brampton heritage board item i1 for june 21, 2011 · 2014-06-20 · veranda retains its decorative...

I 1-1

CLARK HOUSES HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 11157 MISSISSAUGA ROAD amp 1930 WANLESS DRIVE BRAMPTON ON

Prepared By Prepared For

Northwest Brampton Developments Inc 145 Reynolds St Suite 400 Oakville On L6J 0A7

Architects Rasch Eckler Associates Ltd 15 Lola Road Toronto Ontario M5P 1E5 Tel 4166961969 Fax 4166961966 May 31 2011

TBrenton
Text Box
Brampton Heritage Board13Date June 21 2011

I 1-2Clark Houses 11157 Mississauga Road amp 1930 Wanless Drive Brampton ON Heritage Impact Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Pages

Section 10 Property Description amp Report Background 1-5

11 Description amp Significance of the Farm Property 1-3 12 Methodology of HIA Report 4-5 13 Reference Documents for Heritage Evaluation 5

Section 20 Historical Background Site Analysis amp Evaluation 6-10

21 Historical Context 6-7 22 Site History 8-9 23 Site Description 10

Section 30 Identification of the Significance amp Heritage Attributes 11-16

31 Heritage Listing of the Property 11-12 32 Summary of Cultural Heritage Value 13 33 Heritage Evaluation of the Subject Property 14-16

Section 40 Description of Proposed Development 17-18

Section 50 Consideration of Non-Retention Mitigation amp Commemoration 19-25

51 Rationale for Non-Retention 19 52 Mitigation Alternatives 20-22 53 Other Commemorative Measures 23-25

Appendix I Photographs Nos 1 to 17

Appendix II Structural Engineer Report

Appendix III Firm Profile amp Curriculum Vitae

May 31 2011 For Northwest Brampton Developments Inc i


10 Property Description amp Report Background

11 Description amp Significance of the Farm Property Under a proposal for heritage architectural services dated April 9 2010 AREA Architects Rasch Eckler Associates Ltd (AREA) was retained to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) of the property known as 11157 Mississauga Road in the City of Brampton The assessment was carried out under contract to Northwest Brampton Developments Inc for submission to the City of Brampton prior to a proposed subdivision in connection with Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan Area in Northwest Brampton While Mississauga Road runs in a roughly north-westerly direction it will for the sake of convention and clarity be discussed as if it followed a northsouth alignment (much as Mayfield Road and Wanless Drive typically are described as running eastwest)

The subject property is located on the east side of Mississauga Road north of Wanless Drive and south of Mayfield Road in the City of Brampton Region of Peel (Figure 1) It is a portion of an original 100-acre farm comprised of the West half of Lot 16 Concession 4 WHS in the Geographic Township of Chinguacousy At present the only remaining structure on the property is a 19th century 1-frac12 storey stucco dwelling (see Photos 3-17 current photographs of the house which are referenced in the report are contained in Appendix I) The property at 11157 Mississauga Road is listed on the City of Bramptonrsquos Heritage Inventory

Fig 1 Detail of Topographical Map showing location of Subject Property

May 31 2011 For Northwest Brampton Developments Inc 1


10 Property Description amp Report Background (contrsquod)

11 Description amp Significance of the Farm Property (contrsquod) When David Eckler of AREA first viewed the property on November 19 2009 another larger 2shystorey residence also existed on the site at 1930 Wanless Drive to the east of the currently existing house At that time a review and the photographing of only the exterior[only] were undertaken (see Photos 1amp2 recent photographs of the former house are contained in Appendix I) because the building was boarded up and the ownerrsquos representative was not on hand to provide access inside This house was subsequently destroyed by fire on January 31 2010 which resulted in a total loss and a requirement by City Building officials to dismantle the remaining ruins The relative locations of the two farmsteads on Mississauga Road and Wanless Drive are illustrated in an annotated aerial photograph from prior to the 2010 fire (Figure 2) Since the grander residence no longer remains the heritage evaluation of the property in Section 30 to follow in this report will primarily relate to the remaining home fronting on Mississauga Road However although it no longer has a physical presence the easterly residence is still historically associated with the farm property as will be described in the site history under Section 20 below

The 1930 Wanless Drive farmstead was the second residence of James Clark who previously lived in the house that remains at 11157 Mississauga Road The now-demolished second James Clark received Heritage Designation under the Ontario Heritage Act by City of Brampton By-law No 62-83 passed on March 7 1983 At that time the property was owned by and the house was occupied by James L Clark the grandson of James Clark (1864-1907) The Reason for Designation in this by-law concentrates primarily on the Clark family having continuous ownership of the farm since it was ldquopurchased by the present ownerrsquos great grandfather Hugh Clark in 1837 for the sum of 112 pounds 10 shillingsrdquo A subsequent report by Unterman McPhail Associates (2008) elaborates more so on the architectural significance of this house with a description of its PhysicalDesign Value

Built c1884 this vernacular two storey brick residence exhibits design details of the Italianate architectural style such as the paired eaves brackets bay windows hip roof and decorative dichromatic brickwork Although now enclosed the front one storey veranda retains its decorative fretwork It has a slate roof

This residence clearly represented a higher quality of architecture than the earlier house resulting from a more prosperous farm operation as will be discussed in Sub-section 22 lsquoSite Historyrsquo With the lesser of the two houses remaining the central significance of the property becomes its historical association with the Clark family as established under the Sub-section 33 lsquoHeritage Evaluationrsquo Some of the architectural significance can however be recalled by means of salvaged material In the process of dismantling the fire-damaged structure in JanuaryFebruary 2010 considerable brick was retained and has been stored for re-use in a heritage-themed feature as part of the developmentrsquos public open space More description about the proposed historical interpretation of the former Clark Farm will conclude this report in Sub-section 53 lsquoOther Commemorative Measuresrsquo




11 Description amp Significance of the Farm Property (contrsquod)

Fig 2 Aerial Photograph of 11157 Mississauga Rd 1930 Wanless Dr amp Archaeological Site of Previous Historic Structure (Google 2009)




12 Methodology of HIA Report This HIA is submitted to support the development applications for the subject property including the Block Plan and Draft Plan of Subdivision David Eckler BES BArch OAA MRAIC of AREA whose curriculum vitae and firm profile are attached (Appendix III) was authorized by the property owner on June 1 2010 to prepare this HIA report AREA in turn engaged Rosi Zirger MA whose curriculum vitae is also attached as a sub-consultant historianheritage consultant to research the historical background of this property which has been incorporated in this report

As part of the assessment process a visit to the subject property was undertaken on July 5 2010 to view and photograph the building and its surrounding Historical research for this report was based primarily on historical information included in existing Archaeological Reports and Cultural Heritage Resource Report relating to the subject property Additional background research for this report was based on information gathered from available Land Registry records historical and aerial maps cemetery and census records and other published materials accessed at the Peel Land Registry Office the Brampton Public Library or accessed online Furthermore the Brampton Heritage Inventory was consulted online to determine if the property is a recognized designated or protected cultural heritage property

Evaluation and recommendations are based on the criteria established under Ontario Regulation 906 of the Ontario Heritage Act A property must have the potential to meet at least one of the criteria to be considered to have heritage significance These criteria fall into three categories design or physical value historical or associative value and contextual value

This document is supported by the guidelines and policies provided by the following

bull Ontario Heritage Act (RSO 1990) bull Provincial Policy Statement (2005) bull Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process (InfoSheet 5) (2006) bull Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2003) bull Guidelines for Preparing Heritage Impact Statement (City of Brampton 2008)

The conservation of cultural heritage properties is governed at the provincial level by the Ontario Heritage Act RSO 1990 with amendments up to 2006 (OHA) and Section 26 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology of the Provincial Policy Statement of the Planning Act 2005 (PPS) The PPS Policy 263 incorporates a requirement for an impact assessment on adjacent heritage resources

ldquoDevelopment 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 conservedrdquo

These two provincial pieces of legislation the OHA and PPS have been incorporated into the heritage policies of the City of Brampton But the PPS regulation does not specifically apply to this property since it is not designated under the OHA and hence by definition is not a ldquoprotected heritage propertyrdquo under this legislation

Instead the applicable municipal legislation governing this property would be the Brampton Official Plan 1993 which establishes the requirement of an HIA as follows




12 Methodology of HIA Report (contrsquod) 49111 A Heritage Impact Assessment may also be required for any proposed alteration work or development activities involving or adjacent to heritage resources to ensure that there will be no adverse impacts caused to the resources and their heritage attributes Mitigation measures shall be imposed as a condition of approval of such applications

The scope of this HIA report involves the evaluation of the remaining existing house structure on the property its history and context and the proposed development and its impact on the site This heritage evaluation cites several heritage policies historical documents and applicable references of the municipality the province and other sources which are listed below in Subshysection 13 lsquoReference Documents for Heritage Evaluationrsquo The format and content of this HIA generally follows the guidelines suggested in the Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process contained in the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit Also analogous to the provincial standards is the Cityrsquos Guidelines for Preparing Heritage Impact Assessment These content requirements are incorporated into the Sections 20 to 50 below except for some changes to section titles for relevance to the subject property and project

13 Reference Documents for Heritage Evaluation This HIA report evaluates the proposed development on the subject property with reference to the following heritage policies or historical architectural sources ndash general provincial and municipal ndash which are identified throughout the report Archaeologists Inc 2008 Stage 1 amp 2 Archaeological Assessment of 1930 Wanless Drive Brampton ON for Melrose

Investments Inc Oakville ON 2009 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment of Historic Site AkGx-65 1930 Wanless Drive Brampton

ON for Wanless Developments Inc Oakville ON 2009 Preliminary Excavation Report Stage 4 Archaeological Mitigation of Historic Site AkGx-65 1930

Wanless Drive Brampton ON for Melrose Investments Inc Oakville ON

Bertrand Elaine 1991 Alloa Methodist Cemetery Township of Chinguacousy Ontario Genealogical Society City of Brampton 2008 Guidelines for Preparing Heritage Impact Assessment

Ministry of Culture 2005 Ontario Heritage Act

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 1990 Ontario Planning Act 2005 Provincial Policy Statement

Parks Canada 2003 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada

Unterman McPhail Associates 2008 Built Heritage amp Cultural Heritage Landscapes Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan Area -Northwest

Brampton Report commissioned by the City of Brampton

Walker amp Miles 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Halton Toronto Walker and Miles



20 Historical Background Site Analysis amp Evaluation

21 Historical Context Although the territory we now know as southern Ontario has been occupied for millennia the following will present a brief description of European settlement from the late 18th century

The Constitutional Act (sometimes called the Canada Act) of 1791 created the Provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada (Craig 199317) John Graves Simcoe the first Lieutenant Governor of the Province initiated several schemes to populate and protect the newly created province as the ongoing threat of war with the United States required the borders to be populated quickly A settlement strategy that relied on the creation of shoreline communities and effective transportation links between the settlements was employed To this end the acquisition of lands inhabited by the First Nations was required

The first purchase of land from the Mississauga First Nations occurred in 1805 and included land between Etobicoke Creek and Burlington Bay and extended north about 5 miles from Lake Ontario The second purchase of the northern portion of the Mississauga Tract including the present Study Area was completed in October 1818 Richard Bristol undertook the first survey of Chinguacousy Township in 1819

Mainly United Empire Loyalists or their descendents who had come from New Brunswick New York or other parts of Upper Canada settled Chinguacousy Township In 1821 the Township had a population of only 412 with 320 acres of land under cultivation (Walker amp Miles 1877 64) In the 19th century Chinguacousy was considered to be a first class agricultural township

For administrative purposes the Townships in Peel County remained within the District of Home until 1851 when the county administrative system was created The administrative boundaries of Peel remained unchanged until 1974 when Chinguacousy Township was incorporated into the boundaries of the City of Brampton and it with the City of Mississauga and the Town of Caledon amalgamated to create the Region of Peel (Region of Peel 2000)



20 Historical Background Site Analysis amp Evaluation (contrsquod)

21 Historical Context (contrsquod)

Fig 3 Detail of Walker amp Miles Illustrated Historical Atlas (1877)




22 Site History The following site history is based partly on the information contained in the Cultural Heritage Resource Report for the Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan prepared by Unterman McPhail Associates (2008) and three Archaeological Assessments prepared by The Archaeologists Inc (2008 amp 2009) Additional historical research for preparation of this HIA was prepared by Rosi Zirger in July 2010 from Land Registry Office Records as well as Census and Cemetery Records and other archival materials at the Brampton Public Library or accessed online

The subject property known municipally as 11157 Mississauga Road was originally part of a 100-acre farm comprised of the West half of Lot 16 Concession 4 WHS in the Geographic Township of Chinguacousy In July 2010 the only structure remaining on the property was a 1shyfrac12 storey stucco dwelling The house is associated with the Clark family early 19th century settlers to Chinguacousy Township The property was also associated with another Clark residence an 1884 Italianate residence built on the east side on the subject 100-acre farm and fronting on Wanless Drive This other adjacent residence at 1930 Wanless Drive received Heritage Designation in 1983 However it burned down in January 2010 and has been removed from the property All other farm buildings have also been removed from the property

Hugh and Jean Clark (nee Gilchrist) (1820rsquos -1864)

Land Registry Office records indicate that the first registered owner of the property was Hugh Clark (Sr) who received a Crown Patent of the 200-acre Lot 16 Concession 4 WHS in September 1843 According to the Unterman McPhail report Hugh Clark (b 1784) and his wife Jean Gilchrist (b 1782) with their three children Margaret John and James emigrated from their native Ireland to New York State in the early 1900s The family moved to New York to join two Clark brothers Hugh and Jeanrsquos fourth child a daughter Jane were born in New York Hugh Jean and their children moved to Upper Canada arriving in York c 1822 They moved to Lot 16 Concession 4 WHS Chinguacousy Township around 1823 (some sources say 1837)

Hugh Clark occupied the Chinguacousy farm until his death at 80 years old in April 1863 It is not clear from archival records where the familyrsquos house was located According to the Unterman McPhail report no building is shown on Tremainersquos 1859 map of Chinguacousy Township However Stage 3 amp 4 Archaeological Assessments conducted in the fall of 2009 indicate the existence of a historic structure and household artefacts located west of the existing dwelling near the current alignment of Mississauga Road (Archaeologists Inc 2009) This was likely an earlier dwelling however it is not known who occupied it This earlier dwelling it should be noted was mistakenly thought to be located on the same site of and possibly incorporated into the existing Clark House The Listing Report for this house November 2007 states ldquoone could speculate that a portion of this home was once a log houserdquo But the actual location of the archaeological site of the pre-existing dwelling is west of the Clark House and abutting the Mississauga Road street line as illustrated in the aerial photograph (Figure 2)

In his Will made in 1863 Hugh Clark Sr made cash bequests to each of his daughters Margaret and Jane and left farm property to each of his three sons The eldest son John Clark received the 100-acre farm including the houses on the East half of Lot 16 Concession 4 WHS James Clark received the 100-acre farm on the West half of Lot 16 Concession 4 WHS (the subject property) The youngest son Hugh Clark Jr received the farm and house ldquowhere he livesrdquo on the West half of Lot 13 Concession 4 WHS also fronting on Mississauga Road but south of James Clarkrsquos inherited land These properties are shown on the 1877 Historical Atlas (Figure 3)




22 Site History (contrsquod) Hugh Clarkrsquos 1863 Will made provision for his wife Jean leaving her the use of ldquothat part of the dwelling house I now occupy that is to say the sitting room and bedroom now occupied by her and me with a room upstairs and also the privilege of the kitchen and cellar in the said house during the full and natural term of her natural liferdquo (Will 11540 registered Aug 8 1863) Although it is not clear where the house is located it can be surmised that Hugh and Jean occupied a house with one of their children

Hugh is buried at Alloa Methodist Cemetery at the southwest corner of Creditview Road (15th Side Road) and Wanless Drive (3rd Line West) His wife Jean Gilchrist who died in 1873 at 91 years old is buried next to him (Cemetery Records)

James Clark (1864-1907)

The 100-acre farm on the West half of Lot 16 Concession 4 WHS (subject property) was occupied by James Clark his wife Elizabeth (nee Lyons) and their four children ndash Hugh (b 1860) Jane (b 1863) John (b 1867) and Elizabeth (b 1872) According to the Unterman McPhail report the existing dwelling at 11157 Mississauga Road was built for the James Clark family around 1864 and the additional research of this HIA supports this year of construction The 1877 Historical Atlas shows a house a barn and an orchard at the same location as the present existing residence at 11157 Mississauga Road

James won prizes at the 1870rsquos and 1880rsquos agricultural exhibitions in Toronto for his livestock (Perkins Bull in Unterman McPhail 2008) Clearly his success in livestock farming also brought him a degree of financial wealth In 1884 James Clark built a large 2-storey Italianate house at the east side of his 100-acre farm fronting on Wanless Drive The 1891 Census Record indicates James and Elizabeth living with their three children Jane John and Elizabeth and niece Mary L Dolson and a nephew Samuel Dolson in a 13-room two-storey brick house (1930 Wanless Drive) A second house described as a 7-room two-storey brick dwelling was also noted on the property likely the existing house at 11157 Mississauga Road (Unterman McPhail 2008)

According to the 1901 Census Return 80-year old widower James Clark lived with his two adult daughters Jane and Elizabeth in the Wanless Drive house The second brick house (subject property) was still noted on the 100-acre farm and was possibly the residence of son John Clark and Mary Dolson and Thomas Gilkes who were noted as a separate household (Unterman McPhail 2008)

James Clark died in 1907 at about 86 years old In his Will (dated 1901) he leaves all his property to his two daughters Elizabeth and Jane noting that he had already made provisions for his two sons Hugh George Clark and John Lyons Clark (Will 7033 GR registered July 23 1948) Title to the 100-acre farm was not transferred for more than 40 years after Jamesrsquo death In 1949 Janersquos Estate (died 1942) released all title to her sister Elizabeth who had remained a spinster and lived in the house her whole life (Quit Claim 20971 regrsquod June 15 1949) In 1949 Elizabeth in turn transferred title to the 100-acre farm to herself Hugh John Clark Donald Henry Clark and James Lyons Clark all farmers to be held in partnership (Deed 20972 regrsquod June 15 1949) By 1969 each ownerpartner had sold their interest to James Lyons Clark who became the sole owner of the 100-acre farm (Inst 30754vs 0967 37676vs 1069 amp 116951vs 0869) James L Clark began subdividing and selling off portions of the farm by 1976 He retained the large house (1930 Wanless Drive) to the end of the 20th century




23 Site Description In July 2010 the only remaining structure on the subject property was a simple 19th century 1frac12 storey gabled dwelling with a 1-storey rear addition The original brick exterior has been covered over with white stucco and the medium-pitched roof in asphalt shingles The house was constructed to be south facing with a porch on the front which has been enclosed The main portion of house was constructed on a stone foundation which is still visible from the basement even though some walls have been partially covered with cement (see Photos 3-17) The original front (south) elevation of the house gives the appearance of a three-bay neo-classical style dwelling To the east of the simple centre door is a six-over-six window However there is no window on the opposite side nor is there any visible indication of a window having been enclosed The stairs to the upper level are located where one would expect to see a window so it is unlikely a window was part of the original construction Detailing of the gabled residence includes eave returns (only on the west side) and original 6-over-6 window sash The windows although original to the period of construction appear to be almost randomly placed The East Elevation facing the fields has four windows evenly placed and balanced as would be expected The west side however facing the driveway and road has only one lower window

The 1-storey rear addition is likely a later addition to the construction of the residence and built as a summer kitchen It has no basement The kitchen wing itself is a symmetrical three-bay structure The west elevation (facing the driveway and road) has a simple centre doorway which is flanked by six-over-six window sash An interesting feature of the kitchen addition is a second door almost directly opposite the west door which likely opened to the garden and other utility areas The east kitchen door has been covered over on the interior but is fully visible on the exterior A small window on the east side of the kitchen is typical of those found in utility areas of farmhouses The north window which has clearly been salvaged from another location is likely not original to the kitchen The stovepipe opening on the north wall indicates the likely location of a wood stove used for cooking and heating The 10-inch opening from the kitchen to the main part of the house still has remnant hinges and box lock indicating there was at one time a door separating the kitchen from the main house

The lower floor of the main house consists of a large room with two small rooms on the east side At present the north room is used as a bathroom and the south is a small bedroom The main portion of the house would have been heated with a single wood stove with an open grate in the ceiling allowing heat to rise to the upper floor The ceiling and interior walls appear to be plaster on lathe Stairways leading to the basement and to the upper sleeping loft are located against the west wall The 4-panel door at the bottom of the stairs and hardware is original to the housersquos construction Most of the other doors have been replaced Although the interior is simple the remaining windows and casings appear to be original The upper level consists of one large room with two small rooms on the east side The only windows are the south-facing dormer windows which was likely a later addition and two small windows in the east bedrooms

Regarding the house exterior the perimeter walls exhibit plaster on face brick and it is likely based on the period of construction that the original exterior finish was the exposed brick which was rendered later This is supported by the conditions of the exterior stucco extending around the entire structure including not only the brick main house but the enclosed former porch the rear kitchen extension and the garage The garage attached to the north side of the residence is clearly a later addition Little landscaping remains except for a few large pines which line the north side of the driveway The house is surrounded by farmland under cultivation and other farms remain in the area



30 Identification of the Significance amp Heritage Attributes

31 Heritage Listing of the Property The property at 11157 Mississauga Road has been listed on the City of Bramptonrsquos Heritage Inventory since December 2007The propertylsquos inclusion on the Cityrsquos Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Resources (known as the Heritage Inventory) also called ldquolistingrdquo is an administrative tool to monitor heritage resources but in itself does not have legal status under the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) The Cityrsquos notification of January 2008 informed the owner about the propertyrsquos heritage status as follows

The Inventory is only an administrative tool used by the City to identify document and promote heritage resources Inventory listing imposes absolutely no restrictions

Listing is used to promote and encourage on-going preservation and awareness Listing identifies which buildings and sites are actually significant and why they are significant It also itemizes the elements or attributes that contribute to that significance

The Inventory is also used to track building and demolition permits and other land use applications such as rezoning The listing process is not used to stall delay or circumvent any of these land use activities or to impose red tape

This description of the listing process explains in lay terms that the subject property is governed by the OHA under clause 27(12) and therefore is not historically designated under Subsection 27 A ldquolistedrdquo 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 So the inventory itself comprises listedrdquo properties with potential for heritage significance but without full research of its heritage value It is recognized that a propertyrsquos category or heritage value can determine its designatabilityrdquo

Each property listed on a Heritage Inventory would be typically graded by assigning points under a set of heritage attributes which are derived from the provincial OHA The evaluation method used by the City heritage staff and the Brampton Heritage Board (BHB) to grade heritage buildings would be based on the set of provincial criteria established in Ontario Regulation 906 under the OHA (Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value) passed in January 2006 (OHA OReg 906) In the Ministry of Culturersquos Ontario Heritage Tool Kit ldquoHeritage Property Evaluationrdquo Section 4 Municipal Criteria Ontario Regulation 906 advises that ldquoexisting evaluation models may have to be revised to take into account the mandatory criteria set out in the regulationrdquo These provincial criteria categories will be used to evaluate the heritage significance of the subject building according to the chart below



30 Identification of the Significance amp Heritage Attributes (contrsquod)

31 Heritage Listing of the Property (contrsquod)

OHA OReg 906 Criteria for Heritage Value

Description of OHA Heritage Criteria

1 Design or Physical Value i rare unique representative or early example of a style type expression material or construction method

ii high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit

iii high degree of technical or scientific achievement

2 Historical or Associative Value i direct associations with a theme event belief person activity organization or institution that is significant to a community

ii yields information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture

iii demonstrates the work or ideas of an architect artist builder designer or theorist who is significant to a community

3 Contextual Value i defining maintaining or supporting the character of an area

ii physically functionally visually or historically linked to its surroundings

iii a landmark

The evaluation of the subject house appears to have been based largely upon an exterior visual evaluation and background history This is not uncommon due to the limited resources of municipal staff andor volunteer heritage committees recommending inventory listings The listing process is also less onerous because as the notification letter explained ldquolistingrdquo has no legal implications on a property under the OHA as opposed to rdquodesignationrdquo which does Under the OHA clause 27(4)(b) notice of designation requires ldquoa statement explaining the cultural heritage value or interest of the property and a description of the heritage attributes of the propertyrdquo Listing does not necessitate the same level of documentation however some research is encouraged according to the Ontario Ministry of Culturersquos ldquoInfoSheet Listing Cultural Heritage Properties on the Municipal Registerrdquo ldquoAlthough detailed research and evaluation of the property is not required a brief rationale should be provided explaining why it may be important to the communityrdquo Presumably a staff-produced Built Heritage Evaluation Form was completed and is in the Culture Services files But to properly consider the future treatment of the subject house the aforementioned ldquobrief rationalerdquo should be prepared to establish its heritage significance of the log structure to the community within the context of its future development

The newly uncovered physical evidence of extensive alterations described above must be considered as new information This additional information about the house ndash the previous evaluations never accessed the buildingrsquos interiors for instance ndash brings into question whether it has sufficient heritage value for any recognition under the OHA The thorough review of each heritage criteria category under the OHA below will serve as a re-evaluation of the heritage significance of this structure




32 Summary of Cultural Heritage Value Based on the OHA OReg 906 criteria the description of the historic value for a heritage property has now been standardized under the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit 2006 in accordance with its guidelines for ldquoHeritage Property Evaluationrdquo and ldquoDesignating Heritage Propertiesrdquo This formalized description of heritage value involves identifying the key attributes of a building which as applied to the subject historic house would be summarized under the three main criteria headings as follows

Design Value The residence is an example of a simple rural farmhouse which may have defined the rural agricultural character of the area in the mid-19th century The house is a nicely proportioned south facing 1frac12 storey brick farmhouse with a 1-storey summer kitchen at the rear Numerous alterations are evident including replacement or removal of windows doors the porch the summer kitchen etc The exterior cladding was probably altered through the application of stucco on originally exposed brick Physical attributes of this simple farmhouse include its original layout eave return detail (remains only on the west side) existing 6-over-6 window sash on the lower floor and small 4-lite casement windows on the upper floor The three-bay summer kitchen itself exhibits design simplicity but was clearly a later addition

Historical Value This residence is historically connected with the Clark family who were early settlers to Chinguacousy Township James Clark who inherited the 100-acre farm from his father Hugh Clark Sr in 1863 is likely to have built the farmhouse the following year The style and detailing are consistent with houses of that period James Clark in 1884 constructed a large Italianate house on the farm located at 1930 Wanless Drive which served as the familyrsquos residence until the late 20th century The house at 1930 Wanless Drive burned in the fall of 2009 and all buildings have since been removed It is not known whether members of the Clark family actually resided in the 11157 Mississauga Road house after 1884

Contextual Value Contextually the farm may contribute to an understanding of 19th century rural life in Chinguacousy Township However no other agricultural buildings associated with the farmhouse and few mature trees or other landscape features remain to connect it to its landscape There are few remaining mid-19th century farmhouses in the area likely due to their being replaced by more substantial residences in the late 1800s as farming thrived This prosperity sequence occurred with James Clark Familyrsquos move from their original 1864 farmhouse to their 1884 estate home As a result mostly remaining in the area are large grand houses built in the late-19th century which clearly demonstrate the prosperity of the time in this part of Chinguacousy Township The estate house at 1930 Wanless was such an example The subject farmhouse at 11157 Mississauga Road represents what might have been a typical rural family home in earlier and more modest times

This summary of the housersquos heritage significance is related primarily to its historical association with the Clark Family In the design category this house has undergone considerable alterations and does not have a recognized architect builder or style which reduces its architectural value Its original agricultural context is removed and the character of this North-West Brampton area is in the process of substantial overall transformation resulting from its reshyzoning which is discussed in the next section




33 Heritage Evaluation of the Subject Property The ldquoBackground Informationrdquo prefacing the Cityrsquos inventory acknowledges that the propertiesrsquo grading do have some variability

The evaluation process for ldquolisting purposes is preliminary in nature Thus a ldquolisted property may be subject to periodic re-evaluation and re-grading by the Heritage Coordinators as additional information is uncovered or as properties undergo future restoration or alterations Properties may also be evaluated in greater depth as a result of a heritage impact assessment a cultural heritage study associated with block plans and secondary plans and with heritage designation

So the thorough review of each criterion in this report will serve as the basis for a re-evaluation of the heritage significance of this property

The evaluation system used by the City heritage staff to grade potential heritage buildings is based on the broader and over-riding set of provincial criteria established in Ontario Regulation 906 under the OHA To re-assess the farmhouse property the Cityrsquos Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest has been utilized in the charts below

Municipal Address 11157 Mississauga Road Brampton ON Property Name James Clark House

HISTORICAL VALUE OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE

E 100

VG 80

G 50

F 30

D 0

Sub Score

Sub Grade

Rationale

1 Has a direct associations with a person organization or institution that is significant to a community

20 16 10 6 0 1000 Historical association is with James Clark who was a prominent farmer although he was not a political leader or otherwise renown in culture or for innovation

2 Has a direct associations with an event or activity that is significant to a community

20 16 10 6 0 600 James Clark won prizes at agricultural exhibitions in Toronto during the 1870s amp 1880s yet this does not constitute an event of local provincial or national significance

3 Has a direct associations with a theme or belief that is significant to a community

20 16 10 6 0 600 Clark Family was associated with nearby Alloa (Home) Methodist Church as were also many other families in the area

4 Yields or has the potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of a community

20 16 10 6 0 1000 This house does partially explain the prosperity cycle of the mid- to late- 19th century but only in conjunction with the second James Clark House formerly at 1930 Wanless Dr

5 Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect artist builder designer or theorist

20 16 10 6 0 000 No designer builder or style is reflected in this house which has no distinct architectural features

HISTORICAL SUB-GRADE SCORE 3200 C




33 Heritage Evaluation of the Subject Property (contrsquod)

DESIGN VALUE OR PHYSICAL VALUE

E 100

VG 80

G 50

F 30

D 0

Sub Score

Sub Grade

Rationale

6 Is a rare unique representative or early example of a style type expression material or construction method

333 2664 1665 998 0 998 This 1864 farmhouse may be rare in the area because most were replaced by grander homes later in the century but its ad-hoc and altered condition makes it a poor example among other better versions in Peel Region

7 Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit

333 2664 1665 998 0 998 No significant craftsmanship or artistic elements are found in the much-altered house interiors amp exterior

8 Demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement

333 2664 1665 998 0 000 No particular technical innovation is evident in this commonplace vernacular house

DESIGN SUB-GRADE SCORE 1996 D

CONTEXTUAL VALUE E 100

VG 80

G 50

F 30

D 0

Sub Score

Sub Grade

Rationale

9 Is important in defining maintaining or supporting the character of an area

333 2664 1665 998 0 000 Character of area is changing from rural to a medium-density mixed use which is incompatible with the farmhouse

10 Is physically functionally visually or historically linked to its surroundings

333 2664 1665 998 0 998 House will not be linked to its surroundings because of change from its agricultural use to its new commercialresidential zoning

11 Is a landmark 333 2664 1665 998 0 998 Existing house site is too far away from Mississauga RdWanless Dr intersection however its commemorative heritage feature can participate in the open space at the mixed use node at Wanless Dr amp the N-S Spine Road as will be discussed in sub-section 53

CONTEXTUAL SUB-GRADE SCORE 1996 C

OVERALL CATEGORY GRADE ndash based on highest sub-score 3200 C 0-25 (D) 26-39 (C) 40-69 (B) 70-100 (A)

OVERALL GRADE FROM SUB-SCORES ndash average of sub-scores 2397 C 0-25 (D) 26-39 (C) 40-69 (B) 70-100 (A)




33 Heritage Evaluation of the Subject Property (contrsquod) According to the Cityrsquos scoring matrix as completed above the subject property accumulated an overall grade of 38 in Category lsquoCrsquo based on its highest sub-score under the lsquoHistorical Valuersquo criteria the second lowest heritage category This Category lsquoCrsquo classification is described as having ldquoContributing Valuerdquo whose properties contribute to the ldquostreetscape neighbourhood or the Cityrdquo and are further described as follows

Individually they generally possess limited design physical historical associative andor contextual value These resources have generally been altered or modified significantly resulting in the loss of heritage value Retention preservation care and recognition of these resources shall be encouraged only where appropriate Listing in the Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Resources will only be considered on a case-by-case basis Heritage designation will only be considered on a case-by-case basis

The evaluation of the property in this sub-section demonstrates the lack of heritage significance of the building in its current conditions and context On this basis the house on the property does not warrant designation under the OHA and with its Category lsquoCrsquo grading need only be retained ldquowhere appropriaterdquo



40 Description of Proposed Development An amendment to the City of Bramptonrsquos Official Plan has designated the Clark farm and other land in Northwest Brampton as a Mixed Use area which will include Medium Density Residential development with commercial use at the corner of Mississauga and Wanless (Figures 4 amp 5) This OPA was part of the incorporation of the North West Brampton (NWB) lands into the Cityrsquos Urban Boundary which included this area within the Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan (MPSP) Within the NWB lands and its Mount Pleasant Sub-Area the subject property is within the Block Plan Area 51-1 of the MPSP which is to the north of the Mount Pleasant Village (MPV) Mobility Hub The Village Core will comprise community amenities focussed around an historic CPR Railway Station which will be rebuilt next to the new GO Station as part of a new library

Fig 4 Land Use Schedule Bramptons Official Plan Amendment Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan Area Block Plan Area 51-1



40 Description of Proposed Development (contrsquod) The proposed development requires the removal of all structures from the property Furthermore storm water management requires changes to the natural grade and slope Accordingly it is anticipated that the subject property will see upwards of 3 metres of fill in order to achieve the required grading

Fig 5 Detail of Preliminary Block Plan 51-1 Layout Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan Area



50 Consideration of Non-Retention Mitigation amp Commemoration

51 Rationale for Non-Retention As demonstrated above by its grading the house structure should be retained only ldquowhere appropriaterdquo which in this case does not apply The planning rationale for not retaining this house is related to the Natural Heritage System (NHS) which is a significant feature of the MPSP policies The NHS is intended to protect restore and enhance ldquoValleylands and Watercourse Corridors Woodlands Wetlands and Environmental Buffers as well as restoration areas and connecting corridorsrdquo (MPSP 552) In order to conserve the existing ravine areas the storm water management plan for Block 51-1 must raise the elevation level at the location of the subject house by approximately 3 metres The proposed regrading to conserve the ravines in the MPSP Area necessitates that the historically-listed Clark House cannot be retained in situ The NHS and its associated macro-grading represent a public infrastructure improvement to provide the development with storm water conveyance and natural green belts This is an instance where an infrastructure initiative in the form of the arearsquos natural heritage conflicts with the logistics of retaining a historic building in its location

The conflict of public needs with conservation policies is discussed in the Ontario Ministry of Culturersquos Architectural Conservation Notes ldquoNote 6 Heritage Conservation Principles for Land-use Planningrdquo as follows (underlines added for emphasis)

The decision making process should always presume in favour of retaining the heritage resource The only exception to this rule is when there is a demonstrated public benefit of greater importance than the protection of the heritage resource

The NHS initiative must be considered as an overriding ldquopublic benefitrdquo to the MPSP lands whose regrading is more important than the retention of the Clark House in-situ Of the provincial OHA Criteria for assessing heritage value only the historical attribute is valid for consideration to be referenced in the proposed development As such the historic aspect of the property could instead be represented through other mitigation alternatives as prescribed in the Architectural Conservation Notes 6 (underlines added)

Where negative impacts are unavoidable effective mitigation must be applied includinghellipmoving to an appropriate setting commemoration on site or elsewhere or recording the resource before any negative changes are made

The non-retention options therefore represent a mitigation strategy that supports the public benefit of the NHS as indicated by the above conservation principle This new MPSP sub-area already incorporates a built heritage-related public benefit in the Mount Pleasant Village Mobility Hub (MPV) which is centred on the restored historic CPR Train Station As a more localized heritage feature therefore the Block Plan Area 51-1 does not necessarily need a built heritage manifestation especially if its representative building the Clark House is not a significant example and is impossible to retain on its site



50 Consideration of Non-Retention Mitigation amp Commemoration (contrsquod)

52 Mitigation Alternatives The reasons for not being able to retain the existing Clark House in-situ have been explained in the previous sub-section As discussed the salvage mitigation of the building elements must therefore be a compromise with other requirements for the development within the overall planning regulatory framework ndash particularly re-grading for the NHS initiative This compromise approach toward heritage and other criteria is fundamental to planning legislation and is also acknowledged by the federal Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (underlines added) ldquoa need to strike a reasonable balance betweenhelliphealth and safety accessibility energy efficiency and ecological concerns while respecting heritage valuerdquo This compromise approach should be applied to assess the condition and (low) value of the historic house in a manner which will at the same time satisfy the other concerns and constraints of current building and planning standards within the new development

In addition to the planning constraints from natural heritage preservation building standards also limit the mitigation alternatives that are possible for the subject house Since one mitigation strategy would be a relocation of the house an engineering report has been prepared (Appendix II) to review the structural conditions related to moving the building David Seberras PEng a structural engineer with considerable experience in building relocation (see resume following report in Appendix II) visited the site and examined the housersquos structural integrity The resulting structural report observes that the log joists of the ground floor are deteriorated by dry rot insects and various ad-hoc supports over the years This ground floor structure must be replaced to the current code requirements which as Mr Seberras points out would risk the housersquos overall stability

This existing ground floor structure however is deteriorated does not meet current construction standards and requires its entire replacement to provide the necessary structural support if the house is to continue in use over a long term Such a replacement of the ground floor structure carries some risks and if it is undertaken must be done with the utmost care and with considerable temporary bracing Such bracing must be implemented over the period of the joist replacement work and would rely on a stable sub-grade and surrounding grade support for the temporary support Clearly a building relocation would risk its overall structural stability by not having the bracing founded on a stable continuous ground support

This structural report concludes that ldquofrom our firmrsquos experience it is our assessment that this building cannot be relocated without the potential of compromising its structural integrityrdquo This assessment therefore supports and reiterates the low grading assigned to the house under the ldquotechnical achievementrdquo sub-criteria since the technical aspects of a historic building are associated with its condition or ldquolevel of heritage integrity or preservationrdquo as prescribed in Bramptonrsquos Criteria for Heritage Value The ground floor structure is therefore structurally unsound and too fragile to permit moving the house As a result the relocation option for the house cannot be considered viable for any new location either on the same property or elsewhere in the City

This structural assessment entails that mitigation alternatives other than relocation must be considered for the subject house In order to evaluate the full range of alternative strategies for this house the following table provides a consideration of generally accepted mitigation options including alternatives already invalidated and others as they apply to the subject property




52 Mitigation Alternatives (contrsquod)

Mitigation Alternative Type

Description Evaluation Pros or Cons

Possible Not Possible

Retention This option provides for cultural heritage resources to be retained in their original location

Con - This conservation option is not possible because of the incompatible Block Plan layout and re-grading for stormwater management

Not Possible

Ruinification This option allows for the exterior of the structure to be maintained on the site

Con - The existing structure does not exhibit sufficient style or craftsmanship to warrant ruinification Also the incompatible Block Plan and re-grading preclude this alternative

Not Possible

Relocation This option allows for a cultural heritage resource to be moved within or beyond the subject property provided an appropriate context is maintained This mitigation strategy is premised on the historic structure being moved to retain its integrity and value

Con - The existing house is not capable of being moved without risking its structural integrity

Not Possible

Symbolic This option allows for the Con - The existing structure has no Not Possible Conservation recovery of unique heritage particular features that are unique

components and or significant Also the incorporation into the new incompatible Block Plan and reshyconstruction on the site in grading preclude this alternative remembrance of the past

Salvage amp This option allows the Con - This structure in its existing Possible Documentation demolition of the structures

ensuring thorough documentation of the property is carried out and that architectural components such as interior trim or brick be removed for re-use elsewhere prior to demolition

condition does not retain sufficiently valuable elements to merit salvaging But at the same time this farm property does recall the 19th agricultural Chinguacousy Township which therefore warrants its documentation

Pro - This farm property would be more appropriately commemorated with a plaque explaining its sequence of Clark Family homes As a source of salvaged elements the previous demolished house at 1930 Wanless Drive does offer some retained materials for incorporation into a public amenity together with the plaque




52 Mitigation Alternatives (contrsquod) This chart reinforces the sub-section 33 lsquoHeritage Evaluationrsquo in that the historical significance of the property does not need to be manifested in the physical building itself Instead the structure then becomes more like an archaeological or cultural heritage site Under this approach the housersquos elements are treated like historic artifacts to be reincorporated into the new development as a salvage mitigation In this regard the adjacent City of Mississauga has identified such salvage mitigation alternatives in their Guidelines for Preparing Heritage Impact Assessment item 39 as follows (underlines added for emphasis)

When a property can not be conserved alternatives will be considered for salvage mitigation Only when other options can be demonstrated not to be viable will options such as relocation ruinfication or symbolic conservation be considered bull Relocation of a heritage resource may indicate a move within or beyond the subject

property The appropriate context of the resource must be considered in relocation bull Ruinification allows for the exterior only of a structure to be maintained on a site bull Symbolic conservation refers to the recovery of unique heritage resources and

incorporating those components into new development or using a symbolic design method to depict a theme or remembrance of the past

As such the heritage aspect of the property could be mitigated through various strategies including relocation of salvage elements their incorporation in public structures like a gazebo and commemoration in signage panel andor plaque




53 Other Commemorative Measures The relocation strategy has proven out to be after a structural investigation an unfeasible mitigation alternative The circumstances of the house conditions and its limited load capacity preclude its relocation and reuse due to a variety of reasons

bull structural unsoundness of the building precludes its relocation and would jeopardize the housersquos structural stability

bull replacement of deteriorated floor framing would be risky and financially disproportionate with respect to any potential tenant-user for the restored house and

bull a Block Plan layout which is incompatible in its densities and uses with a farmhouse setting

The Brampton OP Cultural Heritage policies acknowledge such factors in determining the appropriate mitigation for a historic structure Policy 49110 addresses the specific reasons above respectively stating that ldquodue consideration will be given to the following factors in reviewing such applicationshellip

bull The current condition and use of the building or structure and its potential for future adaptive re-use

bull The property ownerrsquos economic circumstances and ways in which financial impacts of the decision could be mitigatedhellip

bull Planning and other land use considerationsrdquo

The Cityrsquos Guidelines for an HIA anticipate that such circumstances may arise preventing a heritage structure from being either retained or relocated

For example in certain rare instances demolition might be permissible if a heritage building is confirmed as structurally unsound is heavily damaged or otherwise compromised to such a degree that rehabilitation and restoration is unfeasible

If the heritage building cannot be preserved intact some of its elements can be incorporated into other public space features As such the heritage aspect of the property should be mitigated through documentation salvaging of unique elements and commemoration as prescribed in the previously-cited Architectural Conservation Notes 6

Because the house cannot be retained in-situ nor relocated this report recommends that the City of Brampton allow the demolition of the Clark House at 11157 Mississauga Road with appropriate documentation selective retrieval of artifacts and a commemorative strategy This HIA with its Section 20 lsquoHistorical Research Site Analysis amp Evaluationrsquo already provides the research material to constitute the historical reference material for archival purposes Through this historical research the Clark House can still provide even after its demolition beneficial research material for the history of this area of North-West Brampton in Peel Region and its other farmsteads The research material can eventually be transposed into a commemorative heritage plaque and can be quite valuable as a cultural heritage record for the City of Brampton




53 Other Commemorative Measures (contrsquod) The City recognizes that important sites can be commemorated through their Historic Plaque Program administered by the BHB This property is associated with a notable lsquoPersonrsquo James Clark and has a rich thematic history related to farming in the Mississauga Road area and surrounding the nearby hamlet of Alloa These themes should be utilized in the text of a plaque for this site The historical background of the site has an association with the James Clark Family who were early settlers of the Township of Chinguacousy in present-day North-West Brampton The heritage significance of this property relates to this notable family the nineteenth century rural life and its location near the MississaugaWanless intersection which can be commemorated using some or all of the following measures

bull a unique heritage feature like a pavilion or gazebo in the proposed Town Square to the east of the subject house location

bull reuse of the salvaged materials from the former farmhouses incorporated in this heritage feature or otherwise

bull a historic plaque with text about the Clark Family andor

bull the naming of the nearby Town Square andor a street in this area of the subdivision after the Clark Family

These commemorative measures can be incorporated in combination or independently to recall the original Clark Farm Once the appropriate commemoration for this heritage property has been determined from among or combining the options above the applicantrsquos consultants can work with City staff to develop them in detail

The interpretive plaque or panel site could be elaborated as part of an outdoor shelter within the Town Square configured primarily in its roof profile to resemble the second James Clark House which although now lost through a fire was the more architecturally significant of the two homes on this farm As previously explained the existing house contains few or no significant artifacts to be salvaged But the second and grander James Clark House of 1884 on the east side of his farm formerly having the address of 1930 Wanless Drive was designated under the OHA and had significant architectural design value which has more fully described in its Designation Report and a building assessment in the Unterman McPhail report This 1884 house did provide upwards of 20 skids of brick from its demolition after being burnt down This brick was salvaged is being stored and will be incorporated into the heritage feature of the Town Square The Community Design Guidelines (CDG) for Block Plan 51-1 was prepared by the developmentrsquos landscape architect NAK Design Group and proposes several heritageshythemed features for this Town Square such as the following

bull Integrating remnant materials (ie salvaged farmhouse brick) into various park components such as signage seatwalls shade structures architectural elements etc

bull Name recognition in which primary components of the Town Square or the park as a whole are dedicated to the Clark family for example Clark Pavilion Clark Gardens Clark Squarehellip

bull Interpretive signage at the main entry to the park that describes the Clark family and their early settlement farming legacy

bull Town Square planting palette that reflects native garden designs common to the early settlement period of the area




53 Other Commemorative Measures (contrsquod) The proposed heritage feature(s) in the Town Square should ideally represent and interpret the Clark Family farmstead in its various stages The Town Square is the open space associated with and just to the north of the at the mixed use node as itrsquos labelled in the Secondary Plan (Figure 4) at the intersection of Wanless Dr and the N-S Spine Road The heritage feature in this nodal public space fulfils the Cityrsquos OP heritage policies related to Implementation

49913 Lost historical sites and resources shall be commemorated with the appropriate form of interpretation

49914 The City will undertake to develop a signage and plaquing system for cultural heritage resources in the City

The Town Square is an appropriate location for this heritage feature as it sits between the two James Clark Houses which can then be interpreted together

It is understood that for the subsequent application processes of Block Plan Approval and Site Plan Agreement (SPA) City planning and heritage staff will require more detailed information relating to the heritage feature including but not limited to the following documentation

bull design detailing

bull materials and colours

bull re-use of salvaged masonry

bull roof profile and structure for outdoor shelter

bull interpretive plaque or panel text and graphics etc

AREA will provide its heritage expertise to prepare the various aspects of the heritage feature design to satisfy City requirements The implementation process for this heritage feature will be undertaken by AREA in conjunction with the other consultants for the development as part of their comprehensive architectural heritage consultant responsibilities for this project



APPENDIX I ndash PHOTOGRAPHS NOS 1 to 17

All current photographs were taken by authors of report on November 19 2009 for 1930 Wanless Drive (Photos 1amp2) and on July 5 2010 for 11157 Mississauga Road (Photos 3-17) unless indicated otherwise

May 31 2011 For Northwest Brampton Developments Inc AI - 0

I 1-29Clark Houses 11157 Mississauga Road amp 1930 Wanless Drive Brampton ON Heritage Impact Statement

Photo 1 1930 Wanless Dr South amp West Elevations (view from driveway) (Nov 2009)

Photo 2 1930 Wanless Dr North amp East Elevations view at rear (Nov 2009)

May 31 2011 For Northwest Brampton Developments Inc AI -1


Photo 3 11157 Mississauga Road West Elevation summer kitchen (centre) (Nov 2009)

Photo 4 11157 Mississauga Road South amp West Elevations note eave return amp single window on west elevation Porch enclosure is a contemporary alteration (Nov 2009)



Photo 5 11157 Mississauga Road East Elevation balanced window placement door amp small window in kitchen eave returns missing from east elevation Garage (right) is contemporary addition

Photo 6 11157 Mississauga Road South Elevation porch enclosure is a contemporary alteration Flat-headed dormer might later addition



Photo 7 11157 Mississauga Road View of Basement original stone foundation remains

Photo 8 11157 Mississauga Road East View inside Porch original 66-window (left) right wall amp east door (centre) are later alterations (Photo 5 east elevation shows a window behind east door)



Photo 9 11157 Mississauga Road West View inside Front Porch centre door into main house (right) note absence of window to west of front door

Photo 10 11157 Mississauga Road First Floor Interior facing southeast



Photo 11 11157 Mississauga Road First Floor Interior facing southwest original front entrance (left) upper floor stairs (centre) amp basement door (left)

Photo 12 11157 Mississauga Road Upper Floor southeast view



Photo 13 11157 Mississauga Road Upper floor northwest view

Photo 14 11157 Mississauga Road North view of Kitchen



Photo 15 11157 Mississauga Road Southeast view of Kitchen

Photo 16 11157 Mississauga Road View West from House mature pines along north side of driveway



Photo 17 11157 Mississauga Road View North from Wanless Drive Clark House (centre)



APPENDIX II ndash STRUCTURAL ENGINEER REPORT

11157 Mississauga Road Brampton Structural Review David Seberras PEng May 13 2011 David Seberras PEng ndash CV

May 31 2011 For Northwest Brampton Developments Inc AII -0

I 1-39

May 13 2011

AREA Architects Rasch Eckler Associates Ltd 15 Lola Road Toronto Ontario M5P 1E5

ATTN David Eckler

FROM David Seberras PEng Firm BCIN 30361

RE 11157 Mississauga Road Brampton The Clark House

We have conducted a site visit for the purpose of reviewing the structural integrity of the subject house The building is comprised of a central two-storey residence a front porch rear addition and garage The two story structure has been constructed on a rubble stone foundation The foundation has more recently had concrete ldquobenchingrdquo installed in order to increase the ceiling height in the basement The front porch and the rear addition have both been constructed on concrete floating slabs The garage is a pole barn-type construction where wooden timbers form the main columns for the structure

We reviewed the general condition of the house exterior and no major structural concerns were evident above grade The inspection of the interior main floor revealed some possible water damage to the ceiling in two locations There were no visible signs of structural problems in the walls on the main floor The upper floor was in a similar condition

The basement of the two story residence was inspected The construction of the floor structure is typically partly-hewn timbers common for the period The floor joists are tree trunks with only the top edge sawn to accommodate the floor planking The timbers are set into the rubble stone foundation The timber joists appear to have had ongoing issues Several areas have been retrofitted with timber columns placed randomly as structural issues have arisen over the years The structural integrity of the floor joists is questionable There are obvious signs of dry rot and some evidence of deterioration due to insects

The floor joists form the main structure to support the building and are embedded into the foundation making their replacement problematic Changing these timber supports is very difficult and has the potential to cause problems with the foundation the support of the ground floor its internal walls and the overall stability of the structure during the process Based on our observations and experience the replacement of the floor joists presents a significant challenge Providing access to the basement for the joist replacement ensuring interim structural support removing the existing timbers has the potential to damage the foundation and floor planking and place the structural integrity of the building into question

I 1-40

These timber joists are critical to the structural integrity of the historic house They provide support to the ground floor the substructure to the internal walls and in spanning the perimeter walls the overall stability of the building structure These joists in their current poor condition must be replaced under any circumstance if this house is intended to be retained and certainly so if it will be moved But due to their inherent interconnection with the house structure their replacement could jeopardize the structural integrity of the house As a single-family dwelling unit this ground floor structure may be substandard but does not carry a high risk because of its moderate use

This existing ground floor structure however is deteriorated does not meet current construction standards and requires its entire replacement to provide the necessary structural support if the house is to continue in use over a long term Such a replacement of the ground floor structure carries some risks and if it is undertaken must be done with the utmost care and with considerable temporary bracing Such bracing must be implemented over the period of the joist replacement work and would rely on a stable sub-grade and surrounding grade support for the temporary support Clearly a building relocation would risk its overall structural stability by not having the bracing founded on a stable continuous ground support Such bracing for the joist replacement is therefore even more precarious for a relocation than in-situ structural reinforcement which itself is not without risks

My firm has provided structural engineering services for the relocation of more than 40 historic buildings over the past 15 years (see resume attached) Although a few of these heritage structures required some amount of reinforcement prior to their being moved none of them have required their supporting substructure to be replaced which risked their structural stability From our firmrsquos experience it is our assessment that this building cannot be relocated without the potential of compromising its structural integrity

I 1-41

Seberras Professional Services is owned by David Seberras PEng Since 1996 I have been directly involved in the structural and civil aspects for several dozen building relocationsrehabilitations a large percentage of these projects have been designated as Heritage Our firm has provided the engineering required to relocated these buildings and provide code compliance design for the foundations and the structure Our services also include site plans grading and storm water management analysis

Some our recent heritage projects include (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

Old Post Inn Kingston RdSalem Whitby James Cooper Mansion Sherbourne St Toronto Lawn Bowling Club 550 Broadview Toronto Old Town Hall Highway 10 Caledon

RESUME David Wesley Seberras Eng

(I) Education

1973 ndash Graduated (University of Waterloo) BSc Engineering

1979 ndash Completed Canadian Institute of Management CIM (WLU)

2005 ndash Completed an Advanced Structural Design refresher course - Completedpassed the Professional Engineers of Ontario

exam for Advanced Structural Design

(II) Work Experience

19731977 Angelstone Limited Cambridge Supervisor - design of heavy manufacturing lines and specialized processing equipment for the brick

industry - supervision of the maintenanceengineering departments

19771985 Steetley Industries Dundas Operations Manager - responsible for all aspects of operations for aggregate

production including maintenance quality control and plant design

1985 1996 Dufferin Aggregates Toronto Operations Manager - complete responsibility for multiple plant aggregate processing facilities including engineering

large processing plants

I 1-42

RESUME Contrsquod

1996present - Seberras Professional Services Ltd Providing engineering services for foundations structural site plans for projects that include the following

(i) relocationrehabilitation of historicother structures (ii) self storage facilities (iii) large greenhouse projects (iv) industrial buildings (v) commercial buildings (vi) residential constructionrenovations (vii) agricultural (equestrian) facilities (viii) agricultural (storage) buildings

(III) Memberships

Registered with the associations of Professional Engineers in the provinces of Ontario Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia Yukon and New Brunswick

-


APPENDIX III ndash FIRM PROFILE amp CURRICULUM VITAE

AREA Architects Rasch Eckler Associates Ltd ndash Firm Profile David Eckler BES BArch OAA MRAIC ndash CV Rosi J Zirger MA ndash CV

May 31 2011 For Northwest Brampton Developments Inc AIII -0

I 1-44 FIRM PROFILE

Architects Rasch Eckler Associates Ltd HERITAGE amp MUSEUM WORK

AREA Architects Rasch Eckler Associates Ltd (AREA) is a full service firm based in Toronto and operating across Canada which specializes in the restoration and adaptive re-use of historic buildings urban design for heritage streetscapes and approvals under the Ontario Heritage Act AREA having a firm history extending over 30 years of practice is managed by 3 principals and has eight technical staff ndash including intern architects interior designers and architectural technologists ndash with experience in the documentation and restoration of historic buildings and sites Although we are qualified for heritage and museum projects the members of our firm have also undertaken a wide range of institutional and commercial projects often involving the integration of historic components into new developments

Our firm and its staff are members of various heritage associations and advisory boards across Canada David Eckler BES BArch OAA MRAIC is an active member in many heritage associations including the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Advisory Board He is a former Vice-Chair of Heritage Toronto which advised Toronto City Council on heritage matters as a LACAC under the Heritage Act Bernard Rasch BArch PPOAA FRAIC ARIBA has served on a number of heritage committees and boards including the Markham District Historical Society and City of York Historical Committee and the Metro Board of Management for The Guild from 1984 to 1998 where he served in many positions including Chair amp Vice-Chair of the Board

AREA has considerable experience with heritage facilities faccedilade improvements restoration and conversions as indicated by the following projects (Toronto locations unless indicated) Historical Faccedilade Improvement Guidelines amp Heritage Districts bull Stouffville Main Street Revitalization 1998 DEA was presenter at workshop bull Yonge Street Commercial Faccedilade Improvement Program 1996 received City approval of grant bull Woodstock Faccedilade Improvement Program 1995 DEA initiated program for City bull Hazelton-Yorkville Area Heritage Conservation District Study City-sponsored study bull Fergus Downtown Community Masterplan amp Design Guidelines

Historic Museums Institutional amp Cultural Buildings bull Officersrsquo Quarters (1830) Military amp Naval Establishment Discovery Harbour Penetanguishene bull Spence Half-Way House Restoration (c 1850) Muskoka Pioneer Village Huntsville bull Sharon Temple Compound (1821) Sharon York Region bull Heliconian Hall (first Olivet Sunday Schoolhouse circa 1876) (Yorkville) bull Cedar Ridge Studio Gallery (1918) 225 Confederation Drive (Scarborough) bull Aurora Historical Society Museum (1886 school) 22 Church Street Aurora bull The Niagara Institute (early 20thc) 9 Weatherstone Crt Niagara on the Lake bull St Lawrence Hall (1840) ndash renovations of town hall to accommodate National Ballet School

Historic House Restorations bull Jacob Ross House Restoration (1852) 108 Stayner Ave bull William Wonch House Restoration (1840) 2777 Woodbine Ave Markham bull Robert Milroy House Restoration (c 1833) 7111 Reesor Rd Markham bull McDougall Farmhouse (1893) Heritage Assessment James Snow Parkway Milton ON bull Devonian House Restoration amp Addition (circa 1923) 144 John St E Niagara on the Lake bull Savage House amp Blacksmith Shop (c1840) 1480 Derry Rd E Mississauga

Converted Historic Residences bull Old Post Inn (c 1830) 367 Kingston Road East Ajax bull Valley Halla Villa (Jackson Residence 1922) Toronto Zoo Rouge Valley Scarborough bull Armour Heights Officers Mess (1913 lsquoStrathrobynrsquo) Canadian Forces College 215 Yonge Blvd bull Bellevue Daycare Centre (1887) 95 Bellevue Ave bull Gerrard amp Bay Historic Houses (1860-1890) 68-84 Gerrard St W bull Toronto French School Restoration (Sifton Estate 1923) 294 - 318 Lawrence Ave E

I 1-45

EDUCATION

University of Waterloo BArch (1985) BES (1982)

MEMBERSHIPS

Ontario Association of Architects

(Councillor amp Chair Awards Committee)

Royal Architectural Institute of Canada

Canadian Association of Professional Heritage Consultants (CAPHC)

Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Advisory Board

Society for the Study of Architecture in Canada

CAREER SUMMARY

AREA Architects Rasch Eckler Associates Ltd

President 2001 to Present

David Eckler Architect 1991 ndash 2001

Page amp Steele Architects 1989 ndash 1991

Arthur Erickson Architects 1986 ndash 1989

DAVID ECKLER BES BArch OAA MRAIC AREA Architects Rasch Eckler Associates Ltd President amp Principal ndash Senior Project Architect

David Eckler is the firmrsquos principal and is responsible for the administration and design of all projects in the office Mr Eckler has over 15 years experience in the design of medium-size institutional facilities for government non-profit agencies and other organizations including schools community centres museums and private galleries Mr Eckler is involved most particularly with the Concept Design Design Development and Contract Documents phases of projects

Mr Ecklerrsquos previous firm David Eckler Architect (DEA) established in 1992 specialized in heritage conservation including feasibility studies preservation planning infill projects within historic districts adaptive re-use and building restoration David is an active member in many architectural and heritage associations including the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Advisory Board He is a past member of the Canadian Association of Professional Heritage Consultants and is a former Vice-Chair of Heritage Toronto which advised Toronto City Council on heritage matters as a LACAC under the Heritage Act and as an advisory board for the cityrsquos museums Mr Eckler has particular experience in the restoration of heritage properties that are located within public parks An example of such a project is the restoration of the Officersrsquo Quarters within the Discovery Harbour marine heritage park in Penetanguishene

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE Toronto location unless indicated Heritage Restoration bull Wonch House (1840) Relocation amp Restoration bull Third Church of Christ Scientist (1928) Redevelopment bull Eglinton Hunt Club (1929) Condominiums bull Aurora Historical Society Museum (1886 school) 22 Church St bull Officersrsquo Barracks (1830) Discovery Harbour Penetanguishene bull Savage House amp Blacksmith Shop (c1840) Mississauga bull Perry Street Fire Hall (circa 1889) Renovation Woodstock bull Medical Arts Building Restoration (circa 1929) bull Heliconian Hall (first Olivet Church 1876) Yorkville

Institutional Uses in Historic Residences bull Toronto French School (Sifton Estate 1924) Restoration Plan bull Armour Heights Officersrsquo Mess (lsquoStrathrobynrsquo 1913) DND College bull Hutton House (1853) Community Centre St Marys bull Valley Halla Villa (Jackson Res 1922) Toronto Zoo Scarborough bull Bellevue Daycare Centre (1887) bull Adamson House (1927) Cawthra Estate Park Port Credit

Heritage Planning Parks amp Streetscape Design bull Yorkville-Hazelton Avenue Heritage Conservation District bull Fergus Downtown Masterplan amp Design Guidelines bull Yonge Street Commercial Faccedilade Improvement Program bull Woodstock Faccedilade Improvement Program bull Limehouse Kilns Heritage Masterplan Halton Hills bull Ardmore Park Retirement Estates St Marys bull Fergus Downtown Masterplan amp Park bull Great George Street Historic Streetscape Charlottetown PEI bull Confederation Commemorative Park Charlottetown PEI bull Gerrard amp Bay Historic Houses (1860-1890) Mews Parkette bull Palazzo Alcala Walled Garden Madrid Spain

I 1-46

CURRICULUM VITAE

ROSI J ZIRGER MA 2 Village Drive RR 3 Niagara on the Lake ON L0S 1J0

EDUCATION TRAINING

Willowbank School of Restoration Arts Queenston ON (Diploma in Heritage Conservation -2009)

University of Toronto Toronto ON (MA 1997) University of Toronto Toronto ON (BA 1994) Centennial College Toronto ON (Law Clerk Certificate 1977)

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Principal Rosi Zirger Heritage Conservation Consultant -Research in local amp architectural history -Analysis of historic buildings

Built Heritage amp Historic Research Specialist Archaeological Research Associates Ltd Waterloo ON

Researcher Heritage Welland Committee Welland ON -Historical Research amp Architectural Analysis

SELECTED PROJECTS AS A HERITAGE CONSULTANT

Heritage Impact Assessment 6136 Ninth Line Mississauga ON (Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 2010)


Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory Port Dover-Nanticoke Wind Project Haldimand-Norfolk ON (Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 2010)

Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment Dixie Road Caledon ON (Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 2010)

Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment Steeles Avenue amp Airport Road Brampton ON (Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 2010)

Conservation Plan St Markrsquos Rectory Niagara on the Lake ON (2009)

I 1-47

Conservation Plan London Psychiatric Hospital London ON (contributor - Julian Smith amp Assoc Architect 2008)

Conservation Plan St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital St Thomas ON (contributor - Julian Smith amp Assoc Architect 2008)

Historical Report Grand Victorian Niagara on the Lake ON (commissioned by owner 2008)

Existing Conditions Report The Gardenerrsquos Cottage Dundurn Castle NHS Hamilton ON (Contributor ndash Craig Sims Built Heritage Consultant 2008)

Historic Property Study amp Management Plan Stark House Thorold ON (contributor ndash Julian Smith Architect 2007)

__________________________________________________________________________

I 1-48STAFF COMMENT FORM

Heritage Impact Assessment

Name of ApplicantAgent

Northwest Brampton Developments Inc

Municipal Address

11157 Mississauga Road and 1930 Wanless Drive Brampton Ontario

HIA Details

Prepared by Architects Rasch Eckler Associates Ltd (AREA) Prepared September 2010 Received November 18 2010 (ongoing revisions) Resubmitted June 2011

The Heritage Resources

11157 Mississuaga Road The property is a 19th century 1 frac12 storey stucco dwelling It is situated on the

East side of Mississauga Road north of Wanless Drive and south of Mayfield Road in the City of Brampton Ontario

The Clark House 111157 Mississauga Road (circa 1860s) is a listed Heritage Inventory with the City of Brampton

1930 Wanless Drive The 1930 Wanless Drive farmstead was the second residence of James Clark

who previously lived in the house that remains at 11157 Mississauga Road The now-demolished second James Clark received Heritage Designation under the Ontario Heritage Act by City of Brampton By-law No 62-83 passed on March 7 1983

This house was subsequently destroyed by fire on January 31 2010 which resulted in a total loss and a requirement by the City to dismantle the remaining ruins

General Comments

David Eckler of AREA was authorized by the property owner on June 1 2010 to prepare this HIA report

I 1-49Report Highlights

AREA Architects Rasch Eckler Associates Ltd was retained to conduct a Heritage Impact assessment (HIA) of the property known as 11157 Mississauga Road (April 9 2010)

The assessment was carried out under contract to Northwest Brampton Developments Inc for submission to the City of Brampton prior to a proposed subdivision in connection with Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan Area in Northwest Brampton

Heritage Value

2

I 1-50

The evaluation of the property demonstrates the lack of heritage significance of the building in its current conditions and context On this basis the house on the property does not warrant designation under the OHA and with its Category lsquoCrsquo grading needs only be retained ldquowhere appropriaterdquo

Rationale for Non-Retention

The planning rationale for not retaining this house is related to the Natural Heritage System (NHS) which is a significant feature of the MPSP policies The NHS is intended to protect restore and enhance ldquoValleylands and Watercourse Corridors Woodlands Wetlands and Environmental Buffers as well as restoration areas and connecting corridorsrdquo (MPSP 552) In order to conserve the existing ravine areas the storm water management plan for Block 51-1 must raise the elevation level at the location of the subject house by approximately 3 metres The proposed regrading to conserve the ravines in the MPSP Area necessitates that the historically-listed Clark House cannot be retained in situ



3

I 1-51

Mitigation Options

This property is associated with a notable lsquoPersonrsquo James Clark and has a rich thematic history related to farming in the Mississauga Road area and surrounding the nearby hamlet of Alloa These themes should be utilized in the text of a plaque for this site The historical background of the site has an association with the James Clark Family who were early settlers of the Township of Chinguacousy in present-day North-West Brampton The heritage significance of this property relates to this notable family the nineteenth century rural life and its location near the MississaugaWanless intersection which can be commemorated using some or all of the following measures

bull a unique heritage feature like a pavilion or gazebo in the proposed Town Square to the east of the subject house location bull reuse of the salvaged materials from the former farmhouses incorporated in this heritage feature or otherwise bull a historic plaque with text about the Clark Family andor bull the naming of the nearby Town Square andor a street in this area of the subdivision after the Clark Family


STAFF RECOMMENDATION

The Heritage Impact Assessment reveals that the house located at 11157 Mississauga Road contains few or no significant artifacts to be salvaged However the second and grander James Clark House of 1884 on the east side of his farm formerly having the address of 1930 Wanless Drive was designated under the OHA and had significant architectural design value which has more fully described in its Designation Report and a building assessment in the Unterman McPhail report There are upwards of 20 skids of brick from its demolition after being burnt down The brick was salvaged is being stored and can be incorporated into the heritage feature of the Town Square The Community Design Guidelines (CDG) for Block Plan 51-1 was prepared by the developmentrsquos landscape architect NAK Design Group and staff concurs with the proposed heritage themed features for this Town Square which includes





4

I 1-52

Staff concurs that the Town Square is an appropriate location for this heritage feature as it sits between the two James Clark Houses which can then be interpreted together City planning and heritage staff will require more detailed information relating to the heritage feature including but not limited to the following documentation

bull design detailing bull materials and colours bull re-use of salvaged masonry bull roof profile and structure for outdoor shelter bull interpretive plaque or panel text and graphics etc

5

SPS Area 1157 Miss Rd_CLARK HOUSE-05_13_11_edII

10-541_Melrose_11157 Mississauga Rd -HIA-05_31_11_dVIII+cvrtocappxI-III

1 Page Firm Profile_Heritage Museums-08_17_05_f1pdf

Spence Half-Way House Restoration (c 1850) Muskoka Pioneer

Historic House Restorations

Jacob Ross House Restoration (1852) 108 Stayner Ave

William Wonch House Restoration (1840) 2777 Woodbine Ave

Robert Milroy House Restoration (c 1833) 7111 Reesor Rd

McDougall Farmhouse (1893) Heritage Assessment James Snow P

Devonian House Restoration amp Addition (circa 1923) 144 John

Savage House amp Blacksmith Shop (c1840) 1480 Derry Rd E

Converted Historic Residences

Old Post Inn (c 1830) 367 Kingston Road East Ajax

Valley Halla Villa (Jackson Residence 1922) Toronto Zoo R

ClarkHouse-HIA-updatedJune2011


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Pages

Section 10 Property Description amp Report Background 1-5

11 Description amp Significance of the Farm Property 1-3 12 Methodology of HIA Report 4-5 13 Reference Documents for Heritage Evaluation 5

Section 20 Historical Background Site Analysis amp Evaluation 6-10

21 Historical Context 6-7 22 Site History 8-9 23 Site Description 10

Section 30 Identification of the Significance amp Heritage Attributes 11-16

31 Heritage Listing of the Property 11-12 32 Summary of Cultural Heritage Value 13 33 Heritage Evaluation of the Subject Property 14-16

Section 40 Description of Proposed Development 17-18

Section 50 Consideration of Non-Retention Mitigation amp Commemoration 19-25

51 Rationale for Non-Retention 19 52 Mitigation Alternatives 20-22 53 Other Commemorative Measures 23-25

Appendix I Photographs Nos 1 to 17

Appendix II Structural Engineer Report

Appendix III Firm Profile amp Curriculum Vitae

May 31 2011 For Northwest Brampton Developments Inc i












































































































iii a landmark




















E 100

VG 80

G 50

F 30

D 0

Sub Score

Sub Grade

Rationale

















E 100

VG 80

G 50

F 30

D 0

Sub Score

Sub Grade

Rationale









VG 80

G 50

F 30

D 0

Sub Score

Sub Grade

Rationale

















































Not Possible



Not Possible



Not Possible






































































































I 1-39

May 13 2011


ATTN David Eckler







I 1-40




I 1-41





(I) Education












I 1-42

RESUME Contrsquod



(III) Memberships


-





I 1-44 FIRM PROFILE








I 1-45

EDUCATION


MEMBERSHIPS







CAREER SUMMARY












I 1-46

CURRICULUM VITAE


EDUCATION TRAINING














I 1-47






__________________________________________________________________________





Municipal Address


HIA Details









General Comments





Heritage Value

2

I 1-50






3

I 1-51

Mitigation Options










4

I 1-52



5



























































































































iii a landmark




















E 100

VG 80

G 50

F 30

D 0

Sub Score

Sub Grade

Rationale

















E 100

VG 80

G 50

F 30

D 0

Sub Score

Sub Grade

Rationale









VG 80

G 50

F 30

D 0

Sub Score

Sub Grade

Rationale

















































Not Possible



Not Possible



Not Possible






































































































I 1-39

May 13 2011


ATTN David Eckler







I 1-40




I 1-41





(I) Education












I 1-42

RESUME Contrsquod



(III) Memberships


-





I 1-44 FIRM PROFILE








I 1-45

EDUCATION


MEMBERSHIPS







CAREER SUMMARY












I 1-46

CURRICULUM VITAE


EDUCATION TRAINING














I 1-47






__________________________________________________________________________





Municipal Address


HIA Details









General Comments





Heritage Value

2

I 1-50






3

I 1-51

Mitigation Options










4

I 1-52



5
































E 100

VG 80

G 50

F 30

D 0

Sub Score

Sub Grade

Rationale

















E 100

VG 80

G 50

F 30

D 0

Sub Score

Sub Grade

Rationale









VG 80

G 50

F 30

D 0

Sub Score

Sub Grade

Rationale

















































Not Possible



Not Possible



Not Possible






































































































I 1-39

May 13 2011


ATTN David Eckler







I 1-40




I 1-41





(I) Education












I 1-42

RESUME Contrsquod



(III) Memberships


-





I 1-44 FIRM PROFILE








I 1-45

EDUCATION


MEMBERSHIPS







CAREER SUMMARY












I 1-46

CURRICULUM VITAE


EDUCATION TRAINING














I 1-47






__________________________________________________________________________





Municipal Address


HIA Details









General Comments





Heritage Value

2

I 1-50






3

I 1-51

Mitigation Options










4

I 1-52



5




















E 100

VG 80

G 50

F 30

D 0

Sub Score

Sub Grade

Rationale









VG 80

G 50

F 30

D 0

Sub Score

Sub Grade

Rationale

















































Not Possible



Not Possible



Not Possible






































































































I 1-39

May 13 2011


ATTN David Eckler







I 1-40




I 1-41





(I) Education












I 1-42

RESUME Contrsquod



(III) Memberships


-





I 1-44 FIRM PROFILE








I 1-45

EDUCATION


MEMBERSHIPS







CAREER SUMMARY












I 1-46

CURRICULUM VITAE


EDUCATION TRAINING














I 1-47






__________________________________________________________________________





Municipal Address


HIA Details









General Comments





Heritage Value

2

I 1-50






3

I 1-51

Mitigation Options










4

I 1-52



5























































Not Possible



Not Possible



Not Possible






































































































I 1-39

May 13 2011


ATTN David Eckler







I 1-40




I 1-41





(I) Education












I 1-42

RESUME Contrsquod



(III) Memberships


-





I 1-44 FIRM PROFILE








I 1-45

EDUCATION


MEMBERSHIPS







CAREER SUMMARY












I 1-46

CURRICULUM VITAE


EDUCATION TRAINING














I 1-47






__________________________________________________________________________





Municipal Address


HIA Details









General Comments





Heritage Value

2

I 1-50






3

I 1-51

Mitigation Options










4

I 1-52



5














































































































I 1-39

May 13 2011


ATTN David Eckler







I 1-40




I 1-41





(I) Education












I 1-42

RESUME Contrsquod



(III) Memberships


-





I 1-44 FIRM PROFILE








I 1-45

EDUCATION


MEMBERSHIPS







CAREER SUMMARY












I 1-46

CURRICULUM VITAE


EDUCATION TRAINING














I 1-47






__________________________________________________________________________





Municipal Address


HIA Details









General Comments





Heritage Value

2

I 1-50






3

I 1-51

Mitigation Options










4

I 1-52



5
















I 1-40




I 1-41





(I) Education












I 1-42

RESUME Contrsquod



(III) Memberships


-





I 1-44 FIRM PROFILE








I 1-45

EDUCATION


MEMBERSHIPS







CAREER SUMMARY












I 1-46

CURRICULUM VITAE


EDUCATION TRAINING














I 1-47






__________________________________________________________________________





Municipal Address


HIA Details









General Comments





Heritage Value

2

I 1-50






3

I 1-51

Mitigation Options










4

I 1-52



5
















I 1-41





(I) Education












I 1-42

RESUME Contrsquod



(III) Memberships


-





I 1-44 FIRM PROFILE








I 1-45

EDUCATION


MEMBERSHIPS







CAREER SUMMARY












I 1-46

CURRICULUM VITAE


EDUCATION TRAINING














I 1-47






__________________________________________________________________________





Municipal Address


HIA Details









General Comments





Heritage Value

2

I 1-50






3

I 1-51

Mitigation Options










4

I 1-52



5
















I 1-42

RESUME Contrsquod



(III) Memberships


-





I 1-44 FIRM PROFILE








I 1-45

EDUCATION


MEMBERSHIPS







CAREER SUMMARY












I 1-46

CURRICULUM VITAE


EDUCATION TRAINING














I 1-47






__________________________________________________________________________





Municipal Address


HIA Details









General Comments





Heritage Value

2

I 1-50






3

I 1-51

Mitigation Options










4

I 1-52



5




















I 1-44 FIRM PROFILE








I 1-45

EDUCATION


MEMBERSHIPS







CAREER SUMMARY












I 1-46

CURRICULUM VITAE


EDUCATION TRAINING














I 1-47






__________________________________________________________________________





Municipal Address


HIA Details









General Comments





Heritage Value

2

I 1-50






3

I 1-51

Mitigation Options










4

I 1-52



5
















I 1-45

EDUCATION


MEMBERSHIPS







CAREER SUMMARY












I 1-46

CURRICULUM VITAE


EDUCATION TRAINING














I 1-47






__________________________________________________________________________





Municipal Address


HIA Details









General Comments





Heritage Value

2

I 1-50






3

I 1-51

Mitigation Options










4

I 1-52



5
















I 1-46

CURRICULUM VITAE


EDUCATION TRAINING














I 1-47






__________________________________________________________________________





Municipal Address


HIA Details









General Comments





Heritage Value

2

I 1-50






3

I 1-51

Mitigation Options










4

I 1-52



5
















I 1-47






__________________________________________________________________________





Municipal Address


HIA Details









General Comments





Heritage Value

2

I 1-50






3

I 1-51

Mitigation Options










4

I 1-52



5
















__________________________________________________________________________





Municipal Address


HIA Details









General Comments





Heritage Value

2

I 1-50






3

I 1-51

Mitigation Options










4

I 1-52



5



















Heritage Value

2

I 1-50






3

I 1-51

Mitigation Options










4

I 1-52



5
















I 1-50






3

I 1-51

Mitigation Options










4

I 1-52



5
















I 1-51

Mitigation Options










4

I 1-52



5
















I 1-52



5














