item 4, appendix 1 har1iage apr z 4 2012 agenda - …har1iage advisory committee item 4, appendix 1...

• • • • • • • •

Har1Iage Advisory Committee Item 4, Appendix 1 Heritage Advisory Committee Agenda - April 24, 2012 APR Z 4 2012

Heritage Impact Statement

92 Pinetree Way Mississauga, Ontario

March, 2012

W.E. Oughtred & Associates Inc. 1900 Dundas Street West, Suite 245

'I

Heritage Impact Statement 92 Pinetree Way, Mississauga, Ontario pg. 2

W.E. Oughtred & Associates Inc.

INTRODUCTION

It is a requirement for the City of Mississauga to request “Heritage Impact Statements” for proposed demolitions of homes listed within the Cultural Landscape Inventory. This report will review the subject property as a part of Mineola Neighbourhood. The property owners are planning to construct a new dwelling on the subject property. As a result of the requirement for the demolition of the existing house on the subject property, a Heritage Impact Statement is being prepared.



TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Context Map 2. Location Map 3. Owners Information 4. Plan of Survey 5. Official Plan 6. Zoning Map 7. Aerial Photos 8. Significant Cultural Landscape Designation 9. Property History 10. Peel Historical Atlas 11. Existing site conditions

a. Exterior Photos b. Floor Plans

12. Proposed House 13. Proposed Site Plan 14. Streetscapes 15. Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory 16. Conclusions 17. Mandatory Recommendations 18. About the Author 19. References Appendices



1. Context Map

Subject Property

The property is located on the south side of Pinetree Way beside Mary Fix Park. It is west of Hurontario Street and South of the QEW.



2. Location Map

Subject Property

The subject property is located on the south side of Pinetree Way, west of Hurontario Street and east of Glenburnie Road.



3. Owners Information

The subject property is owned by:

Edmond Bilbili and Maria Papua c/o The Hampton Group Ltd. Phone: 905-829-5000



4. Plan of Survey

The property has an area of 745.59m

2 and is occupied by a single family residential dwelling that is to

be demolished. A new custom home has been designed for the site by the property owners.

~\ ,

c 0 , ~ , ,

" ~ ~

., ,," ( , <- • " '. '. \' Q " ,,-, '. . ' " ., " " ~

., " " .. ..

~ ., " " , , . ., .:: ~;'

"

" " ,

" , (:-

"

X .' ", , , ",-

'. "

.! -, .:' " ,'; ..

~ti

" ;'"

, ;, I ;" '1 I ! I I 00

~ '" • " j ~~ . ~ "'" ! ~ I ", ! z: .." ,_

~ I ~~ ~-0 ;;(J) ,

~ . .. ~ ~~ ,~

~ ~ t ~ ~~ ~

" r ~

~ ~

" ~ ~

<- • 0 , ~

,

" ~

, 0 ,~

<-0

c e

, :; : I ~ '" , :I(

I ~ ~

, 0

, ~ ~ ~

" ~ ~ ~

" "

",', " ,. ,

"

, ,

" , " .

"

~,

" ' ,' __ ,,'.' o~. "';,-0 .(") , '

;"

, .'1'

,

"

"" I

. ~ ,

J , , ,

c 0 , ~ , , , ,

'~ , ' ,-

" " -, " " " " " " ., " " ,

" ,

" " '.

" " '.", . ~, ",-

. ," ,', -( .:', -,

I j, ! I , ' ~ i' 00 . ~~ , " l ! ! z: .." , _

I ~~ .-

'! ;;~

~ ~ " ~

k ~~ r



5. Mississauga Plan (Official Plan)

Subject Property The subject property is designated Residential Low Density 1 in the Mineola District Policies of the Mississauga Plan. The Residential Low Density 1 policies provide for single detached residential dwellings.



6. Zoning Map

Subject Property

The subject property is zoned R2-5 under the City of Mississauga Zoning By-law 225-2007, as amended. The provisions of the R2-5, zoning permits single detached residential dwellings. The site specific exceptions require a minimum lot frontage of 30.0m and that the infill guidelines be followed.



7. Aerial Photos The aerial photos demonstrate the development of the neighbourhood. The subject property is outlined in red in all of the photos. The photo below is from 1954 and shows that the neighbourhood is not yet developed. In speaking with Matthew Wilkinson, Heritage Mississauga, it is probably a farm that is visible in the photo. The aerial photos prior to the 1990s are difficult to interpret. Based on City of Mississauga Building Department records, a building permit was issued in 1962 which would correspond to the era of the home.

1954 (above) 1997 (below)



2011

The aerial photo above clearly demonstrates that the neighbhourhood is established. There is a mix of both older homes and new custom built ones.



8. Significant Cultural Landscape Designation

Mineola was developed before it became standard practice to re-grade topsoil into large piles in the early twentieth century, level every nuance of natural topography and engineer the complete stormwater drainage artificially. In Mineola, a road system was gently imposed on the natural rolling topography of the Iroquois Plain; homes were nestled into slightly larger lots and natural drainage areas were retained. This provided greater opportunity to save existing trees and because the soils and drainage system were minimally impacted, provided fertile ground for the planting of new vegetation, the natural regeneration of native trees and landscaping of the residential landscapes. What has evolved today is a wonderful neighbourhood with a variety of quality housing stock and a rich stimulating landscape that blends the houses with their natural and manicured surroundings. There are no curbs on the roads which softens the transition between street and front yards. The roads wind, rise and fall with the natural topography and houses sit often at odd angles to take advantage of slopes and the location of large trees. A gradual infilling has increased the density over the years and care must be taken to ensure that this does not, in the end, ruin the very quality and character that makes this neighbourhood so appealing and attractive. Of the many neighbourhoods in Mississauga, the Mineola neighbourhood stands out as one of the most visually interesting and memorable. As is often the case, when new development is balances with the protection of the natural environment, a truly livable and sustainable community evolves. Mineola is an excellent example of this type of community.

*City of Mississauga Cultural Landscape Inventory.



9. Property History (Title Chain)

Part of Lot 2, Second Range, Credit Indian Reserve (C.I.R.) was originally deeded to Sir Melville Parker by the Crown in 1891. A copy of the property abstract index going back to 1891 is attached under Appendix A. The following is a synopsis of the chain of title (deciphered to the best of our ability seeing that many of the documents are not legible and possibly not complete): November 1891 – The Crown to Sir Melville Parker April 1907: Melville Parker to Elizabeth Gordon June 1907: Elizabeth Gordon to Robert B. Eaton May 1909: Robert B. Eaton to Lucinda Gummerson July 1914: Lucinda Gummerson to Aaron Gummerson February 1919: Aaron Gummerson to Fred Adams June 1920: Fred Adams to William Bowbeer November 1920: William Bowbeer to Albert Woods June 1921: Albert Woods to Ida Frazier November 1941: Ida Frazier to Corine Donner (It was this transfer that created the lot to be transferred). August 1946: Corine Donner to Robert McCausland November 1949: Robert McCausland to Robert Clark May 1957: Robert Clark to Duncan Skinner (Trustee) At this time the severed lot was created in its current configuration. August 1958: Duncan Skinner (Trustee) to Quintino DiMinna August 1965: Quintino DiMinna to John Robertson June 1970: John Robertson to William Roberts October 1994: William Roberts to Frederick Smart November 2009: Frederick Smart to Edmond Bilbili and Maria Papau



10. Peel Historical Atlas

Approximate location of subject property. Matthew Wilkinson, Heritage Mississauga, was able to provide a significant amount of historical knowledge of the Mineola Neighbhourhood and its development. We provided him with some names from the title chain, and he had this to contribute:



From aerial photography, the house was certainly built between 1954 and 1966, which would concur with the 1962 permit. However, based on the aerial photography, there was not a house on the subject property itself until the present dwelling, which appears in the 1966 aerial. So, if tracing owners of this individual house, it would certainly trace to the post 1966 owners (or 1962, as the permit suggests). As for the other names on your list of owners, Melville Parker and Elizabeth Gordon are well known in local history, and they owned much of the overall area both north and south of the QEW (historically Middle Road). Sir Melville Parker (1824-1903) was a leading citizen of his era. He lived in a large estate on the north side of Dundas Street - the laneway of the property is now a street known as Parkerhill Road. We have a great deal of information on him, and a portrait. Melville's daughter was May Elizabeth Parker (1849-1914), who we have often found listed as Elizabeth. She married Commander Andrew Robertson Gordon (1851-1893), and the couple maintained a large estate known as Craigmyle, located off of what is now Sherobee Road, east of Hurontario Street and north of the QEW. We have more information on them as well, and you will be able to find copious amounts online as both Parker and Gordon were influential and politically inclined individuals during their lifetimes. I am curious about the Robert Eaton name. Eaton was not a relatively common last name, and the Eaton family (connected to Timothy Eaton and the Eaton's department store) does have some historical connections to Toronto Township (historic Mississauga). Notably, Robert Young Eaton (1875-1956) owned a property and built a summer residence along Lakeshore Road, near Lorne Park. I have not formally documented this connection as of yet. One wonders if the Robert Eaton in your list and Robert Young Eaton, former Eaton's president, are the same. However, much like Parker and Gordon, he likely did not reside near the property you are looking at. Some of the other names I have come across before, mostly associated with some early local rural families who lived along the Middle Road (QEW) and Hurontario Street. I think you might find that Frazier and/or McCausland owned the land and operated the small farm south of the QEW, from which the subject property was subdivided. Bowbeer is another local name with farming connections. Unfortunately, I have only come across these names in passing, so have no other information to add at this point. You could try digging a bit, but again, I would suggest that these were most likely owners of the overall property prior to subdivision, and therefore lacked direct association with the subject building.



He also provided this about Robert B. Eaton: Interesting again. Robert B. Eaton (Robert Barry or Berry) was the husband of Violet May Gordon, who was the daughter of Andrew and Elizabeth Gordon, granddaughter of Sir Melville Parker. There is a 1905 baptism listed for Melville Robert Eaton in Toronto Township that lists his parents as Robert Barry Eaton, gentleman, and Violet May Gordon. Robert (1871-1964) was born in Nova Scotia and is not, we believe, connected to the more famous branch of the Toronto Eatons family. It appears that Robert and Violet moved to Alberta with the rest of the Parker-Gordon family prior to WWI, where they founded the town of Craigmyle, in Starland, Alberta. There are Gordon family descendants in Craigmyle today, and I was in touch with one several years ago looking for images of the Parker family. Robert died in British Columbia in 1964. Sadly Robert and Violet lost two children in WWII, Douglas and William. According to Ancestry.ca, two other children are still living, but no names are given. A “B.B. Gordon” on Ancestry.ca has posted a partial family tree on the Gordon and Eaton families, and I have sent a quick message inquiring about images and/or information pertaining to property in historic Mississauga prior to 1907. It is a shot in the dark, but we will see if anything comes of it!



11. Existing Site Conditions The subject property at 92 Pinetree Way is relatively flat, sloping slightly from the east to the west where the property abuts Mary Fix Park. The existing side-split dwelling is situated relatively close to the property boundary on the east (at the park) with similar front and rear yard setbacks providing generous landscape spaces. The lot is sparsely treed with most of the trees situated on adjacent properties. The description of the house below exemplifies what was built at 92 Pinetree Way. Although there are no interior partitions left inside the dwelling, one can envision the interior as typical of the side split. The side split or back split was a popular style of suburban home beginning in the late 1950’s. It served two important purposes; first it allowed a heated space for the car that was an integral part of the house design instead of an add-on or afterthought, and second, it allowed for many similar houses to be built on hills, the livingroom area appearing to be on slightly higher ground. For the first time there was an access from the inside of the house to the garage. Ontarioarchicture.com



A). Exterior Photos

The front elevation of the existing house, from both the east and west perspective.



The east elvation (adjacent to Mary Fix Park) and the west elevation (below).



The rear elevation.



B) Floor Plans The existing home has been readied for demolition. No interior partitions exist to provide a context for the dwelling. It could be surmised however, that this home was probably a ‘typical sidesplit’ consisting of three levels, four if you include the garage. The foyer to the house would be the main level providing the main living area including the kitchen, dining and living areas. Several steps would take you up into the ‘bedroom area’ with probably three bedrooms and a bathroom. From the main area as well, you could go down several stairs into the basement area. The garage was potentially accessible from the basement area. The attached image provides confirmation that all that remains of the dwelling is the ‘shell’.



12. Proposed House

Front Elevation

West Side Elevation



Rear Side Elevation

East Side Elevation

The proposed home is consistent with other custom built homes in the neighbourhood.



13. Proposed Site Plan

5.60 5.96

r ...... • .... •• ...... • • • • • • • • • .~~~.~, . ,

: : J --------. _______ .-,--._~ _______________ _J ______ . _______ :------ i

" j i ' j -

)

j ',,~: ! i ;;,:o ~ \ ;!:~_ •• __ ....... I " i 5,96 24.50 \ i i \ i j ~j , 4.70 j

' ,

•

I .* , " I ' .# \ , ~!. 241 " I

! 1\) i

•

I...... 17.78 I i i ! i i -- : 18.09 ~ 3.9f i i : ..... d: I It t 4_95 i

i OJ4 , i ~ i 2 :41 ~ / ' l>-I : ~ , \l~ I" !~ '0 i .; " , ." " 4.22 2.41 ,

•

, , /

/ I"

-\ I L---~T\~~~ I

(\l a< j' ~ v ,

----------'------------------C---------- - - --- --- - --1,

5.60 5.96

r·_ · -"-··""-, , , , , , , , ". : " " ,

: : J -------________ -,--._.L.-__ _ • ____________ J ______________ :,______ 'I '

)

" I I ' i I ',,~ : ! i ~ ~ \ ;!: ~_ •• ___ . .. .. I i 5,96 24.50 \ i i ~, \ i

I " ,I 4.7Q ~ , ' \

"

I ~. , 1 ' .. \ ,

~- !. 241 " I ! 1\) i

•

I.... 1778 , i i ! i i -- : 18.09 ~ 3.9f i i : ..... d: I Y' I. 'PI i, .\ i 0.34 I !" \' i 2.41 . r'

i ! - ~ ! .\ \) ~ I' !\ \" i .; , .'

2.41

,

, , " 4.22 , , ,

/ / I"

-\ I L-_-"-,, ' \ -'--::-'" I,

e Va< l \'-V ,

,-,-,-,-. .L.'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'{,'-'-'-CC'~'-'~'-'C-.-.-.-.-.--i'



A full size site plan is attached under Appendix B for your reference. The proposed new dwelling has been shifted to the west, providing a more generous setback on the park side. The existing side yard setback to the park is 1.82m, and the new home has a proposed setback of 3.92m . No trees will be removed to facilitate the construction of the new home.



14. Streetscapes - Existing Streetscape

Existing house in centre flanked by the house to the east. Mary Fix Park is located to the east. Streetscapes – Proposed Streetscape

Proposed house in centre flanked by the house to the east. A six foot high wooden privacy fence hides the adjacent house. (see image below).



The subject property is in the background; the image below is taken from the corner of Pinetree Way and Glenburnie Road, looking east.



15. Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory The subject property is located within an area of Mississauga known as Mineola that has the following features identified under the “Cultural Landscape Inventory”: Landscape Environment

· Scenic and Visual Quality

· Horticultural Interest

· Landscape Design, Type and technological Interest Historical Association

· Illustrates style, trend or pattern

· Illustrates important phase in Mississauga’s Social or physical development Built Environment

· Aesthetic/visual quality

· Consistent Scale of built features Other

· Significant ecological interest The proposed demolition of the existing house will not have any negative impacts on its status within the cultural landscape. We offer the following information to expand on each of the areas identified; Landscape Environment

· Scenic and Visual Quality

o Properties south of the QEW in the Mineola neighbourhood are very desirable. The neighbourhood is undergoing intense redevelopment. Older, typically smaller homes are being replaced with larger homes. The proposed dwelling is in keeping with the size and scale of the existing newer homes constructed in the neighbourhood. The proposed new home will be situated similarly to the existing dwelling retaining the existing generous front yard setback.

· Horticultural Interest

o The subject property is located next to Mary Fix Park.

· Landscape Design, Type and technological Interest

o The Mineola Neighbhourhood was developed in a time when natural elements respected the lot pattern and road system. These elements include rolling topography, natural drainage and mature trees. The proposed home will maintain the generous setbacks required by the City of Mississauga Zoning By-law. Further, all of the mature trees within the property are being retained.

Historical Association

· Illustrates style, trend or pattern

o Based on the date of construction of the existing dwelling, there is no associative value with a social or physical development.



· Illustrates important phase in Mississauga’s Social or physical development

o We contacted Matthew Wilkinson from Heritage Mississauga with regards to the subject property. He provided a lot of information with regards to the development of the neighbourhood. While the neighbourhood is culturally significant, the house itself is not. It was a home developed on a ‘severed’ lot in the 1960’s after much of the neighbhourhood had already been developed.

Built Environment

· Consistent Scale of built features

o The Mineola Neighbhourhood, south of the QEW, is seeing intense redevelopment. The neighbourhood is characterized by older design styles including, Mid-century Modern and Suburban Ranch Style homes. Peppered in amongst these homes are custom built homes by owners who want to live on large, older lots with mature trees that characterize the neighbhourhood.

Other

· Significant Ecological Interest

o The existing house does not have significant ecological value. It does not reflect a style that was built for diversity or educational interest. Many homes in the neighborhood were mass produced during the 1950’s and 1960’s. Various architectural styles are still evident, including the Suburban Ranch and Mid-century modern. The homes do not reflect the work or ideas of an architect who is significant to the community. The homes were built economically. There is, in our opinion, little significant value in the design. The homes that are different were built by homeowners who wanted to be different and not be a part of a ‘cookie cutter neighbourhood’. This is the case with the area today. Modest custom built homes are replacing the original homes without any architectural interest.



16. Conclusions

The redevelopment of the subject property will have no negative impacts on the historic character or the scenic qualities of the Mineola Neighbourhood.

The Mineola Neighbourhood is a desirable community for people looking for larger lots, centrally located in Mississauga which can accommodate a new custom built home. The older homes of this area are nearing the end of their life cycle and the market has recognized this area as being a suitable area for renewal. This has been supported with the demolition of the older homes in the area being replaced with larger, more modern homes that meet the needs of a changing society.

The house to be removed at 92 Pinetree Way is a non-descript dwelling. It has no architectural merit for preservation.

It is our position that the existing house at 92 Pinetree Way does not have any heritage features or qualities that should be considered for preservation. The replacement of the existing house with a new structure will be in keeping with the evolution of the community and at the same time will not impact on the heritage character of the area that resulted in the Significant Cultural Landscape designation of the area.



17. Mandatory Recommendation

The subject property does not meet the criteria for heritage designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Subsection (2) sets out the criteria by which consideration is given in determining whether a property is of cultural heritage value or interest. It is our opinion that the property does not have cultural heritage value or interest as supported by the following points:

1. The properties have limited design or physical value.

The house at 92 Pinetree Way is not rare or unique, but rather typical of the 1960’s era. The house style is referred to as a side-split, and is similar to many houses that were being built during this time throughout southern Ontario. Although the home was well constructed, the materials used were of no significance. There was little to no technical or scientific achievement in the construction of the existing house.

2. The existing house does not have historical or associative value. The house is almost 60 years old and was not constructed with any vision of unique architectural character. The houses were constructed with a utilitarian purpose of providing residential housing that was appropriate to the era of their construction. The homes were built economically and there is, in our opinion, little significant value in the design. The property does not have contextual value.

3. The defining character of the neighbourhood is a mix of housing including homes that are between 30 and 50 years of age that are predominantly clean, simple and modest designs of one and two storey’s. The newer homes in the community (15 years old and younger) are larger custom designed homes with more intricate architectural features. Generally speaking, the 30, 40 and 50 year old homes have little aesthetic, heritage or architectural value however they do dominate the character of the street. As these homes approach the end of their life cycle, the market will force their replacement with larger homes which will include the modern amenities and design features that are demanded and expected by the marketplace today. The proposed removal of the subject houses is part of this renewal.



18. About the Author

William Oughtred of W.E. Oughtred & Associates Inc. is a development and land use consultant who has been practicing in the Mississauga and GTA area for over twenty years. Mr. Oughtred has worked in the land use planning field for over 20 years, specializing in the City of Mississauga. He is well versed in both Planning and Building procedures and the City of Mississauga Zoning By-law and The City of Mississauga Official Plan. William was born, raised and attended school in Mississauga. He is a lifelong resident and has been very active in the Mississauga community through his other interests and pursuits including volunteering on the Spring Creek Cemetery Board. William specializes in infill type development projects which typically require attendance before the Committee of Adjustment in connection with Applications for Consent or Minor Variance. His twenty years of experience has afforded him the opportunity to see the City evolve and be at the forefront of evolving trends and patterns in land development in Mississauga. William has been involved in the City of Mississauga’s challenge in dealing with the pressures created by the infill housing that has occurred in the south part of Mississauga. His experience in shepherding development applications through the approval process and dealing with the community, City staff and the Members of Council provides an insight into the market for redevelopment that has focused its attention on this community.

Heritage Impact Statements have been completed for the following properties located in Mississauga:

· 276 Arrowhead Road

· 1510 Stavebank Road

· 1267 Mississauga Road


· 123 Kenollie Avenue





19. References http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/ http://www.mississauga.ca Matthew Wilkinson, Heritage Mississauga Canadiana Room, Mississauga Central Library



APPENDIX A


92 Pinetree W

ay, Mississauga, Ontario

pg. 35

W.E

. O

ughtr

ed &

Associa

tes Inc.

i i i I __

~~--

! I i •

• I

~-~---

i ----.

I

----r

:;;"""~.J

:':: ....

...•.

..... r

... .:

:;;\

••••

••••

• ;;;

••

••••

••••

•••

, i

~ i

13.9

~

~7.4

3 i

-il<

I

7.41

i I i r i i i i i

r ---t

--------

--] ---~

7.50

I -i i i i i

~\

I .

I

I I I !

J i ~ 'V

I

I

·--~,=

~~;:~~~

.=T-'S~:

".· ..... ·.l

..j , ! ,

~

I •

•

• ;;

"1

I •

'0

I ,

i~

, ~

I i~

! •

r .

0

i w

, •

1.<1

I !

ml

/

~\

I I

. ,

/'

J .

! ,

. ' ,/

~~! ..

I ,

. . . -·

~--..,.

,~·· .. -

.~.;;.

-.. _6

, . __ .

-=.-.

,/ ..-

j i

i ,

___ .

..1.-.

_. _

_ ---

. ___

___ .

2.,._

7""-

------

---

---.

-' --

1;

y I

.,. ,.

, ~

i ~

i ~

i <"

,

1I1I iii

! Ii! II!

IIII'IIII!

II 1'1' "

" "

!~ i'I"I'1

'1i

'i'"

11

i1ij'

I III!

! I I'

! II

i Il

il In

I

i I

pi

I '

.,Ii

!ili'j

i I

, ,"

:.

.! . •

" •

~ !'

" H

,;

:.

'",

I;

h!!

' '

,"

ill

'. ,

. ~""

I ..

.. ,

, :1

il

.. " ;t

~uiil

i.ii

;!

::

!I :

,I

..

-I~'!I

l! i

I I'

! ••

-III

~ il!i! ~

H

I Irl!

· ,

.' . lilt

rl

hi

f ~

. ; "h

; .

f~

ill!

i, ••

.,

I il ~

•



APPENDIX B

.~ ... .,. -~ ,.

•

z.

, ---"

. •

, ~ , •

, , •

, , . , ,

.. -; • • •

• • • ..

'\ • • ,

n " ~ •

c •

•

, ,

\ \ -\ j

•

• -,-. 0

~

\ ..

,$I'

"

~.". ~~'~

. ~.\ <"

.;:> •

.~ ... " . . ,.

, , - ,

• ,

- • • , ,

.. -. " . , • , •

• • , • •

\

'\ 0 • ,

, ~ .. " ~ • , •

· ·

•

,

~t . : .

, .

,

\ . . -~/ •• ~

\

•

• ,

'" • • \ •

\ , >

/-

..

~"::-~S;::;. :;::I. ::£R. " ... , ~ 'I'f: .------.~ ;-.. ". .. ,.,.;,.-"

.S-'

Herita

ge Im

pact S

tatement

92 Pinetre

e W

ay, M

ississauga, O

ntario

pg. 3

7

W.E

. Oughtre

d &

Associa

tes In

c.

-

•• • . • ", " I • i

I , , I ., • , I .

I ,

)

.! " , , , I " I • i 1

." "

I I l

"

• • " , , " . I i

I .. ,

--



" • --, • - --- ------

Herita

ge Im

pact S

tatement

92 Pinetre

e W

ay, M

ississauga, O

ntario

pg. 3

9

W.E

. Oughtre

d &

Associa

tes In

c.

.. ~ ~ ~ . . . . . .

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . .

" ......

~

I I

I I

Inl

Herita

ge Im

pact S

tatement

92 Pinetre

e W

ay, M

ississauga, O

ntario

pg. 4

0

W.E

. Oughtre

d &

Associa

tes In

c.

Herita

ge Im

pact S

tatement

92 Pinetre

e W

ay, M

ississauga, O

ntario

pg. 4

1

W.E

. Oughtre

d &

Associa

tes In

c.



"0 III :::

-.. oJ.. ---...

... )0>/.&' .' __ .. . j ..... .

". IIIi::'

-.... l .



I.'CI ..... __ ... _____ , __ .. _ ..... ____ .. = t , ____ ...... _ - "-_ ..... -_~" , _....-____ 0lI'l' ... _ , *-_ ............ -.. _ .. n CI _ _ .... _ .... __ .......

1 .... ---- ,.." .. _._ .... - ....... _ ___ ... ____ _ ,_ 'a"

(~:;t ___ ..... __ .. ___ ... _ . --~ .. :' _ Il10 . ______ ." '0"_ ~.-.... , •• "'10 ' ___ .... _ _ _

I ~. :.--.-_ ... _--_._ .. __ .. .......... "F ' ~ ...... _

".'CI .... __ .... _____ ~ __ .. _ ..... _--_ .. =' , ---_ ...... -- "-_ ....... -_~t' _....-_____ ... _ , *-_ ......... ""'_ .. _ .. ____ .... ____ _ ,JnI •• 'a"

1_:;' --_ ...... __ .. _-_ .... -. --I " .. a _,,; ______ ," 1. __ ~'-"'" I' leo' .... __ ...... __ t-.._-..-_""'_ ... __ ._ .. __ .... .......... I "p t ~........ ....,_ ....



"

, ,

, It _." It,,",.

.11

'" UI •

._. -----

, ,

_ten. • .--'--" .. ~. ~ .,-.. " .

•• -

• j. M'." .. , ..... .11 .. 'p- -

'ii

._. -----


92 Pinetree W


pg. 45

W.E

. O

ughtr

ed &

Associa

tes Inc.


92 Pinetree W


pg. 46

W.E

. O

ughtr

ed &

Associa

tes Inc.

• I ,I

i !

I !

.1

• •

• •

• •

:1

• •

I'

• •

• ~

Ill/

I

1m

II II

I Ii

f:

!l ,

If ,

• il

f 1 ['

I I

,

I , I

l ::; ~

r 11

• II

! I

I II

H

If I

, r,

I

• •

• r .

I

.!'

· ,

· I I

I ,

,

d •

i II

, ,I

I

n I

! • •

• ,

d I

I ~I

I ,

• ,

I •

I •

• H

,

, ,

~ ,

, ,

I I

• •

, ,

• I

, • I

I f

• I II

!

I i

I !

I !

.1

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• I .

• •

•

" :!

Il

II

1/ I

II ..

I Ii

I'

II

, -.

• . ,

il I'

" I

•

I , ~H

I

/I

• II

I ,

'! !

a I,

II

, , I,

I

· , I

.. •

• II

. ,

I I

• • • •

i !

II •

,I

! I

• • !

, , 1i

;:I'

!

, ,

-•

• ,

~p

i ,

• i

, ,

, ,

I !.

j:J~

•

, ,

!;;~.~

, •

I'·

I

! I

• i:l

'~\

, I

. ~-I

, I

' -.

f • - -


92 Pinetree W


pg. 47

W.E

. O

ughtr

ed &

Associa

tes Inc.

II II

fT

I' 'I

1 I

,

j' I! II '

I' '

, I

I' il

i! :1

'

i ,

il '

I

I II

' I

I

, d

l !

.. ,

" "

I I

'I

! I

, I I

I I

II ,

" , I

, Ii

! ,

, , .

T

I

•

! • • • • ,

, • I ! I I I I


92 Pinetree W


pg. 48

W.E

. O

ughtr

ed &

Associa

tes Inc.

f i

, ,

, j

i , I

' ,

! ! I

I •

" ,

-'I

I !

I I

I ,

II I

• I,

- I I'

I , I

" ,

, ,

· III

'I 'i I

'lT "

I ~,

'"

I' , .

! I'

'I' ,

'I 'I

, 'i',

I I

I !, '1

; I

I ,

I I-

'I I

I L

• II

• , •

I.

I .. '

, "

, · !

! ,

I 'I

I i

I I

I •

I I

I "I

I I

• ,

, I

Iii!

I

I I

I 1

~h~ : 1

, "

" ""

I,

I, II II I, I' il I' 'I !I II 11 " " " I I I I I

I !

! !

• I

~ ,

i I

rtl

! ! I

I!I

-If

I I

.-~. -.

I,


92 Pinetree W


pg. 49

W.E

. O

ughtr

ed &

Associa

tes Inc.

• • , n , ,

, ' ~

,.I,

_,"r

" 1

~ ~:!

! I !

I

! . ;: " ! •

11 I ;

~ ,

, ' '

,,",

Iii

• ld

f! 'i

:: w

.,

, -

l W

~

, I

q :

I : I

r

[ ~

't!

I .

; !

. •

I

~}:tlHPE1-

f!

, • !"

fir:P

I

w ~

I.

~

,'Ph'

!!,'

!;

.:';

;r

iI ~"J

, .

1 ~

, ,

I , ~ r • r

I I I~ I.

ti ~'

" ~-

; ..•.

-II

I •

-i~tJliP!l

I: ,

• - ) ,

, "

, n

l ,

" ,

E

1 "

" , ~

.!

, , ~

, ,

" "

"

Ii

I I

i ii

lfil

iW

• I

" •

• !EiiH~iit

il

I I

,

iiii!i

lt!i

I

~ ii

, •

• !ffe'!li,.!i

• r

'11 ; ~

•

"1""

-'""

1

• I

_ ,

i~

1,1

'"

t ,

" , .

" ,

~'~!

H[iH

..

! .

'I

• .-

!t II

' ,

, ,

I 1.

1 n

I :

, I",,·

! a

, ,

I .

. ~

,..

,

i =

••

, ,

~;~~"J

, -' . '

-· -

, 1

• , '

0 n

:J '

! l~

iiif

l'

7 ~

1 •

. , ~

, . ' .

I I •

'i

ph

' !r •

, .

~ I

I ~,

~

'" ';

,1'1

1

I f

• , . ,

• •

" ,

, ,

! •

qiu

i/-j

' IU

• •

• I

= •.

•

J,.

~¥

I J

.liI

_i·

'iii

T

r;'1

"lIl'r

I

77U:~

r'

~r:

1 !.

.!..

.:"

, ,;, •

• 5

,"

Il .l~

-,

HtU

.1ltll

-,~i'd

I •

, .~

'" ""

".'

;"

'r

rr d

q

r ;'1

I"r;."rr'

l -

,,~

Jli

:.

~ 1

(':"i~j: ..

!.'j

. ,

, ,

. . ~

. . '"

!-!.

"l~

! . r~·,.

'.~

• ..

' r,

. -.

:'

• q

I r

" >



~ "- ... ,, - .,, - .. --:.:: .. - . . _- . .. -- .-

-. '- _."01 .........

•• • .._-- C'll: • ... ", , ..... .... ,-. -- -- .~- --, '- ----# . ..-.. _ .... - ....... __ ........ , ..... ..... • • • ---.......... ,....... .. • ........ 01' ... . ~ , .' , ,_ .. .. ,. .. _ ........ .., ... -..... ...... " . 0-" , ' .. ,_ .. _:00 .. .. - .-.. . ~ ~ ,

<0-

.... '" .. ,.,-: 11..,".' _.m ......... .- ... .", .... " ... .. ,,, .. ,. " .... -... _~ " 'K"

• " - 1-.. , ..... '.

, ..... _ .. ,

. _. ---.

.... ,,- '" ........... _., ..... .. _ .. _ .... _ . L. -.". ... .. " " ....... _ •• u . ..

...... _ ~ .. " . .. "" "'''_, 'Uoo _ _ , " , ....... ., ........ ... ,_ ... _ .... ... _ ..... _ ... "'" .. - , .. -" ... ,. . ".M "

,, " ... " .. ~1 • •

" '0'''' .. .. ,.. -" .... _ ........ .. _ ""_'" _ .. "" __ .,0 • •• • __ ....... u oo, .. , " • • . , .,.,., . • ......... .. .. _..... . . .... ..... ._ ... ,. . • __ .. , • • , . .,,«r, ...... __ ..

...... ....... ---_., .. "."-- .... ., .. _ ... , ... -. ~. ,..,. ,. '" ',""00 _ .""" ..... " .. i t .'0 ... ...... .. --t .. •

'. II

---•

,~ -.

._ .. .... .. ----. -" ..... - -. '. -. ." " ." "" • • . _.-_ .... - 0-

_. •• - • -.. ... '- .~- ......... _ ..,. .. " ..... .. ... .. ...... --_ ... -.... -- " ....... -_ ... ... .. _ _ .. om ..... "

••• _nU., ...... , .. _ o . ...... . , , .. . ..... _ ........ n. _ ...... .. ..... ". _ .... -.. _ ... -

oA • - $

" >0' '" "

• " • .~, ....... .. .. ,.., ...

w • •

.. . , ... ' M N

.. ..... .. •

, , • • W

• • .. , , w •• . , " :!"""" ~ .. ........ _ .. ., .. ~. --.. .. .. - ~ ... _ .. _- .. . ..,... ...... .. •

.0. '" ...... -"' .... os , .... '. "' .. ...... _ .. ..

. _. _. _0

-------- _.-....

a ...... , .. ,., ..... _.

= 0- ---'-"-""............... ~ ... ,,_ .... " .. .. .., ""- ~ ..... " . , ... . . -0'. • • •

--# _.<_ 0

...... "01 ...... _ .... .............. ---.-. """00: " .... M . "" . " .. , ..... _ ... "', ...... ..... , ................. -... ~-_ .. _ .... _ .... _.,....

"' '' " ....... ,......u ... ......... "' .......... , ""_, ' u _ _, .. , ... " .. .,_ ..... ... ,--_ .. ... _ ..... --"'" .. -., .. -

.. .. ,-.... . " ...... --' .. -" _'<10,, _ .. • ••. 1 '" ,,, •.•. .. ~ .. , .. • •• • .. -.. .. 0 ..,. . .,. ... .. .. . -. .. . , ... .. .. " ... ,.. " • •• c • 0"

... ..... .. ,n, .. ... ""_,, __ ""'_ .... " ..... _._ • . ..,.. ."" ... , " ." .. >f. • • I .

.... . _ . . .... _..... . . .. .. ..... . _ ..... . • _ ...... , • •• • ... o<F; .. .... _-.. .. ,.' ..... .. ____ I ... '''''_ ........ _ ... , . ,,_. ~< , ..... ,. " .

•• >moo ....,. • ."..._ " .. it . , • ......... .. "' .,:,. '" 0_ -! • •

_ . •

. _ .. .... .. ...... <11 ..... __ ....... _ -.,.-..

• • " .... " . _.-_.- .. _ ...... .......... _. -..... ,--~-- .. -.... ... .. - ... ........ --_ ... -.A. -~ I,," ... "

0 II • . ~. " ..... 10 ... /1"" _.00

" '. .... ... ....... .. • ..... -....... .. _ .... ---" ....... "" .. -... .. . ,.\. _ ""n.> ..... ' .0. __ .WI ...... ,'" _ . ..... _

...... - .................... • < ,,, • o

-~ '-'. --' ..

" UoKftOO __ ..

. < • • .s . --.. ,,_ • • 00.-... _ .. . ...... ... ... .. ..

. , • •• • • .. •• -" • •

<

~",:


92 Pinetree W


pg. 51

W.E

. O

ughtr

ed &

Associa

tes Inc.

" .,

• •

;::0:

-I , , !.

I I

.! , . -, .. d ,

, '

, <

! . i

i • I I , 1 , i ! ! • -;; ~ , .

• , . I • •

e -... .. ~

• •

;; a

~ "

• • , ,

-- I ,

• • -,

I '

!. ~ , r

'.

, ( . -

II

~~ " .,

H -, , , I·

I I

.!

" .. , i d ,

I --;: ~ , .

I' !

.- r '.

,


92 Pinetree W


pg. 52

W.E

. O

ughtr

ed &

Associa

tes Inc.

f r , • • •

• .

I ••

I "

. , I

. .. , ..

• •

~ ;

,. ,

! I I i i I , ! • •

• ~r!

f!'

!!il

• I •

.!

i i II • •

II

r .;- I .

d i ,

I !

, " I !

~ i ! i I f , • i , in i

· 'I

f f J

. I

i IE

· •

i II

I ·

I:

fl. I

• I

• ,

If:

I •

! •

I,

, ! .

I ,

I·

l!ol

·

! •

. , .'

!:,'

'SI"

• • ,

I P

I i

• I

• I;

• ,

• •

• • • , .

• J

l "

" 1.

P

f •

f·

" ~ ;.

l •

• •

..t

.. ,.

f-

, ! • i , , , • • , •

r ~

g ~

~ 'II

. . .

r ;,

f

I . . • •

i !

• ~

'I' '

" . "

i

• · .

~

Iii • I

Ii '" ~

• •

I

t I r

. :. .. !

r I • ! I , .. ,

~ H: ~

Ii' !

I • •

• ~

51

I!

Inn · -, .

III U

I I ! I 1 liP

I i

, '

r , . [I ~ !

II I ;

....

, • ·

!. ,

· I

' ' I

: !

•

• • •

F •

• •

• t ,.

,. , " •

I ! • • •

• , .

:! r

! • l!

i

i II " ~ .;- I ' If i

, I

! , " I !

• • • •

i i I I f , • i ! , ! • ~ , • ,

f!'

· i! I

i.

. ;

; a

" • •

• I'

ll

1 ••

lEt

;: ! II

, ·

I:

f i .

: , If:

I •

! •

1 !

, ! .

I •

I·

! !.I

! '

i

! • i , •

'I' '

" :!

i !',

I II , 1 I! ". I ,I 0'

f • ,

.:.

I ,. "

,-

!


92 Pinetree W


pg. 53

W.E

. O

ughtr

ed &

Associa

tes Inc.

I i ~ , [ ! , • i

! ! ; i f • i i , , f

!! , . d " I i " , II

, .

I • : f !I: • r I ~

[ I

· I ! i E

;:

! ! i i I

I ! .

, ! · , i ! I

I" ·

I • • !

II !

i , •

••

, •

• F

£ ,

• -

• i- •

'1~lIr

r I"

--

! ! i ; i , ! " . ,

!

~

. !

I •

I

'" I i i • [ !

! ! ; ; • f , i I , , I , , :s

Iii •• , • I , -

[ I I !

! !

, ,

, r r

! ~ r i

i i I i ;

, ! · -i I ij"

i ,I

II

• •

~ F

, • -

i ;~if

~ r ! i , , i , • , , f

" . ,

! ~

• f

I • , ,'I

' "

~"

: Il

•

• 'l

.~;

_

'I l

'.t

•

-,>

~

t .. ~

~

"" J , "

, ,

Arborist Report 92 Pilleu'ee Way, City ofMississauga

Site Plan File: SPI 11 /88 Craig A. Warren· Certified Arbarist ON, 1151 A· 29 March, 2012

Craig A. Warren· ema il:crgig.ailan [email protected]

Item 4, Appendix 2 Heritage Advisory Committee Agenda - April 24, 2012

2 4 2012

ARBORIST REPORT AND TREE PRESERVATION PLAN!

ASSIGNMENT

This report has been prepared in preparation fort he application of a demolition and building

permit in the City of Mississauga, specifically in response to the Site Plan Comments provided

for the Site Plan Application. The existing dwelling will be removed from the subject property

and construct a new larger home. The arborist, Craig Warren, was retained to provide an

inventory of the existing trees and to give an overview of their current state of health and

structure. Further, to provide preservation details for a shared spruce tree along the western

property boundary. At the time of this inspection, no construction had been started on this

property. This report summarized our findings and recommendations.

METHODOLOGY

The site was visited on March 28, 2012 and tree information was gathered. Data was collected on

the tree species, soil conditions, visible roots, trunk diameter, tree structure and health. Tree

information was gathered for trees identified in the Site Plan comments provided by City of

Mississauga Staff.

Municipal Trees

The subject property abuts Mary Fix Park (P-#058) to the east. The following trees are located in

Mary Fix Park: Manitoba maple, 65cm., Tree of Heaven 28, 33cm. As well, there is one tree

located within the Municipal Boulevard: Armur maple, 20cm.

Neighbouring Trees

There are several trees on the adjacent property to the west. These trees are within 5m of the

property boundary. They are situated behind a six foot privacy fence and include a sugar maple,

cherry tree and a white pine.

Subject Property Trees

There is one tree, a spruce, that straddles the property line between the subject property and the

one to the west. This tree has been identified by City staff as requiring additional protection

measures for preservation. This is the only tree on the subject property.

Tree #2 is a 44cm DBH Blue Spruce Tree that is located midway down the west property

boundary. It has been well pruned to a height of 25feet. It has good root structure within well

drained soil. It is top heavy over the neighbours property. At least one (1) main root,

approximately 10cm in diameter will need to be cut along with fibrous roots

Tree Protection Recommendations

The tree identified as Tree #2 in the Tree Inventory was originally recommended to be removed

by the arborist. However, it has now been determined to retain this tree. Additional protection

methods will be required, including not to stockpile soil, supplies or equipment on the rooting

system, even outside of the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ). The TPZ should extend from the fence

to as close to proposed excavation for the foundation as possible. It is recommended that a layer

of mulch 10-15 centimeters deep be spread around the TPZ. The wood chips can be carefully

removed after construction. After 1 year of construction, this tree should be fertilized and put on

a program where it gets adequate water and should be annually monitored for any changes in

health.

If both property owners were in agreement, we would still recommend the removal of this tree

due to potential damage to the root structure, the heavy pruning to 25feet, it being top heavy and

its proximity to the dwellings.

Maintain/construct TPZ around Amur maple as per site plan.

Maintain/construct TPZ along northwest fenceline to 3m to protect neighbouring trees - cheery

and white pine. Spread mulch within TPZ to a depth of 10-15cm.

Maintain/construct TPZ around Trees 5 & 6 (Tree of Heaven) indicated on site plan.

Conclusions

There are 8 trees associated with this report. One tree is to be removed from Mary Fix Park by

the City of Mississauga. No trees will be removed to accommodate the construction of the new

dwelling. Provided all tree protection techniques are employed, there should be no negative

impacts on the trees to remain.

TREE INVENTORY TABLE

Tree # Tree Species DBH (cm)

Condition Comments

1 Sugar Maple

Acer saccharum

44 Very poor 90% of the tree has

already been

removed(see attached

photo)

2 Blue Spruce

Picea pungens

44 Good Well pruned to approx.

25ft, top heavy

3 Cherry

Prunus

40

+/-

Good Neighbour tree

4 White Pine

Pinus strobus

30

+/-

Good Neighbour tree

5 Tree of Heaven

Ailanthus altissima

28 Good City owned tree within

Mary Fix Park

6 Tree of Heaven

Ailanthus altissima

33 Good City owned tree within

Mary Fix Park

7 Manitoba Maple

Acer negundo

65 Good To be removed by City of

Mississauga

8 Amur Maple

Acer ginnala

25 Fair City owned Tree within

Municipal Boulevard

SITE PLAN - TREE NUMBER IDENTIFICATION

7

8

6

5

4

3

2

1

SITE PICTURES

Tree #1 - Neigbours tree (above), tree#2 (below)

TREE PROTECTION DETAILS:

LIMITATIONS OF ASSESSMENTS:

It is the policy of the arborist, to attach the following clause regarding limitations. We do this to

ensure that developers, agencies, municipalities and owners are clearly aware what is technically

and professionally realistic in retaining trees.

The assessment of the trees presented in this report has been made using accepted arboricultural

techniques. These include a visual examination of the above ground parts of each tree for

structural defects, scars, external indications of decay such as fungal fruiting bodies, evidence of

insect attack and crown dieback, discolored foliage, the condition of any visible root structures,

the degree and direction of lean, the general condition of the trees and the surrounding site, and

the proximity of property and people. Except where specifically noted in the report, none of the

trees examined were dissected, cored, probed, or climbed, and detailed root crown examinations

involving excavation were not undertaken.

Trees greater than 100 mm in DBH have been assessed for structural integrity by following the

methodology in the International Society of Arboriculture’s (ISA)―Evaluation of Hazard Trees

in Urban Areas, SecondEdition. Monetary values for trees have been determined using the Guide

for Plant Appraisal 9th Edition’s replacement cost method.

Notwithstanding the recommendations and conclusions made in this report, it must be realized

that trees are living organisms, and their health and vigour constantly change over time. They are

not immune to changes in site conditions, or seasonal variations in the weather conditions,

including severe storms with high-speed winds.

While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the trees recommended for retention are

healthy no guarantees are offered, or implied, that these trees, or any parts of them, will remain

standing. It is both professionally and practically impossible to predict with absolute certainty the

behavior of any single tree or group of trees or their component parts in all circumstances.

Inevitably, a standing tree will always pose some risk. Most trees have the potential for failure in

the event of adverse weather conditions, and this risk can only be eliminated if the tree is

removed.

Although every effort has been made to ensure that this assessment is reasonably accurate, the

trees should be re- assessed periodically. The assessment presented in this report is valid at the

time of the inspection.

Craig A. Warren

Certified Arborist ON-1151A

item 4, appendix 1 har1iage apr z 4 2012 agenda - …har1iage advisory committee item 4, appendix 1...

Documents