cultural heritage overview report · 2016-09-16 · report: cultural heritage overview report town...

Appendix E

Cultural Heritage Overview Report

Appendix E

DRAFT

REPORT:

Cultural Heritage Overview Report

Town of Perth Landfill

Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc.

347 McEwen Drive Kingston, Ontario K7M 3W4

Phone: 613-331-0988 Fax: 613-546-9451 E-mail: [email protected]

September 9, 2016 Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc. Project # LHC0038

DRAFT

Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc. Project # LHC0038

i

This page has been left blank deliberately

DRAFT


ii

Report prepared for: Lyle Parsons, B.E.S., VP Environment, R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited

Report prepared by: Christienne Uchiyama, M.A. Marcus Létourneau, PhD, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Reviewed by: Marcus Létourneau, PhD, MCIP, RPP, CAHP

DRAFT


iii

Table of Contents 1.0 STATEMENT OF PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Background ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

2.0 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 2

3.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................................. 4 3.1 Project Location .............................................................................................................................................................. 4 3.2 General Historical Background ....................................................................................................................................... 6

3.2.1 Land Use History ............................................................................................................................................................ 8

4.0 CONSULTATION AND SITE VISITS ................................................................................................................................................ 13

5.0 POLICY AND LEGISLATION CONTEXT ......................................................................................................................................... 14 5.1 Provincial Acts, Regulations, Plans, and Guidelines .................................................................................................... 14

5.1.1 Planning Act ................................................................................................................................................................. 14 5.1.1.1 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2014) ................................................................................................................... 14

5.1.2 Ontario Heritage Act ..................................................................................................................................................... 15 5.1.2.1 Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest ............................................................ 15 5.1.2.2 Evaluation against Regulation 9/06 ........................................................................................................................... 16

5.1.3 Environmental Assessment Act .................................................................................................................................... 16 5.1.4 Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act ................................................................................................................. 16

5.1.4.1 Regulation 30/11 General .......................................................................................................................................... 16 5.2 Local Planning Context ................................................................................................................................................. 17

5.2.1 Lanark County .............................................................................................................................................................. 17 5.2.1.1 Lanark County Community Vision and County Strategic Plan (2005) ....................................................................... 17 5.2.1.2 Lanark County Sustainable Communities Official Plan (2013) .................................................................................. 17 5.2.1.3 Other Lanark County Documents .............................................................................................................................. 18

5.2.2 Town of Perth ............................................................................................................................................................... 19 5.2.2.1 Town of Perth Strategic Plan 2022 Update (May 26, 2015) ...................................................................................... 19 5.2.2.2 Town of Perth Official Plan (2000) ............................................................................................................................. 19 5.2.2.3 Other Town of Perth Documents ............................................................................................................................... 20

5.2.3 Township of Drummond/ North Elmsley ....................................................................................................................... 21 5.2.3.1 Official Plan of the Township of Drummond North Elmsley (2012) ............................................................................ 21 5.2.3.2 Other Township of Drummond/ North Elmsley Documents ....................................................................................... 21

6.0 IDENTIFICATION OF RECOGNIZED AND POTENTIAL CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES ................................................. 22 6.1 Recognized Cultural Heritage Resources .................................................................................................................... 22

6.1.1 Rideau Canal Waterway ............................................................................................................................................... 22 6.1.1.1 UNESCO Statement of Outstanding Universal Value................................................................................................ 23 6.1.1.2 Rideau Canal National Historic Site of Canada Commemorative Integrity Statement............................................... 23 6.1.1.3 Rideau Waterway Canadian Heritage River Designation Statement. ........................................................................ 24

6.1.2 Locally Recognized Cultural Heritage Resources ........................................................................................................ 24 6.2 Potential Cultural Heritage Resources ......................................................................................................................... 25

7.0 IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ................................................................................................................................. 27

DRAFT


iv

8.0 SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS ................................................................................................................ 29

9.0 IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT ........................................................................................... 30

10.0 SOURCES ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 31

DRAFT


v


DRAFT


1

1.0 STATEMENT OF PROJECT Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc. (LHC) was retained by Lyle Parsons, VP Environment, R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited on behalf of their client, the Town of Perth (the Town), to prepare a Cultural Heritage Overview Report (CHOR) for the Town of Perth Landfill Site, located in Perth, Ontario. The purpose of this CHOR is to identify any known or potential cultural heritage resources with the Study Area, per the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s 2015 Guideline document for Environmental Assessments (EAs). 1.1 Project Background The Town’s existing landfill, located on part of Lots 27 and 28 Concession 10 in the Town of Perth, Ontario, has reached its approved capacity and is operating under an interim Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA). The landfill currently serves as the sole waste disposal facility for the Town’s residents, business and industry. It has been a key component of the Town’s infrastructure since its establishment in 1968.1 In order to allow for continued operation, the Town is required to obtain approval to expand the landfill.

The Town is currently studying options to expand its landfill under Ontario Regulation (O.Reg.) 101/07, known as the Waste Management Projects Regulation under the Environmental Assessment Act. An Individual Environmental Assessment (EA) was initiated by the Town in 2013 to address its future solid waste disposal needs. Based on guidance provided by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) the Town now intends to use an Environmental Screening Process in place of the individual EA. This new Environmental Screening Process (The Process) is being carried out under Ontario Regulation 101/07 of the Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act). The Process is a proponent lead self-assessment. It does not require approval from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, but does require consultation with relevant government agencies. The purpose of the Process is to assess advantages and disadvantages of expanding the landfill, identify potential impacts, and design appropriate mitigation measures to avoid or lessen potential impacts. Consultation with interested agencies, stakeholders, Aboriginal communities and the general public is an important part of the Process.2

Preliminary design plans for additional infrastructure required for the expansion of the landfill site are included as Appendix B. The additional waste area is not expected to extend beyond the current footprint of the waste area, and will be bounded by the existing ring road. A retaining pond may be constructed in a fallow agricultural field located on the existing property to the north of the identified waste disposal area.

1 R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited, “Phase 1 Environmental Screening Report for the Expansion of the Town of Perth Landfill,” Report prepared for the Town of Perth, February 2016: 10. 2 Ibid: 4.

DRAFT


2

2.0 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS Adjacent means those lands contiguous to a protected heritage property or as otherwise defined in the municipal Official Plan. Built heritage means one or more significant buildings (including fixtures or equipment located in or forming part of a building), structures, monuments, installations, or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic, or military history and identified as being important to a community. For the purposes of these Standards and Guidelines, “structures” does not include roadways in the provincial highway network and in-use electrical or telecommunications transmission towers. Conserve means identifying, protecting, using, and/or managing cultural heritage resources in such a way that retains their heritage value. “Conserving” and “conservation” have corresponding meanings. Cultural heritage landscape means a defined geographical area of heritage significance that human activity has modified and that a community values. Such an area involves a grouping(s) of individual heritage features, such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites, and natural elements, which together form a significant type of heritage form distinct from that of its constituent elements or parts. Heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trails, and industrial complexes of cultural heritage value are some examples. Cultural Heritage Value is the aesthetic, historic, scientific, cultural, social or spiritual importance or significance for past, present and future generations. The cultural heritage value of a cultural heritage resource is embodied in its heritage attributes, including its materials, forms, location, spatial configurations, uses and cultural associations or meanings. Development means the construction or placing of buildings or structures on land; the addition to or alteration of existing buildings or structures; site alteration, including but not limited to, alteration of the grade of land, and placing or dumping fill; or the removal of vegetation. Heritage attributes means the physical features or elements that contribute to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property’s built or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting. MTCS means Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport OHA means Ontario Heritage Act Qualified persons mean individuals – professional engineers, architects, archaeologists, etc. – having relevant, recent experience in the conservation of cultural heritage resources.

DRAFT


3

Statement of Cultural Heritage Value means a concise statement explaining why a property is of heritage interest; this statement should reflect one or more of the criteria found in Ontario Heritage Act O.Reg. 9/06 and O.Reg. 10/06. Visual setting includes significant views or vistas to or from a heritage property.

DRAFT


4

3.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND CONTEXT 3.1 Project Location The Town of Perth is located in eastern Ontario, approximately 70km southwest of the City of Ottawa and 75km north of the City of Kingston (Figure 1). The Town of Perth Landfill is a 44.76 hectare property located at 666 Wildlife Road, west of Rideau Ferry Road (County Road 1) and north of Wildlife Road. The legal description of the property is part of Lots 27 and 28, Concession 10, in the Geographic Township of Elmsley North, Lanark County (Figure 2). The landfill is located at the southernmost point of the Town of Perth. The boundary between the Town of Perth and Drummond/North Elmsley Township is located along Wild Life Road - to the south, and Rideau Ferry Road – to the east. The Town also owns properties to the east, known as the Darou Farm, and to the west, known as the Norwood Property. The properties were acquired by the Town to support future development of the landfill and to provide an additional buffer.3

Figure 1: Location of Town of Perth, Ontario (Land Information Ontario 2016)

3 R.J. Burnside, “Phase 1 ESR,: 2016: 4.

DRAFT


5

Figure 2: Project Location, Study Area (red) and 500m Bufferzone (orange), Environmental Screening Report, Study Area (R.J. Burnside,

2015). The landfill site currently consists of 6.0 hectares of fill area within the 44.76 hectare property. The waste footprint is limited to build on a large hill on the site with a roughly pyramidal shape, approximately 14 m in height. Additional waste diversion facilities included on the site are as follows:

• An area for composting of kitchen organics, leaf and yard waste, and other organics; • A public drop off area; and, • A waste transfer station for cardboard, scrap metal, and construction and demolition waste.

Landfill infrastructure on the site includes a road system (paved, dirt, and gravel) to access various activity areas, several small, shed-like structures, an office, and scales. In addition to the landfill infrastructure and waste areas, the property includes wetlands, forested areas, and agricultural fields. Land-use in the surrounding area is a mix of agricultural (to the south, east and west), residential (to the north and east), and industrial (to the north) (Figure 2). The Town Official Plan specifically designated its lands surrounding the landfill as ‘Industrial (Official Plan Schedule A). The Study Area is located within the Algonquin Land Claim, which covers a large portion of eastern Ontario. It also falls within the traditional territory of/or the project may be of interest to several Indigenous communities: including the Algonquins of Ontario, Mohawks of Akwesasne, Algonquins of Pikwàkanagàn, Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, Ottawa Regional Metis Council, and Metis Nation of Ontario. It is also located within the watershed of a Canadian Heritage River.

DRAFT


6

3.2 General Historical Background The survey of Drummond and Elmsley townships began in 1816 as part of an effort to encourage the strategic settlement of Upper Canada along vulnerable transportation routes.4 The government provided incentive for settlement of the area. In 1815, the government had issued a Proclamation at Edinburgh, Scotland, encouraging emigration. Families were offered grants of 100 acres of land, with male children being entitled to an equal grant upon turning 21 years of age. Rations from government stores were also to be provided for the first six to eight months.5 A circa 1820 map of the Military Settlements of Upper Canada shows the extent of the area subject to the military-settlement scheme, and highlights settlement of Perth, and the Tay River (Figure 3). Thus, the early settlers in the area included among them a large number of Scottish immigrants. The settlement of Perth developed rapidly. The settlement straddled the Tay River; and in addition to its function as an anchor for the Rideau military settlements, it was also attractive as an industrial and commercial centre. In 1820 Reverend George Jehoshaphat Mountain describe the development of Perth:

The settlement of Perth, so laboriously reached, affords one of the most encouraging examples of the kind that I have seen. It appears hardly credible that, less than four years ago, it was a portion of the wilderness, unexplored except by the wandering Indian hunter. Streets were laid out, and the building lots occupied, in some instances, by very good and neat houses; two places of worship erected; gardens and farms under cultivation, and yielding abundant returns…6

The District of Bathurst was created in 1822. It would later become the counties of Carleton, Lanark and Renfrew. In 1823, Perth became the District Town.7 The strategic importance of the Tay River as a transportation route was vital to the early development of Perth and vicinity. The Study Area is within the area included on Deputy Provincial Surveyor Malcolm McPherson’s 1846 Sketch of the Proposed Line of Road from the Rideau to the Boncher. The sketch shows some detail in the vicinity of the Study Area, including the Town of Perth, “road to Oliver’s Ferry” (present-day Rideau Ferry Road), the Tay River, and proposed alterations are shown in red. Of note are several swampy areas to the east of the Study Area (Figure 4).

4 Larry Turner, “Perth: Tradition & Style in Eastern Ontario,” Toronto: National Heritage (1992): 11. 5 Clarence Halliday, “The Scot Emigrants,” in Perth Remembered, pp. 13-24. Perth, Ontario: Mortimer Ltd. (1967): 13. 6 Turner, “Perth,” (1992) 33. 7 Turner, “Perth,” (1992) 33.

DRAFT


7

Figure 3: Detail of a Map of the District of Bathurst showing Perth and River Tay (LAC NMC 15712).

DRAFT


8

Figure 4: Detail from 1846 Sketch of a proposed road from the Rideau to the Bonnechere (NMC14281).

3.2.1 Land Use History The crown patent for the Lot 28, Concession 10 was granted to James Taylor (southwest half) and James McLaren (northeast half) April 13, 1824.8 That same day, the crown patent for the Southwest half of Lot 27, Concession 10 was granted to Peter McPherson. The Northeast half of Lot 27, Concession was granted to William McPherson in 1828. 9

8 Lanark Land Registry Office (LRO 27). Land Title Abstracts. Microfilm Roll 27E10; page 69. 9 Lanark Land Registry Office (LRO 27). Land Title Abstracts. Microfilm Roll 27E10; page 69.

DRAFT


9

The southwest half of Lot 28 transferred to William Taylor upon his father’s death in 1841. In 1842, the deed for the southwest half of Lot 27 was transferred from Peter to William.10 James McLaren appears to have passed away sometime before October, 1849, at which point the northeast half of Lot 28 was transferred to his son, also James. Both McLaren and McPherson are listed in the 1851 Nominal and Agricultural Censuses, which include a great deal of information. McPherson and McLaren (Sr.) both immigrated to Canada from Scotland. By 1851, both had cleared a large portion of their property for agriculture and had built one-and-a-half-storey, stone houses.11 The 1851 Census also indicates that a school house had been constructed in Lot 27, Concession 10.12 An 1863 map of the Counties of Lanark and Renfrew indicates the location of this schoolhouse, School House No.8, in the southeast corner of Lot 27, near the intersection of present-day Rideau Ferry and Wild Life Roads (Figure 5). The map also indicates that Messrs. McLaren and Taylor had their homes at the north end of their lots, along present-day County Road 10 (Scotch Line). William McPherson’s home is indicated along Rideau Ferry Road, in the vicinity of 2845 Rideau Ferry Road. The map also reflects the 1857 transfer of the southwest half of Lot 27 to Alexander Morris. A house is shown along County Road 10, near the north end of Morris’ property.

Figure 5: Detail of 1863 Walling map of Lanark and Renfrew Counties (Walling, 1863).

10 Lanark Land Registry Office (LRO 27). Land Title Abstracts. Microfilm Roll 27E10; page 69. 11 Census of 1851 (Canada East, Canada West, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia). Library and Archives Canada, Ottawa, Canada; Schedule A; Pages 77-78; Lines 4-22, and Schedule B; Pages 92-93; Lines 30 and 33. 12 Ibid; Schedule B; Pages 92-94; Line 35.

DRAFT


10

Alexander Morris, who was born in Perth, was educated at Glasgow, Queen’s and McGill Universities. Morris served as Minister of Inland Revenue in John A. Macdonald’s Cabinet (1869-1872) and was appointed Chief Justice of Manitoba (1872). He served as Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba (1873-1877) and the North-West Territories (1872-1876). Morris died October 28, 1889.13 The 1880 historical atlas shows little detail in and around the Study Area (Figure 6). It should be cautioned that after 1878, the Dominion Illustrated Historical Atlas showed less detail. Whereas the earlier atlases included owner/tenant names for each lot, as well as the locations of private and public buildings, and important features such as mills and lime kilns, detail on these later atlases is limited to important or public buildings (e.g., churches, schools town halls), transportation routes, toll bridges, and the names of owners who subscribed to the atlas. In this case, Rideau Ferry Road is indicated to be a well-established road and a toll gate is located north of Lot 28, along County Road 10. The map also reflects the 1879 transfer of the southwest half of Lot 27 to John Spaulding.14 Interestingly, the 1880 atlas shows the school house in Lot 26, at the northeast corner of the intersection of present-day Wild Life Road and Rideau Ferry Road (Figure 6). The schoolhouse appears to have moved to Lot 26 in 1874, at which time a portion of the lot was transferred to the Trustees School Section No. 8 North Elmsley.15 Land use and ownership in and around the Study Area changed very little in the decades that followed. In 1944 part of the northeast half of Lot 27 was severed and lots were purchased by the Director of the Veterans’ Land Act.16 A 1948 air photo shows the Study Area. At the time, it comprised actively cultivated agricultural fields – including the McPherson farmstead, visible along Rideau Ferry Road (Figure 7). In 1967 the Town of Perth optioned portions of Lots 27 and 28, for use as a landfill. In 1968, the Town purchased the land.17 The land-use history of the Study Area, as it relates to the extant landfill, began that year. The landfill began as a waste burning facility, where waste was burnt on a low-lying area on a parcel of vacant land.18 The Study Area was part of land annexed from North Elmsley, for industrial parks19 and the landfill. A 1964 air photo indicates how the area would have looked immediately prior to the establishment of the landfill (Figure 8). In 1974, the Town subdivided and sold several lots at the north end of Lot 27 and 28 for industrial development.20 The first lots subdivided and sold were located close to Scotch Line, and do not include those adjacent to the Study Area.21 13 The Canadian Encyclopedia, “Alexander Morris,” Accessed July 2016 at http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/alexander-morris/. 14 LRO 27. Land Title Abstracts. Microfilm Roll 27E10; page 67. 15 LRO 27. Land Title Abstracts. Microfilm Roll 27E10; page 113. 16 LRO 27. Land Title Abstracts. Microfilm Roll 27E10; page 68B. 17 LRO 27. Land Title Abstracts. Microfilm Roll 27E10; page 67, 68B, and 70A. 18 R.J. Burnside, “Phase 1 ESR,” 2016: 11. 19 Larry Turner, “Perth: Tradition & Style in Eastern Ontario,” Toronto: Natural Heritage (1992):102. 20 LRO 27. Land Title Abstracts. Microfilm Roll 27E10; page 67 and 70A. 21 LRO 27. Reference Plans 27R-283, 27R-375, and 27R-486.

DRAFT


11

Figure 6: Detail of 1880 historical atlas (Belden, 1880).

DRAFT


12

Figure 7: 1948 Air photo showing portion of Study Area (NAPL A11457 166).

Figure 8: 1964 Air Photo showing Study Area (NAPL A18523 100).

DRAFT


13

4.0 CONSULTATION AND SITE VISITS The site was visited on July 6, 2016 by both Ms. Uchiyama and Dr. Létourneau. During the process of the site visit, the existing landfill was traversed on foot and by vehicle in order to observe existing conditions and compile a photographic record. A windshield survey of the surrounding properties was also undertaken to observe and compile photographic documentation of adjacent and nearby structures, landscapes and features of potential cultural heritage value. Research was undertaken at the National Air Photo Library and Library and Archives Canada in Ottawa, Ontario, the Queen’s University Library in Kingston, Ontario, and the Lanark Land Registry Office (LRO #27) in Almonte, Ontario. Two local municipalities and one local heritage organization was contacted. The Perth & District Historical Association has been contact, but no response was received. The CAO and Clerk of the Town of Perth were contacted via email, as was the Clerk of Drummond/ North Elmsley. Feedback on the draft report was received by the Town of Perth, and the Official Plan was provided by Eric Cosens, Director of Development and Protective Services for the Corporation of the Town of Perth

DRAFT


14

5.0 POLICY AND LEGISLATION CONTEXT In Ontario, cultural heritage is considered a matter of provincial interest and cultural heritage resources are managed under Provincial legislation, policy, regulations and guidelines. For example, while the Ontario Heritage Act addresses cultural heritage, including the management of provincial properties directly, the Planning Act through the Provincial Policy Statement 2014 also addresses cultural heritage as an area of provincial interest. Other provincial legislation deals with cultural heritage indirectly or in specific cases. The Environmental Assessment Act and Environmental Protection Act use a definition of “environment” that includes cultural heritage resources and The Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act addresses historic cemeteries and processes for identifying graves that may be prehistoric or historic. These various acts and policies under these acts indicate broad support for the protection of cultural heritage by the Province. They also provide the framework that must be considered for any recommendations. 5.1 Provincial Acts, Regulations, Plans, and Guidelines 5.1.1 Planning Act The Planning Act is the enabling document for municipal and provincial land use planning. This act sets the context for provincial interest in heritage. It states under Part I (2, d) “The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as, the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest”. Details about provincial interest as it relates to land use planning and development in the province are outlined in the Provincial Policy Statement. 5.1.1.1 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2014) The PPS sets the policy foundation for regulating the development and use of land in Ontario. Land use planning decisions made by municipalities, planning boards, the Province, or a commission or agency of the government must be consistent with the PPS. The PPS addresses cultural heritage in Sections 1.7.1d and 2.6. Section 1.7 of the PPS on long-term economic prosperity encourages cultural heritage as a tool for economic prosperity by “encouraging a sense of place, by promoting well-designed built form and cultural planning, and by conserving features that help define character, including built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes” (Section 1.7.1d) Section 2.6 of the PPS articulates provincial policy regarding cultural heritage and archaeology.

• 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. • 2.6.2 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands containing archaeological resources or

areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources have been conserved.

DRAFT


15

• 2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved.

• 2.6.4 Planning authorities should consider and promote archaeological management plans and cultural plans in conserving cultural heritage and archaeological resources.

• 2.6.5 Planning authorities shall consider the interests of Aboriginal communities in conserving cultural heritage and archaeological resources.

The PPS makes the consideration of cultural heritage equal to all other considerations in relation to planning and development within the province. In accordance with Section 3 of the Planning Act, a decision of the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board, a minister of the Crown and a ministry, board, commission or agency of the government, including the Municipal Board, in respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter, “shall be consistent with” this Provincial Policy Statement. The only exception to this requirement would be when there is a specific exempting provision under another piece of legislation or provincial plan, such as the Green Energy Act. 5.1.2 Ontario Heritage Act The Ontario Heritage Act is directly concerned with heritage conservation within Ontario and serves to give municipalities and the provincial government powers to conserve Ontario’s heritage. The Act has provisions for conservation of heritage at the individual property level, as a heritage district or through easements. With regard to provincial matters, the Act is administered by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport; the act also empowers municipalities to regulate locally designated properties under Section 29, Part IV, and Part V of the Act. 5.1.2.1 Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Regulation 9/06 states the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. These criteria are used in determining if an individual property is a cultural heritage resource. The regulation has three criteria, each with three sub-criteria. The criteria of Regulation 9/06 are: 1. The property has design value or physical value because it,

i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method

ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.

2. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is

significant to a community, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or

culture, or

DRAFT


16

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

3. The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark.

5.1.2.2 Evaluation against Regulation 9/06 Assessment of a property involves research, site assessment and evaluation. Historical research into the history of the property can include dates of construction of any structures; research into people, events, technologies or philosophies that may be associated with the property; or any other pertinent details about a property. The MTCS recommends that site analysis involve at least two site visits to examine the site in its context and find physical evidence related to the site’s history. Results from site visits and research are evaluated against the criteria of Regulations 9/06. Only one of the criteria must be met for a property to have cultural heritage value or interest. In many cases, multiple criteria are met. 5.1.3 Environmental Assessment Act Under the Environmental Assessment Act, which binds the Crown in Right, provides for the protection, conservation, and wise management of the environment. This definition of environment includes cultural heritage resources, which are understood to include terrestrial and marine archaeological resources, built heritage resources, and cultural heritage landscapes. 5.1.4 Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act The Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act only addresses heritage by stating that it prevails over Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act (Part XI S. 105) and outlines the role of the registrar in declaring an aboriginal peoples burial ground. This act addresses other aspects of heritage including heritage cemeteries through Regulation 30/11. 5.1.4.1 Regulation 30/11 General Regulation 30/11 under the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act addresses cultural heritage by requiring consent from the Registrar for applications to establish, alter or increase new or existing cemeteries; by requiring notice be given for applications to close cemeteries that are designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; and by requiring a professionally licenced archaeologist under the Ontario Heritage Act to investigate the origin of a burial site.

DRAFT


17

5.2 Local Planning Context The local planning context for this project includes three different municipal governments: Lanark County, the Town of Perth, and the Township of Drummond/ North Elmsley. 5.2.1 Lanark County 5.2.1.1 Lanark County Community Vision and County Strategic Plan (2005) The strategic plan Vision identifies cultural heritage, and its conservation, as important to the county. As the Vision states:

Lanark County is proud of its heritage and cherishes its small-town character, rural way of life, sense of community and distinctive natural features. We want to strengthen and diversify the economy, effectively manage growth, protect the environment, preserve our heritage and maintain our unique character for future generations.

It states that growth that respects and protects cultural heritage will be encouraged, and identifies the need to 'preserve heritage architecture and unique cultural landscapes' as an important means of protecting, maintaining, and enhancing the rural and small town character of the county. 5.2.1.2 Lanark County Sustainable Communities Official Plan (2013) The Lanark County Sustainable Communities Official Plan identified as one of its objectives the importance of maintaining the “distinct character and heritage of our towns, villages, hamlets and rural and waterfront areas” (Section 1,2.6). The Plan also includes specific policies for the Rideau Canal Corridor in Section 3.3.5.1 The Rideau Canal Corridor UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Some municipalities include parts of the Rideau Canal Corridor, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. In these municipalities the local Official Plan should consider policies which address the need to protect and preserve the heritage resource. Part of the designation requires the inclusion of strategies that will preserve the heritage and cultural resources. Parks Canada is leading the development of a landscape strategy for the Rideau Corridor. The Rideau Canal Corridor Landscape Strategy, once completed, will be taken into consideration by the County as it discharges its responsibilities with respect to the approval of local Official Plans and Official Plan Amendments, and in the review and approval of plans of subdivisions and consent applications.

Section 8.2.11 specifically addresses heritage conservation. The policies of this section state that the County shall undertake the following:

DRAFT


18

1. Conserving built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources that are under municipal ownership and\or stewardship; 2. Conserving and mitigating impacts to all significant cultural heritage resources, when undertaking public works; 3. Respecting heritage resources identified, recognized or designated by federal and provincial agencies.

The policies also include provisions that state that:

• Local Official Plans may permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved.

• A heritage impact assessment may be required if there are any adverse impacts to any significant cultural heritage resources resulting from development proposals. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches may be required for the conservation of heritage attributes of a protected heritage property. The Ontario Heritage Act may be utilized to conserve, protect and enhance any significant cultural heritage resources located in a municipality.

• Areas of archaeological potential are determined through the use of provincial screening criteria, or criteria developed based on the known archaeological record. Local Official plans shall include policies to ensure that archaeological features and resources are conserved.

Sustainable Lanark, which is part of the Official Plan document, also identifies cultural heritage as a key theme, and part of the Cultural Pillar of Sustainability. Among the specific objectives, the County states that it will:

3.1. Continue to protect, share and celebrate our history and heritage including our natural, built and archaeological sites that contribute to Lanark’s unique identity and character. 3.2. Continue to elevate the awareness of residents and visitors about local history and heritage. 3.3. Recognize and build on the link between economic benefits and the celebration of our history and heritage. 3.4. Seek opportunities for intergenerational engagement where our youth can learn from our elders. 3.5. Recognize and document history and heritage. 3.6. Support efforts to understand and celebrate recognize our water heritage.

5.2.1.3 Other Lanark County Documents The County's Tourism Master Plan for the County of Lanark (1988), prepared by MMM, also recognizes cultural heritage as key part of Lanark County. In particular, the Plan recognizes the importance of the Rideau Canal Waterway:

2.5.5- Heritage Waterways The Rideau Canal and its extensions are designated heritage waterways due to their human and natural history and their importance to the economic development of Canada. The Canals are used extensively by

DRAFT


19

recreational boaters but also attract thousands of land-based tourists to watch the boats and participate in the special events along the Canal.

There are three lock stations in the vicinity of Lanark, including the Beveridge locks at Rideau Ferry, Poonamalie and Smiths Falls locks. The Beveridge locks are the entrance to the Tay Canal, which was built in the 1830's to connect Perth and its industrial mills with the Rideau Canal system.

The importance of the Canal, and the Tay in particular, was also identified in the Visitor Experience Opportunities Concept for the Rideau Canal Heritage Corridor (2013) prepared by Kim Whytock & Associates Inc. In addition, on its economic development webpage, the County identifies the Rideau Canal as a key component of its quality of life.

5.2.2 Town of Perth 5.2.2.1 Town of Perth Strategic Plan 2022 Update (May 26, 2015)

The Town of Perth Strategic Plan 2022 Update (May 26, 2015) identifies heritage, including heritage landscapes and heritage properties as a key part of its vision and as community strengths.

5.2.2.2 Town of Perth Official Plan (2016)

The Town of Perth Official Plan was updated in March of 2016. It provides the Town’s existing heritage conservation planning framework, particularly within Section 6. The introduction to the Plan (Section 1) identifies cultural heritage resources as important contributors to the Town’s sense of place and economic development. The Development Strategy for Perth (Section 1.2) specifically references the following:

To conserve the rich cultural heritage and archaeological resources of the community as a sustaining element of the economic base and as an integral component to the theme of community development.

The Development Strategy also identified the preservation of cultural heritage as integrated part of sustainable development (Section 1.2 #17).

Section 3 of the Plan specific provides an outline of the basis for the Official Plan. This Section of the Plan includes a specific reference to heritage conservation. As Section 3.5 (Heritage Conservation) states:

The image of Perth is invariably linked to its heritage and its history. The Plan not only provides for the conservation of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archeological resources in the community but articulates a heritage character statement as the basis for the establishment of Heritage Conservation Districts. This statement underscores the importance of heritage to the economic base, visual aesthetics and landscapes of the community. Heritage is a theme which threads its way throughout the Plan since it is an integral component of community development and redevelopment. Heritage policies also take into consideration linkages within the region such as the Tay Canal and Corridor which are part of the Rideau Canal National Historic Site and UNESCO World Heritage Site.

DRAFT


20

As noted, the majority of the Town’s heritage policies are found in Section 6 of the Plan. Section 6.1 states that the purpose of the policies are to provide the Town with the appropriate mechanisms for the conservation of the Town’s heritage resources. Section 6.2 identified the 'preservation' of built and cultural heritage resources and their management as an important goal. Specifically, Section 6.2 states that goals are:

To preserve Perth’s built, cultural, and natural resources while ensuring its growth and economic prosperity and to establish the conservation of Perth’s heritage resources as a primary element in the planned management of change; and To use the protection of Perth’s heritage resources as a goal of planning for land use and economic development.

Section 6.3 identifies nine heritage conservation objectives for the town, including (but not limited to) ensuring that Perth has the necessary tools to, identify, conserve and enhance its heritage resources; it has a framework for achieving the most appropriate balance between development or redevelopment and heritage conservation in a manner consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement; that it adopts a proactive approach towards heritage resource conservation by identifying specific areas and sites; and, to ensure that the conservation of Perth’s heritage resources is integrated into the Town’s planning and development activities. Section 6.6.2 (Conservation of Heritage Resources) states that it shall be policy of Council to encourage the identification, research, documentation, conservation, restoration, protection, maintenance and enhancement of heritage resources; to have regard for built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes and shall, wherever possible, incorporate and encourage measures for their conservation when considering development approvals or public works; to conserve cultural heritage resources in accordance with the most current protocols and best management practices; and, to identify sites of archaeological potential. The Plan also includes specific policies for the management of municipally owned cultural heritage resources within Section 6.6.5 (Municipally Owned Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes and Municipal Public Works). As part of this update, Lanark County Road 1, which falls within the Study Area, was identified a potential Special Heritage Policy (SHP) Area and possible heritage conservation district (Section 6.7 and Appendix 8). However, a formal assessment has not yet been carried out on this area, and since the area was examined in 2010-2011, buildings on a key listed property within the study area (2845 Rideau Ferry Road) have been approved for relocation. As of September 2016, this relocation has already been partially completed. The Plan provides specific policies for Implementation (Section 6.9). These include (but are not limited to) ensuring that policies and decisions on community growth and development respect Perth’s heritage and enhance overall livability; and, requiring that prior to the undertaking of any public work that consideration has been given to the possible effects and impacts of such works or development on heritage resources. 5.2.2.3 Other Town of Perth Documents Heritage is also identified a community strength within the 2013 Town of Perth Economic Development Strategic Plan. Also identified as important is the Town's Heritage Brand and its heritage landscapes.

DRAFT


21

5.2.3 Township of Drummond/ North Elmsley 5.2.3.1 Official Plan of the Township of Drummond North Elmsley (2012) The Township of Drummond/ North Elmsley Official Plan identifies the township as being characterized by diverse landscapes, including the Rideau Canal (Section 2.2). Among the objectives of the Plan, Section 2.3.5 identifies the plan will serve to protect cultural heritage resources, including buildings, structures, archaeological sites, cultural landscapes, and areas of historical interest and value. In addition, Section 2.3.13 states that the Plan will recognize the Rideau Canada as a key cultural heritage resource, and that the municipality will support the Parks Canada management plan and vision for the Canal and its corridor. The Plan includes specific policies for cultural heritage in Section 3.6, including the conservation of archaeological resources (Section 3.6.1) and Built Resources (Section 3.6.2). Further, in Section 3.6.4 the Plan states that all public works shall have regard for cultural heritage resources.

Council shall have regard to all cultural heritage resources in undertaking municipal public works. When necessary, Council will require satisfactory measures and/or impact assessments to mitigate any negative effects on such resources in accordance with this Section of the Plan.

The Plan also includes specific policies for the Rideau Canal (Section 6.10), that identify that the municipal Council shall consider the recommendations in the Parks Canada Management Plans for the Canal; further it may require a heritage impact assessment for works within 30 m of the Canal or on lands abutting Parks Canada property. 5.2.3.2 Other Township of Drummond/ North Elmsley Documents The tourism page for the Township of Drummond/ North Elmsley identifies cultural heritage, including the Tay Canal, as an important aspect of the community. DRAFT


22

6.0 IDENTIFICATION OF RECOGNIZED AND POTENTIAL CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES

6.1 Recognized Cultural Heritage Resources Recognized cultural heritage resources were identified though a review of existing inventories held by Parks Canada, the Town of Perth, the Township of North Elmsley, and the Ontario Heritage Trust. 6.1.1 Rideau Canal Waterway The Tay Canal, as part of the Rideau Waterway, is a Canadian Heritage River and is part of the Rideau Canal National Historic Site of Canada. Where there is ambiguity is whether or not it is formally identified as part of the UNESCO site. Generally, if an element of a site is not included in the nomination documents, then it is not considered part of the designation. Nevertheless, for the purpose of this exercise, the site will be treated as falling within the World Heritage Site as there is a local understanding that it does. The following paragraphs are from Perth & District Historical Society, and illustrate this community understanding.

A little-known fact about the Tay Canal - and a source of some local pride - is that it is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. With the UNESCO1 designation of its parent, the Rideau Canal, as a heritage site in 2007, the Tay was automatically included - although you will not find mention of it in the official documents. (See below for UNESCO Site link) In 1890, by a Government of Canada Act of Parliament, the Tay Canal was officially incorporated into the Rideau Canal system. Thus, the Tay Canal also became a National Historic Site, when the Rideau Canal system was designated in 1925 - and a Canadian Heritage River, with the listing of the Rideau system in 2000. Paradoxically, however, the Tay Canal is designated, not the Tay River, and only to its top end at the Town of Perth. (More specifically the Tay Basin at Gore Street, in centre Perth, is recognized as the top end of the Tay Canal. The bottom is the bottom lock at Beveridge Lock, at Lower Rideau Lake.) As a designated UNESCO Site, the Rideau/Tay system joins only 14 other such sites in Canada - and it is the only canal in the country that is designated a World Historic Site. Other Canadian sites include a number of Parks - such as Rocky Mountain Parks and Alberta's Dinosaur Park, the Buffalo Jump, Quebec City Historic Centre, and L'Anse aux Meadows. The UNESCO designation for the Rideau/Tay included all of the Rideau waterway system and its lock stations, and a number of its components (Fort Henry, Fort Frederick, and the Cathcart, Shoal, and Murney towers).

To this end, the following statements have been provided and will be used to consider any potential impact:

DRAFT


23

6.1.1.1 UNESCO Statement of Outstanding Universal Value In concept, design, and engineering, the Rideau Canal is the most outstanding surviving example of an early 19th century slackwater canal system in the world and one of the first canals designed specifically for steam-powered vessels. It is an exceptional example of the transfer of European transportation technology and its ingenious advancement in the North American environment. A rare instance of a canal built primarily for strategic military purposes, the Rideau Canal, together with its ensemble of military fortifications, illustrates the significant stage in human history when Great Britain and the United States of America vied for the control of the northern portion of the North American continent. 22

6.1.1.2 Rideau Canal National Historic Site of Canada Commemorative Integrity Statement

In the case of the Rideau Canal, the designated place consists of lands and waters under the jurisdiction of Parks Canada including the bed of the Rideau Canal to the high water mark.

While the designated place describes the boundary of the Canal in terms of identifying the level on cultural resources, it is important to note that there are historic values of the Canal system and its environment that extend beyond the administered Canal lands and waters. Significant view sheds, visual linkages and associative values encompass a variety of urban, rural and natural areas adjacent to the Canal. The following identifies the associated lands of particular importance to the values of the Rideau Canal; these include but are not restricted to [abridged]:

The Rideau Canal as a designated place is valued for:

• The engineering achievement of the construction of the canal; • Its continuous seasonal operation since 1832; • The survival and integrity of the Canal system with the majority of its original built resources intact; • The continuity and integrity of the lockstations and the sense of a complete “system” that these stations

convey; • The historic, ecological and visual associations with the certain shore-lands and communities along

the waterway which contributes to the unique historical environment of the Canal; • The extensive wetlands and lakes of the Canal which reveal the relationship between Canal

construction and the natural environment and which are an integral part of the unique historical environment of the waterway.

The designated place will be unimpaired or not under threat when:

• Through navigation of the Canal system is maintained to help assure the preservation of the unique historical environment and safeguard the level one cultural resources;

• The cultural resources related to the military period are safeguarded according to Parks Canada’s Cultural Resource Management [CRM] Policy;

• The existing manual mode of operations of locks, dams and weirs on the system is maintained;

22 Parks Canada, Rideau Canal World Heritage Site Management Plan (2005).

DRAFT


24

• The visual relationship between the Canal and the heritage landscape in the central core of Ottawa remains evident and intact;

• The views and visual linkages which enhance the military character of the Kingston harbour landscape and portray the relationship between the fortifications, the harbour and the Canal remains evident and intact;

• The heritage character of the corridor shore-lands are safeguarded from inappropriate development or uses;

• The visual relationship between the Merrickville Blockhouse and the heritage landscape adjacent to the site remains intact;

• The heritage character of those identified corridor communities are safeguarded; • The landmarks, viewscapes and natural ecosystem features of the Canal’s islands, shore-lands and

wetlands that are related to the construction of the Canal and which are part of the Canal’s unique historical environment are safeguarded;

• The level one historic values of the designated place are effectively communicated to the public.23 6.1.1.3 Rideau Waterway Canadian Heritage River Designation Statement. The 202 km Rideau Waterway was designated in 2000 for its outstanding cultural and recreational heritage values. The waterway consists of a chain of lakes, rivers and canals linking the city of Ottawa, on the Ottawa River, to Kingston, on Lake Ontario. 6.1.2 Locally Recognized Cultural Heritage Resources There are no municipal Ontario Heritage Act designated heritage properties within the Study Area or adjacent to it; the Study Area is also not located within or adjacent to a heritage conservation district. There is one Ontario Heritage Act Section 27 ‘Listed Properties’ within the Study Area.

• 2845 Rideau Ferry Road – Darou farmstead (stone) The timber-frame barn, which was located on this property was deconstructed and relocated in 2015. The existing stone farmhouse has also been approved for deconstruction by Town of Perth Council and will be reassembled on the same property as the relocated barn. 24

23 Parks Canada. 2006. Rideau Canal National Historic Site Management Plan. Ottawa: Parks Canada. 24 Town of Perth, Warren Hollis begins Adaptive Reuse of the Barn at 2845 Rideau Ferry Road press release dated January 5, 2016, http://perth.civicwebcms.com/sites/perth.civicwebcms.com/files/media/News%20Release%20-%20Warren%20Hollis%20Begins%20Adaptive%20Reuse%20of%20Barn%20at%202845%20Rideau%20Ferry%20Road%20-05Jan2015.pdf.)

DRAFT


25

6.2 Potential Cultural Heritage Resources MTCS, in its 2015 Criteria for Evaluating Potential for Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes checklist, considers a rolling 40-year ‘rule of thumb’ as an initial screening criteria for a building, structure or landscape to have potential cultural heritage value or interest (Appendix C). During the ‘windshield survey’ all buildings with the potential to meet this criteria were documented. Available aerial imagery, mapping, and Land Registry documents have been used to identify pre-1976 resources. In cases where there may be the potential for negative project-related impacts, a further cultural heritage evaluation should be carried out to determine the extent (or lack) of cultural heritage value or interest. These have been identified as part of this report. As noted in the review of the local planning context, Lanark County Road 1 (Rideau Ferry Road), has been identified as part of the current Official Plan Review as a potential heritage character area and potential heritage conservation district. However, no assessment has yet been undertaken to identify key areas of focus or heritage attributes. Based on the initial screening, the following 11 properties (in the Bufferzone) merit consideration as potential cultural heritage resources (Figure 9):

• 651 Wild Life Road – farmstead; • 2638 Rideau Ferry Road – farmstead (stone); • 2643 Rideau Ferry Road – farmstead; • 2758 Rideau Ferry Road - residential (Ken’s Mobile Welding storage); • 2816 Rideau Ferry Road – residential; • 2850 Rideau Ferry Road – farmstead; • 2876 Rideau Ferry Road – residence; • 2880 Rideau Ferry Road – residence; • 2894 Rideau Ferry Road – residence; • 2937 Rideau Ferry Road – residence; and, • 2043 Scotch Line – vacant (former farmstead).

An overview of each property, including 2845 Rideau Ferry Road, is included as Appendix D. DRAFT


26

Figure 9: Locations of Potential Cultural Heritage Resources

DRAFT


27

7.0 IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS A total of 2 recognized (The Rideau Canal Waterway and 2845 Rideau Ferry Road) and 11 potential cultural heritage resources have been identified through the CHOR process. Based on our understanding of the project, possible project-related impacts on these resources were considered.

Potential impacts, as identified by MTCS (2006), may include:

• Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features;

• Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance;

• Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the visibility of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden;

• Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship;

• Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features;

• A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; and,

• Land disturbances such as a change in charge that alters soil, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource.

Land disturbances are being considered in a separate Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment.

Table 1 provides an overview of the assessment of impacts on known and potential cultural heritage resources.

No impacts have been identified.

• The proposed project will not result in the removal, destruction or alteration of any known or potential cultural heritage resources.

• Given the locations of resources, no changes to the property or operation are expected to result in shadows that would alter or change the appearance of any known or potential cultural heritage resources.

• Based on the current design, which limits the proposed project to the existing footprint of the landfill property, the project will not isolate any known or potential cultural heritage resources.

• The proposed project will not have an impact on any views within, from, or of known and potential cultural heritage resources.

• No changes in land use of known or potential cultural heritage resources will occur.

As the detailed design process evolves LHC will continue to provide advice on how project design may result in a potential negative impact on identified and potential cultural heritage resources, should any changes to the design occur.

DRAFT


28

Table 1: Screening Level Impact Assessment

Municipal Address/Name Current Use

Potential Impacts (yes/no)

Dest

ruct

ion

Alte

ratio

n

Shad

ows

Obs

truc

tion

of v

iew

s

Chan

ge in

Lan

d U

se

Rideau Canal Waterway waterway no no no no no 2845 Rideau Ferry Road vacant (former farmstead) no no no no no 651 Wild Life Road Farmstead no no no no no 2638 Rideau Ferry Road residence/farmstead no no no no no 2643 Rideau Ferry Road - Elm Creft Farm Farmstead

no no no no no

2758 Rideau Ferry Road residence no no no no no

2816 Rideau Ferry Road residence/possible commercial

no no no no no

2850 Rideau Ferry Road Farmstead no no no no no 2876 Rideau Ferry Road Residence no no no no no 2880 Rideau Ferry Road Residence no no no no no 2894 Rideau Ferry Road Residence no no no no no 2937 Rideau Ferry Road Residence no no no no no 2043 Scotch Line vacant (former farmstead) no no no no no 2125 Scotch Line Farmstead no no no no no 2217 Scotch Line Farmstead no no no no no 2044 Rogers Road Industrial no no no no no

DRAFT


29

8.0 SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc. (LHC) was retained by Lyle Parsons, VP Environment, R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited on behalf of their client, the Town of Perth, to prepare a Cultural Heritage Overview Report (CHOR) for the Town of Perth, Landfill Site, located in Perth, Ontario.

The purpose of this CHOR was to identify any known or potential cultural heritage resources with the Study Area, per the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s 2015 Criteria for Evaluating Potential for Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes. The study involved a review of the applicable legislative and policy framework, as well as the identification of known and potential cultural heritage resources that may require further evaluation. A preliminary impact assessment was undertaken to identify and assess expected project-related impacts on known and potential cultural heritage resources.

No cultural heritage impacts have been identified and no further work is recommended with respect to cultural heritage resources.

DRAFT


30

9.0 IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT

This report has been prepared for the specific site, design objective, developments and purpose described to Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc. by R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited. The factual data, interpretations and recommendations pertain to a specific project as described in this report and are not applicable to any other project or site location. The information, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited approved users including the Town of Perth. No other party may use or rely on this report or any portion thereof without Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc.’s express written consent. Any other use of this report by others is prohibited and is without responsibility to Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc. The report, all plans, data, drawings and other documents as well as all electronic media prepared by Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc. are considered its professional work product and shall remain the copyright property of Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc., who authorizes only R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited and approved users to including the Town of Perth make copies of the report, but only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report by those parties. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited and approved users may not give, lend, sell, or otherwise make available the report or any portion thereof to any other party without the express written permission of Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc. Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations and opinions given in this report are intended only for the guidance of R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited in the design of the specific project.

DRAFT


31

10.0 SOURCES Bennett, Carol and D.W. McCuiag. In Search of Lanark. Renfrew, Ontario: Renfrew Advance Limited. 1980. Dyer, Trish, “Perth scissor company trying to cut into foreign markets,” Ottawa Citizen May 27, 1986. https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=cr8yAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lO8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=1351%2C3266537 H. Belden & Co. Lanark Supplement in Illustrated atlas of the Dominion of Canada. Toronto : H. Belden & Co. 1880. ICOMOS, 2011, Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties. International Council on Monuments and Sites. Paris, France. Kim Whytock & Associates Inc. Visitor Experience Opportunities Concept for the Rideau Canal Heritage Corridor. 2013. Lanark County. Lanark County Community Vision and County Strategic Plan. Perth: Lanark County, 2005. Lanark County. Lanark County Sustainable Communities Official Plan. Perth: Lanark County, 2013. Lanark Land Registry Office (LRO 27). Title Abstracts. Lots 26, 27 (northeast and southwest halves) and 28 (northeast and southwest halves), Concession 10, in the Geographic Township of Elmsley North, Lanark County. ---. Instrument 2B-296. ---. 27R-24. A reference plan July 28, 1969, being Part of Lot 26. Designated as Parts 3, 4, 5, 6. ---. 27R-55. A reference plan April 10, 1970, being Parts 1-15. ---. 27R-120. A reference plan March 19, 1973, being Part of Lot 28. ---. 27R-229. A reference plan December 19, 1973, being Part of Lot 26.

---. 27R-283. A reference plan April 23, 1974, being Part of Lot 28. ---. 27R-375. A reference plan August 19, 1974, being Part of Lot 28. ---. 27R-486. A reference plan January 15, 1975, being part of lot 26.

McPherson, Malcolm, D.P.S. Sketch of the Proposed Line of Road from the Rideau to the Boncher [Bonnèchere] showing the old Road and the alterations made by Malcolm McPherson, D.P.S. April 1846. N. Elmsley Township north to Bagot and McNab Townships. NMC14281.1846. McGill, Jean S. A Pioneer History of the County of Lanark. Toronto: T.H. Best Printing Company Limited. 1968. McTaggert, John. “Surveryor’s Description of the Lower Tay River ca 1828 (from Port Elmsley to Perth),” an excerpt from Three Years in Canada. Accessed on Perth & District Historical Society webpage July 2016 at http://www.perthhs.org/documents/SurveyorReport1828.pdf.

DRAFT

http://www.perthhs.org/documents/SurveyorReport1828.pdf


32

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Screening for Impact to Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes. Toronto: Queen’s Printer. 2010. MMM. Tourism Master Plan for the County of Lanark. 1988. National Air Photo Library A11457 166. May 18, 1948. A18523 100. August 6, 1964. A27133. June 18, 1987. Parks Canada. 2005. Rideau Canal World Heritage Site Management Plan. Ottawa: Parks Canada. Parks Canada. 2006. Rideau Canal National Historic Site Management Plan. Ottawa: Parks Canada. Parks Canada. 2011. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Ottawa: Parks Canada. Parks Canada. 2012. Rideau Waterway: 2000–2012, Canadian Heritage River Monitoring Report. Ottawa: Parks Canada. Prytula, Karen. “History Has Left the Building,” Paper presented at Carleton University Heritage Conservation Symposium, Ottawa, March 28, 2016 http://carleton.ca/heritage-conservation-symposium/wp-content/uploads/Prytula_HistoryLeftBuilding.pdf. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited. Phase 1 Environmental Screening Report for the Expansion of the Town of Perth Landfill, Town of Perth. Report prepared for the Town of Perth, February 2016. Shortt, Edward, editor. Perth Remembered. Perth, Ontario: Mortimer Ltd. 1967. Town of Perth. Town of Perth Official Plan. Perth: Town of Perth, 2000.

---. Town of Perth Economic Development Strategic Plan. Perth: Town of Perth, 2013.

---. Town of Perth Strategic Plan 2022 Update. Perth: Town of Perth, May 26, 2015.

---. Warren Hollis begins Adaptive Reuse of the Barn at 2845 Rideau Ferry Road, press release dated January 5, 2016, http://perth.civicwebcms.com/sites/perth.civicwebcms.com/files/media/News%20Release%20-%20Warren%20Hollis%20Begins%20Adaptive%20Reuse%20of%20Barn%20at%202845%20Rideau%20Ferry%20Road%20-05Jan2015.pdf. Township of Drummond/ North Elmsley. Township of Drummond/ North Elmsley Official Plan. Perth: Township of Drummond/ North Elmsley, 2012.

DRAFT


33

Turner, Larry. Perth: Tradition & Style in Eastern Ontario. Toronto: Natural Heritage/Natural History Inc. 1992. Unknown. Military settlements of Upper Canada. NMC15712. [1820]. Walling, H.F. Map of the counties of Lanark and Renfrew, Canada West: from the actual surveys under the direction of H.F. Walling. Toronto: D.P. Putnam. NMC21920. Accessed July 2016 at Norman B. Leventhal Map Center at the Boston Public Library http://maps.bpl.org/id/19254. 1863. The World Heritage Committee. (2007). Decisions Adopted at the 31st Session of the World Heritage Committee. Decision: 31 COM 8B.35. Christchurch, New Zealand. Legislation and Regulation

• Environmental Assessment Act • Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act • Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act Regulation 30/11 • Ontario Heritage Act • Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 • Planning Act (Ontario) • Provincial Policy Statement (2014)

DRAFT

http://maps.bpl.org/id/19254.%201863


34


DRAFT


APPENDICES APPENDIX A Qualifications and Experience

APPENDIX B Conceptual Landfill Expansion Area

APPENDIX C Criteria for Evaluating Potential for Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes

APPENDIX D Property Information Sheets

DRAFT



DRAFT


APPENDIX A QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

DRAFT



DRAFT

Appendix A – Qualifications and Experience

Qualifications and Experience

Marcus Létourneau, PhD, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Senior Heritage Specialist LHC

Dr. Létourneau is the Principal of Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc. He is also a Senior Associate with Bray Heritage; an Adjunct Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography and Planning at Queen’s University; and, a Contributing Associate for the Heritage Resources Centre at the University of Waterloo. He will be teaching heritage planning at the University of Waterloo for Summer 2016. Marcus currently serves as President of the Ontario Association of Heritage Professionals, Vice President of the Kingston Historical Society, and on the Interim Board of Directors for the Heritage Resources Centre at the University of Waterloo. He is a professional member of the Canadian Institute of Planners (MCIP), a Registered Professional Planner (RPP) and a full Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) member.

Marcus was previously the Manager for the Sustainability and Heritage Management Discipline Team (Ottawa/Kingston) and a Senior Cultural Heritage Specialist for Golder Associates Limited (2011-2015). His other positions included: serving as a contract professor at Carleton University in both the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies and School of Canadian Studies (Heritage Conservation); as the senior heritage planner for the City of Kingston (2004-2011) where he worked in both the Planning & Development and Cultural Services Departments; and, in various capacities at Queen’s University at Kingston (2001-2007). He previously served on the Board of Directors for Community Heritage Ontario. Marcus has a PhD in Cultural/Historical Geography; a MA in Cultural Geopolitics; BA (Hons) in Geography with a History Minor; a Diploma in Peace and Conflict Studies; a Professional Certificate in Heritage Conservation Planning; a Certificate in Museum Studies; and training in Marine/ Foreshore Archaeology.

Marcus brings over 16 years of experience to his practice, which is particularly focused on heritage legislation, process, and heritage planning. He has been involved in nearly 100 projects either the project manager and as the senior heritage planner. He has been qualified as an expert heritage witness at the OMB, CRB, and for a judicial inquiry for the Public Lands Act.

Chris Uchiyama, M.A., Associate LHC

Chris Uchiyama, M.A., is a heritage consultant and licensed professional archaeologist (P376). Ms. Uchiyama received her B.A. in archaeology with a Business Administrative Option from Wilfrid Laurier University in 2002. She completed the Heritage Conservation Masters program at Carleton University in 2012; her thesis focused on the identification and assessment of impacts on cultural heritage resources in the context of Environmental Assessment.

Ms. Uchiyama has written or co-authored more than 100 technical cultural heritage reports, including archaeological licence reports, collections management materials, inventories, cultural heritage evaluation reports, and heritage impact assessments. Throughout the course of these project, she has developed a thorough understanding of provincial evaluation and assessment methodologies, cultural landscapes, provincial regulatory processes, historical research, and archaeology.

Through her various archaeological assessments, cultural heritage evaluations, heritage impact assessments and Environmental Assessments Ms. Uchiyama has developed skills and strategies for stakeholder engagement. Ms. Uchiyama has worked with a First Nations monitors on a number of projects where Aboriginal engagement was of the utmost importance, including: the Samsung Grand Renewable Energy Project and the Niagara Region Wind Park. As part of the first phase of the Town of Oakville’s Cultural Heritage Landscape Strategy Implementation Project Ms. Uchiyama sought input from more than a dozen First Nations stakeholder groups, resulting in a strategy for tangible involvement of at least one interested nation in the next phase of the project.

DRAFT

Appendix A – Qualifications and Experience


DRAFT


APPENDIX B CONCEPTUAL LANDFILL EXPANSION AREA

DRAFT



DRAFT

WETLANDBOUNDARY

LIMIT OFFILL

POTENTIALSTORMWATERPOND

PREFERRED POTENTIALSTORMWATER

PONDROADSIDEDITCH

10 mSETBACK

ACCESS/FIREROADALLOWANCE

PUMP HOUSE ROAD

PURGE WELL ROAD

File

: \\P

OP

S\S

hare

d W

ork

Are

as\M

ON

1564

20\C

IVIL

\02_

Pro

duct

ionD

wg\

ES

R D

etai

led

Des

ign\

1564

20 -

ES

R F

igur

e fo

r Arc

haeo

logy

.dw

g D

ate

Plo

tted:

Aug

ust 2

3, 2

016

- 9:2

9 A

M

Drawing No.Drawn Checked Date

Project No.Scale

Drawing Title

Client

1. This drawing is the exclusive property ofR. J. Burnside & Associates Limited. Thereproduction of any part without prior writtenconsent of this office is strictly prohibited.

2. The contractor shall verify all dimensions, levels,and datums on site and report any discrepanciesor omissions to this office prior to construction.

3. This drawing is to be read and understood inconjunction with all other plans and documentsapplicable to this project.

NotesR.J. Burnside & Associates Limited

web www.rjburnside.com

1465 Pickering ParkwayPickering, Ontario, L1V 7G7telephone (905) 420-5777fax (905) 420-5247

No. Issue / Revision Date Auth.

---- ---- ----

---- ---- ----

PERTH LANDFILL ENVIRONMENTAL

SCREENING

CONCEPTUAL LANDFILL EXPANSION AREA

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF PERTH

AE KH

1:2000 MON156420.0000

16/08/17

LIMIT OF FILLLIMIT OF WETLAND10 m WETLANDSETBACKPROPOSED ROADDITCHPOTENTIALSTORMWATER PONDEXISTING CONTOUREXISTING ROAD

Metres

0 16040 80 120

DRAFT



DRAFT


APPENDIX C CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING POTENTIAL FOR BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCES AND CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES

DRAFT



DRAFT


APPENDIX D PROPERTY INFORMATION SHEETS

DRAFT



DRAFT

2845 Rideau Ferry Road

2845 Rideau Ferry Road Residential

Potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest • Early-19th century stone farmhouse; • Barn has been relocated; • Associated with the early settlement of North Elmsley Township, particularly along Scotch Line;1 • Potential contextual value.

Plate 1: 2845 Rideau Ferry Road, front façade (ML 2016).

1 See Karen Prytula, “History Has Left the Building,” Paper presented at Carleton University Heritage Conservation Symposium, Ottawa, March 28, 2016 http://carleton.ca/heritage-conservation-symposium/wp-content/uploads/Prytula_HistoryLeftBuilding.pdf.

DRAFT

651 Wild Life Road

651 Wild Life Road Farmstead

Potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest • Mid- to late-19th century structures; • Only some agricultural outbuildings are visible from road; • Potential association with the development of North Elmsley Township; • Potential contextual value.

Plate 1: 651 Wild Life Road (ML 2016).

Plate 2: Location of 651 Wild Life Road (Base Map Source: Google Earth Pro, 2016).

DRAFT

2043 Scotch Line

2043 Scotch Line Vacant – former residential/farmstead

Potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest • Mid- to late-19th century structure; • Pre-1976 agricultural outbuildings; • Potential association with Alexander Morris; • Potential contextual value.

Plate 1: 2043 Scotch Line (ML 2016).

Plate 2: Location of 2043 Scotch Line (Base Map Source: Google Earth Pro, 2016).

DRAFT

2125 Scotch Line

2125 Scotch Line Farmstead

Potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest • Pre-1851 stone structure; • Pre-1976 agricultural outbuildings; • Association with early settlement along Scotch Line; • Potential contextual value.

Plate 1: 2125 Scotch Line (Google Streetview 2016).

Plate 2: Location of 2125 Scotch Line (Base Map Source: Google Earth Pro, 2016).

DRAFT



Potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest • Pre-1851 stone farmhouse; • Potentially associated with the early settlement of North Elmsley Township; • Potential contextual value.


Plate 2: Location of 2638 Rideau Ferry Road (Base Map Source: Google Earth Pro, 2016).

DRAFT


2643 Rideau Ferry Road – Elm Creft Farm Farmstead

Potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest • Pre-1976 residence and agricultural outbuildings; • Ontario Century Farm (150 Year Legacy Farm, Oliver Family); • Associated with the early development of North Elmsley Township; • Associated with George Oliver; • Potential contextual value.


DRAFT



DRAFT


2758 Rideau Ferry Road Residential/Commercial (Ken’s Mobile Welding)

Potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest • Pre-1976 structures; and, • Location, massing, rectangular plan, and orientation of rear portion of residence coincides with Schoolhouse

No.8 (c.1874) as shown on Belden (1880) and 1969 reference plan (27R-24); • Potential contextual value.

Plate 1: Rear of 2758 Rideau Ferry Road from Wild Life Road (ML 2016).

Plate 2: 2758 Rideau Ferry Road, front facade (ML 2016).

DRAFT



DRAFT



Potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest • 19th century farmhouse; • Pre-1976 agricultural outbuildings; • Potentially associated with the early settlement of North Elmsley Township; • Potential contextual value.



DRAFT



Potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest • Potential pre-1976 structure.



DRAFT


2876 Rideau Ferry Road Commercial

Potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest • Pre-1976 structures.

Plate 1: 2876 Rideau Ferry Road (ML 2016).


DRAFT



Potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest • Pre-1976 structure



DRAFT






DRAFT