maintains the rural character of the area. 4.2 Assessment of the Heritage Resources on the Property in May 2010 A fire in the fall of 2009 4 consumed the Ostrander Farm House. On May 27, 2010, I undertook an on-site survey of the property to determine the extent of the damage and any remaining heritage resources on the property. I found that there were no heritage structures 4 Brampton Registry of Cultural Heritage Resources, note under 2378 Embleton Road.
I 1-16 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 14 or any above grade remnants of the structures left on the property. The site had been graded and the basement filled with rubble. The photographs in Appendix E document the on-site finding that there is nothing left of the built heritage resource above grade. While there may be the remains of the foundation and basement below grade, the heritage values identified by Unterman McPhail for this property relate almost entirely to above grade features. 4.3 Summary of Cultural Heritage Values The Ostrander farm property no longer contains the Farm House built heritage resource. Although the property continues to have a historical association with both the Ostrander and Butt families, that association was manifested in the Farm House, which is no longer extant. There are no other built heritage resources left on the property. Unterman McPhail found that there are no landscape elements on this property, which on their own or through association with the Ostrander or Butt families, would warrant conservation under the Ontario Heritage Act. I concur with these findings. 4.4 Adjacent Heritage Properties There are two properties with some heritage value adjacent or nearby the Ostrander Farm property. These properties, which are shown in Appendix G are: 2322 Embleton Road Huttonville Public School The portion of the school closest to the Credit River was built in 1938 as a small country school. 8957 Heritage Road Black Farm - a red brick, 1 ½ storey farm house with yellow brick vousoirs and quoins and a centre gable constructed in the latter half of the nineteenth century. No other existing or potential heritage properties were identified adjacent to or near the subject site.
I 1-17 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 15 5.0 Development Proposal The owner is proposing to develop the lands on the north and south sides of Embleton Road primarily for residential purposes (353 residential units) including a parkette, roads, a block for the expansion of the Huttonville Public School and a 12.16 hectare open space/valley and storm water management (swm) pond (Appendix I). A 1.09 hectare service commercial area is also proposed south of 8957 Heritage Road. The primary entrance to the development will be from street A which connects into Embleton and Heritage Roads. The site of the former Ostrander Farm House is largely in street J close to street A (Figure 5.1). Original Huttonville School Site of former Farm House Figure 5.1 Portion of Proposed Development Plan Showing Relationship to Former and Existing Buildings Source: Malone Given Parsons Ltd, February 3, 2010. A 0.74 hectare parcel of land (Block 336) is proposed for the expansion of the Huttonville Public School.
I 1-18 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 16
I 1-19 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 17 6.0 Heritage Policies 6.1 The Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement (2005) Section 2 of the Planning Act identifies matters of provincial interest, which includes the conservation of significant features of architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest. (Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process). Section 3 of the Planning Act enables the Province to issue Policy Statements on matters of Provincial Interest. The Provincial Policy Statement (2005) (PPS) issued under the Act applies to this proposal. Section 2.6 of the PPS deals with Cultural Heritage and Archaeology. Policy 2.6.1 of the PPS states: Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. Each of the italicized terms has, for the purposes of this development application, the following definition in the PPS: Built Heritage Resources means one or more significant buildings, structures, monuments, installations or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic or military history and identified as being important to a community. These resources may be identified through designation or heritage conservation easement under the Ontario Heritage Act; Cultural heritage landscape means a defined geographical area of heritage signficiance 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; Significant means (g) in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that are valued for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people; and Conserved means the identification, protection, use and/or management of cultural heritage and archaeological resources in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. This may be addressed through a conservation plan or heritage impact assessment. The PPS also deals with development adjacent to a protected heritage property in policy 2.6.3 which states:
I 1-20 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 18 Development and site alteration may be permitted on adjacent lands to protected heritage property 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. Each of the italicized terms has, for the purposes of this development application, the following definition in the PPS: Development means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures, requiring approval under the Planning Act..; Site alteration means activities, such as grading, excavation and the placement of fill that would change the landform and natural vegetative characteristics of a site; Adjacent lands means for the purposes of policy 2.6.3, those lands contiguous to a protected heritage property or as otherwise defined in the municipal official plan; Protected heritage property means real property designated under Part IV, V or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; Heritage attributes means the principal features, characteristics, context and appearance that contribute to the cultural heritage significance of a protected heritage property; and Conserved means the identification, protection, use and/or management of cultural heritage and archaeological resources in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. This may be addressed through a conservation plan or heritage impact assessment. 6.2 Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act 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 Act 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 Act allows municipal councils to include on the municipal register properties of cultural heritage value that have not been designated under the Act (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 Regulation 9/06 (Appendix G).
I 1-21 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 19 Once a property is designated under the Act, it may not be altered or demolished without the approval of the municipal council. An owner may appeal 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 Act, any application to demolish a building on a listed property is delayed for 60 days, during which Council may wish to pursue designation of the property. 6.3 Peel and Brampton Official Plans and Brampton Zoning By-law The Official Plan of the Regional Municipality of Peel (Regional OP) was approved in 1996. The November 2008 office consolidation of the Plan was reviewed for this report. The subject lands are designated Urban System 5 in the Regional OP. Cultural Heritage Policies are contained in section 3.6 of the Plan. The following objectives of this section of the Plan are relevant to this proposal: 3.6.1.1 To identify, preserve and promote cultural heritage resources, including the material, cultural, archaeological and built heritage of the region, for present and future generations. 3.6.1.2 To promote awareness and appreciation, and encourage public and private stewardship of Peel s heritage. 3.6.1.4 To support the heritage policies and programs of the area municipalities. The following Regional OP policy is relevant to the subject development: 3.6.2.5 Direct the area municipalities to require, in their official plans that, the proponents of development proposals affecting heritage resources provide for sufficient documentation to meet Provincial requirements and address the Region s objectives with respect to cultural heritage resources. The Official Plan of the City of Brampton (Brampton OP) was adopted by City Council in October 2006 and approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in October 2008. Cultural heritage objectives and policies are contained in Section 4.9 of the Brampton OP. The cultural heritage objectives of the Brampton OP are: a) Conserve the cultural heritage resources of the City for the enjoyment of existing and future generations; 5 Region of Peel Official Plan, Schedule D, Regional Structure, April 2010.
I 1-22 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 20 b) Preserve, restore and rehabilitate structures, buildings or sites deemed to have significant historic, archaeological, architectural or cultural significance and, preserve cultural heritage landscapes, including significant public views; and c) Promote public awareness of Brampton s heritage and involve the public in heritage resource decisions affecting the municipality. Relevant cultural heritage policies of the Brampton OP are: Policy 4.9.1.4 provides criteria for assessing the heritage significance of cultural heritage resources. In addition to the broad categories of the Provincial criteria identified in Appendix F, this policy provides for criteria that relate to contextural value. Policy 4.9.1.8 requires that cultural heritage resources will be conserved in accordance with widely accepted standards and principles. Policy 4.9.1.10 establishes the scope and requirement for Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs) and policy 4.9.1.11 establishes that such assessments may be required for any alteration or proposed development on or adjacent to heritage resources and that measures shall be imposed as a condition of approval to mitigate impacts. In support of this policy, staff has drafted (July 2008) guidelines for the preparation of HIAs. These guidelines have been reviewed in the preparation of this HIA. Policy 4.9.1.13 requires thorough documentation of the heritage resources in the event of demolition, salvage, dismantling or relocation is inevitable. In the Brampton OP Schedule 1, City Concept, the subject lands are identified as communities and open space while Schedule A, General Land Use Designations, designates the subject lands as Residential and Open Space. The designation of the subject lands, together with the designation of other lands west of Mississauga Road and south of the Credit River, has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). A draft block plan has been prepared and is under review for an area that includes the subject lands. The various proposed residential, mixed use, commercial, institutional and open space designations of the subject lands are shown in Appendix I. In the City s Zoning By-law, the subject property is zoned A, permitting agricultural and selected non-agricultural uses and F, permitting flood and erosion control, conservation area, public park and golf course uses. There are no additional policies arising from these site specific official plan and zoning policies that relate to the conservation of heritage resources on this development site.
I 1-23 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 21 6.4 Municipal Heritage Status of the Subject and Adjacent Heritage Properties The Ostrander Farm House at 2378 Embleton Road is listed in Brampton s Municipal Registry of Cultural Heritage Resources approved by City Council (the Register as per the Ontario Heritage Act) although it is noted as lost to fire in Fall 2009. The property is not designated under Part IV or V of the Act. The adjacent/near-by heritage properties at 2322 Embleton Road and 8957 Mississauga Road are listed in the City s Register as per the Act, although neither property is designated under Part IV or V of the Act.
I 1-24 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 22
I 1-25 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 23 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS The owner of a parcel of land on the east side of Heritage Road on either side of Embleton Road west of the village of Huttonville in the City of Brampton proposes to develop the lands primarily for residential, open space and service commercial purposes. The cultural heritage significance of the subject property was evaluated by the firm of Unterman McPhail in September 2007. The Ostrander Farm House, constructed between 1851 and 1861 with an addition in 1865, was found to be a significant built heritage resource. The Farm House was found to have the following cultural heritage values: 1. design value or physical value: o is a representative, early example of a of an early vernacular brick farmhouse which retained important architectural attributes characteristic of its original construction; 2. historical or associative values because: o the Farm House, is associated with the Ostrander family, early settlers in the European settlement of Chinguacousy Township and with the Butt family who were prominent in the mid twentieth century agricultural development of the Township; o the property is associated with horticultural developments of international renown; 3. contextual values, because the Farm House: o supported the rural character of the area; and o was a familiar landmark in its environment. In the fall of 2009, fire consumed the Ostrander Farm House. An on-site inspection conducted on May 27, 2010 confirmed that nothing of the house was left above grade. It is not possible to provide an additional documentation on the architecture of the Farm House, while the heritage evaluation of the Farm House and property in the Unterman McPhail report, in my opinion, is a sufficient record of the heritage values of the property. Recommendation - Record of the Heritage Values of this Property 1. The documentation and photographs contained in this report and the September 2007 report by Unterman McPhail be accepted as a sufficient record of the heritage values of this property and the Farm House which once stood on the property.
I 1-26 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 24 7.1 Options for Heritage Resource Management The following is the range of possible options for heritage resource management of the Ostrander Farm House: Reconstruction of the Farm House; Construction of a monument showing the volume and shape of the Farm House; Maintain the ruins as an archaeological site or an exposed set of ruins; and Removal of the remains of the heritage resource. Since the Ostrander Farm landscape does not have sufficient cultural heritage value to warrant conservation under the Ontario Heritage Act, it is not discussed in this report. Option 1 Reconstruction of the Farm House: This option involves replicating the exterior appearance of the Farm House either in situ or on a lot elsewhere on the property. Other than the photographs contained in the Unterman McPhail report, there is a dearth of documentary evidence on which to base reconstruction. A reconstructed Farm House would be largely conjectural. None of the material in such a reconstruction, except the remaining basement foundations if built in situ, would be original heritage fabric. Canadian standards for historic places do not support the reconstruction of heritage buildings, especially with a lack of documentary evidence and original heritage fabric 6. Even the American standards which include the option of reconstruction, require that reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs. 7 Further, the heritage values identified for the Farm House as a well preserved but vernacular form of architecture do not warrant such a reconstruction. Therefore, I do not support or recommend reconstruction of the Farm House either in situ or on a new location on the property. Option 2 Construction of a monument of the volume and shape of the Farm House: This option involves constructing a skeletal monument of the structure highlighting the external walls, roof and other selected features, either in situ or on a lot elsewhere on the property, as was done for the Benjamin Franklin House 6 Parks Canada 7 Secretary of the Interior, p 166.
I 1-27 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 25 in Philadelphia (Figure 7.1). A similar treatment has been done in the City of Vaughan where heavy timbers show the outline of a barn on the cultural heritage landscape on Thoreau Macdonald property in Thornhill. Figure 7.1 Franklin Court, Philadelphia, Source: Semes, p. 151. Although there is sufficient documentation to construct such a monument on the subject property, it cannot be reconstructed in situ without substantial redesign of the development. Further, if it were constructed elsewhere on the property, it would be divorced from the remnants of the foundation. Finally, in my opinion, the heritage values embodied in the Farm House do not warrant such a symbolic representation of the House, unlike the Franklin house shown above which is associated with a person important in the history of the United States. Further, in the case of the symbolic representation of the Macdonald barn in Vaughan, it was only one element in a cultural heritage landscape that includes a heritage house, restored gardens and other original landscape features. Such a treatment of the Ostrander Farm House would be the only feature left in the landscape. As a result, I do not support the symbolic reconstruction of the Ostrander Farm House. Option 3 - Maintain the Farm House site as an archaeological site or expose the foundations as a ruins: This option involves not developing the Ostrander Farm House site, leaving it undisturbed or exposing the foundations as a ruins. In both instances, this involves a significant redesign of the development, removing the proposed road and development from the Farm House Site. Exposure of foundation ruins has been used in Louisbourg, Nova Scotia, where much of the abandoned settlement has not been reconstructed but left as ruins with interpretive signage. However the Ostrander Farm House site does not have the contextual or historical values of Louisbourg to warrant redesign of the development. Further, the above grade
I 1-28 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 26 features of the house were the noteworthy elements in the Unterman McPhail study. These are gone. The former Farm House site s value as an archaeological resource is insufficient to warrant redesign of the development. I do not support preservation of the Ostrander Farm House site as either an archaeological resource or as an exposed ruin. Option 4 Removal of the remains of the Heritage Resource: This option involves permitting the development as proposed and permitting the owner to remove/obliterate as much of the remaining buried elements of the Ostrander Farm House as is necessary to accommodate the proposed development. Given the heritage values of the property identified in the Unterman McPhail study and the extent of the loss of those values due to the fire, I support and recommend this option subject to the mitigation measures cited below. Recommendation - Heritage Resource Management Option 2. Approve the proposed development and permit the removal/burial of as much of the remains of the Ostrander Farm House as is required to accommodate the proposed development subject to the following mitigation measure. 7.2 Mitigation Recommendations Based on the recommended resource management option, a review of Provincial and City heritage policies and prior research into the heritage resource on the property that will be affected by development of the property, the following recommendations should be implemented to mitigate the loss of the heritage resource. Recommendation - Commemoration 3. The owner be required, as a condition of development approval, to commemorate the Ostrander Farm, its buildings and its occupants in a form, wording and location acceptable to the City. This could include plaquing and the naming of streets using names derived from the history of the property. An example of one means of commemoration is plaquing, which has been effectively used to inform the public of structures and facilities that no longer exist in the Cache Lake heritage zone in Algonquin Provincial Park (Figure 7.2).
I 1-29 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 27 Figure 7.2 Algonquin Provincial Park Cache Lake Heritage Zone, Highland Inn Plaque An alternative type of commemorative sign is suggested by the City (Figure 7.3). Whatever type of sign that is selected, it is important that it contain illustrations of features of the property. Figure 7.3 Preliminary Interpretive Signage, City of Brampton, Source: Corbin Design
I 1-30 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 28 7.3 Adjacent and Nearby Heritage Properties In my opinion, the adjacent Huttonville Public School at 2322 Embleton Road will not be adversely affected by the proposed development. The portion of the school that has heritage value is located close to the Credit River, well away from the proposed development (Appendix G). Newer additions to the school have been added between the heritage structure and the proposed development. In addition, the development proposes that a block of land be added to the school site further buffering the school and the new development. Similarly, the near-by heritage resource, the Black Farm, at 8957 Heritage Road will not be adversely affected by the proposed development of the subject site on the north side of Embleton Road. The heritage resource is sufficiently removed from the development site and some distance from the south side of Embleton Road that its heritage attributes and context will not be adversely affected by the proposed development. Therefore no mitigation measures are recommended for these adjacent/nearby heritage sites.
I 1-31 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 29 8.0 Sources Consulted Publications Blumenson, John. Ontario Architecture A guide to Styles and Building Terms 1784 to the Present. Fitzhenry & Whiteside. Toronto. 1990. Chapman, L. J.; Putnam, D. F. The Physiography of Southern Ontario. 2 nd Edition. University of Toronto Press. Toronto. 1966. City of Brampton, Official Plan, 2008. City of Brampton, Zoning By-law. Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. Chapter 0.18. Ontario Regulation 9/06 made under the Ontario Heritage Act, Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, January 25, 2006. Ontario Ministry of Culture. Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process. Queen s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, 2006. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Provincial Policy Statement 2005, Queen s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, 2005. Parks Canada. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Queen s Printer. Ottawa. n.d. Unterman McPhail Associates, Cultural Heritage Heritage Resource Assessment Report No. 2378 Embleton Road (Lot 6, Concession 5 WHS, Former Chinguacousy Township) City of Brampton, Ontario. September 2007. Regional Municipality of Peel. Official Plan, Office Consolidation. November 2008. Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary of the Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Washington, D. C. 1995. Semes, Steven W. The Future of the Past, A Conservation Ethic for Architecture, Urbanism, and Historic Preservation. W.W. Norton & Company, New York. 2009.
I 1-32 Heritage Impact Assessment Page 30 Maps Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Surveys and Mapping Branch. National Topographic System. Map 30M/12W, Brampton, Ontario. Edition 4. Scale 1:50,000, Ottawa. 1960.
I 1-33 Appendix A: Property Survey
Heritage Impact Assessment I 1-34 Appendix A: Property Survey Embleton Road Heritage Road Source: Marshall Macklin Monaghan Ontario Limited, Ontario Land Surveyors
I 1-35 Appendix B: Map
Heritage Impact Assessment I 1-36 Appendix B: Map 1960 National Topographic Survey Brampton, 30M/12W Information current as of 1960 Ostrander Farm House
I 1-37 Appendix C: Aerial Photograph of the Property
Heritage Impact Assessment I 1-38 Appendix C Aerial Photograph of the Property Farm House Farm House Huttonville School Farm House Embleton Road Heritage Road
I 1-39 Appendix D: Ostrander Farm House Photographs from the Unterman McPhail 2007 Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment Report
Heritage Impact Assessment I 1-40 Appendix D Ostrander Farm House 2001 and 2007 Photographs Source: Unterman McPhail South Elevation - 2001 South and East Elevations - 2001
Heritage Impact Assessment I 1-41 Appendix D Ostrander Farm House 2001 and 2007 Photographs Source: Unterman McPhail South and East Elevations - 2007 South Elevation Typical Window South Elevation, Ground Floor
Heritage Impact Assessment I 1-42 Appendix D Ostrander Farm House 2001 and 2007 Photographs Source: Unterman McPhail North Elevation - 2007 Interior, Upper Hall - 2007
I 1-43 Appendix E: Ostrander Farm House Site May 2010 Photographs
Heritage Impact Assessment I 1-44 Appendix E Ostrander Farm House Site May 2010 Photographs South Side of Farm House Site Looking North East Side of Farm House Site Looking West
Heritage Impact Assessment I 1-45 Appendix E Ostrander Farm House Site May 2010 Photographs North-East Side of Farm House Site Looking South-west West Side of Farm House Site Looking East
Heritage Impact Assessment I 1-46 Appendix E Ostrander Farm House Site May 2010 Photographs North of Farm House Site, Looking South
I 1-47 Appendix F: Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06
I 1-48 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix H Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06
I 1-49 Appendix G: Adjacent/Nearby Heritage Properties
Heritage Impact Assessment I 1-50 Appendix G Adjacent/Nearby Heritage Properties 2322 Embleton Road Subject Property 8957 Heritage Road
I 1-51 Appendix H: Development Proposal
Heritage Impact Assessment I 1-52 Appendix H Development Proposal Source: Malone Given Parsons Ltd, February 3, 2010.
I 1-53 Appendix I: City of Brampton Official Plan Proposed Block Plan 40-3
I 1-54 Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix I City of Brampton Official Plan Proposed Block Plan 40-3 Source: Malone Given Parsons Ltd, November 23, 2009.
I 1-55 STAFF COMMENT FORM Heritage Impact Assessment Name of Applicant/Agent: Great Gulf Development Inc. Municipal Address: 2378 Embleton Road HIA Details: Prepared by: Wayne Morgan, Prepared: May 2010 Received: September 28, 2010 The Property: The property is a farmstead named Ostrander Farm, situated on the north and south sides of Embleton Road and the east side of Heritage Road in the City of Brampton, Ontario. The Ostrander Farm House (circa 1850s) is a listed Heritage Inventory with the City of Brampton. General Comments: The City has documented ongoing issues in obtaining compliance by the owner with the maintenance by-law, Fire Code, and Provisions for Securing Vacant Heritage Buildings In the fall of 2009, the Farm House was destroyed by fire. Report Highlights: Wayne Morgan,, was retained to prepare an HIA, in consideration of the prior work by Unterman McPhail (September 2007) and the impact of the recent fire (Fall 2009). On site inspection, conducted May 27, 2010, by Wayne Morgan confirmed that nothing of the house was left above grade.
I 1-56 The property was determined to have the following heritage values: 1. design value or physical value: o is a representative, early example of a of an early vernacular brick farmhouse which retained important architectural attributes characteristic of its original construction; 2. historical or associative values because: o the Farm House, is associated with the Ostrander family, early settlers in the European settlement of Chinguacousy Township and with the Butt family who were prominent in the mid twentieth century agricultural development of the Township; o the property is associated with horticultural developments of international renown; 3. contextual values, because the Farm House: o supported the rural character of the area; and o was a familiar landmark in its environment. The report suggests a range of possible options for heritage resources management: o Reconstruction of the Farmhouse o Construction of a monument showing the volume and shape of the Farmhouse o Maintain the ruins as an archeological site or exposed set of ruins o Removal of the remains of the heritage resource (subject to mitigation measures) The report recommends: Approve the proposed development and permit the removal/burial of as much of the remains of the Ostrander Farm House as is required to accommodate the proposed development subject to the following mitigation measure. The report recommends: The owner be required, as a condition of development approval, to commemorate the Ostrander Farm, its buildings and its occupants in a form, wording and location acceptable to the City. This could include plaquing and naming of streets using names derived from the history of the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Given the significant heritage value of the property (as identified by Morgan, 2010), and the fact that there is little salvageable material remaining of the Farm House, we support a commemorative proposal. The commemorative proposal will be located on the original site of the home and shall be of a design and wording approved by the City, at the cost of the developer, as a condition of development approval. The proposal shall be created around the notion of an interpretive area on the site with landscaping, lighting and street furniture elements. We also recommend the incorporation of streets names that reflect the history of the property. 2