brampton heritage board item i2 for april 17, 2012 · o distinguishing features include central...

____________________________________________________________________________

I 2-1

Staff Comment Form

Date: April 2, 2012

Property: 4585 Mayfield Rd; 1544 Countryside Dr; 1115 Dixie Rd; Farmstead of Mayfield Rd (no street address)

Applicant: Sandringham Place; Metrus Properties

Subject: Heritage Impact Assessment – Countryside Villages Block Plan 48-1

HIA Details

Prepared By: ERA Architects Inc, and Scarlett Janusas Final Submission: March 23, 2012

Subject Site

o Area known as the Countryside Villages, Block Plan 48 - 1 o Subject site bounded by Mayfield Rd to the north, Dixie Rd to the west, Countryside Dr to

the south, and Bramalea Rd to the east o Identifies two residential properties (4585 Mayfield Rd and 1544 Countryside Dr) and two

farmsteads (1115 Dixie Rd and a farmstead on Mayfield Rd with no street address)

tbrentonText BoxBrampton Heritage BoardDate: April 17, 2012

I 2-2

4585 Mayfield Rd

o Ontario Vernacular farmhouse with Victorian elements, constructed between 1860-1880s o Distinguishing features include central gabled dormer, bargeboard, returned eaves, finials,

keystones, brick quoins o Farmhouse is situated on a large agricultural landscape with mature trees o Property is associated with the Archdeakin family, one of Brampton’s most influential and

well-known families o Currently being designated under the Ontario Heritage Act

1544 Countryside Dr

o Ontario Gothic Vernacular farmhouse constructed pre-1900s o House was moved to current location in 1956 from the southeast corner of Lot 10,

Concession 4 o Distinguishing features include steeply pitched central gable-roofed dormer, symmetrical

façade, flush eaves, finials, and rectangular wood-framed windows o Farmhouse is situated on a manicured lawn, surrounded by trees on three sides o The lot is associated with several early settlers, including Thomas Modeland and Peter

Archdekin

I 2-3

1115 Dixie Rd

o Farmstead with barn complex o Lot consists of two original barns built prior to 1900 o Original barns distinguished by a stone foundation, a vertical wood plank exterior, and metal

clad gambrel roofs o The lot also contains two contemporary gable roofed barns and two silos o The lot is associated with Robert Campbell, one of Brampton’s early settlers

Farmstead on Mayfield Rd

o The principle structure, a pre-1900 barn with metal clad gambrel roof and board and batten exterior, was lost to fire on December 6, 2011

o Lot now consists of a metal clad shed and a long steel shed o In the late 19th century, the lot was consolidated as one property along with 4585 Mayfield

Road, under the ownership of Peter Archdekin

I 2-4

Report Highlights

4585 Mayfield Rd o The house is a unique and rare example of an early vernacular farmhouse o Archdekin family have been very influential and active within the local community o The property warrants designation under the Ontario Heritage Act

1544 Countryside Dr o The design value of the house has been compromised due to alterations o The property does not qualify for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act

1115 Dixie Rd o The integrity of the farmstead has been compromised by the removal of the farm residence

and the addition of recent structures o The farmstead does not satisfy the criteria for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act

Farmstead on Mayfield Rd o The design value of the property has been limited by the loss of the principle structure o Although the lot is associated with the Archdekin family, the property does not warrant

designation under the Ontario Heritage Act

Recommendations: o The dwelling at 4585 Mayfield Road warrants designation under the Ontario Heritage Act

and can be retained within the future Site Plan for the proposed neighborhood retail block o The removal of the structures at 1544 Countryside Dr, 1115 Dixie Rd, and the farmstead at

Mayfield Rd is acceptable o The cultural landscapes of 4585 Mayfield Road, the farmstead on Mayfield Road, and 1115

Dixie Road all contain mature trees that should be retained where possible within the proposed development; a Tree Preservation Study will address which trees warrant preservation

o The vestigial farming equipment located on the subject site should be retained and used as public art

o The names of early settlers should be used in the naming of streets

Staff Recommendation

o That the house at 4585 Mayfield Rd be maintained in-situ and designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act;

o That heritage interpretive signage in the form of a pedestal plaque be erected at 4585 Mayfield Rd according to City standards and at the developers expense;

o That the structures on 1544 Countryside Dr, 1115 Dixie Rd, and the farmstead at Mayfield Rd be removed/demolished with the following conditions: o That a qualified heritage consultant be hired to conduct the recording and documentation

of the structures on 1544 Countryside Dr and 1115 Dixie Rd and outline the elements recommended for salvage;

o That a reputable contractor be obtained to salvage the identified building components;

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

I 2-5

o That the destination of the salvage materials be determined prior to the initiation of any salvage process;

o That salvaged materials (e.g. timber from the barn) be integrated into commemorative; features, such as signage, entry features, shade structures, architectural elements, etc.

o That, as per the heritage consultant’s recommendation, vestigial farming equipment located on the subject site be retained and used as public art within the Block Plan at the developers expense;

o That heritage interpretive signage in the form of a pedestal plaque be erected near Mayfield Rd and Dixie Rd commemorating the former village of Mayfield; the plaque should be produced according to City standards and at the developers expense; and

o That naming of local streets and public assets after the early settlers associated with the area be explored.

Manager of Urban Design Comments:

recommend HIA go to the Board;

recommend HIA be revisited by Heritage Consultant;

other

I 2-6

Countryside Villages - Block Plan 48 - 1 CULTURAL HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT February 28, 2012

C O U n T R Y S I D E V I l l A g E S B l O C K P l A n 4 8 - 1 PREPARED FOR:

SAnDRIngHAm PlACE InC. 30 Floral Parkway, Suite 300 Concord, Ontario l4K 4R1

PREPARED BY:

E.R.A. Architects Inc. Scarlett Janusas 10 St. mary Street, Suite 801 Archaeological and Heritage Toronto, Ontario m4Y 1P9 Consulting and Education 09-057-01 mm/Cl/mS 269 Cameron lake Road

Tobermory, Ontario n0H 2R0

Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment - Countryside Village pg.1 SJAHCE & E.R.A. Architects Inc.

I 2-7

TABlE OF COnTEnTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUmmARY p. 4�

2.0 InTRODUCTIOn p. 6�

2.1 PROPERTY lOCATIOn AnD gEnERAl DESCRIPTIOn p. 7�2.2 PRESEnT OWnER COnTACT p. 8�2.3 EXISTIng HERITAgE RECOgnITIOn p. 8

2.4 ADJACEnT HERITAgE PROPERTIES p. 8

3.0 SITE RESOURCES P. 9�

3.1 DESCRIPTIOn OF PROPERTIES p. 9�

3.1.1 4585 mAYFIElD ROAD p. 10�3.1.2 1115 DIXIE ROAD p. 11�3.1.3 1544 COUnTRYSIDE ROAD p. 13�3.1.4 FARmSTEAD On mAYFIElD ROAD (nO STREET ADDRESS) p. 14�

4.0 ASSESSmEnT OF EXISTIng COnDITIOn p. 17�

4.1 4585 mAYFIElD ROAD p. 17�

4.1.1 BUIlDIng EnVElOPE p. 17�

4.2 1115 DIXIE ROAD p. 19�4.3 1544 COUnTRYSIDE ROAD p. 19�4.4 FARmSTEAD On mAYFIElD ROAD (nO STREET ADDRESS) p. 20�

5.0 RESEARCH AnD AnAlYSIS p. 22�

5.1 COnTEXT p. 22�

5.2 InDIVIDUAl PROPERTY HISTORIES p. 25�

5.2.1 WEST HAlF OF lOT 17, COnCESSIOn 4 (EHS) p. 25�5.2.2 EAST HAlF OF lOT 17, COnCESSIOn 4 (EHS) p. 31�5.2.3 lOT 17, COnCESSIOn 4 (EHS) p. 31�5.2.4 WEST HAlF OF lOT 17, COnCESSIOn 4 (EHS) p. 33�5.2.5 EAST HAlF OF lOT 17, COnCESSIOn 4 (EHS) p. 33�5.2.6 lOT 16, COnCESSIOn 4 (EHS) p. 34�

6.0 CUlTURAl HERITAgE lAnDSCAPES p. 37�

6.1 lAnDSCAPE OF 4585 mAYFIElD ROAD p. 38�6.2 lAnDSCAPE OF 1115 DIXIE ROAD p. 42�6.3 lAnDSCAPE OF FARmSTEAD, mAYFIElD ROAD p. 44�


I 2-8

6.4 lAnDSCAPE OF 1544 COUnTRYSIDE DRIVE p. 47�

7.0 ARCHAEOlOgICAl BACKgROUnD p. 49�

7.1 STAgE 1 ARCHAEOlOgICAl ASSESSmEnT p. 49�7.2 STAgE 1 – 4 ARCHAEOlOgICAl ASSESSmEnTS p. 49�

8.0 HERITAgE REgISTER & EVAlUATIOn p. 51�

8.1 HERITAgE REgISTER – 4585 mAYFIElD ROAD p. 51�8.2 HERITAgE EVAlUATIOn – 4585 mAYFIElD ROAD p. 54�8.3 HERITAgE REgISTER – 1115 DIXIE ROAD p. 56�8.4 HERITAgE EVAlUATIOn – 1115 DIXIE ROAD p. 57�8.5 HERITAgE REgISTER – FARmSTEAD, mAYFIElD ROAD p. 59�8.6 HERITAgE EVAlUATIOn – FARmSTEAD, mAYFIElD ROAD p. 60�8.7 HERITAgE REgISTER – 1544 COUnTRYSIDE DRIVE p. 62�8.8 HERITAgE EVAlUATIOn – 1544 COUnTRYSIDE DRIVE p. 63�

9.0 COnSERVATIOn APPROACH p. 65�

9.1 PROPOSED SITE DEVElOPmEnT p. 65�9.2 COnSERVATIOn STRATEgY OBJECTIVES p. 66�9.3 ImPACT OF THE CURREnT COnSERVATIOn STRATEgY p. 66�9.4 ADDITIOnAl RECOmmEnDATIOnS p. 69�

10.0 ADAPTIVE REUSE CASE STUDIES p. 70�

11.0 COnClUSIOn p. 73�

APPEnDIX I REFEREnCES CITED AnD COnSUlTED

APPEnDIX II lAnD ABSTRACT InDEX FOR:

• PROPERTY (nO STREET ADDRESS) On mAYFIElD ROAD • 1115 DIXIE ROAD • 1544 COUnTRYSIDE DRIVE • 4585 mAYFIElD ROAD


I 2-9

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUmmARY

The purpose of this Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) is to provide informa-tion on the heritage resources in the area known as the Countryside Villages, Block Plan 48 - 1, in the City of Brampton. This report investigates two residential properties and two farmsteads located on the subject site which is bound by mayfield Road to the north, Dixie Road to the west, Countryside Drive to the south and the Bramalea Road to the east.

This CHIA is being submitted as part of the Draft Plan and Rezoning application by San-dringham Place. The plan outlines a new mixed-use community defined by two major arterial roads intersecting the site. The thoroughfares are lined with a mix of medium density residential, mix use commercial and institutional uses with low density develop-ment adjacent to the primary streets.

The Block Plan includes four properties: a farmstead located at 4585 mayfield Road; a barn complex located at 1115 Dixie Road: a farmstead located along mayfield Road with no street address; and, a residence located at 1544 Countryside Road. These properties have been identified as exhibiting heritage potential according to the City of Brampton Heritage guidelines by Archaeological Services Inc. in 2008, as part of a cultural heri-tage assessment. Only one building located at 4585 mayfield Road, has been listed on the City of Brampton’s municipal Registry of Cultural Heritage Resources. It is recom-mended that it be designated a heritage property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

The heritage character of both 4585 mayfield Road and the nearby farmstead to the east were found to be more intact than the properties at 1115 Dixie Road and 1544 Country-side Road, where more significant alterations to the buildings have occurred.

Therefore, this report provides three options for the heritage resources on mayfield Road. These options include:

1.� Full retention of 4585 mayfield Road in situ and remove remaining three proper-ties (Preferred Option);

2.� Relocate 4585 mayfield Road to a new location off the subject property and remove the remaining properties; and

3.� Removal of all buildings on the subject site and documenting of 4585 mayfield Road prior to its removal should the previous two options prove to be unsuitable.


I 2-10

2.0 InTRODUCTIOn

For the Countryside Villages Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA), metrus Proper-ties has retained the services of Scarlett Janusas Archaeological & Heritage Consulting & Education (SJAHCE) and ERA Architects Inc. as the heritage consultants.

A cultural heritage study was completed in 2008 by Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) for a larger geographic area, which included the study area. This report extracts data from the ASI report pertinent to the four properties, including a general historic over-view. The purpose of conducting a cultural heritage assessment is to “…Know where the heritage value of the historic place lies; how it fits physically and functionally in its surroundings; and how it was and is important to its larger community past, present and future” (Parks Canada 2003:4). Additional research and field visits were conducted by Scarlett Janusas, B.A, m.A. of SJAHCE and ERA Architects Inc., with permission of metrus Development Inc.

SJAHCE and ERA Architects Inc. has prepared this Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment with respect to: Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Resource Impact Assessment Reports; the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada; City of Brampton’s Guidelines for Preparing Heritage Impact Assessment; the Province of Ontario’s 2005 Provincial Policy Statement for the regulation of development and use of land; and Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.


Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment - Countryside Village SJAHCE & E.R.A. Architects Inc.

pg.6

2.1 PROPERTY lOCATIOn AnD gEnERAl DESCRIPTIOn

The property is located in an undeveloped north-eastern portion of the City of Bramp-ton, bounded by Bramalea Road, mayfield Road, Dixie Road and Countryside Drive.

The site consists of two original farm lots that have since been subdivided into smaller farming parcels, located in the City of Brampton on lots 16 and 17, Concession 4, EHS, former Township of Chinguacousy, Regional municipality of Peel.

The four properties that are the subject of this report are located at 4585 mayfield Road, 1115 Dixie Road, 1544 Countryside Road and a farmstead located along mayfield Road (no street address)(Figure 1). Physically, the site is defined by its surrounding farmland and recent residential development. The site is interspersed with hedgerows, ponds and a tributary of the west branch of the Humber River.

Figure 1. Subject site location showing the location of the heritage buildings (Source: Bing maps)

1115 Dixie Road

1544 Countryside Road

4585 mayfield Road

Farmstead (no address) mayfield Road

I 2-11

I 2-12

2.2 PRESEnT OWnER COnTACT

SAnDRIngHAm PlACE 30 Floral Parkway Concord, Ontario l4K 4R1

2.3 EXISTIng HERITAgE RECOgnITIOn

Of the four properties being evaluated in this report, only 4585 mayfield Road is cur-rently listed on the City of Brampton’s Register of cultural heritage resources. A descrip-tion of this property was supplied by ms. Antonietta minichillo and is incorporated into this report. The three additional properties (1115 Dixie Road, 1544 Countryside Road and the farmhouse located along mayfield Road) were identified in the 2008 report prepared by Archaeological Services Inc. as exhibiting heritage potential. This study will evaluate the potential of these properties.

2.4 ADJACEnT HERITAgE PROPERTIES

In reference to the Province of Ontario’s 2005 Provincial Policy Statement, this docu-ment addresses Section 2.6 on Cultural Heritage and Archaeology, specifically item 2.6.3:

“Development and site alteration may be permitted on adjacent lands to protect-ed 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.”

11166 Bramalea Road located at the southeast portion of the development parcel is listed on the City of Brampton’s Register of Cultural Heritage Resources. It is owned by the same landowner as the subject site for this report.

Further, 11098 Dixie Road and 11960 Dixie Road are both listed on the City of Bramp-ton’s Register of Cultural Heritage Resources. Both properties have been the subject of a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment by SJAHCE and AREA Architects.


I 2-13

3.0 SITE RESOURCES�

3.1 DESCRIPTIOn OF PROPERTIES

SJAHCE and ERA Architects Inc. conducted a site visit to the subject site on October 20, 2010. The study area (four properties) is bounded to the west by Dixie Road, to the north by mayfield Road, to the east by Bramalea Road, and to the south by Countryside Road. A dewatering program was underway along Dixie Road during the field visit.

The following provides a summary of the properties reviewed during the site visit and significance of the property if applicable.1

Cultural Heritage Study by Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI), 2008


1

I 2-14

3.1.1 4585 mAYFIElD ROAD

A farmhouse constructed in the Ontario Vernacular style with Victorian elements, circa the 1860s-1880s. The 1 1/2 storey house features a fieldstone foundation and an as-phalt gable roof. Defining elements include the central gabled dormer with decorative bargeboard, returned eaves, finials, keystones, polychrome patterned brick work, brick transoms above windows, brick quoins, and summer kitchen addition on the back. The structure is sited away from the road and is surrounded by mature trees. The property is located in an agricultural setting of currently ploughed fields.

Figure 2. north elevation (Source: ERA Architects)

Figure 3. South elevation (Source: ERA Architects)

Figure 4. West elevation (Source: ERA Architects)

Figure 5. East elevation (Source: ERA Architects)


I 2-15

3.1.2 1115 DIXIE ROAD�

1115 Dixie Road is a farmstead featuring a barn complex. The barn complex consists of two original structures constructed prior to 1900, and two recent structure additions. The two original structures have a stone foundation and vertical wood plank exterior and metal clad gambrel roofs.

One of these original structures is fitted with rounded window ventilators and is a planked barn, suggesting that it may have been constructed prior to the second barn, which is fitted with roof-top ventilators. The surrounding structures include two con-temporary gable roofed barns and two silos. One of these structures is a machine shed and the other is a show-room.

Figure 6. South elevation of barns (Barn # 1) (Source: ERA Architects)

Figure 7. West elevation of north barn (Source: ERA Architects)

Figure 8. north elevation of north barn (Source: ERA Architects)

Figure 9. East elevation of south barn (Source: ERA Architects)


I 2-16

Figure 10. Southernmost Shed (Barn #2) (Source: ERA Architects)

Figure 11. Southernmost Shed (Source: ERA Architects)

Figure 12. Central Shed (Source: ERA Architects)


I 2-17

3.1.3 1544 COUnTRYSIDE ROAD

1544 Countryside Drive is a 1 1/2 storey Ontario gothic Vernacular Farmhouse construct-ed prior to 1900. Defining elements include the steeply pitched central gable-roofed dormer on the front elevation, rectangular window centered beneath the gabled dormer, symmetrical facade, flush eaves, finals, wooden window frames, and original summer kitchen at the rear. The house is currently clad in synthetic siding and sitting on a con-crete foundation. An additional metal clad structure is also located on the property. The property sits on a manicured lawn, surrounded by trees on three sides. Agricultural fields lie to the north and east of the property.



I 2-18

3.1.4 FARmSTEAD On mAYFIElD ROAD (no street address)

At the time of the site visit on October 20, 2010, this farmstead, constructed around the turn of the Century, contained four structures (the original house on the property was demolished prior to the site visit):

•� 1-storey contemporary house form sales center; •� main barn constructed prior to 1900 with a metal clad gambrel roof with board

and batten exterior; •� metal clad gambrel roofed shed; and •� long steel, gable-roofed shed, located in front of the main barn. •

All structures are set back from the road and are in an area which has been overgrown with natural vegetation. The barns are set in a typical rural agricultural setting with adjacent ploughed fields.

The main barn has since been lost to a fire (December 6, 2011).

Figure 14. West elevation (Source: ERA Architects)

Figure 15. South and east elevations (Source: ERA Architects)


I 2-19


Figure 17. Shed - South elevation (Shed # 1) (Source: ERA Architects)


I 2-20

Figure 18. Shed and barn looking South-East (Source: ERA Architects)

Figure 19. north elevation of second shed (Shed #2) (Source: ERA Architects)


I 2-21

Figure 20.

Figure 21.

Figure 22.

Figures 20, 21 & 22. Farmstead property after fire showing the remaining foundation wall of the barn. (Source: City of Brampton)


I 2-22

4.0 ASSESSmEnT OF EXISTIng COnDITIOn

SJAHCE and ERA Architects Inc. conducted a field visit of the exterior and interior of all four properties on October 20, 2010. This report is based on a visual and photographic inspection of the buildings’ features from street level. This ground level vantage point did not allow for the full evaluation of roof condition.

4.1 4585 mAYFIElD ROAD

The farmhouse at 4585 mayfield Road appeared to be generally in fair condition, with much of the detailing and trim along the roofline and eaves remaining. The brick, with the exception of a few areas where there is spalling near the foundation and the south-east corner of the building, is in good condition.

The house is a good example of early Ontario farmhouse architecture with its Ontario Vernacular style and simple detailing. The gable formerly contained a walk-out door to a second floor balcony, which has been removed. A summer kitchen is located to the rear addition.

Some priority items were identified which require immediate attention to safeguard the house while it remains unoccupied, such as closing unintended openings in the building, and repair to damaged or missing eavestroughs.

The interior of the house was accessed on november 12, 2010. The interior has been modified since its construction and has suffered some water damage at the second floor due to the holes in the roofline. Some original wood detailing remains and should be considered for retention, if the building is to be reused.

4.1.1 BUIlDIng EnVElOPE

The building exterior condition of 4585 mayfield is reasonably sound. Windows and doors have been boarded up with plywood. The building envelope has begun to dete-riorate in some areas from water penetration through holes in the roof and around the eave-line, which if left open will threaten the overall structural integrity of the building.

moderate areas of repointing and brick replacement/rebuilding will be required on the main house to replace spalled or missing bricks. The stone foundations are sound. The roof needs repair and has been leaking for some time. Ideally this work should be car-ried out immediately, or at the very least a short term measure to shed water should be provided. most of the rain gutters and flashings around the building are either damaged or missing, and the windows and doors will also require restoration or replacement.


I 2-23

Figure 24. Spalling brick near the foundation at the South-East corner (Source: ERA Architects)

Figure 25. Roof openings along the eaves (Source: ERA Architects)


I 2-24

4.2 1115 DIXIE ROAD�

The northernmost barn (Barn #1) on the property was found to be in fair condition. The roof and wood siding are functioning well and did not exhibit any major areas of decay. The foundation of the barn has been modified over time and features a new concrete block foundation with sliding wood doors at the south elevation. The stone foundation wall on the west elevation has been repaired and appears to be in serviceable condition. The adjacent barn immediately to the south (Barn #2) also appears to be in a similar state of fair repair.

Both of the recent sheds to the south of the barns are in fair condition and have been well maintained.

4.3 1544 COUnTRYSIDE ROAD

The residence at 1544 Countryside Road was found to be in fair condition. The structure, which sits on a new concrete block foundation, has been clad in white aluminum siding. The front porch and all windows have been replaced. Some original doors remain in the interior of the house.


I 2-25

4.4 FARmSTEAD On mAYFIElD ROAD (no street address)

The barn located on the Farmstead on mayfield Road was found to be in fair condition. All elevations are in fair condition (paint has weathered, an occasional board is missing, and the wood is dry). There are openings on the main floor and foundation at the south elevation. The east elevation appears to be in good condition. The roof is in good con-dition and the sliding doors on west elevation remain intact. Interior support beams and framing also appear to be in good condition, as does the eavestrough. The Upper 4 pane windows partially intact (some wood frames and glazing remains), however the windows on the south elevation have been replaced or are missing. The barn is missing windows and doors on the ground/basement floor, and glass is missing from second floor up-per window. The field stone foundation has failed and been repaired at the southwest corner. The former cattle feeding troughs remain in the basement. The central support beam on the ceilings has been removed causing the floor to bow. lastly, a partial farm sign remains on the north elevation of the barn.

The adjacent wood frame shed (Shed #1) to the east of the barn is in good condition with the exception of the eaves which are in disrepair.

The wood frame shed to the west of the barn (Shed #2) was found to be in poor condi-tion.


I 2-26

Figure 26. Foundation wall at south elevation of Figure 27. Interior wood frame barn. (Source: ERA Architects) and support beams of barn.

(Source: ERA Architects)

Figure 28. missing window at south elevation of Figure 29. South elevation of barn. barn. (Source: ERA Architects) (Source: ERA Architects)


I 2-27

5.0 RESEARCH AnD AnAlYSIS

5.1 COnTEXT

The following historic summary is taken from the ASI (2008:13-14) cultural heritage as-sessment of a larger geographic area, as pertinent to the immediate two properties.

“Part of the land which encompasses Chinguacousy Township was alienated by the Brit-ish from the native mississaugas through a provisional treaty dated October 28, 1818 (Indian Treaties 1891:#19 p.47).

The township is said to have been named by Sir Peregrine maitland after the missis-sauga word for the Credit River, and which signified “young pine”. Other scholars assert that it was named in honour of the Ottawa Chief Shinguacose, which was corrupted to the present spelling of “Chinguacousy,” under whose leadership Fort michilimacinac was captured from the Americans in the War of 1812” (mika 1977:416; Rayburn 1997:68).

The township was formally surveyed in 1818, and the first “legal” settlers took up their lands later in that same year. The extant Survey Diaries indicated that the original tim-ber stands within the township included oak, ash, maple, beech, elm, basswood, hem-lock and pine. The survey crew working in the township in the summer of 1891 suffered under extreme conditions…

It was recorded that the first landowners in Chinguacousy were composed of settlers from new Brunswick, the United States and also some United Empire loyalists and their children (Pope 1877:65; mika 1977:417; Armstrong 1985:142).

Chinguacousy was originally included within the limits of the Home District until 1849, when the old Upper Canadian Districts were abolished. It formed part of the United Counties of York, Ontario and Pell until 1851, when Peel was elevated to independent County status under the provisions of 14 & 15 Vic. Ch. 5. A provisional council for Peel was not established until 1865, and the first official meeting of the Peel County council did not occur until January 1867. In 1974, part of the township was amalgamated with the City of Brampton, and the remainder was annexed to the Town of Caledon (Pope 1877:59; mika 1977:417-418); Armstrong 1985:152; Rayburn 1997:68).

Due to the small population of the then newly acquired tract, Chinguacousy was initially united with the gore of Toronto Township for political and administrative purposes. In 1821, the population of the united townships numbered just 412. By 1837, the popula-tion of the township had reached an estimated 1,921. The numbers grew from 3,721 in 1842 to 7,469 in 1851. Thereafter the figures declined to 6,897 in 1861 and to 6,129 by


I 2-28

1871 (Walton 1837:71; Pope 1877:59).

The township was the largest in Peel County. Chinguacousy was described as one of the best settled townships in the Home District. It contained excellent, rolling land which was timbered mainly in hardwood with some pine intermixed. Excellent wheat was grown here. The township contained one grist mill and seven saw mills. By 1851, this number had increased to two grist mills and eight sawmills (Smith 1846:32; Smith 1851:279).

The principal crops grown in Chinguacousy included wheat, oats, peas, potatoes and turnips. It was estimated that the only township in the province which rivaled Chin-guacousy in terms of wheat production at that time was Whitby. Other farm products included maple sugar, wool, cheese and butter (Smith 1851:279).

In 1877, it was described as a “first class agricultural township and the farmers as a general thing have been very successful in their undertakings, many of them having amassed quite a fortune. The township is noted for its beautiful and substantial farm residences and commodious barns. The farms also are generally in the highest state of cultivation, while the grounds in front of the residences are for the most part tastefully arranged with beautiful flowers and shade trees, giving each place and the country gen-erally a handsome appearance (Pope 1877:65).

mayfield: This village was described as a “small settlement” which contained a brick school house, store, post office, blacksmith shop and hotel. The hotel was managed by F. Archdeken in 1869. The postmaster was William Spiers, and the village store was kept by Robert Hiscocks. The population was about 50 inhabitants in 1877 (mcEvoy 1869:304; Pope 1877:66).”

The former village of mayfield is included in the general description because of its influ-ence at the crossroads of mayfield Road and Dixie Road.

Additional research conducted by SJAHCE provides a synopsis on the economic ups and downs from circa 1845 to 1910 in former Peel County.

In a study of Peel County, Canada West, general conditions were noted by gagan (1981:12) of the period of the 1850s. gagan wrote,

“The 1850s were ushered in by a series of events…The Irish famine emigrations of 1847-8, the advent of responsible government in 1849, the completion of the St. lawrence canal system, a reciprocal trading agreement with the United States of America, and an expanding imperial market for Canadian wheat, all contrib-


I 2-29

uted, in less than a decade (1845-54), to the definition of a new era in Canadian history”.

By this, gagan infers that the time was ripe for settlement and growth from 1845 to 1854, in the then, County of Peel. This prosperous time, however, was shortlived, as the early 1860s brought , “commercial depression (1857-1860), decline in wheat prices (47% in 4 years), a series of severe crop failures, disruption of the American market for Canadian livestock, dairy products, cereal and forage crops…(ibid:13). These processes caused a crisis in the community. no longer was there expansion, but rather those hardy settlers that could endure, became “survivors”. Changes in their daily lives included marrying later in life, having fewer children, no longer having extended families in one household, and for many, movement out of the province altogether.

By 1870, there was again an economic recovery and stabilization in Peel County, and for approximately 40 years, there was what could be coined as a relative respite from hard times. Former agricultural reliance on wheat as a crop, moved to a more mixed farming community.

Those individuals who settled in the area in the 1840s and 1850s, and weathered through the difficult late 1850s and 1860s, are examples of the strength and ingenuity of Peel’s early settlers.


I 2-30

5.2 InDIVIDUAl PROPERTY HISTORIES

The following history of lots 16 and 17, Concession 4 (EHS) are taken from ASI (2008:14-17), as they pertain to the four properties investigated in this report. Both the Regional municipality of Peel Archives and the City of Brampton were contacted re-garding additional data for the four properties. no additional information was forthcom-ing from the archives, and the City of Brampton only had additional information for the property at 4585 mayfield Road.

5.2.1 WEST HAlF OF lOT 17, COnCESSIOn 4 (EHS)

The 1859 Tremaine map indicates that the west half of lot 17 was occupied by a post office and store at the crossroads of mayfield. In the area where 4585 mayfield Road is located, the property is identified as belonging to Thomas Archdekin. Thomas Archdekin (b.1810, d. 1889) was married to matilda. Thomas was one of the first settlers in may-field, coming originally from Ireland and arriving in the area in 1829. He is reported to have owned the tavern and inn known as the “Bay Horse Inn” at the southwest corner of mayfield and Dixie Roads [no longer extant]. Thomas Archdekin passed away October 18, 1889 at 79 years of age. His wife, mary Elizabeth gray, died August 25, 1892, also at 79 years of age. There are no structures indicated on the Tremaine map in the location of 4585 mayfield Road.

In the 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Peel, the lot was occupied by unidentified buildings at the crossroads of mayfield, and a farmstead. The lot is shown as being occupied by Peter Archdeacon, owning 38 acres of land. The 4585 mayfield property is located in the area shown in the 1877 atlas as the farmstead.

The property at 4585 mayfield Road is described as occupying Concession 4 EHS, Part lot 17, Registered Plan 43R14209, Part 2. The City of Brampton supplied the following historical background for the specific property (email October 19, 2010 from Antonietta minichillo).

“Timothy Street was granted the Crown Patent for lot 17, Concession 4, East of Huron-tario Street (EHS), Chinguacousy Township in 1820. Street sold all to Benjamin Degrew in 1821. Jacob Degrew sold 130 acres of the east part of lot 17 to James graham in 1837. Robert Allway sold the same 130 acres to James Forster in 1839. Forster sold to William Forster in 1840. Peter Archdeakin bought the 130 acres from William Forster in 1863. The present house appears to have been built in the mid-to-late 1860s.

The Census Return (1871) indicates that Peter Archdeakin owned 172 acres of lot 17, Concession 4 with two houses and three barns. The Chinguacousy map in the Pope’s


I 2-31

shows Peter Archdeakin as the owner of all of lot 17 with a house in the northwest corner of lot 17 – approximately in the location of the present no. 4585 mayfield Road – and a house in the northeast corner. The Census Returns (1891 and 1901) indicate Thomas Archdekin lived in the brick house on lot 17; while Peter Archdekin in 1891, and Austin Archdekin in 1901, lived in a frame house. The will and codicil (1898) of Peter Archdeakin left 129 acres of land to his sons leo gray Archdeakin and Austin Archdeakin equally. The will stipulated his surviving wife, mary Speirs Archdekin had the right to live in the home and residence on the homestead during her lifetime and to have three rooms, etc. She died in 1915.

Peter Archdeakin [also Archdeacon and Archdekin] was the son of early Chinguacousy settlers Thomas and matilda gray Archeacon. The Archdeacons, who arrived from Ireland in 1829, were among the first settlers in the mayfield area. Peter Archdeakin (1833-1898) and mary Archdeakin (1839-1915) lived on lot 17, Concession 4 EHS for many years. He served as a School Board Trustee in 1863, 1866 and 1869. The Archdeakins had nine children. Son Thomas married mary graham and lived on the east half of lot 17, Concession 4 EHS for many years. Peter Archdeakin is buried in St. mary’s Cemetery, Tullamore.”

The parents of Peter Archdeakin were Thomas and martha. Peter Archdeakin’s children were William, mrs. george Elliot, mrs. matthew Hewson, maggie, maltie, Anne, leo, Aus-tin and Tom. Peter Archdeakin passed away at 65 years of age on may 18, 1898, and his wife, mary Speirs died at age 76 on november 20, 1915.

A family history of the Archdekins sheds additional information regarding previous own-ers of the property.

The Archdekins were not originally from Brampton, but are considered to have greatly contributed to the community.

“Peter and Prudence Archdekin had come from Ireland about 1820, and a brother of Peter’s had come with them, but had opted to settle in the United States. Peter and his wife had nine children...

The second-eldest son, Thomas, decided to leave the farm and open an establishment called the Bay Horse Inn [this is the inn that was located at the corner of mayfield and Dixie Roads]. Thomas’ wife is reputed to be the first hotel keeper in mayfield. However, Thomas sold his hotel busi-ness to mugucks, opened a general store on the southeast corner, and eventually moved to the farm where he built a house, which still stands today on the corner of Dixie Road and 17th Sideroad.


I 2-32

The property located on the west half of lot 17, with no street address, was the subject of additional investigation. The Peel Region archives has identified the former house in this location as the Bill Craig house, indicating that the house dated to the 1950s, and burned and was subsequently demolished by necessity. given that ASI took a pho-tograph of the house in 2008 (ASI 2008), the burning and demolition took place some-time between 2008 and november 2010 (on site visit by ERA and SJAHCE). The earlier house on the property was not evident during the site visit. The abstract index for this property is presented in Appendix A.

An archaeological report from This land Archaeology (2010:38-41) provides additional information regarding this property.

“The study area lands remained with the Crown until January 14, 1821 when the entire 200 acres of lot 17, concession 4 EHS were patented to Timothy Street, one of the two men responsible for the first survey of Chinguacousy Township and the original founder and namesake of the village of Streetsville. Born in Spencertown, new York of United Empire loyalist stock, Street arrived in the niagara region in 1801 at the age of 23. He lived with his family at St. David’s where he ran a successful saddle and livery business while encouraging other loyalists to make the move north. When the call for surveyors went out in 1815, the enterprising Street partnered with Richard Bristol to map out the future counties of Peel and Halton and, as compensation for his work, he received more than 4500 acres of Crown land throughout both counties including the study area. Shortly after the completion of the surveys, he moved his family to the banks of the Credit River where he built a grist and saw mill, thus sowing the seeds for the village of Streetsville. In order to help finance his endeavours in the new settlement, he sold off most of his excess lots. Hence, on July 4, 1821, he signed all of lot 17, concession 4 EHS over to mr. Benjamin Degraw at a cost of 75 £. Born in Schraalenburg, new Jersey on September 20, 1767, Benjamin Degraw came to mayfield about 1820. He and his wife, Jemima Jerome, were the parents of 11 children, all born in either new Jersey or new York. Jemima died prior to her husband going to mayfield and, sometime after his arrival, he married mary, his second wife. From both land records and the census report for 1851, it can be surmised that Benjamin Degraw did indeed occupy the study lands although the exact dates of residency are somewhat unclear. What is known is that on the 1851 census, mary Degraw was listed as a widow living in a one-story log house somewhere on the study lands. Then, in may 1860, she signed a Quit Claim releasing her dower interest in the study lands to William Forster who, at that time, was the owner of the property. One year later, Forster leased a 1-acre parcel of the study lands containing the “houses” back to mary Degraw for a period of ten years, ”should she live so long”. It seems clear then that mary Degraw lived on at least a portion of the lands into the early 1860s, being many years after the land passed out of her husband’s estate.


I 2-33

In the early 1830s, two of Benjamin Degraw’s sons arrived at mayfield from the United States along with their wives and young children. Jacob and John Degraw both took up residence in mayfield with assessment records showing Jacob and his wife Sophia oc-cupying the study lands between 1836 and 1838. On January 2, 1836, their daughter Clarissa was born in mayfield and by march 1838 they were back in the United States, never returning to Canada. John Degraw homesteaded a few lots to the south of the study lands and became a more permanent citizen of mayfield, his children eventually marrying into several mayfield families.

In 1836, Jacob Degraw sold the southwest 50 acres of the land from his father’s estate to William Deacon who quickly sold it to Thomas Archdekin. However, this acreage is not included in the current study area. On may 22, 1837, Jacob Degraw sold the east 130 acres of lot 17 to James graham and, on January 2, 1838, a small 1-acre parcel at the northwest corner of the lot to Thomas morrison where the mayfield general store and post office was eventually built. On June 19, 1840, Degraw sold the approximately 20 remaining acres to Thomas Wigginton. The study area is made up of the 130 and 20-acre parcels of land, some of which has been, over the years, either sold or expropriated to accommodate the widening of mayfield, Dixie and Bramalea Roads.

There is little concrete proof that, during his brief ownership of the study lands, James graham actually took up residence. natives of Dumfrieshire, Scotland, graham and his wife, the former Isabella glendinning, lived in the village of Streetsville where they raised a large family. land records show that they did not give up ownership of their Streetsville land, indicating that they probably never occupied the mayfield property.

However, the fact that James graham was by trade a carpenter leads to speculation that he could have perhaps run some sort of a mayfield village business from the study lands. However, it would have definitely been short lived since he sold the entire 130 acres in July 1839 to James Forster and died a short time later on September 2, 1840.

Born in England in 1790, James Forster and his wife, Elizabeth moffitt, immigrated with their family to Canada in 1828. During the 1830s, James built a mill on the Credit River at the village of Churchville (now part of Brampton) about 8 miles west of the study lands. The mill became a significant source of income not only for James Forster, but also for many other area farmers who began growing wheat and barley for wholesale business. Perhaps grain farming for his mill was Forster’s original purpose in purchas-ing the study lands. However, records show that he lived near Churchville and later Esquesing Township and probably never occupied the study lands. Instead, on march 30, 1840, he sold the land to his son William who turned it into a very prosperous farm.

William Forster was born August 24, 1815 in Brampton, Cumberland, England and, in


I 2-34

1840, married English born Jane Wilkinson. William and Jane lived at least the next 10 years in mayfield, presumably on the study lands, as indicated firstly by the fact that their two infant children are buried in the mayfield cemetery. Secondly, when William Forster purchased the study area, he also secured a mortgage in the amount of 150 £ indicating plans for significant improvements to the land. During the next number of years, William Forster worked at clearing more of his land as he set up the study area to supply wheat for his father’s mill. But, by the mid 1850s, he had left farming, moved to a house in Brampton and become a grain merchant, an occupation he kept until his retirement in the 1890s. Census records indicate that, for about 15 years, he rented the study lands to other farming families who lived on the premises and worked the farm.

The agricultural census for both 1851 and 1861 show a very busy working farm with 110 of the 130 acres under cultivation. The 1861 census shows Streetsville farmer Solomon Caslor and his family living in a one-story frame house located on the premises and pro-ducing about 300 bushels of wheat per year. The farm was valued at $8000.00.

William Forster finally sold the study lands on may 1, 1863 to Peter Archdekin. The 20-acre parcel of land adjoining the Forster property to the west had been sold in 1840 to Thomas Wigginton, a shoemaker and farmer from Yorkshire, England, who lived there with his wife and family in a 1-story log house. The 1861 agricultural census indicates that 15 of his 20 acres were under cultivation while the other 5 remained wooded. He maintained 5 acres of wheat for the mill and ran a shoemaking business from his home. In 1856, he sold all 20 acres to Thomas Archdekin and moved his family to goderich.

One of the most well-known and influential families in Brampton, the Archdekin fam-ily owned and occupied the study lands for at least 4 generations. Peter Archdekin, his wife Prudence and their 7 children travelled to mayfield from County Kilkenny, Ireland in 1820. Two more children were born after their arrival. It was the eldest son, Thomas, who first purchased the study area, eventually owning all 200 acres of lot 17 save and except the portion containing the store and post office. As well, the Archdekins owned additional area lots which they also farmed. Thomas and his wife, the former martha Elizabeth gray, raised two sons on the homestead and farmed the land until Thomas’ death in 1891. Upon his death, Thomas willed the farm to his son Peter who ran it with his wife mary and family until his own death in 1898. The 130-acre portion of the prop-erty was then passed from the Peter Archdekin estate to sons Austin and leo and the remaining portions to daughter-in-law margaret who was the wife of Peter’s son Thomas. The Archdekins owned the study lands well into the next century.

Over the years, the general store and post office on the northwest corner of lot 17 had a variety of owners. Thomas morrison was the original owner, purchasing the land from Jacob Degraw in 1835. In 1839 it went to Arthur mcmaster who sold it a few months


I 2-35

later to Abijah lewis. James Creighton took over in June 1841 and William Spiers in 1844. Spiers, who was the father-in-law of Peter Archdekin Jr., owned and operated the farm across the road on lot 18 and ran the store and post office until his death in 1896. The property was then passed from his estate to Peter’s wife mary who ran it for many years.”

The abstract index for 4585 mayfield Road is presented in Appendix B.


I 2-36

5.2.2 EAST HAlF OF lOT 17, COnCESSIOn 4 (EHS)

The 1859 Tremaine map indicates that the east half of lot 17 was occupied by Wm. Forster, although again, there are no structures indicated on the east half of the lot. The east half of lot 17, Concession 4 is the area where the farmstead (no address) along mayfield Road is located.

The 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Peel was occupied by a farmstead. The lot is shown as being occupied by Peter Archdeacon, owning 38 acres of land. The farmstead (no address) along mayfield Road is located in the area shown in the 1877 atlas as the farmstead.

5.2.3 lOT 17, COnCESSIOn 4 (EHS)

Below is a detailed history of the lots using the land abstract index, census records and assessment rolls) by Archaeological Services Inc. (2008:19-20).

“The earliest patent plan showed that this lot was in the possession of “J & T. Street” (Sherwood 182?). By 1822, the entire lot was in the possession of Timo-thy Street (Ridout 1822).

We learn from other contemporary documents that Timothy Street (1778-1848) was the son of a loyalist named Timothy Street (1723-1791), and originally from the niagara District. He was a saddler by trade, and he is said to have been granted lands in Chin-guacousy in 1819, as partial compensation for his work on the survey of this township. Street was also a merchant and miller, and one of the early benefactors to the vil-lage of Streetsville which was named in his honour (Township Papers:612-614; Perkins Bull:65773-65872).

Evidence shows that this lot was in the ownership of John, mary and Jacob Degraw and Thomas morrison in 1837 (Walton 1837:68-69). Unfortunately, this early Directory is not specific as to the amount of land held by each family, what part of the lot they occu-pied, and whether they owned the land or simply occupied it as tenants.

The 1859 Tremaine map showed that this lot was divided into east and west halves, al-though the abstract index shows that it was actually divided into four parcels of varying acreage.

The entire lot was patented by Timothy Street on January 14, 1820. The entire 200 acre lot was sold by him to Benjamin Degraw, also spelled in the abstracts as Degrew and even recorded as “Degean”, in July 1821 for £75. Ownership had passed to Jacob De-


I 2-37

grew before October 1835.

The east half of the lot, containing 130 acres, was sold by Jacob Degrew to James gra-ham in may 1837 for £600. This high price may indicate that structures such as a dwell-ing house and barn were located on this land. The land was acquired by Robert Always, possibly through an unregistered deed, and sold to James Forster for £300 in July 1839. Subsequent owners included William Forster (1840) and Peter Archdeakin (1863). Forster leased a one acre lot to mary Degrew in 1860 (Chinguacousy Abstract Index, Volume A:108). This land remained in the Archdekin [sic] family until the twentieth century (Chinguacousy Abstract Index, Volume B:180-181). This part lot was watered by a tribu-tary of the West Humber River. It contained no structures in 1859.

The 1871 census showed that Peter Archdekin (b.1836) was of Irish ancestry but a na-tive of Ontario, and a member of the Church of England. His household consisted of his wife, mary (b.1841) and seven children aged between seven months and 14 years, and a farm labourer named William large (b. 1835). The farm produce on this land was similar to the neighbouring farms, although Archdekin grew pears and plums, kept bees, and produced honey (1871 census, division d-2, p.34#17).

The west half of the lot was divided into four smaller parcels. The largest parcel, which contained 50 acres and was described as the south half of the west half of the lot, was purchased by William Deakin from Jacob Degrew for £100 in 1835. This land was sold to Thomas Archdekin through two purchases made in October 1836 and march 1837 (Chin-guacousy Abstract Index, Volume A:108). He remained in ownership of this land as late as 1863, and it was then passed on to other family members in the twentieth century (Chinguacousy Abstract Index, Volume B:180-181). The lot was watered by a tributary of the West Humber River. A store and post office of the village of mayfield were located at the extreme north-west corner of the lot.

A 20 acre parcel was sold by Jacob Degrew to Thomas Wigginton in January 1840, for £80. This land was sold to Thomas Archdeakin for £450 in February 1856 (Chinguacousy Abstract Index, volume A: 108).

A one acre parcel of land was sold by Jacob Degrew to Thomas morrison for £10 in December 1835. Out of this total, a quarter acre parcel was sold to michael Ingoldsby in January 1837. The remainder of the part of the lot, or 96 ½ perches, was sold to Ar-thur and James mcmaster for £190 in January 1838. Subsequent owners included Abijah lewis (1839), James Creighton (1841), William Spiers (1844), Richard and William Ben-son (unregistered deed prior to 1852), and finally resold to Spiers (1852). The land must have been sold for speculative purposes; unfortunately for each subsequent purchaser, the sales price continued to drop. It plunged from a high of £190 in 1838 to just £60 in


I 2-38

1852 (Chinguacousy Abstract Index, Volume A: 108).

The 1871 census indicates that a one-half acre parcel was occupied by a tenant named Frederick Johns (b.1835) who was a shoemaker. Johns was born in Ontario and a mem-ber of the Church of England. His household consisted of his wife Elizabeth (b. 1833), six children aged between one and twelve years, and shoemaker Thomas Caine (b. 1811). Caine was a native of Ireland and a member of the Roman Catholic Church. Johns grew carrots and potatoes on his lot (1871 census, division d-2:p13, #16).

By 1877, this lot had been consolidated into one whole, which was in the ownership of Peter Archdeacon. This map showed that there were at least three houses, three or-chards and one barn situated on this land (ASI 2008:19-20)”.

5.2.4 WEST HAlF OF lOT 17, COnCESSIOn 4 (EHS)

The 1859 Tremaine map indicates that the west half of lot 17 was occupied by two in-dividuals. The more northern occupant was Robert Campbell – in the area of 1115 Dixie Road, and the southern occupant was Thos. modeland – in the area of 1544 Countryside Drive. no structures are indicated on the Tremaine map for either of these locations.

The 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Peel does not indicate any owner, however there are structures located in the area currently occupied by 1115 Dixie Road. In addition, a schoolhouse is shown at the northeast corner of Countryside Drive and Dixie Road. This schoolhouse is not part of the heritage impact assessment, although the adjacent property (to the east) is 1544 Countryside Drive. There is no additional structure indicated at this location in the 1877 atlas, however, subscribers to the atlas were shown on the atlas, so there may have been a property located here in 1877, but not shown if the owner did not subscribe.

The two properties under review are located in the west half of lot 16, Concession 4: 1115 Dixie Road and 1544 Countryside Drive. The abstract index for 1115 Dixie Road is presented in Appendix C. Additional research conducted by Peel Region archives reports that the house located at 1544 Countryside Drive is not original to the property and was moved to this location in 1956 from the southeast corner of lot 10, Concession 4 (Dixie and Boviard). Appendices D and E present the land abstract index for both the current and former location of this house.

5.2.5 EAST HAlF OF lOT 17, COnCESSIOn 4 (EHS)

The east half of lot 17, Concession 4 (EHS) does not contain any structures included in the heritage impact assessment.


I 2-39

5.2.6 lOT 16, COnCESSIOn 4 (EHS)

Below is a detailed history of the lots using the land abstract index, census records and assessment rolls) by Archaeological Services Inc. (2008-17-19).

Figure 30. Tremaine map of Peel, 1858.� Figure 31. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Peel, 1877.

“The earliest patent plan showed that this lot was held by John Bostwick (Sherwood 182?). Contemporary records showed that Bostwick was an absentee owner, who was originally a “yeoman” farmer in Whitchurch Township. By August 1819, he was a resi-dent of Windham Township (norfolk County) in the london District. He submitted a peti-tion to the Executive Council with a request for a grant of land containing a mill site in Chinguacousy Township where he intended to build a saw and grist mill. The request for a mill site could not be granted since Bostwick was unable to provide security for his proposed venture, although he was granted an interest in this particular lot (Town-ship Papers:600-601; Upper Canada land Petition: B12/183). By 1822, the east half of the lot was in possession of William long. The west half was further subdivided and the northwest part was in the possession of lewis Whittaker and the southwest part was held by Robert Armstrong (Ridout 1822).

William long was a native of County leitrim, Ireland. He had settled in York around 1819. He petitioned for a grant of land and by early February 1825, his settlement du-ties had been completed and his patent fees paid (Township Papers:602-604).

lewis Whittaker was also a native of the parish of Cluncan in County leitrim, Ireland. He


I 2-40

had settled in West gwillimbury Township as a farmer by 1820. He petitioned for land that was granted to him in that same year. His settlement duties had been completed by the end of the year 1823 (Township Papers:608-609; Upper Canada land Petitions W12/89 and W12/239).

Robert Armstrong was a native of Fernmanagh, Ireland. He had settled in York in Sep-tember 1821 with his wife and three children, when he submitted a petition for land. He was granted part of this lot in July 1822 and his settlement duties had been completed by march 1825 (Township Papers: 610-611; Upper Canada land Petitions A13/22; Perkins Bull:1942-1958).

Early Directories show that this lot was in the ownership of John Anderson, Robert Campbell and John Hessey in 1837 (Walton 1837:67-68). Unfortunately, this early Direc-tory is not specific as to the amount of land held by each man, what specific part of the lot they occupied, and whether they owned the land or simply held it as tenants.

One of the early assessment rolls for the township showed that part of this lot was oc-cupied by Robert Campbell in 1844. He was partially assessed based upon the value of his livestock which consisted of milch cows, “horned cattle” and an ox. The other part of the lot was in possession of William mcDonald, who owned an ox and milch cows (As-sessment Roll 1844).

The 1859 Tremaine map showed that this lot was divided into north and south halves.

The northwest quarter of the lot was patented by lewis Whittaker in 1824. He sold the entire 50 acre parcel to William Sharp in September 1828 for just £6. Sharp improved this land, and by the time he sold it to Robert Campbell in January 1846, the value had increased to £300 (Chinguacousy Abstract Index, Volume A, p. 107). This land was sold to Joseph Arneil in 1875, and purchased by Peter Archdekin later that same year. It remained in the possession of the Archdekin family until the late 1890s (Chinguacousy Abstract Index, Volume B, p. 177). By 1877, it contained a house, barn and orchard just west of creek on mayfield Road.

The 1871 census indicated that Joseph Arneil (b. 1833) resided on this land with his wife Bridget (b. 1837), the widow Ann mcguire (b. 1810) and six children aged between three months and 14 years. The family was of Irish origin, and belonged to the Church of England. The farm produce was similar to that found on the neighbouring farms (1871 census, division d-2, p.12 #15).

The northeast quarter of the lot was patented by William long on may 30, 1825. In January 1838, he sold the lot to John Anderson for £100. Anderson died in 1858 and


I 2-41

bequeathed the farm to his son, Christopher Anderson (Chinguacousy Abstract Index, Volume A, P. 107). This land was then sold to James Anderson around 1885 (Chingua-cousy Abstract Index, Volume B, p. 177). According to the Tremaine map, it contained no structures in 1859. By 1877, it contained a house, barn, orchard and driveway or lane located near the northeast corner of the lot.

The 1871 census showed that this land was owned by Christopher Anderson (b.1808), his wife Elizabeth (b. 1828) and four children aged between 12 and 18 years. A widow, margaret Anderson (b. 1797) resided with the family. Anderson was Irish, and a member of the Wesleyan methodist church. In addition to other farm goods, the Anderson fam-ily had produced 20 pounds of cheese (1871 census, division d-2, p. 33 #13). A farm labourer named Robert Crocker (b. 1820) resided on this township lot with his wife margaret (b. 1832) and two children aged 11 and 17 years. Crocker was a native of Eng-land and a member of the Church of England. The family owned one hog (1871 census, divison d-2, 12#2).

The southwest quarter of the lot was patented by Robert Armstrong on June 3, 1825. In April 1829, he sold the land to nicholas VanValkenbaugh for £37. The land was much improved in the 1830s, and when it was sold to John Hessey in September 1845, it was valued at £200. It was purchased by Thomas modeland in november 1845 (Chingaucousy Abstract Index, volume A, p 37). This land was sold to Peter Archdekin in 1868, and re-mained in possession of that family until the twentieth century (Chinguacousy Abstract Index, Volume B, p177). There was no indication of any structures on this part of the lot on the Tremaine map of 1859. By 1877, it contained a house, barn and orchard. There was a schoolhouse, which had formerly stood across the road on the land of george gray, and at the southwest corner of the lot. This land was sold to the School Trustees by Archdekin in 1873 (Chinguacousy Abstract Index, volume B, p. 177).

By the late nineteenth century, the west half of this lot, including lot 17 to the north, had been consolidated into a large parcel which was in the ownership of Peter Archdekin (Archaeolgoical Services Inc., 2008: 17-19)”.

Figures 26 and 27 illustrate the study area from the 1859 Tremaine map and the 1877 Illustrated Historic Atlas.


I 2-42

6.0 CUlTURAl HERITAgE lAnDSCAPES

Cultural heritage landscape is defined as:

… 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, dis-tinctive from that of its constituent elements or parts.

From the document, guidelines on the man-made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments (1983), cultural landscapes are defined as

The use and physical appearance of the land as we see it now as a result of man’s activities over time in modifying pristine landscape for his own purposes. A cultural landscape is perceived as a collection of individual man-made features into a whole. Urban cultural landscapes are sometimes given special names such as townscapes or streetscapes that describe various scales of perception from the general scene to the particular view.

A cultural feature is defined as:

…an individual part of a cultural landscape that may be focused upon as part of a broader scene, or viewed independently. The term refers to any man-made or modified object or on the land….such as buildings of various types, street furniture, engineering works, plantings and landscaping, archaeological sites, or a collection of such objects seen as a group because of close physical or social relationships.


I 2-43

6.1 lAnDSCAPE OF 4585 mAYFIElD ROAD

The landscape around the house is depicted in a satellite image obtained from google Earth (2010) on September 1, 2009. Because of the seasonal conditions, this imagery was used in conjunction with the site visit to identify landscape for the property. In addition, the ASI (2008) photographs of the property were used to assist in the assess-ment of landscape.

Figure 32. 4585 mayfield Road (Source: google maps)


I 2-44

There is currently a post and wire fence located around the property. The landscape along mayfield Road has recently been planted with 5 maple trees, and there is a large open ditch between these trees and mayfield Road. Bordering the west side are 9 large fir trees (north end) and 4 maple trees (south end) all in a row. The driveway section closest to mayfield Road is paved, and inside the fenced area, the driveway is gravel and has been enlarged to accommodate storage of road and construction materials, two trailers, etc. On the west side of the drive are four mature maple trees. On the east side of the driveway are seven pines, approximately 50’ in height. The property is not occu-pied, and there is general neglect with respect to the landscape, that is, the landscape is overgrown and natural vegetation has supplanted any “garden” variety of plants and grasses. The field to the west is agricultural and ploughed. The field to the south is agricultural and ploughed, and the field to the east is fallow, and occupied by natural regeneration growth. The rear of the property is bordered by a chain link fence. There are some apple trees located in the southwest corner, which may be remnants of an original orchard.

Figure 33. Facing southwest recently planted trees across front of property and fir trees at west boundary. (Source: SJAHCE)


I 2-45

Figure 34. Southwest corner, apple trees, chain link fence and temporary storage of road construction materials. (Source: SJAHCE)

Figure 35. Facing east chain link fence, driveway extension, storage of materials. (Source: SJAHCE)


I 2-46

Figure 36. Facing northerly tree line bordering east side of driveway (Source: SJAHCE)

A field survey of 4585 mayfield Road was conducted by the City of Brampton on August 28 2001 by Unterman mcPhail Associates. The following were noted:

• maple trees lining property • gravel drive, mature vegetation • no associated farm/outbuildings • Remnants of apple orchard to southeast of house • Floor of large garage/shed to northeast of house • Familiar landscape


I 2-47

6.2 lAnDSCAPE OF 1115 DIXIE ROAD

The landscape around the buildings is depicted in Figure 33 from a satellite image obtained from google Earth (2010) on August 31, 2009. Because of the seasonal con-ditions, this imagery was used in conjunction with the site visit to identify landscape for the property. In addition, the ASI (2008) photographs of the property were used to assist in the assessment of landscape.

The property is largely an agricultural complex including both modern and original features. There are gravel drives running in front, to the sides and to the rear of the structures. There are a number of large trees located at the front of the property, and at least one large tree located at the northeast corner of the barn complex. Fields to the east of the complex are agricultural and “familiar”. The fields to the north are separated by a treeline. The area of the south is occupied by trees and former agricultural fields. The general feeling of the cultural landscape is an industrial agricultural one. The area to the east of the property maintains its agricultural “familiarity”.

Figure 37. 1115 Dixie Road (Source: google maps)


I 2-48

Figure 38. Facing north cultural landscape (Source: SJAHCE)

Figure 39. Cultural landscape facing east (Source: SJAHCE)


I 2-49

6.3 lAnDSCAPE OF FARmSTEAD, mAYFIElD ROAD

The landscape around the house is depicted in Figure 36 from a satellite image obtained from google Earth (2010) on August 31, 2009. Because of the seasonal conditions, this imagery was used in conjunction with the site visit to identify landscape for the prop-erty.

The original house, which was located slightly northwest of the barn complex, was demolished prior to the October 2010 site visit. It has since been replaced by a model home. The driveway remains lined with maple trees and the barn area has grown up with neglect with natural vegetation. The area to the south of the most easterly barn has a concrete platform, which would have been originally used for cows. The fields to the east, west, and south are agricultural and maintain a general familiarity with agricul-tural pursuits.

In addition, the ASI (2008) photographs of the property were used to assist in the as-sessment of landscape.

Figure 40. mayfield Road Farmstead (Source: google maps)


I 2-50

Figure 41. Facing north – mature tree line along original farmstead drive (Source: SJAHCE)

Figure 42. Part of the property and agricultural field in distance, facing south-west (Source: SJAHCE)


I 2-51

Figure 43. Barnyard, concrete pad, facing northeast (Source: SJAHCE)

Figure 44. Barnyard, concrete pads, and distant cultural landscape with trees, fac-ing east (Source: SJAHCE)


I 2-52

6.4 lAnDSCAPE OF 1544 COUnTRYSIDE DRIVE

The landscape around the house is depicted in Figure 41 from a satellite image obtained from google Earth (2010) on August 31, 2009. Because of the seasonal conditions, this imagery was used in conjunction with the site visit to identify landscape for the prop-erty. In addition, the ASI (2008) photographs of the property were used to assist in the assessment of landscape.

A post and wire fence runs along the west and north sides of the property. The property has been parcelled off from its original association with a larger farmstead, and now is representative of a single family dwelling. Apple trees are in the yard, and may represent the original orchard of the farmstead. There are some mature maple and fir trees on the property and acting as a boundary along the property boundaries. There is silt fencing along the front of the house in association with the current dewatering program.

Figure 45. 1544 Countryside Drive (Source: google maps)


I 2-53

Figure 46. Facing north, boundary line of trees and apple trees in backyard (Source: SJAHCE)

Figure 47. Facing east, grassed yard and trees – side yard (Source: SJAHCE)


I 2-54

7.0 ARCHAEOlOgICAl BACKgROUnD

7.1 STAgE 1 ARCHAEOlOgICAl ASSESSmEnT

Archaeological Services Inc. (2008) conducted a combined Stage 1 archaeological re-source assessment and built heritage and cultural landscape assessment for lots 16 and 17, Concession 3 to 6 EHS, which encompasses the study area. The Stage 1 assessment was conducted under licence P163, held by mr. Peter Carruthers (P163-016-2007).

The evaluation of ASI for the block bounded by mayfield Road, Bramalea Road, Country-side Road and Dixie Road was: “With the exception of previously disturbed areas, exces-sive slope or low-lying and wet ground, the entire study area between Dixie Road and Bramalea Road should be subjected to a Stage 2 archaeological assessment prior to any land disturbing activities (ASI 2008: 9)”.

7.2 STAgE 1 – 4 ARCHAEOlOgICAl ASSESSmEnTS

This land Archaeology conducted a Stage 1 and 2 archaeological resource assessment in 2007 for the area of agricultural field located to the south and east of 4585 may-field Road (This land Archaeology 2008). The archaeological assessment was conducted under licence P059 and project information numbers P059-242-2007 and P059-243-2008 (same report). “no significant artifacts were found as a result of the survey of the culti-vated fields (This land Archaeology 2008: ii)”.

This land Archaeology also conducted a Stage 1 – 3 archaeological assessment from 2008 to 2010 on the lands which included the property with no address along mayfield Road (This land Archaeology 2010a). The archaeological work was conducted under li-cence P059 and project information numbers P059-241-2008 and P059-240-2009 (same report). Three historic sites were located during the Stage 2 assessment and two were subject to Stage 3 archaeological assessment. These archaeological sites were located to the east of the property with no address on mayfield Road, and are most likely evidence of the earliest occupations of the property.

A Stage 4 archaeological assessment was conducted by This land Archaeology on two of these sites, Patilda 1 and 3, in 2010 (This land Archaeology 2010b). This work was conducted under licence P059 and project information numbers P059-178-2010 and P059-180-2010 (same report).

Excavation of the Patilda Site 1 produced 5 features, of which only three produced arti-facts. The site has been interpreted as the area of the first generation log cabin on the site.


I 2-55

Excavation of the Patilda Site 3 produced three features of which one was interpreted as the possible stone-floored cellar of a frame house, and the second-generation house on the property.

This land Archaeology conducted a Stage 1 and 2 archaeological resource assessment for the area (2010c) around 1544 Countryside Drive and 1115 Dixie Road. Stage 2 test pitting around these two properties did not discover any archaeological sites.


I 2-56

8.0 HERITAgE REgISTER & EVAlUATIOn

Each of the four properties was evaluated under the Ontario Heritage Act, Ontario Regu-lation 9/06, Criteria for Determining Heritage Value or Interest.

8.1 HERITAgE REgISTER – 4585 mAYFIElD ROAD

The subject property is included on the Brampton Register of Cultural Heritage Resourc-es, also known as the “Heritage Inventory” (leonard 2010). In the Heritage Inventory, the property is evaluated as Class ‘A’.

This category is described as being “significant, worthy of preservation, [and its] mu-nicipal designation under the Ontario Heritage Act will always be considered”. The property’s inclusion on the Brampton Register of Cultural Heritage Resources, also called “listing”, is an administrative tool to monitor heritage resources but, in itself, does not have legal status under the OHA. A “listed” property would have to be historically designated under Subsection 27 of the OHA through passing a municipal by-law in order to be legally protected under the legislation. Properties are removed from the Heritage Inventory if they are designated and would instead be included in the City’s Heritage Designation Register. So the inventory itself comprises “listed” properties only and it recognizes that a property’s category or heritage value can determine its “designatabil-ity”.

The City’s website “Heritage FAQs’ page explains that “a heritage listing is an informal tool used to identify properties of cultural heritage value [whereas] a heritage designa-tion provides formal recognition of heritage value through the passing of a municipal by-law.” Under the OHA clause 27.(4).(b), notice of designation requires “a statement explaining the cultural heritage value or interest of the property and a description of the heritage attributes of the property”. listing does not necessitate the same level of documentation, however, some research is encouraged according to the Ontario ministry of Culture’s [now ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport] “InfoSheet: listing Cultural Heritage Properties on the municipal Register”: “Although detailed research and evalua-tion of the property is not required, a brief rationale should be provided explaining why it may be important to the community.”

The evaluation of 4585 mayfield Road was conducted by Unterman mcPhail in 2001. The historical significance was rated as high for association with a person. In this case, the structure is associated with the prominent Archeakin family from 1863 to the 20th century. Peter Archdeakin was the son of one of the early settlers of mayfield, Thomas Archdeakin. There are no known events associated with the house. The theme is agricul-tural settlement, dating from circa 1840 to 1880, and there is also an association with


I 2-57

the former crossroads of mayfield.

Architecturally, Unterman et. al. rated the design/aesthetics of the house as very good. It is described as “well designed vernacular with gothic Revival influences, with a centre dormer with vergeboard, and dichromatic brickwork.” The style and function of the house are also rated very good, and is considered a good example of a masonry farm-house. While the identity of the architect of the house is unknown, it is likely that Peter Archdeakin was the primary builder of the house. The integrity of the house is rated as good because the windows have been altered, and the front door opening has been reduced from its original larger configuration.

The contextual significance, as a landmark, is rated as good. It is a familiar structure located along mayfield Road. The streetscape/setting is rated as very good as the ag-ricultural landscape reinforces the rural character of the house. The character/site is rated as good (n=5) as the associated landscaped has been altered, outbuildings such as barns, etc. have been removed, and there are now fields in their stead. Subsequent evaluation of the house by ASI (2008) upgraded the original City of Brampton inventory rating from Class B to Class A (ASI 2008:33), based on being representative of “popular nineteenth century aesthetic sensibilities.”

The property summary by ASI (2008) of each identified heritage resource was docu-mented in a one page inventory sheet only. This HIA report provides a more in-depth assessment of the properties with focused historical research and documentation about the lands and buildings.

The assessment of the subject buildings represents the first site specific stage in review-ing its heritage significance. The City Heritage Coordinator and the BHB should also be authorized to re-evaluate this listed property based upon the new information in this report. The evaluation methodology for heritage resources should be based on the over-riding set of provincial criteria established in Ontario Regulation 9/06 under the Ontario Heritage Act (Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value) passed in January 2006 (OHA O.Reg 9/06)(government of Ontario 2006). In the ministry of Culture’s Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Property Evaluation, Section 4: municipal Criteria, Ontario Regulation 9/06 advises that “existing evaluation models may have to be revised to take into account the mandatory criteria set out in the regulation (ministry of Culture 2006).

The “Background Information” prefacing the City’s Register of Cultural Heritage Resourc-es (leonard 2007) acknowledges that the properties do have some variability: “listed properties may be subject to periodic re-evaluation and re-grading by the Heritage Coordinator, as additional information is uncovered or as properties undergo restoration or alteration.” For this particular property, its inventory rating does bring into question


I 2-58

whether it has sufficient heritage value to warrant designation. So the thorough review of each criterion in this report will serve as a re-evaluation of the heritage significance of this property.


I 2-59

8.2 HERITAgE EVAlUATIOn – 4585 mAYFIElD ROAD

The site specific research and more detailed review of the building conditions, including interiors, allows for a more accurate heritage assessment. Using the provincial criteria categories under the OHA to evaluate the heritage significance of the subject house, the following are applicable:

•� Design Value: The house is a good example of Ontario vernacular construction, and features Victorian elements and simple detailing. Defining design elements include the central gabled dormer with decorative bargeboard, finials, returned eaves, sum-mer kitchen addition on the back, polychrome brick work, brick transoms above windows and brick quoins.

•� Historical Value: The notable theme is agricultural/rural. While all of the outbuild-ings have been removed from the former farmstead, the property still is surrounded by agricultural fields and a tree lined driveway, typical of 19th century farmsteads. Among the previous farm owners is Peter Archdeakin, son of Thomas Archdeakin, one of the original settlers of the mayfield area. Peter Archdeakin served as a School Trustee over a number of years and contributed to the community. While the Arch-deakins may not have high importance on the provincial or national level, they do have high significance on a local level.

•� Contextual Value: This house is a familiar landmark for those who pass through the area. While the associative value of outbuildings such as barns, etc. has diminished its original importance, it remains an important landmark to the community.

generally, the house is in fair condition, with much of the detailing and trim along the roofline and eaves intact. The brick is in good condition, however there is spalling near the foundation and the southeast corner of the building.

The property at 4585 mayfield Road meets all of the criteria of the Ontario Heritage Act, Ontario Regulation 9/06, and warrants heritage designation under the Ontario Heritage Act.


Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment - Countryside Village SJAHCE & E.R.A. Architects Inc.

pg.55

4585 mayfield Road

I 2-60

I 2-61

8.3 HERITAgE REgISTER – 1115 DIXIE ROAD

The

brampton heritage board item i2 for april 17, 2012 · o distinguishing features include central...

Documents